Jump to content

Talk:Tenedos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeliDumrul (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 30 June 2006 (The Greek Population). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: February 2006

Gökçeada & Bozcaada → Imbros and Tenedos

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Proposed move: October 2005

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (From Gökçeada and Bozcaada to Imbros and Tenedos, counting two support votes and two oppose.) –Hajor 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support These are the English names of the islands, even on modern maps; it is Wikipedia policy to use English; the Turkish names are unknown outside Turkey. Septentrionalis 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First off, Gökçeada and Bozcaada are the current official names, and it is Wikipedia policy to use the official name to avoid problems concerning neutrality. Also, National Geographic uses these names. --Hottenott
Comment: Imbros and Tenedos is Greek, not English!! --Hottentot
The Greek names are Imvros and Tenedhos, which I would also oppose. Septentrionalis 15:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Oppose. Neither the Greek or Turkish version is more English. They are only mentioned that way in English language documents because such documents are references to the Treaties of Lausanne and Sevres. Use the official names, both because they appear in English language atlases and because a change here would make for many, many, confusing changes. The redirect is enough for those searching. Would you support, by the way, the renaming of Livorno to Leghorn because that was formerly the most common English version? How about Mickelgard for Istanbul? Satyadasa 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, the islands have been so named in English since the Renaissance, when the English began reading Homer and Plutarch and Thucydides. Shakespeare wrote "To Tenedos they come" not 'Bozcaada' (T&C Prol. 11). This may have influenced the Treaty of Sèvres, but not the other way around; Lausanne was produced by the facts on the ground. I have not discussed Livorno; but, if we are going to fight straw men, would you move Florence or Rome? Septentrionalis 21:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I wouldn't move Florence, Rome, or Livorno. All three represent the most commonly used form in English. I think we agree that this rule is the only way to be consistent on placenames, while of course creating as many relevant disambiguations as possible. You've swayed me a bit on this page, and I may consider changing my vote, but tell me this, do you have plans to try to move Anatolian names like İzmir and İzmit that will be far, far more contenious in discussion? You will find only Smyrna and Nicomedia of course, in the Classics, and in 19th century texts, but İzmir is widely known as such today. What about cities in central Anatolia that have over a millennia of Turkish history (and well-known Turkish history at that) as well as Greek? I speak of course of places like Konya, more famous than Iconium depending on who you ask, a fan of Rumi, a Biblical scholar, or a Classicist. Unless you can provide some sort of consistent answer, we should stick with the official ones and stick with redirects for the Greek (or for that matter, for Turkish versions of names in the Balkans like Salonika, I am keeping my vote here. Nicaea is under Nicaea and not Iznik, and this makes sense because it is almost exclusively known for the ecumenical councils and the Empire of Nicaea, so there are exceptions. Satyadasa 02:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I would oppose moving İzmir; or any city that has "well-known Turkish history." (If Konya were to grow to an inconvenient size, splitting off Iconium would be one solution; but that's a separate question.)
        • But Bozcaada is completely unknown to this literate Anglophone. Wikipedia should not cause me to say "where?" when I look at the page for a place moderately well known in English literature. Tenedos has 62,000 English language Google hits; Bozcaada without Tenedos has 16,000, and of the first four two are in fact English/Turkish bilingual, and one is the Turkish Ministry of Tourism. (The Turkish usage is clear; and the Turkish Wikipedia will doubtless respect it.) Septentrionalis 05:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've convinced me here, especially since it seems that we agree in principle on placename issues. Vote changed.
  • Support, for reasons above outlined in discussion with Septentrionalis. Satyadasa 08:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I was not thinking of Sèvres when I proposed the move, but kept the islands in the same order so I could tell which was which. If you think Tenedos and Imbros preferable (or separate articles, which they should have in the long run), feel free to change the move notice and WP:RM.Septentrionalis 15:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if this is what the Turks call them, then leave it. Gryffindor 01:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unless you're going to change other articles to "what the Turks call them". Seems more helpful on the English Wikipedia to name them what English speakers call them. No Account 17:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I've missed the vote by a couple of months (I just came upon this page), but if the issue is ever re-opened I would also support the move to the well-known Classical names, since the Turkish names appear to have little prominence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

