Talk:Tenedos

Naming

• The island's name is Bozcaada. That is how the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to it with Tenedos the secondary name (see: here). This is how all the travel books refer to it. This is how ALL contemporary publications refer to the island. Insisting on it having an archaic name as its primary name is doing a disservice to people like me just trying to find out about the island. Resisting moving this is only making the page unhelpful. I leave this up to the people who are more interested in this page, but please consider changing the primary name to the correct name. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did more research into this because I am a nerd. The name Tenedos for this article is completely inappropriate for this. Bozcaada is the only name used in ALL relevant English Language sources. This includes: NY Times (July 8, 2012), Toronto Star (June 2, 2012), Times of London (Feb. 4, 2012), The Independent (June 16, 2011), The New York Times (November 14, 2010), International Harold Tribune (November 13, 2010), The Guardian (April 10, 2010), Sunday Telegraph (May 10, 2009), BBC (April 29, 2009)...and I could keep going. The only publication in the past 10 years to refer to the island as Tenedos is BBC (November 6, 2005) and that is possibly a historical reference (it isn't entirely clear). The page should be moved ASAP to Bozcaada because that is the correct page for it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• On the naming issue again, I've been on the island recently and nobody was calling it "Tenedos". Shakespeare might have called the island as Tenedos long ago, but it is time people learn the name given to it by its inhabitants. Bozcaada is not only the official name, it is the name of the island acording to islanders themselves.
• I've deleted the part about prison in Gökçeada, the islands are seperated by sea by many miles, that prison might have had no effect on inhabitants of Bozcaada.
• Deleted "if Turkey's intentions were ... they were successful" part, because it is a speculation, not encyclopedic.
• Giving reference to [[1]] web site is a shame. It is a hate page, probably prepared by ultra nationalists. It is not suitable for this encyclopedia's policy of npov.

Filanca 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anglophones now call the island Tenedos, as they call Rome, Rome. When this changes, and it has not, the article should move; until then, English WP articles should be intelligible in English.
• Filanca's argument about prison is speculation; the sentence about Turkey's intentions is not; it's a tautology.
• I would not use that website in Istanbul; I would not use it here if we had better information. But its claims about the two islands are calm, coherent, and uncontradicted. Do find a better source on the matter. Septentrionalis 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speculation? Bozcaada and Gökçeada ara seperated by 30 km (20 miles) of sea. Can you explain how exactly a prison in Gökçeada might have affected inhabitants of Bozcaada? Do you think prisoners swam all the way and back? You are irrational, I'll delete the part about prison again and please don't put it back until you come up with an explanation.
• Sentences like "if Turkish government's intention was blah blah, it was successful" is pure speculation. What if its intention was not as such? Do you agree to write the opposite case?
• My changes about islanders using the name Bozcaada were also reverted. This article is creating the impression that Bozcaada is a name coined and only used by Turkish government. This is not true. The name is several centuries old, documented in a book of Turkish admiral Piri Reis and several tombstones on the island. Its inhabitants also used this name. So Wikipedia should refer to it as the current name of the island.
• The source is not objective, not calm, not coherent, no good for a serious encyclopedia.

This is not a Greek nationalist book. Filanca 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The Greek population of Imbros was in very close relationship with the Greek population of Tenedos, culturally, econimically and politically-had the article 14 of the Lausanne treaty had been respected by the turkish government... (both the islands had a greek majority that time). The prison in Imbros was one of the main reasons that the Greek population had to leave the island, and one of the reasons the Greeks had to leave Tenedos. so, it is relevant.

2. Personally, i would remove the "if Turkish government's intention was blah blah, it was successful" sentence, and i would replace it with something like "the intention of the Turkish government was blah blah blah". the intention is crystal clear... If not, do you agree to write the opposite case? (the sentence i said above?).

3. The island was called 'Tenedos' by its greek majority till some decades ago, and is still called by the greeks. also, this is how it is named in the english-speaking (and not only world). btw, the turkish government renamed the island and most of its current inhabitants came from anatolia some decades ago, right? so, it is not a name its current inhabitants gave to it...

4. the source has material that has not been contradicted by anyone... it has info about laws and action of the turkish government in order to force the greeks out of the island... If u find references contradicting the existance and the content of these laws, let me know... Till then, there is no reason to remove the link.

Wikipedia is noone's nationalistic book... keep this in mind... Hectorian 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Still no explanation how a prison in Gökçeada could have affected Bozcaada. Irrational.
• If you find a reliable source about someone's intentions, you can write them here.
• "Greek majority" is disputed, island was half Greek in Ottoman times. Today all its inhabitants call the island Bozcaada, it is a Turkish land, this should be respected.
• Hate pages do not make objective references.

Evidently, I did not make this article a Turkish nationalist one. For one thing, most of your claims are still there, awaiting for a citation. MY changes are being constantly deleted though. Filanca 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All my reasons are explained and are still here waiting for a reply. Hectorian 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What else do you want as a reply?

• You say a prison seperated by 30 kilometers of sea has caused damage to the islanders. This is nonsense.
• The fact is there, that the island is called Bozcaada by its inhabitants and officially.
• You are deleting other historical information I added about Venetian rule of the island (with reference). You provide no reason yet for that.

Filanca 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The prison in Imbros had effect on Tenedos as well, for reasons i clearly explained.

"Now", do not forget that. it is called such now, officially (cause of the turkish government, not its inhabitants) and by its current inhabitants who settled in the island after its renaming.

sorry 'bout the info on the Venetians. i had not notice that.

• I guess u have violated the WP:3RR... In addition, check this page. it has much info (treaty articles, laws, events, etc) that can be easily verified. i may add all these as well... soon... Hectorian 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In our haste to reply, I think we have both overseen some of the things the other has written:

• About your argument about prison's indirect influence over Bozcaada inhabitants: I think this would have been possible, but the relationship is very indirect, improbable, both of the islands are closer to the mainland than they are to each other. I still say this prison should not be a part of this article, its true place is the article about Gökçeada. This being my opinion, I no longer insist its deletion.
• You still think the island was renamed by the government. I wrote above that this was not true. "Bozcaada" is not a name coined in 20th century, this is documented by tombstones on the island and Ottoman books. Various names Ottomans used, Boz Ada, Bohça Ada seems to evolved into Bozcaada, prior to 20th C.
  • The name Bozcaada is attested back in the 16th century, on one of the Piri Reis maps. I can cite if necessary. In fact, I'll go on and add this bit of information to the page. Cliobella (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• "most of its current inhabitants came from anatolia" maybe, but not in 20th C, the island's winter population didnt significantly increase since the beginning of 20th C. Summer population did so, naturally they all come from other parts of Turkey and abroad.

Filanca 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the turkish (not greek) census of 1927, there were 2,500 Greeks on Tenedos. now there are just 30. compare this number with the current population of the island and u will see who came there in the 20th century and from where... Also, the article was known and was called by its inhabitants 'Tenedos'. it doesn't really matter if there was also a name used by a negligible number of people at some point during the past centuries... America was called for a time 'Western Indies', for crying out loud! what matters is who made that name official, and who tranfered there people who call the island such... So, yes, it is named 'Bozcaada', now officially (->this is what u remove for no reason). Hectorian 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What you call "negligable" was half of the population. Historical Greek and Turkish neighborhoods are comparable in size. Island's current winter population is about 2.500, there had been some native population increase. Thus there was no great migration to the island. I do not object anyone calling the island any way in their languages, but we should respect to what people call it. I didnt remove Bozcaada is the official name, I only added it was also the name used by inhabitants. Filanca 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you consider the island was totally emptied at the end of 14th century, just prior to Ottoman rule, all of its inhabitants were probably came from mainland Anatolia. Filanca 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This should certainly be included, if it can be sourced. A modern secondary source, please, preferably in English. It does not, however, preclude immigration from the other Aegean islands. Septentrionalis 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two independent sources for the island being empty from the end of 14th century to the middle of 15th. But repopulation of the island by settlers from Anatolia is merely my guess, based upon proximity to the mainland, so I didn't write it in the article. It is also possible that settlers came from other islands or even some families of original islanders came back from Crete (some 50 years after they left?). Filanca 09:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting the information about the islanders callig the island as Bozcaada? As it is, the article is giving the false impression that Bozcaada is a name coined and used only by Turkish government, while this is not true. We are here to provide correct information, besides it is rude to deny the name used by local population, do not delete my changes please. Filanca 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the turkish census of 1927 the Greeks were by far the largest ethnic group on the island, so saying that Historical Greek and Turkish neighborhoods are comparable in size, seems simply POV... In addition, saying that the island was emptied in the 14 century does by no means imply that its new inhabitants (if not the descendants of the Tenedians who came back from Crete) called the island differently. i think its just a waste of time to say that even if its knew inhabitants came from Anatolia, they were Greeks (the Greeks and Greek-speaking populations were in the majority in Anatolia that time). as per all the above, the name of the island were 'Tenedos' since antiquity, for the Greeks still is, and for its Greek inhabitants (id est most of the island's inhabitants till recently) this is how they called it. Officially now is called 'Bozcaada' and this is how its knew inhabitants (who came after the expulsion of the Greeks) call it. Talking about things in present. any attempt to falsify history based on unhistorical claims is uncyclopedic. Hectorian 10:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Saying two neighborhoods are similar in size is not POV, firstly, I wrote that here in the talk page. I think we are allowed to write our observations here. Besides I suggest you to go and visit the island, you'll see the reality with you own eyes. Secondly, it is also based on the article: "Tenedos, which is close to the Asian mainland, had been ethnically divided between Greeks and Turks since the 14th century, and the division was more or less equal when counts were taken." (I didnt write this) and census results.
• I didn't imply ALL newcomers called the island as Bozcaada, not in the article or here. However, the current residents of the island call it as such, and the name is at least few hundred years old.
• "this is how its knew inhabitants (who came after the expulsion of the Greeks) call it" is false, Turkish inhabitants DIDN'T come after "expulsion" of Greek ones, they lived on the island since a long time, probably beginning with the Ottoman rule. Since the island was then deserted, Turks and Greeks probably repopulated the island in 15th century simultaneously.

To sum up: Bozcaada is not an officially coined name, it is a name used by its inhabitants since a long time and currently THE name of the island for the remaining islanders. Your version of the article is WRONG. Filanca 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have supplied no source for this; and, if true, it would not affect English usage, which is our test. Septentrionalis 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to supply sources for such simple facts like the name of an island in a particular language. If you have doubt, any search in Google in Turkish pages would do. I didn't ask for change in English usage, naturally English speakers will decide on it. Just don't delete my note about Bozcaada being current usage of people living on the island, otherwise the article is giving the false impression that it is only an official name coined by Turkish government. Filanca 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The presemt Turkish name is more than adequately sourced; what is unsourced is that "it is a name used by its inhabitants since a long time"; indeed, any time before 1926. Septentrionalis 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So far I've found one source for that and it is in Turkish. If that is acceptable, I may write it in the article. So I guess the article is OK as it is now? Filanca 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Piri Reis map depicting Bozcaada

This map is taken from an Italian web site [2] I had to flip it, since it was misoriented, then cropped to show the island alone. It is drawn by Turkish cartographer Piri Reis in the 16th century, depicting Bozcaada / Tenedos with good detail (even small rocks are visible). Look at the 2nd line under the hill. It is written in Ottoman alphabet: ﺍﺩﻩ and ﺑﻮﺫﺠﻪ which can be rendered to latin alphabet as "BVZCA ADA", or Bozcaada by modern Turkish latin. Filanca 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A secondary source would be preferable; maps are sources which can be difficult to interpret (in full context), per WP:ATT, whereas a secondary source would be likely to comment on the frequency of the name. Therefore this justifies only a statement about Piri Reis, not anything broader. Septentrionalis 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

right. WP:ATT policy also states: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist; are promotional in nature... Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves." so it we are to abide by this rule, we should remove "website on the misfortunes" from references. since the article itself says that source is "tendentious". not only it is against wikipedia rules, there is also an ethical problem with using such extremist partisan pages as reference. they spread hatred and enmity. by quoting them, we increase their google rate, help them seem more reliable by being quoted by wikipedia, and diminsh the reliable image of this encyclopedia. Filanca 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of the island

The island was invaded by Venetians in 1377, but after a conflict with the Genoese, they evacuated it with all its inhabitants in 1381. The population of the island was deportated to Crete. The island remained deserted for a long time. Spanish traveller Clavijo having visited the island in 1401 wrote that it was deserted, but he found many vineyards, fruit trees, rabbits and the ruins of a great castle. [3]

This is fascinating; but it should have a secondary source supporting it. Does deserted here mean literally zero population, or does it mean, for example, that the Venetian settlement was evacuated? There are parallels in Xenophon for both. Septentrionalis 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

there are some other sources:

• [4] - Settlement of 4.000 tenedians in crete in 1380's
• [5] - "Venice was to evacuate the island of Tenedos, the fortifications of which were leveled to the ground", also account of another spaniard in 1437, saying all the vineyards are spoilt but the port was anew and there were ottoman soldiers around.
• [6] - "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?)"

it seems venetian-genoese war was a very important event in the history of the island and i intend to write more on it when i have time. Filanca 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i am aware that i havent yet found a source saying the island was completely evacuated, yet i think there is enough reason to say venetians not only evacuated the island themselves, but also deportated greeks and the remaining population (if any) was negligible. Filanca 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The natural reading of the sources cited is that they evacuated the Venetians (including Venetian settlers, if any). The conclusion Filanca wishes to draw is original research, so far. The link to Vassiliev also reveals that Venice abandoned the island, not to the Turks; but to the Count of Savoy. Septentrionalis 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

www.katolsk.no is a secondary source, saying the island is evacuated for a century, although with a question mark. there are two primary sources, those of clavijo and tafur, about the island being evacutaed. laiou paper is a secondary source about 4.000 islanders being settled in crete (that is a great number for this island, if not whole islanders). don't you still think these are enough? i think this information is better documented than most others in the encyclopedia. Filanca 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i respect your scepticism in historical matters. surely we need sound sources for what we write in this wikipedia, and in history that means we need good second hand resources. you'd appreciate that internet is not full of such material. and i find it strange when you still question an information with maybe not perfect, but quite good references, while you accept a statement like "In all likelihood, the island was inhabited primarily by ethnic Greeks from ancient times through to around the middle of the twentieth century" without questioning. Filanca 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Filanca, cause i think i know where are u getting at, just leave it! even if the island was evacuated in late 14th century, by the time the Ottomans took it, it was inhabited again, and its inhabitants were not Turks. nothing supports this, so stop implying it. Hectorian 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i didn't get at, nor implied the thing you said, don't make me seem like done things i didn't :) but since you alluded to it, yes, the island was probably populated by greeks and turks in the beginning of ottoman era. the mosques in the island are quite old. (see [7]) this would not be the only ex-venetian island that ottomans settled by their turkish and greek orthodox subjects living in anatolia, the other big example being cyprus. there too, muslim and orthodox settlement occured together. so turkish and greek re-settlement of tenedos being in close dates is something one can reasonably "get at", yes, but i avoid adding such probable but undocumented information into an article.

about your "even if the island was evacuated", after finding 4 seperate sources, 2 primary, 2 secondary, there is little doubt that it was emptied by venetians but good ehough reason to doubt that settlement was continuous. Filanca 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such.

Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Tenedos" as the address, then the letter will be returned. (If there is a return address) This is also the case even when someone writes the official name Bozcaada along the obsolete name "Tenedos".

The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Imros". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.76.42 (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered this at Talk:Imbros. I will add here only that, of course, Tenedos is not obsolete; it is the normal English name for the island, and the only one I knew before encountering this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not get this, how can the name of this island NOT be the name of the island. Its name is Bozcaada. It is not a historic name, not the "other" name, but its only official name. The name you would use if you want your mail to get there. What part is not clear? How does Wikipedia and editors allow this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.153.82 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason the Turkish wikipedia uses tr:Londra, not London, the official anme of the City and of Greater London. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No PMAnderson, naming the page of this island Tenedos instead of Bozcaada is not like naming the page of London in the Turkish wikipedia for "Londra", or naming the page of København in the English wikipedia for "Copenhagen". Rather, it would be like naming the page of Istanbul in the English wikipedia for "Costantinople", or the page of Izmir for "Smyrna". This point should be rather obvious.

