Misplaced Pages

Talk:Shatt al-Arab: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:10, 11 May 2007 editAhwaz (talk | contribs)1,959 edits →Proof that "Shatt al-Arab" is not POV← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:24, 8 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,061,291 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 8 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 8 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Iran}}, {{WikiProject Iraq}}, {{WikiProject Arab world}}, {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}, {{River}}, {{WikiProject Geography}}, {{WikiProject Geology}}, {{WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography}}. 
(315 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject_Iran}}
{{WikiProject Iraq {{WikiProject Iran|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Mid}}
| class =
| importance = {{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Rivers|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Geology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography|importance=Low}}
}}
{{archivebox|
* ]: 2004 – May 2007
* ]: May 2007 – March 2009
* ]: March 2009 ---
}} }}
{{reqphotoin|Iran}}
{{reqphotoin|Iraq}}

== 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.
] 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== On moving the article to ] ==

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 ] 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? ] 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. ] 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 --] 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. ] 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. ] 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?! {{unsigned|MARVEL|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 ] 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 ]. 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 ]- 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 ]--] 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:haha. you burned them. Good text. --] 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 ] 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 :)--] 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

==Merge them==

Merge the articles, the other one was made mistakeningly anyways.] 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? ] 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. ] 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:Have rewritten the entire section. ] | ] 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:
{{unsigned|MauriceReeves|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. {{unsigned|142.58.69.113|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? --]] 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 DLinth] 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the move request was}}} '''move to ]'''. Not to throw this age-old mantra out there, but please remember ]. 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 ]; nevertheless, we have ], instead of ]. Looking over the poll, we have a large number of people who advocated ] as well a couple additional people (under ]) who acknowledge that ''Shatt al-Arab'' is a more common name. There is an IP !vote under ] 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 ] is the more common name, at least in the English-speaking world, even though there is still controversy over its name. -- ''']''' 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. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 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?--] 09:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
] → ] — 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? ] 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

: '''Note:''' the format has been modified in accordance to "]", to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.

: So, the new format is:
: ] → ] or ] or ]

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

===Survey===
:''Add &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Move'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; or &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Keep'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is ], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''
==== Keep at ] ====
# '''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.--] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. --] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The name Arvand is also historically correct, as per ]: . Let us not forget that ], ], and a few other Central Asian states speak Persian, and hence naturally refer to "Arvand". It is not just Iran.--] 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per above --] 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC) </br>{{spa|62.56.91.114}} <small>- ] 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#'''Support''' per Mardavich and Zereshk. Also we should not forget that the ] 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 ] 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. ] 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.--] 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". ] 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.--] 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#*<small> '''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 ], the article should be titled following ''common English usage'', which in this case clearly is Shatt al-Arab (see ] below).</br>This opinion may be read as "Support move to ]" :-) ] 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</small>
#*:<small>This opinion was expressed before the modification of the request's format. It remains here for clarity. - ] 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</small>
#'''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. --<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>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 ], which call for reflecting ''common English usage'' (in this specific case, this means "Shatt al-Arab"). - Regards, ] 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#'''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 ] ''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.(] 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
#:<small>But in this case there is a good reason to change it: our ]' request that we reflect ''common English usage'', which in this specific case means "Shatt al-Arab" :-) Regards, ] 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#'''Support''' per Mardavich --] 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Mardavich / Arash the Archer --]] 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Mardavich and Zereshk. ] 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Move to ] ====

==== Move to ] ====
# '''Move'''. In accordance to our general ], and those ] & ], the article should be titled following ''common English usage'', which in this case clearly is Shatt al-Arab (see ] below). - ] 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
# '''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. ] clearly demands a single name, and, since Shatt al-Arab is by far the most common, it must be used. ] 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Move''' as the most common name in the English-language world. Iranians also have a different name for the ]; 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. --] <span style="border:thin solid gold;">] | ]</span> 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''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.--] 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''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 ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Alternative names should be in the first line, not in the title. ] 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Move''' To '''Shatt al-Arab''' the most common name --] 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.--] 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Move to ] ====
#'''Weak Support'''; this is an improvement, but the article should be ] as the name primarily used and understood by anglophones, per ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I was the first one who tried to do this, but I think Aravandrud must also be mentioned on the title. --] 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''', most NPOV --] (]) 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#: <small>TheFEARgod, ] doesn't call for double titles at all. See "]" below.</small>
#: <small>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, ] 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

===Discussion===
:''Add any additional comments:''

==== Proposed change of format: move to ] ====

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

Misplaced Pages's ] clearly state that "generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and the ] 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 ] 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 ] represents current common English usage, and thus should be used for the article's title. Just in case, see some ] below.

So, to simplify discussion in this move request, I propose to change its format to:
* Move to ]
* Move to ]
* Keep at ]
If someone whishes to do so, I wouldn't mind adding "Move to ]" too :-)

Best regards, ] 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:Please reformat. I agree completely. ] <small>]</small> 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I boldly went ahead and , 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, ] 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Examples of usage ====

* '''Google Print test:''' ca. '''505'''; ca. '''60''' books in English.
* '''Google Scholar test:''' '''681'''; '''36''' results.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' '''87'''; or '''20''' books.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' '''738'''; or '''141''' books.

The ratios are:</br>
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'': '''56'''; or '''3''' results.
* ''The Times'': '''131'''; or '''2''' results.
* ''International Herald Tribune'': '''58'''; or '''18''' results.
* ''The Economist'': '''9'''; or '''0''' results.
* BBC: '''105'''; or '''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 .
*Encarta's article is named .

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


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

* '''Google Print test:''' or '''3'''; or '''1''' books in English.
* '''Google Scholar test:''' or '''3'''; or '''0''' results.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' or '''2'''; or '''0''' books.

* ''The New York Times'': or '''0'''; or '''0''' results.
* ''International Herald Tribune'': or '''0'''; or '''0''' results.
* BBC: or '''0'''; or '''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, ] 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


:On the hand, 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 ] to ], 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.--] 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:: <small>To mantain an orderly discussion, I copied Zereshk's comments at "]" & "]" below, and answered there. - Regards, ] 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

==== 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. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 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, ] 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, ] 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.--<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

''< - - - - - reset indent''</br>
Khorshid, our current policies and guidelines do discourage the use of double titles:
*]: "Generally, article naming should linking to those articles easy and second nature."
*]: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?"</br>"Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general."
*]: "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 ] show.
*]: "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, ] 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Is there a naming conflict ? ====

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."'''

] 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, ] 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, ] 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.--] 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 ]. 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 ]).

::: 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 (] & ]). - Best regards, ] 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 ] to ], 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.--] 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 ].

: 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, ] 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 ] to ]. 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". ] 02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

''< - - - - - reset indent''</br>Khorshid, our ] 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 ] & ], and despite the existence of a clear ''common English usage'' required by our general ] & those ] & ].

If ] 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 ] clause, since it gives the alternative name a prominence it doesn't currently have in the English language. - Best regards, ] 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. ] 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, 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 and ultimately , 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).

: at "]" <small>(20:09, 31 March 2007 UTC)</small> 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 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 ''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, ] 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 ] 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 ] article .Misplaced Pages is really suffering from these kind of people --] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== 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."] 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 --] 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. ] 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:Older only than the Arabic name, of course. :-) ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 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 ] ,all English speakers countries and ] states !!.Arabian gulf name is used by UN for documents which are written in Arabic for Arab world states--] 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 ] and ] names long before Persian had a word for it. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Oops:' that area is actually an ] Plain therefore in 4000 years ago or about this river perhaps did not exist until Arabs came in :).--] 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Image question ==

] purports to be of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab, showing a bridge, apparently on the road between ] and ], 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. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the {{{type|proposal}}} was}}} No consensus ] 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== Requested move to ] ==

] → ] — 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 ]. — See some ] below, and the ] above <small>(which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007)</small>. - - ] 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

=== Survey ===
:''Add &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Move'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; or &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Keep'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.''

:''Please remember that this survey is ], so please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''

==== Survey - Move to ] ====
# '''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. --] 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive: article titles should merely ], and not determine what the "correct, right, fair" name is or should be. — The issue is explained at lenght in the ]s. - ] 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
# '''Support'''. I feel that "Arvandrud," being the older name should take more precedence over "Shatt al-Arab". -- ] 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>Our ] merely require that article's titles ], and make no mention whatsoever of "older names taking precedence over newer ones". - ] 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
# '''Support''' per ] --]] 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' as second choice, per ] and ] - ] 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' It's the historically correct name and It's older. This is an Encyclopedia and we should clear the truth, even if the reality is not the popular term used currently. Our job is to put the right term in common usage and not to follow the wrong one.--] 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>Actually, our job is the exact opposite :-) ] ask us to passively ], and not to actively "correct" what we may percieve as "unfair" or "biased" usages. — The issue is explained at lenght in the ]s. - ] 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
# '''Support''' This is my second choice. It is older name of the river and the river had been named Arvand centuries before Arabs came to the region.--] ] 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Survey - Keep at ] ====
# '''Support''', These are two local names which are ''used'' in English, yet neither ''is'' English. So this is the most suitable title per ] "''if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain''." ] 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''." --] 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>Let me stress "<u>and there is no good reason to change it</u>". In this case, following our ] by ] is a good reason to change it. - ] 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
# '''Support'''. I agree with ] on this. -- ] 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''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 . --] 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>Although none of the names are English, only one of them (Shatt al-Arab) is widely used in English-language publications (see ]). 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. - ] 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
# '''Support'''. My reasons: 1. Both names are not English to begin with any way. 2. There clearly is a dispute over the name. 3. ] ''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.--] 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per ] and ] --]] 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''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. (] 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC))
#'''Support''' per ], ] and ]. It is pretty stable and neutral to chose both names. - ] 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Mardavich and Arash.] 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Maybe changing it to Arvandrud alone is better since that name is older. But this is also acceptable. --] 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This is a shared waterway, therefore, both names, especially the older name, Arvandrud, need to be in the title, especially for such a waterway as this, as this is a very controversial waterway.] 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As I said before 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. --<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Fedayee--] 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Mardavich --] ] 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Google books which is scholarly material is pretty close in hit results. --] 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>That's an odd definition of "pretty close". As the ] show, the Google Book search favours "Shatt al-Arab" by a ratio of at least ca. 8 to 1. - ] 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
#::<small> Please also check "Arwand" as well as "Arvand". Google books shows "Arwand" in journals at least from 150 years ago in the English speaking world. --] 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
#:::<small>I have now checked "Arwand" too: ca. '''927''' books use Shatt al-Arab (or Shatt el-Arab, Shatt ul-Arab), while only ca. '''40''' books use Arvandrud (or Arvand, Arwand). See ] for the details. - ] 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)</small>

==== Survey - Move to ] ====
# '''Move''', as nominator. - ] 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''', common English usage. ] 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''', common English name and per ].The other name can be mentioned in the article not the title --] 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - Arvand is almost never used in English. Arabian Gulf is, however, used often in English. So perhaps if we have Arvandrood/Shatt al-Arab, we should also have Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf (in alphabetical order, of course)--] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
#:While it is correct that Shatt al-Arab is used more often in English (I don't think anyone disputes this), your second example is clearly trolling, so admins take note. "Arabian Gulf" is rarely, if ever, used in the ] and is not even widely used in the Arab world, restricted to Gulf Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen, etc. I suggest to you Ahwaz that you stop trying to provoke people. ] 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
#::<small>Ahwaz's comment was just a valid comparison between both articles. Consider that while the BBC returns only 3 mentions of or , it gives 148 of (and 465 of , of course). - ] 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#:::Not true. Ahwaz's comment was trolling since '''no''' English-language source in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia use "Arabian Gulf". In the UK the British media often refer to the Persian Gulf as "The Gulf" but '''never''' as "Arabian Gulf", so cut it out Ev. Your POV here is unfortunately obvious and you have been very, very "motivated" to have the article moved and remove all mention of "Arvandrud". You '''must''' tone it down, because your attitude is becoming very annoying, and also your constant and pervasive and intrusive comments are disruptive. I will alert admins if you don't stop. ] 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
#::::<small>lol I don't want to remove every mention of "Arvandrud", Khorshid :-) nor do I have any "point of view" on what this river should be called. My only aim is to make this article's title conform to ], which ask us to use the name most commonly used in English-language publications. — By the way, on that "Arabian Gulf" thing: , , mentions. ''Never'' indeed. - Best regards, ] 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#:::::<small> Those are mostly editorials/news items written by Arab journalists, otherwise "Arabian Gulf" is a fringe name rarely, if ever, used in the media outside the Arab World, look up Persian Gulf on the same sources: , , . The ratio is not comparable with Shatt al-Arab's ratio vs. Arvandrud, Persian Gulf is much more etsablished name in English than Shatt al-Arab is. This is a false comparison anyways, Persian Gulf is an international body of water with a standard English name, Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab on the other hand is a local body of water with two local names which are both used in English, yet neither is English. --] 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#::::::I refer to the Arabian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf, like anyone from the Gulf region outside Iran including the governments of Arab states. If you think that is trolling, then report me to an admin. But I would advise you to assume good faith. Note that I am not insisting on the removal of the Persian name of the waterway from the article, just that it is confusing to English speakers who commonly use the Arabic name. But if you insist on having the uncommon Persian name in the title, then you should support the name Arabian Gulf in the title of the Gulf article. Otherwise, there would be double standards, no? The argument over the name of the Arabian Gulf article was based on the most common useage in English, which is the ''Persian Gulf''. The same arguments EV is using for Shatt al-Arab were used by those who insisted on the ''Persian Gulf''. Now it seems that in your mind those arguments are invalid, so perhaps we should revisit the debate over the title of the Gulf article---] 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' – Per ] and ]. As someone who is professionally an analyst of international affairs, I can say that "Shatt al-Arab" is by far and away the most common usage in English. It is, in fact, what is taught in geography classes in U.S. schools. The Persian name is found a little more often in British publications (usually parenthetically), but is still encountered very infrequently, and usually only in sources that are dealing with subjects related to Iran. In fact, if a speaker were to use the Persian name in a presentation to my peers without clarifying that it's the Persian name for the Shatt al-Arab, there would be quite a few puzzled looks. I'm unsure there's even a common rendering of the spelling for the name. BTW, I've also found that Misplaced Pages's search function doesn't always do well with names separated only by a slash. If the consensus here proves to be to retain both names, I would suggest a form like "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)" or however consensus would decide to render the Persian name. ] <small>]</small> 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
#:Please see ] - please '''do not''' cite your claimed professional background or education in order to justify an argument or sway opinion. It is not acceptable at all. Your claims above will have no bearing on the result of this survey. If you want to present an argument, cite evidence, not personal claims about your alleged background and education. ] 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#::Perhaps you did not notice, ], but this is a ''survey'' – that is, a ]. In Misplaced Pages, such polls are intended to give insight into where people stand on an issue; it is ''not'' a '''vote''' nor does it require proofs, only reasons. As ] points out: “A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, wrt consensus. It doesn't ''form'' consensus. It merely measures it.” My statement of experience is the basis for my opinion and my position. While it may count for no more than any other opinion in this poll, it is every bit as legitimate as those opinions – so please do not make the illegitimate assertion that my “claims above will have no bearing on the result of this survey” simply because you do not like them. Furthermore, accusing someone of the misdeeds of Essjay without firm evidence is what is known as a ]. I recommend you state your position on the survey issue where you desire, and leave others to place theirs where they will and save your criticisms for the “Discussion” section. ] <small>]</small> 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#:::Not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Your argument, based on claims of personal background and education, is totally 100% illegitimate. Change your argument and leave your pretensions behind - they are nothing but claims which here, on Misplaced Pages, literally are not valid. ] 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#::::An assertion, without proof, that someone is making up their credentials (i.e., lying) is indeed a ], and I suggest you restrain your criticisms to relevant points, not their author's background. I also suggest you familiarize – or refamiliarize – yourself with ] ... and maybe ] as well. My reasons are legitimate expressions of my opinions, according to WP policies and guidelines. The only purpose for which they would ''not'' be suitable would be for use as a reliable source, but I'm not offering them for such purpose. Again, if you have a relevant topic to debate, it should be entered into the "Discussion" section below, not inserted as an attack on poll results you dislike. ] <small>]</small> 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' per discussion below. Many of the !votes for other positions are, as Ev has noted, actually opposed to the way Misplaced Pages has chosen to handle these questions. We do not, and should not, attempt to decide what the '''right'''/'''older'''/'''historic''' name is; we decide what the English language calls it. ] <small>]</small> 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#:<small>I did not find anything in official Wiki pages about determining English-usage per Internet-testing: is it (testing) Wiki's official policy? If it is , I would be glad if you mention the page</small> .--] 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
#::<small>See "]" below. - Best regads, ] 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
#'''Support''' per ''some'' of the evidence below and ]. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I am your typical layman reader who takes an interest in current affairs. I have certainly heard of Shatt Al Arab, but have never heard of Arvandrud. At the very least, the article's title should be "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)" to avoid confusion among English speakers. Is this a fair compromise?--] 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Common usage. ] 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

=== Examples of usage in English ===

Index:</br>
* The usual simple tests - <small>(by ] — accuracy contested)</small>.
* Press usage - <small>(by ])</small>.
* Iranian media - <small>(by ] — accuracy contested)</small>.
* Other encyclopedias - <small>(by ])</small>.
* Examples of Official useage - <small>(by ])</small>.
* Examples of double name usage - <small>(by ])</small>.
* ] - <small>(by ] & ])</small>.
* ] - <small>(by ])</small>.
* ] - <small>(by ])</small>.
Best regards, ] 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


'''The usual simple tests''', to give a general idea:

* '''Google Print test:''' ca. '''505'''; ca. '''60''' books in English.
* '''Google Scholar test:''' '''681'''; '''36''' results.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' '''87'''; or '''20''' books.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' '''738'''; or '''141''' books.

