Talk:Shatt al-Arab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shatt al-Arab article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Iran Shatt al-Arab is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Iraq Shatt al-Arab is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] English Vs Non-English terms...

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

The purpose is to determine which is most commonly used by English speakers. That is Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, this talk page has not shown a consensus that abides by Wikipedia 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 Nuremburg for the German city of Nürnberg. No German Wikipedians have objected to English Wikipedia'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?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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 "algebra" or "Saladin". (In fact, please note that both of these articles are titled per English usage, in accordance with WP:NCGN.) Askari Mark (Talk) 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). -- ChrisO 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.--Alborz Fallah 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Same problem about Imia/Kardakand the result was to use both of them . No one used "test results" ! (The test results are not equal , but the name is both )--Alborz Fallah 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahwaz, read your own comments on "Persian Gulf" topic again, where you said no one cares what English speaking people call the gulf,instead it's what arabic people choose to call it, it seems you're too dogmatic to your own ethnicity, that even caused you to make contradictory comments just to justify your own purpose. just be rational and tolerant. 195.146.47.199 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 WP:Straw polls read it, since Wikipedia, not being a democracy, uses them in a non-voting way. As WP:Straw poll 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 Wikipedia is not a democracy has to say about straw polls.) The reason Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia’s WP:NC policy directs editors considering proper names to use for places to refer to WP:PLACES and WP:NCGN. WP:PLACES 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.” WP:NCGN 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 evidence provided in the recent poll, “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 Gdansk vs. Danzig or Nuremberg vs. Nürnberg, because in each of these cases, both names have considerable currency and familiarity among English-speakers. It is instead the same as Oder River vs. Odra River; 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 subpage; 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. Askari Mark (Talk) 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. --Mardavich 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Mardavich. --Pejman47 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. This solution is fair. (Arash the Archer 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 Football (soccer), 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. -- tariqabjotu 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is about compromise of opinions here. That's often how Wikipedia 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a compromise of two opinions – one based on guidelines and the other based on attachment to the Persian name. 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 Shatt al-Arab, which has time and time again been demonstrated as far away the most common name in English. We could use Shatt al-Arab which has been used alone on every other Wikipedia (except for the Farsi Wikipedia) 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. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I would prefer Shatt al-Arab, 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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), move protection 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, the terrorists have won. -- tariqabjotu 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 Shatt al-Arab 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| --الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. -- tariqabjotu 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 [NB: Shatt al-Arab was used during the time of the Ottomans], (c) there is no English name for the waterway, only Arabic and Farsi names, so neither should be given primacy in English Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Shatt al-Arab 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 Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) or impose Shatt al-Arab 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 Wikipedia's editorial stability ahead of niggling arguments about naming rules.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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 our policy 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, Ev 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) 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.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But according to you, policy dictates that only Shatt al-Arab should be used, so what kind of settlement could you envisage that would be anything but this while remaining in line with Wikipedia policies?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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 Wikipedia policy or guideline? And where?
It is to be hoped that the Iranians can be persuaded to abide by the general Wikipedia consensus on naming. There are consequences for not doing so; but they will take some time to implement. In the meanwhile, Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) is better than the present name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You have just summarized four rationales for using of Arvandrud; which, if any, of them are supported by Wikipedia 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. [1] It is interesting to note that the original article move to this title was made nearly two years ago, without consensus.[2] The article was started four years ago as Shatt al-Arab[3].--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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 WP:Civility. As I explained to one of the involved parties here User:Tariqabjotu, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) 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", Wikipedia 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. --Mardavich 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 ! --Alborz Fallah 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
<- (removing indent) Mardavich, please stop with the red herrings. Present policy and guideline (goodness, I'm starting to sound like a broken record); your criticism of the WP:NCGN guideline is clear evidence that you're trying to avoid the facts. As I stated earlier, even if you were to ignore WP:NCGN (and there is no reason it should, even if you feel it's "sloppy"), one can still point to WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCON. The Chennai example does not work. Google searches are not the be all and end all here, but one should note that "Chennai" receives over 9.1 million hits compared with "Madras"' 1.6 million hits. 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 first page of Google Book results for "Madras" comes from 1964 and most pre-date World War I. I'll even use the Wikipedia:Naming conflict table to further demonstrate why the article is at "Chennai":
Criterion Chennai 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
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:
Criterion Shatt al-Arab 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
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 WP:NAME 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 – 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 Shatt al-Arab; there is no policy (at least that has been presented so far) that supports Arvand. To illustrate how illogical it is to present your part of WP:NAME here, let me compare the situation at this article to a (hypothetical) situation at another article:

Let's pretend I think the article at Jerusalem should be moved to al-Quds (the transliteration of the common Arabic name for the city). Policy and guidelines supporting "Jerusalem" include WP:NC(CN), WP:NCGN, WP:NCON, and WP:ENGLISH, 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 al-Quds/Jerusalem (alpha order). Surprisingly enough, a supermajority for moving the article to al-Quds/Jerusalem materializes citing the part from WP:NAME that you cite. Now, should the article move? Of course not; there is no policy supporting al-Quds over Jerusalem and thus there is no reason to resort to the clause of WP:NAME.

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

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

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, 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. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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 . --Alborz Fallah 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia; you are not entitled to invent your facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 May 2007 (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. - Ev 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tarig, your peers here were arguing that raw google hits don't count because they include Wikipedia 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. --Mardavich 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Islam or Hong Kong or Tel Aviv... 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. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so now you can read my thoughts. Have you heard WP:AGF? 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 Islam or Hong Kong are not rivers owned by two independent sovereign states, with two offcial names. There are different categories of names which require different approaches. --Mardavich 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). (Arash the Archer 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 Wikipedia. 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.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
<- (removing indent)
Let's do it for same problem : Imia/Kardak
Criterion Imia 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
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 .--Alborz Fallah 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 Wikipedia 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.
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, Ev 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) 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 Wikipedia :-)
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, Ev 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page to Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud):

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 Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), I hope it will settle the issue for a time. --Pejman47 18:48, 7 May 2007 (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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(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. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The double form "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" is not acceptable, because it contradicts the core principle of our current naming conventions policy. - Ev 18:57, 7 May 2007 (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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is an improvement. I had written the above comment (signed 18:57 UTC) immediatly after Pejman47 moved the page to "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" (18:48 UTC). So, it was just my first official complaint about "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" being the article's title :-) Cheers Ev 00:08, 8 May 2007 (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 ?! --Alborz Fallah 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The criterion is not "common word of English origin", but instad "common English usage". What word is commonly used in English-language publications, or by English-speakers, irrespective of that word's English or non-English origin/etymology.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"
It clearly says "this often will be a local name, or one of them". 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, Ev 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[Unindent] * Sigh! * I thought I had made it perfectly clear, but apparently not. Let me summarize it succinctly: English Wikipedia’s policies support one and only one name for this article: “Shatt al-Arab”; no English Wikipedia 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.

Let me use a more neutral example. The Rio Grande 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 Texas 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 anglicization 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.

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 tendentious and disruptive. 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!

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 Wikipedia, which would be “Shatt al-Arab”. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 8 May 2007 (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. --Mardavich 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Moving the page to Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab:
it seems the issue is not settled by the move I made yesterday, so, I reverted my move till settling this issue. --Pejman47 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madras

Anyone who believes that Chennai is not common English usage, but Madras 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.

