Talk:Shatt al-Arab/Archive 1

message: The photo purporting to show the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab plainly isnt.   There isnt a bridge.  It is probably taken from one of the three bridges in Khoramshah,  none of which cross the Shatt-al-Arab,  nor is it actually visible in the photo.
Eregli bob 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo that isnt 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On moving the article to [[Arvand/Shatt al-Arab]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  relatively recently 

message: 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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  37 meters? Don't think so. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please remove this "Aravandrud" from the title 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV - Minimize use of names

message: 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)
replies: text: Have rewritten the entire section. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 seizure of royal navy personel

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  This article used as source by Associated Press 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Startegic Purpose 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was move to Shatt al-Arab. Not to throw this age-old mantra out there, but please remember this is not a vote. It has been conclusively presented that Shatt al-Arab is a far more common name in the English language. This is somewhat similar to the long-standing dispute over at Persian Gulf; nevertheless, we have Persian Gulf, instead of Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf. Looking over the poll, we have a large number of people who advocated Shatt al-Arab as well a couple additional people (under #Move to Shatt al-Arab.2FArvandrud) who acknowledge that Shatt al-Arab is a more common name. There is an IP !vote under #Keep at Arvandrud.2FShatt al-Arab that can be discounted and another, indented !vote that might be considered another !vote in support of Shatt al-Arab (depending on who wrote it). The lack of support for the name Arvandrud alone is tell-tale; it's obvious that Shatt al-Arab is the more common name, at least in the English-speaking world, even though there is still controversy over its name. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :Add  # Move  or  # Keep  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
==== Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab ====
# Support This is a local body of water, under the exclusive sovereignty of Iran and Iraq. Therefore both local names should be used, in an alphabetical order.--Mardavich 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support This is a local body of water, under the exclusive sovereignty of Iran and Iraq. Therefore both local names should be used, in an alphabetical order.--Mardavich 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep at [[Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab]] 

message: # Move. In accordance to our general naming conventions, and those on using English & on geographic names,  the article should be titled following common English usage, which in this case clearly is Shatt al-Arab (see examples of usage below). - Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Shatt al-Arab]] 

message: #Weak Support; this is an improvement, but the article should be Shatt al-Arab as the name primarily used and understood by anglophones, per WP:NAME.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud]] 

message: As Septentrionalis/PMAnderson points above, the river is commonly known in the English-speaking world as Shatt al-Arab. In fact, before seeing this move request I hadn't come across the Persian name :-)
Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly state that "generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and the naming conventions on using English further clarifies that "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
The naming conventions on geographic names state: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. [...] If neither of these apply, the modern official name [...] should be used [...]. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects."
In other words, Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly call for articles to follow common English usage, and relegate "modern official names" only to those cases in which no common English usage exists. 
I believe it's quite clear that Shatt al-Arab represents current common English usage, and thus should be used for the article's title. Just in case, see some examples of usage below.
So, to simplify discussion in this move request, I propose to change its format to:
* Move to Shatt al-Arab
* Move to Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud
* Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab
If someone whishes to do so, I wouldn't mind adding "Move to Arvandrud" too :-)
Best regards, Ev 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reformat. I agree completely.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I boldly went ahead and modified the format, without making any alteration to any comment but my own, and notifying all editors involved. I hope this will simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator - Best regards, Ev 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change of format: move to [[Shatt al-Arab]] 

message: I am not a fan of polls but i got my 2¢. Can someone here explain to me what the heck is going on? A double titled article?!!! It is obvious that one title should be used while redirecting the other. Which one to redirect? It is up to the usual contributors of this article to reach a concensus about this. The important thing is to avoid double titling. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with FayssalF on the importance of avoiding double titles. This is one of those cases in which it's good to state what may seem obvious :-) Regards, Ev 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy to back that up. Unless you can quote policy, it has no bearing here. If you want such policy, you will have to propose it, going through the right channels. This is not the place to set a "precedent". Best regards, Khorshid 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This river has 2 name and both of them are recognized by UN, as I know. We can't remove one of them and leave the other.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sa.vakilian, Wikipedia articles don't follow UN usages, but are named in accordance to our own naming conventions. - Best regards, Ev 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On using a double title 

message: The author/editor of this article did not understand the "Thalweg" principle, obviously. The Thalweg principle is about the line of steepest descent along the stream bed.
The picture on this webpage (pls see link below) displays that the term "Thalweg" (old [pre 1911] german spelling of the word Talweg : Tal = valley, weg = channel,path,route) does NOT refer to the middle of the stream, at all. 
http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_3_14.php
:True, but "line of steepest descent" (above) is misleading.  A thalweg is not the median or middle of the river or river bed, but is the median of the deepest channel....often abbreviated to simply "the deepest channel."DLinth 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thalweg principle 