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

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

::<small>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"''''' : ca. '''505'''; ca.'''497''' !
::'''''Alternative "Google Scholar test"''''':''' ca.'''681'''; ca.'''845'''!
:: '''''and so on ...!''''' --] 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
:::Has Alborz looked at these results, or has he merely counted them? I have never seen such an array of ]s in my life; more at ] below. ] <small>]</small> 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::<small>I think we are saying the same thing !When a test is weak in ] and ]; that means it is not reliable in positive/ negative predictive value: then we can't count on internet searching tools to know which name is more accepted in English language. --] 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

:::::<small>, in my "Google Print test" I did check for false positives. Thus, my numbers for the "Google Print test" do not reflect false positives.</small>

:::::<small> Because the "Google Scholar test" was so inaccurate and unreliable as Septentionalis mentions below (at "]"), I restricted it by including the word "river" to '''both''' cases. The results are not pristine, but contain less false positives and give a general idea of usage.</small>

:::::<small>In my "Google Scholar test" I added the word "river" to '''both''' searches, while your example adds it '''only''' to "Shatt al-Arab"... look what it happens if we remove "river" from both: 994 , 774. But the results for "Arvand" are so full of false positives that the example is basically useless.</small>

:::::<small>You may notice that I run the "Amazon.com test" twice, once including the word "river" and once without it. This was done so in an effort to highlight the presence of all those false positives.</small>

:::::<small> So, my "usual tests" are far from perfect, but are reliable as a general impression of usage. — And then there're the other examples of usage: in the press, by the NGS, Britannica & Encarta. - ] 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::::'''Anyway, I did not find anything in official Wiki pages about reliability of such testing: is it (testing) Wiki's official policy?'''--] 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::<small>See "]" below. - Best regads, ] 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>


'''Press usage:'''

* ''The New York Times'': '''54'''; or '''3''' results.
* ''The Times'': '''147'''; or '''3''' results.
* ''International Herald Tribune'': '''26'''; or '''0''' results.
* ''The Guardian'': '''117'''; or '''3''' results (and one more mentioning "the Iranian town of Arvand Kenar" <small></small>).
* ''The Economist'': '''10'''; or '''0''' results.
* BBC: '''112'''; or '''3''' results.
* CNN: '''28'''; or '''0''' results.

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


'''Iranian media:'''

* Press TV (Iranian government-owned English language TV station): ''The British army transferred the Shaibah logistics base, once the main center of British military operations in Iraq to the Iraqi forces on Tuesday, a month after it handed over two other British run bases in al-Saie and '''Shatt al-Arab''', Basra.'' ''Across the Shatt al-Arab waterway is another prize: Iran's vast oilfields.''

* Mehr News (official Iranian news agency): ''This inland sea of some 233,000 km² is connected to the Gulf of Oman in the east by the Strait of Hormuz; and its western end is marked by the major river delta of '''Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)''' , which carries the waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris.''

* Iran Daily (Tehran-based English language newspaper): ''The Shatt Al-Arab waterway has long been a source of tension between Iran and Iraq.''

* Iranian.com - an Iranian news portal - has 22 hits for Shatt al-Arab while it has just six for Arvand Rood . One of the articles hosted by Iranian.com which uses the name Shatt al-Arab is written by Nima Kasraie : ''There was much more to Iraq's claim over Khuzestan than what books claim about the Shatt-ul-Arab waterway, the 3 islands, and previous "border skirmishes".''

So, some Iranian news sources also use Shatt al-Arab--] 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment''': These are western media reports picked up and reprinted by Iranian media (notice the author's name, ''John Pilger''), otherwise Iranian media universally use Arvandroud or Arvand River. --] 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Only the Pilger article comes from the Western media. All the other articles are written and published by the Iranian media and clearly use the Shatt al-Arab in the English language, sometimes putting Arvand Rood in parenthesis.--] 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::: NO, the Iran Daily item is a reprint too. You say "all the other articles" as if you have two dozens examples here, the only original Iranian report here that mentions Shatt al-Arab (alongside Arvandroud too) is the Mehrnews item, and their author is most likely an ethnic Arab. Likewise, here is an that only uses Arvand River, and their author is most likely an ethnic Persian. Such cherry picking of sources is not going to prove anything.--] 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::: The Iran Daily news article doesn't look like a reprint. It looks like a news item they have published. Where is the proof that it is a reprint. Also, where is the proof that the Mehr News Agency article was written by an Arab? Yes, Ardeshir Ommani is Iranian - I believe he was a member of Tudeh. The point is to show that even in the official Iranian media, Shatt al-Arab is sometimes used, acknowledging that an English speaking audience will not be familiar with the Iranian name for the waterway. They obviously don't think the Arabic name is as controversial as some people here claim or they would not use it.--] 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


'''Other encyclopedias:'''

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:
*1911 Britannica's articles on the , the & use the name "Shatt el Arab" (Shattel-Arab, Shatt-el-Arab).
*Britannica's article is named .
*Columbia's article is named Shatt al Arab (at & ).
*Encarta's article is named .

Best regards, ] 02:15, 28 April & 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


'''Examples of Official useage:'''</br>
United States:
* Henry Kissinger: ''The Soviets maintained a position of neutrality in the recent dispute between Iran and Iraq over the Shatt al-Arab River''
* US State Department Background Notes on Iran: ''Much of the dispute between the two countries centered around sovereignty over the waterway between the two countries, the Shatt al-Arab''
* US Defense Department: ''He said intelligence shows 40 to 50 ships ready to take on oil on the Shatt al Arab, a waterway leading to the gulf from Iraq.''
* CRS Report for Congress, Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs ''It has a Border Police component and a Riverine Police component to secure water crossings (Shatt al-Arab, dividing Iran and Iraq).''

United Kingdom:
* Iraq travel advice: ''The boundary between the territorial sea of Iran and Iraq at the mouth of the Shatt al Arab waterway has been a matter of dispute between the two countries for a number of years.''
* Ministry of Defence: ''The helicopter reported that the two seaboats were being escorted by Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt 'Al Arab Waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters.''
* House of Commons debates: 55 hits, including speeches by ministers , for Shatt al-Arab, but absolutely nothing for Arvand Rood.

United Nations:
* Search on Shatt al-Arab, 32 unique pages
* Search on Arvand, 9 unique pages

I cannot find any reference to ''Arvand'' under any spellings on the US State Department, the British Foreign Office or the British Ministry of Defence websites.--] 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:*'''But they have used it !''' or "
:"....''Group "A": Shatt al Arab (''Shatt al' Arab, Arvand Rud'') to Jazireh-ye Kish'' "--] 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


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

* '''Google Print test:''' or '''3'''; or '''1''' books in English.
* '''Google Scholar test:''' or '''3'''; or '''0''' results.
* '''Amazon.com test:''' or '''2'''; or '''0''' books.

* ''The New York Times'': or '''0'''; or '''0''' results.
* ''International Herald Tribune'': or '''0'''; or '''0''' results.
* BBC: or '''0'''; or '''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, ] 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.

:::::<small>As I said before, counting the search engine results may have biases and that special weakness makes it unreliable. Overemphasis's on geographical terms that leads to count every single unreliable use in internet can be considered as that so-called distortion of data for nationalist purposes. When the search engine can not give a correct answer; a hotel name can be considered as the name of the river or when a robot is named after the river, it may be considered as false positive, not to mention the fact that naming something after a geographical term is also a usage of that name.--] 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::::<small>, in my "Google Print test" I did check for false positives, such as that robot. Thus, my numbers for the "Google Print test" do not reflect false positives — and, of course, don't include that reference to a robot :-)

::::::<small> My "usual tests" are far from perfect, but are reliable as a general impression of usage. — And then there're the other examples of usage: in the press, by the NGS, Britannica & Encarta. - ] 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

Let us consider the first few hits, on the .
* 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.) ] <small>]</small> 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:PMAnderson/Septentrionalis' description is accurate. This is precisely why on my "Google Print test" ( ca. '''505'''; ca. '''60''' books in English) I took care to check the results and consider only those related to our river.
:*The search for actually gives 538 results, of which only ''ca.'' 505 refer to our river & are in English.
:*The search for 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, ] 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Google Print test II ====

I repeated the Google Print test, to give a general idea of usage. This time I also searched for "Arwand", "Shatt el-Arab" & "Shatt ul-Arab". I considered English-language publications only, and results referred to this river only. To avoid ], I considered only the books with a preview. I counted only once those books that figure more than one time in the results.

* Search for : 534 books, of which:
:445 books are in English and refer to this river
::...including 2 mentioning "Shatt al-Arab (Arvan Rud)".
:2 books are in English, but mention "Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)".
:5 books are in English but don't refer to this river
:: (2 refer to the name of a ship, 2 to a street in Jordan, 1 to the name of an hotel).
:31 books are repetitions.
:48 books had no preview.
:3 books are not in English <small>(2 in French, 1 in Polish)</small>.

* Search for : 550 books, of which:
:436 books are in English and refer to this river
::...including 1 mentioning "Basrah River or Shatt El Arab".
:3 books are in English but refer to the name of an hotel.
:51 books are repetitions.
:39 books had no preview.
:21 books are not in English <small>(7 in German, 6 in French, 2 in Arabic, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Indonesian, 1 in Italian, 1 in Portuguese, 1 in Swedish(?)</small>.

* Search for : 66 books, of which:
:46 books are in English and refer to this river
::...including 1 mentioning "Shatt ul-Arab (or Arvan Rud)".
:6 books are repetitions.
:6 books had no preview.
:8 books are not in English <small>(3 in German, 2 in French, 1 in Arabic, 2 in something else)</small>.

'''Total''' (Shatt al-Arab 445, Shatt el-Arab 436 & Shatt ul-Arab 46): ca. '''927''' books.


* Search for : 6 books, of which:
:4 books are in English and refer to this river
::...including one mentioning "Shatt al-Arab, or Arvandrud", and another saying "from the Shatt-al-Arab - Arvandrud and the Tigris"
:1 book is in English but mentions "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)".
:1 book had no preview.

* Search for : 357 books, of which:
:34 books are in English and refer to this river
::...including 6 mentioning "Arvand River".
::...including 5 mentioning "Arvand Rud".
::...including 2 mentioning "Arvand Rood" & "Arvand Roud".
::...including 4 mentioning "Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)".
::...including 1 mentioning "Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab)".
::...including 1 mentioning "Arvand (Shatt al-Arab) river".
::...including 2 mentioning "in the "Arvand Rood" (the Persian name for the Shatt)", "Arvand Rud (Iran's name for the Shatt al-Arab)"
::...including 1 mentioning "Arabs call it Shatt-Al-Arab and Iranians call it the Arvand river".
::...including 1 mentioning "Shatt al-Arab (Arab River) Arvand River (Iranian) A waterway".
::...including 1 mentioning "the Shatt al-Arab, known to the ancient Iranians as Arvand Rud".
::...including 1 mentioning "literally the Shore of ti Arabs in Arabic, also known as Arvand Rud, Great River, in Farsi"
::...including 7 which are uncertain, mentioning "the not less sacred river, Arvand, whose waters", "arvand), the ferryman refused to take him to the other aide of the river", "the Arvand and Daitya rivers", "and Arvand, and Daitya rivers", "the source of the river Arvand", "or Arvand, the", "or Arvand, to the south-west of Hamadan".
:10 books are in English, but mention "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)", or its equivalents
::...including "Shatt-al-Arab Waterway (known as such to Iraq and as Arvand River to Iran)", "the Shatt-al-Arab (Arvand River in Persian)", "the Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)", "Shatt al-'Arab (literally, the coast of the Arabs) but sometimes used Shatt al-'Iraq as well; the Iranians renamed it Arvand", "Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)".
:106 books are in English but don't refer to this river
::...including 42 referring to people named Arvand.
::...including 19 referring to the river Tigris, generally in a religious or mythological context.
::...including also: 1 refer to the Orontes, 4 to Mount Arvand or Alvand, 6 to the name of a robot & Sharif Arvand, 16 to some language examples, 1 to the Arvand pupfish, 1 to the Arvand Stevedoring Company, 1 to the Arvand Store, 1 to the Arvand-Shatt-al-Arab provinces, 3 to the son of Arvand, 1 to Arvand Mills, 1 to the town of Arvand-Kenar, 1 to Arvand Elementary School, to Arvand Dach, 1 to a mint, 1 to arvand berries, 6 unclear.
:16 books are repetitions.
:31 books had no preview.
:160 books are not in English <small>(73 in German, 61 in French, 7 in Danish, 2 in Italian, 2 in Portuguese, 1 in Estonian, 1 in Spanish, 1 in Swedish, 12 in something else)</small>.

* Search for : 121 books, of which:
:2 books are in English and refer to this river
:1 book is in English, but mentions "Shatt al-'Arab (Arwand Rud in Persian)."
:4 books mentioning "toward the Arwand, or call it, As Arabs do, the Dijla", "crossing the Arwand sorcery, but his minister", "crossed the Arwand Without a boat", "and Arwand from the Khermanshah disctrict".
:40 books are in English but don't refer to this river
::...including 8 referring to people named Arwand.
::...including 2 referring to the river Tigris, generally in a religious or mythological context.
::...including 2 referring to the Orontes Mountain.
::...including also: 5 referring to some language examples, 1 to an Arwand mountain, 1 probably to a mint, 1 to someone named Arwand-asp, 1 to Arwand-Honig, 1 to Arwand-Tuffin, 16 unclear, 2 mentioning "In addition, arwand more formal working groups have recently begun to emerge" & "Among the ladies, there were two of an arwand pleasant".
:3 books are repetitions.
:3 books had no preview.
:68 books are not in English <small>(33 in French, 29 in German, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Italian, 1 in Norwegian, 2 in something else)</small>.

'''Total''' (Arvandrud 4, Arvand 34 & Arwand 2): ca. '''40''' books.


In short, ca. '''927''' books use Shatt al-Arab (or Shatt el-Arab, Shatt ul-Arab), while only ca. '''40''' books use Arvandrud (or an equivalent). - Best regards, ] 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===
:''Add any additional comments:''

This move request has been announced at:
# ] ()
# ] ()
# ] ()

Best regards, ] 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'':

*]: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."
*]: "se the most common name. he titles should represent common usage."
*]: "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;"
*]: "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 ] suggests the following as its primary ]: "If the river is particularly famous under one name, then choose that name."

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

==== On using double titles ====

A remainder of how our naming conventions discourage double titles:

*]: "article naming should mak linking to those articles easy and second nature."
*]: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?"</br>"Titles should be as simple as possible ."
*]: "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 ] show.
*]: "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, ] 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

==== ] table ====

The table proposed in the ]:

{| border=1
|-
| width=70% | '''Criterion'''
| width=15% | '''Arvandrud'''
| width=15% | '''Shatt al-Arab'''
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| 0
| 1
|-
| 2. Current undisputed official name of entity
| 1 (in Iran)
| 1 (in Iraq)
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
| 0
| 0
|-
| ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''
| '''1'''
| '''2'''
|}

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

Best regards, ] 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 ] and ; 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 ]) , 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. --] 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 ]. 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. ] <small>]</small> 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Even before one person moved the article to the current format, without discussion it seems (see and ), the article used both names in the first line from the very early history, so that should definitely not change. ] 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::And it should not change. It may be useful to repeat that the English WP's naming policy has nothing to do with "what is the right name?" or "What claims are there to the subject of the article?"; but merely, "What name will be clearest to English-speaking readers?". ] <small>]</small> 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==== On relying on web-searches ====

Misplaced Pages's ] is that "enerally, ] should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" — This usually means ].

Of course, Google tests and various web-searches are not official Misplaced Pages policy ''per se'', but merely tools that, if used properly, can help us determine what that common English usage is (at least in relative simple cases :-)

See more details at:
* The ], in the "]" section.
* The "]" essay.