Which leaves your claim that Tenedos is the name under which the island is known to most users of the English language today. In itself this is not a sufficiently good reason for diverting from the general rule of naming a place according to its officially recogniced name (or a derived form of this). Only if the officiallly recogniced name is unfamiliar to most users of the English language today this would be sufficient for diverting from the general rule. A quick search on Google (English pages only) confirms my impression that this is not the case. Tenedos (including other meanings): about 46,500 results, Bozcaada (no other meanings): about 51,100 results.

So why is this made an issue? WK-en (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I moved the page back to Tenedos, as that name is by far the more commonly used in English source, as can clearly be seen by comparing the results of this [8] search to these [9] [10]. Athenean (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So what about these: [11], [12]? (Note: English pages only) I hate to repeat myself, but this is not a competition on which name that gets the most hits in various google-searches. The question here is wether or not the official name - Bozcaada - is well established in the English language or not. And it clearly is, so why are we at all discussing this issue? WK-en (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Raw google searches mean nothing, as they contain all kinds of junk (mostly commercial sites, e.g. cheapbozcaadahotels.tr and stuff like that). Only coverage among reliable sources matters, so that's why I used google books (google scholar is acceptable also). Accordingly, Tenedos is by far the most common usage in English among reliable sources. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tenedos is a historical name just like New Amsterdam for New York or Lutetia for Paris. If the article were for the medieval history of the island the name of the article may be History of Tenedos. But this article is about a modern settlement and district. The official and popular name is Bozca Ada (or Bozcaada). So I moved the name to Bozca Ada. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Tenedos is still widely used by English language publications, and in fact much more frequently than Bozca Ada. This is the English, not Turkish wikipedia. If you want the page moved, please post a "requested move" on the talkpage instead of reverting. However, be aware that every time someone requested the page moved to "Bozca Ada" in the past, the requested move was rejected, for the reasons I mentioned above. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion between "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada". However, the currently chosen form "Bozca Ada" seems quite unacceptable to me, as it is not the current official orthography (Turkish spelling is officially "Bozcaada", alternatively "Bozca ada", but never, as far as I can tell, with the second word capitalized). I have to suspect Nedim Ardoğa chose that spelling only because the correct "Bozcaada" already had an edit history, so the page couldn't be moved there without admin help. In fact, "Bozcaada" is even protected [13], apparently just in order to prevent these types of naming wars; as a result of this move, "Bozcaada", which is a common legitimate link target, is now a broken double redirect that can't be fixed without admin intervention. (If I didn't assume good faith so much, I'd also have to suspect he deliberately chose to make the move through the detour of yet another misspelling "Bozccada"[14], making sure through this trick that now the original title "Tenedos" also got an edit history, making the move back likewise impossible. Dirty "redirect-scorching" trick.) As a sign of good faith, I strongly urge Nedim to ask an administrator to move the page back to the status quo ante, since that at least is one correctly spelled version; then we can talk about "Bozcaada" and all arguments will be given a fair hearing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above remarks:

• To Future Perfect at Sunrise: Partially correct guess. Moving the name to Bozcaada isn't permitted. But all the same, Bozca Ada isn't wrong. Bozca is the proper noun and Ada means island. It is both the name of the island and the name of the district center.
• To Athenian.Edit war is childish. But you should realize that your rationale is groundless. Bozcaada is a small island. Even in Aegean Sea there are more than ten islands which are bigger than Bozcaada and nobody out of Aegean World know anything about the island (except maybe Iliad devotees.) So international usage of the name is out of question. (By the way, my search engine yields more outcomes for Bozcaada than Tenedos) On the other hand even if you still feel that the local name must be prohibited, please note that while the international name of the well known capital of PROC is Pekin, the local name Beijing is preferred in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Summing up so far:

• It should have been obvious from the start that any move of the page would be contentious, so the move should never have been made without a prior formal discussion.
• The present state of affairs is untenable, because one of the most crucial redirects, the one that is actually the intended target of the move, Bozcaada, is currently broken. This must be fixed immediately.
• The present state of affairs can't be the ultimate solution, because unlike Bozcaada, which is the official Turkish name, Bozca Ada is a non-standard spelling. Nedim may claim it "isn't wrong", but it still isn't what Turkish actually uses, and it's not attested in any reliable source I've seen.
• We probably all agree that Tenedos is the preferred name in English in contexts dealing with historical situations (including its role in Homer, anything before the early 20th century, the military and strategic issues over sovereignty in the early 20th century, and discussions relating to the Greek minority). Some editors have argued that this fact alone would not force the choice of page title, as it could be regarded as merely an historical name, analogous to "Constantinople" or "Smyrna" vs. "Istanbul" and "Izmir".
• So the remaining question is, setting historical situations aside, what is the stance of English reliable sources in contexts of purely present-day geography? I can't see an awful lot of "Bozcaada" so far, but I'm open to being convinced either way.
• Can we please all agree that the fact of local official status of "Bozcaada", in and by itself, is not a decisive argument for our naming decisions? The decisive factor is and will remain English usage and nothing else.
• While we discuss, I am going to ask an uninvolved administrator to move the page back to the status quo ante, if for no other reason than to fix the broken redirects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2011)

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tenedos → Bozcaada — Procedural listing. Not personally convinced myself, but let's have a regular discussion here and see where it goes. For initial arguments, see above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Permanently Oppose Tenedos has been the English name of this island since the English began speaking about the Aegean in the Renaissance, and it still is. To Tenedos they come (Troilus and Cressida Prol. 7), As an anglophone, I object to being asked for the seventh time to move this island from the name we have always called it, to one I would not know if it were not for these interminable naming debates; there is no consensus for this proposal. In addition, the use of the island in Shakespeare, Homer, Vergil, Appian, Athenaeus, and the Treaty of Lausanne is almost certainly Primary Usage about the island; ignoring the island's past is like looking at the street signs when deciding on moving Troy to Hissarlik. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC).
• Comment User:Nedim Ardoğa has been canvassing on the talk pages of other turkish wp editors. 12345--Anothroskon (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Move it to Bozcaada:In encyclopaedias as well as maps, the proper nouns can be written in two ways: In a few cases where the name is well known internationally, the international name can be used. (examples Germany, Greece). But this is more or less an exception. In all other cases, the local names are used. I'd given the example of Beijing (international name Pekin) . The same goes for Astana (former Akmolinsk ) Turkmenbaşy (former Krasnovodsk), Bishkek (former Frunze). These are all capital cities and there are immensly more well known than a small Aegean island. So it is obvious that the name of article should be Bozcaada. Of course in the article the historical name can be mentioned. But keeping the historical name which doesn't appear on maps in the name of the article is against common sense. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the discussion above, "Tenedos" has been acknowledged to be the overwhelming favorite in historical reference, and alternatively dismissed as familiar only to "Iliad devotees." Well, the problem for Bozcaada proponents, in short, is that English-language notability of (and reference to) this topic is almost entirely historical reference on the part of antiquity-devotees. Thus, at Google Books, 98,500 references to Tenedos (an absolutely small number: Iliad devotees) vs. 6,409 for Bozca Ada and Bozcaada combined (an order of magnitude smaller: so the Iliad devotees win by WP:COMMONNAME). In short, "Tenedos" is overwhelmingly the most frequent form of reference to this place in English, which is exactly what WP:AT wants us to determine. Wareh (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was open to being convinced otherwise, if there had been evidence that English usage has decisively shifted towards the Turkish name when it comes to present-day contexts, similarly to how it has shifted from "Smyrna" to "Izmir". But since no such evidence seems to be forthcoming, I concur with Wareh and Pmanderson above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Data

• Tenedos is between 10 to 15 times more common than Bozcaada. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

• I don’t like using hit statistics. (Some may be mirror pages etc.) But since book statistics have been presented, I must say that in both yahoo and google there are four times as much Bozcaada hits than Tenedos hits (multi language search). Then why is Tenedos more common in books? I guess because, all books about Bozcaada are actually about the history of the island and not about the modern town (except for a few touristic booklets.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  We are not interested in multiple languages; this Wikipedia is in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd put it this way, borrowing Nedim Ardoğa's concession. What "all books about x are actually about" should be reflected in how Wikipedia treats x encyclopedically and names its article on x.

The only out I see is if it can be shown that (1) there are two distinct topics (historical and present/recent), (2) the English WP:RS prevalently use different names for them. Then we might have the option of splitting the page (given enough article text to justify it) to reflect the two topics.

As long as the topics are unified, though, we decide which one is more encyclopedically important (and therefore reflected in the title) by the "what the books about this are about" test, i.e., the prevalence of usage in the combined English RS on the two topics. WP:COMMONNAME points us to the English-language RS. We might wish the English RS allotted their attention otherwise than how they do, but until that allotment changes, it seems our title is settled for us. Wareh (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

It is comparatively easy to find maps and tour guides that say Bozcaada, as it is comparatively easy to find maps and guides that use Firenze. In both cases, the reason is that the local signs (in Turkish or Italian) use the local forms; but we are neither, and our purposes are not the same. We should use Florence, none the less; other works of general reference do.

Works of general reference do use Izmir for the post-1922 city; that's the chief reason we should do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move per Septentrionalis and others. The English usage is "Tenedos" despite the Turkish official name and the predominantly Turkish population of the island. One doesn't hear "Japan" very often spoken by locals on those islands, and yet that's where we have the article, despite an increase in the English use of "Nippon" and "Nihon". --Bejnar (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

As a reply to the comment "it is easy to find guidebooks that use the name Bozcaada", in the above discussion, is not only guidebooks and similar which use this name. It is also present in Council of Europe papers [15], novels [16], navigation books [17], viticulture bbooks [18] [19] (the island giving its name to a grape is not irrelevant), history books [20] [21], memoirs [22], law books [23] zoology papers [24] and whatnot. Filanca (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is time that we separate the article of the island from that of the town. Filanca (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The island and the town ara separate entities deserving their own articles. I am awaiting for any objections. If there is no serious objection, I will start the article 'Bozcaada' for the town. Filanca (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tenedos → Bozcaada – per WP:COMMONNAME & User modern names. Relisting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

When there are many "derived words", Books Ngram Viewer is problematic.

Tenedos is well-known name since Herodotus' era. Results of researchs on various search engines include "derived words" such as HMS Tenedos (HMS Tenedos (1812), HMS Tenedos (1870), former HMS Tenedos, HMS Tenedos (H04), Tenedos frigate), Russian Tenedos class frigate, Greek minelayer Tenedos, USS Tenedos, Fort Tenedos, spider "Tenedos", Tenedos Bay, etc.......... in addition to historical contexts such as Tenedos in Ilyad (i.e. Lord Supreme of Tenedos), Battle of Tenedos.

• According to GeoNames Search

as seat of a second-order administrative division:

Bozcaada (Approved), Boğçaada (Variant), Tenedos (Variant)

as island:

Bozcaada (Approved) ada (Generic), Bokcha Adasi (Variant), Bozdzhaada Island (Variant), Tenédos,Nísos (Variant) Tenedos Island (Variant)

I think GeoNames Search is very helpful but it is not almighty.

• According to google books (1923-)

• "Tenedos" -Llc (1923-2011) 415

• "Bozcaada" -Llc (1923-2011) 407

But I think this result includes a number of books and articles written in other language such as Turkish language. So we re-researched with adding word island:

• island "Tenedos" -Llc 441
  • We can find many historical usage of Tenedos such as The island of Tenedos off the mainland of Troas, Tenedos island in the Balkan War, Emperor offered the island of Tenedos, Island of Tenedos (now Bozcaada), Greek island of Tenedos　
• island "Bozcaada" -Llc 342
  • It's not easy for us to find historical usage of Bozcaada in this result.

In this situation, we can consider both Tenedos and Bozcaada is common name. And according to Use modern names, we'd better chose Bozcaada.

Takabeg (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Turkish name should be used for a place in Turkey. - Darwinek (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the umpteenth time. Another move request? Didn't we just have one a few months ago? In fact, pretty much the entire talkpage consists of move requests by Turkish users. It's almost become like a rite of passage to start a move request to Bozcaada at some point. Yet, they have all been unsuccessful. And there is good reason for that. The name "Tenedos" is far more widely used among reliable English sources than the post-1970 name "Bozcaada". For example, a search on Google Books for Tenedos, limited to post-1950 English language sources returns 22,600 hits [25], most of them reliable sources, while a search of "Bozcaada" returns only about 2300 hits [26], and order of magnitude less. A similar search on Google Scholar returns even more lopsided results. There are several reasons for this. First, "Tenedos" has been the island's name from antiquity to 1970. Second, the name "Bozcaada" is a post-1970 invention as part of a process of Turkification and has never really caught on in the English world. Thus, any and all pre-1970 sources refer to it as Tenedos and only Tenedos. Third, Tenedos is a small, relatively insignificant island by any standard. It's main claim to fame is its association with the Iliad. Any source dealing with Tenedos in an archeological and/or mythological context, regardless of publication date, will obviously refer to it as "Tenedos". Since Tenedos' only other claim to fame is tourism, that pretty much leaves tourist guidebooks as the main English-language sources referring to it as "Bozcaada" (and also official government publications). But there is no question that among reliable English-language sources, Tenedos is by far the more widely used name. Athenean (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Athenean made mistakes:

• 22,600 hits -> [27] 436 and this result includes many historical usage.

• 2300 hits -> [28] 407

About accuracy and inaccuracy of google books, see: Eretnids#Requested move

And you claims that the name "Bozcaada" is a post-1970 invention. But this is wrong information = invention of User:Athenean.

See:

• 1952 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

• 1911 edition of the United States Official Postal Guide.

Gökçeada is a post-1970 invention but "Bozcaada" (Bozja Ada, Bozdja Ada) is not invented name.

As long as I know, formerly Tenedos is more common name of this island (not only historical usage but also contemporary usage), but now Bozcaada is more common for contemporary usage.

-- Takabeg (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "historical usage", nor is there anything wrong with my search. But even by your search, "Tenedos" is more common. Athenean (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No. We must exclude

HMS Tenedos (HMS Tenedos (1812), HMS Tenedos (1870), former HMS Tenedos, HMS Tenedos (H04), Tenedos frigate), Russian Tenedos class frigate, Greek minelayer Tenedos, USS Tenedos, Fort Tenedos, spider "Tenedos", Tenedos Bay, Battle of Tenedos.

from 436 Tenedos / 407 Bozcaada.

And we must exclude historical usage such as

• "The island of Tenedos off the mainland of Troas" 1

• "The island of Tenedos off the mainland of Troas" 1

• "Greek island of Tenedos" 15

• "Island of Tenedos (now Bozcaada)" 11

Now I think you understand that Bozcaada is more common name of this island for modern usage (Use modern names).

