Misplaced Pages

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

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

On reflecting common English usage

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

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

• 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:

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

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

WP:NCON table

The table proposed in the guideline on naming conflicts:

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

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

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

Even before one person moved the article to the current format, without discussion it seems (see and ), the article used both names in the first line from the very early history, so that should definitely not change. 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

Misplaced Pages's official policy for article naming is that "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 Misplaced Pages policy per se, but merely tools that, if used properly, can help us determine what that common English usage is (at least in relative simple cases :-)

See more details at:

• The 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 Misplaced Pages: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 : --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 Misplaced Pages 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” and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “... Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud, to Iranians) ...”, and 2 as “Arvand river”.

B) 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” and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 2 headline variants of the same story as “... the Shatt al-Arab, which Iran calls the Arvand River, ...”.

C) 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” and 3 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “the British invariably referred to the body of water by its Arabic name, the Shatt al-Arab, rather than its Iranian one, the Arvand Rud (river)”, 1 as “... at Arvand Roud ...”, and 1 as “ the ships were seized at about 11 am today (0730 BST) between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway east of the Iraqi city of Faw.”

D) 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” and 2 of 4 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 1 in the form “Iran’s chief coastguard of the Arvand river - the Farsi name for the Shatt al-Arab waterway - ...”, and 1 as “It said the boats had been confiscated between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt al-Arab waterway ...”. The other two hits were for a personal name (Arvand Dashtaray) and the Iranian town Arvand Kenar.

E) The 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” and 0 of 1 hit for “Arvandrud” and its variants : Refers to a military base “... commander of the border base at Arvand in southwest Iran ...”

G) 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” and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants.

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” and 2 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variants : 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 turns up 6 hits for “Shatt al Arab” and 0 hits for “Arvandrud” and its variant renderings. The “Shatt al Arab” hits include the country listings for Iraq and Iran , and the Geography notes and International Disputes notes for its Field Listings.

(Provided by 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.

English Vs Non-English terms...

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

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

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

Judging from a Google Books search, "Shatt al-Arab" has been the prevalent term in English since at least the start of the 19th century. Google Books returns 791 works using "Shatt al-Arab" and only six using "Arvandrud" (and two of those six are modern Iranian sources). -- ChrisO 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think the tests does not show the "English usage": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to shows one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only stochastic and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy.--Alborz Fallah 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Same problem about Imia/Kardakand the result was to use both of them . No one used "test results" ! (The test results are not equal , but the name is both )--Alborz Fallah 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New Image

I found these images on Flicker that might be better than current image. They can be used in WP under Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. 1, 2, 3 (Arash the Archer 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

• Non Commercial images are unsuitable for Wiki. Unfortunately Alex Bakharev 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have granted the permission from the author. I think it is a better image for the article.(Arash the Archer 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Policies vs. polls

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

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

Misplaced Pages’s WP:NC policy directs editors considering proper names to use for places to refer to WP:PLACES and WP:NCGN. WP:PLACES states, “Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.” WP:NCGN states quite clearly in its very first point, “The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always.” (Emphasis in the original.)

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

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

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

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

• “Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)” or "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand River)" is fine with me, I don't think we need to formulate a new poll, the editors can just comment under this section. I'd support your compromise proposal. --Mardavich 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree with Mardavich. --Pejman47 12:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Mardavich. "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rood)" - using parenthesis - is a good compromise since it uses the name commonly used by English speakers while acknowledging the less common Persian name, which is used as the official name only in Iran. It is better to have Arvand Rood rather than Arvand River, which is a mixture of Persian and English. It seems obvious that most English speakers have not heard of Arvand and as it stands the article's title will be confusing to them, so the Arabic name should be used first.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. This solution is fair. (Arash the Archer 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

