Talk:Shatt al-Arab/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

So, the new format is:

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

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

Survey

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

Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

1. Support This is a local body of water, under the exclusive sovereignty of Iran and Iraq. Therefore both local names should be used, in an alphabetical order.--Mardavich 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   • The purpose of this English Wikipedia is to communicate with English-speakers, not mediate between nationalisms. The UN exists to do that; and is better paid than we are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Arvand river is also common in English. Neither name is English to begin with, so both local names should be used in alphabetical order. --Mardavich 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support The name Arvand is also historically correct, as per Encyclopedia Iranica: [2]. Let us not forget that Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and a few other Central Asian states speak Persian, and hence naturally refer to "Arvand". It is not just Iran.--Zereshk 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per above --62.56.91.114 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   — 62.56.91.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Ev 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per Mardavich and Zereshk. Also we should not forget that the Iran-Iraq War was fought over this issue and over a million people lost their lives because Saddam wanted it completely in the name of Pan-Arab nationalisml. Wikipedia's NPOV policy clearly shows that the current title is not only proper but consistent with policy. The Persian name predates the Arabic name and like Zereshk says Persian is one of the "lingua francas" of West and Central Asia. Claiming that only Iran uses this name is not only incorrect, it is born out of pure ignorance unfortunately. Khorshid 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Support Altough naming of this article seems to be controversial but it has been stable for a long time which shows good faith and NPOV of the editors. According to 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. Therefor, I think current name should remain.(Arash the Archer 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

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

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

Move to Arvandrud

Move to Shatt al-Arab

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

• Comment This illustrates my point: "Known to Arabs and in the English-speaking world as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Arvand Roud ..." [3] There also seems to be a difference in spelling. This article makes the Iranian name into two separate words. I still haven't heard of it and Shatt al-Arab is the commonly used word in the English language.--Conjoiner 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud

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

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

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

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Proposed change of format: move to Shatt al-Arab

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

Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly state that "generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and the naming conventions on using English further clarifies that "if you are talking about a [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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of usage

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

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

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

National Geographic Society maps:

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

Other encyclopedias:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the hand, WP:Naming states that:

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

and:

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

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

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

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

On using a double title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a naming conflict ?

WP:Naming states that:

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

and:

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

Zereshk 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

"The neighbors don't even agree what to call it. For the Iranians, it is Arvandrud, or Arvand River. To the Iraqis, it is the Shatt al-Arab, or Arab coastline."[4]

and:

"It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud (the arvand river)."[5]

And you can see the Arvand name in the media as well: [6][7][8][9]

And speaking of the UN, the UN uses Arvand river as well:[10][11][12].

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

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

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

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

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

Is the name biased ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The oldest version was Shat al-arab

THIS IS THE OLDEST VERSION [13] It says Shat Al-Arab The common name is Shat al-Arab which is used by the UN the other name is only used in Iran although more than 75% of the river passes through Iraq which is an Arabic country.Some Unknown Ip Adresses, users or perhaps ADMINS [14] [15] [16] [17] trying to take sides and therefore moved this article to Arvand or whatever [18][19] [20][21][22] for some reason .Remember the name is still the same in all other wikipedias ;Do you want to move it as well???!!!!BTW why dont you apply these policies to the Persian gulf article .Wikipedia is really suffering from these kind of people --Aziz1005 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus Alex Bakharev 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Shatt al-Arab

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

Survey

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

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

Survey - Move to Arvandrud

1. Support as my second choice per my rational below and the fact that "Arvandrud" (Arvand River) is considered the historically correct name [23], unlike "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) - a modern term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones. --Mardavich 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive: article titles should merely reflect common English usage, and not determine what the "correct, right, fair" name is or should be. — The issue is explained at lenght in the guideline on naming conflicts. - Ev 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. I feel that "Arvandrud," being the older name should take more precedence over "Shatt al-Arab". -- Aivazovsky 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   Our naming conventions merely require that article's titles reflect current English usage, and make no mention whatsoever of "older names taking precedence over newer ones". - Ev 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Support per Mardavich --Gerash77 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support as second choice, per user:Mardavich and user:Aivazovsky - Fedayee 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support It's the historically correct name and It's older. This is an Encyclopedia and we should clear the truth, even if the reality is not the popular term used currently. Our job is to put the right term in common usage and not to follow the wrong one.--Arad 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, our job is the exact opposite :-) Wikipedia policies ask us to passively reflect common English usage, and not to actively "correct" what we may percieve as "unfair" or "biased" usages. — The issue is explained at lenght in the guideline on naming conflicts. - Ev 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Support This is my second choice. It is older name of the river and the river had been named Arvand centuries before Arabs came to the region.--behmod talk 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