-- Takabeg (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationalist nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to exclude the last four links. Tendentious wikilawyering. Athenean (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Takabeg's searches are highly problematic. For example, one of the sources he uses in support of "bozcaada" mentions bozcaada in parentheses, but uses "Tenedos" [29]. I'm sure I can find many other examples. Many sources mention "Bozcaada" in passing because it's the official name, but use Tenedos. use, not mention must be our criterion. Athenean (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another excellent example [30]. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What ? Nationalist ? My researches are not related with any nationalisms. I only research in accordance with google books and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I'm not a nationalist. Are you a nationalist ? Takabeg (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, see Use–mention distinction, understand why your search is problematic, and see how many modern sources still use Tenedos (even though they may mention "Bozcaada" for no other reason than it being the official name). Athenean (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always calm. Because I am indeopendent from any nationalisms. Please get rid of Greek nationalistic prejudice, behave naturally like me, and read Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:I just don't like it. And don't provide wrong information such as post-1970 invention. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points: Athenean, can we please then get rid of the notion that "Bozcaada" is a "post-1970 invention"? Takabeg did conclusively prove that this is not the case. Takabeg: what exactly is the technical difference between Athenean's search that results in 23,000 hits [31], versus yours that results in 440? [32] I'm not getting which search parameters you actually changed, and why you think your version is more realistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Google books show "Tenedos" 67,000 results (all languages, in max). But when we investigate these results, most of them are empty. We cannot find 67,000 books and/or articles. In fact, google books show only 400s concretely. You can see Marcus's claim on Talk:Eretnids#Requested move. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be the 19th and 45th page of exactly the same search. The first number is the number of hits Google estimates; the second is the number of links (always less than a thousand) it actually pulled into memory, which has very little to do with how common the word is, unless there are only a few dozen hits altogether. If we perform the same searches with a common word, like "island"; the 19th page shows 19 million hits; the 34th shows 331; yet would anybody argue that of the three search terms, "island" is the rarest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going insist that it's a post-1970 invention (and I stopped doing so a while ago), but even if the name "Bozcaada" is post-1071 invention, that doesn't really change anything. Tenedos is still more widely used, even if Bozcaada is sometime also mentioned in passing, regardless of the search parameters. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact the name Bozcaada was probably used since 15th century when Ottomans first landed (on the then-empty) island. See the 16th century Ottoman map in the article. Filanca (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Obviously Tenedos is the most established term in international bibliography, even per nom. If we take also into account the de jure political status of the island I see no serious reason for such a move (it has been already several times rejected).Alexikoua (talk)

Maybe you would like to consider your opinion again in the light of what I wrote below. Bozcaada is also established in bibliography (save when referring to ancient history) and is more popular than Tenedos in scientific literature. Filanca (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Athenean. A Macedonian (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Relisted - I'm giving this discussion another week, or a clear consensus, whichever comes first. I'd like to see Takabeg's reply to Future Perfect's question above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose You will see my reasons in the discussions above. Tenedos is a whole order of magnitude more common than Bozcaada (even if the usage split evenly among the derived senses of Tenedos, it would still be more common); it is the name this anglophone knew - I only met Bozcaada through this naming dispute; it is what anglophones have called this island since Shakespeare's time, and they still do. I am pleased to see that at least Takabeg is not asking to move Imbros, which the Turkish scholar cited in the first footnote uses without real comment - writing about the twentieth century history of the islands; but the situation is the same for both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  It is comparatively easy to find maps and tour guides that say Bozcaada, as it is comparatively easy to find maps and guides that use Firenze; Google Maps does. In both cases, the reason is that the local signs (in Turkish or Italian) use the local forms; but we are neither, and our purposes are not the same. We should use Florence, none the less; other works of general reference do.

• As a example the other way, works of general reference do use Izmir for the post-1922 city; that's the chief reason we should do so.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The case of Florence is not similar to Bozcaada. According to your "arguement", we will use Bozdja-Ada (United States Official Postal Guide) for Bozcaada and Constantinople for Istanbul :) Takabeg (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bozcaada is becoming more and more used and its usage in 21st century is almost twice more than Tenedos (excluding historical papers) according to Google Scholar. Bozcaada is not only the name used on the island by the islanders but also is in modern day English usage. Filanca (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: If you search Google Maps, you're not gonna be able to find the island using the name Tenedos but you will get directly to the island if you use the name Bozcaada. Moreover, when you search for "bozcaada island" you get 251 thousand links but when you search for "tenedos island" you get 132 thousand links. It's expected that scholar works on the island to use the name Tenedos as they're mostly historical works that cover centuries of history before the use of the name Bozcaada took over the use of the name Tenedos. If you look at most English travel guides on paper or online you'll see that the name Bozcaada is used. So, if you're a random person and try to learn more about this island you'd search for Bozcaada. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, the Lonely Planet travel guide that seems to be very popular nowadays use the name Bozcaada as primary. It uses Bozcaada in it's eBook edition for Turkey 12 times but Tenedos is only used ones in the phrase "(formerly Tenedos)". TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Wiki also says that Lonely Planet is the largest travel guide book. So, the most popular and largest travel guide provider uses the name "Bozcaada" instead of "Tenedos". TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Travel guides tend to follow the street signs too. There are travel guides (in English) titled München and Firenze; but we call those articles Munich and Florence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's check: Use of Florence: 100. Use of Firenze: 14. Use of Munich: 100. Use of München: 1. I believe it's safe to say that Lonely Planet got it right. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed an other important factor; such as this document by the Council of Europe, the primary name used for this island is Bozcaada. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A far more useful document for the substance of the article than its title; it confirms many of the questioned statements, such that both islands have been inhabited by Greeks since antiquity. The steps towards harmony which it notes ought to be included. But the European Community defers to the Turkish Government in naming the island; as it defers to the Greek Government in adding The former Yugoslav to the Republic of Macedonia. We, not being a diplomatic organization, are free to write in English, as this paper, by a Turkish academic in Oxford, does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a common practice to stick with one name for consistency in articles talking about history of a certain location as in the article you linked. It starts with the article from Treaty of Lausanne and moves from that so it's natural for it to use Imbros and Tenedos. However, the idea that Imbros and Tenedos are English names is unfounded. They're Greek in origin and the fact that they're used in English sentences doesn't make them English. So far, we have more google hits for "bozcaada island", Bozcaada is the only option to find the island using Google Maps, most popular and published travel guide uses the name "Bozcaada" and government and multinational organizations use the name "Bozcaada". I might have missed a few more. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Bozcaada is the more common modern usage, as well as being a historically common name on the island itself. Imperial warships named "HMS Tenedos" are not a reason not to adapt to the common modern usage. There were warships called "HMS Ceylon" yet the islands article is named Sri Lanka. Some of the opposition is about books that use the name "Bozcaada" being touristic ones. This is not true, there is a bibliography that spread to Examples:

• Council of Europe papers: Parliamentary Assembly - Working Papers - 2008 Ordinary Session [33],
• novels: Montgomery, R. A. The Brilliant Dr. Wogan [34],
• navigation books: Mediterranean pilot Great Britain Hydrographic Dept. [35]
• viticulture books: Lichine, Alexis (1968) Alexis Lichine's encyclopedia of wines & spirits, Knopf [36]
• biology papers: Botos, E. P.; Hajdú, E.; Borbás, É. (2003) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Grape Genetics and Breeding International Society for Horticultural Science [37],
• history books: Taylor, Phil; Cupper, Pam (1989) Gallipoli, a battlefield guide Kangaroo Press [38]
• mythology books: Angel, J. L.; Mellink, Machteld J. (1986) Troy and the Trojan War Bryn Mawr [39],
• memoirs: Jones, Tristan (1999) Somewheres East of Suez Sheridan House [40]
• law books: Masud, Muhammad Khalid; Peters, Rudolph; Powers, David Stephan (2006) Dispensing justice in Islam: Qadis and their judgements BRILL [41]
• zoology papers: Folia zoologica Československá akademie věd [42]

Of course, in mythological and historical (ie, history before the 15th century) books using the name "Tenedos" makes more sense since that would be the name used then. That would explain many search results for "Tenedos". Filanca (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate my point above (ie, "in mythological and historical books using the name "Tenedos" makes more sense") more clearly, it is like Istanbul being called Constantinople or Byzantium in a book about Byzantine history. Or, Mexico City called Tenochtitlan -- in books about the Aztec period, Tenochtitlan will always outnumber Mexico City. Therefore, when looking at which name is used more frequently, we must not count the historical uses and meanings. Fortunately, Google Scholar has classified its articles according to the subject matter, so it is possible to exclude the category "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities". Thus searching scientific articles published in the 21st century yields 274 results for Bozcaada versus 142 for Tenedos. Clearly, the preferred name in English for natural and social sciences (except history) is Bozcaada in our day. The name Tenedos will always be used in history books referring to the island or when referring to HMS Tenedos, but just so. I agree with Takabeg on that we must adapt the modern usage in the encyclopedia article. Filanca (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pmanderson. Since we are in English wikipedia we have to use the most common term in English. I am not convinced that "Bozcaada" has replace the use of "Tenedos".Seleukosa (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly did not replace (and probably never will). There is enough evidence, however, that both words are being used with Bozcaada becoming more popular as time passes. See the figure I provided above about Bozcaada being more used more than Tenedos in academic papers of the 21st century. Takabeg's proposal is about Use modern names, not about one name replacing the other. Filanca (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How are you going to change your view as it's shown here that the most common name used in English article is "Bozcaada"?

We shouldn't be confused about one thing though. Popularity or anything doesn't make Tenedos or Bozcaada English names. They are still non-English names used to refer to the island. Saying that Tenedos is the current English name for it is unfounded. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see the support votes are still using controversial arguments that are difinitelly in favor of 'oppose': for example if we compare "Tenedos Island" vs bozcaada island, 20,200 vs 873.07:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you've lied about other people's arguments? Nobody used the search parameters you used before, though, it was explained how a lot of those search results are empty or about history of the island prior to Turkish rule. However, when a normal search is used "bozcaada island" provides twice as more results as "tenedos island". So, please do not lie about other people's arguments. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@ User:Alexikoua: What did you say here (Janina Vilayet) ? You insisted on using "minimum results" with the "limitation of publication date" instead of "maximum results" without "limitation of publication date". But now you want to use "maximu results" without "limitation of publication date". We are not discussing on what you want. Takabeg (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with a book search:

1. If we take Use modern names into account, we should look for modern usage, say, that in the 21st century while a google book search counts books dating back to hundreds of years. Even if we search for books published after 1999, many of the results are reprints of old books.
   
2. Historical usage will never change. We will always find Constantinople, Tenochtitlan and Bombay along with Istanbul, Mexico City and Mumbai in books of history. However, that is not an indication for modern usage.
   

If we limit our search to books published from year 2000 onwards 'Tenedos+island' drops to 2,160 from 20,200 overall, almost one in ten. The same limit decreases results for 'Bozcaada+island' to 423 from 873, only about a half. This is a clear indication of Bozcaada becoming more popular in books of 21st century. Sampling the individual books, most of 'Tenedos' books publshed from year 2000 onwards are either history books or reprints of older ones. Bozcaada is used for a more diverse range of subjects and there are fewer reprtints (not surprizing, since this usage is relatively recent). To find out exactly which name is more popular when reprints and history books are stripped is a hard task requiring examination of all search results.

A Google Scholar search easily handles the issues: Dates in Scholar indicate mostly first publication and it is possible to filter according to the subject matter. As I indicated above, Bozcaada is more popular than Tenedos in the 21st century publications. Filanca (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Still the above mentioned results are in favor of Tenedos by a ratio of more than 5:1 in 2000-today bibliography [[43]][[44]], all I'm saying is that the support arguments are controversial. Also the fact that the popularity of Tenedos compared to Bozcaada dropped from 10:1 to 5:1 isn't really a strong argument to justify a move.Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The point you're trying to make is already addressed by Takabeg in detail. Please try to move on from his points rather than repeating the same point that's already addressed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua, the point I made there is that many post-2000 publications are reprints of older books but still counted in Google Books as if new, therefore a book search is not a reliable indication of current usage. Bozcaada's increasing popularity among new books (ie, really new ones, not reprints) is only a proof its gaining momentum. Still reprints distort the results for the favor of the older name (ie, Tenedos). That was one reason I do not base my vote on a Google Book count. The other is, there is no way to exclude history-historical books from a Google Books count. It needs hardly repeating that I base my vote on Google Scholar counts. I base it on a Google Scholar search where (1) dates are usually first publication and (2) it is possible to exclude 'history' as a topic. In scientific articles published in the 21st century Bozcaada is twice more popular than Tenedos (274 hits for Bozcaada versus 142 for Tenedos).Filanca (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree that "In scientific articles published in the 21st century Bozcaada is twice more popular than Tenedos", actually the results prove tha opposite, per gbooks 2000- hits, (5:1 in favor of Tenedos in gbooks post 2000 works, and 3:1 in gscholar [[45]][[46]]). In general it would be constructive to provide the necessary urls in order to prove extraordinary facts like the above.

Something also important is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this means that scientific articles of 'all' fields should be taken into account.Alexikoua (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You may find the search result for Tenedos here and for Bozcaada here. As is seen, Bozcaada (163 results) is twice as popular as Tenedos (80 results). If you propose to include history as a subject matter in a search for current name popularity, you should consider that Mumbai is still referred to as Bombay for the colonial period and Mexico City as Tenochtitlan when speaking about the Aztec era. I don't think anyone would propose to use the name Istanbul when referring to the Byzantian city for the same matter. Filanca (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not the same, if we make a similar 'all scientific fields' search Istanbul has more hits than Constantinople [[47]][[48]] (10:1), same situation in "Mexico city" vs Tenochitlan [[49]][[50]]. As I know we have separate articles for Constantinople and Tenochitlan, but I don't know if a seperation here is the best we can do.Alexikoua (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Once more: In order to decide on current usage we must not consider documents on history, since, due to the nature of their discipline of history, historians will use names that may have dropped out of usage in other fields. I hope this time it is clear enough. My examples (Tenochtitlan, Constantinople, Bombay) are intended for this point exactly. Nothing to do with their overall Google Scholar hit counts, which may be affected by a myriad of factors. And interesting enough, you do not speak about Mumbai above, which returns less hits than Bombay in Google Scholar like in the case of Bozcaada vs. Tenedos. Which increases my suspicion if you are really trying to understand me or putting up a trollish resistance. Filanca (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia, Webster and American Heritage are using Bozcaada and directing Tenedos queries to Bozcaada. Collins uses Tenedos. And according to WP:PLACE Use Modern Names, "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name)" Filanca (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Septentrionalis and Athenean make compelling points. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Which points exactly? Their claim of Tenedos returning more hits than Bozcaada in English texts is refuted above. Do you contest that or are there other points that we should consider? Filanca (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The eloquence of Septentrionalis and the detailed rationale of Athenean speak for themselves at least for those who can read. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Could be interesting to note that the latest added source to the article uses the name Bozcaada as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean this one [[51]]? As I see it also uses Turkish equivalents on Christian churches, institutions (Aya Yorgi/Nicola), in fact the work is a translation from the Turkish prototype and no wonder the international names 'are' mentioned inside parentheses, also when we read Art. 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne we see only Tenedos.Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Names inside parenthesis does not mean that they're the international names. Not sure where you came up with that. Moreover, your mentioning of the Article 14 that was written in 1923 is completely irrelevant to what I said. It's already been proven couple of times how the name Bozcaada is in fact the modern English name for the island. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that Wikitravel also uses the name "Bozcaada". TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Place is in Turkey, so official and native Turkish name should be used. And this standard is followed for all countries. Historical relevance isn't an argument to not move; I bet Constantinople is more common all-time -in Western sources- than Istanbul, but Wikipedia naming conventions are in favor of modern current usage. Tachfin (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Takebag mentiones this sentence for example " It's not easy for us to find historical usage of Bozcaada in this result", when I just look at the first page I can see two historical references one of the book is about ottoman empire. For all the historical references to Tendos there is equal possibilty that there will be historical reference to Bozcaada. Since Wikipedia will not use the most common named used in Turkey the most common name used in the world is the suitable one. Ali55te (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are even newspapers in Turkey which use Tenedos

If we look at the island, Tenedos without Bozcaada and Bozcaada without Tenedos

island Tenedos without bozcaada [52] 425 results

island bozcaada without tenedos [53] 202 results

The results shows that Tenedos is used itself to refer the island two times more then bozcaada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I also checked the google scholar related to the publications after 1 January 2011. Here are the results

island "Tenedos" [54] 28 results

island "bozcaada" [55] 23 results (18 of the results has Turkish authors)

This means in 2011 until now Tenedos is used more frequently to refer to the island in Academia. In addition most of the bozcaada results come from Turkish academicians and Turkish universities Ali55te (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All these points were already addressed by Takabeg. You're accusing his words to be not true yet you're ignoring the fact "Tenedos" is not only the name of the island. There are ship, battle and ship class names that also have the name "Tenedos". "Bozcaada" is only the name of the island and it's shown to be the most common English name in travel guides and many other documents. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ali55te:

Many of the articles in Google Scholar search for 2011 articles are about history or mythology. When selecting all subject areas except "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities", the results are

-island "Tenedos" [56] 2 results however one is written by Greek authorship (judging from the author's name). (one is about Nea Tenedos which isn't this island, must be excluded from search results.) 1 result only which is a historical text, somehow slipped into non-social sciences group. No non-history academic paper published in 2011 by non-Greek authors uses the name Tenedos.

-island "Bozcaada" [57] 15 results. 3 of those have no Turkish authors and 2 of them have Turkish and international authorship including one co-authored by two Greek academicians.

As I argued above, history and mythology will keep names of the periods they speak about forever, therefore they are not indicative of the current name usage. It is clear that the trend to use Bozcaada in academic papers increased in 2011.