But, even if Chennai 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proving that the guideline you're citing is practically inadequate and unreliable, is not a "red herring".--Mardavich 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like that guideline (and the policy behind it), the proper thing to do certainly isn't to ignore and disregard it, but instead you should propose changes to it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. — Once/if those changes are accepted, we apply the newly update policy/guideline to all Wikipedia 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. - Ev 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New opinions

After discussing this issue multiple times, it is time to open up the issue to the general Wikipedia 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. However, statements of support are intended for people new to this debate. 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. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvand Rud (or variant)

Policy or guideline rationale
Other rationale
Statements of support

[edit] Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab

Policy or guideline rationale
  • WP:NPOV:This river is a disputed borderline and territory, using only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use is POV.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names: If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.
  • WP:NC: 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.
Other rationale
Statements of support

[edit] Shatt al-Arab

Policy or guideline rationale
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." -- tariqabjotu 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 WP:NPOV in a case involving a disputed territory. AlexanderPar 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "[u]se the most common name. [T]he titles should represent common usage." (see #Examples of usage in English and similar subsequent sections) -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;" -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conflict: See the table used at #WP:NCON table.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names: "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." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • All of the above guidelines are overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar and others. Also both names are non English and none of them represents common English usage.(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
      • No need to repeat 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 Tokyo, Gdańsk, and Volgagrad not etymologically English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not exactly true, Arash. Yes, neutral point-of-view (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, WP:NPOV 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 NPOV tutorial (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 Shatt al-Arab is following the concept of neutrality to the letter (avoiding a title along the lines of Alfred the Great according to most people, but not according to some, as mentioned in the tutorial). -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Other rationale
  • All other Wikipedias, except for the Farsi & Ukrainian Wikipedias, use Shatt al-Arab and Shatt al-Arab alone. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The WikiProject Rivers 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." - Ev 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. Rklawton 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a disputed territory, we should remain neutral to this topic. [WP:NPOV]] 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. AlexanderPar 11:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, "alphabetical order" is not supported as a solution for article name disputes. As a result, this approach also has POV problems. Think of it this way, reverse-alphabetical order also yields a "neutral" solution, but that, too, uses logic not supported by policy. Since choosing between unsupported solutions requires or appears to require a POV choice, the result is POV and therefore not acceptable. It's clear my assertion above holds - that a purely NPOV solution isn't possible. However a common-usage solution is possible, and indeed, it is the primary means for choosing article names. Rklawton 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Shatt al-Arab is the only name referred to in border treaties signed by Persia/Iran.[4] 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. AlexanderPar 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 WP:NOR 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 WP:NPA violation. Nothing on Wikipedia 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Statements of support
Just to throw my two cents in, I've only ever heard of this river referred to as Shatt al-Arab, not as Arvand Rud. Many Wiki articles have several names; the most well-known should be the title, and other names should be explained in the introduction. This really isn't too hard of a solution. Parsecboy 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud

Policy or guideline rationale
Other rationale
Statements of support

[edit] Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

Policy or guideline rationale
Other rationale
  • Emphasizes that Shatt al-Arab is the more common name. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Statements of support

[edit] General discussion

  • I am posting this to the Community Portal; notifications on other appropriate media that advertise to the general Wikipedia public (not certain ethnic factions, given the ethnically divisive nature of this issue) are encouraged. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, someone removed it from the Community Portal (that editor is, technically, correct). Instead, I filed an WP:RFC. -- tariqabjotu 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I left a notice at WikiProject Rivers (diff.). - Ev 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. --Mardavich 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Aha, the Global Pan-Arab Conspiracy rears its head again!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And he, and every user, has the power and responsibility to discourage disruptive editing, in whatever form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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. - Ev 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.--Mardavich 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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?[5] Aren't your ad hominems simply attempts to deride people by picking on their "perceived nationalities"? Do as you preach, indeed.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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 [6][7], 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 Block log speaks for itself. --Mardavich 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. --Mardavich 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Okay; in an attempt to block Mardavich's growing Chewbacca defense, 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 WP:NAME piece). Instead you have resorted to distracting questions, attacks, and issues. Again, not falling for it. -- tariqabjotu 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 Arab revolt, 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 Shatt al-Arab. 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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, Ev 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LEAD

Why is this included in the first sentence? Arvand "Arwand" is also a Persian name for the Tigris, and even the Orontes--Gerash77 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because User:Pmanderson is trying to make a WP:Point I guess...--Mardavich 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Mardavich, it was you who provided this link mentioning:
“[The] ARVAND-RUÚD [is the] name given to the river Tigris in some passages in the Mid. Pers. books and a verse in the [Shahnama]. The use of this name to designate the [Shatt al-Arab] began in the later Pahlavi period and persisted after the revolution of [...] 1978-79.”
A quick glimpse at a Google Print search for "Arvand" shows that when the name is used for a river, two out of five times it is used to designate the Tigris or the Orontes. Septentrionalis' addition 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, Ev 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The use of a disambiguation template would probably be better. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine; if anyone wants to tweak this, go ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I like Septentrionalis' format. - Ev 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In current Farsi language, Arvand only refers to this river. This disambiguation will help no one and provides incorrect information. (Arash the Archer 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
<- (removing indent)
I see... What do you think about "In Persian literature the name Arvand can also refer to the Tigris and Orontes rivers." ? - Ev 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We can say "In old Persian literature the name Arvand can also refer to the Tigris and Orontes 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. (Arash the Archer 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... considering the article mentioned by Mardavich, I think that Middle Persian would be more adequate than Old Persian.
As you can see, following Tariqabjotu's advice Septentrionalis has already moved the text from the lead to the location of disambiguation templates.
So, can we agree on "In Middle Persian literature the name Arvand refers to the Tigris. It can also designate the Orontes river." ? - Ev 21:17, 8 May 2007 (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.(Arash the Archer 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
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, Ev 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

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.(Arash the Archer 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

No, we should comply with WP:NAME; and use the actual old name, which was Shatt al-Arab. For the time being, however, the compromise of Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) is acceptable. The imposition of a name contrary to policy, to satisfy a PoV, is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 8 May 2007 (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. -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We should comply with Wikipedia policy and use Shatt al-Arab; and the double title Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab is ridiculously unstable. - Ev 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia

WP:NPOV is not a suggestion or a guideline, it is a core policy. This waterway is disputed territory, Wikipedia should remain neutral on that issue, and thus not use a title/term that would imply ownership or endorsement of either side. The NPOV policy is one of the five pillars of wikipedia, and overrides all the policies below it, inclduing the naming guidelines. AlexanderPar 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shatt al-Arab" does imply ownership, it literally means "Coast of the Arabs". WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia. We can not take sides in a territorial dispute. Let me quote User:Refdoc who is also an administrator: "Much of the Iran/Iraq war was about this river and its control - hence the naming is also POV". AlexanderPar 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The English Channel 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And that is one reason the French wikipedia, quite properly, uses fr:la Manche. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. WP:NPOV takes precedence here since we can not (and should not attempt to) take sides in territorial disputes. AlexanderPar 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg 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/Bratislava and Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, which are not. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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: [8], [9], [10],, [11]. If they don't think it is controversial to use Shatt al-Arab, then why do you?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. AlexanderPar 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. Wikipedia is not a mirror of other encyclopaedias, but simply uses other encyclopaedia's at times as sources or references. This does not mean that Wikipedia articles should be identical to other encyclopaedia articles. This waterway has been disputed for hundreds of years, even with the Ottomans. Wikipedia NPOV says that both sides should be expressed.Azerbaijani 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is Wikipedia's Naming Policy, which states that the most common name used in the English language should be used in Wikipedia. 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 Shatt al-Arab 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 Wikipedia 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV 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 Wikipedia. AlexanderPar 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 Persian Gulf, which is known among Arabs as the Arabian Gulf. The chief justification for retaining the title Persian Gulf 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!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. AlexanderPar 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, then why don't you participate in the [RfC], 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. 1975 Algiers Agreement) and the longest conventional war of last century for this waterway which cost about 1 million life. Wikipedia should not take side in such territorial disputes. --Pejman47 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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 cession of the Shatt al-Arab (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 Eastern Front to Great Patriotic War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
See my response to Arash under #Shatt al-Arab. -- tariqabjotu 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.--Gerash77 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policies and guidelines cited under #Shatt al-Arab 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 Alsace-Lorraine and Gdańsk - but Eastern Front, because Rnglish does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV does not require double titles

As Ahwaz explained, our neutral point of view 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".

Please, read the neutral point of view and naming conventions 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.

In fact, Wikipedia 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 List of territorial disputes: 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).

In other words: if Refdoc's, AlexanderPar's & Azerbaijani's interpretation of WP:NPOV were correct, then Wikipedia would be littered with double titles. The fact that the opposite is the case proves that the interpretation of WP:NPOV endorsed by common Wikipedia practice does not require double naming.

After all, this is not the United Nations Wikipedia, but the English-language one. We aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles; but we also aim to write them in English. - Best regards, Ev 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof that "Shatt al-Arab" is not POV

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

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.

  • 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 ...
  • 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) ...
  • 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 ...
  • 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 ...
  • 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 ...

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 Wikipedia.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. AlexanderPar 10:53, 11 May 2007 (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.[12] 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. Wikipedia 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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.) AlexanderPar 12:35, 11 May 2007 (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 Lingua_franca#English. 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 Wikipedia. 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. AlexanderPar 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 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. --Mardavich 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.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical usage in English

I've done a bit of digging, out of curiosity, to find out how long the name Shatt al-Arab has been used in English. It seems to have been used for a very long time - the earliest reference I've found has been in an 1744 book called The travels of the late Charles Thompson esq. Even earlier, a French book of 1735 called Voyage du celebre Benjamin, au tour du monde, commencé l'an MCLXXIII by Pierre de Bergeron uses the same name. So it would appear that in both English and French, "Shatt al-Arab", or variants thereof, have been established for nearly 180 years (and probably longer than that). The earliest of the handful of English sources that I found using "Arvandrud" dates only to 1968 - there's no indication that the Iranian name has any history of regular usage in English-language works. -- ChrisO 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The source clearly says "called by the Arabs", that doesn't translate into "regular usage in English-language", that only means there was no regular usage in English-language at that time. --Mardavich 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look more closely you'll see that the author speaks of "the united Stream of the Tigris and Euphrates, call'd by the Arabs, Shat al Arab, that is, the River of the Arabs; which begins two Days Journey above Bassora [an old name for Basra], and about five Leagues below divides into two Channels, that empty themselves into the Persian Gulph [Gulf]". The name "Shat al Arab" is being applied not to the Euphrates but to "the united Stream of the Tigris and Euphrates". It's a pretty exact description of what we call the Shatt al-Arab today - compare it with the map which I added to this article a couple of years ago.
As for being an Arabic name, that's entirely typical of the English colonial style - when English explorers and traders went to new places, they often didn't invent new placenames but simply adopted (and adapted) placenames used by the people with whom they were interacting. If you look at references from 1800-1899 - i.e. the peak of the colonial period - the name "Shatt al Arab" and variants (search for shat+arab as well as shatt+arab) was clearly in regular use by then. I presume the reason why the Arabic name was adopted rather than the Persian/Iranian one was simply because the English people in the region were trading primarily with Arabs rather than Persians. According to this map, the people on the Iranian side of the southern border are Arabic-speakers anyway, so one would expect them to use the Arabic rather than the Persian name. It makes perfect sense from a historical perspective. If the local people only used the Arabic name, the English people in the region wouldn't have had any reason to use the name "Arvandrud", and so they wouldn't have recorded it; they may not even have known about it. It's the only logical explanation for why the Arabic name's historical use in English goes back so far and why the Persian/Iranian name is never mentioned. -- ChrisO 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

It's clear to me that a mutually agreeable resolution will not be found here on this talk page. I would like to suggest that editors submit this matter to neutral arbitration. In order to kick this off, I think editors should align themselves with a preferred solution by adding their signature below. Save discussion for the arbitration process itself. Let's just see here where each editor stands (comments in these subsections other than user names will be removed). I'll send invitations to participate to those editors who add their sigs to one of these subsections. - Rklawton 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration by whom? According to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which is an official policy, if there is no mutually agreeable resolution, then the next step is mediation. AlexanderPar 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a request for mediation before heading to a request for arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Who decides to which editors should we send the request? Even Tariq has signed this. I was assuming when an admin takes part in a dicussion we should be sure about respecting the policies. (Arash the Archer 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
I don't understand what that statement meant. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't combine the sections, mediation and arbitration are two different concepts. I agreed to mediation, not "arbitration (or mediation)".AlexanderPar 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Where in Rklawton's statement does it say a signature below is an endorsement of a request for arbitration? No request for arbitration has been filed and even if one were to be filed, there is no requirement for all parties to "agree" to the request as is the case in the request for mediation process. You are merely obfuscating the straw poll by splitting these sections. Clearly the people supporting Option X here will support Option X in the following section. -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Where he says "I'll send invitations to participate to those editors who add their sigs to one of these subsections". My understanding is that Arbitration is requested when "you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of the article", so mediation is the natural next step here, it's true that people supporting Option X here will support Option X in the following section, but some may not wish to seek mediation at all. So if you are interested in a mediation to find a resolution to this dispute, then please add your names under the mediation request. AlexanderPar 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that arbitration is not necessary at this step, but I still signed here because I didn't (and still don't) read this as an endorsement for heading straight to the Arbitration Committee. -- tariqabjotu 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, some do. Let's keep things in order and avoid unnecessary confusion, so people know what they're signing up for. Based on your comment, I'll count you in for the mediation. AlexanderPar 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the discussion at this talk page, I don't expect any form of mediation to bring a solution. It would merely be a bureaucratic instance before ArbCom. After all, this issue isn't about details and wording, nor about how to balance conflicting sources, but about whether to apply or not the core principle of our naming conventions policy. – Having said that, if for whatever reason others want to give it a try, I will take part in it. Not having any previous practical experience with mediation, I leave the decision about which avenue to pursue to more experienced editors. - Best regards, Ev 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

We have the choice between three fairly ineffective processes:

  • WP:Request for Mediation, which can be torpedoed by a single editor declining. Unless all active participants agree, this is futile.
  • WP:Mediation Cabal. One more voice, and unlikely to get anywhere.
  • WP:RfC, on user conduct (we already have an RfC on the issue, which is being thoroughly ignored). There are issues of policy quoted on both sides here; I find one of them is meritless, but an opportunity to make both cases before witnesses might be useful.