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

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

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

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

4. Support. My reasons: 1. Both names are not English to begin with any way. 2. There clearly is a dispute over the name. 3. WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.--Zereshk 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per Mardavich and Zereshk --Gerash77 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support This river is a border line and it is considered one of the reasons if Iran-Iraq war that had near 1 million casualties. So it is very irresponsible to use only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use. It is an editable encyclopedia, if we choose only one of the names every once in a while someone comes and changes the name to the other one and it never becomes stable. Therefore, it is better to keep this name which is stable, less controversial and consistent with Wikipedia policy. (Arash the Archer 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC))
7. Support per Arash the Archer, Mardavich and Zereshk. It is pretty stable and neutral to chose both names. - Fedayee 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per Mardavich and Arash.Gol 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Maybe changing it to Arvandrud alone is better since that name is older. But this is also acceptable. --Arad 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - This is a shared waterway, therefore, both names, especially the older name, Arvandrud, need to be in the title, especially for such a waterway as this, as this is a very controversial waterway.Azerbaijani 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support As I said before I think when 2 countries disagree on the name of one place and both of the names are accepted by international community as formal names we can't remove one of them and leave the other and the best order is alphabetical order. But we can remove one name if it is informal name among international community. Popularity of one name in the media isn't a good criteria. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per Fedayee--Pejman47 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per Mardavich --behmod talk 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Google books which is scholarly material is pretty close in hit results. --alidoostzadeh 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    That's an odd definition of "pretty close". As the examples of usage show, the Google Book search favours "Shatt al-Arab" by a ratio of at least ca. 8 to 1. - Ev 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Please also check "Arwand" as well as "Arvand". Google books shows "Arwand" in journals at least from 150 years ago in the English speaking world. --alidoostzadeh 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    I have now checked "Arwand" too: ca. 927 books use Shatt al-Arab (or Shatt el-Arab, Shatt ul-Arab), while only ca. 40 books use Arvandrud (or Arvand, Arwand). See Google Print test II for the details. - Ev 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Move to Shatt al-Arab

1. Move, as nominator. - Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, common English usage. Markussep 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, common English name and per Ev.The other name can be mentioned in the article not the title --Aziz1005 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - Arvand is almost never used in English. Arabian Gulf is, however, used often in English. So perhaps if we have Arvandrood/Shatt al-Arab, we should also have Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf (in alphabetical order, of course)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   While it is correct that Shatt al-Arab is used more often in English (I don't think anyone disputes this), your second example is clearly trolling, so admins take note. "Arabian Gulf" is rarely, if ever, used in the English-speaking world and is not even widely used in the Arab world, restricted to Gulf Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen, etc. I suggest to you Ahwaz that you stop trying to provoke people. Khorshid 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   Ahwaz's comment was just a valid comparison between both articles. Consider that while the BBC returns only 3 mentions of Arvandrud or Arvand, it gives 148 of "Arabian Gulf" (and 465 of "Persian Gulf", of course). - Ev 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   Not true. Ahwaz's comment was trolling since no English-language source in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia use "Arabian Gulf". In the UK the British media often refer to the Persian Gulf as "The Gulf" but never as "Arabian Gulf", so cut it out Ev. Your POV here is unfortunately obvious and you have been very, very "motivated" to have the article moved and remove all mention of "Arvandrud". You must tone it down, because your attitude is becoming very annoying, and also your constant and pervasive and intrusive comments are disruptive. I will alert admins if you don't stop. Khorshid 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   lol I don't want to remove every mention of "Arvandrud", Khorshid :-) nor do I have any "point of view" on what this river should be called. My only aim is to make this article's title conform to our current naming conventions, which ask us to use the name most commonly used in English-language publications. — By the way, on that "Arabian Gulf" thing: NYT 70, CNN 36, Google Print 579 mentions. Never indeed. - Best regards, Ev 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   Those are mostly editorials/news items written by Arab journalists, otherwise "Arabian Gulf" is a fringe name rarely, if ever, used in the media outside the Arab World, look up Persian Gulf on the same sources: NYT 22,055, CNN 2257, Google Print 10530. The ratio is not comparable with Shatt al-Arab's ratio vs. Arvandrud, Persian Gulf is much more etsablished name in English than Shatt al-Arab is. This is a false comparison anyways, Persian Gulf is an international body of water with a standard English name, Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab on the other hand is a local body of water with two local names which are both used in English, yet neither is English. --Mardavich 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   I refer to the Arabian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf, like anyone from the Gulf region outside Iran including the governments of Arab states. If you think that is trolling, then report me to an admin. But I would advise you to assume good faith. Note that I am not insisting on the removal of the Persian name of the waterway from the article, just that it is confusing to English speakers who commonly use the Arabic name. But if you insist on having the uncommon Persian name in the title, then you should support the name Arabian Gulf in the title of the Gulf article. Otherwise, there would be double standards, no? The argument over the name of the Arabian Gulf article was based on the most common useage in English, which is the Persian Gulf. The same arguments EV is using for Shatt al-Arab were used by those who insisted on the Persian Gulf. Now it seems that in your mind those arguments are invalid, so perhaps we should revisit the debate over the title of the Gulf article---الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Support – Per WP:NCGN and Usage in major influential English-language sources. As someone who is professionally an analyst of international affairs, I can say that "Shatt al-Arab" is by far and away the most common usage in English. It is, in fact, what is taught in geography classes in U.S. schools. The Persian name is found a little more often in British publications (usually parenthetically), but is still encountered very infrequently, and usually only in sources that are dealing with subjects related to Iran. In fact, if a speaker were to use the Persian name in a presentation to my peers without clarifying that it's the Persian name for the Shatt al-Arab, there would be quite a few puzzled looks. I'm unsure there's even a common rendering of the spelling for the name. BTW, I've also found that Wikipedia's search function doesn't always do well with names separated only by a slash. If the consensus here proves to be to retain both names, I would suggest a form like "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)" or however consensus would decide to render the Persian name. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