By the way, I see it natural for an island in Turkey that most scientific studies are made by Turkish scholars. These are academicians, accustomed to proper English use of terms and, naturally, their papers are screened by Ensligh speaking editors prior to publication.

Filanca (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Arguments for the name change are dispersed among long comments so I feel a summary might be useful:
Bozcaada [58] is twice more popular with 163 results than Tenedos [59] with 77 results in 21st century scientific publications.

This trend is becoming more pronounced as time passes, same search for articles published in 2011 yields 15 results for Bozcaada [60] and no results for Tenedos [61] (the one result visible is about historical past of the island, not current use).

Columbia Encyclopedia [62], Webster [63], American Heritage [64] and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency [65] uses Bozcaada. Collins uses Tenedos.

These results are consistent with changing the name of the article according to Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME and guideline about using modern names. Filanca (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the Lonely Planet, the most popular and published travel guide uses the name "Bozcaada" as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, Tenedos (in reference to the island only) is far more common than Bozcaada (about 20,000 hits [66] versus about 5,000 [67] for Bozcaada, most of which are from tourist guidebooks). I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. We go by what reliable sources use, not tourist guidebooks and pamphlets. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All those points are decisively addressed in the section above. Please do not make false statements about facts. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the above gscholar search is highly problematic: for example "the 21st century scientific publications" explude the historical ones (history is considered a science) so we have [[68]] Tenedos: 766, and Boz.: [[69]] 291: the vast majority of scientific 21th works are in favor of Tenedos. As explained above, excluding everything related about the island's history isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention the special political status of the island (unfostunately WP:COMMONNAME and guideline about using modern names points to Tenedos).Alexikoua (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not think any of us would deny that even if a placename changes, its historical name would remain in use. Therefore, looking at publications about history can not be an indication about current name use although history is certainly a very respectable academic discipline. I have gone a further step and examined all articles published in 2011 and containing the word "Tenedos" in "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities" category. That is, to make sure we are not missing any non-history article, like an article on sociology or art. There were none, all of them were history or mythology articles. Clearly, the name is no longer used out of historical context. Filanca (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The numbers I give don't lie. What "false statements"? Anyway, this is getting ridiculous so I'm going to ask that this requested move be closed. Enough already. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Athanean:
The shortcomings of your search are:
1)We should not count books of history and mythology into account. Such books can never be indicative of current use since historical names will always be used.
2)We must differentiate new books while your search didn't. However, even if you introduced a date, Google Books might give a faulty result since there is no way to take first edition dates into account. It considers reprints as if new. Google Scholar is more reliable in that respect. They are new and never written as a travel guide.
3)We must exclude things like "hms tenedos", "fort tenedos", "nea tenedos", "llc", etc.

Major modern (21st century) encyclopedias and dictionaries are also accepting Bozcaada. Google Scholar searches indicate an ever increasing use of Bozcaada year by year, culminating to no use of Tenedos in articles published in 2011 except in historical context. Even, contrary to those evidence, we assumed that Bozcaada was not yet the established name, acccording to WP:PLACE Use Modern Names, "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name)"

Filanca (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

His search does not take into account the HMS Tenedos, USS Tenedos, Tenedos class frigates, Fort Tenedos, Tenedos Bay or Greek minelayer Tenedos as Wiki lists them. Quite a large part of his search result for the name Tenedos include these as well. His referral to guidebooks as not reliable was also addressed and debunked as I showed decisively how the Lonely Planet, the most popular and published guidebook in Egnlish, uses modern English names in each case whether if it's a European city or if it's a Turkish island. The statements he made about these are either false or misleading. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we 'have' to take history into account, it's not our job to ignore the past of the place, as in every encyclopedia article. Moreover, apart from the overwhelming use of Tenedos in current bibliography this is the name the island is officially recognized today, according to article of the 1923 Treaty which is still in function.Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to take history into account only in a historical context. When speaking of the modern time, modern names count. This is why Wikipedia guideline says WP:PLACE Use Modern Names, "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name)". Otherwise, it would not be possible to switch from Bombay [70] (268,000 results) to Mumbai (181,000 results) - [71] both searches 21st century. Filanca (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact modern English names, on the other hand as I know Mumbai isn't under a special minority status inside India and as I know the Treaty of 1923 isn't cancelled by everyone, so if it says Tenedos, or whatever, we have no reason to object that this is correct per wp:COMMONNAME.Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So Tenedos is an English name? Seriously? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ?

Hi, everyone. The expression "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" was added this edits by User:Athenean. Alexis Alexandris had never used such terms. Is the expression "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" is appropriate and encyclopedic for neutral encyclopedia ? Thank you. -- Takabeg (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Takabeg, would like me to change the wording to match this source [[72]]? Would you? Or maybe we can just say that they lived happily ever after. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference is not consistent with the sentence edited by Athenean. Sure, things were not great but we can't edit things to our own convenience. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Athanean's edit is misleading. His expression "from ancient times" is vague. Archeology indicates first settlement on the island predates Greek Dark Ages at least 1500 years. He assumes a continuous Greek settlement and majority on the island throughout the history until mid 20th Century, which is very difficult to prove. At least we know that there was a considerable time at the end of 14th-beginning of 15th century when the island was uninhabited. His expression "primarily inhabited by Greeks" is also vague, 19th century censuses indicate a 2/3 Greek and 1/3 Turkish population. His source Alexandris is not very reliable: He claims first mosque on the islands was built in 1965 while Şemseddin Sami writes there are three mosques at the mid 19-th century. The oldest, Yali Mosque dates about 1500. On the other hand, I agree with what Athanean wrote about discrimination. However, the ethnic history of the island should not be the first paragraph in a developed article, especially when there is a dedicated section. Although I corrected Athanean's edit on where it stays, I think this should be moved down. Filanca (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: As per TheDarkLordSeth, I suggest rephrasing the sentence in congruence with the source, Alexandris. Filanca (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So on the one hand you claim that Alexandris is "not very reliable", on the other you want to rephrase the sentence verbatim according to him? Can't have it both ways. Or, we can re-word it in accordance to this source [73]. Would you prefer that? Or maybe we can just say that the Greeks on the island happily lived ever after. "Discrimination" is mildest term we can use here to describe Turkey's policies vis-a-vis the Greek population of Tenedos. I had previously used "persecution" and watered it down to "discrimination" as a compromise, and all this did was make some Turkish users bolder and more demanding. But I draw the line at discrimination. Discrimination describes Turkey's policy exactly, and that's the end of that. I cannot water it down further. As for Alexandris, he is a scholarly publication and hence a top notch source, in stark contrast to the sources you have introduced. Who is Turan Takaoglu? Which journal is his paper published in? It seems to be self-published, i.e. unreliable. "Journey of Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo" is definitely not a reliable source. A memoir of a medieval (~1400s) traveler? Not a reliable source by any stretch. And what kind of source is "Yurt Ansiklopedisi"? I am going to have the reliability of each of these sources investigated at WP:RSN, and if users there declare any of them unreliable, they will be removed. By the way, why did you first agree with what I wrote only to change your mind later on? Ethnic solidarity? Very disappointing. Athenean (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should've made myself more clear: Alexandris is not reliable since some of what he says contradicts historical information. The date he gives for the "first mosque on the islands", 1965 is not correct for either island and is late about 450 years. He makes generalizations for the two islands like saying "they had overwhelming Greek majorities" while this was only true for Imbros. Of course some information Alexandris gives may be true, but we would rather confirm those from another source given those errors and his political language. In any case, the article contains information attributed to Alexandris but not present in his book. For example, he does not say "schools were required to teach exclusively in Turkish" but this is attributed to him. Even if we will use Alexandris as a source, we must make this properly. Sevinç and Takaoğlu are archeologists and their article was published in here, a joint publication of the Univeristies of Tübingen and the University of Cincinnatti. Prof. Takaoğlu is from Çanakkale University, you may find information about him here. Clavijo is certainly a very valuable source about the island along with Pero Tafur, both confirm the island was abandoned after the War of Chioggia. Secondary sources also indicate evacuation of the island, check here (p.204) and here. Filanca (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I want to consider this edit as a good symptom that a user started to ged rid of his/her ethnocentric prejudice. I think Alexis Alexandris's article can be used. But if we use this source alone, verifiability of this sentence is "weak". We'd better use this source with other more neutral sources. Alexandris mentions discrimination, but he didn't mention "state-sponsored discrimination". We have to avoid original comopositions, especially on disputed issues, sensitive subjects. For 6-7 September, I can find sources that mention "state-sponsored riot etc.". But I couldn't find for this issue. So we'd better remove "invented" terms.

Alexis Alexandris, "The Identity Issue of The Minorities In Greece An Turkey", in Hirschon, Renée (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange Between Greece and Turkey, Berghahn Books, 2003, p. 120.

I agree with Filanca: "this should be moved down."

Takabeg (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexandris is 100% reliable. The stuff about the first mosque being built refers to Imbros. And yes, both islands had overwhelming Greek majorities, even Yurt Ansiklopedi backs that up (2/3 Greeks). Athenean (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Athanean, he was not speaking about Imbros only when he said "the first Turkish mosque on the islands was built in 1965". This may not be correct for Imbros alone, either, see [74]. "An overwhelming majority" does not seem like the correct way to put it when speaking about a 2/3 majority. Alexandris is also vague and speaking of two very different islands in his generalized statements. Filanca (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone thinks Alexandris is not reliable, I ask that they request an advisory opinion by non-Greek/Turkish users at WP:RSN, which exists for this purpose. Athenean (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we have proved Alexandris gave wrong (or misleadingly vague) information two times in one page. If we still use his work as a source, I suggest to be careful and confirm what he says from other sources. More importantly, we should not cite him for information not present in his work. Filanca (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added Greek Pathriarchate's 1912 census results with reference to Alexandris since nobody else seems to mention that. However I hope to confirm that information from another source given Alexandris' reliability. Filanca (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority" term is usually used when the percentage is higher then 75%. As mentioned before, Alexandris puts the first mosque in the islands at 1965 and that's not true for Bozcada if not for either of the islands. It's ethnocentric prejudice to claim that he's 100% reliable when he can't even get one simple fact right. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexandris seems fine on this fact, actually the originally Christian church in Cinarli, at the center of the island's capital, was converted to Mosque at 1965, and that's the same church Caliskan mentions.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In Bozcaada (Tenedos), There are dangerous rocks off this little town and mole of Tenedos, where the Turkish fort flies its red flag, and the little mosque... (Inside Sebastopol, and experiences in camp, Chapman & Hall, 1856, p. 87.) Takabeg (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

About Imbros (Imroz, Gökçeada), Alexandris wrote Interestingly, the first Turkish mosque in the islands was built in 1965 on an expropriated Greek Orthodox vakıf (communal property) in Panagia (now renamed Çınarlı), the capital of Imbros, and was given the name Fatih Camisi (the Conqueror's mosque). But..... according to this website,

• In Çınarlı Mahallesi ward there are Aya Panayia Church, the Central Mosque that is the first mosque of the island and was established in 1813, and two old laundry.
• In Fatih Mahallesi ward there are the building of the Metropolitan of Imbros, Metropolitan Church and Fatih Mosque.
• In Yenimahalle ward, there are Aya Varvara Church and old fountain.

Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Takabeg: The article already documents the Köprülü Mosque in Bozcaada/Tenedos was built in 1657. It was built on the ruins of an older mosque demolished by Venetians. That is probably the oldest standing temple building in use on the island, considering the church was built in the 19th Century. However, there is also the discarded mosque in the castle, in fact two of them, one ruined, other standing but not in use since the Ottoman garrison left. At least one of those two may be predating Köprülü mosque. Besides, the mosque that was destroyed by Venetians should be even older. I have seen at least one reference for that and hope to add it in the article later on. However those facts have little significance for Alexandris, whose aim seems to be making a point about the suffering of the Greek community. I am not criticizing his aim but the way he works. He is biased and should be taken with care even if he may be a good source at times. Filanca (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And why do we care about Alexandris' opinion if a 59% majority is "great" or "overwhelming"? Alexikoua reverted my edit saying it was a referenced information therefore should not be deleted, but should we add well-documented yet insignificant information to the encyclopedia? I will not touch Takabeg's neutralized expression (thanks to him) although I still feel Alesandris' comment looks out of place. Unless, we are after documenting his bias (is 59% majority great? Overwhelming? Come on!) Filanca (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I still see no arguments that condradict the claims of Alexandris, not to mention that it's published on a collective work. If wp:rs policy isn't enough to convice I would suggest to fill a wp:rsn case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that Alexandris claim that the first mosque was built in 1965 being wrong should be enough. You've claimed before that he's 100% reliable. It's proven that he's not. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexandris is also proven wrong about assuming a continuous Greek majority on the island throughout its human settlement until the 20th century. Not only the island remained empty for 75 years between 1381-1455, but the figures indicate a clear Turkish majority after the island is repopulated until the 19th century. Besides, the first known settlement on the island predates the Greek Dark Ages about 1500 years. Since he overlooks so many facts, his motives are confirmed to be political and biased. Filanca (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this news on a Turkish newspaper. http://www.evrensel.net/news.php?id=5423 It basically states that during 1960s horrible things happened against greeks. The crulties, seizing of their properties, assimilation etc.. and eventually in the news the Çanakkale human rights association minister Kenan Döner states that, the pressure put on greeks now become to an unbelivable point. People even can not tolerate the greek cemetaries. In one night they broke all the gravestones of the greeks. Athenean you don't need to look at greek sources if you just look at Turkish resources you can find more then enough information. I will put the information on the page when I have time to translate and summerize the article in an efficient way.Ali55te (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already added reliable sources to almost all information based on Alexandris (not to say that adding further sources will be bad) However there still remains one "citation needed" tag in the article which you might want to search for. Filanca (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"ecological disaster"?

There is a recent edit in the article adding the following:

"During the 1960s the island faced a serious ecological disaster whith the enforcement of law 6830/1964, that aimed at the appropriation of the cultivated areas owned by the local Greek communities. As a result 90% of the total cultivated areas in both Tenedos and Imbros were destroyed and various constructions were built instead."

There is no indication of an ecological disaster on the island in any other resource. Today 40% of the island is cultivated and 80% of the cultivated lands are vineyards (see Brebbia&Beriatos p.338-339 [http://books.google.com/books?id=uojOg7iXZZAC&
pg=PA339&lpg=PA329&ots=GAvVRx3Cuc&dq=bozcaada+agriculture&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html] Therefore it is impossible for the island to have had 90% of its cultivated lands destroyed -- and replaced by various constructions(?). There is some sign of decline in the vineyards in the last three decades (see same source, p. 339) but it is not related with an ownership regulation but development of tourism and tax laws. It is also on a much smaller scale and started about 20 years after claimed by this edit. In fact, during the period where the above edit claims the "ecological disaster", wine production in the island increased, especiall after 1956 (same source, p.339). Between 1960-80, 13 wine production plants operated. Better use of machinery increased productivity. Since wine producers used grapes on the island, this increase would have been impossible with 90% of the cultivated lands destroyed.

The source given for this edit is not about agriculture or economy. It is a political book about Turkish-Greek relations written by a Greek author (see full text here, p.139). It speaks of Imbros and Bozcaada together in this matter. This is not a correct nor a clear way to indicate a fact about one of the islands but not something new to users participated in discussions here, see above for false claims about both islands having an overwhelming Greek majority until 20th century (which is only true for Imbros), both islands' Turkish names changed after 1970 (again only true for Imbros), both islands not having a mosque until 1965 (not true for either island but the first mosque on Bozcaada probably predates the 19th century mosque in Imbros about 300 years). Imbros and Bozcaada are two islands, althogh not very far from each other and both in Turkey, with different histories, ethnographies and economies. Speaking in generalizations proved to be misleading in the past.