Of the three, the Cabal may be most helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvand Rud

[edit] Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)

[edit] Shatt al-Arab

[edit] Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

[edit] Other?

[edit] Mediation

In accordance with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy, if no mutually agreeable resolution can be achieved on talk page, the parties should request mediation which is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. Please add your name below under the appropriate subsection if you would like to be involved in mediation to find a solution to this dispute. AlexanderPar 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvand Rud

[edit] Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)

[edit] Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab

[edit] Shatt al-Arab

[edit] Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

[edit] Other?

[edit] Mediation time limit

I remind all of you that a mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). If it is not signed by all those whose names are on it, which is pretty much everyone on this page, it will be rejected at 21 May, 14:31 UTC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Update:
The request for mediation has been closed after two parties withdrew their assent to it (diff.). Daniel suggests another request for comment. The previous one, filed on May 7, 2007, continues to be listed at Requests for Comment on History and Geography (permanent link), and has generated one single response two responses so far (on May 12 & June 1, 2007).

As I see it, we could repeat the move request (it would be the third attempt), and see what happens this time... or we could initiate a request for arbitration, asking for a clarification on the meaning and applicability of the neutral point of view & naming conventions policies (and its associated guidelines).

How do you all think we should proceed now ? Best regards, Ev 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know who backed out. Is there any way to find out? If we know who has issues with the now closed process, perhaps we can address those concerns. Barring that, then your suggestions regarding request for arbitration is a good one. Rklawton 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think RfArb is the only option, unless those involved are willing to change their stances. -- tariqabjotu 03:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As Tariqabjotu alludes to, there is a chance that this will end up at RfAr. Per this, the fact that the user who pulled out doesn't want to be identified, the person who withdrew will not be identified. Please also see WP:M#The privileged nature of mediation for other reasons why. Daniel 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could give an idea of the reasons why these participants withdrew. Was it because they didn't have the time or because they changed their minds about mediation?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite: ArbCom deals exclusively with user conduct/behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. ArbCom will not intervene in disputes on content and has made this very clear in the past. AlexanderPar 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but even if it is proposed (and possibly rejected, as you say) at WP:RFAR, I have an obligation to protect the rights of mediation participants. Daniel 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant. ArbCom does not intervene in disputes on content, ArbCom would never judge whether name A or name B is more appropriate. I think the best option is to start an informal mediation with only those editors who are willing to participate. Afterward, if an editor challenges the outcome of the mediation, then the issue can be refereed to ArbCom on behavioral grounds. AlexanderPar 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a fair enough point. If people pull out of mediation, it means they are obviously not so bothered by the issue to participate. This should not prevent us from going ahead with a mediation. As Alexander points out, ArbCom explicitly states that it will not rule on editorial issues, so it is not an option unless there are severe problems between participants. In fact, there is no edit warring or much disruption on the talk page and everyone is keeping more or less within the rules. But if mediation is continually undermined by participants who at first agree then withdraw, then I think Arbcom should be brought into the dispute. I think we should try one more push for mediation.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, ArbCom normally does not address content disputes, but we've got nothing here. Another request for comment, as suggested, is feasible, but we have nowhere to go unless one side just gives in. There is no committee for making binding resolutions to content disputes (should there be?), so we could potentially just be at a stalemate indefinitely. For what it's worth, the Shatt al-Arab has explained why policy supports its position, and the Arvand Rud side, as evidenced by the talk page here, has been evasive about providing such policy. A mediation session would have been perfect for clarifying the positions of everyone, but... oh well. Yes, ArbCom is technically not the correct way to go, but does anyone have any other ideas? The previous RfC was entirely unsuccessful and the Arvand Rud side has persistently been unwilling to accept policy, which supports Shatt al-Arab without question (and there's no way to force the Arvand Rud side to accept it). -- tariqabjotu 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" appropriate? First, we have plenty of evidence that both names are used in English. This justifies using a compound title. We also have overwhelming evidence that Shatt al-Arab is the most common usage in English, so giving this name precedence in the English language Wikipedia is appropriate. Since these observations are quantifiable they aren't POV. Next, consider a reader new to this subject. Readers searching on either name will end up at "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)", so the first thing they'll learn is that this river is known by two names with Shatt al-Arab the most common. These are verifiable facts that will serve the reader's interest. Considering the general disagreements between editors of this article (I consider myself a disinterested admin who joined the discussion because of the original RfC), it seems that the title "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" serves as a useful and appropriate compromise. Disagreements are welcome, but they should be made with well considered arguments to the contrary (as would have happened during arbitration). Thoughts? Rklawton 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Your present a plausible option, Rklawton, but one at odds with what our current naming conventions require: one single title (the one commonly used in English), and redirects from all the other possible titles (including those in languages other than English). To make a title such as "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" appropriate, we would have to modify the naming conventions first. Of course, if the naming conventions are modified to allow for double names, I would respect and follow the new consensus.
This modification would imply starting to use such double titles everywhere, from "Gdansk (Danzig)" and "Kosovo (Kosova)" to "Oder River (Odra River)" and "Cracow (Kraków)" or "Kraków (Cracow)". Although this may appease large amounts of nationalist editors, and thus avoid many problems, the net result would be to pass from being an English-language site to a UN-style one, taking more care in not offending local sensibilities than in providing clear information in English to our English-speaking readers. And I can see the triple-name fights replacing our current double-name ones :-) Not to mention the attempts to change the order of the names (example).
As I see it, most of this conflicts are about "correcting" what some users percieve to be "wrong, biased, unfair, even insulting" English usages. Appeasing such attitudes by using double titles would be part of a shift of objectives from neutral articles written in English to editorial pieces about what the truth is and what names should English-speakers use.
Finally, although both names are used in English, the usage of "Arvand Rud" is negligible, while "Shatt al-Arab" is the undisputed standard English form (examples of usage), making "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" just as appropriate as "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)". - Best regards, Ev 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I support "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab", I agree with Rklawton that considering the general disagreements on this article, the title "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" does serve as a useful, stable and appropriate compromise at this point. Dear Ev, stubbornness is not a virtue. In different situations, different solutions are more appropriate than others. There are already several articles using double titles, and the situation here is quite different from the examples you are providing which all deal with different spellings of the same names. This article is about a disputed territory, with two totally different local names, under the sovereignty of two states. AlexanderPar 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Our current naming conventions make no exception for disputed territories. Propose such a general exception at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions instead of demanding an ad hoc one for this particular article. - Best regards, Ev 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to make a compromise if one side's position is not based on policy and the other side is. To review, the three items listed under #New opinions for Arvand Rud are WP:NPOV (erroneously used; actually supports Shatt al-Arab as noted here), Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names (which is difficult to use, since there are six policies supporting Shatt al-Arab, thereby creating a "good reason"), and a sentence from WP:NC that has since been removed from the policy (and for good reason; it's an inadmissible escape clause). -- tariqabjotu 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[outdent]The assertion above that the RfC has generated only one response is erroneous. I have commented on the issue several times on this page. Tomertalk 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, Tomer, sorry. I corrected that update (diff.). Thank you very much for responding to the request for comment :-) Best regards, Ev 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's all good. I think you neglected to consider a number of other comments I've made here as a result of the RfC...to the extent that I agree wholeheartèdly that "Arvand Rud" has a far stronger historical claim to being "The Name" for the river, despite my reluctant support for Shatt al-Arab. This being English Wikipedia, there really is no room for equivocation. The waterway in modern English usage undoubtedly favors "Shatt al-Arab" and "Arvand Rud" is only a pale-horse afterthought. That said, "Arvand Rud" definitely deserves prominent mention in the article, but the name of the article definitely belongs at Shatt al-Arab. If you dig back over a year ago, you'll see this is entirely consistent with the position I took with respect to the argument over whether or not the article for the estuary between Argentina and Uruguay belonged at Río de la Plata or River Plate. Historical and native usage is significant and interesting, perhaps, but where these come into conflict, most common usage must, by means of necessity, hold sway. Proper inclusion of all alternatives must be included within the article in question, and all possible redirects should by necessity be created to handle uncertainties when it comes to people searching for the article at hand, of course. I know from unfortunate experience, that these naming issues can become extremely contentious...with respect to the aforementioned Río de la Plata/River Plate example, even among speakers of the same language. In this case we're dealing with a matter of warring factions among muslims, it seems, largely an extension of the theological war between followers of Sunni and Shi'a. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to such debates, and it's unfortunate that the naming of this article has become the latest casualty in an argument over who was the legitimate heir to Muhammad's prophetic legacy. As a Jew, I freely admit that I find all of Islam to be misguided, unfortunately, as much good as it has brought into the world, the quibbling among brothers it has brought has long since rendered it a worthless tool for bringing peace to humanity...all good it offers is far outweighed by the evil it has wrought. That notwithstanding, the real issue here is one of principle...should the article be at Shatt al-Arab or at Arvand Rud. There is no argument that even remotely comes close to persuading me that it should be at Arvand Rud, despite my personal preference for that name. Shucks and husks. Tomertalk 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, Tomer, I didn't initially mention your comments because I was -wrongly- under the impression that they were not connected with the request for comment filed on May 7, 2007.
And you're right: to focus the discussion I did not consider comments about what the name of this river ought to be, and concentrated only on those dealing with what title this English Wikipedia article should have :-)
By the way, about a mile from my house runs a certain estuary which, when speaking in English, I've always called "River Plate". ;-) - Best regards, Ev 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In this case we're dealing with a matter of warring factions among muslims, it seems, largely an extension of the theological war between followers of Sunni and Shi'a. You are absolutely wrong. The name of the Shatt al-Arab has nothing to do with religion. The fact is that when British surveyors visited the region, they found Arabs (mostly Shia) populating both banks of the waterway who referred to it as Shatt al-Arab. So this is why the name came into popular use in the English language. You could argue that nationalism is responsible for the disputes over the name, with the Persians aggrieved that their name - which they see as the original name - has been demoted. Some wrongly think this is due to pan-Arabism, although the Shatt al-Arab name predates pan-Arabism by centuries. But there is no religious dimension to this since Arab Shias and Sunnis both call it Shatt al-Arab - as well as non-Arabs (Turks, Kurds and even some Persians as well as all European languages).--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the idea that this is a Sunni-Shia thing is erroneous (because (a) it's not Sunni-Shia related and (b) not everyone is coming here with an agenda). You have to realize that not everyone, even if they are Arab or Persian or [insert nationality or religious interest here], comes to articles such as this one simply to chant nationalism. That's just as erroneous as suggesting that you cannot contribute neutrally to an article related to Judaism because, as a Jew, you automatically have a bias that cannot be overcome. Thus, I believe it's essential that you recognize that some here are using (or at least attempting to use) policy to support their perspective. (At the same time, I will concede that it looks like there are some motived by personal preferences; I won't name any names, because we really don't know for sure). -- tariqabjotu 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Tariq and Ev are right. The current title, with parentheses, is at odds with a very strongly accepted convention.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article on Arvand Rud