• I suppose this is an improvement, but there's still little guideline support for this, insofar as I can see. The only other example of this I can think of is Football (soccer), but both terms are used a lot in that case. Here, Shatt al-Arab blows Arvand out of the water, hands down. It seems like the "compromise" is about appeasing people who can't get over the fact that the Persian name is not widely used. They need to get over it. -- tariqabjotu 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is about compromise of opinions here. That's often how Misplaced Pages articles are written. The only other option is to allow this editorial dispute to escalate. By having "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rood)" as the title, we are establishing that Shatt al-Arab is the common name used by English speakers, but that Arvand Rood is also the official name in Iran and as it is in parenthesis is not the common name. Too many articles are bogged down by these kind of disputes, when more substantive editorial issues need addressing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a compromise of two opinions – one based on guidelines and the other based on attachment to the Persian name. There has still not been any policy or guideline support for the latter opinion that counteracts the support for the former opinion. The only other option is to allow this editorial dispute to escalate. Uh... no? Alternatively, we could use Shatt al-Arab, which has time and time again been demonstrated as far away the most common name in English. We could use Shatt al-Arab which has been used alone on every other Misplaced Pages (except for the Farsi Misplaced Pages) to describe this body of water. Too many articles are bogged down by these kind of disputes, when more substantive editorial issues need addressing. Precisely, which is why the Arvand side needs to provide some support based on guidelines (and not personal preference) or concede defeat. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I would prefer Shatt al-Arab, but it is going to be resisted strongly by other editors and I wonder whether it is all worth it. In my experience, it is not worth it as it inevitably leads to more divisiveness that spreads beyond the immediate issue and spills over into other articles and admins don't really care because they avoid Iran-related disputes like the bubonic plague. If you insist on the implementation of policy over compromise with certain editors, then you will end up with days of pointless and time-consuming arguments when your productiveness could be put to better use elsewhere. Sometimes a compromise with some of these people is necessary for peace to reign and increased productivity.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If people complain on the talk page, they have the burden of proof. If people repeatedly move the page out of line (which, notice, has not been a problem here despite the dispute), move protection could be used. It's not a big problem. Yes, many admins stay away from IMAP (Iranian-Muslim-Arab-Palestinian) disputes, but we can always "fix it and forget it". If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, the terrorists have won. -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you insist that policy should prevail over compromise, then why don't you as an admin take the initiative to impose Shatt al-Arab as the article's title and use move protection to prevent anyone from changing it back? In the mean time, I will stand back at a safe distance :o| --الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that because the last time I closed a move request like that (on this page), someone reverted the move within several hours. Until we can definitively establish (or clarify? or demonstrate?) that it is okay to ignore mere numbers when the consensus is going on personal preference rather than guidelines, doing what you suggested is unproductive and futile. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that Shatt al-Arab is the dominant name for the waterway among English speakers. The defence the Arvandrud advocates offer to counter this is that (a) Arvandrud was the first name given to the waterway, (b) the name is related to a territorial dispute between Iran and Iraq , (c) there is no English name for the waterway, only Arabic and Farsi names, so neither should be given primacy in English Misplaced Pages, and (d) the names should be given in alphabetical order instead of the order by which they are known in the English speaking world. So the argument essentially rests on which the common name used in the English speaking world - Shatt al-Arab - is itself POV and by giving "undue weight" to the Arabic name Misplaced Pages would be taking a political stance. This is a weak argument. I think naming policy should be interpretated not on what is "right" or "original" but the most common name used by English speakers. But Shatt al-Arab will never get the support of a majority here, nor will prolonging the argument further achieve anything. Either you should bend the rules and settle with Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) or impose Shatt al-Arab and put up with the angry backlash and accusations of "anti-Iranianism". I think it would be easier and better for productive relations between users if the compromise suggestion made by Mardavich is accepted and the matter is settled. It's a case of putting the overall interests of Misplaced Pages's editorial stability ahead of niggling arguments about naming rules.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Tariqabjotu: compromises work fine when it comes to subtleties and shades of gray, but shouldn't undermine the most basic criterion of our policy in order to appease editors who dislike the widely accepted English name. Dura lex, sed lex. — Allowing for this exception would set a precedent that would encourage -and validate- not only double names in similar cases but also exceptions to other policies in order to appease the editors who disagree with those policies' most basic principles. In short, it would further undermine policies and strenghten straw polls. - Best regards, Ev 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) would be an improvement, although both slight and inadequate, over the present name. It should be put in place now, while efforts to reach a settlement in accordance with policy continue. (Experience shows, by the way, that efforts to "compromise" on a double name are not stable. This move discussion itself began sometime back as an effort to reverse the order of the two names.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But according to you, policy dictates that only Shatt al-Arab should be used, so what kind of settlement could you envisage that would be anything but this while remaining in line with Misplaced Pages policies?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A change of policy is (almost) always possible; although I do not believe there is support for this one. The Iranian faction should be mustering support for such a change, rather than their present disruptive behavior.