   Please see Essjay controversy - please do not cite your claimed professional background or education in order to justify an argument or sway opinion. It is not acceptable at all. Your claims above will have no bearing on the result of this survey. If you want to present an argument, cite evidence, not personal claims about your alleged background and education. Khorshid 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps you did not notice, Khorshid, but this is a survey – that is, a straw poll. In Wikipedia, such polls are intended to give insight into where people stand on an issue; it is not a vote nor does it require proofs, only reasons. As WP:Straw polls points out: “A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, wrt consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.” My statement of experience is the basis for my opinion and my position. While it may count for no more than any other opinion in this poll, it is every bit as legitimate as those opinions – so please do not make the illegitimate assertion that my “claims above will have no bearing on the result of this survey” simply because you do not like them. Furthermore, accusing someone of the misdeeds of Essjay without firm evidence is what is known as a personal attack. I recommend you state your position on the survey issue where you desire, and leave others to place theirs where they will and save your criticisms for the “Discussion” section. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   Not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Your argument, based on claims of personal background and education, is totally 100% illegitimate. Change your argument and leave your pretensions behind - they are nothing but claims which here, on Wikipedia, literally are not valid. Khorshid 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   An assertion, without proof, that someone is making up their credentials (i.e., lying) is indeed a personal attack, and I suggest you restrain your criticisms to relevant points, not their author's background. I also suggest you familiarize – or refamiliarize – yourself with WP:Straw polls ... and maybe WP:AGF as well. My reasons are legitimate expressions of my opinions, according to WP policies and guidelines. The only purpose for which they would not be suitable would be for use as a reliable source, but I'm not offering them for such purpose. Again, if you have a relevant topic to debate, it should be entered into the "Discussion" section below, not inserted as an attack on poll results you dislike. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Strong support per discussion below. Many of the !votes for other positions are, as Ev has noted, actually opposed to the way Wikipedia has chosen to handle these questions. We do not, and should not, attempt to decide what the right/older/historic name is; we decide what the English language calls it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   I did not find anything in official Wiki pages about determining English-usage per Internet-testing: is it (testing) Wiki's official policy? If it is , I would be glad if you mention the page .--Alborz Fallah 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   See "On relying on web-searches" below. - Best regads, Ev 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Support per some of the evidence below and WP:COMMON. —  AjaxSmack  02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I am your typical layman reader who takes an interest in current affairs. I have certainly heard of Shatt Al Arab, but have never heard of Arvandrud. At the very least, the article's title should be "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)" to avoid confusion among English speakers. Is this a fair compromise?--Conjoiner 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Common usage. Eluchil404 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of usage in English

Index:

• The usual simple tests - (by Ev — accuracy contested).
• Press usage - (by Ev).
• Iranian media - (by Ahwaz — accuracy contested).
• Other encyclopedias - (by Ev).
• Examples of Official useage - (by Ahwaz).
• Examples of double name usage - (by Ev).
• False positives - (by PMAnderson/Septentrionalis & Ev).
• Google Print test II - (by Ev).
• Usage in major influential English-language sources - (by Askari Mark).