Best regards, ] 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

: Thankyou so much ! This page '''"]"''' is so informative. I think it shows all of what we want to say --] 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::Glad to be of any help :-) ] 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:See also ]. Six tests are presented, of which Google Scholar is neither the first nor the best. ] <small>]</small> 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Library of Congress country studies are unconditionally recommended in ]. I should note that the LoC for ''Iran'' uses '''Arvand''' only twice; both times in the construction: "the Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)." There are few clearer testimonies: this is Persian usage, not English. ] <small>]</small> 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


*In section about ,using geographic name servers is one of the sources. It appears that this source: recognizes both names : --] 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*In ,encyclopedias are also a source : (both Arvandrud & Shatt al-Arab)--] 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::<small>Actually, Columbia's article is named "Shatt al Arab" (at & ). Your link to TheFreeDictionary is . — Also, as I already mentioned in the ], both and articles are named "Shatt al-Arab" too. - Regards, ] 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)</small>

==== On usage in major reliable English-language sources ====

I have conducted comparative searches for “Shatt al-Arab”, “Arvandrud” and “Arvand” on several of the most respected and most widely read of the major English-language sources that publish international news and general-use geopolitical information. This is a far more representative sampling than Googling, which also picks up uses of “Arvand” as a name for a person or other location. Samplings were all conducted on ] ].

In total, there were '''1059 hits''' for “'''Shatt al Arab'''” and '''26 hits''' for “'''Arvandrud'''”, “'''Arvand Rud'''” or “'''Arvand'''” (excluding 3 false positives). Of the small number of hits for “Arvandrud” or “Arvand”, each of them gives the “Shatt al Arab” as well – and as the standard reference – usually noting the Arvand Rud as “the Persian name” for the Shatt al Arab. None of these employs the Arvand River by itself or as the standard reference, calling the Shatt al Arab “the Arabic” name for the Armand River.

] <small>]</small> 03:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


A) ] is the USA’s leading “publication of record”; its material is often quoted and licensed by other English-language news media throughout the country and around the world. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1981) turns up 279 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “... Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud, to Iranians) ...”, and 2 as “Arvand river”.

B) ] is one of the USA’s three leading news publications, and effectively the “publication of record” for the U.S. capital, ]; its material is often quoted and licensed by other English-language news media throughout the country and around the world. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1987) turns up 165 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 2 headline variants of the same story as “... the Shatt al-Arab, which Iran calls the Arvand River, ...”.

C) ] (of London) is the U.K.’s national “publication of record”, but is also widely read elsewhere in the ]. A search on the its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 148 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “the British invariably referred to the body of water by its Arabic name, the Shatt al-Arab, rather than its Iranian one, the Arvand Rud (river)”, 1 as “... at Arvand Roud ...”, and 1 as “ the ships were seized at about 11 am today (0730 BST) between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway east of the Iraqi city of Faw.”

D) ] is the UK’s leading and most widely read left-of-centre daily newspaper. A search on its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 165 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 2 of 4 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “Iran’s chief coastguard of the Arvand river - the Farsi name for the Shatt al-Arab waterway - ...”, and 1 as “It said the boats had been confiscated between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway ...”. The other two hits were for a personal name (Arvand Dashtaray) and the Iranian town Arvand Kenar.

E) The ] is the leading U.S. newswire service providing articles to newspapers and radio and TV news broadcasters all over the country; many newspapers and broadcasters around the world subscribe to the AP’s services. The '']'' is the de facto standard for newswriting in the U.S. A search on its archive (goes back to 1998) turns up 93 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 14 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 6 as “For the Iranians, it is Arvandrud, or Arvand River. To the Iraqis, it is the Shatt al-Arab, or Arab coastline.” or as “... the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, or Arvand River ...” The other 8 first refer to the location of the British ship seizure as “... near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway ...” and later comment to the effect (per one source), “The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud — Persian for Arvand River.”

F) ] is the leading UK newswire service providing articles to newspapers and radio and TV news broadcasters all over the country; many newspapers and broadcasters around the world subscribe to Reuter’s services. A search on its site turns up 54 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 0 of 1 hit for “Arvandrud” and its variants : Refers to a military base “... commander of the border base at Arvand in southwest Iran ...”

G) ] is the leading and most influential U.S. journal on ]; published by the ], it is read around the world by diplomats and international relations professionals. A search on its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 5 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants.

H) ] is the most widely read and respected general-audience U.S. publication focusing exclusively on international news; it is also widely read internationally. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1980) turns up 144 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 2 in the form “... Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud) ...”.

I) ] is published by the ] for the use of U.S. government officials. It is widely referred to by news providers and the general public for basic facts and statistical information on each of the countries in the world. A search on its site turns up 6 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variant renderings.
The “Shatt al Arab” hits include the country listings for Iraq and Iran , and the Geography notes and International Disputes notes for its Field Listings.

(Provided by ].)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== English Vs Non-English terms... ==

Between two '''''non-English''''' words, isn't it ironic to determine which one is more prevalent in '''''English'''''?<br />
If one appears to be more prevalent, isn't it ]--] 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:The purpose is to determine which is most commonly used by English speakers. That is Misplaced Pages policy. Unfortunately, this talk page has not shown a consensus that abides by Misplaced Pages policy since Shatt al-Arab is obviously the most common name. Shatt al-Arab is the Arabic name for the waterbody that English speakers have chosen to adopt, just as they chose to adopt the French name ] for the German city of Nürnberg. No German Wikipedians have objected to English Misplaced Pages's use of the French name of the city, which has never been the subject of any territorial dispute and has never been a part of France. So why the resistance to the commonly used Arabic name Shatt al-Arab as the title of this article?--] 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::It's not so much the result of a stochastic process as it is of historical and linguistic processes. What is perhaps more amazing is "Shatt al-Arab" has come into English and been preserved so close to the original Arabic. Usually the result is more like "]" or "]". (In fact, please note that both of these articles are titled per English usage, in accordance with ].) ] <small>]</small> 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Judging from a Google Books search, "Shatt al-Arab" has been the prevalent term in English since at least the start of the 19th century. Google Books returns 791 works using "Shatt al-Arab" and only six using "Arvandrud" (and two of those six are modern Iranian sources). -- ] 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I still think the tests does not show the "''English usage''": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to shows one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only '''''stochastic''''' and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy.--] 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: Same problem about ]and the result was to use both of them . No one used "test results" ! (The test results are not equal , but the name is both )--] 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==New Image==
]
I found these images on Flicker that might be better than current image. They can be used in WP under Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. , , (] 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
*Non Commercial images are unsuitable for Wiki. Unfortunately ] 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::: I have granted the permission from the author. I think it is a better image for the article.(] 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

== Policies vs. polls ==

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding here about polls and their uses. I recommend editors who are unfamiliar with the '''''essay''''' ] read it, since Misplaced Pages, ], uses them in a ''non-voting'' way. As ] points out, “A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't ''form'' consensus. It merely measures it.” Straw polls do not “trump” policies. (See what the policy statement ] has to say about straw polls.) The reason Misplaced Pages has “weak” straw polls is because it’s too easy to design such a poll to push a POV; in fact, a poorly designed poll can even do this unintentionally.

As I pointed out earlier, straw polls do not “trump” policies. Policies trump guidelines and guidelines trump essays (which have no real “legal” standing on Misplaced Pages anyway). Therefore, policies and guidelines should first be applied to any issue to identify ''suitable'' options (i.e., those consistent with the aforesaid policies and guidelines) before framing a poll to measure what degree of consensus there is for them.

Misplaced Pages’s ] policy directs editors considering proper names to use for places to refer to ] and ]. ] states, “Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.” ] states quite clearly in its very first point, “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.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As has been amply illustrated in the course of the ], “Shatt al-Arab” is the name used among English-speakers almost exclusively, while “Arvand River” or “Arvandrud” is occasionally added as a parenthetical note to identify the name the Iranians give to the waterway. “Shatt al-Arab” is the name taught in American, British and Commonwealth schools; it essentially ''is'' the English-language name for it – English has a long history of adopting foreign names for its own use. The English-speaking world adopted “Shatt al-Arab” as the name it uses for the river, just as it adopted “Persian Gulf” for the body of water it empties into. This is not the “same thing” as ] vs. ] or ] vs. ], because in each of these cases, both names have considerable currency and familiarity among English-speakers. It is instead the same as ] vs. ]; the latter of which is as generally unknown to English speakers as is “Arvand River”.

According to policy, then, there is no standing for any name for this article other than “Shatt al-Arab”. Any other name for this article is not “what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize”, not a “widely accepted” name in English usage, nor would make linking to the article “easy and second nature” (since most editors would try to link to “Shatt al-Arab”). A proposal to substitute anything else places the burden of rationale and evidence on those who feel standing policy should be ignored.

For instance, it could be proposed that simply for the sake of camaraderie and good will that “Arvandrud” or “Arvand River” be included either in the form of “Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud” or “Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)”. There are several disadvantages to this. First, neither is article “easy and second nature” for linking. Second the slash is generally used by the wikicoding to indicate a '']''; while it will work in the title, links directed to it may fail. The parenthetical form, normally used for disambiguation purposes, is more workable; the search function won’t find it unless input as “(Arvandrud)”, but since the name will explicitly stand alone in the article, that wouldn’t really be a problem.

Now, if there’s significant interest in testing the waters to see if there is a consensus for considering such a compromise name, I’ll be happy to formulate a poll that is consistent with policies. ] <small>]</small> 03:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*“''Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)''” or "''Shatt al-Arab (Arvand River)''" is fine with me, I don't think we need to formulate a new poll, the editors can just comment under this section. I'd support your compromise proposal. --] 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*I also agree with Mardavich. --] 12:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*I agree with Mardavich. "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rood)" - using parenthesis - is a good compromise since it uses the name commonly used by English speakers while acknowledging the less common Persian name, which is used as the official name only in Iran. It is better to have Arvand Rood rather than Arvand River, which is a mixture of Persian and English. It seems obvious that most English speakers have not heard of Arvand and as it stands the article's title will be confusing to them, so the Arabic name should be used first.--] 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*I agree. This solution is fair. (] 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

*I suppose this is an improvement, but there's still little guideline support for this, insofar as I can see. The only other example of this I can think of is ], but both terms are used ''a lot'' in that case. Here, ''Shatt al-Arab'' blows ''Arvand'' out of the water, hands down. It seems like the "compromise" is about appeasing people who can't get over the fact that the Persian name is not widely used. They need to get over it. -- ''']''' 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::Of course it is about compromise of opinions here. That's often how Misplaced Pages articles are written. The only other option is to allow this editorial dispute to escalate. By having "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rood)" as the title, we are establishing that Shatt al-Arab is the common name used by English speakers, but that Arvand Rood is also the official name in Iran and as it is in parenthesis is not the common name. Too many articles are bogged down by these kind of disputes, when more substantive editorial issues need addressing.--] 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is a compromise of two opinions &ndash; one based on guidelines and the other ]. There has ''still'' not been any policy or guideline support for the latter opinion that counteracts the support for the former opinion. ''The only other option is to allow this editorial dispute to escalate.'' Uh... no? Alternatively, we could use ], which has time and time again been demonstrated as far away the most common name in English. We could use ] which has been used alone on every other Misplaced Pages (except for the Farsi Misplaced Pages) to describe this body of water. ''Too many articles are bogged down by these kind of disputes, when more substantive editorial issues need addressing.'' Precisely, which is why the ''Arvand'' side needs to provide some support based on guidelines (and not personal preference) or concede defeat. -- ''']''' 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Sure, I would prefer ], but it is going to be resisted strongly by other editors and I wonder whether it is all worth it. In my experience, it is not worth it as it inevitably leads to more divisiveness that spreads beyond the immediate issue and spills over into other articles and admins don't really care because they avoid Iran-related disputes like the bubonic plague. If you insist on the implementation of policy over compromise with certain editors, then you will end up with days of pointless and time-consuming arguments when your productiveness could be put to better use elsewhere. Sometimes a compromise with some of these people is necessary for peace to reign and increased productivity.--] 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::If people complain on the talk page, they have the burden of proof. If people repeatedly move the page out of line (which, notice, has not been a problem here despite the dispute), ] could be used. It's not a big problem. Yes, many admins stay away from IMAP (Iranian-Muslim-Arab-Palestinian) disputes, but we can always "fix it and forget it". If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, ]. -- ''']''' 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::If you insist that policy should prevail over compromise, then why don't you as an admin take the initiative to impose ] as the article's title and use move protection to prevent anyone from changing it back? In the mean time, I will stand back at a safe distance :o| --] 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not going to do that because the last time I closed a move request like that (on this page), someone reverted the move within several hours. Until we can definitively establish (or clarify? or demonstrate?) that it is okay to ignore mere numbers when the consensus is going on personal preference rather than guidelines, doing what you suggested is unproductive and futile. -- ''']''' 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::There is ample evidence that Shatt al-Arab is the dominant name for the waterway among English speakers. The defence the Arvandrud advocates offer to counter this is that (a) Arvandrud was the first name given to the waterway, (b) the name is related to a territorial dispute between Iran and Iraq , (c) there is no English name for the waterway, only Arabic and Farsi names, so neither should be given primacy in English Misplaced Pages, and (d) the names should be given in alphabetical order instead of the order by which they are known in the English speaking world. So the argument essentially rests on which the common name used in the English speaking world - Shatt al-Arab - is itself POV and by giving "undue weight" to the Arabic name Misplaced Pages would be taking a political stance. This is a weak argument. I think naming policy should be interpretated not on what is "right" or "original" but the most common name used by English speakers. But ] will never get the support of a majority here, nor will prolonging the argument further achieve anything. Either you should bend the rules and settle with ] or impose ] and put up with the angry backlash and accusations of "anti-Iranianism". I think it would be easier and better for productive relations between users if the compromise suggestion made by Mardavich is accepted and the matter is settled. It's a case of putting the overall interests of Misplaced Pages's editorial stability ahead of niggling arguments about naming rules.--] 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*I agree with Tariqabjotu: compromises work fine when it comes to subtleties and shades of gray, but shouldn't undermine the most basic criterion of ] in order to appease editors who dislike the widely accepted English name. ''Dura lex, sed lex''. — Allowing for this exception would set a precedent that would encourage -and validate- not only double names in similar cases but also exceptions to other policies in order to appease the editors who disagree with those policies' most basic principles. In short, it would further undermine policies and strenghten straw polls. - Best regards, ] 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, ] would be an improvement, although both slight and inadequate, over the present name. It should be put in place now, while efforts to reach a settlement in accordance with policy continue. (Experience shows, by the way, that efforts to "compromise" on a double name are not stable. This move discussion itself began sometime back as an effort to reverse the order of the two names.) ] <small>]</small> 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::But according to you, policy dictates that only ] should be used, so what kind of settlement could you envisage that would be anything but this while remaining in line with Misplaced Pages policies?--] 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::::A change of policy is (almost) always possible; although I do not believe there is support for this one. The Iranian faction should be mustering support for such a change, rather than their present disruptive behavior.
::::It is not just according to me. You have just summarized four rationales for using of ''Arvandrud;'' which, if any, of them are supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guideline? And where?
::::It is to be hoped that the Iranians can be persuaded to abide by the general Misplaced Pages consensus on naming. There are consequences for not doing so; but they will take some time to implement. In the meanwhile, ] is better than the present name. ] <small>]</small> 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::''You have just summarized four rationales for using of ''Arvandrud;'' which, if any, of them are supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guideline? And where?'' - I would be interested to know the policy basis of these rationales. At present, none of the proponents of the status quo have established how having Arvandrud in the title is backed by policy when there is overwhelming evidence that Shatt al-Arab is almost exclusively used for the waterway in the English language. The only justification from admins has come from Alex Bakharev who says that as the majority of users voted for the status quo, the majority decides. It would require a "supermajority" (I am not sure what this means) to change the name of the article. It is interesting to note that the original article move to this title was made nearly two years ago, without consensus. The article was started four years ago as ].--] 23:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: User:Pmanderson, please stop generalizing opposing editors and referring to them by their alleged ethnicities or nationalities, this is a serious breach of ]. As I explained to one of the involved parties here User:Tariqabjotu, ] is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by you (User:Pmanderson), a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands - so the issue is not as clear-cut as some of the proponents here pretend. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Misplaced Pages should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature (See books.google.com), the same rational should apply to Islands and Rivers that are shared by two or more national authorities. I will elaborate on this later on. By the way, compromise is not a tool to further one side's position, compromise means sttelment and that neither side is getting what they truly want. --] 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::: '''Stochastic''' I still think the tests does not show the "English usage": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to show one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only stochastic and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy ! --] 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:<- (removing indent) Mardavich, please stop with the ]s. Present policy and guideline (goodness, I'm starting to sound like a broken record); your criticism of the ] guideline is clear evidence that you're trying to avoid the facts. As I stated earlier, even if you were to ignore ] (and there is no reason it should, even if you feel it's "sloppy"), one can still point to ] and ]. The ] example does not work. Google searches are not the be all and end all here, but one should note that "Chennai" receives compared with "Madras"' . The only reason "Chennai" receives fewer hits on Google Books is that the World Wide Web is a relatively recent phenomenon (i.e. websites will usually reflect modern usage). However, books have not had the time to adapt to the change. Notice how the most recent book from the of Google Book results for "Madras" comes from 1964 and most pre-date World War I. I'll even use the ] table to further demonstrate why the article is at "Chennai":