I propose this edit to be deleted in view of the contradictory evidence. Filanca (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source. Takabeg (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In general when the 90% of the cultivated areas of a region is appropriated and replaced with conrete, this is called ecological disaster. The source is of top graded academic value, so we have no problem of adding the specific part: the argumenty that the source isn't about the economic is really poor, but this part can fit in history section too.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But if you have a closer look at the figures above, you will see that it is impossible that 90% of the cultivated lands in Bozcaada/Tenedos to be covered with concrete. Currently 40% of the island is being cultivated, most of the rest being used for herding, there is also a forest, beaches, dunes, the town and farm buildings. If this 40% is the remaining 10% after 90% of the cultivated lands were replaced with concrete, the irrational conclusion would be that prior to 1960, 400% of the island's whole surface was being cultivated! That means most of the farmers were working under sea. Although a type of seaweed is being served in the restaurants of the island as a meze, that would hardly count as agriculture. Joking aside, there is no large scale concrete structures on the island, and I hope you have also read how wine production soared after 1956 until 1980, which would be impossible by destroying vineyards. Check this book also. Although it is written in Turkish, you will be able to understand the land use map on p.103. Green: agriculture, blue: tourism, pink: conservation and yellow: settlement. Filanca (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Large scale appropriations of land owned by the Greek communities was part of the official state policy in the 60s. This can be confirmed by several sources [[75]][[76]], by the way we are talking about the 60s not 2007.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And I do not contest that. However, jumping from the fact that there was expropriations to an 'ecological disaster' where 90% of arable land falling out of agricultural use and being covered with other structures is far fetched. Such an event is contradicting to other sources and what we know about the island's past and present. Filanca (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, I took the liberty to re-write this part, contrasting it with the growth in wine production. 90% decrease in arable lands and expropriation of Greek farms kept, but I deleted the phrase "ecological disaster" since such a catastrophe, if true, would certainly have been reported by other sources. I don't think that it is contained in the original source, either. I hope this is acceptable for all. Filanca (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see the construction of a military base and an airport on previous cultivated lands in a small island are very likely to cause ecological disaster, so I reworded the specific part in order to become somewhat more balanced (ecological disaster vs wine production increase). I have the feeling that this paragraph should be moved back to 'economy'.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What military base? Which airport? The only airport (airstrip rather) that existed on the island, as indicated in the article, is the one built by British forces during WWI Gallipoli Campaign. Since then it has disappeared and has no effect on agricultural use today. And the "basis" one may speak of today is the single garrison of Turksh jandarmerie which hardly occupies a significant area. The source you cited speaks about Imbros, not Bozcaada. You seem to have confused the two islands again. Filanca (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I admit that this is not convincing at all, at least google is very clear that there is an active airfield in Tenedos/Bozcaada Seems google [[77]] and no wonder we see it on googlemaps very clear too [[78]]. it would be more constructive to avoid blind reverts and check carefully the arguments presented. (also the source says [[79]] "the most fertile lands of the Greeks were expropriated and a military base and an airport were constructed on these lands." its plural).Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check the Google Earth you can see that there is only one airstrip that's between 600 and 700 meters. This airstrip takes up a very small amount of space and is surrounded by farmlands. Assuming that this is the airstrip the British built, where is this other airstrip that Turks build over a vast amount of land? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would be more constructive to present specific works and arguments instead of assuming something. Since we have this [[80]] that speaks about "an airfield and an military base constructed in these island" in mid 20th cent., we have no reason to assume something that contradicts this. Alexikoua (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be much more constructive to not misuse sources though. Your link does not provide the information you claim it does. Moreover, you fail to address the points I've raised. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything is cited inside the text (ecological disaster, construction of airfield military base and appropriation of land owned by locals based on ethnicity). Another relevant fact that can be added is the prohibition to sell their wine production.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's cited in the article but it's not mentioned in your link above that you claimed it was. I could find references that say the Earth is flat but that doesn't make it reliable. I don't know why you'd try to misuse the sources you link to. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua:
1) Your source says "a military base and an airport were constructed on these lands". One military base and one airport. Lands in plural. Which lands? Looking at the title, Imbros and Tenedos. This is one of the sources which speak of both islands in generalized statements. Generalizations about those islands proved to be wrong more than once in this page (remember post-1970 invented name, the first mosque of the "islands", etc.) Imbros and Bozcaada, although both in Turkey, are two islands with very different history and geography. Going back to your source, it is speaking of a single airport on one of the two islands.

2) The long paragraph mentioning the airport contains the word Imbros three times and Gökçeada one time. It contains "the island" 12 times. It never speaks of Tenedos or Bozcaada. There is no reason to doubt that it starts to speak about an airfield on Bozcaada, without naming it, while it speaks only of Imbros before and after.

3) This document proves that the airport is scheduled to be built within Eight Five Yearly Development Plan which spans from 2001-2005 (page 190, "Çanakkale-Bozcaada Havaalanı"). That is long after the migration of Greeks of the island which mainly took place between 1960-1980.

4) If you look at the map on page 103 of this book again, you will see that the "airfield" you found on the Google Maps lies in grids 7, 26 and 27, none of which are agricultural lands. If you read the Geography section of this article and a bit of a geography of the islanda, you will see that section (extreme west) of the island is covered with sand dunes. Google Maps also indicates there are no fields around the airfield you speak about. Agricultural lands lie due east and there is a pine forest in between.

5) This book indicates how Greeks helped British to build the first airstrip by uprooting a vineyard on the island during the Gallipoli Campaign. It is 800 yards long, looking at the map, almost as long as the airstrip you mention. Now, should we consider this as an evidence of Greeks disturbing the ecology of the island?
Filanca (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is some incosistency with this argument, for example you claim that the airfield wasn't built on a cultivated area, but this url you gave above [[81]] claims that the airfield is inside the cultivated green area (square 10), on squares 7, 26, 27 as you mistakenly claim there is a dirt road instead.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I considered the map in the link you provided and it was centered on the western cape so I mistakenly considered the dirt road there. Sorry. This is plainly in grid 10, agricultural area. This explains one inconsistency in my mind: I thought it was highly probable that the current airstrip was built on the same area as the British one built during the WWI. Had it been near the western cape, there could hardly have been a vineyard uprooted during its construction, since that area is not suitable for farming. Being in the agricultural part of the island, current airstrip may still coincide with the old one. Now making some allowance for the premises, the dimensions of the airstrip are 700m x 100m =70,000 sq.m. = 7 hectares. Total area of the island is 36.7 sq.km. = 3760 hectares. Total arable land is 40% of that, 1500 hectares. Area of the airstrip is 0.47%, less than a half per cent of the agricultural lands. I suppose that is hardly a significant percentage that would lead to an 'ecological disaster'. Besides, it was done by the British forces first with help from Greek residents of the island. If there are any confiscations for this 21st century construction, that was long after most Greeks already left the island. Filanca (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move July 2012

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 Still no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Tenedos → Bozcaada – Frankly, I would be shocked that the Greek name continues to be used rather than the Turkish if it werent for centuries of bias against the names and conventions of Eastern peoples. Somehow we've let the leash out a bit and allowed for names like Mumbai (not Bombay) and Sri Lanka (not Ceylon), but we continue with the anachronistic usage of the Greek name Tenedos. The vast majority of major publications use Bozcaada, including the New York Times, Lonely Planet, Fodors - why is Wikipedia insisting on being anachronistic? The point of Wikipedia per its guidelines is to adopt the common usage as per established and well-read sources -- such as the US' main newspaper and the largest travel guides. Mlepori (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This has been discussed an innumerable number of times before, and the current state of the literature in the English language is that Tenedos is more common than Bozcaada. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of major US publications using Tenedos - the above user gave a link to a NYTimes article that uses Bozcaada. Please offer hard evidence so the community can make an informed opinion. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Support The majority of English publications refer to the island as Bozcaada. For one example, the editors of the New York Times refer to it as Bozcaada in a recent (7/4/2012) article: http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/travel/on-a-turkish-isle-winds-tend-the-vines.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.240.127 (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The island is internationally recognized as Tenedos, under the terms of the Treaty of Laussane, and still part of the de jure administration of Imbros and Tenedos. Apart from that English bibliography prefers the name Tenedos too.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The treaty of Lausanne is from 1923. Surely you can give a more recent example of the usage of Tenedos from a popular press? Given above are multiple examples of high-readership English publications (e.g. the New York Times) which uses Bozcaada.

Let me remind yo that you voted twice for support. I've mentioned Lausanne in order to refer to the official name of the island. Off course we have plenty of recent biblography that makes use of that name.Alexikoua (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You fail to provide popular sources, on the level of the New York Times, where Tenedos is used. The Treaty of Lausanne established borders--not names. The name Bozcaada (like Tenedos) is much older than 1923. Your evidence is spurious. Furthermore, I believe you are unable to separate your desire to maintain Hellenic culture from the guidelines of Wikipedia. These firmly state that the popular, mainstream nomenclature is to be preferred over antiquated naming. In 2012, Bozcaada clearly is more common.

Oppose - doing a move request every half year doesn't change the fact that Tenedos is more common in English. Besides opposing this 3rd move request within a year, I also propose a 2 year "snowball close" on all further move requests. Maybe in 2 years the commonly used name in English might have changed, although I would be highly surprised by that! noclador (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you provide no evidence whereas the Pro-Bozcaada side does. Second, I don't believe you have the authority to enact such a moratorium.

Support - if major US newspapers are using Bozcaada, then Wikipedia needs to do so also. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - the Independent (national UK newspaper) also refers to the island as Bozcaada (2009): http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/unspoilt-and-cheap-can-bozcaada-really-be-in-the-med-1785745.html. Seems most major English publications use Bozcaada nowdays, which the guidelines suggest should be the main determinant of a page's title. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Ottoman Flagship

"In 1822, during the Greek War of Independence, the revolutionaries under Konstantinos Kanaris managed to attack and burn the Ottoman flagship off Tenedos" was changed by me because it is incorrect. The Flagship was left unharmed, while Kanaris destroyed one of the other ships. From Robert Vaughn's history (available here, pg. 456): "On the 10th of November, the war was illustrated by another brilliant exploit of Kanaris. The Ottoman fleet was riding anchor between Tenedos and the Troad. Two line-of-battle ships were anchored windward of the rest of the fleet. Kanaris steered a fire-ship right on the windward quarter. The sails of the fire-ship were nailed to the mast and steeped in turpentine. The Greek hero performed his task with his usual coolness and perfect contempt of danger. He scarcely had time to jump into little boat and row off, ere the flames burned up higher than the maintop of the seventy-four. The crew leaped into the sea and most were drowned, as they were far from the shore. The huge vessel blazed up, and the magazine exploded, killing, it is said, eight hundred men. The companion of Kanaris, who, in a sister fire-ship, undertook the destruction of the flag-ship, failed in his enterprise, and the fire-ship burned harmlessly." This is a preferred source to the original source that said Kanaris destroyed the flagship because it provides significantly more context than a brief mention with limited original citations.

I will again change the context to properly reflect the historical accuracy that a brave attack destroyed an Ottoman ship, but not the flagship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbstractIllusions (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Charanis Source

I reedited the Late Middle Ages section with sourcing in all instances. Four source references were removed. 1. Intratex of the Byzantine empire is a bad source. 2. the Doaks source is broken and I couldn't find what it was about. 3. Treadgold was a good source removed on accident, will be put back in. But, the Charanis source was problematic and maybe should be returned(?). The original text wrote: " 4000 Greek islanders from Tenedos were resettled in Crete and Euboea." I have poured over Charanis Studies book (the source of this claim) to try and find the relevant page or confirm the evidence elsewhere. Does anyone have a good link or the page in Charanis studies where this claim is provided? It seems historically relevant, but I could find no quality confirmation. Thanks to Dr.K for opening this conversation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your kind comments. I have found a working link for the Dumbarton Oaks from the internet archive. I will try to check for the Charanis citation but I cannot guarantee success. Thank you for your efforts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Thanks. I'm still wary about the 4,000 Greeks moved claim. If Charanis says it, that will end the hesitation, but I'm going to Jaboby's (Dumbarton Oaks) source for the claim in the library tomorrow and will try to figure it out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a quote to the Dumbarton Oaks reference and revived the link through the Internet Archive: diff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of Catholic Diocese Source

More fact-checking the sources. This time the "Chronology of Catholic Diocese" source seems highly problematic. The claim it is supposedly providing evidence for is "The island remained depopulated[22][21] for about 72 years before the arrival of Ottomans in 1455[49]". So I follow the links to this page at katolsk.no which does not seem to be excellent evidence for the claim, for a few reasons:

• They, themselves do not know when it happened. As they say on the webpage up top: "We ask our readers to kindly help us establish...when the dioceses of Carpathos, Nicaria and Tenedos were suppressed." Although if they find this information, this may be a good source, right now they are themselves asking for this exact information.
• The other main mention of Tenedos in the list is "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?) - (Byzantine Empire)- Turkey" This neither makes clear if Tenedos was abandoned, was the Catholic church abandoned? This list also includes mostly the existence of churches, not their destruction. Regardless, the source itself is operating largely in the dark with the (abandoned?) note to themselves.
• Finally, evidence does not match up with claim. The claim is that the island was abandoned, but the evidence is about Catholic churches. Just because the Catholic Church left an island, does not mean that it is empty.

I think this source should be removed from the article, the claim should stand with the Kiminas source only linked. Hive says? AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what source and/or claim it is that you are questioning? I'm confused. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it is source #49 that supposedly says Tenedos was empty for 72 years. But if you go to the link of the source (it is in my original post), it doesn't say anything of the sort. It has a line about "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?)", but that doesn't say anything, does it? Filanca used it earlier (see above in the disorganized talk section) to write that the entire island was emptied at the end of the Venetian-Genoan war, but it doesn't say that either. All it says is "(abandoned?)" Anyway, I'm just trying to clean up this page and thanks for any help! AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move August 2012

Tenedos → Bozcaada – There is clear evidence that Bozcaada is the preferred English language name. To ease the discussion, I made a usage table of key source in Google here: Naming Chart. As is seen, Bozcaada or the equivalent is the preferred usage in: Encyclopedia Britanica, Oxford and National Geographic Atlas of the World, Google Maps, Library of Congress Subject Heading, Major English Language Newspapers, and is the translated use in BBC wire services. Tenedos is the preferred use in Webster's Dictionary(although online version uses Bozcaada) and in Google Scholar/Books Searches (inflated because of use of the word in the Iliad and the Aenead). Newspaper references to the island clearly show the preference for Bozcaada over Tenedos (see Google table here). All contemporary references to the island use Bozcaada, including the New York Times, Reuters, AP, The Guardian, BBC, Sunday Telegram, and others. Tenedos is used to refer to the island almost exclusively in the contest of the Iliad or Gallipoli campaign, which does not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for modern use.

The Wikipedia Naming Conventions are clear about the best practices for this decision: 1. the widely accepted English Name. 2. If no widely accepted English name exists, "the modern official name...should be used." Tenedos is neither the widely accepted English name, nor is it the modern official name. Bozcaada is much preferred and the modern official name.

I am not a partisan in this fight, let's just get it right. Please look at my evidence before opposing, and tell us why Tenedos should be considered the "widely accepted English name" when a lot of smart people aren't using it? AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - all voters must pay attention to the empirical evidence assembled by AbstractIllusions. Thanks to the latter for compiling this data, which clearly demonstrates that Bozcaada is the preferred modern English term. The Independent (UK, national) is yet another newspaper that uses Bozcaada, see here. Leading guidebooks also refer to the island as Bozcaada, see Fodor's and Lonely Planet. Mlepori (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, for the 100th time. What's this another move request by a new redlinked account? Didn't we just have another one less than a month ago? There have been innumerable move requests in the past, and they have all failed. There is a good reason for that: "Tenedos" is much more widely used in reliable English-language sources than "Bozcaada", as reflected both on Google Books (272,000 vs. 16,000 hits) or Google Scholar (8900 vs. 1400 hits). It means nothing that one reason may be due to the wealth of literature on the Iliad, it matters that these are reliable sources, and that they use Tenedos. There are several reasons for this. First, "Tenedos" has been the island's name from antiquity. Second, the name "Bozcaada" is part of a process of Turkification and has never really caught on in the English world. Third, Tenedos is a small, relatively insignificant island by any standard. It's main claim to fame is its association with the Iliad. Any source dealing with Tenedos in an archeological and/or mythological context, regardless of publication date, will obviously refer to it as "Tenedos". Since Tenedos' only other claim to fame is tourism, that pretty much leaves tourist guidebooks as the main English-language sources referring to it as "Bozcaada" (and also official government publications). But there is no question that among reliable English-language sources, Tenedos is by far the more widely used name. Selective searches such as the one above mean nothing, nor the fact that tourist guidebooks use "Bozcaada" (they are not really considered reliable sources). Another important point is that while many sources mention "Bozcaada" in passing because it's the official name, they use Tenedos throughout: [82] [83]. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Athenean, you make some excellent points. But I have some problems.