Best regards, Ev 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The usual simple tests, to give a general idea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we are saying the same thing !When a test is weak in Sensitivity and Specificity; that means it is not reliable in positive/ negative predictive value: then we can't count on internet searching tools to know which name is more accepted in English language. --Alborz Fallah 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, in my "Google Print test" I did check for false positives. Thus, my numbers for the "Google Print test" do not reflect false positives.

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

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

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

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

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

See "On relying on web-searches" below. - Best regads, Ev 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Press usage:

• The New York Times: "Shatt al-Arab" 54; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• The Times: Shatt+al-Arab 147; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• International Herald Tribune: "Shatt al-Arab" 26; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.
• The Guardian: "Shatt al-Arab" 117; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results (and one more mentioning "the Iranian town of Arvand Kenar" [24]).
• The Economist:"Shatt al-Arab" 10; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.
• BBC: "Shatt al-Arab" 112; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• CNN: "Shatt al-Arab" 28; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.

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

Iranian media:

• Press TV (Iranian government-owned English language TV station): The British army transferred the Shaibah logistics base, once the main center of British military operations in Iraq to the Iraqi forces on Tuesday, a month after it handed over two other British run bases in al-Saie and Shatt al-Arab, Basra.[25] Across the Shatt al-Arab waterway is another prize: Iran's vast oilfields.[26]

• Mehr News (official Iranian news agency): This inland sea of some 233,000 km² is connected to the Gulf of Oman in the east by the Strait of Hormuz; and its western end is marked by the major river delta of Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) [note that the Arabic name takes precedence], which carries the waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris.[27]

• Iran Daily (Tehran-based English language newspaper): The Shatt Al-Arab waterway has long been a source of tension between Iran and Iraq.[28]

• Iranian.com - an Iranian news portal - has 22 hits for Shatt al-Arab [29] while it has just six for Arvand Rood [30]. One of the articles hosted by Iranian.com which uses the name Shatt al-Arab is written by Nima Kasraie [31]: There was much more to Iraq's claim over Khuzestan than what books claim about the Shatt-ul-Arab waterway, the 3 islands, and previous "border skirmishes".

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

Comment: These are western media reports picked up and reprinted by Iranian media (notice the author's name, John Pilger), otherwise Iranian media universally use Arvandroud or Arvand River. --Mardavich 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Only the Pilger article comes from the Western media. All the other articles are written and published by the Iranian media and clearly use the Shatt al-Arab in the English language, sometimes putting Arvand Rood in parenthesis.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, the Iran Daily item is a reprint too. You say "all the other articles" as if you have two dozens examples here, the only original Iranian report here that mentions Shatt al-Arab (alongside Arvandroud too) is the Mehrnews item, and their author is most likely an ethnic Arab. Likewise, here is an Arab news source that only uses Arvand River, and their author is most likely an ethnic Persian. Such cherry picking of sources is not going to prove anything.--Mardavich 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iran Daily news article doesn't look like a reprint. It looks like a news item they have published. Where is the proof that it is a reprint. Also, where is the proof that the Mehr News Agency article was written by an Arab? Yes, Ardeshir Ommani is Iranian - I believe he was a member of Tudeh. The point is to show that even in the official Iranian media, Shatt al-Arab is sometimes used, acknowledging that an English speaking audience will not be familiar with the Iranian name for the waterway. They obviously don't think the Arabic name is as controversial as some people here claim or they would not use it.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias:

National Geographic Society maps:

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

Other encyclopedias:

• 1911 Britannica's articles on the Tigris, the Euphrates & Persia use the name "Shatt el Arab" (Shattel-Arab, Shatt-el-Arab).
• Britannica's article is named Shatt Al-'Arab.
• Columbia's article is named Shatt al Arab (at Bartleby.com & TheFreeDictionary).
• Encarta's article is named Shatt al-Arab.