It is not just according to me. You have just summarized four rationales for using of Arvandrud; which, if any, of them are supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guideline? And where?

It is to be hoped that the Iranians can be persuaded to abide by the general Misplaced Pages consensus on naming. There are consequences for not doing so; but they will take some time to implement. In the meanwhile, Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) is better than the present name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have just summarized four rationales for using of Arvandrud; which, if any, of them are supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guideline? And where? - I would be interested to know the policy basis of these rationales. At present, none of the proponents of the status quo have established how having Arvandrud in the title is backed by policy when there is overwhelming evidence that Shatt al-Arab is almost exclusively used for the waterway in the English language. The only justification from admins has come from Alex Bakharev who says that as the majority of users voted for the status quo, the majority decides. It would require a "supermajority" (I am not sure what this means) to change the name of the article. It is interesting to note that the original article move to this title was made nearly two years ago, without consensus. The article was started four years ago as Shatt al-Arab.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson, please stop generalizing opposing editors and referring to them by their alleged ethnicities or nationalities, this is a serious breach of WP:Civility. As I explained to one of the involved parties here User:Tariqabjotu, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by you (User:Pmanderson), a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands - so the issue is not as clear-cut as some of the proponents here pretend. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Misplaced Pages should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature (See books.google.com), the same rational should apply to Islands and Rivers that are shared by two or more national authorities. I will elaborate on this later on. By the way, compromise is not a tool to further one side's position, compromise means sttelment and that neither side is getting what they truly want. --Mardavich 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stochastic I still think the tests does not show the "English usage": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to show one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only stochastic and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy ! --Alborz Fallah 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

<- (removing indent) Mardavich, please stop with the red herrings. Present policy and guideline (goodness, I'm starting to sound like a broken record); your criticism of the WP:NCGN guideline is clear evidence that you're trying to avoid the facts. As I stated earlier, even if you were to ignore WP:NCGN (and there is no reason it should, even if you feel it's "sloppy"), one can still point to WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCON. The Chennai example does not work. Google searches are not the be all and end all here, but one should note that "Chennai" receives over 9.1 million hits compared with "Madras"' 1.6 million hits. The only reason "Chennai" receives fewer hits on Google Books is that the World Wide Web is a relatively recent phenomenon (i.e. websites will usually reflect modern usage). However, books have not had the time to adapt to the change. Notice how the most recent book from the first page of Google Book results for "Madras" comes from 1964 and most pre-date World War I. I'll even use the Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict table to further demonstrate why the article is at "Chennai":

Criterion	Chennai	Madras
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Chennai wins hands-down. Even if you were to contest one of those (I'm not sure you could), Chennai still would win. This has been done for this article before, but I'll do it again:

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

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

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

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

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

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, there is no reason to keep Arvand in the title, and the position to do so remains an indefensible argument, pending a policy or guideline to support the position. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another argument put forward to support the double name title is that neither Shatt al-Arab or Arvandrud are English and there is no English name, so no non-English word should take precedence. Aside from the fact that Arvandrud is not commonly used in English, one can point to the example of Nuremburg which is the French name for the German city Nurnberg. English-speakers use the French name, even though the city has never been French. Likewise, English speakers use the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab, despite the fact that Iran has sovereignty over the left bank of the waterway and calls it Arvandrud. Whether or not you think that Shatt al-Arab is the correct or historically accurate name is beside the point. Like Nuremburg, Shatt al-Arab is a name adopted into the English language, while Nurnberg and Arvandrud have not been adopted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg is a famous place among English-speaking people, and at least because of it's famous Nuremberg Trials almost everybody knows there , and there is no doubt about dominancy of the name in English , but about the Arvand/shatt- al Arab , that is not comparable to Nuremberg , because almost no one knows it and it is unknown that which name is dominant in english . --Alborz Fallah 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

