Γεια σου Εκτοριαν. Οι Σλάβοι έφτασαν στα μέρη μας τέλη 6ου και αρχές 7ου αιώνα. Όσο για τον Σερμπικους, δεν έχει ιδέα αυτός ο άνθρωπος από ιστορία, μάλλον ουρανοκατέβατος μου φαίνεται. Ακούς εκεί, λέει ότι μας ‘έδωσαν’ (έδωσαν!) την Μακεδονία μετά τον Δεύτερο Παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, κτλπ, κτλπ... Ελεος πιά! Μα τι ούφα κουβαλάει αυτό το θέμα; Φιλικά Politis17:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Ever heard what she said about the Armenians? And I quote, Armenians are already degenerate people.Nobody knows what they are. —Khoikhoi02:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unfortunate. As for the Ottoman Empire page, just fagettaboutit. We're too far into their territory (not that I see Wikipedia as a battleground or anything) and people would keep removing it anyways. It's just not worth your time or mine. —Khoikhoi03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why, but what u wrote 'bout Roman Jakobson attracted my interest...maybe cause i have read a lot about him. he mostly worked on the Comparative Literature field. and also, he lived several decades ago, so he is allowed to have made mistakes. but his work was rather important, although in linguistics, another Jewish, Noam Chomsky, offered more. If u know anything that Chomsky has ever said about the 'Macedonian' language, i would be glad to know;) --Hectorian02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware Chomsky hasn't written anything on Macedonian. IIRC he isn't particularly interested in the sociolinguistics aspect and generally works only in English. He's more into the "linguistics as a faculty of the mind" deal. One quote I have on my page about the language/dialect issue is "The term "language" as used in ordinary discourse involves obscure sociopolitical and normative factors. It is doubtful that we can give a coherent account of how the term is actually used". Basically saying that the word in popular usage is pretty incoherent, as in there is no particular linguistic classification for "language" as opposed to "dialect" or "idiolect". For Chomskyan linguistics, a nice (and fairly easy and up-to-date) introduction is here. Actually reading Chomsky's work is pretty difficult. He writes very thick prose. :) If you have any other questions, let me know :) - FrancisTyers02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i know how he writes...i had to read works of his for my university studies. maybe the best definition for what a language is, is what someone said (i guess it was Niccolò Machiavelli): language is a dialect with a government and an army...BTW, interesting link;). i will check it! --Hectorian02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe,u are right;). i altered it a bit (without knowing), but i guess it fits in this case: FYROM does not have a navy... --Hectorian02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer starving.At least, i don't lie under anyone for money such as someones
Please do not feed the troll
To Ethnic Minorities in Greece
...phge dyo boltes shmera... o fragkiskos meta thn koubenta allakse ton titlo kai to phge sto ethnic groups in Greece (dhladh allagh xwris shmasia) kai meta egw to phga sto minority groups in Greece. Nomizw ekei pou einai kala einai, alla prepei na prosexoume mhpws ginei pali kamia periergh metakomish.--Avg19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a türkü (Turkish folk song) called "Drama Köprüsü" (Drama bridge) which talks about deeds of a local Turkish man/bandit called "Debreli Hasan" (Hasan of Debre). Do you know about any such bridge today in Drama? --Gokhan07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. My mother was in your city some months ago, she really loved and enjoyed. I also want to visit some day. I also would like to see Ataturk's home. Anyway, cheers, thanks. --Gokhan07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, their discussion was pretty ridiculous. I kind of feel proud of being a "troublesome Jew", however. :p My great-grandmother gave the Russians some trouble back in Europe. I'm not sure what she specifically did, but it had to be one of the reasons why she emigrated.
TDB's ban was mostly because I told an admin about the fourm that Inanna posted, so essentially, it's her fault! Innana's not bothering me...who's she? —Khoikhoi03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sxetika me arthro- tha ithela poli na sineisfero. sto bathmo pou einai dinato douleuo sinainetika - den xero an sto siggekrimeno arthro kati tetoio einai dinato.
sxetika me ayta pou diavasa- nomizo iparxoun kapoia sovara lathi.
sxetika me boulgaria (oti briskotan ipo rossiki katoxi mexri to 1979 - einai aplos lathos, os kommounistiki xora sinergazotan stratiotika me ti sovietiki enosi (oxi me ti rossia)kai ayto mono meta to telos toy B pagkosmiou )
den anaferei tipota gia elliniki emploki prin to 1903.