:{| border=1
|-
| width=70% | '''Criterion'''
| width=15% | '''Chennai'''
| width=15% | '''Madras'''
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| 1
| 0
|-
| 2. Current undisputed official name of entity
| 1
| 0
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
| 1
| 0
|-
| colspan=3 | ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''
|}
:Chennai wins hands-down. Even if you were to contest one of those (I'm not sure you could), ''Chennai'' still would win. This has been done for this article before, but I'll do it again:

:{| border=1
|-
| width=70% | '''Criterion'''
| width=15% | '''Shatt al-Arab'''
| width=15% | '''Arvand'''
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| 1
| 0
|-
| 2. Current undisputed official name of entity
| 0
| 0
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
| 0
| 0
|-
| colspan=3 | ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''
|}

:Shatt al-Arab wins. Again, there is no policy supporting Arvand, so there is no need to resort to "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." That part of ] is clearly intended to be used when policies and guidelines are not sufficient in resolving naming disputes. That is why there are very, very few articles with multiple names &ndash; the policies and guidelines are pretty extensive. You are suggesting this is one of the rare exceptions where policy and guideline are not sufficient in resolving this issue, but that's not the case at all. There is policy supporting ]; there is no policy (at least that has been presented so far) that supports ]. To illustrate how illogical it is to present your part of ] here, let me compare the situation at this article to a (hypothetical) situation at another article:

:<blockquote>Let's pretend I think the article at ] should be moved to ] (the transliteration of the common Arabic name for the city). Policy and guidelines supporting "Jerusalem" include ], ], ], and ], among others. There is no policy or guideline supporting the use of "al-Quds". Nevertheless, I propose a move request for moving the article to ] (alpha order). Surprisingly enough, a supermajority for moving the article to ] materializes citing the part from ] that you cite. Now, should the article move? Of course not; there is no policy supporting ] over ] and thus there is no reason to resort to the clause of ].</blockquote>

:Let me go further with an even sillier example of the same situation:


== Avesta ==
:<blockquote>Let's pretend I think the article at ] should be moved to ] (arbitrary word). Policy and guidelines supporting "Jerusalem" include ], ], ], and ], among others. There is no policy or guideline supporting the use of "Albabuba". Nevertheless, I propose a move request for moving the article to ] (alpha order). Surprisingly enough, a supermajority for moving the article to ] materializes citing the part from ] that you cite. Now, should the article move? Of course not; there is no policy supporting ] over ] and thus there is no reason to resort to the clause of ].</blockquote>


I found it somewhere:
:], there is no reason to keep ''Arvand'' in the title, and the position to do so remains an indefensible argument, pending a policy or guideline to support the position. -- ''']''' 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


در اوستا اگرچه از نام خلیج فارس بطور صریح نام برده نشده اما در مهر یشت در مبحث مهر یا میترا اشاره‌ای نیز به اروندرود شده‌است که در آن دوره «'''ارونگ'''» گفته می‌شده‌است و چنین آمده:
::Another argument put forward to support the double name title is that neither Shatt al-Arab or Arvandrud are English and there is no English name, so no non-English word should take precedence. Aside from the fact that Arvandrud is not commonly used in English, one can point to the example of Nuremburg which is the French name for the German city Nurnberg. English-speakers use the French name, even though the city has never been French. Likewise, English speakers use the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab, despite the fact that Iran has sovereignty over the left bank of the waterway and calls it Arvandrud. Whether or not you think that Shatt al-Arab is the correct or historically accurate name is beside the point. Like Nuremburg, Shatt al-Arab is a name adopted into the English language, while Nurnberg and Arvandrud have not been adopted.--] 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::<small>Nuremberg is a famous place among English-speaking people, and at least because of it's famous Nuremberg Trials almost everybody knows there , and there is no doubt about dominancy of the name in English , but about the Arvand/shatt- al Arab , that is not comparable to Nuremberg , because almost no one knows it and it is unknown that which name is dominant in english</small> . --] 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
«دارنده دشت‌های فراخ» و «اسب‌های تیزرو» که از سخن راستین آگاه است و پهلوانی است خوش اندام و نبرد آزما، دارای هزار گوش و هزار چشم و هزار چستی و چالاکی یاد شده، کسی است که جنگ و پیروزی با اوست، هرگز نمی‌خسبد، هرگز فریب نمی‌خورد، اگر کسی با او پیمان شکند خواه در شرق هندوستان باشد یا بر دهنه '''شط ارنگ'''، از ناوک او گریز ندارد، او نخستین ایزد معنوی است که پیش از طلوع خورشید فنا ناپذیر تیز اسب بر بالای کوه هرا بر می‌آید و از آن جایگاه بلند سراسر منزلگاه‌های آریایی را می‌نگرد.
::::False; as a native English speaker, I will attest that ''Shatt al-Arab'' is well known in English; and ''Arvand Rud'' is notl the searches above demonstrate this also. You are entitled to invent your arguments, although it would be nice if you appealed to principles widely accepted in Misplaced Pages; you are not entitled to invent your facts. ] <small>]</small> 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


It says that in Avesta in Mihr yasht it's name has been mentioned. But I checked , and It was not there. Can someone recheck it, as I'm sure it is there in Avesta. --] (]) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: The river is well known by English-speakers, and it's known by the name of ''Shatt al-Arab''. Alborz Fallah, have you heard about a certain conflict going on in Iraq since early 2003 ? For the last four years TV & radio broadcasts, newspapers, magazines and bookstores all around the world (including every English-speaking country) have been saturated with commentaries about the region's geography, including the Shatt al-Arab. Wars always are major geography lessons. I just can't understand how can you make such statements at this very time and age. - ] 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:Dear Wayiran, you should have looked for ''Raηhā'', or simply ''Rangha'' (which is the equivalent of ''Arang''); if you had done so, you would have found the following:
* Tarig, your peers here were arguing that raw google hits don't count because they include Misplaced Pages mirrors, and that the guidelines prescribe that google books and other major publications should be used to establish common usage in English, in which case ''Madras'' > ''Chennai'' as ''Madras'' generates 17 times more results than ''Chennai'' in google books and other major publications that were used to determine common usage here. The fact that books.google.com overwhelmingly favors ''Madras'' over ''Chennai'' or ''Danzig'' over ''Gdansk'', proves how unreliable the guidelines in question are. More people have taken part in the discussions here than in those particular guideline pages, which are mostly written by four or five editors. So these guidelines are neither the Word of God, nor arbitrary, there is more community consensus to be found here than over there. Also, your Jerusalem argument doesn't hold any water, as Jerusalem is under sole Israeli authority. And finally, your comparison of Arvand River to some gibberish word "Albabuba" is ridiculous and insulting. Arvand River is co-owned by Iran, one of the official names of this geographical entity is Arvand River, which is also used in English. --] 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
:: The only reason you're claiming that policy and guideline mean little is that you have no policy or guideline to support your position. You're right that they're not suicide pacts, but they are not meant to be ignored simply because they do not support your position. The part about the neither term being English is not entirely correct. It's no less English than ] or ] or ]... they're terms correct in English. For English speakers and writers, ''Shatt al-Arab'' has conclusively been shown as the most widely used. Your qualms about my other statements being "insulting", etc. are just distractions. I'm not placated. -- ''']''' 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: '''XXVII'''
::: Oh, so now you can read my thoughts. Have you heard ]? I didn't say this particular guideline should be ignored because it does not support my position, that's your bad-faith assumption. I am saying this particular guideline is inconsistent, incoherent and hence unreliable, as I have demonstrated in my previous comments. Oh and ] or ] are not rivers owned by two independent sovereign states, with two offcial names. There are different categories of names which require different approaches. --] 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Tariq, this discussion has been going for a month now. Everyone has stated their comments and two separate voting has been done. Why you don’t want to accept the fact that this is a disputed area between two countries and using only one of the names is considered POV. The readers usually don't know anything about AGF. I believe using both names for this article is completely consistent with Wiki policy and guidelines as stated in above discussions. However, I agreed with the Shatt al-Arab(Arvandrud) compromise even though I didn’t completely agree with it (Because it gives more credit to the first name) to reach a possible unanimous consensus. But now I am very disappointed to see that you are trying backup your position with insulting hypothesis(Albabuba) and irrelevant cases (Islam, Hong Kong). (] 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
::::It would be possible to change policy to the position that Mardavich and Arash want - in the sense that doing so would not make Jimbo fold Misplaced Pages. But it would not be a service to the encyclopedia and its readership, and I do not believe there is consensus for it. Until that is accomplished, we should go with existing policy and guidelines. (On another matter, if any of the proponents of Arvand Rud wish to deny Iranian nationality, I will of course take their word for it.) ] <small>]</small> 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


:: 104. 'We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures, .... sleepless, and ever awake; 'Whose long arms, strong with Mithra-strength, encompass what he seizes in the easternmost river and what he beats with the westernmost river, what is by the Sanaka of the Rangha and what is by the boundary of the earth.
:<- (removing indent)
</blockquote>
:Let's do it for same problem : ]
: Please note the reference to both "Rangha" and "the westernmost river". Kind regards, ].
:{| border=1
|-
| width=70% | '''Criterion'''
| width=15% | '''Imia'''
| width=15% | '''Kardak'''
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| ?
| ?
|-
| 2. Current undisputed official name of entity
| 0
| 0
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
| 0
| 0
|-
| colspan=3 | ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''
|}
:Although the "test" result is as follows: "Imia islands" :'''196''' hits for google search "test"."Kardak islands": '''43''' hits for google search "test". But according to the fact that none of them are English, then as you see, in this topic, both names are mentioned and we can't claim anyone of them as dominant .--] 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


::This is not about google or a simple web-search :-) Google is just but a tool, and not the best one, to gauge common English usage. It's about Misplaced Pages policy & guidelines asking us to reflect ''common English usage''. And about every single instance of usage shown in this talk page showing ''Shatt al-Arab'' to be the name commonly used for this river in the English-speaking world: Google (both Print & scholar), books on sale at Amazon.com, press usage in major newspapers and news organizations, what other encyclopedias use, even the general perception of English-speakers that took part in this conversation. — So far not a single shred of evidence has been provided to indicate that "Arvandrud" is widely used in the English-speakung world. The opposite is true: it has been clearly demostrated that the Farsi name is very seldom used.


On 15 March 2009 Wayiran to the article the following unqualified assertion: ''Also "Arang", the other form of "Arvand", has been mentioned in Avesta.'' The accompanying reference: ''Avesta, Mihr yasht, section 27, paragraph 104.'' (the text cited by BF above).
::Of course, you can disagree with our current policies and its associated naming conventions. I personally do disagree with some policies :-) However, if you don't like a policy, you can't just disregard it in your editing of articles: the proper thing to do is to start by proposing a change to those policies and guidelines first, and only then, ''after'' that change has been accepted and incorporated to the policies and guidelines, apply that changed aspect of policy or guideline to all articles. — But while the policies remain as they are, we should follow them, whether we like them or not. - Best regards, ] 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


It has two problems: it doesn't appear to be correct, and as currently presented it is a direct interpretation of a ''very'' complex primary source (thus infringing our ] policy, which clearly that ''ny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.'').
::Mardavich, you think that "the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands". — Well... go to ] and propose to incorporate those distinctions to the guideline. I don't like it, but if the change is accepted, then I will help you apply that new naming convention to all articles across Misplaced Pages :-)


Iranica's article on the clearly asserts that no river "Arvand" is mentioned in the Avesta (or in the ''Bundahishn''). As for the identification of the ''Rangha'' river of the Avesta (described in Iranica's article on the as "primarily mythical") with the Arvand, the article on the points either to:
::However, until that distinction forms part of our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines, that rationale has no weight in the naming of articles. Best regards, ] 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*a confusion between ''Arang'' and ''Arvand'', originated from the fact that in Pahlavi both names differ in a single stroke.
*a posterior attempt to identify the ''Rangha''/''Arang'' of the Avesta with something concrete (a Persian ''horror vacui'' of sorts).


This is hardly surprising, considering that -as Iranica's article on mentions- "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border."
'''Moving the page to ]:'''


In short, no Arvand or Shatt al-Arab in the Avesta. - Best, ] (]) 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As the First user who tried to move the page by switching the names, and unfortunately started this mess; (now I deeply regret that contribution!). I agree with that because it is not just compromise, it says one of the names (which both of them are non-English) is more used in English to the other name but not overwhelmingly. But ''' both of them can be found in historic books''',''' both of them have a long history of usage in a handful of countries'''. so I am going to be '''bold''' and try again to move the page to ], I hope it will settle the issue for a time. --] 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:As per : your message here is ignored because 1. you do not know what you are talking about. 2. the edit we have made says: Arang is old Iranian and tends to be identified with Arvand (well-sourced). Our sentence does not say Arang is Arvand. Is that clear? 3. Now the source to the previous sentence in the article says why Arvand is Tigris. Is that clear too? In short, here only one name has historical value.--] (]) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:But Shatt al-Arab is overwhelmingly more used; as the data above will show; even a raw www.google.com search is 8-1; and other indices show even greater supermajorities. ] <small>]</small> 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


::No Xashaiar, it is not clear.
:(edit conflict) I don't intend to waste energy trying to convince the opposition any further. I'm going to open this matter up to other people through a psuedo straw poll and discussion. On the new name, it's an improvement but less than ideal and not in accordance with policies. -- ''']''' 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::2. The sentence you ("Even much older is the name "Arang" as mentioned in Avesta which ''tends to be identified with the river Arvand''.") is not particularly clear, is misleading -making a broad unqualified affirmation that can be interpreted in many different manners- and is most definitely ''not'' well-sourced, as it cherry-picks one particular fragment of a sentence from Iranica's article on the ignoring the rest of the text & the other articles mentioned in my post above.
::3. No, it is not clear. Would you please elaborate ?
::And yes, I can appreciate that edits to these articles do not aim at providing our readers with mere information, but at advocating that the Farsi name is the only one with "historical value", and the one everyone should use. That much is clear. - Regards, ] (]) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::1. You gave free proof of my first claim that "you do not know what you are talking about"! 2. There is one thing called "clicking". Click on the link to Avesta to see the reason to include words: "OLDER" and "EVEN". These are also ]. 3. The source says exactly what I have added. Therefore ] and ]. 4. According to[REDACTED] rules this can be included. Very useful, related, and historical piece of information (unlike , : which should give an answer to your last accusation: comparing to these edits, it is clear what is my agenda and yours: "finding out the relevance of adding "Daf is depicted on obverse of certain banknote" to "History of Daf" is called "quiz of the year". Other editors may be able to answer this quiz.).--] (]) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


:Ev is correct. Both with respect to the fact that the EIr is being misinterpreted, and with respect to the fact that the Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia). Indeed, it would seem that BF ''before'' he began soapboxing.
:The double form "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" is not acceptable, because it contradicts the core principle of our current ] <u>policy</u>. - ] 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:I would like to commend Ev's infinite patience in dealing with the nationalists. It is thanks to dedicated people like him that Misplaced Pages is not a complete pile of crap. Those interested in knowing the 9th-11th century rationale for identifying a mythological river with variously the Tigris or the Nile (or something else) can drop me a line at my talk page. -- ] (]) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::I agree in principle; but so does the present double name. "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" seems to me clearly an amprovement, if an incomplete and inadequate one. ] <small>]</small> 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


:::::Thank you. :-) ] (]) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, it is an improvement. I had written the above comment (signed 18:57 UTC) immediatly after (18:48 UTC). So, it was just my first official complaint about "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" being the article's title :-) Cheers ] 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


::As usual you are ]. 1. EIr is RS. 2. It states explicitly ''Arang... tends to be identified with the river Arvand'' (wasn't folk etymology your only available ]?). If one respected scholar states a ''possible'' identification, then why it should not be included? 3. Thanks to myself that do not allow creation of fictional ] links, this[REDACTED] will become a better place. 4. You call me nationalist, isn't it better than being ]?--] (]) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::: But I do think the criteria is not fitting to the dispute : There is no problem in accepting common English word , but the problem is to determine which word can be defined as dominant in English. The example about Imia/Kardak may have the same results in other searches, but that still doesn't mean dominancy of one word in English. The problem is about the logic and not about the policies: asking again how can we find out which ''non English'' word is more ''English'' ?! --] 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


:::Xashaiar, could you please try to stay on-topic.
:::: The criterion is not "common word of English origin", but instad "common English <u>usage</u>". What word is commonly used in English-language publications, or by English-speakers, irrespective of that word's English or non-English origin/etymology.
:::2a. A sentence snippet isolated from its context does not convey a text's meaning. You should know this.