False; as a native English speaker, I will attest that Shatt al-Arab is well known in English; and Arvand Rud is notl the searches above demonstrate this also. You are entitled to invent your arguments, although it would be nice if you appealed to principles widely accepted in Misplaced Pages; you are not entitled to invent your facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The river is well known by English-speakers, and it's known by the name of Shatt al-Arab. Alborz Fallah, have you heard about a certain conflict going on in Iraq since early 2003 ? For the last four years TV & radio broadcasts, newspapers, magazines and bookstores all around the world (including every English-speaking country) have been saturated with commentaries about the region's geography, including the Shatt al-Arab. Wars always are major geography lessons. I just can't understand how can you make such statements at this very time and age. - Ev 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tarig, your peers here were arguing that raw google hits don't count because they include Misplaced Pages mirrors, and that the guidelines prescribe that google books and other major publications should be used to establish common usage in English, in which case Madras > Chennai as Madras generates 17 times more results than Chennai in google books and other major publications that were used to determine common usage here. The fact that books.google.com overwhelmingly favors Madras over Chennai or Danzig over Gdansk, proves how unreliable the guidelines in question are. More people have taken part in the discussions here than in those particular guideline pages, which are mostly written by four or five editors. So these guidelines are neither the Word of God, nor arbitrary, there is more community consensus to be found here than over there. Also, your Jerusalem argument doesn't hold any water, as Jerusalem is under sole Israeli authority. And finally, your comparison of Arvand River to some gibberish word "Albabuba" is ridiculous and insulting. Arvand River is co-owned by Iran, one of the official names of this geographical entity is Arvand River, which is also used in English. --Mardavich 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you're claiming that policy and guideline mean little is that you have no policy or guideline to support your position. You're right that they're not suicide pacts, but they are not meant to be ignored simply because they do not support your position. The part about the neither term being English is not entirely correct. It's no less English than Islam or Hong Kong or Tel Aviv... they're terms correct in English. For English speakers and writers, Shatt al-Arab has conclusively been shown as the most widely used. Your qualms about my other statements being "insulting", etc. are just distractions. I'm not placated. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now you can read my thoughts. Have you heard WP:AGF? I didn't say this particular guideline should be ignored because it does not support my position, that's your bad-faith assumption. I am saying this particular guideline is inconsistent, incoherent and hence unreliable, as I have demonstrated in my previous comments. Oh and Islam or Hong Kong are not rivers owned by two independent sovereign states, with two offcial names. There are different categories of names which require different approaches. --Mardavich 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, this discussion has been going for a month now. Everyone has stated their comments and two separate voting has been done. Why you don’t want to accept the fact that this is a disputed area between two countries and using only one of the names is considered POV. The readers usually don't know anything about AGF. I believe using both names for this article is completely consistent with Wiki policy and guidelines as stated in above discussions. However, I agreed with the Shatt al-Arab(Arvandrud) compromise even though I didn’t completely agree with it (Because it gives more credit to the first name) to reach a possible unanimous consensus. But now I am very disappointed to see that you are trying backup your position with insulting hypothesis(Albabuba) and irrelevant cases (Islam, Hong Kong). (Arash the Archer 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

It would be possible to change policy to the position that Mardavich and Arash want - in the sense that doing so would not make Jimbo fold Misplaced Pages. But it would not be a service to the encyclopedia and its readership, and I do not believe there is consensus for it. Until that is accomplished, we should go with existing policy and guidelines. (On another matter, if any of the proponents of Arvand Rud wish to deny Iranian nationality, I will of course take their word for it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

<- (removing indent)

Let's do it for same problem : Imia/Kardak

Criterion	Imia	Kardak
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	0	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	0	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Although the "test" result is as follows: "Imia islands" :196 hits for google search "test"."Kardak islands": 43 hits for google search "test". But according to the fact that none of them are English, then as you see, in this topic, both names are mentioned and we can't claim anyone of them as dominant .--Alborz Fallah 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Of course, you can disagree with our current policies and its associated naming conventions. I personally do disagree with some policies :-) However, if you don't like a policy, you can't just disregard it in your editing of articles: the proper thing to do is to start by proposing a change to those policies and guidelines first, and only then, after that change has been accepted and incorporated to the policies and guidelines, apply that changed aspect of policy or guideline to all articles. — But while the policies remain as they are, we should follow them, whether we like them or not. - Best regards, Ev 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, you think that "the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands". — Well... go to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and propose to incorporate those distinctions to the guideline. I don't like it, but if the change is accepted, then I will help you apply that new naming convention to all articles across Misplaced Pages :-)