ayta poy grafei sxetika me makedoniki taytotita ktl einai aplos gnomes, den einai gegonota kai nomizo tha itan skopimo ayto na fainetai sto arthro.
de grafei tipota gia othomaniki periodo(sayto boro na boithiso elaxista giati aplos den xero).
sxetika me piges bibliografia ktl: iparxei ena profanes problima- einai toso megali pou gia opoiadipote apopsi borei na brethei kapoia iposimeiosi. epipleon ellines, boulgaroi kai makedones istorikoi grafoun sxedon panta apo ethniki pleyra.
mia lisi tha itan na basistoume apokleistika se anagnorismenous istorikous (mazower, stavrianos ktl) kai ei dinato se protogeneis piges (exo kapoia pramata ipopsi mou).
tora sxetika me "adiamfisvites piges": profanos den iparxoun, alla iparxoun "kales" kai "kakes" piges. pes mou poio thema apo ta parapano se endiaferei sigkekrimena kai boroume na sizitisoume pio sigkekrimena gia piges.
thanks for your reply-to make my answer clearer i copy/paste parts of your reply.
a)"no 'Macedonian ethnic group' was ever shown on censa or reported by western (or not) historians or travellers."
its true that no macedonian ethnic group appeared on censa: ottomans did their censa on religious and not on national base.
about the existence or not of a macedonian ethnic group theres a fine book by kriste misirkov and it has been translated into greek. im not suggesting that what misirkov writes is correct or objective- but i think that after reading it its difficult to still have doubts about the existence/emergence of at least a "protonational" feeling in macedonia at the beginning of the 20th century.
b)"have in mind that there were 3 groups: pro-serbian, -greek, -bulgarian. there was not such a thing as pro-'macedonian' group"
sandansky's group is classified by some historians as a macedonian group. various macedonian bands tried to keep a distance from sophia and mistrusted bulgarian officers.
in greek, theres the book "memoirs of a macedonian bandit" - anamniseis enos makedona antarti. it is written by an american journalist who met a man from sandansky's group and it clearly talks about macedonians- the book was written at the beginning of the 20th century.
anyway, the existence or not of macedonian national identity before 1944 is a big debate and this is why i think it might be better to turn to more precise issues.
there are other issues in the article that are far clearer. i think its quite easier to reach a consessus about them:
a) "For a first time and in order to protect the Greek Macedonians and interests, Greece sent officers to train guerrillas and organise militias (Macedonian Struggle), known as makedonomahoi "
i insist that the expression "for a first time" is , at least in my opinion, misguiding. indeed, in the article theres the phrase "Macedonia became a focus of the national ambitions of all three governments, leading to the creation in the 1890s and 1900s of rival armed groups who divided their efforts between fighting the Turks and one another".(thank you for sending me this quotation)
dont you think that the above (correct) phrase contrasts with the first one?
one can still argue that greece did not send army officers before 1904 (i think she did at least in 1897 and possibly during the Crimean war too). anyway, i think the first phrase needs some clarification.
b)"Russia would maintain an occupying force in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia until May 1979": this is simply inaccurate. there were russian officers in bulgaria during the 19th cent (they were of course far from being "an occupying force"). do not forget that russia/ussr and bulgaria fought in opposite in both World Wars. how can one seriously claim that bulgaria was occupied by russia/ussr?
Sta Anglika to egrapse - "ремовед троллисх провоцатион" ine "removed trollish provocation" grammeno sta Kyrillika; profanos thimose toso poli, pu to egrapse grigora ke patise "apothikefsi" prin to paratirisi. An ihe to pliktroloyio tu sta Ellinika tha evyene "ρεμοωεδ τρολλιση προωοψατιον". Telex23:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Hectorian. :) I saw someone at Talk:Pontic Greeks say the following:
Pontian describes a person who originates from Pontos. Just as a Russian of Russia, an Italian from Italy, and an American from America. Pontic is used to define a region such as The Pontic Alps, and also is used on a historical perspective. Modern day Pontians still consider themselves descendants of Pontos and are extremely proud of their ethnicity so therefore using a regional or historic term such as Pontic would not be right.