March 1 2006 edit

I've just reorganized the page into roughly chronological order, and while editing for style and grammar I also tried to tone down what seemed like a very pro-Greek/anti-Turkish POV. However, I'm working without much knowledge here, and the page could benefit from someone who can give specifics (with citations!) for the ethnography of the islands during the 20th century, especially the Turkish policies that promoted the Greek exodus from the islands and exactly how they did or did not violate the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on the situation of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos:

Human Rights Watch: The Greeks of Turkey (from the “Denying Human Rights and Ethnic Identity” series of Human Rights Watch)

"The Greek community in Turkey is dwindling, elderly and frightened. Its population has declined from about 110,000 at the time of the signing of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 to about 2,500 today."

" A Helsinki Watch mission visited Turkey in October 1991 and found that the government there continues to violate the human rights of the Greek minority. These acts include harassment by police; restrictions on free expression; discrimination in education involving teachers, books and curriculum; restrictions on religious freedom; limitations on the right to control charitable institutions; and the denial of ethnic identity." -The Situation of the Greeks of Turkey reflects the situaton of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos as the Greeks of these two islands make up a considerable part of the few remaining Greeks in Turkey.

Lonely Planet Guidebook:"Although exempted from the 1920's population exchanges, the exclusively Greek inhabitants have been driven out over the last 30 years..."-Referring to Imbros island. Globo 09:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citation needed sign and the "some Greeks argue" edit, and changed some of the wording. I think that my citations back up my arguments, although it is very hard to find widely accepted authoritative sources dealing with the subject in detail, but i did my best. It is preferable to use stronger wording rather than "some people claim", "It is thought by some" constructions.Globo 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne referring to Imbros and Tenedos

"ARTICLE 14.


The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.

The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos."

-When comparing this article of the treaty to the facts on the ground the situation concerning Turkey abiding by the terms of the Treaty becomes apparent.Globo 09:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I needed to know. Thanks for providing that. I agree that it's best to avoid weasel phrases like "some think", but sometimes it's an acceptable stopgap while waiting for a citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Your previous edit helped to put my contribution in order, and maybe it did need to be toned down a bit, for the sake of not having that subject take up most of the article!
Thanks, Globo 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The joys of cooperation. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged content from The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos per AfD

I've merged the content from The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos per this AfD, as a new section titled "Greek population". I've wikified it slightly, but this section is still very POV, so I've tagged it with {{npov}}. Do with this content as you will. The original author has given citations for this content in Talk:The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done significant copyediting. There were some word choices and phrasings that looked odd to me. Some of these gave an impression of an NPOV-violation: the repetition of phrases such as, "The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos" where a simple pronoun would have sufficed tends, when done in English, to flag a work as a polemic, if not a screed. This may not be, for all I know, the case in Greek.

In any case, I think that the statements are well-supported by the references, and that all the needed references are in. I have removed the Wikifiy tag and propose to remove the NPOV tag. Comments? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited further; and removed the tag. The article about the "Istanbul pogrom" should probably be added to the sources; although it is exceedingly PoV. Its statements on the islands are quite specific. Other sources for these actions (which are in themselves unfortunately all too plausible) should be found in the long run.

I have changed the sentence about Turkish intent to a pure conditional; it is after all entirely possible that they "only" wanted to benefit their own ethnicity, and didn't care whether the Greeks left after they were plundered. It may not be necessary at all.

A Turkish account of the islands would assist neutrality. In particular, their administration from 1920-1923 under King Constantine is unlikely to have been spotless. Septentrionalis 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of 15 March

Edit 15 March: Concerning the turkish intent; it was the turkish intent to get the Greeks to leave, as stated by many of the sources[[1]] in particular: ...mais elle a de plus multiplié les efforts pour effacer tout caractère grec des deux îles... It is unlikely that the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit their own ethnicity, as their own ethnicity hardly inhabitated the islands at all... Or in another sense that might be true, the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit its own ethnicity on the islands by making room for it on the two islands in the first place- by removing the Greeks. But that does not change the intent.