However, until that distinction forms part of our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines, that rationale has no weight in the naming of articles. Best regards, Ev 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

As the First user who tried to move the page by switching the names, and unfortunately started this mess; (now I deeply regret that contribution!). I agree with that because it is not just compromise, it says one of the names (which both of them are non-English) is more used in English to the other name but not overwhelmingly. But both of them can be found in historic books, both of them have a long history of usage in a handful of countries. so I am going to be bold and try again to move the page to Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), I hope it will settle the issue for a time. --Pejman47 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But Shatt al-Arab is overwhelmingly more used; as the data above will show; even a raw www.google.com search is 8-1; and other indices show even greater supermajorities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't intend to waste energy trying to convince the opposition any further. I'm going to open this matter up to other people through a psuedo straw poll and discussion. On the new name, it's an improvement but less than ideal and not in accordance with policies. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The double form "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" is not acceptable, because it contradicts the core principle of our current naming conventions policy. - Ev 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle; but so does the present double name. "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" seems to me clearly an amprovement, if an incomplete and inadequate one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an improvement. I had written the above comment (signed 18:57 UTC) immediatly after Pejman47 moved the page to "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" (18:48 UTC). So, it was just my first official complaint about "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" being the article's title :-) Cheers Ev 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But I do think the criteria is not fitting to the dispute : There is no problem in accepting common English word , but the problem is to determine which word can be defined as dominant in English. The example about Imia/Kardak may have the same results in other searches, but that still doesn't mean dominancy of one word in English. The problem is about the logic and not about the policies: asking again how can we find out which non English word is more English ?! --Alborz Fallah 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The criterion is not "common word of English origin", but instad "common English usage". What word is commonly used in English-language publications, or by English-speakers, irrespective of that word's English or non-English origin/etymology.

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"

It clearly says "this often will be a local name, or one of them". That is, "this will often be an Arab or Persian or Turkish or Chinese name, which happens to be the one commonly used by English-speakers and English-language publications". - Best regards, Ev 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

* Sigh! * I thought I had made it perfectly clear, but apparently not. Let me summarize it succinctly: English Misplaced Pages’s policies support one and only one name for this article: “Shatt al-Arab”; no English Misplaced Pages policies support any use of “Arvandrud” or its alternatives. Period. “Shatt al-Arab” is the name by which this watercourse is known by all who speak English as their native tongue; “Arvandrud” is essentially unknown and unused aside from the rare occasion when a reference decides to add a side note on the Persian name for the Shatt al-Arab. Yes, “Shatt al-Arab” is the Arabic name for the river, but by whatever accident of history brought it about, “Shatt al-Arab” is also the English name for it.

Let me use a more neutral example. The Rio Grande is a river that defines the eastern half of the border between the USA and Mexico. It is the Spanish and the English name for the river. When Texas won its independence from Mexico, many of its rivers retained their proper Spanish names, but the Spanish word “río” was replaced in most cases with the English word “river”. The major exception was the Rio Grande. It could have been translated to “Grand River”, but it wasn’t. English normally drops accents, umlauts, and diacritical marks, so the only changes made were to drop the accent on the ‘i’ and anglicization of the pronunciation. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that none of the several English pronunciations I have heard for “Shatt al-Arab” is an accurate rendering of the Arabic.

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

When I read the initial responses to my proposal, I thought maybe a consensus was going to come together and this whole disappointing and senseless chapter could be put behind us; unfortunately, it quickly degenerated into more of the same. Out of fear of setting a precedent that may spread this madness to other articles, I feel I must withdraw my suggested compromise, and instead recommend simply naming this article by the rules of Misplaced Pages, which would be “Shatt al-Arab”. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, compromise is not a tool to further one side's position, compromise means settlement and that neither side is getting what they truly want. In light of the "sudden change of mind" by some users AFTER the compromise was implemented, I am withdrawing my support for the compromise as well, as this can no longer be called a compromise. And since there is no agreement or settlement, I think User:Pejman47 should return the article to its previous name until there is a real consensus for a new name. --Mardavich 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page to Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab:

it seems the issue is not settled by the move I made yesterday, so, I reverted my move till settling this issue. --Pejman47 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Madras

Anyone who believes that Chennai is not common English usage, but Madras is, should make the case to move, on that page; as we have done here. If convinced, I will support it; it certainly has a prima facie case. The chief reason for its present location is that English is an official language in India, and widely spoken there.