However, I beleive that continuing with the narrow title 'Assyrian' disenfranchises a large proportion of the community who reject the designation and use one of the others. After all, if you read the article. you will see that it explicitly speaks of other designations throughout. Please reconsider this, and know that where I'm coming fromon this. — Gareth Hughes18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
, I beleive that continuing with the narrow title 'Assyrian' disenfranchises a large proportion of the community who reject the designation and use one of the others. - Simply not true. Chaldean20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mou parexeis ypostiriksi sti maxi ton plataion? Koita to sti lista mou. Miskin 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Euxaristo. Ton exo hdh kataggeilei alla oso pio poly toso kalytera. Miskin01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Πριστίνα
Hectorian, διαφωνώ με αυτό. Αυτό που επανέφερες είναι σοβαρή κατηγορία, και χωρίς πηγή (ακόμα και εθνικιστική), νομίζω ότι είναι καλύτερα να μην το βάλουμε. Επίσης γιατί διέγραψες το σύνδεσμο στο Αμερικάνικο Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών; --Telex23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Όχι βέβαια, σε ενημερώνω. Αν δεν έχουμε αποδείξεις, δεν έχει νόημα να γράφουμε αυτό που πιστεύουμε ότι έγινε (προπαγάνδα). Αν βρεις πηγή, να το βάλεις. Με αυτή τη λογική, γιατί να μην πάω και να γράψω ότι οι Κινέζοι συνωμοτούν να καταλάβουν τον κόσμο ;-) ή ότι ο μπιν Λάντεν δουλεύει για τη CIA; --Telex00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Άσχετα που ξέρεις ότι οι Κοσοβάροι Αλβανοί είναι οι περισσότεροι Μουσουλμάνοι και ξέρουμε ότι οι μουσουλμάνοι κάνουν πιο πολλά παιδιά απ' τους Χριστιανούς Σέρβους. Επίσης, μπορεί οι Σέρβοι οι οποίοι διοικούσαν την περιοχή πριν απ' το ΝΑΤΟ να έλεγαν ψέμματα στην απογραφή, ή το UNMIK να λέει ψέμματα τώρα. Ποιός ξέρει; Για αυτό χρειαζόμαστε καλές πηγές. I'm all for an NPOV version, but unsourced nationalist propaganda, Albanian or Serbian is not NPOV. --Telex00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian how can you claim that this is true "many Albanian people went back to Kosovo to attempt to create a mono-ethnic, Albanian state. Today, a majority of the Albanian people support bloodshed and would like to rid Kosovo of its Ethnic Minorities." Where is the neutrality here? where on Earth can you get such facts? Please do not add speculations in the Pristina article. ilir_pz00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kalimera :). ok. Good then. Try to not revert someone else's work then, it means that you like that version and makes you the editor of it, if you do so. ilir_pz00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kalispera, as it is stated in the text, modified by Telex now, we should find sources to see what reasons the sides claim on that. I am sure of one thing: NATO did not force Serbs out, on the contrary. About the rest, I cannot speculate. Still you cannot speculate to say ALL UCK forced serbs out. Relativization of terms cools down hot bloods in the Balkans. I do not support the exaggeration of facts, and using derrogatives. ilir_pz01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to resolution 1244, then you are wrong, as Serbia as a state is not mentioned in it at all. Serbia is not an independent country, and that resolution was written in 1999 when things were different. Do a fast search here and you will know what I am talking about. ilir_pz01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know your reasons. Mine are no less important. That bloody and inefficient 1244 resolution wasted so much precious time. Not sure there is any successful UN mission in the world?! Let us hope Kosovo will be the first. G'night.ilir_pz01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but the agruement I've put out is NPOV, right? I mean, if it was under the control of Serbia i Montenegro, then that would be different, since there constitution sees that country as RoF...but The UN controls Kosovo and we know what the UN names that country. Chaldean03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is de... I'm kidding ;-) Yes, I like this version, and I hope it stays this way (you know who I'm worried is going to revert it... Ilir) --serbiana-talk01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interested?
Hi, Recently I have realised that there is a grouping of Turkish nationalists in Wikipedia with the objective of turning Kurdish related articles into Turkish propagandas. Would you like to start a project with me called "WikiProject Kurds" to better organize information in articles related to the Kurds.
Regards. Ozgur Gerilla02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saitns Cyril and Methodius
So why you are reverting anti-Greek nationalists changes, trying to make page more nuetral? Have you seen the discussion? Let me check.... you are Greek. Too bad Greek propaganda has won over your NPOV attitude.
This is exactly what I meant. How can anyone have anything to do at all with that article with the amount of POV-pushing and the tag-teaming going on? I have given up. As you said, wikipedia is too big and there are lots of other subjects to improve. Best wishes, E Asterionu talking to me?13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des kati...