It is unlikely that the Greek administration was particularly bad on Imbros and Tenedos, because they were nearly exclusively inhabitated by Greeks, thus there was not really a minority that could be mistreated.... In a sense the Greek administration would, in all likelyhood, have been considered a act of liberation by most of the islands inhabitants at the time! Globo 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says majority on Imbros, bare majority on Tenedos. This is not "nearly exclusively". Septentrionalis 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit [2] for two reasons. First, because I cannot verify it. Churchill was in the hospital and out of office for most of the period in question. Second, because even if true, it badly needs rephrasing. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polytonic

Ιμβρος should have both an acute accent and a smooth breathing. This combination will not display on many computers, including mine, without the {{polytonic}} template. I don't see any need for italic Greek letters here; they're already distinct, and usually lighter than, Roman lettering. Septentrionalis 14:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No need to italicize text already not in Latin alphabet. For other scripts it's not even an option to do so. Satyadasa 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wines?

User:Aynali added a sentence about the famous wines of Imbros to the ancient section. Is there a source for this statement? Is it still true, or have the wines deteriorated in modern times as Wine Spectator suggests? If still true, the sentence belongs elsewhere in the article. If no longer true, that sounds like an interesting fact. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence used to refer to the period before 1920. Neither Athenaeus nor Pliny mention Imbros; although good wine came from Thrace, and famous, if salty, wine from Lemnos. Athenaeus on Tenedos is worth including; note that the same Greek word can mean marjoram and oregano. Septentrionalis 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the move. 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 was Not moved

Requested move 19th June 2006

Please use one sentence comments here

It is the official internetional name for the islands.  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read again please.  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what?  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imbros and Tenedos are names in ancient Greek  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why?  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why?  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lengthy supporting comments moved to discussion, so they can be replied to. Septentrionalis

 Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Use the names that are used in a contemporary context! Seems completely nonsense to refer to the islands with their ancient Greek names. Refering to the history of the islands it is relevant to use their Greek names. However, the Turkish names are used in any contemporary reference to the islands. I just checked my Lonely Planet and Rough Guide guidebooks, obviously they employ the current Turkish name. Wikipedia would be a messy affair if we start to label all kinds of locations with a previous historical name! Bertilvidet 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are the English names: the names used in English in a contemporary context. If this were simply a Greco-Turkish quarrel, I would have left it alone; but I see no reason for the English wikipedia to use a name unintelligible to anglophones. Septentrionalis 18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any evidence of that? From my superficial research on the net and in books surrounding me there seems to be a clear pattern: the Greek names are used referring to the history, the Turkish names used when referring the current islands.
        • Just for the record, Bertilvidet, Imbros and Tenedos are not the ancient greek names, but simply the names in greek, ancient, byzantine and modern. since this is how the english speakers refer to the islands, these are the names that should be used in the English Wikipedia. wouldn't that be stupid to ask the rename of Crete into Kriti and of the Ionian islands into Ionia Nesia, just because the Greeks name these places that way? --Hectorian 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Use the English names, obviously. (And Kertenkelebek: I suggest you read WP:SIG and do something about your absurdly long signature.) Proteus (Talk) 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Use the English names, per Wiki RuleBook. - Kittybrewster 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As long as this article is a part of districts of Turkey, official internetional name should be used to be consistent, since Turkey has no districts named as neither Imbros nor Tenedos. And if you people don't know anything at lest be wse enough to learn somethng:Imbros and Tenedos are not english names, they're ancient greek names for the islands Gökçeada and Bozcaada Kultigin 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think this move should be closed as frivolous; there was consensus on the location four months ago, and the move request is based on the position, contrary to guidelines, that we should use the official name when the English language does not. Septentrionalis 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain. One could argue that the official names should be used, and one could argue that the most common name in English should be used. Britannica [3] and the World Book Encyclopedia [4] have used the Greek (and English?) names. A move would have to have Google tests performed etc, and we should take exception to the location of the article East Timor. It is not at Timor-Leste, the name preferred by the state's government. --Tēlex 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google tests have been performed; see the last two move discussions. They confirm that Tenedos and Imbros are, as they always have been, the common names in English; the Turkish names appear in Turkish/English bilinguals, and the official page of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism. As I've said above, Shakespeare used Tenedos; the Turkish names are not merely obscure, but unknown, to anglophones. Septentrionalis 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue most anything, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and Use English is a pretty rock-bottom requirement. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, things would be easier if the Islands had English names. We have to chose between the Greek names which were used in the past and is relevant when refering to the history, or the Turkish names which are used in any contemporary context. As is the case with Istanbul, aka known as Constantinople. Bertilvidet 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This ground has been so well-trodden I'm surprised that anything can grow on it. Naming apart, if any editor feels that the Turkish perspective is not adequately addressed in the article please discuss it on the talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Bozcaada and Gökçeada (although they're Turkish) are the official names in internetional politics and gerography.
    • Even if this were proven (and no evidence has been presented), it would be irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places); we should use, in the English WP, the only name intelligible to English-speakers. Even [www.bozcaada.info www.bozcaada.info] finds it necessary to include Tenedos to explain Bozcaada
  2. This article is a part of "Districts of Turkey" under the topic of "Çanakkale" therefore apart form all it should be referred to as Bozcaada and Gökçeada according to the naming conventions. (NPOV)
    • This can be handled by masking and redirects. Even the categories can be handled without moving the article; in the manner which the present text (18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)) will show. Septentrionalis 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Just like "Constantinople" (Roman name to which is now Istanbul for more than half a millennium) and "Selanik" (Turkish name to Thessaloniki again used for more than half a millenium), Imbros and Tenedos (Greek names to the islands) exists no more (practically since long before it became official) (NPOV)
    • It is not Wikipedia's business to say that Imbros and Tenedos have ceased to exist. When the English language uses them no more, relatively, than Constantinople and Smyrna, the proposed title of this article will no longer be unintelligible to English-speakers, and I will vote for it. That time has not yet come; and WP should not attempt to lead the English language.Septentrionalis 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If one wants to depict the ancient history of the islands, they're welcome to use Ancient Greek names under the relevant topic inside the article. However as they're officially named Bozcaada and Gökçeada all other names should be foregone and the islands must be referred to as the internetional name. (NPOV)
  5. If Imbros and Tenedos are so widely used, a simple redirect to the official name should solve the problem, it's no big deal. (NPOV)
  6. I am not rejecting the ancient names of the islands (which should be preserved in the article) yet I see of no reason to call a part of Turkish Republic in Greek names rather than its official international referral.

 Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


Renunciation of rights

The following paragraph, now deleted, is not neutrally phrased, and I oppose its restoration. Nevertheless, if the claims made are the Turkish case for their actions, they may be useful.

However shortly after the legislation of “Civil Law” on (my mistake- it should be this - Kertenkelebek) 17 February 1926 (Medeni Kanun, which was actually a direct translation from the Swiss civil law that is the most liberal set of laws of its time), minorities in Turkey renounced from their legislative priviliges and declared their will to be subjected to the equally same conditions as all the Turkish citizens. Thereafter in accordance with the law on “Unification of the Education Act” (Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu) which has been previously accepted on 3 March 1924 schools were required to teach in Turkish.

Three questions do arise:

  • Is this the legislation of the present Turkish Republic? I presume so.
  • In what sense are the islanders supposed to be represented in the Ankara parlisment in December 1920?
  • What is the case for national legislation overriding Turkey's obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne, which are not millet rights? Septentrionalis 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of the famous paragraph, let me explain:
First of all Treaty of Lausanne defines no nation or ethnicity as a minority. It only defines non-muslims as a minority and that's because when the treaty was signed there were still legislations in Turkey directly linked to Muslim religion, in other words the country has not been secularized yet. Due to this fact non-muslims required protectory rights not only to live freely according to their religion but also exclusion from to be judged by the non-secular legal system. However after 17 February 1926, legislation of "Civil Law" the legal system is completely secularized and it also brought the most liberal and modern legal system of its time to Turkey. "Civil Law" of 1926 also included additions like "rights to vote and to be voted for women" to the Swiss law which made it far ahead its time. It also guaranteed free-religion as a legal right and brought secular courthouses based on modern law. Therefore there remained no reason for the non-muslim minorities to be protected from "Muslim Law" anymore. Since it's way ahead its time in terms of modernisation, non-muslim minorities ALSO presented their will to be subject to this most modern system of legislation since even their "priviliges" fell behind the modern law. Hope this covers for everyone.  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation specific to Gökçeada and Bozcaada reflecting Turkey's obligations under Lausanne Treaty dates from 1927. It needs a chapter of its own, as well as for the Turkish settlements for which records are available. But, in my opinion, no Turk who respects himself will contribute to this article as long as it is under the present name (this is only a guess). I wouldn't for one, why bother? When people will start sending letters to Tenedos and it will come back to them undelivered, they should sue wikipedia for for the postal expenses. We can have an article titled "Imbros and Tenedos under the Lausanne Treaty" but the two Turkish districts to which they correspond have names. If I wanted to put the templates for the municipalities (as here), I would have to put two templates for two separate districts in one page. And furthermore, there's much information lacking. Once again, why bother adding them? As for Shakespeare, he also used the term (in Othello) "foul and dirty no good black" (as well as others in the same vein), but I don't see a proposal coming for re-naming a wikipedia page according to his terminology. Just try! :) Cretanforever

