Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 31 March 2007

Iran Unassessed

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

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

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

Upload

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

Upload

On moving the article to Arvand/Shatt al-Arab

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

relatively recently

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

37 meters? Don't think so.

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

Please remove this "Aravandrud" from the title

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

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

Arvavand!

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

Re:Arvavand!

I tell you since when:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arad do not get so excited:

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

,Ahvaz =Ahwaz ....etc.

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

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

Merge them

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

NPOV - Minimize use of names

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

2007 seizure of royal navy personel

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

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

This article used as source by Associated Press

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

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

Startegic Purpose

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

Renaming Arvandrud to Arvand

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

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

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)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  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.

Survey - in support of the move

1. 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 I bumped into this article when reading about the controversy over Iran's arrest of British naval personnel. I have never heard of "Arvandrud", although I don't doubt that Iranians call it that. In English, Shatt al-Arab seems to be commonly used and using "Arvandrud" instead is confusing. An explanation of the Iranian name should be given in the first paragraph, but the most common name in the English speaking world - Shatt al-Arab - should take precedence.--Conjoiner 10:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose This is a local body of water, under the exclusive sovereignty of Iran and Iraq. Therefore both local names should be used, in an alphabetical order.--Mardavich 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   • The purpose of this English Misplaced Pages is to communicate with English-speakers, not mediate between nationalisms. The UN exists to do that; and is better paid than we are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Arvand river is also common in English. Neither name is English to begin with, so both local names should be used in alphabetical order. --Mardavich 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose The name Arvand is also historically correct, as per Encyclopedia Iranica: . Let us not forget that Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and a few other Central Asian states speak Persian, and hence naturally refer to "Arvand". It is not just Iran.--Zereshk 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above --62.56.91.114 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Mardavich and Zereshk. Also we should not forget that the Iran-Iraq War was fought over this issue and over a million people lost their lives because Saddam wanted it completely in the name of Pan-Arab nationalisml. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy clearly shows that the current title is not only proper but consistent with policy. The Persian name predates the Arabic name and like Zereshk says Persian is one of the "lingua francas" of West and Central Asia. Claiming that only Iran uses this name is not only incorrect, it is born out of pure ignorance unfortunately. Khorshid 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
   • I find it hard to believe that Saddam fought a war to change a placename. He fought a war to get the oil. Persian might be the language for many people, but this is an English Misplaced Pages, so I think the common name used by English speakers should take precedence. As I said, as someone with just a passing interest (I'm your typical Misplaced Pages reader) I thought it was odd to see Arvandrud and found it confusing. At least it should be Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud, don't you think? I've nothing against Iran or Iranians or the Persian language, it's just a matter of clarity.--Conjoiner 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
5. 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)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Proposed change of format: move to Shatt al-Arab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

On using a double title

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

I fully agree with FayssalF. 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)

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