Hektoriane, ya des ti eyine stin Skopiani Wikipedia. O Realek (eki leyete Aleksandar SK) vandalise ti selida mu. Kseris ti lei:
Aftos o hristis ine enas emovoros Ellinas fasitas o opios psevdos aftoparusiazete os Ellinoalvanos ke o skopos tu ine na afierosi ti zoi tu epitithondas tis Makedonikes selides, afu pliroforiete me ta distiha tu nevra. Tora pu ta leme, to onoma aftu tu hristi ine pithano na itan palya Latinus/Латинец.
NPA policy should work across Wikis. Clear case of severe personal attack plus vandalism, report him and get him blocked on both sites. Don't know who to approach on mk, but I think it shouldn't be much of a problem to find an admin who will block for this here on en - provided you can prove the identity, of course. Fut.Perf.☼15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's Aleksandar SK admitting to being Realek at enwiki. Look, don't bother - check the observations here and here. A pretty brutal regime has been established there, where User:FlavrSavr, an admin-bureaucrat, reverts a Bulgarian user removing the flag "of the Macedonian nation", which is none other than the pre 1995 FYROM flag (which for some reason has been plastered all over the articles on "Aegean Macedonia" and "Pirin Macedonia"), using rollback, and then protects the page [4]. If you're a Macedonian Slav, you can get away with anything there, admins turn a blind eye. See this discussion btw. --Telex15:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose it may be a bit like that on many of the smaller, single-nation wikis. Haven't checked the Greek one, but to be frank I could imagine something like that happening there too, on some of the more sensitive topics. That's what it means to be consensus-ruled - it's always the consensus of the dominant user groups. Fut.Perf.☼16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not active there and hardly ever read it. And even if I saw such things happening there, I would probably not notice, because the admins' prejudices would likely coincide with mine.... ;-( But I guess it has a slightly more varied and international membership, which should serve to neutralize things a bit, though perhaps not quite as thoroughly as here. Fut.Perf.☼16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Syntax Error: Try reading the Greek wp, since you're a polyglot. I'd love your feedback in case you see POV. I think that the Greeks over there are doing a slow but good work on the issues. Apart from the name (el:ΠΓΔΜ) which is arguably most common in Greece (t4 the name of the article), you will see that all appellations are mentioned (even "simply...") in the intro paragraph. The text that follows is far from propaganda too. NikoSilver(T)@(C)22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kane tin kali na bgaleis to tag apo ton Kyrillo kai ton Methodio se parakalo. Ton exo idi anaferei auton gia ta tria ro. Miskin02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Den eimai sigouros gia poion milas alla sigoura symfono. :) To ksanaebale to zoon, skabei ton tafo tou akoma pio batheia. Miskin02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ti les gia tin metakinisi tou 'greek macedonians' se 'macedonians (greek)'? O telex symfonise. Exei polla pleonektimata. Miskin12:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of putting comments about the Ottoman name of Crete on my personal Talk page, I suggest you discuss it on the Talk:Crete page. Thanks, --Macrakis19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POLL
No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:
Hi Hectorian, I just posted some interesting info disputing that stuff that our friend Makedonia posted at Telex talk page[6]. Check it out, its interesting. LoL!! Regards. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 8 June 2006
WikiProject Query
Kalispera Hectorian, how is the weather in Greece? :) It's been long since my last visit to Greece. First of all, thanks for your interest in the WikiProject Kurds I think this project can increase the quality of Kurdish articles. What I would like to ask you is where to start this project. If possible could you please provide information on how wikiprojects work and how to register one (if it's a requirement). Thanks again. Ozgur Gerilla01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
USAK
Selam.U still have not replied to my call on whether the statistics in Anatolian Turkish diaspora come from UMAK (i am sure u know if they are!). well, the result was, of cource 'keep', without me voting for 'delete'... Anyway, i would appreciate a reply on my question... Thanks. --Hectorian00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am asking u cause i am not sure, and i thought that u may be (since u edit a lot in turkish-related articles). I know about USAK... so, perhaps it would be better to remove the sentence that refers to it in Anatolian Turkish diaspora, since there is no source or link. Regards. --Hectorian16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Νομίζω ότι υπερβάλλεις για τα ονόματα. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη έχει συνολικό πληθυσμό όσο όλη η Ελλάδα, και υπάρχουν και άλλα σχετικά ονόματα (Αρμένικα, Οθωμανικά κλπ). Το θεωρώ υπερβολικό να εξισώνουμε τους 4.000 [7] υπέργηρους Έλληνες της Πόλης με τους 59.000 Τούρκους (από τους συνολικά 130.000 Μουσουλμάνους) της Θράκης. Επίσης, η συνθήκη της Λωζάννης προέβλεπε να μείνει και ελληνορθόδοξη κοινότητα στην Ίμβρο και στην Τένεδο. Δες η Wikipedia πως έχει το άρθρο τους >> Imbros and Tenedos. Το έχει στα Ελληνικά ονόματα, όχι στο Gökçeada ve Bozcaada. Με αυτή τη λογική, θα έπρεπε να μετακινήσουμε τη Komotini στο Gümülcine. Νομίζω ότι καλά είναι τα πράγματα όπως έχουν, και στο κάτω κάτω, δε βλάπτει να έχουμε και ξένα ονόματα. Το μόνο ξένο όνομα που με ενοχλεί είναι η δήθεν «Μακεδονική» γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, επειδή είναι (σκόπιμα) παραπλανητικό Για αυτό δημιούργησα το άρθρο Slavic language (Greece), για να το λέμε Σλάβικη γλώσσα, πράγμα που ισχύει. Το ελληνικό κράτος ουδέποτε αναγνώρισε «Μακεδονική» γλώσσα - αναγνώρισε μόνο Σλάβικη γλώσσα, και οι άνθρωποι που τη μιλάνε Σλάβικα τη λένε (δες το σχετικό άρθρο). --Telex12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since Telex asked me for my opinion, may I butt in here? I tend to recommend usage along the lines of the once-proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names) (which unfortunately didn't make it to become a binding convention, afaik, but is quite good nevertheless). Specifically:
"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
This sounds reasonable (quoted from above): all alternative names - if used by a sizeable percentage of the population - can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. But I think that my version in Komotini is better literature, tries to be more eloquent. And that, dear filoi kai files, is the end of my intervention re: Komotini. Politis16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is an excessive naming spree; and many could and should be removed. In my view the Turkish name should remain in Eastern Thrace and Rhodes and Kos, where there is a Turkish minority, and probably also in Thessaloniki, for historical reasons.--Aldux17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that alternative names is a very difficult issue in wikipedia. About my reverts in Komotini and my edit summaries, that probably brought this discussion in existance, i have to say that i am a bit confused... When are we allowed to include alternative names? only when a different language speaking minority is present? Komotini has indeed a turkish speaking minority, protected by the Treaty of Laussane and excluded from the population tranfer. in addition, this city was under turkish rule for 6-7 centuries (if i remember well). Istanbul, has now a tiny greek minority (a large one some decades ago, protected by the same treaty and also excluded from the population transfer, but which suffered a pogrom and numbers just 4,000 people-as Telex correctly said). in addition, this city was founded by the greeks, was greek for about 2 millenia, capital of the Greek Empire, and till now the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. i honestly see no reason to have the turkish name in Komotini and not the greek one in Istanbul. (the fact that the population of the city is more than that of the whole Greece, corresponds to demography-which changes through times-, not to encyclopedic attitude. btw, this way we should include the kurdish name in the first line... be sure that it would not remain there longer than an hour... some users would never allow this, although the number of the kurds in Istanbul is more than 70 times larger than the number of the turks in komotini...). i removed the turkish name from the first line of Komotini in order to make it NPOV: either both alternative names will be mentioned in the capitals of Eastern and Western Thrace-s (Komotini-Istanbul respectively), or none of them. --Hectorian21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian's Thessalian Vlachs were not very keen at all to be engulfed by Greece
Hehe, keep that page on your watchlist. :) It's weird that they have an article about Κχοϊκχόι mythology but not for just the Κχοϊκχόι. You think the Greek Wikipedia is bad? Take a look at the Armenian Wikipedia sometime. They've had that same image of Dali up for almost a year now! I hear that there'a a man in Turkey trying to get students to go on the Turkish Wikipedia, but I guess there's not much of a movement in Armenia. Well, adios. —Khoikhoi02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I said that to Inanna once, and a few days later I get an Istanbul IP address say it back. :D BTW, it's Adios y hasta la vista. ;) —Khoikhoi05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi; another deluded philhellene whose editing sorry to say flagrantly breaches the spirit of wikipedia. As a matter of fact kseroume pios ise kirie KK ala dhen birazei. I'll get back personally to Aromanians to trim it off its - I have to say- all to often too nocive pro-Greek stance
In fact, why are Turkish names in Greek places? How has they been an important part of Turks history? How can you compare that to the long history of Hellenism of so many places that are part of Turkey today? You can't compare 3000 years of history to a mear of 400. Chaldean13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Turkish names should definitely be included in the first paragraph next to the Greek name on articles on places in western Thrace where the Turkish minority (59,000 according to Greek estimates, 130,000 according to Turkish estimates, 90,000 according to everyone else) lives. Everywhere else, if the Turkish name is historically relevant, should be dealt with on a case by case basis. --Tēlex13:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, at last after hundreds of revertings, guys like Telex and of course you added the Greek name to Istanbul article as it should be if we want to have any Turkish names on Greek articles. This is the correct way and the only way. It is totally unacceptable not to inlude the Greek name to a place that used to belong to Greeks for 1000+ years with such an importance, and to inlude ANY turkish names to Greek places. The minute they revert the Greek name from Istanbul article i ll just start again erasing every single Turkish name. Thank you for the support.Mywayyy15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian. The point is that two wrongs don't make one good; we're not putting Turkish names in Western Thrace to make them accept a Greek name in Istanbul; we're putting them because in there there is a strong Turkish minority.--Aldux10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pogrom
Dont worry..if there will be another pogrom here, i will fight with you against the Turks. Im saying this despite being one of them :) 85.96.136.25001:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Placenames
Hi Hectorian, I thought I'd just try to explain to you where I come from in the matter of the Greek and Turkish placename revert-wars.
