This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I think this page should be moved to Kızılırmak RiverKızılırmak, as it is the modern name. If there are no objections then I'll move the page in a week. —Khoikhoi 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Page has now been moved. —Khoikhoi 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just be "Kizilirmak"? And do we really need the dotless Is? Adam Bishop 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Mr. Bishop, we really do need the "dotless i's. When a proper name uses such, wiki, as an encyclopedia, is better to use a cultural means of naming something. Just look at the various entries for other country place names, for example - the Ā or Ň or Ü, for example. Rarelibra 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of that, but as "ırmak" means "river" in Turkish, I think it would be better for English speakers if we use "Kızıl River". Also compare to the other articles we have on Turkish rivers. As for the "i"s, I think we should use the correct spelling. This is the same reason why we have the article about Târgu-Mureş using it's correct Romanian spelling, (not "Targu-Mures") becuase the diacritics signify how the word is pronounced. —Khoikhoi 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In modern Turkish,
there two words to define "River", 1- "ırmak", 2-"nehir".
Many names contructed as uniting two words; mostly one adjective+ one noun, and its not possible to seperate these words from each other, like as;Yeşilköy (yeşil=green, köy=village) can not be called as Green village, gives not the same meaning.
Kızılırmak as accepted as a whole-uniting word to define a specific river and this river is called as "Kızılırmak nehri", plese take care that "ırmak" and "nehir" has the same meaning in english, than how we translate this to english; Kızıl river river, it is meaningless. So to keep the name like as original "Kızılırmak" to define the river it will be better.also others like as "Yeşilırmak".
I will move to correct name now. regards. MustTC 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Britannica has an article called Kizil River. The difference between "ırmak" and "nehir" don't matter at all to an English speaker. The point is that it's still a river, and this is the most common name in English. Having the title "Kızılırmak" is good for the Turkish Wikipedia, but it can confuse people that don't know Turkish. I'm moving the page back. Khoikhoi 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference does matter to an English speaker - especially those of us who wish to understand cultures more. I agree the title should be "Kızılırmak River." as the proper title exists. Rarelibra 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
However, to most English speakers, what matters is a clear, recognizable, and pronouncable name. We should use whatever spelling English uses, as we do with Istanbul, which is not at İstanbul. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, in usage, Irmak is not the same thing Nehir. Nehir means a usual river, however irmak, in usage, are generally associated with the name itself. Here is what I mean, in Turkish many people will say "Kizilirmak Nehri", and not simply "Kizilirmak".. In that case, we can also modify the first name, Kizil means "Red"... I think that it should be moved to "Kızılırmak River". Same for Yesilirmak River... Baristarim 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, "Kızılırmak River" would be the exact translation. However, this might confuse English-speakers who don't know Turkish because they would be unaware the difference between ırmak and nehir. Can you please clarify what the exact difference is between the two? Khoikhoi 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Kızılırmak River" is exact translation.No need to affrain that will be any confision. Here "Kızılırmak" is a combined word as a name of a thing. Original meanings of the combined "Kızıl" and "ırmak" have lost and make no sense in the name.So, if we are talkink about a town; name is "Kızılırmak town"(Kızılırmak kasabası), not "Kızıl River Town". ,if we are talking about river; name is "Kızılırmak River"(Kızılırmak nehri), not " Kızıl River River.MustTC 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You are using google.com.tr... Khoikhoi 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the title should be Kızılırmak River. It is proper and respectful to BOTH cultures. Rarelibra 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Kızıl River is simply a WRONG translation. You are decomposing a combined word and translating second half of it. Who cares what is easy to English speakers! This is wrong information you are providing here. Kızılırmak is a combined word and should be kept so. It's not like "Mount Something" or "Some River". The name of the river is Kızılırmak not Kızıl. I think correct translation is Kızılırmak River, as others stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with 18.104.22.168, Rarelibra and Mustafa Akalp. Kızıl River is simply insane. No one would use the name, either in English or in Turkish. I'm an English speaker living in Turkey. When referring to this river in English, I would normally say "the Kızılırmak", or "the Kızılırmak River" if I thought the person wasn't sure what it was, or else "the Halys" if I were talking about Anatolian history. Much has been made in the foregoing discussion of the fact that ırmak means 'river'. Well, kızıl means 'red' (as in Kızılay/Kızılhaç for the Red Crescent/Red Cross). If we really insist upon anglicizing everything, this should be Red River (Anatolia) or something. But in fact, let's just stop overthinking this and call it the Kızılırmak River. Otherwise, we would need to change Kadıköy to Kadıville, Büyükada to Büyük Island, Sarıyer to Sarı Place, and so on down the line. The point is that names like these are reanalysed in modern Turkish as a single, fused, inseparable word (see Sezer stress). Q·L·1968☿ 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but most of the sites that show up are Turkish anyways. It would only confuse most English-speakers (most of whom don't know Turkish) to use the Turkish name for this article. It's like having Mount Ararat at Ağrı Dağı. I know that it is also called "Kızılırmak Nehri", but it doesn't matter what it's called in Turkish—what matters is that the title go in according to WP:NAME, which says, "generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". See also: WP:UE. Khoikhoi 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)