:::2b. ''If'' a respected scholar mentions a possible identification, that fact can usually be included; but in a clear manner and providing the proper context. We could mention that "Scholar John Doe considers that X could be identified with Y , and others agree/disagree ". In this specific case, such details would be better presented in a separate paragraph.
:::: ]: "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;"


:::As I mentioned in an , you can present the sources and propose the wording here, at this talk page, and we will all see if the paragraph is sound & merits inclusion. - Best, ] (]) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: It clearly says <font color=green>"this often will be a local name, or one of them"</font>. That is, "this will often be an Arab or Persian or Turkish or Chinese name, which happens to be the one commonly used by English-speakers and English-language publications". - Best regards, ] 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::::again I have to explain the most obvious argument: 1. The article states what I wrote. And since I made it Italic (could use double quote instead) to mean that "it tends...". 2. You and the previous editor do not stick to the sources you are quoting: the question of identification of Avesta geography is not at all clear. (removing fictional stories, they are clear. But ] books are produced in mass.) Stick to it. Now this means there is no definitive (that is yes or no) answer to the question of identification of Arang/Arvand?" You are pushing for your POV, My POV is different. 3. I do not see any problem with that quote. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


::::Moving on ...
* Sigh! * I ''thought'' I had made it perfectly clear, but apparently not. Let me summarize it succinctly: English Misplaced Pages’s policies support one and only one name for this article: “Shatt al-Arab”; no English Misplaced Pages policies support ''any'' use of “Arvandrud” or its alternatives. Period. “Shatt al-Arab” is the name by which this watercourse is known by all who speak English as their native tongue; “Arvandrud” is essentially unknown and unused aside from the rare occasion when a reference decides to add a side note on the Persian name for the Shatt al-Arab. Yes, “Shatt al-Arab” is the Arabic name for the river, but by whatever accident of history brought it about, “Shatt al-Arab” ''is also the '''English''' name for it''.
::::The pre-"later Pahlavi period" applications of the name 'Arvand' -- i.e. the real or putative references to the Tigris -- belong in the article on the Tigris. A statement that could belong here might read ...
::::"In Iran, the Shatt al-Arab came to be known as the 'Arvand' during the later Pahlavi period. Prior to that time, the Shatt al-Arab was known as the ________, and the name 'Arvand' typically referred to the Tigris. Although the Tigris now flows into the Shatt al-Arab, it seems to have previously flowed into the Shatt al-Hayy."
::::Or something to that effect. Whatcha think? -- ] (]) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::No way. I would recommend something similar to what I said (maybe rewording but follows) something <u>that refers to Arang</u> but mentions "tend" (or "corruption" as said in ). That is Arang is really what existed in "Old Iran" (Ok, we don't know for sure what Arang is called now and not vise versa.)--] (]) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


:::::That would be the most sensible approach, Fullstop. After the paragraph we can add a simple "(see also Tigris#)", for clarity & to keep everybody happy. :-) I will see what I can find about what name Iranians used for this waterway before the arrival of Arvandism. - Best, ] (]) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me use a more neutral example. The ] is a river that defines the eastern half of the border between the USA and Mexico. It is the Spanish ''and'' the English name for the river. When ] won its independence from Mexico, many of its rivers retained their proper Spanish names, but the Spanish word “''río''” was replaced in most cases with the English word “river”. The major exception was the Rio Grande. It could have been translated to “Grand River”, but it wasn’t. English normally drops accents, umlauts, and diacritical marks, so the only changes made were to drop the accent on the ‘i’ and ] of the pronunciation. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that none of the several English pronunciations I have heard for “Shatt al-Arab” is an accurate rendering of the Arabic.


===Avestan geography===
There is no debate among native English-speakers about what name to use for the river and that is “Shatt al-Arab”. The only reason I proffered a compromise such as “Shatt al-Arab” is to put an end to the POV squabble among our Persian and Arab editors which is of relevance and interest only to themselves – and I’d be willing to bet neither the Farsi- nor Arabic-language Wikipedias include both names in the titles of their respective articles. One need only scroll down the length of this talk page to realize that this whole debate is nothing but ] and ]. Just imagine how much effort has been utterly wasted here that could have been put to ''so much more productive use'' adding to and expanding the articles on the lands, culture and history of both of ancient civilizations to the benefit of readers everywhere who might want to learn more!


Fullstop: "Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia)"
When I read the initial responses to my proposal, I thought maybe a consensus was going to come together and this whole disappointing and senseless chapter could be put behind us; unfortunately, it quickly degenerated into more of the same. Out of fear of setting a precedent that may spread this madness to other articles, I feel I must withdraw my suggested compromise, and instead recommend simply naming this article by the rules of Misplaced Pages, which would be “Shatt al-Arab”. ] <small>]</small> 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
, on which basis are you saying this? --] (]) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:Wayiran that thing is the best example of selective quote to push certain ]. 1. Using the quote from EIr to claim that "Arang is not Arvand" is OR and does not belong to wikipedia. 2. Let us look at evidence for the claim (Avesta knows nothing...) which is promoted by some scholars: At the moment there are some evidences that: the homeland of Avestan language is western Iran. (here in encoclopaedia which happens to be <u>from the same source</u> as that claim). So why not using this? I think definitive answer to the question of geographical identification of places mentioned in Avesta (whether Western Iranian or ]) does not exist. What is not understood by people who revert more than they click is: The '''word''' arvand is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang". I do not understand why this can not be mentioned in article.--] (]) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:So Wayiran I support you change though a is missing to satisfy those whose only sources are banknotes.--] (]) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


::Xashaiar, Iranica's article on mentions that, with the exception of an important study from 1921, there's a general agreement among Iranian scholars that the events of the Avesta should be located in eastern Iran. – But you choose to ignore the existence of any scholarly consensus, and emphasize instead the exception that suits your personal world view. Nice. - ] (]) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
: As I said before, compromise is not a tool to further one side's position, compromise means settlement and that neither side is getting what they truly want. In light of the "sudden change of mind" by some users AFTER the compromise was implemented, I am withdrawing my support for the compromise as well, as this can no longer be called a compromise. And since there is no agreement or settlement, I think User:Pejman47 should return the article to its previous name until there is a real consensus for a new name. --] 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:::Read my comment once more. Look at the <u>underlined</u> and '''bold''' words. After understanding, then we discuss more.--] (]) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''Moving the page to ]:'''


::::Yes, the <u>same source</u> (Iranica's article on ) mentions a scholarly consensus and an exception from 1921. You like the exception.<p>The '''word''' ''arvand'' is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang" ? According to whom ? And why would that matter to the article on the Shatt al-Arab ? - ] (]) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:it seems the issue is not settled by the move I made yesterday, so, I reverted my move till settling this issue. --] 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:Wayiran, just for starters, and as already commented above, Iranica's article on mentions that "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border." Are Western Iran or Mesopotamia located on the eastern Iranian plateau or on the Indo-Iranian border ? - Best, ] (]) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
==Madras==
Anyone who believes that ] is not common English usage, but ] is, should make the case to move, on that page; as we have done here. If convinced, I will support it; it certainly has a ''prima facie'' case. The chief reason for its present location is that English is an official language in India, and widely spoken there.


::Starter!? I guess Iranica has generalized it by saying so. But the eastern Iran is only one of the candidates for Geographical position of ancient Iranian people and Avestan geographical locations and as it is unrelated to this article I won't go into details, but I suggest you to consider Chichast lake which is in Northwest of Iran and is well mentioned in Avesta and then consider the "hara bazaiti" which is the Avestan render of "Alborz" mountain in north of Tehran, and in addition to this, you can read article. BTW eight Kassite kings of Babylon had the title of Zoroaster and other things which brings the idea of considering the Babylon equivalent to some Avestan geographical places. --] (]) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
But, even if ] should be moved, one bad decision does not justify another; if it did, we would have nothing but bad decisions. Please stop with the red herrings. ] <small>]</small> 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
: Proving that the guideline you're citing is practically inadequate and unreliable, is not a "red herring".--] 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:::What follows are the basics. Some crucial points first:
::If you don't like that guideline (and the ] behind it), the proper thing to do certainly isn't to ignore and disregard it, but instead you should propose changes to it at ] or ]. — Once/if those changes are accepted, we apply the newly update policy/guideline to all Misplaced Pages articles, including this one. — But while the current policy and associated guidelines stay in place, we must respect them, whether we like them or not. - ] 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>#</nowiki>A1 The Avesta does not mention places in Western Iran. Forget anything to the contrary. Its false.
:::<nowiki>#</nowiki>A2 The Avesta is a collection of religious compositions, not a treatise on geography.
:::<nowiki>#</nowiki>A3. The Avestan compositions are younger than the concepts expressed within them.
:::<nowiki>#</nowiki>B1 The Pahlavi books were written in Western Iran. They are accordingly from the Western Iranian perspective.
:::<nowiki>#</nowiki>B2 Lots and people, from ''all over'' Iran, identified "holy names" with places in their vicinity.
:::* The Avesta's texts contain memories of very ancient times, stories told for hundreds of years before someone decided to compose a song (or whatever), which then eventually became an Avestan hymn (or whatever). All those "names" from ancient times do not necessarily correspond to any real places. ''Some'' of those names do correspond to real places, and those are all in Eastern Iran. Like ''sughd'' for Sogdiana.<br />And just because a certain ''word'' appears in the Avsta does not mean that that word is also a proper name. For example, the Avestan word for "swift" is ''aruuand'', which is just an ordinary adjective. Not a name!
:::* When the Pahlavi books (which means 9th-12th century Zoroastrian texts) were being written, the authors applied it to ''their'' idea of the "world". Which is not the same as the "world" of the Avesta, and is not the same as the "world" of 2,000 BC.<br />So, some "holy names" got "transported". Not only to Western Iran, but all the way to the Mediterranean, and all the way to India.<br />In fact, even ''real'' places got "transported". For example (IIRC), ''sughd'' (Sogdiana) was identified with Syria.
:::* The Pahlavi books were written by educated people (priests)! So, just imagine what the normal people did. Well, there is not only one Alborz, or one "Chichast lake". There are multiple Alborzes, and multiple "Chichast lake". For example, the Shahnameh puts "Alborz" ''waaaaaaay'' east. Yet other people identified "Alborz" with Mount Ararat. And the "Chichast lake" in Sistan -- although in the East -- does not necessarily correspond to any Avestan name either.
:::Hopefully, you now understand that lots and lots of people identified lots of "holy names" with lots and lots of different places. But only very few Avestan place names actually correspond to real places. And even when "holy names" do correspond to real places, those names were also given to other places.
:::Hopefully, you now understand that "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border" is perfectly correct, and perfectly precise. It is not a "generalization".
:::In any case, the Tigris is not the Shatt al Arab. If you want to write about the MP identification of "Arvand" with the Tigris (or the Nile), then go to ''those'' articles. -- ] (]) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


No, I don't agree with you. I don't have time to discuss, and this discussion page is not the place to discuss whether Avestan geography refers to eastern Iran or western Iran. The fact is that it covers both. You should read the famous book of Dr. Jahanshah Derakhshani regarding this issue, and I can't type all of it over here. It has been well discussed there. Besides that, traditional history due to it's myths is not necessarily considered as a mythological issue, but the history can be taken out from it. Today characters like Solomon are considered as historical characters, whereas he has only been mentioned in Bible, and not in any other historical source. Hopefuuuuuuuuuuly you accepted some of my points. --] (]) 05:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
== New opinions ==


:Wayiran, I hope you understand that your disagreement and statements do not change what our sources tell us; namely, the existence of a general academic consensus on the issue. - Regards, ] (]) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
After discussing this issue multiple times, it is time to open up the issue to the general Misplaced Pages community, instead of confining this to the select few who happen to watch this article. All editors are encouraged to provide policy or guideline rationale, as well as other rationale, under each option. All editors are also encouraged to participate in general discussion. <font color="green">However, statements of support are intended for people new to this debate.</font> Thus, those who have commented already about this matter on the talk page (outside of just a simple drive-by vote) and regular editors of the article are discouraged from posting statements of support. -- ''']''' 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


BTW, where has Ferdowsi said about Alborz in east??
===Arvand Rud (or variant)===
; Policy or guideline rationale


These are all the beyts in which Ferdowsi has used "Alborz":
; Other rationale


برم خوب رخ را به البرز کوه شوم ناپديد از ميان گروه
; Statements of support


ز البرز کوه اندر آمد به دشت چو بگذشت ازان بر فريدون دو هشت
===Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab===
; Policy or guideline rationale
*]:This river is a disputed borderline and territory, using only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use is POV.
**NPOV has never been so interpreted; see discussion below. ] <small>]</small> 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.
**"Not common English usage" is a good reason. ] <small>]</small> 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: 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.
**Never intended to overrule the rest of the policy; not consensus. ] <small>]</small> 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
; Other rationale


برانگيخت ما را ز البرز کوه که يزدان پاک از ميان گروه
; Statements of support


که بودش بدانجا کنام و گروه ببردش دمان تا به البرز کوه
===Shatt al-Arab===
; Policy or guideline rationale
*]: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." -- ''']''' 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
** Let's start with the fact that this is not an English word or phrase, the majority of English speakers have probably never heard of this disputed waterway. As User:Alborz_Fallah rightly notes, "'' 'Most commonly used name in English' is a reflection of how many times the English speakers had encountered with the local names: that means none of the names can be considered as dominant in English with confidence.''" Finally, let me add that these guidelines are not intended to replace reasonable judgment, or to overrule ] in a case involving a disputed territory. ] 12:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
***Can you show that the name of the waterway is part of the dispute? Given that Iran has signed treaties that refer to the Shatt al-Arab, it does not seem the case that the name is part of the dispute.--] 12:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: "se the most common name. he titles should represent common usage." (see ] and similar subsequent sections) -- ''']''' 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: "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;" -- ''']''' 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: "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." -- ''']''' 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*]: See the table used at ].
*]: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ''ought'' to have." ] <small>]</small> 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
**All of the above guidelines are overruled by ] as discussed by AlexanderPar and others. Also both names are non English and none of them represents common English usage.(] 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
***No need to yourself; one invocation of AlexanderPar's novel ideas of policy is quite enough. And all the guidelines cited speak of English usage.those of them that give examples use ones like ], ], and ] not etymologically English. ] <small>]</small> 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
***That's not exactly true, Arash. Yes, ] (NPOV) is paramount, but the naming conventions are not overruled by that policy, but rather the means to achieving that end. As you can probably tell, ] is written almost entirely from the perspective of those writing and otherwise editing articles (as opposed to ''naming'' articles). Neutrality as it pertains to article names is specifically addressed in the ] (linked from the fourth sentence of the main part of the policy). That part of the tutorial specifically refers the reader to some of the naming conventions listed above. So, in reality, the use of ] is following the concept of neutrality to the letter (avoiding a title along the lines of ], as mentioned in the tutorial). -- ''']''' 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


به البرز کوه اندر آن زشت جاي برفتم به فرمان گيهان خداي
; Other rationale
*All other Wikipedias, except for the Farsi & Ukrainian Wikipedias, use Shatt al-Arab and Shatt al-Arab alone. -- ''']''' 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*The ] suggests the following as its primary rule for naming rivers with multiple names: "If the river is particularly famous under one name, then choose that name." <small>- ] 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
*NPOV - if we use NPOV as our guiding principle then we can't use one name as it favors one side, we can't use the other name because it favors the other side, and we can't use both names because one name would have to appear before the other name. Obviously we must invent an entirely new name. I like "George" myself. It's got a nice English-language feel to it. Obviously, the difficulties this "NPOV" solution presents illustrates exactly why NPOV can '''''not''''' be considered in the naming of this article. In short, this thought experiment proves the point made above that NPOV does not trump other considerations. Indeed, it can't be considered at all. ] 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
** This is a disputed territory, we should remain neutral to this topic. ] is not a suggestion or a guideline, it is a core policy which can not be ignored. We ''can'' use both names, which name would have to appear before the other name is simply determined by alphabetical order. ] 11:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
* Shatt al-Arab is the only name referred to in border treaties signed by Persia/Iran. As such, it is the internationally recognised name for the waterway accepted as such by successive Iranian political systems (Qajars, Pahlavis and the Islamic Republic), whereas Arvand Rud is the Farsi name that is not recognised in any treaties. There is no issue of POV here.--] 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
** I've contested the accuracy of that below, you speculations or assertions don't count as fact. This is not an international body of water, so there is no internationally recognized name, and Iran does not recognize the name "Shatt al-Arab". If you insist otherwise, I will contact the Permanent Mission Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran to the United Nations, and ask them for a clarification of Iran's position. ] 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
***Ahwaz has clearly referenced a book, published by a University press (and one of the most distinguished ones). Such assertions on matters of fact (such as the text, and the language of publication, of treaties) are regarded by ] as among the most reliable available to us; secondary sources are preferred, since it means that a scholar in the field does not see any problem with the primary sources.
****Relevant responses would be to find other scholars, of comparable weight, who disagree; or to find Prof. Kaikobad's book, and show it has been misquoted.
***"Speculation", for a sourced statement, approaches a ] violation. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is worth calumny or lies.
***If Iran declines, now, to recognize the name ''Shatt al-Arab'', there should be pre-existing evidence of this. I wish AlexanderPar all the fortune he deserves in his original research with the Iranian mission.
***Even if such a claim can be proven, it makes little if any difference to the ''name'' of this article; although it should of course be included in the text. We don't do ''de jure'', we do ''de facto'' - because deciding whose law applied ''would'' be PoV. There are whole countries which many nations decline to recognize, but we have articles on them anyway, under the name most used in English. ] <small>]</small> 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