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

Examples of Official useage:
United States:

• Henry Kissinger: The Soviets maintained a position of neutrality in the recent dispute between Iran and Iraq over the Shatt al-Arab River[32]
• US State Department Background Notes on Iran: Much of the dispute between the two countries centered around sovereignty over the waterway between the two countries, the Shatt al-Arab[33]
• US Defense Department: He said intelligence shows 40 to 50 ships ready to take on oil on the Shatt al Arab, a waterway leading to the gulf from Iraq.[34]
• CRS Report for Congress, Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs It has a Border Police component and a Riverine Police component to secure water crossings (Shatt al-Arab, dividing Iran and Iraq).[35]

United Kingdom:

• Iraq travel advice: The boundary between the territorial sea of Iran and Iraq at the mouth of the Shatt al Arab waterway has been a matter of dispute between the two countries for a number of years.[36]
• Ministry of Defence: The helicopter reported that the two seaboats were being escorted by Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt 'Al Arab Waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters.[37]
• House of Commons debates: 55 hits, including speeches by ministers [38], for Shatt al-Arab, but absolutely nothing for Arvand Rood.

United Nations:

• Search on Shatt al-Arab, 32 unique pages [39]
• Search on Arvand, 9 unique pages [40]

I cannot find any reference to Arvand under any spellings on the US State Department, the British Foreign Office or the British Ministry of Defence websites.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• But they have used it ! US Department of Stateor "[41]

"....Group "A": Shatt al Arab (Shatt al' Arab, Arvand Rud) to Jazireh-ye Kish "--Alborz Fallah 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

False positives

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

As I said before, counting the search engine results may have biases and that special weakness makes it unreliable. Overemphasis's on geographical terms that leads to count every single unreliable use in internet can be considered as that so-called distortion of data for nationalist purposes. When the search engine can not give a correct answer; a hotel name [42] can be considered as the name of the river or when a robot is named after the river, it may be considered as false positive, not to mention the fact that naming something after a geographical term is also a usage of that name.--Alborz Fallah 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Print test II

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

• Search for "Shatt al-Arab": 534 books, of which:

445 books are in English and refer to this river

...including 2 mentioning "Shatt al-Arab (Arvan Rud)".

2 books are in English, but mention "Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)".

5 books are in English but don't refer to this river

(2 refer to the name of a ship, 2 to a street in Jordan, 1 to the name of an hotel).

31 books are repetitions.

48 books had no preview.

3 books are not in English (2 in French, 1 in Polish).

• Search for "Shatt el-Arab": 550 books, of which:

436 books are in English and refer to this river

...including 1 mentioning "Basrah River or Shatt El Arab".

3 books are in English but refer to the name of an hotel.

51 books are repetitions.

39 books had no preview.

21 books are not in English (7 in German, 6 in French, 2 in Arabic, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Indonesian, 1 in Italian, 1 in Portuguese, 1 in Swedish(?).

• Search for "Shatt ul-Arab": 66 books, of which:

46 books are in English and refer to this river

...including 1 mentioning "Shatt ul-Arab (or Arvan Rud)".

6 books are repetitions.

6 books had no preview.

8 books are not in English (3 in German, 2 in French, 1 in Arabic, 2 in something else).

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

• Search for Arvandrud: 6 books, of which:

4 books are in English and refer to this river

...including one mentioning "Shatt al-Arab, or Arvandrud", and another saying "from the Shatt-al-Arab - Arvandrud and the Tigris"

1 book is in English but mentions "Shatt al-Arab (Arvandrud)".

1 book had no preview.

• Search for Arvand: 357 books, of which:

34 books are in English and refer to this river

...including 6 mentioning "Arvand River".

...including 5 mentioning "Arvand Rud".

...including 2 mentioning "Arvand Rood" & "Arvand Roud".

...including 4 mentioning "Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab)".

...including 1 mentioning "Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab)".

...including 1 mentioning "Arvand (Shatt al-Arab) river".

...including 2 mentioning "in the "Arvand Rood" (the Persian name for the Shatt)", "Arvand Rud (Iran's name for the Shatt al-Arab)"

...including 1 mentioning "Arabs call it Shatt-Al-Arab and Iranians call it the Arvand river".

...including 1 mentioning "Shatt al-Arab (Arab River) Arvand River (Iranian) A waterway".

...including 1 mentioning "the Shatt al-Arab, known to the ancient Iranians as Arvand Rud".