Let's stop the war. You go your way, we go our way. A new article on Arvand Rud has been created. It is the same now. In time, it may change. To be fair, there are links to each one.UTAFA 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the second article. Although the split might have been a unique way to resolve the dispute, that article was a point-of-view fork and not really an acceptable way to resolve this dispute. -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have redirected this new article here. Content forks are not a solution. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
UTAFA, please read carefully what forking is. If after reading that editing guideline you still have any doubt about what constitutes a point-of-view fork, feel free to ask so we can clarify the concept in your personal talk page :-)
For clarity, the timeline of Arvand Rud on June 12:
Best regards, Ev 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think that there should be 2 article to reduce conflict. The Arvand Rud article would be more toward the Iranian side and the other article would cover more of Basra and the Iraqi side. Since at least one editor (previously uninvolved) wants only one article, then it should be the Arvand Rud article because there are more Iranians than Iraqis in the region.UTAFA 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

UTAFA, please do not move articles by copying and pasting them, as you did in this case (diff. & diff.), because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. Instead follow the instructions at Help:Moving a page & Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thank you, Ev 06:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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


Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) → Shatt al-Arab — Since the second move request in late April, early May, there has been some lengthy discussion as well as a (rejected) request for mediation. Ultimately, the points for moving the article to Shatt al-Arab have been mentioned multiple times and are plentiful (based almost entirely on Wikipedia's numerous naming policies)...

Neutral point-of-view:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view#Article names: "We also deprecate double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth)."
    As a result, this name, along with some of the previous names for this article (such as Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab) are discouraged
  • Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names: "For an article name it is not usually possible to include all views on the article name in the article title itself"
    This points editors to the naming conventions, which I will demonstrate below prefer the name Shatt al-Arab and Shatt al-Arab alone


Naming conventions:


About naming conflicts:

Criterion Shatt al-Arab Arvand Rud
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
Total 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns: "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:... Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?"
    Unfortunately, some users involved appear to be using subjective criteria as reason to keep Arvand Rud in the title
    • From the first move request: "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"
    • From the first move request: "The name Arvand is also historically correct..."
    • From the second move request: "unlike "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) - a modern term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones"


Other points

  • All other Wikipedias, except for the Farsi & Ukrainian Wikipedias, use Shatt al-Arab and Shatt al-Arab alone.
  • The WikiProject Rivers 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."