• Why should we prefer Google Books and Google Scholar over all other sources? I can't think of a reason why we should. Let me give you some examples, Smyrna is used more in Google books than Izmir, Wikipedia uses Izmir. Thebes is used more than Luxor in Google books, and Wikipedia correctly uses Luxor. In both cases, Wikipedia editors have selected to prioritize the less Google Bookable antiquity name because either: 1. most contemporary sources use the modern name (like Bozcaada) or 2. it isn't clear, and so they use the official name, as per the Wikipedia Naming Conventions (like Bozcaada). This is precisely why Wikipedia suggests we look at the Google books results and not just count them to decide this issue. At the very least, looking at the evidence, you have to concede that Tenedos does not meet the level of "widely accepted English name." You can say it is more prominent, but there are lots of counter sources to that prominence. And according to the Wikipedia naming conventions, that means we should use the official name, which is Bozcaada.
• On your sources, the first is from 1964, certainly you don't want the Wikipedia page about African-Americans to use the term 'Negros' for the title (1964 this was used a lot)? I'd like a reason we should prefer a 1964 book about Cyprus over a 2012 article from the New York Times about the island we are trying to name. Your second source actually uses Bozcaada much more. Bozcaada is used on 16 pages and Tenedos is used 10. Look at page 336, you can't possibly say that it uses Bozcaada only in passing.
• The evidence shows this: Google Books and Google scholar have more hits for Tenedos. Most contemporary reputable sources use Bozcaada. Our question, I think is this, how do we decide this discrepancy in order to name the page. To claim we answer this empirical evidence with Tenedos requires us to ignore lots of (coherent and edited) reputable sources and Wikipedia naming guidelines. So there really are two questions for anyone opposing to answer: 1. Why should we ignore all of the reputable, contemporary sources (see my original proposal and the list is significant) and instead defer to Google Scholar/Books number of results? 2. Why should we ignore the Wikipedia naming guidelines, which direct us to defer to the official name when it isn't clear that there is a widely accepted English name, and instead use the archaic name in this instance? Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• On another issue, please remember that it is best to assume the best intentions of other editors. Claims like "What's this another move request by a new redlinked account?" do not do this. I'll be respectful even if you aren't, but focusing on the evidence might be more helpful for all of us in making this decision. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Athenean, your evidence does not stack up against AbstractIllusion's. That Google Scholar has more hits is vastly less relevant than the fact that the majority of English publications today use Bozcaada. Secondly, I'm not surprised a user named Athenean brings up "Turkification" as a reason to keep the name Greek. The issue should be decided by empirical facts and the Wikipedia naming policy, not your national convictions. The facts point to Bozcaada. Mlepori (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To augment your first point. Wikipedia explicitly asserts that counting Google hits IS NOT the proper way to decide this issue. From Wikipedia:Search engine test: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability....Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive." AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since you are a new account, let me give you some advice. Google Books and Google Scholars searches are an excellent way to ascertain common English usage among reliable sources. It's what we've always been using around here, and I have participated in more move requests than you have contribs. The "raw hit counts" you mention above refers to raw google searches, which contain all kinds of crap (mostly hotel and other commercial websites). The reason we use Google Book searches, of course, is because they give us a global view of English usage, as opposed to carefully selected source that happen to suit one's POV, as seems the case here. As long as the Google Books search is conducted in a correct fashion, it is an extremely useful tool. Here, it shows that "Tenedos" is roughly ten times more common than Bozcaada among reliable English language publications. By the way, if you are as "neutral" in this matter as you claim to be, why did you selectively contact people that only voted "Support" in previous requests, and not the people who voted "Oppose"? Anyway, I strongly expect you to abide by the results of this move request and not immediately post another if the result of this one is not to your liking (which it probably won't) Athenean (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Books and Scholar gives more entries for Tenedos purely based on its classical application in Homer. In today's discussion of today's island, Bozcaada is dominant. The data compiled by AbstractIllusions verifies this. That discussions of Homer make use of Tenedos is important, and I suspect a Tenedos page is appropriate based on its classical usage. However, today's island is named Bozcaada and the majority of the English media uses Bozcaada. Therefore this page should be named Bozcaada. (Personal attack removed)71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you the same user as AbstractIllusions or Mlepori? It doesn't matter that many of the references to Tenedos are due to its mention in Homer. After all, that is the island's main claim to fame. And no, we are not going to split the page because some people find the classical references inconvenient. Athenean (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am not them, and let's not make this personal. Please stick to the facts of the matter, for the best of the Wikipedia community. Now to those matters, the reason for the "fame" of an island does not determine its name here on Wikipedia. The naming policy clearly states that it is the common English name that decrees the page's name. Thanks :-) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.24.73 (talk)

Here's why Google Results are Bad. Here is the search for "Tenedos -Aeneid" at Google Books. The third source is a book about the Aeneid with Tenedos in it. You insinuate that I Cherry Pick sources. Show one? I included EVERY news article to use either word in my evidence. Every one. Even about HMS Tenedos or the Tenedos spider or anything. I see you are trying to bait everyone and then fall back on an elitist attitude. But yet, my questions lack answers of any kind. I concede to you that Google Books/Scholar has more hits for Tenedos (a point argued in earlier discussions), but you have not once looked at my evidence showing a significant use of Bozcaada in contemporary sources. The question is what should we do in that case? This question has not been discussed in any of the other move requests (look over them, you won't find this). You say we should go with Tenedos in this example, that's great. The question is 'Why'? Why should we ignore all news articles about the present day island? Why should we ignore Wikipedia Naming Guidelines to do so? I am really, very interested in these. If you give me a good abstract logical reason why we should do this, I'll write an 'Oppose' entry myself. Alright, keeping this succinct: all I've asked is that everyone look at my evidence and tell me why to ignore it (that is in the initial change request). I'm still waiting. I think talking about the answer to that question would be more fruitful than accusing other editors. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - It's been shown many times that Bozcaada is the preferred English name for this island. This is a fact. Takabeg provided the most detailed analysis on why this is a fact and AbstractIllusions further builds on that. All that is left is people's vote and we move this article to it's correct name. Athenean's flawed arguments are debunked by Takabeg is the utmost detail on this page above from August 2011. It could be convenient for editors to check on those posts for those arguments. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We cannot have a new move proposal every month. The rejected proposal of July 2012 is hardly a month old. This is getting ridiculous. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K, please oppose or support based on the evidence, not based on irrelevant factors like how often the topic is raised. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The lengthy discussions just above and the valid arguments put forward opposing this move in the multiple move requests are still valid and need not be repeated. The latest move request was closed as "no consensus" just two weeks ago. Noone should have to repeat the same arguments every two weeks just as to entertain those who do not agree with them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect: this new discussion is relevant because of the large amount of new data compiled by AbstractIllusions. Those who wish to keep the name Tenedos need to acknowledge this data (like Athenean did) and give an argument to oppose this new data's relevance.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that naming wars are unproductive. But as more nonpartisan folks like me learn about the island from the increased tourist promotions, the number of people proposing to change the name of the island is going to increase if there is a difference in how most sources are using it from how Wikipedia is using it. If you want the Name Change requests to change, you can: 1. Call up the NY Times, BBC, The Times, National Geographic, Encyclopedia Britanica, and Library of Congress and tell them to change their name for the island, or 2. Accept that the standard name used by all those sources might be the name that Wikipedia should use. As long as there is a discrepancy, you should expect regular name change requests. (And, that is a good thing! It would be a bad thing if there was a large (and it is quite large, honestly) discrepancy between regular English usage and a page on Wikipedia and there weren't repeated name change requests.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• As Nominator, I am flummoxed by some unwillingness to even engage with the evidence and naming conventions. But, our job as Editors should be to seek compromise. What would everyone think of the Smyrna/Izmir solution? It requires give from all sides, but I think is the most neutral & precise possible way of compromise. Basically:

1. Tenedos page remains but becomes about the antiquity site primarily and says in the introduction that it is the ancient name for Bozcaada. The page wraps up primarily at about 1923, although legacy issues with the post-1923 situation should be a part of the entry. The Smyrna page is almost exclusively the history of the place called 'Smyrna' and does not include climate, or other discussions. So these would be moved to the Bozcaada page.
2. Bozcaada gets a page for itself which can include historical discussion, but should defer to the use Tenedos to discuss that time period before 1923. Although, if there are reliable sources, it can discuss that the island was called Bozcaada prior to 1923, but the reference for the island in the history up until 1923 should be to use Tenedos.
3. Both will have appropriate cross-references. So, Tenedos will have a link up top saying: "This article is about the ancient Greek island. For the modern city, see Bozcaada". And Bozcaada history section must start with a part that says, Main Article: Tenedos. These are both the conventions from Smyrna/Izmir and other pages.
4. I know 1923 as a cutoff date is not going to make any partisans happy. Yes Bozcaada is older use than 1923, Yes the majority of residents continued to call the island Tenedos after 1923 for a while. But, those should be discussed in the page's content and not decide titling.

What say everyone? This will at least change the naming requests, improve the neutrality of the entire discussion, and requires each to give in a little bit. Compromise? AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AbstractIllusions, Smyrna is an actual archaeological site, Bozcaada is an island and town. There is no distinction as there is between Izmir (city) and Smyrna (site). Though, if I were to argue your case, I would say that Tenedos deserves its own page based on its relevance to classical literature (Homer) and Bozcaada deserves its own based on its prevalence in today's English language media. But that would make the "split" in the history much earlier than 1923 -- the Tenedos page would be related to solely to its presence in classical literature.50.138.134.200 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, there are lots of other situations where the same location changed names and Wikipedia retains an 'old name page' and 'new name page' like Constantinople/Istanbul, Thebes/Luxor, Liubice/Lubeck, Aeminium/Coimbra, etc. So I don't think it is unprecedented or even rare. I used Smyrna/Izmir because the pages have been done really well, in my opinion. I would be fine with a 'Tenedos (Classical literature)' and 'Bozcaada' division if others are. So, we have two issues for consensus for this compromise: 1. should we have 'old name page' and 'new name page'. And 2. if 1, where to split it. Does anyone think the Wikipedia Naming Conventions should prevent consensus on number 1? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and Quick close On the basis that the number of requests for the same name change is absolutely excessive. One literally closed 10 days ago.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

New data has been collected and put forward by the original poster. This data is relevant and needs consideration by the Wikipedia community.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reason for your opposition referring either to the evidence presented (i.e. something like "I think the New York Times is a bad source") or regarding Wikipedia naming conventions. That would help us get this right. I went through a lot of work to collect good reputable evidence for the name change and to clarify the issue. No discussion has answered why we should prefer the number of google Books hits over the usage in the NYTimes, BBC, and others. I'd appreciate the respect of responding to the evidence presented. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing almost non-stop since April 2011, during that time 3 separate name request have been put forward and closed without a consensus reached, this being the forth... in a year an a half. Community conclusion not 10 days ago was that there was no consensus, that discussion having been open for 20 days. This article would be better served by its editors improving its content rather than focusing entirely on its name. This requested move does not respect the spirit or intent of the requested move process, continually hammering in the same requested move request is disrespectful. Efforts would be far better concentrated on the article content than its title or seeking a community solution for all articles affected by the same issue (e.g. Imbros/Gokceada).--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Labatt, it is not a question of "spirit" or "respect" but of policy -- Wikipedia naming policy prefers the common-usage English term. Data show that this is Bozcaada, which is precisely why the issue arises. The dispute recurs not because editors are "disrespectful" but because Tenedos is anachronistic. Those who favor Tenedos keep avoiding the issue of the data.71.192.30.158 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Mlepori (high above). We should have one standard for names: The actual one, i.e. the actual name. If not we should go to many articles about Greece and several other countries and make changes of name thereat, instead. If we do not have special rules for Greek language here in WP it is a meaningless discussion. Bozcaada is Bozcaada and should be named so in WP; somewhere in the Bozcaada article we may refer to its ancient name, of course, not in the lead though... --E4024 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - it's a Turkish island with a majority Turkish population. It makes no sense to retain the Greek toponym as the article name. Similarly, the article İskenderun is not named Alexandretta, Istanbul is not named Constantinople, Izmir is not named Smyrna etc. etc. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: per arguments in July move request, since nothing new is presented this month. It starts to get boring with this request almost every month.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lots of new information is provided. Library of Congress subject heading has never been discussed before. The total past 15 years of Newspaper usage has never been collected or discussed before. At the same time, there has never been a discussion very clearly on the issue: Why should we prioritize the number of Google Books hits over the usage in edited, reputable English sources? If you can show me where that issue was discussed or where consensus was reached on that question, I'll be very interested in it. Please do not discount my evidence as 'nothing new'. There is new stuff, this is not just a repetition. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, there is no need to personally reply to every "Oppose" vote. It only makes you seem even less neutral than you claim to be. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an open forum for dialogue and s/he has every right to fully participate. The anti-Bozcaada side consistently attempts to quell discussion because it knows that it is on the wrong side of the data.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the opposing votes attack the act of move request rather than defending their opposition. So, AbstractIllusions has the right and reason to respond to each such accusation. It doesn't say anything about his neutrality nor it is right to attack him in such a manner. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - the desire to maintain Hellenic culture (Homer, etc) should not take precedence over everyday English language. If English media use Bozcaada then so too should Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for all English speakers21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)71.192.24.73 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and quick close: The Google Books search proves beyond doubt that Tenedos is the standard word still used for the island (272,000 for Tenedos vs. 16,000 for Bozcaada). Can't see a single argument which disproves this clear count. The last vote took place in July, so the August vote looks a pretty protracted case of WP:IDHT or monthly voting until the 'right' result is reached. Given the sensitive nature of the matter and the dubious circumstances of this vote, I would advise to ignore the votes of all IPs and single-purpose accounts, even if this vote is not quickly closed which I believe should be. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You use a "hits count" argument which Wikipedia guidelines explicitly reject. Second, you ignore the greater data that points to Bozcaada. The English speaking world and its media uses Bozcaada in daily discussions, which is of greater weight to contemporary English language discussion. That classics scholars refer to the island as Tenedos is of less relevance to the English language community. Third, this continuous demand for a "quick close" demonstrates a desire to censor Wikipedia and silence voices and their evidence. This evidence is new and overwhelming.71.192.30.158 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

• Comment This is a mess. Country-Specific Guidance on WP:PLACE for Turkey should be a priority to avoid this. SLawsonIII (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have registered only three days ago. Sorry to say this, but the whole vote smacks big time of foul play. It's so obvious that it is even involuntarily funny. :-D Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, you used one personal attack and here are verging on another. Please obey the decorum rules of Wikipedia and keep the conversation on topic (not on the other posters).71.192.30.158 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't jump into this one. And I thought the 'Train station' vote was intense. No foul play on my part, you'll see me on these name request lists for the foreseeable future, but I don't like the allegation. So, my 'support' is now a 'comment'. Been on lots of other national place change requests and the BEST practice is country-specific guidelines. That's all I want to say. SLawsonIII (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

SLawsonIII because of his allegation you remove your support? Base your support or opposition on the facts of the matter, not allegations made by other users. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

With your repeated allegations that I had personally attacked you are yourself close to a personal attack, and definitely you have started yourself to comment on the other users and their choices. Stop this. With voting taking place every month, the patience of other users for this mockery of WP guidelines is understandably running thin. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• As Nominator, I am sincerely working towards some consensus on the naming issue. Default to the current name neither reflects consensus of the community nor is sustainable and is liable to annoy everyone. Since it looks unlikely that we will reach consensus on the name of the island, I suggest we work out some consensus on guidelines for when we think an evidence-based reassessment of naming would be appropriate. Here's the idea, community consensus on what change in evidence should either 1. trigger a change of name or (the weaker version) 2. trigger a discussion of change of name. Although we have different opinions about the current evidence, we should be able to reach consensus about what evidence would convince us to reach a clear understanding of the name. I think a set of evidential triggers that we think as well-intentioned editors should lead to a discussion of the name of the island could be productive in moving on rather than just defaulting to the status quo. Something along the lines of Guidelines for reassessment of name of Tenedos/Bozcaada, the name should be reassessed with the following evidence:. I also think it would be helpful if we put ourselves in each others shoes and thought about what evidence might come up in the next 3 years that would prove convincing. In that spirit, my proposal for one evidential boundary would be If a top-10 English Language Geology Journal article (not book reviews) were to prioritize use of either Tenedos or Bozcaada, the community should reassess naming. I looked and none of the top-10 journals have in recent history. If a future article used Tenedos, I would honestly consider consensus on Tenedos as the name. I hope others will join me in trying to reach community consensus on the times we think name discussions would be appropriate, so that we can all move this discussion forward. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Data