چو باز آوريدم ز البرز کوه به پيمان چنين رفت پيش گروه
; Statements of support


بران کوه البرز بردن گروه وزان جا کشيدن سوي زاوه کوه
===Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud===
; Policy or guideline rationale


گزين کن يکي لشکر همگروه برو تازيان تا به البرز کوه
; Other rationale


يکي جايگه ديد برنا شکوه يکي ميل ره تا به البرز کوه
; Statements of support


به کاري که بسيار دارد شکوه مرا رفت بايد به البرز کوه
===Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)===
; Policy or guideline rationale


قباد دلاور ببين با گروه مرا گفت رو تا به البرز کوه
; Other rationale
* Emphasizes that ''Shatt al-Arab'' is the more common name. -- ''']''' 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


کنون آمدم شادمان با گروه چنانم که گويي ز البرز کوه
; Statements of support


که ديو اندران رنج‌ها شد ستوه يکي خانه کرد اندر البرز کوه
===General discussion===
*I am posting this to the Community Portal; notifications on other appropriate media that advertise to the ''general Misplaced Pages public'' (not certain ethnic factions, given the ethnically divisive nature of this issue) are encouraged. -- ''']''' 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Actually, someone removed it from the Community Portal (that editor is, technically, correct). Instead, I filed an ]. -- ''']''' 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
*I left a notice at ] (). - ] 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
* Tariqabjotu, you have no mandate or authority to "discourage" users from posting statements of support, in such form, this poll has no validity whatsoever. Please keep in mind that you're an involved party in this dispute, and your conduct has been far from neutral, so you don't get to set rules here, doing so would suggest that you're simply abusing your position as an administrator to push a pro-Arab agenda. --] 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
**Aha, the Global Pan-Arab Conspiracy rears its head again!--] 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
**Mardavich, I'm not sure what type of angry response you're attempting to elicit from me, but you're not going to get it. Your accusations are baseless and worthy only of a sardonic reply like the one Ahwaz posted above. -- ''']''' 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
**And he, and every user, has the power and responsibility to discourage disruptive editing, in whatever form. ] <small>]</small> 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
**Tariqabjotu is just trying to make it easier for yet-uninvolved editors to express their views in this section devoted to "new opinions", without making them feel that they have to read this whole talk page first. We can always continue to argue in all other sections. - ] 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
*** As I told Tariqabjotu on his talk page, this straw poll is not a formal move request, and hence not biding. In move requests, you don't profile users based on their perceived nationalities. And if you guys (Tariqabjotu and Ev) are looking for new opinions, then why are you taking part in the straw-poll yourselves trying to persuade new users in one way or another? Do as you preach.--] 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
****I would not wish to deprive you of the opportunity of making your own case from policy and guidelines, as Tariq has done. Fortunately, I cannot do it for you, since I have seen no such reasons. ] <small>]</small> 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
**** ''Do as you preach.'' Good point. Does that mean you will stop trying to insinuate that those who disagree with you are pro-Arab or trying to emulate Arabs? Aren't your ad hominems simply attempts to deride people by picking on their "perceived nationalities"? Do as you preach, indeed.--] 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
***** I don't insinuate those who disagree with me as pro-Arab. I don't think Ev or Pmanderson are pro-Arab, they're just strongly opinionated and I respect that. However, I call it as it is. You're pro-Arab, you had a pan-Arab map and flag on your user page for months , there is no denying that. The case is different with Tariqabjotu, I am shedding light on his personal biases because he's an administrator, and he's suppose to held to a higher standard and expected to conduct himself in a way that is neutral, at least in his administrative capacity. By the way Ahwaz, I find it extremely ironic that ''you're'' preaching ''me'' about "ad hominems", your speaks for itself. --] 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
****** ''I am shedding light on his personal biases because he's an administrator, and he's suppose to held to a higher standard and expected to conduct himself in a way that is neutral, at least in his administrative capacity.'' No, you're resorting to pathetic, irrelevant attacks because you realize you have no basis for your position. -- ''']''' 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
******* Your neutrality (or lack of it) is very relevant, especially since you haven't clarified in what capacity you're involved here, an editor, or an administrator. --] 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
******** Okay; in an attempt to block Mardavich's growing ], let me actually address this: this question does not make sense. The only thing about administrators is they have a few extra tools, namely blocking (irrelevant here), page protection (I said it's option, but I never would do this myself), moving to pages with histories (irrelevant here, since any move could theoretically be reverted by anyone), normal deletion (irrelevant here), and viewing deleted histories (irrelevant here). Your major issues seem to be with a perceived notion that administrators have a status symbol that allows them to act as an authority figure. They do not, but many people love think that. If you want to be apart of that group that views adminship as a status symbol, that is your prerogative. But your misconception is your fault alone as I have not used my administrator status to explain why the ''Shatt al-Arab'' side is so far the only defensible position; instead I have used policy. This is not about me taking sides, as there is only one side to take; your side has not presented an iota of policy or guideline supporting your statement (I have already debunked the inadmissible ] piece). Instead you have resorted to distracting questions, attacks, and issues. Again, not falling for it. -- ''']''' 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
****** You are hilarious, Mardavich. I had a user box with a map of the Arab world on my user page, which said "this user believes in Arab unity" - how terrible, I must be a terrorist. Then I had a flag from the ], the revolt against Ottomans. I know some people on this talk page hate Arabs and this is the reason for their opposition to the name ]. Some time ago, one contributor to this talk page even referred to Arabs as "lizard eaters" as a way of insulting me. The modus operandi of some users is to insult and racially abuse - often in Farsi, so that English language admins can't read it - in order to provoke a reaction that leads to a block. I was foolish enough to rise to it. Now you appear to be using these same tactics against an admin by accusing him of being "pro-Arab" because he once wore dishdasha. This makes me feel vindicated.--] 10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
**** Mardavich, read Tariqabjotu's text again: we are discouraged from posting ''statements of support'', not from providing ''policy or guideline rationales'' and ''other rationales'' in favour of each option. - Best regards, ] 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


وگر کوه البرز در جوشن‌ست تو گفتي جهان سر به سر آهن‌ست
==]==
Why is this included in the first sentence? '''Arvand "Arwand" is also a Persian name for the Tigris, and even the Orontes'''--]] 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
: Because User:Pmanderson is trying to make a ] I guess...--] 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


که از کوه البرز تا برگ ني به رستم چنين گفت کاووس کي
:: Mardavich, who provided mentioning:


وگر کوه البرز در جوشنست تو گفتي يکي باره‌ي آهنست
::“ ARVAND-RUÚD name given to the river Tigris in some passages in the Mid. Pers. books and a verse in the ]. <font color=green>The use of this name to designate the </font> began in the later period and persisted after the revolution of 1978-79.”


تلي گشته چون کوه البرز جاي همي‌برد هر کس بر سوفزاي
:: A quick glimpse at a ] shows that when the name is used for a river, two out of five times it is used to designate the Tigris or the . was merely intended to warn our readers of this situation. — Was that wording the best way to mention this fact in the article ? Of course not. But then Septentrionalis wasn't trying to do a good, definitive edit. He just added an important missing warning, which then other users better acquainted with Persian literature and mythology can improve. - Best regards, ] 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


به مردي جهاندار شد با گروه قباد آنک آمد ز البرز کوه
:::The use of a ] would probably be better. -- ''']''' 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Fine; if anyone wants to tweak this, go ahead. ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Even if he has mentioned that it shows that the Iranians were in west of Alborz mountain, so you have agreed that Avestan geography covers western Iran, upto Egypt too. --] (]) 06:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::: I like . - ] 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:Iranica's article on the (in the first paragraph of "i. The Name Alborz") mentions that "Ferdowsi in the ''Shahnameh'' refers to the Alborz mountains as though they lay in India." - Best, ] (]) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::::: In current Farsi language, Arvand only refers to this river. This disambiguation will help no one and provides incorrect information. (] 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC))


Fullstop didn't answer. "Hara brazaiti" (which is the Avestan form of Alborz) has a common part with Semic languages and that is "Hara" which in both means "mountain". This similarity shows that they have not been too far. Fereydun had 3 sons, Salm, Iraj, Tur, Salm had the control of WEstern Iran, probably the geographical area of Roman empire, Iraj had Iran in center, and Tur had east, upto China. Best. --] (]) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
: <- (removing indent)
: I see... What do you think about "''In Persian literature the name ''Arvand'' can also refer to the ] and ] rivers''." ? - ] 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:: We can say "''In '''old''' Persian literature the name ''Arvand'' can also refer to the ] and ] rivers''." But I don't know how important is this information. Anyways, the Lead is not appropriate for this. Maybe if we have a etymology section it would be suitable for it. (] 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC))


:::As long as it is included; it is disquieting to have sources identifying the Arvand as something other than the subject of this article and have it not mentioned. ] <small>]</small> 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC) For that Hara, you can see ], which is "Har-Majdo" which means "mountain of Majdo" and is supposed to be the place where last war of Truth and Devil takes place. --] (]) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


===Misrepresentation of sources===
::: Well... considering the article mentioned by Mardavich, I think that would be more adequate than .
<small>The following comments were copied here from . - ] (]) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</small>


Why does the text "misrepresent the sources" in your view? --Wayiran (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::: , following Tariqabjotu's advice Septentrionalis has already moved the text from the lead to the location of ]s.


:The issue is explained at ] (). - Best, ] (]) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::: So, can we agree on "''In Middle Persian literature the name ''Arvand'' refers to the ]. It can also designate the ] river''." ? - ] 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


::I've already read that, can you please specify exactly what is your problem with the source? The source supports it very well in my view. Are you saying "Arang" was the name of another river and it is unrelated to this Shattalarab, so it should not be covered in this article? --Wayiran (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Disambiguation should help people find what the exact page that they are looking for. I don't think there are many people looking for ''Arvand'' in middle Persian literature. Therefore the disambiguation is distracting and unhelpful. I suppose an etymology section in which we can also mention the meaning of ''Shatt al-Arab''.(] 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC))


:::No, Iranica does not support that wording. Only snippets of its articles, read in isolation from the rest of the text, can be misinterpreted to say what you propose to add to our article.
::::: When an alternative meaning is found in two out of every five books that mention an "Arvand river", some sort of disambiguation is important. But I share Septentrionalis' view: as long as the information is included, it's ok for me :-) Best regards, ] 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:::In that talk page, Fullstop and I are saying two things:
==Page Move==
:::*We don't really know if the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta was any actual river at all. If it was a real river, it was one located in eastern Iran, the geographical area in which the events of the Avesta are located. So, if it was a real river, it was not the Tigris, and much less so the Shatt al-Arab.
It is clear that there is still no agreement in the title. Unfortunately, the compromise of Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) didn’t work also. Therefore, we should keep the stable old title(Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab. ) until there is a consensus.(] 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
:::*It appears that, in the Middle Ages, Persian writers identified (either by error or deliberatedly) the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta with real rivers: sometimes with the Tigris, in other ocasions with the Nile, or with the Orontes. That fact is interesting, and can be included in Misplaced Pages. But it is related to the Tigris (and the Nile, and the Orontes), not to the Shatt al-Arab; thus, it belongs in the article on the Tigris (and the other rivers).
:No, we ''should'' comply with ]; and use the actual old name, which was ]. For the time being, however, the compromise of ] is acceptable. The imposition of a name contrary to policy, to satisfy a PoV, is unacceptable. ] <small>]</small> 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Best, ] (]) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:Note that we now have a lot of double redirects. I'm hesitant, however, to go and fix them all since there's a good chance this will not be the final location of this article. -- ''']''' 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


:::<small>The preceeding comments were copied here from . - ] (]) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
:We ''should'' comply with Misplaced Pages ] and use ]; and the double title ] is ridiculously ''unstable''. - ] 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
===NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages===
] is not a suggestion or a guideline, it is a core policy. '''This waterway is disputed territory''', Misplaced Pages should remain neutral on that issue, and thus not use a title/term that would imply ownership or endorsement of either side. The ] policy is one of the five pillars of wikipedia, and overrides all the policies below it, inclduing the naming guidelines. ] 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, I agree that before any well academic research on the issue we can't consider "Arang" as an absolute actual river. Again I agree that before any academic research on it, we can't say that absolutely it was Tigris, as it had other interpretations like Nile and etc too, and again Tigris itself is an Iranian/Aryan word:
:Shatt al-Arab does not imply ownership, it is simply the name used by the English speaking world. It was used before Iraq even existed, when the disputes were between the Turks and the Persians! So, it is not POV to call it Shatt al-Arab, it is policy to use Shatt al-Arab and mention Arvand Rud as the Farsi alternative for the sake of clarity.--] 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Shatt al-Arab" does imply ownership, it literally means "Coast of the Arabs". ] is a '''core policy''' of Misplaced Pages. We '''can not''' take sides in a '''territorial dispute'''. Let me quote ] who is also an administrator: "''Much of the Iran/Iraq war was about this river and its control - hence the naming is also POV''". ] 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