But, even if Chennai should be moved, one bad decision does not justify another; if it did, we would have nothing but bad decisions. Please stop with the red herrings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proving that the guideline you're citing is practically inadequate and unreliable, is not a "red herring".--Mardavich 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like that guideline (and the policy behind it), the proper thing to do certainly isn't to ignore and disregard it, but instead you should propose changes to it at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) or Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions. — Once/if those changes are accepted, we apply the newly update policy/guideline to all Misplaced Pages articles, including this one. — But while the current policy and associated guidelines stay in place, we must respect them, whether we like them or not. - Ev 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New opinions

After discussing this issue multiple times, it is time to open up the issue to the general Misplaced Pages community, instead of confining this to the select few who happen to watch this article. All editors are encouraged to provide policy or guideline rationale, as well as other rationale, under each option. All editors are also encouraged to participate in general discussion. However, statements of support are intended for people new to this debate. Thus, those who have commented already about this matter on the talk page (outside of just a simple drive-by vote) and regular editors of the article are discouraged from posting statements of support. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvand Rud (or variant)

Policy or guideline rationale

Other rationale

Statements of support

Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab

Policy or guideline rationale

• WP:NPOV:This river is a disputed borderline and territory, using only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use is POV.
  • NPOV has never been so interpreted; see discussion below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Controversial names: If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.
  • "Not common English usage" is a good reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• WP:NC: In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.
  • Never intended to overrule the rest of the policy; not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Other rationale

Statements of support

Shatt al-Arab

Policy or guideline rationale

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • both names are non English. Also overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names): "se the most common name. he titles should represent common usage." (see #Examples of usage in English and similar subsequent sections) -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • both names are non English. Also overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;" -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • both names are non English. Also overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a , use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • both names are non English. Also overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict: See the table used at #WP:NCON table.
  • Overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • both names are non English. Also overruled by WP:NPOV as discussed by AlexanderPar(Arash the Archer 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Other rationale

• All other Wikipedias, except for the Farsi & Ukrainian Wikipedias, use Shatt al-Arab and Shatt al-Arab alone. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• The WikiProject Rivers suggests the following as its primary rule for naming rivers with multiple names: "If the river is particularly famous under one name, then choose that name." - Ev 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements of support

Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud

Policy or guideline rationale

Other rationale

Statements of support

Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

Policy or guideline rationale

Other rationale

• Emphasizes that Shatt al-Arab is the more common name. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements of support

General discussion

• I am posting this to the Community Portal; notifications on other appropriate media that advertise to the general Misplaced Pages public (not certain ethnic factions, given the ethnically divisive nature of this issue) are encouraged. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, someone removed it from the Community Portal (that editor is, technically, correct). Instead, I filed an WP:RFC. -- tariqabjotu 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:LEAD

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

Because User:Pmanderson is trying to make a WP:Point I guess...--Mardavich 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, it was you who provided this link mentioning:

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

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

The use of a disambiguation template would probably be better. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine; if anyone wants to tweak this, go ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Septentrionalis' format. - Ev 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In current Farsi language, Arvand only refers to this river. This disambiguation will help no one and provides incorrect information. (Arash the Archer 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

<- (removing indent)

I see... What do you think about "In Persian literature the name Arvand can also refer to the Tigris and Orontes rivers." ? - Ev 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We can say "In old Persian literature the name Arvand can also refer to the Tigris and Orontes rivers." But I don't know how important is this information. Anyways, the Lead is not appropriate for this. Maybe if we have a etymology section it would be suitable for it. (Arash the Archer 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

As long as it is included; it is disquieting to have sources identifying the Arvand as something other than the subject of this article and have it not mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... considering the article mentioned by Mardavich, I think that Middle Persian would be more adequate than Old Persian.

As you can see, following Tariqabjotu's advice Septentrionalis has already moved the text from the lead to the location of disambiguation templates.