I'm a linguist. I love placenames. Placenames, in whatever language, are beautiful, friendly, harmless, interesting little creatures that tell us interesting things and hurt nobody. So, in general, I'm a rather strong inclusionist on this matter.
What I hate is to assess inclusion or exclusion of placenames on criteria of nationalist point-scoring, symbolically "laying claims" to a territory, or evaluating the historical legitimacy of some group's link to a place.
We should include placenames not because we want to satisfy the pride of some group that has a "right" to see "their" name represented on Wikipedia. We should include it because it tells us something interesting about the history of a place.
Specifically, I'd support mentioning a foreign placename whenever one or more of the following hold:
it is a linguistically non-trivial variant that has historically arisen from direct contact between multilingual populations in that area (not just a simple transliteration or linguistically predictable phonological adaptation into another language). London-Λονδίνο is boring. Athina-Atina is boring. Symi-Sömbeki is interesting.
it is the language of a significant population group that lives or has until recently lived in the area
the place has some special historical significance for a neighbouring language community.
the place has been legally part of a different state in recent times (where "recent" might mean "within the 20th century," for instance).
the place has been the object of some serious political contention in recent times (wars, irridentist claims etc.). Inclusion on this ground has absolutely nothing to do with judging the legitimacy of either side in the conflict.
On some or other of these criteria, I think most of the Greek-Turkish places qualify. For me, it includes all the Aegean islands that were Ottoman until the early 20th century, no matter how strong the actual Turkish population presence was or is.
Additionally, as a matter of Wiki tactics, I'd say:
Whenever inclusion of a specific placename is requested by a significant number (even a significant minority) of editors, be it for whatever (good-faith) reasons, I find it a matter of basic politeness and cooperation not to obstruct their wish unless there is a very strong particular reason against it.
At the same time, one should be aware of Wikipedia:Lead fixation. While the natural place for mentioning a foreign placename is often the first sentence or lead section, there's nothing magical about that. Especially if the naming situation is complex and requires explanation, placing it somewhere else is absolutely legitimate (see Istanbul). In such a case, fighting over an additional place in the lead is childish, in my view.
So, the upshot of it all is: I'm not going to revert you directly at this point, because I'm heartily tired of the whole revert war, but if anybody else should continue requesting inclusion in cases like Kos etc., I'm going to support them.
Thanks for your response. I still sense in your argumentation a tendency of perceiving the position of a name in the very first sentence as some highly symbolic badge, a sign of "staking out turf". I'd warn against that. I personally don't care too much about the first sentence. Both Komotini and Istanbul treat the naming issue adequately already (as far as I can see at first sight). I think if a name is presented and explained in a prominent place somewhere further down, there's generally little need to have it in the lead sentence additionally.
Hi, Hectorian. Since you seem to be interested in both Greek and Turkish articles, i thought you'd be also interested to edit/watch the Greco-Turkish relations article. During the last time I looked at the article there was a massive propaganda/nationalism from some, apparently Turkish, editors about airspace violations, the tragic death of the Greek pilot, Smyrna, etc etc. I believe your thoughts and contributions on the specific article would be most welcome. Regards.Mywayyy10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
serbiana - talk 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