در متون سومري به دجله، «ديگنه» گفته مي‌شد كه همان «دجله» عربي يا «تيگره» فارسي باستان است كه در زبان هخامنشي ثبت شده و ريشه آن «تيگر» به معني تند است كه در زبان يوناني هم «تيگريس» همان دجله است. زبانشناسان واژه «ديگنه» را به هيچ‌وجه سومري نمي‌دانند، پس در نظر سومرشناسان اين رود تاكنون بدون ريشه مشخص بوده است اما در زبان آريايي معني دارد. «تيگره» در زبان آريايي به معني تند است. واژه‌هاي تيغ و تيز هم از همين ريشه‌اند. در زبان انگليسي هم «TIGER» به معني حيوان تندپا يا ببر از همين ريشه است.
: The ] also implies "ownership". Should your interpretation of policy apply to this article as well? Shatt al-Arab is named as such because Arabs populate both banks of the waterway, not because there is a territorial dispute. The naming is quite separate from territorial disputes. The Turks also fought over it and they are not Arabs.--] 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::And that is one reason the French wikipedia, quite properly, uses ]. ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
: Refdoc made this statement nearly three years ago, so he or she has not seen the discussion over the title of this article and the issue of policy over naming was raised by a number of people here (including admins). Changes should be made after this RfC is over, not based on what was said three years ago.--] 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You're drawing a lot of false comparisons on this talk page. The English Channel is the part of the Atlantic Ocean, not a subject of territorial dispute between England and France. Likewise, Nuremberg is the French '''spelling''' of '''the same name''' Nürnberg. Iran is not an Arab country, "Shatt al-Arab" implies ownership by Arabs which Iran disputes. ] takes precedence here since we can not (and should not attempt to) take sides in territorial disputes. ] 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::] was under French control as recently as 1814; that is irrelevant to our naming policy. (Whether the difference is a difference of "spelling" or of "name" is also irrelevant; the great Gdanzig dispute, which gave rise to most of our present policy, is a difference of spelling, but it applies equally to Pressburg/] and Leningrad/], which are not. ) ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:''"Shatt al-Arab" implies ownership by Arabs which Iran disputes'' - no it doesn't. It is descriptive, but not a territorial claim. Arabs populated both the Iraqi and Iranian banks of the Shatt al-Arab for centuries, long before any wars were fought over it. Moreover, Arvand is almost never used in the English language. Look at Britannica, it says Shatt al-Arab. Policy states that the most common name in the English language should be used, not the "correct" or "historical" name. The wars fought over the Shatt al-Arab are not about the name of the waterway, nor does the name Shatt al-Arab refute Iran's legal claims over half the waterway. It is no different from the English Channel and La Manche, which has seen more territorial disputes than the Shatt al-Arab.--] 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:Even the Iranian media (including the government's official news agencies) sometimes refer to Shatt al-Arab in the English language: , , ,, . If they don't think it is controversial to use Shatt al-Arab, then why do you?--] 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That was refuted by other editors earlier, those appear to be items from AFP, AP and Reuters that were picked up by the Iranian press. Arvand Rud is the Iranian name for long-disputed waterway. '''The Iran-Iraq war was fought over this river -''' '''the naming ''is'' a part of the dispute - whether we like it or not'''. ] 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:One editor pointed out that a Press TV article I linked to was republished, but has not been able to claim that the others were republished articles. No-one has said these articles were AFP, AP and Reuters. If they were, then doesn't it prove the point that Shatt al-Arab - not Arvand - is the commonly used name by the English-language media? The naming is not part of the territorial dispute as the wars over Shatt al-Arab were originally fought between the Ottomans (not Arabs) and Persians and later resurrected by Saddam Hussein. Naming in the English language is completely irrelevant to the territorial disputes.--] 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a disputed waterway, co-owned by two nations, it is not an international body of water. Furthermore, Iranians at one point lived on both banks of the river, but they were either Arabized or deported (infact, many Iraqi's are of Iranic descent, and many cities of Iraq were founded by the Parthians and Sassanid, but re-named after the Arab conquests). I dont see what your comment about Arabs living on both banks has to do with anything. Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of other encyclopaedias, but simply uses other encyclopaedia's at times as sources or references. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages articles should be identical to other encyclopaedia articles. This waterway has been disputed for hundreds of years, even with the Ottomans. Misplaced Pages NPOV says that both sides should be expressed.] 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:I think the main issue is Misplaced Pages's Naming Policy, which states that the most common name used in the English language should be used in Misplaced Pages. No-one is saying that Arvand should not be mentioned in the article as the alternative Farsi name. The name Shatt al-Arab is not a "point of view". My point to Alexander is that ] reflects the ethnic group that populates either side of the waterway rather than the territorial claims that originated from the time of the Ottoman Empire (which was Turkish, not Arab). The name Shatt al-Arab predates pan-Arab ideologies, so no-one can claim the name is politically influenced as they have done with the Gulf. If it is the case that both NPOV and Naming rules clash in this instance, then Misplaced Pages needs to provide clarity so that this matter is settled. I believe that as the name is not a POV, the most common name in the English language should prevail. As demonstrated here, the most common name is Shatt al-Arab.--] 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
] and naming guidelines do clash in this instance, and NPOV should take precedence as it's a core policy and one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. ] 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
: That is a moot issue. If NPOV supercedes naming policies, then we have to radically change many articles, starting with ], which is known among Arabs as the Arabian Gulf. The chief justification for retaining the title ] is that it is the most commonly used name in the English language. However, in some Arab countries, it is prohibited to use this name and Arabian Gulf is preferred. There are also territorial disputes in the Gulf region, notably Abu Musa. If you want to argue this point, then it could cause problems for policy elsewhere. Additionally, this territorial dispute was begun with the Turks, who would hardly fight to keep the region Arab!--] 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, you keep drawing false comparisons on this talk page. Persian Gulf is an international body of water. This waterway, however, is a territory of Iran and Iraq, and subject of a dispute. Abu Musa is irrelevant to this debate, while the island is a subject of a territorial dispute between Iran and UAE, both sides use the same name for that territory. ] 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
: If you have an opinion, then why don't you participate in the ], stating your viewpoint on the name of the article. If you want to defend the double name - either "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" or "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" - then please add your comments there.--] 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I found the reasonings of AlexanderPar the most logical one up to now,. The name of that shared waterway is part of a century-long territorial dispute (of course not a major part, but still it is an important part of it), it is totally different to english channel. There had been treaties (e.g. ]) and the longest conventional war of last century for this waterway which cost about 1 million life. Misplaced Pages should not take side in such territorial disputes. --] 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is not taking sides; we are communicating with our (English-speaking) readership. When Iran crossed the estuary, in the last war, it was described, in English, as "controlling the Shatt al-Arab"; if it secures a treaty in its favor in the next war, it will be described as ] (and we will have an article on it, under that title). We adhere to English usage ''precisely'' so we ''don't'' have decide who has claims, whose claims should prevail, and whose war dead trump whose. As above, if war dead were arguments here, we would move ] to ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:See my response to Arash under ]. -- ''']''' 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AlexanderPar on this issue. This is not just a simple case, and the disputes and wars which was fought over this river has to be taken into consideration. Hence core policy of NPOV has to be taken into consideration when deciding the title.--]] 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:Please read the policies and guidelines cited under ] above. These are ''intended'' for difficult situations, which they resolve by declating that our names are what the English language uses. Therefore we use both ] and ] - but ], because Rnglish does. ] <small>]</small> 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Rough Translation:
===WP:NPOV does not require double titles===
In Sumerian texts, Tigris was called as "Digne" that is same as Arabic "Dejle" or "Tigre" of Old-Persian. Phonologists don't consider "Digne" as a Sumerian word at all, So in the view of Sumerologists this river has remained without any specific root up to now, but it has a meaning in Aryan language. "Tigre" in Aryan language means "swift". words "Tigh" and "Tiz" are also from the same root. Also in English language, "Tiger" with the meaning of a fast animal or tiger is from the same root.


Source: , Also you can read other books of Jahanshah Derakhshani, whcih are having vast amount of material regarding the roots of Aryan civilization in Middle east and West Asia.
As Ahwaz explained, our ] policy does not apply in the manner AlexanderPar & Azerbaijani are presenting it. Yes, it requires us not to take sides when describing a subject or a controversy, but that "neutral" description should still be done using the English language. It so happens that "Shatt al-Arab" is the English-language name of this river; so we should neutrally describe whatever controvery is about it, but naming it in English: "Shatt al-Arab".


But the important thing is that the sentence in article says "WHICH ''TENDS TO'' BE IDENTIFIED WITH ARVAND", It is clear that it is not saying absolutely Avestan Arang, refers to Tigris, but it says it tends to be identified with. --] (]) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, read the ] and ] policies again: at no time does WP:NPOV advocate the use of double titles "to remain neutral", nor do WP:NC and its associated guidelines restrict the use of ''common English usage'' in the cases of territorial disputes citing NPOV concerns.


:Yes, Wayiran, that is the sentence we all read in Iranica's article on the . It says that in the works of Persian writers from the Middle Ages the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta ''tends to'' be identified with the Tigris, as is the case in the ''Zatspram'' (3.22), the ''Dadistan-i Denig'' (92.2) or the Pahlavi ''Vendidad'' (1.19). In other ocasions, it is identified with the Nile, as in the ''Bundahishn'' (XI A).
In fact, Misplaced Pages articles on disputed regions, zones, areas, etc., don't use double names, but refer to the disputed region by the name commonly used in the English language. Take a look at our : articles there use just one name, the one commonly used in English, except for those few exceptions in which that ''common English usage'' has not been possible to determine yet (mainly, because of the obscure nature of the disputed region).


:As I already told you (in the comment copied above), these facts are interesting, and can be included in Misplaced Pages. But they relate to the Tigris and the Nile, not to the Shatt al-Arab. They do not belong in this article. - Best, ] (]) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In other words: if Refdoc's, AlexanderPar's & Azerbaijani's interpretation of WP:NPOV were correct, then Misplaced Pages would be littered with double titles. The fact that the opposite is the case proves that the interpretation of WP:NPOV endorsed by common Misplaced Pages practice does not require double naming.


::So I will add a new section as Etymology in next few days. --] (]) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
After all, this is not the United Nations Misplaced Pages, but the English-language one. We aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles; but we also aim to write them in English. - Best regards, ] 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


== presitful ==
:Additionally, the area was under British control/influence for many years, which is why Shatt al-Arab came into popular use in the English language. So, it is quite different from the Chinese/Japanese disputes over islands where English speakers have not established a name.--] 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I just did a web search for "presitful". Every hit seems to be copied from this article, except a reference to "vice presitful". Clearly some word was mangled, but I find nothing like it in the referenced article (]). Can someone guess what word(s) were meant? ''']]''' 20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
== Proof that "Shatt al-Arab" is not POV ==
::I think the term meant is ''thalweg'' or deep river line. It does appear that somebody has mangled the phrase. --] (]) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I changed this from presitful principle to thalweg principle. While I don't know what the misspelled "presitful" was meant to be, the description in the rest of the original sentence match that of the thalweg principle. I also removed the reference to the Danube river, since that article did not mention this principle or anything related to borderlines in rivers. ] (]) 05:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


== greater Iran ==
I have managed to get hold of a copy of "The Shatt al-Arab Boundary Question: A Legal Reappraisal" by , Oxford University Press, 1988.


arvand rud is the real name of this river.this is an old name. shat al-arab is a false name and all know this. please change the subject of this article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Its appendices include all the treaties signed by Persia/Iran on its boundaries with Ottoman Empire/Iraq. All the treaties use the term Shatt al-Arab, not Arvand Rud.


== Jokes aren't acceptable ==
* The Second Treaty of Erzeroum, 31 May 1847 (written in French): ''Outre cela, les navires Persans auront le droit de naviguer en pleine liberté sur le Schatt-ul-Arab ...''
Shat all Arabs <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== External links modified ==
* Protocol Signed at Constantinople, 17 November 1913 (written in English): ''The following shall belong to Persian: (1) the island of Muhalla and the two islands situate between the latter and the left bank of the Shatt al-Arab (Persian bank of Abadan) ...''


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* Boundary Treaty Between the Kingdom of Irak and the Empire of Iran. Signed at Tehran, 4 July 1937 (written in English): ''The provisions hereinafter following shall apply to the Shatt-el-Arab from the point at which the land frontier of the two States enters the said river to the high seas ...''


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Treaty Concerning the State Frontier and Neighbourly Relations between Iraq and Iran Signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975 (written in English): ''The High Contracting Parties confirm that the State frontier in the Shatt al'Arab ...''
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808213517/http://www.sajed.ir/en/content/view/31/201/ to http://www.sajed.ir/en/content/view/31/201/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808213517/http://www.sajed.ir/en/content/view/31/201/ to http://www.sajed.ir/en/content/view/31/201/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
* Protocol Concerning the Delimitation of the River Frontier between Iran and Iraq, Baghdad, 13 June 1975 (written in English): ''The frontier line in the Shatt al'Arab shall follow the thalweg ...''


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
All the treaties the Persian/Iranian governments have signed on the Shatt al-Arab use the Arabic name. Consequently, the naming of the Shatt al-Arab is not part of the dispute and as such the Arabic name - which has been adopted into the English language - is not a POV issue for Misplaced Pages.--] 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
** That's no proof, sir! Your quotations are unverifiable, and from a secondary source. You don't have the original documents or any proof of what language they were originally written in , or that which side drafted them. But this is all besides the point - all these treaties were drafted before the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988, the start of the main conflict over this waterway which resulted in a devastating war. My expertise is international law, I assure you Iran does not recognize the name "Shatt al-Arab". If you insist otherwise, I will contact the Permanent Mission Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran to the United Nations, and ask them for a clarification of Iran's position. That would once and for all settle the question of whether "Shatt al-Arab" is POV or not. ] 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::A treaty or protocol signed by two governments is accepted by both governments. That's the point of a treaty. Of course I don't have the originals, but the reprinting of these documents in a book published by Oxford University Press should reassure you that they clearly refer to the Shatt al-Arab (some of the treaties signed by Persia were in French and used the French transliteration of Shatt al-Arab). The 1975 Treaty is the treaty that currently governs the delineation of the border in the Shatt al-Arab. The fact that they were drafted Here is an academic law journal article on the Shatt al-Arab, which shows that the treaties signed by Iran use the Arabic name. As for verifiability, the author of the book is a leading scholar on international boundaries and an advisor to the UN and several governments on maritime borders. Misplaced Pages is required to use secondary sources such as academic journals and books. It is now up to you to show that the name "Arvand Rud" has equal prominance in treaties, academic journals, the media, etc.--] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


== Formation? ==
:::: It is up to you to verify your claim that the treaties were originally written in French or English, that's entirely your assertion. The 1975 treaty governs the delineation of the border of this geographical entity, not the name of the entity. There is no discussion of the naming of the entity in any of the the treaties, your speculations or assertions don't count as fact. Do you want me to contact the Permanent Mission Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran to the United Nations, and ask them for a clarification of Iran's position on the name of this entity? (A 'yes or no' answer, please.) ] 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


When and how did this form? ] (]) 00:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::''It is up to you to verify your claim that the treaties were originally written in French or English'' French was the language of international diplomacy until the Treaty of Versailles, when US President Wilson insisted that English should be used in diplomacy. The 1847 Treaty between Persia and the Ottoman Empire was in Diplomatic French, subsequent treaties were in English. See ]. The fact that the treaties refer only to Shatt al-Arab indicates that Shatt al-Arab is the name recognised in treaties. UN documents also refer to Shatt al-Arab. The name is not something Iranians are particularly bothered about, unlike the name of the Gulf which always arouses passion. It is up to you to show otherwise using secondary sources, which is the usual method employed by Misplaced Pages. Primary sources can only be used if they are verifiable (as is the case with treaties or constitutions), but emails from an office assistant at the Iranian Mission to the UN is unlikely to be verifiable and could count as original research. If you are confident that the name of the Shatt al-Arab is a part of the dispute between Iran and Iraq then you should not have any problem finding verifiable sources to support your claim. So far, you have failed to produce any source.--] 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: There is absolutely no discussion of the naming of this entity in any of those treaties. Your assertion that the "UN documents use Shatt al-Arab" is also false, I found 22 documents on the United Nations' website that use the term "Arvand" in English or French. In order to settle this question, I will contact the Permanent Mission Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran to the United Nations on Monday, and ask them to issue a clarification of Iran's position on the name of this entity. As for verifiability, I'll ask them to send a carbon copy of their official response to Wikimedia Foundation, or post the correspondence on their official website, or somehow make it verifiable. ] 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Regardless of the local name the Iranians give the Shatt al-Arab, the fact is that Shatt al-Arab is the commonly used name in the English language and this is what should be used. There is no discussion over the naming of the Shatt al-Arab because it has never been a controversial issue. You are the one trying to claim the name is a POV issue, while the Iranians are quite happy to sign treaties that clearly use the name Shatt al-Arab because that is its name in the English language, the lingua franca of international diplomacy.--] 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: If you say Iran has no problem with the name Shatt al-Arab in the English language, and that it's not a controversial or POV issue, then what are you afraid of Ahwaz? Let the man conduct his inquiry from the Iranian embassy. --] 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: I'm not afraid. I think there are easier and better ways of proving there is controversy. As it is, I don't think a note from someone working in a diplomatic mission - who could be anyone - is verifiable. I don't think we should hang around waiting for a response as it is likely that the mission will not respond as it has more important things to do than answering queries about the name of a river.--] 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:24, 8 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shatt al-Arab article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIran Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRivers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconGeology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLimnology and Oceanography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

Avesta

I found it somewhere:

در اوستا اگرچه از نام خلیج فارس بطور صریح نام برده نشده اما در مهر یشت در مبحث مهر یا میترا اشاره‌ای نیز به اروندرود شده‌است که در آن دوره «ارونگ» گفته می‌شده‌است و چنین آمده:

«دارنده دشت‌های فراخ» و «اسب‌های تیزرو» که از سخن راستین آگاه است و پهلوانی است خوش اندام و نبرد آزما، دارای هزار گوش و هزار چشم و هزار چستی و چالاکی یاد شده، کسی است که جنگ و پیروزی با اوست، هرگز نمی‌خسبد، هرگز فریب نمی‌خورد، اگر کسی با او پیمان شکند خواه در شرق هندوستان باشد یا بر دهنه شط ارنگ، از ناوک او گریز ندارد، او نخستین ایزد معنوی است که پیش از طلوع خورشید فنا ناپذیر تیز اسب بر بالای کوه هرا بر می‌آید و از آن جایگاه بلند سراسر منزلگاه‌های آریایی را می‌نگرد.

It says that in Avesta in Mihr yasht it's name has been mentioned. But I checked mihr yasht, and It was not there. Can someone recheck it, as I'm sure it is there in Avesta. --Wayiran (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wayiran, you should have looked for Raηhā, or simply Rangha (which is the equivalent of Arang); if you had done so, you would have found the following:
XXVII
104. 'We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures, .... sleepless, and ever awake; 'Whose long arms, strong with Mithra-strength, encompass what he seizes in the easternmost river and what he beats with the westernmost river, what is by the Sanaka of the Rangha and what is by the boundary of the earth.
Please note the reference to both "Rangha" and "the westernmost river". Kind regards, --BF 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC).


On 15 March 2009 Wayiran added to the article the following unqualified assertion: Also "Arang", the other form of "Arvand", has been mentioned in Avesta. The accompanying reference: Avesta, Mihr yasht, section 27, paragraph 104. (the text cited by BF above).

It has two problems: it doesn't appear to be correct, and as currently presented it is a direct interpretation of a very complex primary source (thus infringing our no original research policy, which clearly states that ny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.).

Iranica's article on the Arvand-Ruud clearly asserts that no river "Arvand" is mentioned in the Avesta (or in the Bundahishn). As for the identification of the Rangha river of the Avesta (described in Iranica's article on the Arang as "primarily mythical") with the Arvand, the article on the Arvand-Ruud points either to:

  • a confusion between Arang and Arvand, originated from the fact that in Pahlavi both names differ in a single stroke.
  • a posterior attempt to identify the Rangha/Arang of the Avesta with something concrete (a Persian horror vacui of sorts).