QED, Shatt al-Arab ought to be the solitary name for this article. The controversy over the naming of the waterway can be discussed in the article. -- tariqabjotu 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Shatt al-Arab is proven to be the most common name in English; it appears in various border treaties signed by Iran; the issue of the name of the Shatt al-Arab is not a part of territorial disputes so there is no issue of POV, and; only one name should appear in the title--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, absolutely. Shatt al-Arab is the common English name, and this article should not have two names.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, per the many reasons enumerated above, most of which come directly from Wikipedia's naming conventions and various guidelines and policies. -- tariqabjotu 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, objective facts are not POV, and ease in linking should outweigh any WP:POINT some editors would like to make regarding the alternate name, Arvand Rud. We can accommodate the Arvand Rud alternate name by mentioning this variant in the first or second line of the opening paragraph. Rklawton 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per our convention for geographic names (which also encourages mentioning Arvand Rud in the first line; it meets the 10% threshold, if barely). This is what English-speaking works of general reference call it. We should not surprise the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, as we aim to write in English for an English-speaking readership. If somebody disagrees with our current editorial policies & guidelines, the proper course of action certainly isn't to blatantly ignore all of them, but to propose the desired modifications instead. - Ev 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think the other word really exists in English, at least not in normal news sources. Arlright 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above and my comments during the first move request. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


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

This article has been renamed from Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) to Shatt al-Arab as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many times does it have to change ?!

When a consensus was previously achieved [13], how many times it have to be changed? That's now becoming a time and energy consuming matter...--Alborz Fallah 19:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That survey had nine supporters of Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, which is hardly consensus. When it was repeated just now, it 8 to 0 in favour of Shatt al-Arab. Hopefully, it won't change again.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry; rest easy. This won't take up any more of your time. Unless English usage changes significantly over the next few years, the article name will not change again. Rklawton 20:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. The fundamental issue hasn't been resolved, this is still a disputed territory with two official names, and the naming guidelines that have been invoked to support "Shatt al-Arab" can be revisited and revised to conform with WP:NPOV and reflect the realities of disputed territories that are under two or more national authorities. Therefore, a new move request can be made at anytime. AlexanderPar 14:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Objective, empirical evidence such as has been presented in this talk page is inherently NPOV. Per the guidelines, what matters is the name English speaking people primarily use. If you wish to change the guidelines to consider some other factor(s), then I suggest taking this up on the guidelines page rather than here. Without that, we'll simply point back to the guidelines to support our position. Rklawton 17:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alexander Par has claimed before that the Iranian Republic contests what the English name of this body of water should be. He has never presented evidence for that. (I am perfectly willing to believe that some form of Arvand is the Farsi name; I hope it is, for this article says so.) It is fairly unlikely that Alexander will persuade a consensus of editors to change our guidelines, but he is free to ask. Beyond that, he is free to join the (faltering) Mediation.
  • There has never been consensus for Arvand Rud, and we will see if there ever will be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karun silt

The current item of dispute is whether the silt of the Karun requires continuous dredging. I do not know, but it is a matter for evidence, not revert warring. Google Scholar turns up many sources mentioning Karun silt; several of them, especially from the early twentieth century, appear to be saying that the Karun contributes as much silt as the Tigris and Euphrates. (Lees, Wilson, Woolley); please supply a source either way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Karun, the Shatt al-Arab and other waterways in the area are prone to siltation, which causes flooding if there is not regular dredging. The desiltation of the Karun was essential to opening up the region to trade in the 19th century. The section between north of Shushtar to Zard Kuh, its source, is not navigable. The siltation of the Karun and Bahmanshir (which runs from Muhammareh parallel to the Shatt al-Arab) rivers is a major problem and last year an entire section was flooded and hundreds of homes destroyed because of a lack of dredging. These rivers can be very narrow and shallow and can be hard to navigate due to sand banks and rocks. There should be something on the Karun diversion and dam construction.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; if it had been solved a generation ago, the revert warring would at least be understandable. It might be useful to explain that this only applies to the stretch below Basra, especially if I recall correctly that this is relatively short. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Why did someone change it to Shat al Arab. This river is called the Arvand Rud. You already changed it to Shat al-Arab (Arvand Rud) and now it is changed to Shat al-Arab. This is violation of Wikipedia rules! You have to be neutral adn this is not neutral. You have changed it form a title that is a little bit neatral (as Arvand Rud was second and between brackets it wasn't completeley neutral) to a pro-Arab title. You have changed it from: Arabic (Iranian) to Arabic. Neutrality is forgoten when it comes down to Iran, I guess this is all part of the preparation for War on Iran:( Kermanshahi who isn't pleased about this at all. 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is called the Arvand Rud in Persian, but it is called Shatt al-Arab in English.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not about war or the "persecution" of Iranians. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy. No-one voted against the current title in the last survey on the matter as there was no policy to support two names in the title and little evidence that Arvand Rood is popularly known in English. It is not a matter of pro- or anti-Arab, but the name used in English. If you have a problem with it, then the issue is about policy and you should perhaps take your points to whatever forum decides on these matters.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it is called Shat al-Arab in Arabic. Both terms are used in English. The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, then the situation would be somewhat different. However, I am unaware of any evidence that this is so. It has been discussed extensively above.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How about keeping this article where it is and dedicating another article to the naming dispute? Shervink 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That would work only if there were reliable sources indicating that such a dispute exists. However, sources acknowledging that it has more than one name typically just say "also known called…" and that would make for a pretty short article. Rklawton 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with having both names in the title? Shat al-Arab and Arvand Rud are both redirected to it so it was no problem. Half ov the river is in Iran so why Arab name be used. Reason no-one voted was no-one knew about it as you keep changeing the name more Arab every thime. It used to be Arvand Rud/Shat al-Arab then it became Shat al-Arab (Arvand Rud) and then it became Shat al-Arab. The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with having both names in the title? Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab was apparently a problem from a technical stand-point. Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) was a problem from a policy perspective.
Reason no-one voted was no-one knew about it - mediation was attempted, but many of those advocating Arvand Rud pulled out of the mediation and it collapsed (you were one of those who agreed to mediation, but I don't know whether you actually turned up at the mediation). Consequently, a new survey was conducted and none of those advocating Arvand Rud participated. If people cannot be bothered to participate in the editorial processes, then they cannot complain when a decision is made that they disapprove of.
You are entitled to pursue this further, if you wish. No-one is stopping you from doing this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Half of the river is in Iran so why Arab name be used." However, all of this encyclopedia article is in English, and the English name happens to be the Arabic name. That's why.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge

Shatt al-Arab
Shatt al-Arab

Why do people remove my image? Yes it is more free/freer since you took your image from Flicker while I took my image myself. Your image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. Where as my image was released By ME into public domain. In addition my image shows clearly Shatt al Arab with out any other bridges or ships. Your Khorramshahir image is more likely to be for Karon River Not Shat Al Arab since there is no bridge between the Iraqi side and the Iranian side.--Aziz1005 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it Ahwaz or Khorramshir/Almuhammarah??
Is it Ahwaz or Khorramshir/Almuhammarah??