...including 1 mentioning "literally the Shore of ti Arabs in Arabic, also known as Arvand Rud, Great River, in Farsi"

...including 7 which are uncertain, mentioning "the not less sacred river, Arvand, whose waters", "arvand), the ferryman refused to take him to the other aide of the river", "the Arvand and Daitya rivers", "and Arvand, and Daitya rivers", "the source of the river Arvand", "or Arvand, the", "or Arvand, to the south-west of Hamadan".

10 books are in English, but mention "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)", or its equivalents

...including "Shatt-al-Arab Waterway (known as such to Iraq and as Arvand River to Iran)", "the Shatt-al-Arab (Arvand River in Persian)", "the Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)", "Shatt al-'Arab (literally, the coast of the Arabs) but sometimes used Shatt al-'Iraq as well; the Iranians renamed it Arvand", "Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)".

106 books are in English but don't refer to this river

...including 42 referring to people named Arvand.

...including 19 referring to the river Tigris, generally in a religious or mythological context.

...including also: 1 refer to the Orontes, 4 to Mount Arvand or Alvand, 6 to the name of a robot & Sharif Arvand, 16 to some language examples, 1 to the Arvand pupfish, 1 to the Arvand Stevedoring Company, 1 to the Arvand Store, 1 to the Arvand-Shatt-al-Arab provinces, 3 to the son of Arvand, 1 to Arvand Mills, 1 to the town of Arvand-Kenar, 1 to Arvand Elementary School, to Arvand Dach, 1 to a mint, 1 to arvand berries, 6 unclear.

16 books are repetitions.

31 books had no preview.

160 books are not in English (73 in German, 61 in French, 7 in Danish, 2 in Italian, 2 in Portuguese, 1 in Estonian, 1 in Spanish, 1 in Swedish, 12 in something else).

• Search for Arwand: 121 books, of which:

2 books are in English and refer to this river

1 book is in English, but mentions "Shatt al-'Arab (Arwand Rud in Persian)."

4 books mentioning "toward the Arwand, or call it, As Arabs do, the Dijla", "crossing the Arwand sorcery, but his minister", "crossed the Arwand Without a boat", "and Arwand from the Khermanshah disctrict".

40 books are in English but don't refer to this river

...including 8 referring to people named Arwand.

...including 2 referring to the river Tigris, generally in a religious or mythological context.

...including 2 referring to the Orontes Mountain.

...including also: 5 referring to some language examples, 1 to an Arwand mountain, 1 probably to a mint, 1 to someone named Arwand-asp, 1 to Arwand-Honig, 1 to Arwand-Tuffin, 16 unclear, 2 mentioning "In addition, arwand more formal working groups have recently begun to emerge" & "Among the ladies, there were two of an arwand pleasant".

3 books are repetitions.

3 books had no preview.

68 books are not in English (33 in French, 29 in German, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Italian, 1 in Norwegian, 2 in something else).

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

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

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

This move request has been announced at:

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

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

On reflecting common English usage

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

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "[u]se the most common name. [T]he titles should represent common usage."
• 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;"
• 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."

• 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."

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

On using double titles

A remainder of how our naming conventions discourage double titles:

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

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

WP:NCON table

The table proposed in the guideline on naming conflicts:

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

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

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

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

Even before one person moved the article to the current format, without discussion it seems (see [43] and [44]), the article used both names in the first line from the very early history, so that should definitely not change. Khorshid 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And it should not change. It may be useful to repeat that the English WP's naming policy has nothing to do with "what is the right name?" or "What claims are there to the subject of the article?"; but merely, "What name will be clearest to English-speaking readers?". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On relying on web-searches

Wikipedia's official policy for article naming is that "[g]enerally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize[.]" — This usually means reflecting common English usage.

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

See more details at:

• The naming conflict guideline, in the "Identification of common names using external references" section.
• The "Search engine test" essay.