So, can we agree on "In Middle Persian literature the name Arvand refers to the Tigris. It can also designate the Orontes river." ? - Ev 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation should help people find what the exact page that they are looking for. I don't think there are many people looking for Arvand in middle Persian literature. Therefore the disambiguation is distracting and unhelpful. I suppose an etymology section in which we can also mention the meaning of Shatt al-Arab.(Arash the Archer 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

When an alternative meaning is found in two out of every five books that mention an "Arvand river", some sort of disambiguation is important. But I share Septentrionalis' view: as long as the information is included, it's ok for me :-) Best regards, Ev 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

It is clear that there is still no agreement in the title. Unfortunately, the compromise of Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) didn’t work also. Therefore, we should keep the stable old title(Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab. ) until there is a consensus.(Arash the Archer 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

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

Note that we now have a lot of double redirects. I'm hesitant, however, to go and fix them all since there's a good chance this will not be the final location of this article. -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We should comply with Misplaced Pages policy and use Shatt al-Arab; and the double title Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab is ridiculously unstable. - Ev 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages

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

Shatt al-Arab does not imply ownership, it is simply the name used by the English speaking world. It was used before Iraq even existed, when the disputes were between the Turks and the Persians! So, it is not POV to call it Shatt al-Arab, it is policy to use Shatt al-Arab and mention Arvand Rud as the Farsi alternative for the sake of clarity.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The English Channel also implies "ownership". Should your interpretation of policy apply to this article as well? Shatt al-Arab is named as such because Arabs populate both banks of the waterway, not because there is a territorial dispute. The naming is quite separate from territorial disputes. The Turks also fought over it and they are not Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is one reason the French wikipedia, quite properly, uses fr:la Manche. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Refdoc made this statement nearly three years ago, so he or she has not seen the discussion over the title of this article and the issue of policy over naming was raised by a number of people here (including admins). Changes should be made after this RfC is over, not based on what was said three years ago.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're drawing a lot of false comparisons on this talk page. The English Channel is the part of the Atlantic Ocean, not a subject of territorial dispute between England and France. Likewise, Nuremberg is the French spelling of the same name Nürnberg. Iran is not an Arab country, "Shatt al-Arab" implies ownership by Arabs which Iran disputes. WP:NPOV takes precedence here since we can not (and should not attempt to) take sides in territorial disputes. AlexanderPar 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg was under French control as recently as 1814; that is irrelevant to our naming policy. (Whether the difference is a difference of "spelling" or of "name" is also irrelevant; the great Gdanzig dispute, which gave rise to most of our present policy, is a difference of spelling, but it applies equally to Pressburg/Bratislava and Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, which are not. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shatt al-Arab" implies ownership by Arabs which Iran disputes - no it doesn't. It is descriptive, but not a territorial claim. Arabs populated both the Iraqi and Iranian banks of the Shatt al-Arab for centuries, long before any wars were fought over it. Moreover, Arvand is almost never used in the English language. Look at Britannica, it says Shatt al-Arab. Policy states that the most common name in the English language should be used, not the "correct" or "historical" name. The wars fought over the Shatt al-Arab are not about the name of the waterway, nor does the name Shatt al-Arab refute Iran's legal claims over half the waterway. It is no different from the English Channel and La Manche, which has seen more territorial disputes than the Shatt al-Arab.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Even the Iranian media (including the government's official news agencies) sometimes refer to Shatt al-Arab in the English language: , , ,, . If they don't think it is controversial to use Shatt al-Arab, then why do you?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was refuted by other editors earlier, those appear to be items from AFP, AP and Reuters that were picked up by the Iranian press. Arvand Rud is the Iranian name for long-disputed waterway. The Iran-Iraq war was fought over this river - the naming is a part of the dispute - whether we like it or not. AlexanderPar 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One editor pointed out that a Press TV article I linked to was republished, but has not been able to claim that the others were republished articles. No-one has said these articles were AFP, AP and Reuters. If they were, then doesn't it prove the point that Shatt al-Arab - not Arvand - is the commonly used name by the English-language media? The naming is not part of the territorial dispute as the wars over Shatt al-Arab were originally fought between the Ottomans (not Arabs) and Persians and later resurrected by Saddam Hussein. Naming in the English language is completely irrelevant to the territorial disputes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a disputed waterway, co-owned by two nations, it is not an international body of water. Furthermore, Iranians at one point lived on both banks of the river, but they were either Arabized or deported (infact, many Iraqi's are of Iranic descent, and many cities of Iraq were founded by the Parthians and Sassanid, but re-named after the Arab conquests). I dont see what your comment about Arabs living on both banks has to do with anything. Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of other encyclopaedias, but simply uses other encyclopaedia's at times as sources or references. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages articles should be identical to other encyclopaedia articles. This waterway has been disputed for hundreds of years, even with the Ottomans. Misplaced Pages NPOV says that both sides should be expressed.Azerbaijani 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is Misplaced Pages's Naming Policy, which states that the most common name used in the English language should be used in Misplaced Pages. No-one is saying that Arvand should not be mentioned in the article as the alternative Farsi name. The name Shatt al-Arab is not a "point of view". My point to Alexander is that Shatt al-Arab reflects the ethnic group that populates either side of the waterway rather than the territorial claims that originated from the time of the Ottoman Empire (which was Turkish, not Arab). The name Shatt al-Arab predates pan-Arab ideologies, so no-one can claim the name is politically influenced as they have done with the Gulf. If it is the case that both NPOV and Naming rules clash in this instance, then Misplaced Pages needs to provide clarity so that this matter is settled. I believe that as the name is not a POV, the most common name in the English language should prevail. As demonstrated here, the most common name is Shatt al-Arab.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and naming guidelines do clash in this instance, and NPOV should take precedence as it's a core policy and one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. AlexanderPar 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a moot issue. If NPOV supercedes naming policies, then we have to radically change many articles, starting with Persian Gulf, which is known among Arabs as the Arabian Gulf. The chief justification for retaining the title Persian Gulf is that it is the most commonly used name in the English language. However, in some Arab countries, it is prohibited to use this name and Arabian Gulf is preferred. There are also territorial disputes in the Gulf region, notably Abu Musa. If you want to argue this point, then it could cause problems for policy elsewhere. Additionally, this territorial dispute was begun with the Turks, who would hardly fight to keep the region Arab!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, you keep drawing false comparisons on this talk page. Persian Gulf is an international body of water. This waterway, however, is a territory of Iran and Iraq, and subject of a dispute. Abu Musa is irrelevant to this debate, while the island is a subject of a territorial dispute between Iran and UAE, both sides use the same name for that territory. AlexanderPar 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, then why don't you participate in the , stating your viewpoint on the name of the article. If you want to defend the double name - either "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" or "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" - then please add your comments there.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the reasonings of AlexanderPar the most logical one up to now,. The name of that shared waterway is part of a century-long territorial dispute (of course not a major part, but still it is an important part of it), it is totally different to english channel. There had been treaties (e.g. 1975 Algiers Agreement) and the longest conventional war of last century for this waterway which cost about 1 million life. Misplaced Pages should not take side in such territorial disputes. --Pejman47 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not taking sides; we are communicating with our (English-speaking) readership. When Iran crossed the estuary, in the last war, it was described, in English, as "controlling the Shatt al-Arab"; if it secures a treaty in its favor in the next war, it will be described as cession of the Shatt al-Arab (and we will have an article on it, under that title). We adhere to English usage precisely so we don't have decide who has claims, whose claims should prevail, and whose war dead trump whose. As above, if war dead were arguments here, we would move Eastern Front to Great Patriotic War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require double titles

As Ahwaz explained, our neutral point of view policy does not apply in the manner AlexanderPar & Azerbaijani are presenting it. Yes, it requires us not to take sides when describing a subject or a controversy, but that "neutral" description should still be done using the English language. It so happens that "Shatt al-Arab" is the English-language name of this river; so we should neutrally describe whatever controvery is about it, but naming it in English: "Shatt al-Arab".

Please, read the neutral point of view and naming conventions policies again: at no time does WP:NPOV advocate the use of double titles "to remain neutral", nor do WP:NC and its associated guidelines restrict the use of common English usage in the cases of territorial disputes citing NPOV concerns.

In fact, Misplaced Pages articles on disputed regions, zones, areas, etc., don't use double names, but refer to the disputed region by the name commonly used in the English language. Take a look at our List of territorial disputes: articles there use just one name, the one commonly used in English, except for those few exceptions in which that common English usage has not been possible to determine yet (mainly, because of the obscure nature of the disputed region).

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

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

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