Is it The same bridge?!!!--Aziz1005 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The image Aziz disputes
The image Aziz disputes
Well, in my case, it was an edit conflict while fixing something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This picture is of the White Bridge over the River Karoon, not the Shatt al-Arab. See [14]. Please show me where there is a bridge like the White Bridge over the Shatt al-Arab.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I leave this to those who know; but they don't look the same to me. The Karun bridge seems to have a long row of arches supporting the approach on one side, and a tree on the other. The disputed image (left) shows neither. I have no objection to Aziz's picture of a mudflat (on the upper right above), either as a replacement or as another picture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This large image of the Karun may help others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The bridge has two parts look [15] --Aziz1005 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can this comparison of NASA images, detailing environmental destruction along the Shatt al-Arab, be used in Wikipedia? [16]--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aziz can you please explain how did you take these new photos? Were you riding on a helicopter? (Arash the Archer 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

I asked my cousin in Basra to take some photos for shatt al-arab and email them to me. He took these photos from a tall building (Hotel or something!) near the river and I think the other one from a bridge. Is there any other questions?--Aziz1005 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous image was fine and free, you need to come up with a better rational, and get a consensus to change the image. The Karun river joins the waterway from the Iranian side, so it would not surprising if the white bridge could be seen in the image, but that's not the white bridge anyways. --Mardavich 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course the White Bridge cannot be seen from the Shatt al-Arab - it is many miles away in Ahwaz City! Please state the name of this bridge in Mohammareh/Khorramshahr and evidence that this bridge exists in the city.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything, the uploader of the image says this image is from Arvand River, and we have to AGF, but you're disputing this, so it's up to you to prove that this is not Arvand River, and you haven't done that so far. Your "pictorial evidence" don't stick, as PMAnderson pointed out, the bridges in those pictures don't look the same, and I have to agree with him. --Mardavich 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Up to my understaning, the one who makes the claim is the one that proves it - the other party does not have to prove that it isn't because that could be impossible or near to impossible. Anyway, I have never heard of a bridge over the shatt so it the photo does not seem right. --Maha Odeh 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


I dont really know whether i can upload a screenshot from Google Earth to prove what i said or not!. I am certain that the bridge is in Khorramshahir/Almuhammarah but this bridge is on Karun river Not Shat Al-Arab. Mardavich go and check....you can also see the big ship near the bridge--Aziz1005 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many ship yards along the Karoon at Mohammerah/Khorramshahr and this could be a smaller bridge near the Shatt al-Arab that looks like the White Bridge in Ahwaz City. But it is still the Karoon and not the Shatt al-Arab. Like Maha Odeh said, there is no bridge over the Shatt al-Arab. You can look on Google Earth, look along the whole stretch of the waterway and there is no bridge.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The bridge is clearly visible on this satelite image - as well as the deralict ships featured in the mis-labeled photograph. The bridge clearly does not cross the Shatt al-Arab. The matter is settled. Rklawton 14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been settled. We already know that there is a bridge on Karun, but that's not the bridge in the picture , they are different, and look different. --Mardavich 14:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? Then show me the satellite image of this 2nd bridge. I've already looked. there's nothing else near Khorramshahir. Period. Rklawton 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Here. And if you go toward right on your map, there is even another bridge there. There are many bridges in that area. --Mardavich 14:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Great! That's NOT Shatt al-Arab. Shatt al-Arab is to the left. Rklawton 15:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The satellite image is of the confluence of the Karoon (running east-west) with the larger Shatt Al-Arab, flowing north-west to south-east - there are no bridges on the Shatt al-Arab on the Iran-Iraq border, look at the satellite image. There are lots of bridges on the Karoon. It is a long river. Rklawton has shown a good satellite image of Khorramshahr, with a bridge that could be this bridge over the Karoon. It looks different from the White Bridge in Ahwaz City, which has two arches and is near an island, but it is still an arched bridge. This explains why the photograph could well be of Mohammerah/Khorramshahr, but not the Shatt al-Arab.
This is a really farcical edit war, typical of any Iran-related article. If you really insist on having the wrong photograph in the article, then we'll keep the wrong photograph, so that more important edits can be made.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The bridge can be seen in the background of the picture, but the photo itself is taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab. If you have a photograph of New Jersey with New York in background, the photo is still of New Jersy, not New York. --Mardavich 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If the photo was taken from the east facing west, then Shatt al-Arab is behind the bridge and not visible in the image. If the image was taken in the west facing east, it is equally clear that the body of water featured in the image is the water under the bridge - which is not the Shat al-Arab. Either way, the Shatt al-Arab is not anywhere to be seen in the image. Furthermore, the derelict ships featured in the foreground of the image are clearly visible via satellite - and these ships are not in the Shatt al-Arab, either. Rklawton 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting that Karun gets its water from Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab anyways, it's the same water, so the body of water featured in the image is NOT the water under the bridge, the bridge is far far in the background. Anyways, I think we should all propose a new image and then discuss it here. --Mardavich 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Karoon doesn't get its water from the Shatt al-Arab, it flows into the Shatt al-Arab. Its source is the Zagros Mountains. What is actually wrong with the image Aziz put into the article? It isn't controversial. Even if you do believe the picture with the bridge in the background is the Shatt al-Arab looking towards the Karoon River, there is sufficient confusion here to suggest that it is probably not a good picture to illustrate the Shatt al-Arab.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference? Gets or flows? It's the same water, and for all we know the image was taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab with Karun in the background, and there hasn't been any solid evidence to prove otherwise beyond a doubt. In such cases, you assume good faith with the information provided by the up-loader of the image, and that clearly says the image was taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab.--Mardavich 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I can still assume good faith while believing someone is wrong. You can be wrong in good faith. What's the difference between the source and destination? There is a big difference. The Karoon is a source for the Shatt al-Arab, not the other way around. So, the Karoon is not a part of the Shatt al-Arab, it is not the same water.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If I take a photo of the moon, should I use it to illustrate an article about my home-town where I was standing when I shot the image? This article is about the Shatt al-Arab. It should feature photos of the Shatt al-Arab. I don't think that's asking too much. By stating that the water might have some water from the Shatt al-Arab mixed in, you're clearly grasping for straws. The bridge, the boats, the banks - are all Karoon - 100%. Rklawton 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you know "the boats, the banks - are all Karoon - 100%"? All we know for a sure is that the bridge, far in the background, is in Karoon, the rest could very well be in Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab as the uploader of the image has indicated, and I see no reason why he would lie, and in such cases you assume good faith. But since you guys are failing to AGF, I will just find a better image of Arvand Roud/Shatt al-Arab, and we will discuss it here. --Mardavich 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Um. The derelict ships are identical to the beached ships on the satellite image - right down to matching outline, colors, and bridge structures. Rklawton 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with Aziz's photograph?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Karoon photo is nice, too. Maybe we could use it in a "Tributaries" section? Rklawton 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks quite nice in Karun, where it now is. Is there a problem with that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on here ?

Hi everybody ...

Can you please say me, what is going on here? I'm a wikipedian from Ahvaz, so any such talks should be happened with me :)

217.219.229.24 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arvand Rud article. UTAFA 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This has been thoroughly discussed and settled. Shatt al-Arab is used.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It has not been settled. We just recognize that one side has imposed its views over a significant number of Wikipedia editors and choose not to fight for now. UTAFA 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody imposed any views. It's just a simple matter of making this article's title and text comply with our current naming conventions (which, being policy, "[have] wide acceptance among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow").
Of course, if you disagree with our current conventions, feel free to propose any changes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. If you have any doubt about how to do this I would be happy to help you. - Best regards, Ev 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you UTAFA, this has sertainly not been settled yet... The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the historic use of Arvand

The article's text mentioned the following:

The use of the name Arvand for this river goes back to the Avesta.1 From the Achaemenid Empire (559 BC) until the Afsharid dynasty in 1747, the river was for a long time part of the territories of the Persian Empire and was called the Arvand.2

References:

1. West, Edward William (trans.) (1901) "Bahman Yast" Pahlavi Texts Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, p. 216, note 3, OCLC 83687570.
2. West, Edward William (trans.) (1901) "Bahman Yast" Pahlavi Texts Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, p. 216, note 3, OCLC 83687570.