Some people who support the move claim to have "data" and keep clamoring for "data". But they overlook the most important piece of data, that "Tenedos" is far more widely used in English usage compared to "Bozcaada". This graph makes the point very compellingly [84]. While the use of "Bozcaada" has been increasing, and that of "Tenedos" decreasing, we are still very, very far off from the time when Bozcaada will be more common, if ever. Athenean (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for data, Brill's New Pauly (2012) calls the island in its entry Tenedos. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Gun Powder Ma: Does it change the official name of the island? (For the others:) The article says the island is part of the Bozcaada district! Bozcaada district is only this island. Who invented this? Some people who wanted to separate the island from its administrative unit? It is really difficult to discuss here... --E4024 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand what do you mean 'official' name in this case, since situation isn't clear on that. It may sound boring to repeat myself but the official name of the island according to international peacy treaties is Tenedos, still under a de-jure semi-autonomous status.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I see mainstream Turkish authors tend to use Tenedos too [[85]] as the first name of the island.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Place names in the Treaty of Lausanne: "Serbo-Croat-Slovene State", "Castellorizzo", "Soudan", "Sea of Marmora", "Roumania", "Persia", etc. The treaty does not establish naming obviously and shouldn't because it is not updatable (unless you really think we should go back to Rhodesia because the Lancaster agreement uses that name?). That source you use is actually great evidence, when talking about the island in the Treaty of Lausanne, the author uses Tenedos. When talking about the current island, the author uses Bozcaada. Regardless, the official name is Bozcaada according to the government that controls the island, a fact reflected in contemporary usage by the Council of Europe, The United Nations, and NATO (all organizations that ). AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: The "official" name means absolutely nothing as far as wikipedia naming conventions are concerned. It's "Florence" not "Firenze", "Troy", not "Hissarlik". Athenean (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: the Wikipedia Naming Conventions emphasize the "official" name very clearly. They read "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it...If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present." Florence and Troy care cases where a widely accepted English name exists. I'm not sure the same can be said for Tenedos/Bozcaada. It is not correct to say that the official name means nothing, it is the default for the Naming Conventions if a widely accepted English name doesn't exist. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Athenean. But I want to focus the discussion. What evidence would occur that would make you think "Gee, I think we should give this thought" For one example, you certainly cannot think that English preference for Tenedos in the 1940s matters in determining the name today? And Wikipedia naming conventions assert as much. So, if I held your position, I think I would be really interested if a Google Scholar search for a contemporary year had a 2-1 preference for Bozcaada (For 2012, it is 78 Tenedos, 89 Bozcaada, and 2011 was 165 Tenedos, 153 Bozcaada). Now, this is far from meeting the 2-1 level and one year might be an aberration, so we should certainly be careful. But if contemporary usage significantly switched in Google Scholar, don't you think we as editors should look at the situation again and not outright oppose. I think it would be really helpful if we discussed what data we think should trigger a renaming request so that 1. We can have some consensus on future requests if they fail to meet community standards that we have agreed to and be on the same side and 2. more importantly so that we can get this right. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@E4024. The official Turkish name is irrelevant here. This is not the Turkish, but the English Wikipedia and as such it is only concerned with name usage in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is clear about this: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This is still Tenedos by an entire order of magnitude as the Google Books query above amply demonstrates. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions. Your Google Scholar search is meaningless because, unlike Google Books, Google Scholar has no feature which allow searches in English texts only. Consequently, your query also listed many hits in other languages like in Italian and Turkish and what not, making it completely pointless because we need to determine English usage only. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Athenian uses Google Scholar as a references point. If the community decides that Google Scholar searches are not good enough, you may want to see the impact from cannibalizing half of Athenian's evidence. Please refer to my original post for the evidence I think is quality including: Encyclopedia Britanica, the Library of Congress, NY Times, The Independent The Times of London, National Geographic, etc. (all of which is specifically mentioned by Wikipedia Naming Conventions to answer this question). All of these are sources with informed editors updating resources to reflect common, modern English usage. And I would say are all vastly superior to Google Books search results. You disagree? Great, give me a reason why Google Book Searches are preferable to edited, reputable English sources? I can't think of a good reason why and no one is answering this discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously around here, I suggest you drop your "Google Books is invalid" nonsense. No one is going to listen to a new account that makes new naming rules to suit its POV. You just don't like the results from Google Books, which clearly show that "Tenedos" is the commonly used name in English sources". Google Books shows the overall picture among English-language sources, as opposed to your handful of carefully cherry-picked sources. Now you can go on with your "my cherry-picked sources are vastly superior to Google Books [sic!]" type of nonsense all you want, I don't really care. I posted the Google Books results for the benefit of future participants to this discussion, not yours, as it doesn't seem like any arguments are going to change your mind. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I refer to Wikipedia Naming Conventions: Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and Wikipedia:Search engine test and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. These Wikipedia Guidelines are clear: Google Books searches can establish some notability but their results run the ground in terms of Neutrality, Avoid Duplication, or Guarantee the results are reliable. You don't have to like that these are the Wikipedia Conventions, but that's what they are. As for my "Cherry-picked sources" they are literally those provided on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) where Google Books sources are one amongst many types of evidence including: Encyclopedia Britannica, Library of Congress Subject headings, Major News Sources in a Lexis search, and Translating of sources. So, for the 10th time, here is where we are: Google Books (1 reliable source amongst many) has more hits for Tenedos, the other reliable sources listed as to be used by Wikipedia Naming Conventions for places, use Bozcaada. What should we do? Repeating Google Books results again and again doesn't change that other recommended sources to consult differ from it and this is where the debate should focus. I think this is like the Constantinople/Istanbul difference where Constantinople dominates Google Books searches and will for the next 100 years, but because the current primary English sources refer to the modern place as Istanbul, Wikipedia editors have selected that. Give me some reason why in this instance we should choose Google Books search results over other English reliable sources (unlike other cases) and I can be convinced...otherwise, I won't (and I've said this for four days now and all you respond with is Google Books good and "you cherry pick sources" with no example of where I cherry picked). It isn't that I dislike Google Books sources, but it is one amongst many with certain limitations, and I think we need to take a look that uses all of the sources suggested in the Wikipedia: Naming Conventions and not just one of them again and again. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Gunpowder: "In a modern context". Hmmmm... --E4024 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions. Only Google Books counts. The result of Google Scholar happens to be convergent with the hit count of Google Books, but ultimately only Google Books counts for the above reason. You are new here, so please allow me to tell you that no admin who knows his trade will change a page to another place name which is 17 times less frequent in English. Because the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) are most clear: English usage governs the choice of the article title. In case of the most unlikely event that an admin will move the page nonetheless for whatever reason, another discussion to move the article back to Tenedos would be immediately opened to enforce the WP:Naming conventions of which most long-time users are aware (and these will participate in such a discussion). Just telling you from my own experience so that you can concentrate on contents work instead. Tenedos is a sure thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I read something interesting on the Wikipedia:Search engine test page about Google searches: "a Google search for "the green goldfish", with quotes, currently initially reports around 18,000 results, yet on paging through the actual number of hits turns out to be 161" And the advice is to actually look at the last page to tell the more real Google Book results. When i do this I find the real number of use for Tenedos in English books is 201. And Bozcaada in English books leads to a result of 196. That's somewhat interesting, no? Either 1. Google Book results are actually much less than the initial estimate is for Tenedos. Or 2. Google Book searches produce wildly different numbers and not the greatest tool to decide usage. I hope no admin who knows his/her trade will take raw Google Books results without looking at the actual numbers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I performed this test again and got wildly different outcomes. Regardless, the highest number of books actually visible on English Google Book Searches is 682 for Tenedos, for Bozcaada it is 215. The ratio is 3-1 at best. Also, you'll note lots of non-English books if you actually parse through the results, despite the filter. And great books like this included in the search results for Tenedos even though the word doesn't appear in the test at all. Or for more fun: another book included but that doesn't actually use the word Tenedos, or another, or another, etc. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's really strange, because even when I do a really restrictive search (I use "island" in addition to "Tenedos" to weed out any false positives, restrict it to English language sources only, and exclude 19th century material), I still get about 2240 hits for Tenedos (all of them high quality sources, and no false positive) and only 313 for "Bozcaada" (mostly tourist guidebooks). Still approximately 10-1 in favor of Tenedos, end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's some of the "high quality sources and no false positives" in your exact search: The Seer King, The Long Falling (which has no mention of Tenedos), Not Even my Name, etc. I could go on. Seriously man, from Wikipedia:Search engine test: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." If the debate is ended for you on one source (especially one with so many problems), that's great, but Wikipedia suggests we look at multiple sources. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As both Google and Wikipedia make clear, the "results" given by Google in there searches are "Estimates" not actual results. The way to test that is then to see how many you can actually see. Which significantly lowers the estimates for Tenedos. No filers will make the estimate correct, and the estimate gets farther from the "real" number as it is over 1000. Just tell me the title for 800th book in Google Book searches is for Tenedos. Should be easy if there are 2,000+ hits. But, this is all distracting: the question is Google Books prioritizes Tenedos, all contemporary sources prioritize Bozcaada, what should we decide in that case? I think we should compare the different references per the Wikipedia Naming Conventions or default to the official names. As the Wikipedia Naming Conventions is clear on the point: "If [the widely accepted English name in a modern context does not] exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." Result=Bozcaada. Unless you can give me some reason why the Google Books priority for Tenedos should outweigh sources listed in the Wikipedia Naming Guidelines as equally reliable sources (such as all English language Enclycopedias, all atlases, Library of Congress Subject heading, news articles covering the present-day island, etc), then I think the default for the modern official name is the best option for reasons of neutrality. If either Wikipedia conventions decide tomorrow that Google Books is the golden calf we should all worship or if major English sources change their use, we should reconsider that. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it: Google Books="All sources". Sarcasm about "golden calves" is not going to help, and no one is going to take you seriously. Google Books is what we use around here. Just because you don't like the results it gives, doesn't mean we're not going to use it. You can keep repeating we should use your cherry-picked all you want. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, as that is clearly impossible. You are deep in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at this point. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear you man, you like Google Books raw numbers. Cool. I am hearing you, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) lists 6 different reliable sources to establish English names. Google Books is #2 on that list. I will accept whatever results you want to say Google Books spits out, my question is why does the #2 set of reliable sources trump #1 (which goes to Bozcaada), #3 (which goes to Bozcaada), #4 (which goes to Bozcaada), #6 (which goes to Bozcaada). When I made my original table, I resorted to this Wikipedia made list of sources. I've asked this question many times and would just like some clarification about why Google Books (which does not include all books and has errors) trumps other sources? You say it is more exhaustive (if you think it is "All Sources", you are wrong), cool. I think it lacks precision, neutrality, and ability to identify 'modern' names. I think those three mean we need to look at sources listed equally by wikipedia (right along Google Books) as reliable. Tell me why I shouldn't do that? AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Books is one metric among many. You avoid the other (preponderant) evidence. Why? Because it supports Bozcaada.71.192.30.158 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the fact that so many major English media sources use Bozcaada not matter? Why are we supposed to ignore this? Why is this supposed to have no effect upon our decision? 71.192.30.158 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Support moving Bozcaada is a Turkish island and it is named Bozacaada in almost all international maps. Tenedos on the other hand is a historical name (just like New Amsterdam for New York). It can be used in historical articles and in Homer but not in this article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and quick close. Wasn't that case closed just a couple of weeks ago?? Macedonian (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as this is a Turkish island, so the Turkish name should be used and it is sufficently commonly used as such to warrant a COMMONNAME rationale. Additionally, since this is English WP editors will be interested to know that [86] is the official name of the island per the National-Geospacial Intelligence Agency, Geographic Names Database, where-as Tenedos is merely a variant.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as most of the Google Scholar results are connected to Homer's Iliad, while geography books refer the island as "Bozcaada". Bozcaada name is in common use in present day English, while Tenedos name refers to the ancient age settlements on the island. Naming the "Bozcaada" island "Tenedos" is just like naming "İstanbul" as "Constantinople"; correct for depicting past events but errorneuos for the present.--Khutuck (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and quick close per arguments that have been excessively discussed in the previous move requests. (Within a few days from the previous request nothing has really change.)Seleukosa (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I read the New York Times article on Bozcaada and then came here, and was quite surprised to find that Wikipedia is using Tenedos, the Homeric name! Homer is great and all, but that is insufficient reason for having the US Wikipedia use Tenedos. It by rule uses the common English media word or phrasing.64.134.223.42 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I understand why you call it Florence and not Firenze, because English media calls it Florence. I have never seen it referred to as Tenedos in the contemporary media! I traveled there and did a lot of research prior to going and all articles referred to it as Bozcaada ... Tenedos was used only when referencing its past. Cinque stelle (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia guidelines: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." WP:TPYES Cinque stelle (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested nameing it "Tenedos or Bozcaada" or "Bozcaada or Tenedos "?

Has anyone suggested "Tenedos or Bozcaada" or "Bozcaada or Tenedos "? Chrisrus (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any other Wiki page that fits your suggestion? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Any others? I don't think putting Bozcaada in the same category as a disputed territory would help either side of this move request. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a disputed name, internally in Wikipedia, not a disputed territory. Not all disputes have to be territorial. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak is a disputed territory. How about an other example? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the Tenedos naming dispute seems so intractable that even the example I contributed is not enough. I guess that's where I end my example submission. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this one. Chrisrus (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "Bozcaada (Tenedos)" would be a reasonable solution for the near term while the community long-term figures out what to do. I put Bozcaada first as it's the name used in the majority of English media outlets (newspapers, etc). Tenedos is an important name for those studying the classics, so we keep it alongside Bozcaada. I'll raise again AbstractIllusion's idea of a "two-page solution" where Tenedos has a page devoted to its role in antiquity and a Bozcaada page is created for the contemporary island. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dr.K, the failure of your example has nothing to do with the nature of the naming discussion. It has to do with it being invalid and incomparable. You're free to find an example that is useful. @Chrisrus, that is no different than the Imia/Kardak example. New Moore/South Talpatti is a region claimed by two different states. Bozcaada is not claimed by Greece or any other state to be theirs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is according to your own opinion. I have to disagree. But let's just agree to disagree because I have better things to do than open a side-show here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other places that are part of one country but with the majority who live there from the other country and they have two different names for the same place? Aren't there some places in the Baltic that belong to, say Finland, but are populated mostly by, say for example, Swedes, and everyone pretty much who lives there calls it one Sweedish thing, but officially it's called thing two becuse it's owned by, say for example, Finland? If so, what do we do? Chrisrus (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Derry/Londonderry in Ireland naming dispute may be an insightful compromise. In that case the editors split the name: The city is Derry, the county is Londonderry. I proposed a similar split earlier: The pre-1923 island is Tenedos, the modern island is Bozcaada. Similar to Aeminium/Coimbra, Istanbul/Constantinople, and others. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bozcaada is not a disputed territory, so no reason to have a disputed name. Like many other places we can make references to its older names in the article and that is all about it. --E4024 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make it clear. Almost all ancient settlements have historical names. Lutetia, Furstad, Londnium, Krasnovodsk etc. Of course these names can be used in articles about history. But this article is about an island and an official district of Turkey. Its name is Bozcaada and there is absolutely no reason to name it Tenedos.(see [87]) In the article there is history section and the name Tenedos can be given in this section. Other than that, it is Bozcaada . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To talk about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), they are clear about the steps to take: 1. "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." 2. If a widely accepted English name, in a modern context does not exist, "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." 3. If multiple local names are officially recognized, "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one" and slashing names or adding an 'or' "should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." As noted by others, since this is not a disputed territory and there is a clear official name (even used by the Greek inhabitants of the island in official court filings with the European Court of Human Rights, see here), the order in this case: 1. Is Tenedos or Bozcaada a widely accepted English name for the island in a modern context? 2. If neither is, then Bozcaada should be used because it is the official name. 3. Multiple names does not come up because there are not two equally recognized names. We can of course choose to ignore the Naming Conventions, but should do so consciously and with good reasons. I personally think that default to the official name is the proper course of action for reasons of neutrality, precision, and fit with other Wikipedia pages (like Districts of Turkey which lists Bozcaada, appropriately, but then gets redirected to Tenedos--that would be like going to the States of the United States, clicking on Texas and being redirected to some other page. That is inappropriate). AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. What the locals call something is irrelevant because if it were, the article Germany would be moved to "Deuschland" and Japan to "Nihon" and so on. I heard that the Albanians and Hungarians call their country something completely different. We call articles by the name they are found on English-language maps; that is all. Rightly or wrongly. For example, people from Brazil spell it with an "s" and complain that the English spelling is "wrong". In the face of this arguement, should those in favor of renaming it to the name the majority of locals use should stand down? Or if they continue to favor a move, do they have some other reason other than the "majority of locals" arguement?