message: The comparison between Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab and Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf is very wrong. "Arabian Gulf" is a very recent name, invented in the 1960s by the Egyptian Arab nationalist Nasserites. It is not a historically valid name, and is not accepted by the UN or any international body, and is used in only a small number of Arab states that are antagonistic to anything "Persian". But "Arvandrud" and "Shatt al-Arab" are both historically correct names, with Arvandrud of course being the older name. Khorshid 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Older only than the Arabic name, of course.  :-)  Tomertalk 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your evidence that The Persian name is older than Tha Arabic name.Also the name is used by the UN ,all English speakers countries and Arab world states !!.Arabian gulf name is used by UN for documents which are written in Arabic for Arab world states--Aziz1005 09:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was joking, but if you think about it just briefly, the Persians were in the area over a millennium before any Arabic speakers were anywhere nearby in sufficient numbers to get away with renaming the river after themselves...  :-p My "only" is based on the supposition that the river almost certainly had Aramaic and Akkadian names long before Persian had a word for it.  Tomertalk 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops:' that area is actually an Alluvial Plain therefore in 4000 years ago or about this river perhaps did not exist until Arabs came in :).--Aziz1005 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the issue is pretty irrelevant wrt the question at hand (the [article] naming fracas)...I have to support Shatt al-Arab for several reasons, but the river was unquestionably known as the Arvand long before the Islam-carried spread of Arabic (which didn't immediately displace the local languages)...an event that occurred long after the Prath and Chideqel joined courses.  Tomertalk 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate comparison to Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf

message: The image purports to be of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab, showing a bridge, apparently on the road between Khorramshahr and Abadan, both of which are in Iran, and located on the eastern bank of the river in question.  If the bridge is over the Arvand, it clearly is not between these two cities, as they both lie on the same side of the river.  If, on the other hand, the bridge is between the two cities, it clearly is not bridging the Arvand.  Something is not correct...either the picture is of a bridge over some other river, and the text and image should therefore be removed, or the caption is incorrect.  Tomertalk 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was No consensus Alex Bakharev 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image question 

message: :Add  # Move  or  # Keep  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
:Please remember that this survey is not a vote, so please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
==== Survey - Move to Arvandrud ====
# Support as my second choice per my rational below and the fact that "Arvandrud" (Arvand River) is considered the historically correct name , unlike "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) - a modern term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones. --Mardavich 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

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

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

message: # Move, as nominator. - Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey - Move to [[Shatt al-Arab]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google Print test II 

message: A remainder of how our naming conventions, call, over and over again, to reflect common English usage:
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "[u]se the most common name. [T]he titles should represent common usage."
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
*The WikiProject Rivers suggests the following as its primary rule for naming rivers with multiple names: "If the river is particularly famous under one name, then choose that name."
Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On reflecting common English usage 

message: A remainder of how our naming conventions discourage double titles:
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "article naming should mak[e] linking to those articles easy and second nature."
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"</br>"Titles should be as simple as possible [...]."
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpage feature (creating a subpage with a slash) disabled in main namespace: "Slashes may be used freely when present in original titles, or usual terminology. Examples: Face/Off, Input/output." — This clearly isn't our case, as the examples of usage show.
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. [...] All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects."
Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On using double titles 

message: The table proposed in the guideline on naming conflicts:
Criterion                                                    	Arvandrud  	Shatt al-Arab
1. Most commonly used name in English                        	0          	1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity                	1 (in Iran)	1 (in Iraq)
3. Current self-identifying name of entity                   	0          	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.	1          	2
# The examples of usage clearly show that the "most commonly used name in English" is Shatt al-Arab.
# I assume that each name is officially used in each country.
# A river doesn't have a "self", and thus is unable of giving itself a name, of identifying itself.
Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Most commonly used name in English" is a reflection of how many times the English language persons had encountered with the local names: that means none of the names can be considered as dominant in English with confidence. As an example, in choosing between English Channel and Manche (mer) ; there is no doubt about using the first in the English  Wikipedia and the second in the French Wikipedia  , but there is uncertinity in choosing between Russian Iturup and  Japanese Etorofu (look at Kuril Islands dispute) , just because the Island is a Russian / Japanese topic and not an English language people one. So I think both Iranian and Iraqi names have to mentioned. --Alborz Fallah 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NCON]] table 

message: Wikipedia's official policy for article naming is that "[g]enerally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize[.]" — This usually means reflecting common English usage.
Of course, Google tests and various web-searches are not official Wikipedia policy per se, but merely tools that, if used properly, can help us determine what that common English usage is (at least in relative simple cases :-)
See more details at:
* The naming conflict guideline, in the "Identification of common names using external references" section.
* The "Search engine test" essay.
Best regards, Ev 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Glad to be of any help :-) Ev 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text:  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)
thread_title:  English Vs Non-English terms... 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: New Image