Well, for crying out loud, that's not what the references say. That page 216 contains the Bahman Yast, as translated by E. W. West and published by Max Müller in 1880. It includes the following (III, 5 — the bold is mine):

[...] and they hasten much their progress to these countries of Iran which I, Aûharmazd, created, up to the bank of the Arvand3, some have said4 the Frât5 river, [...]

Footnotes:

3. Here written Arang, Arand, or Arvand, but as it is Arvand in §§ 21, 38, that reading seems preferable, the difference between the two names in Pahlavi being merely a single stroke. The Arvand is the Tigris, and the Arang probably the Araxes (see SZS. VI, 20, Bund. XX, 8).
5. The Euphrates.

Something already mentioned in this very talk page, since Iranica's article on the Arvand-Ruud mentions that (again, the bold is mine)...

“[The] ARVAND-RUÚD [is the] name given to the river Tigris in some passages in the Mid. Pers. books and a verse in the [Shahnama]. The use of this name to designate the [Shatt al-Arab] began in the later Pahlavi period and persisted after the revolution of [...] 1978-79.”

Finally, the article's text mentioned the following:

"Arvand" often changes to "Alvand"3, and "Alvand" to "al-Wand" and then to the Arabic "Hulwan".4

References:

3. Lenormant, Francois (September 1881) "Ararat and 'Eden" The Contemporary Review 40: p.463.
4. Bagley, F. R. C. (1985) "Review: Iraq and Iran: The Years of Crisis by J. M. Abdulghani" International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 61(3): p. 542.

But the text by François Lenormant refers to the Mount Alvand (article duplicated at Alvand), which isn't that close to the Shatt al-Arab. I'm removing this sentence until someone explains exactly how is it relevant to the article and finds a better, clearer, properly attributed wording for it.

Accordingly, I have edited out that paragraph and replaced it by a new one sourced with Iranica's article. - Best regards, Ev 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaaveh Ahangar, since my post above you have reverted my edits twice (diff. & diff.), without discussion or explanation (not even using edit summaries). Please, consider discussing the issue here instead, so that we can reach a consensus on which wording better reflects what our sources state. - Regads, Ev 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In Middle Persian times, do they considered the river Tigris and Shatt al-Arab two different rivers or they considered Euphrates to pour into Tigris?!( Considering the fact that Tigris is fast-flowing vs Euphrates that is a "gentle current" !).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether it was considered a distinct waterway, as it is today, or as the final portion of either the Tigris or the Euphrates. In any case, in this issue as in all others, I can't emphasize enough the need to constrain ourselves to reflect what our reliable sources state, and avoid any form of original research. - Regards, Ev (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure! I'm discussing it here exactly for that reason. But I'm afraid that counting today's separated Tigris and Arvand/Shatt-al Arab as always like so, may lead to WP:SYN. I mean first there is sources that say Tigris name in old Persian was Arvand , then we conclude because today's Tigris and Shatt-al Arab are different , then in the old times the name "Arvand" referred to a different entity. Isn't it synthesis OR? Do we need to mention that in the article for not to mislead? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... the article's doesn't mention whether or not the Tigris and the Shatt al-Arab were always considered as separate, distinct bodies of water. The simple fact is that we don't yet have sources to claim one way or the other :-) Therefore, we restrict ourselves to mentioning just the two facts that we can source:
  • that at a certain time Persian literature referred to the Tigris using the name "Arvand";
  • and that at a later point Iranians started using the name "Arvand" specifically to designate the Shatt al-Arab.
Per our Verifiability policy, the article should not establish any connection, or make any claim whatsoever, that has not already been published by a reliable source. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Arvand was used for Tigris, The Shatt al-Arab was Tigris at that time, there was no distinction. Also, why are you removing the part about the river being a Persian territory until the time of Afsharids? [...] —Preceding comment -redacted by Ev- was added by 99.238.138.108 (talk) at Ev's talk page 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) diff.

99.238.138.108, your edit reintroduced the claim that "The use of the name Arvand for this river goes back to the Avesta." However, the very source used to back the sentence contradicts this assertion by clearly stating that "The Arvand is the Tigris". (see details in the first post of this section)
In the post above you assert that the Shatt al-Arab was Tigris at that time, there was no distinction; but you fail to back that claim with a reliable source that directly and explicitly supports it. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. At this time, that claim is only your personal opinion, and as such it has no place in the article.
Then you go on to combine both ideas (the sourced fact that the name "Arvand" for the Tigris river is found in the Avesta, and your personal opinion that at the time there was no distinction between the Tigris and what today is the Shatt al-Arab) and introduce to the article the idea that today's Shatt al-Arab was already referred to as "Arvand" in the Avesta. This is a clear case of original research.
Notice that I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that this isn't the truth. I'm only stating that the idea is not supported by reliable sources. Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. —— The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed.
As for removing the mention of the river being a Persian territory until the time of Afsharids, I only did so because it too is improperly sourced. Take a look at that reference:
"...up to the bank of the Arvand3, some..."

3. Here written Arang, Arand, or Arvand, but as it is Arvand in §§ 21, 38, that reading seems preferable, the difference between the two names in Pahlavi being merely a single stroke. The Arvand is the Tigris, and the Arang probably the Araxes (see SZS. VI, 20, Bund. XX, 8).

How can that text be used to source the claim that "[f]rom the Achaemenid Empire (559 BC) until the Afsharid dynasty in 1747, the river was for a long time part of the territories of the Persian Empire" ??? Again, it's just a matter of complying with our current Verifiability policy.
Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think adding this neuter sentence may solve the problem : "That is unknown that the Tigris and the Shat al Arab were considered as one river or two separate rivers in that time".Thanyou so much. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that, per our Verifiability policy, to add that sentence we would require a reliable source that directly and explicitly supports it by mentioning that the fact is indeed unknown :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that ! But I mean the contrary also need to be verified : do you know any source that says directly and explicitly that the Tigiris and Shatt al arab in ancient time were considered as two different entity? If "no" , then in adding a "neuter sentence" do we need a "source"?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to add any affirmation of this type, stating that something is not known, a source is needed: the same affirmation must have already been published by a reliable source.
A different thing would be to say "we Wikipedia editors don't know whether...", but such comments are not allowed by current editorial practices (and they shouldn't be, for it would mean opening Pandora's box :-/ Best regads, Ev (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
People, what is wrong with the current wording? It correctly states that Tigris is indeed the confluence of the Shatt al-Arab, and that Iranians begun to designate the name Arvand Rud only for Shatt al-Arab during Pahlavi era, which is what Iranica says.--07fan (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Axamir, I reverted that addition yet again. Now, for absolute clarity, see this comparison of what the reverted sentence and reference state:

  • The sentence: In the Avesta the name Arvand is used for the Shatt al-Arab.
  • The reference: In the Avesta the name Arvand is used for the Tigris.

Can you see the difference now ? See also Axamir's talk page. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)