There are more than ten islands which are considerably larger than Bozcaada in the Aegean Sea. It is not a internationally well known island . Only Aegean people and possibly Homer fans know something about it. That is to say we can't compare it with say Hungary or Albania. Besides this article is not only about the island. It is also about the district center of Turkey which was never Tenedos. I don't see any reason why the the name Bozcaada is not used in the title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why whether it's a very famous place or not matters as long as it's been known to English-language cartographers and others who make maps or write about it in English. We don't need to go back any further than the earliest English language reference to it.

You second point ("Besides, ...never Tenedos."), however, is a different matter all together. I only know what I've read in this article but if it's two different things it maybe should have two different articles, a la Hawaii. Surely if English language maps call the Island one thing and the city another then there could be two articles. The one about the island be a stub that just talks about geology and such and mentions that it has a town on it called "X" and send the reader to another article to talk about the human aspects of the place. How about that? Of course, it all depends whether or not it's true that English maps and such do call the island by one name and the city by another. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Chris, the "district" (not city) covers all the island and has the same name with it: Bozcaada. --E4024 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So the island the "district" never have different names on the same English language map or whatever? Chrisrus (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well please see Britannica Atlas. (77 edition, pg 38-39 Southeastern Europe to be exact) The names of two Turkish islands are Gökçeada and Bozcaada respectively. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that Atlas but if it's true it's a powerful reason to rename the article "Bozcaada". We're just supposed to name articles what Atlases such as the Britannica call it and not get our own ideas about what a place should be called. We call things what sources call them even if we think it's a bad name. Chrisrus (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See my original name request above. Or the link here. I went to two R-1 Research Libraries and looked at every Atlas for the past 20 years. EVERY Atlas in the world uses Bozcaada. Including, Times of London atlas, Oxford World Atlas (listed in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions specifically as a reputable source), National Geographic Atlas, Britannica Atlas, Google Maps, and others. Go to any research library, grab a recent world atlas and the name of the island will be Bozcaada and if it distinguishes between settlement and island, that will also be Bozcaada. That is along with every other edited source written about the island in modern times. They all use Bozcaada. This is why, although this has been discussed before without a consensus for one or the other and instead just default to the current page, I reintroduced the debate, because the evidence of modern use for Bozcaada was overwhelming. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to go all the way to check it out. Here is the National Geographic Visual Atlas of the World (2005) which uses Bozcaada for the island.Here is the index reference for Bozcaada, and here is the lack of an entry for Tenedos. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit, in the name of full disclosure. Not every English atlas uses Bozcaada, just all the ones about the modern world and modern place names. Atlases about the "Greek age" use Tenedos. If you go to your library and find one in the past decade or so that uses Tenedos over Bozcaada for modern usage, please let me know, I couldn't find one. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, apart from all the Atlas's in the world using Bozcaada, the largest travel guide uses the name Bozcaada as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Does anyone dispute these claims to fact; meaning specifically does anyone say that these English language don't call it that and only that? If not, does anyone have other English-language maps or whatever that call it by the other name? If not, what other grounds do those who oppose the move to the name that they admit is in fact what these English-language maps and such give? Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has yet challenged a single one of the sources I, or others, compiled. The debate is that Google Books, if you put in both names (with filters), will produce significantly more hits for Tenedos than Bozcaada. But no one above has disputed a single source I provided, or sources added by others nor answered why we should prefer Google Books raw number of hits over edited, reputable modern English use. Athenean argues that Google Books results are better because it is more exhaustive and includes more sources. There are lots of criticisms made by lots of people about Google Books, and I don't want to speak for them, so I myself find that Google Books results are 1. exaggerated, 2. not necessarily neutral (as Britannica is better at, for instance), 3. not helpful in establishing modern usage (Constantinople still has more Google Book hits than Istanbul, for instance), 4. has endemic metadata problems (for example, see this search for Czechoslovakia, a name created in 1918, for books published in the 1800s with 1,090 results the second of which is about Hitler. There are severe and endemic problems), and includes a lot of not reputable results (like the ironically titled 'Not Even My Name' which comes up in Google Book searches for Tenedos, but does not actually even use the word). That is where the debate is: Google Books preference for Tenedos vs. Edited/Reputable Preference for Bozcaada. Hope I reflected Athenean's point decently and kept it short (I did try). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So does everyone agree that the GoogleBooks data proves that the other name used to be what it was called in English. No one claims that one name is what English maps and stuff used to use, but that English maps and such no longer use the old name? Or do they have proof that at least some of these GoogleBooks hits are modern and as authoritative? Chrisrus (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second Chrisrus, AbstractIllusions & co. are misreading the policy on article naming. According to wikipedia's naming policies, it goes like this: If there exists a common English name for a place, that name should be used. If, and only if, such a common name does not exist, then the matter should be decided by users, looking at reputable atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc..What the people pushing "Bozcaada" are missing, either deliberately or out of inexperience, is that there is a common name for this island in English, and that is name is "Tenedos". The evidence from this comes from a search on Google Books, and it is quite compelling, as this graph shows [88]. Tenedos is more common than Bozcaada by an overwhelming margin. As the graph shows, this goes for both older and newer sources. Thus it qualifies as the '"common English name"', everything else is irrelevant. While it is true that the frequency of Bozcaada has been increasing and that of Tenedos decreasing, we are still very far off from a break-even point. Atlases and guidebooks always use official names, but that has nothing to do with common English usage. Whether we like it or not, Google Books is the onlyway we have of determining common English usage. Google Books has featured prominently in every naming debate on this page (see previous discussions and archives), and in fact in every single naming debate I have participated (and they are many!). There is something very rich about a brand-new single purpose account ( and a bunch of IPs) coming out of nowhere lecturing the community on the evils of Google Books. True, as a search engine test, it is not perfect. However, any errors in the search are systemic, in other words, they would impact both "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada" equally. AbstractIllusions proclaims that the Google Books search for "Tenedos" contains false positives. But heignores the fact that is also contains false positives for "Bozcaada". There is nothing to suggest that the percentage of false positives for "Tenedos" is higher than that for "Bozcaada". Same goes for the "endemic metadata problems": While they do exist, they are systemic: they neither favor "Tenedos" nor "Bozcaada", but affect both equally. The arguments that Google Books is "exaggerated", and not "helpful in establishing modern usage" are patent nonsense (Google Books is the way to establish common English usage), and the claim that Google Books is "not neutral" is simply ridiculous (as if a search engine had some sort of Greek bias). If the Google Books results were similar for "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada", or even only slightly in favor of "Tenedos", then it would be the case that there is no common English name and we should look at individual atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc to establish common English usage. But when the results are 10-1 in favor of "Tenedos", over several searches with different search parameters (see above), there is no room for doubt that "Tenedos" is the common English name for this island. This is also the reason why the Google Books search has been so ferociously attacked by the people favoring "Bozcaada": they just don't like the results. If Google Books were 10-1 in favor of Bozcaada, we wouldn't be hearing about how it is "exaggerated" and its "endemic metadata problems". In fact we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all. To summarize: Google Books, warts and all, is the best way to establish common English usage, and it is clear that that usage is "Tenedos". Athenean (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if I do a search restricting itself to 21st century English-only sources, I still get 1200 hits for "Tenedos" [89] versus only 165 for "Bozcaada" [90], in other words still close to 10-1. In addition, many of the hits for "Bozcaada" mention the name "Bozcaada" while using "Tenedos" throughout [91] [92] (see Use-mention distinction). It is clear that the name "Bozcaada" hasn't really caught on with English-language sources, except those that generally use official names as a matter of policy (such as atlases, newspapers, and guidebooks). Athenean (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with Athenean (who I would prefer if he stayed on content and not baseless allegations), but "according to wikipedia's naming policies, it goes like this: If there exists a common English name for a place, that name should be used. If, and only if, such a common name does not exist, then the matter should be decided by users, looking at reputable atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc." is wrong (and doesn't even make any sense). The Wikipedia Naming Conventions is Use the common English phrase for the place. The question is then How do we know the common English name for the place, and Wikipedia provide 6 different ways to decide, of which Google Books is one, Encyclopedia Britannica is one, primary reference sources (Oxford, Library of Congress) are one, translated source is one, etc. Athenean wants to elevate Google Book searches above all other sources, which is not what the Naming Conventions suggests is proper. But notice, he is not denying that all reputable edited sources about the modern island refer to it as Bozcaada. Nor is he showing that any of the Google Book results are appropriate for the name of the modern island. Think about Constantinople/Istanbul. Constantinople dominates Google Books (Constantinople 800,000+, Istanbul 600,000 in 21st Century English books). But, because the edited, modern, reputable, listed evenly with Google Books sources use Istanbul, Wikipedia properly has that. The key feature that Athenean is missing is that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Google Books is one metric amongst many (look under the heading "Widely accepted Name) and, according to the same conventions, when using Google Book Search "Always look at search results, don't just count them" for reasons of precision, neutrality, and to see if the results are talking about the modern place. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, all of the problems I have with Google Books, come from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) under a section called "Search Engine Issues" and Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers, and Wikipedia:Search engine test. I don't think its fair for me to get credit for other people's hard work. So, although it may be "ridiculous" to Athenean when Wikipedia conventions say things like, "Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does...Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles", I found it convincing enough to suggest that neutrality may not be guaranteed in Google Books searches. I do not hate Google Book Searches, just think that we should treat it for what it is: A broad resource capable of collecting general popularity of terms for all time, and only problematically for a specific period. It is not a surefire collection of reputable sources definitively talking about the place we want to name. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"All reputable edited sources about the modern island refer to it as Bozcaada"? Surely you're joking, right? The many sources that use "Tenedos" give the lie to that. Tenedos is the common English name for the place. That is what you are missing. If it were 1-1, I would agree with you, but at 10-1, no, there clearly is a common English name. The comparison with Constantinople/Istanbul is meaningless, there are two separate articles for that. What you are proposing is akin to renaming Ephesus to "Efes". Athenean (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Athenean, does your Google searches account for the results that are about ancient history of the island? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC) @Athenean, I also see that you claim guidebooks to use official names as a policy. Are you sure about that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Chrisrus. So, to answer your questions, 1. No one disputes the privilege for Bozcaada in modern, reputable sources like Encylopedias, Atlases, and Library of Congress Subject headings. 2. No one has provided another reference to the modern island in an Encyclopedia, Atlas, or major subject heading that uses Tenedos (the closest I came was 2005 Webster's unabridged, but the online version now uses Bozcaada and I looked at everything I could find). 3. As is clear, Google Books hits is the major ground for those arguing for Tenedos, saying that the large difference in numbers of hits for Tenedos provides clear evidence of common usage in a modern context. That's the crux of the debate right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Google Books searches skew toward one name and not the other. The hypothesis that occurs to me is this: Google books shows a heavy bias toward one name because, of all the English language book references to the place, a large number of them are history books or something else that are refer to the historical place. I know that books talking about New York instead call it New Amsterdam when speaking about the particular time period when that's what it was called. Of course, it was only very briefly called New Amesterdam, compared to the amount of time it's been called New York, and the opposite is true in this case, so that might explain why books use the old name more frequently - the time period when it had the Greek name was much longer than the period when it was called New Amsterdam, and maybe if most books that do mention this place are history books or something quite like history books, that may explain why Google Books searches skew toward the historical name. My question is this, can we figure out whether this is the reason Google Books searches skew one way and not the other? Or if this idea is not really the reason Google books skews that way, then what is the reason Google Books searches skew the way they do; can that be determined, or if not, is there some other theory that might explain the fact that book usages skew the way they do? Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your hypothesis has pretty good evidence. I looked at the first 20 results and counted those that are contemporary and those that are historical or literary. If it was slightly ambiguous, I coded it as contemporary. The results are in my original Spreadsheet. And show that of the first 20, at most 9 of the first 20 are contemporary. For Bozcaada, all 20 are contemporary and none are historical. It is also important to remember that HMS Tenedos was a famous British naval vessel, a fort in British Zululand, and others which figure prominently in searches even when I filter them out. Or we can look at the Books in Google for Tenedos this year, whose titles are, in order: "Ancient Signs", "Homer the Preclassic", "The Greek Myths", "The Extant Odes of Pindar", "World History 4 Book Bundle", "Inscribed Athenian Laws 352/351-322/321 BC", "The Campaigns of Alexander", "Old and New Islam in Greece" (refers to 1923 treaty), "A Story of Venice in the 14th Century", "Vergil's Aenead", "The Greeks: History Culture, Society" (mentioned only in Homeric context), "Callimachus", "Encyclopedia of the War of 1812", "Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage", "How Venice Ruled the Seas", "The Odyssey,", "The Moon Riders" (about ancient Troy), "The Trojan War", "Encyclopedia of the War of 1812" (appears again), "U.S. Navy Pictorial of the War of 1812", "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict", "Irresistible North" (Book about a Venetian in 14th century), "A Companion to Roman Love Elegy", "Gallipoli", "History of Greece", "History of Greek Revolution", "Pindar", "Niles Weekly Register" (a historical text), "Alexander's Veterans and the Early Wars". And I could keep going. I went through six pages of Google Book hits without finding a single 2012 book using Tenedos referring to the island after 1923. Bozcaada has far fewer hits, but they are all about the current island. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Really interesting side note (but with key proof) to be discussed maybe for later editing (but probably not). The first book in 2012 Google Books Searches for Tenedos is Ancient Signs that includes this quote on page 183: "Gaius Julius Hyginus, previously mentioned, provides more evidence that the current identification of the ancient island of Tenedos as the tiny island Bozcaada (39 square kilometers) is wrong....Although the girth given to islands by Hyginus is flawed, it is remarkable that the island Tenedos is given the largest size of all these islands, so that it is unlikely that ancient Tenedos could be the tiny modern island Bozcaada" Note, how the author continually refers to it as the "modern island Bozcaada". But regardless, when this discussion is done, we may need to assess whether this claim should be included in the article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You can partially do that by comparing the search pages. Look at the first search page for "Tenedos island" and "Bozcaada island". Now, look at the dates and subject of those books. You'll see that overwhelming majority of the books that primarily use the name Tenedos are pre-1923 publications or talk about the non-modern history of the island. On the other hand, almost (I'm saying almost because I might have missed one or two) all the books on the first page is about the modern times. You can go back page by page and compare them like this to see the answer to your question. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like, in English, it is rarely spoken of as a modern place compared to how often it's spoken of as a historical place. If so, it "most common usage" and "modern usage" seem to conflict in this case. So which trumps which? Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is actually a very easy answer to that. If you look at the naming conventions page you would see this line: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." So, we're supposed to use a widely accepted English name, yes, but it's also supposed to be within a modern context. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bozcaada

It is not a bad name, Chris; the compound word just defines the "flora" of the island: Ada means island and Boz(ca) tells us it is not lush green. I can reassure you that it fits the place. On the other hand I can understand sentimentalism of some users; but the reality is always surprising. F. example the best "Turkish coffee" on the island is served by an old "Greek" couple, Turkish citizens. Whatever, Bozcaada is Bozcaada and so it may be here in WP. --E4024 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)