This is hardly surprising, considering that -as Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions- "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border."

In short, no Arvand or Shatt al-Arab in the Avesta. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As per edit summary: your message here is ignored because 1. you do not know what you are talking about. 2. the edit we have made says: Arang is old Iranian and tends to be identified with Arvand (well-sourced). Our sentence does not say Arang is Arvand. Is that clear? 3. Now the source to the previous sentence in the article says why Arvand is Tigris. Is that clear too? In short, here only one name has historical value.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No Xashaiar, it is not clear.
2. The sentence you added ("Even much older is the name "Arang" as mentioned in Avesta which tends to be identified with the river Arvand.") is not particularly clear, is misleading -making a broad unqualified affirmation that can be interpreted in many different manners- and is most definitely not well-sourced, as it cherry-picks one particular fragment of a sentence from Iranica's article on the Arang ignoring the rest of the text & the other articles mentioned in my post above.
3. No, it is not clear. Would you please elaborate ?
And yes, I can appreciate that edits to these articles do not aim at providing our readers with mere information, but at advocating that the Farsi name is the only one with "historical value", and the one everyone should use. That much is clear. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
1. You gave free proof of my first claim that "you do not know what you are talking about"! 2. There is one thing called "clicking". Click on the link to Avesta to see the reason to include words: "OLDER" and "EVEN". These are also WP:V. 3. The source says exactly what I have added. Therefore WP:RS and WP:V. 4. According to[REDACTED] rules this can be included. Very useful, related, and historical piece of information (unlike obverse of, certain banknotes: which should give an answer to your last accusation: comparing to these edits, it is clear what is my agenda and yours: "finding out the relevance of adding "Daf is depicted on obverse of certain banknote" to "History of Daf" is called "quiz of the year". Other editors may be able to answer this quiz.).--Xashaiar (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ev is correct. Both with respect to the fact that the EIr is being misinterpreted, and with respect to the fact that the Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia). Indeed, it would seem that BF already knew that before he began soapboxing.
I would like to commend Ev's infinite patience in dealing with the nationalists. It is thanks to dedicated people like him that Misplaced Pages is not a complete pile of crap. Those interested in knowing the 9th-11th century rationale for identifying a mythological river with variously the Tigris or the Nile (or something else) can drop me a line at my talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Ev (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As usual you are not even wrong. 1. EIr is RS. 2. It states explicitly Arang... tends to be identified with the river Arvand (wasn't folk etymology your only available reasoning?). If one respected scholar states a possible identification, then why it should not be included? 3. Thanks to myself that do not allow creation of fictional dead links, this[REDACTED] will become a better place. 4. You call me nationalist, isn't it better than being homeless?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar, could you please try to stay on-topic.
2a. A sentence snippet isolated from its context does not convey a text's meaning. You should know this.
2b. If a respected scholar mentions a possible identification, that fact can usually be included; but in a clear manner and providing the proper context. We could mention that "Scholar John Doe considers that X could be identified with Y , and others agree/disagree ". In this specific case, such details would be better presented in a separate paragraph.
As I mentioned in an edit summary, you can present the sources and propose the wording here, at this talk page, and we will all see if the paragraph is sound & merits inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
again I have to explain the most obvious argument: 1. The article states what I wrote. And since I made it Italic (could use double quote instead) to mean that "it tends...". 2. You and the previous editor do not stick to the sources you are quoting: the question of identification of Avesta geography is not at all clear. (removing fictional stories, they are clear. But fictional books are produced in mass.) Stick to it. Now this means there is no definitive (that is yes or no) answer to the question of identification of Arang/Arvand?" You are pushing for your POV, My POV is different. 3. I do not see any problem with that quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xashaiar (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving on ...
The pre-"later Pahlavi period" applications of the name 'Arvand' -- i.e. the real or putative references to the Tigris -- belong in the article on the Tigris. A statement that could belong here might read ...
"In Iran, the Shatt al-Arab came to be known as the 'Arvand' during the later Pahlavi period. Prior to that time, the Shatt al-Arab was known as the ________, and the name 'Arvand' typically referred to the Tigris. Although the Tigris now flows into the Shatt al-Arab, it seems to have previously flowed into the Shatt al-Hayy."
Or something to that effect. Whatcha think? -- Fullstop (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No way. I would recommend something similar to what I said (maybe rewording but follows) something that refers to Arang but mentions "tend" (or "corruption" as said in pp. 159-161). That is Arang is really what existed in "Old Iran" (Ok, we don't know for sure what Arang is called now and not vise versa.)--Xashaiar (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be the most sensible approach, Fullstop. After the paragraph we can add a simple "(see also Tigris#Etymology)", for clarity & to keep everybody happy. :-) I will see what I can find about what name Iranians used for this waterway before the arrival of Arvandism. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Avestan geography

Fullstop: "Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia)" , on which basis are you saying this? --Wayiran (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran that thing is the best example of selective quote to push certain WP:POV. 1. Using the quote from EIr to claim that "Arang is not Arvand" is OR and does not belong to wikipedia. 2. Let us look at evidence for the claim (Avesta knows nothing...) which is promoted by some scholars: At the moment there are some evidences that: the homeland of Avestan language is western Iran. (here in encoclopaedia 1 which happens to be from the same source as that claim). So why not using this? I think definitive answer to the question of geographical identification of places mentioned in Avesta (whether Western Iranian or Eastern Iranian) does not exist. What is not understood by people who revert more than they click is: The word arvand is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang". I do not understand why this can not be mentioned in article.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So Wayiran I support you change though a banknote is missing to satisfy those whose only sources are banknotes.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar, Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions that, with the exception of an important study from 1921, there's a general agreement among Iranian scholars that the events of the Avesta should be located in eastern Iran. – But you choose to ignore the existence of any scholarly consensus, and emphasize instead the exception that suits your personal world view. Nice. - Ev (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Read my comment once more. Look at the underlined and bold words. After understanding, then we discuss more.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the same source (Iranica's article on Avestan geography) mentions a scholarly consensus and an exception from 1921. You like the exception.

The word arvand is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang" ? According to whom ? And why would that matter to the article on the Shatt al-Arab ? - Ev (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, just for starters, and as already commented above, Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions that "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border." Are Western Iran or Mesopotamia located on the eastern Iranian plateau or on the Indo-Iranian border ? - Best, Ev (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Starter!? I guess Iranica has generalized it by saying so. But the eastern Iran is only one of the candidates for Geographical position of ancient Iranian people and Avestan geographical locations and as it is unrelated to this article I won't go into details, but I suggest you to consider Chichast lake which is in Northwest of Iran and is well mentioned in Avesta and then consider the "hara bazaiti" which is the Avestan render of "Alborz" mountain in north of Tehran, and in addition to this, you can read this article. BTW eight Kassite kings of Babylon had the title of Zoroaster and other things which brings the idea of considering the Babylon equivalent to some Avestan geographical places. --Wayiran (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What follows are the basics. Some crucial points first:
#A1 The Avesta does not mention places in Western Iran. Forget anything to the contrary. Its false.
#A2 The Avesta is a collection of religious compositions, not a treatise on geography.
#A3. The Avestan compositions are younger than the concepts expressed within them.
#B1 The Pahlavi books were written in Western Iran. They are accordingly from the Western Iranian perspective.
#B2 Lots and people, from all over Iran, identified "holy names" with places in their vicinity.
  • The Avesta's texts contain memories of very ancient times, stories told for hundreds of years before someone decided to compose a song (or whatever), which then eventually became an Avestan hymn (or whatever). All those "names" from ancient times do not necessarily correspond to any real places. Some of those names do correspond to real places, and those are all in Eastern Iran. Like sughd for Sogdiana.
    And just because a certain word appears in the Avsta does not mean that that word is also a proper name. For example, the Avestan word for "swift" is aruuand, which is just an ordinary adjective. Not a name!
  • When the Pahlavi books (which means 9th-12th century Zoroastrian texts) were being written, the authors applied it to their idea of the "world". Which is not the same as the "world" of the Avesta, and is not the same as the "world" of 2,000 BC.
    So, some "holy names" got "transported". Not only to Western Iran, but all the way to the Mediterranean, and all the way to India.
    In fact, even real places got "transported". For example (IIRC), sughd (Sogdiana) was identified with Syria.
  • The Pahlavi books were written by educated people (priests)! So, just imagine what the normal people did. Well, there is not only one Alborz, or one "Chichast lake". There are multiple Alborzes, and multiple "Chichast lake". For example, the Shahnameh puts "Alborz" waaaaaaay east. Yet other people identified "Alborz" with Mount Ararat. And the "Chichast lake" in Sistan -- although in the East -- does not necessarily correspond to any Avestan name either.
Hopefully, you now understand that lots and lots of people identified lots of "holy names" with lots and lots of different places. But only very few Avestan place names actually correspond to real places. And even when "holy names" do correspond to real places, those names were also given to other places.
Hopefully, you now understand that "eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border" is perfectly correct, and perfectly precise. It is not a "generalization".
In any case, the Tigris is not the Shatt al Arab. If you want to write about the MP identification of "Arvand" with the Tigris (or the Nile), then go to those articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you. I don't have time to discuss, and this discussion page is not the place to discuss whether Avestan geography refers to eastern Iran or western Iran. The fact is that it covers both. You should read the famous book of Dr. Jahanshah Derakhshani regarding this issue, and I can't type all of it over here. It has been well discussed there. Besides that, traditional history due to it's myths is not necessarily considered as a mythological issue, but the history can be taken out from it. Today characters like Solomon are considered as historical characters, whereas he has only been mentioned in Bible, and not in any other historical source. Hopefuuuuuuuuuuly you accepted some of my points. --Wayiran (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, I hope you understand that your disagreement and statements do not change what our sources tell us; namely, the existence of a general academic consensus on the issue. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, where has Ferdowsi said about Alborz in east??

These are all the beyts in which Ferdowsi has used "Alborz":

برم خوب رخ را به البرز کوه شوم ناپديد از ميان گروه

ز البرز کوه اندر آمد به دشت چو بگذشت ازان بر فريدون دو هشت

برانگيخت ما را ز البرز کوه که يزدان پاک از ميان گروه

که بودش بدانجا کنام و گروه ببردش دمان تا به البرز کوه

به البرز کوه اندر آن زشت جاي برفتم به فرمان گيهان خداي

چو باز آوريدم ز البرز کوه به پيمان چنين رفت پيش گروه

بران کوه البرز بردن گروه وزان جا کشيدن سوي زاوه کوه

گزين کن يکي لشکر همگروه برو تازيان تا به البرز کوه

يکي جايگه ديد برنا شکوه يکي ميل ره تا به البرز کوه

به کاري که بسيار دارد شکوه مرا رفت بايد به البرز کوه

قباد دلاور ببين با گروه مرا گفت رو تا به البرز کوه

کنون آمدم شادمان با گروه چنانم که گويي ز البرز کوه

که ديو اندران رنج‌ها شد ستوه يکي خانه کرد اندر البرز کوه

وگر کوه البرز در جوشن‌ست تو گفتي جهان سر به سر آهن‌ست

که از کوه البرز تا برگ ني به رستم چنين گفت کاووس کي

وگر کوه البرز در جوشنست تو گفتي يکي باره‌ي آهنست

تلي گشته چون کوه البرز جاي همي‌برد هر کس بر سوفزاي

به مردي جهاندار شد با گروه قباد آنک آمد ز البرز کوه

Even if he has mentioned that it shows that the Iranians were in west of Alborz mountain, so you have agreed that Avestan geography covers western Iran, upto Egypt too. --Wayiran (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranica's article on the Alborz (in the first paragraph of "i. The Name Alborz") mentions that "Ferdowsi in the Shahnameh refers to the Alborz mountains as though they lay in India." - Best, Ev (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop didn't answer. "Hara brazaiti" (which is the Avestan form of Alborz) has a common part with Semic languages and that is "Hara" which in both means "mountain". This similarity shows that they have not been too far. Fereydun had 3 sons, Salm, Iraj, Tur, Salm had the control of WEstern Iran, probably the geographical area of Roman empire, Iraj had Iran in center, and Tur had east, upto China. Best. --Wayiran (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For that Hara, you can see Armageddon, which is "Har-Majdo" which means "mountain of Majdo" and is supposed to be the place where last war of Truth and Devil takes place. --Wayiran (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

The following comments were copied here from Wayiran's talk page. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the text "misrepresent the sources" in your view? --Wayiran (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is explained at Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Avesta (permanent link). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already read that, can you please specify exactly what is your problem with the source? The source supports it very well in my view. Are you saying "Arang" was the name of another river and it is unrelated to this Shattalarab, so it should not be covered in this article? --Wayiran (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Iranica does not support that wording. Only snippets of its articles, read in isolation from the rest of the text, can be misinterpreted to say what you propose to add to our article.
In that talk page, Fullstop and I are saying two things:
  • We don't really know if the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta was any actual river at all. If it was a real river, it was one located in eastern Iran, the geographical area in which the events of the Avesta are located. So, if it was a real river, it was not the Tigris, and much less so the Shatt al-Arab.
  • It appears that, in the Middle Ages, Persian writers identified (either by error or deliberatedly) the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta with real rivers: sometimes with the Tigris, in other ocasions with the Nile, or with the Orontes. That fact is interesting, and can be included in Misplaced Pages. But it is related to the Tigris (and the Nile, and the Orontes), not to the Shatt al-Arab; thus, it belongs in the article on the Tigris (and the other rivers).
Best, Ev (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The preceeding comments were copied here from Wayiran's talk page. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that before any well academic research on the issue we can't consider "Arang" as an absolute actual river. Again I agree that before any academic research on it, we can't say that absolutely it was Tigris, as it had other interpretations like Nile and etc too, and again Tigris itself is an Iranian/Aryan word:

در متون سومري به دجله، «ديگنه» گفته مي‌شد كه همان «دجله» عربي يا «تيگره» فارسي باستان است كه در زبان هخامنشي ثبت شده و ريشه آن «تيگر» به معني تند است كه در زبان يوناني هم «تيگريس» همان دجله است. زبانشناسان واژه «ديگنه» را به هيچ‌وجه سومري نمي‌دانند، پس در نظر سومرشناسان اين رود تاكنون بدون ريشه مشخص بوده است اما در زبان آريايي معني دارد. «تيگره» در زبان آريايي به معني تند است. واژه‌هاي تيغ و تيز هم از همين ريشه‌اند. در زبان انگليسي هم «TIGER» به معني حيوان تندپا يا ببر از همين ريشه است.

Rough Translation: In Sumerian texts, Tigris was called as "Digne" that is same as Arabic "Dejle" or "Tigre" of Old-Persian. Phonologists don't consider "Digne" as a Sumerian word at all, So in the view of Sumerologists this river has remained without any specific root up to now, but it has a meaning in Aryan language. "Tigre" in Aryan language means "swift". words "Tigh" and "Tiz" are also from the same root. Also in English language, "Tiger" with the meaning of a fast animal or tiger is from the same root.

Source: here, Also you can read other books of Jahanshah Derakhshani, whcih are having vast amount of material regarding the roots of Aryan civilization in Middle east and West Asia.

But the important thing is that the sentence in article says "WHICH TENDS TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH ARVAND", It is clear that it is not saying absolutely Avestan Arang, refers to Tigris, but it says it tends to be identified with. --Wayiran (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wayiran, that is the sentence we all read in Iranica's article on the Arang. It says that in the works of Persian writers from the Middle Ages the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta tends to be identified with the Tigris, as is the case in the Zatspram (3.22), the Dadistan-i Denig (92.2) or the Pahlavi Vendidad (1.19). In other ocasions, it is identified with the Nile, as in the Bundahishn (XI A).
As I already told you (in the comment copied above), these facts are interesting, and can be included in Misplaced Pages. But they relate to the Tigris and the Nile, not to the Shatt al-Arab. They do not belong in this article. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So I will add a new section as Etymology in next few days. --Wayiran (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

presitful

I just did a web search for "presitful". Every hit seems to be copied from this article, except a reference to "vice presitful". Clearly some word was mangled, but I find nothing like it in the referenced article (Danube River). Can someone guess what word(s) were meant?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the term meant is thalweg or deep river line. It does appear that somebody has mangled the phrase. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed this from presitful principle to thalweg principle. While I don't know what the misspelled "presitful" was meant to be, the description in the rest of the original sentence match that of the thalweg principle. I also removed the reference to the Danube river, since that article did not mention this principle or anything related to borderlines in rivers. Conscientiouspirate (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

greater Iran

arvand rud is the real name of this river.this is an old name. shat al-arab is a false name and all know this. please change the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.209.113 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aren't acceptable

Shat all Arabs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:D400:F1C7:FBA2:7C6F:1F05 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shatt al-Arab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Formation?

When and how did this form? Sarsath3 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Shatt al-Arab: Difference between revisions Add topic