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

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

Glad to be of any help :-) Ev 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely_accepted_name. Six tests are presented, of which Google Scholar is neither the first nor the best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Library of Congress country studies are unconditionally recommended in WP:NCGN. I should note that the LoC country study for Iran uses Arvand only twice; both times in the construction: "the Shatt al Arab (which Iranians call the Arvand Rud)." There are few clearer testimonies: this is Persian usage, not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• In section about Identification of common names using external references,using geographic name servers is one of the sources. It appears that this source: Geographic Names server recognizes both names : [45] --Alborz Fallah 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• In Widely accepted name,encyclopedias are also a source : The Columbia Encyclopedia (both Arvandrud & Shatt al-Arab)--Alborz Fallah 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Columbia's article is named "Shatt al Arab" (at Bartleby.com & TheFreeDictionary). Your link to TheFreeDictionary is a Wikipedia mirror. — Also, as I already mentioned in the examples of usage, both Britannica's and Encarta's articles are named "Shatt al-Arab" too. - Regards, Ev 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On usage in major reliable English-language sources

I have conducted comparative searches for “Shatt al-Arab”, “Arvandrud” and “Arvand” on several of the most respected and most widely read of the major English-language sources that publish international news and general-use geopolitical information. This is a far more representative sampling than Googling, which also picks up uses of “Arvand” as a name for a person or other location. Samplings were all conducted on 30 April 2007.

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

Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A) The New York Times is the USA’s leading “publication of record”; its material is often quoted and licensed by other English-language news media throughout the country and around the world. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1981) turns up 279 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [46] and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants [47]: 1 in the form “... Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud, to Iranians) ...”, and 2 as “Arvand river”.

B) The Washington Post is one of the USA’s three leading news publications, and effectively the “publication of record” for the U.S. capital, Washington, D.C.; its material is often quoted and licensed by other English-language news media throughout the country and around the world. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1987) turns up 165 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [48] and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants [49]: 2 headline variants of the same story as “... the Shatt al-Arab, which Iran calls the Arvand River, ...”.

C) The Times (of London) is the U.K.’s national “publication of record”, but is also widely read elsewhere in the British Commonwealth. A search on the its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 148 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [50] and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants [51]: 1 in the form “the British invariably referred to the body of water by its Arabic name, the Shatt al-Arab, rather than its Iranian one, the Arvand Rud (river)”, 1 as “... at Arvand Roud ...”, and 1 as “[Iranian state-run al-Alam television said] the ships were seized at about 11 am today (0730 BST) between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway east of the Iraqi city of Faw.”

D) The Guardian is the UK’s leading and most widely read left-of-centre daily newspaper. A search on its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 165 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [52] and 2 of 4 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants [53]: 1 in the form “Iran’s chief coastguard of the Arvand river - the Farsi name for the Shatt al-Arab waterway - ...”, and 1 as “It said the boats had been confiscated between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway ...”. The other two hits were for a personal name (Arvand Dashtaray) and the Iranian town Arvand Kenar.

E) The Associated Press is the leading U.S. newswire service providing articles to newspapers and radio and TV news broadcasters all over the country; many newspapers and broadcasters around the world subscribe to the AP’s services. The AP Stylebook is the de facto standard for newswriting in the U.S. A search on its archive (goes back to 1998) turns up 93 hits for “Shatt al Arab” "Shatt%20al%20Arab")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no and 14 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants "Arvand")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no: 6 as “For the Iranians, it is Arvandrud, or Arvand River. To the Iraqis, it is the Shatt al-Arab, or Arab coastline.” or as “... the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, or Arvand River ...” The other 8 first refer to the location of the British ship seizure as “... near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway ...” and later comment to the effect (per one source), “The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud — Persian for Arvand River.”

F) Reuters is the leading UK newswire service providing articles to newspapers and radio and TV news broadcasters all over the country; many newspapers and broadcasters around the world subscribe to Reuter’s services. A search on its site turns up 54 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [54] and 0 of 1 hit for “Arvandrud” and its variants [55]: Refers to a military base “... commander of the border base at Arvand in southwest Iran ...”

G) Foreign Affairs is the leading and most influential U.S. journal on foreign affairs; published by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is read around the world by diplomats and international relations professionals. A search on its archive site (goes back to 2000) turns up 5 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [56] and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants. [57]

H) The Christian Science Monitor is the most widely read and respected general-audience U.S. publication focusing exclusively on international news; it is also widely read internationally. A search on its archive site (goes back to 1980) turns up 144 hits for “Shatt al Arab” [58] and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants [59]: 2 in the form “... Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud) ...”.

I) The World Factbook is published by the CIA for the use of U.S. government officials. It is widely referred to by news providers and the general public for basic facts and statistical information on each of the countries in the world. A search on its site [60] turns up 6 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variant renderings. The “Shatt al Arab” hits include the country listings for Iraq [61] and Iran [62], and the Geography notes [63] and International Disputes notes [64] for its Field Listings.

(Provided by Askari Mark.)

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.