I believe this threat to go on strike to secure a name contrary to Wikipedia policy and uniform English usage displays an attitude contrary to the putposes and intent of WP. If anyone else thinks so, I will start a request for comment. Septentrionalis 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no threat. It is strange to see the word "threat" when I was expressing my opinion and my guess, the choice of the word "strike" is strange as well. I am not trying to secure a name. I put a vote and I expressed an opinion. You can do as you see fit. Cretanforever

What do other editors think? "No Turk who respects himself will edit this article" sounds like a call against blacklegs to me. Septentrionalis 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding This is only a guess Septentrionalis 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is hard to understand about naming articles in the natural way for the language in which they appear? If I spoke French well enough, I would happily edit the article on Etats-unis and consider it no smirch against my honor or self respect. I would hardly expect the French to name the article anything else. If someone wants to start a Lenne-Lenapi Wikipedia and use the appropriate Algonquian name (which I forget) for Pennsylvania, let them. As for the mail point, neither our readers nor, I suspect, the Turkish postal service are that clueless. The official name is given in the lead, and international mail is routinely delivered when addressed comprehensibly in the writer's language. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two islands. From what I could check, this is the only article which presents two Aegean islands of some significance together. I add that there is some distance between them.
  • Each island corresponds to a district. Each district and its center town bear the same name as the island as far as the designations in Turkish are concerned. I am assuming that the understanding would be identical for the names Imbros and Tenedos. Therefore, the article's name does not only relate to the names of Turkish islands, but also substitute to those of Turkish districts. And at the present state, they differ from the actual name, the official name used both in administrative and in practical levels. This makes another unique case (as besides their having been presented together). All other districts are under their official names.
  • These two islands/districts/center-towns are not administratively bound to each other in any direct manner. They are both part of the Çanakkale Province and they share parallel administrative elements set up in the frame of the Lausanne Treaty. The Treaty unites them but the provisions set up by the Treaty are implemented in a distinct manner for each island/district/center-town.
  • They have not had first-rate importance in antiquity or under the Byzantine Empire (unlike, for example, Samos), which would have provided a reason for an attachment to a certain name

in the heading. I don't think that many people in (for example) the U.S. rise early in the morning and ask themselves "What's up in Imbros and Tenedos today?"

  • For English-speakers, in Shakespeare's day, and indeed till very recently, Taiwan was called the island of Formosa, and Sri Lanka was the island of Ceylon. I agree that both are also sovereign states. But the island of Kos was formerly called Stanchio in English.

Cretanforever

Shakespeare is merely the most famous (and one of the oldest) of English writers to speak of Tenedos; to name the most obvious: Byron, Kinglake, Brooke. There are hundreds if not thousands of others. As far as I know, all call it Tenedos - and those I have named are writing of the island in their present, under Turkish rule. Septentrionalis 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start by splitting the articles on these islands. One article for each. Cretanforever

Of course they should eventually be divided into Imbros and Tenedos; although doing so while so much of the material is common, including the legislation of the Turkish Republic, seems pointless. I should add that it makes no difference to the question of location: Imbros is also established English usage, even if it lacks Homeric glory. Splits under non-English names are deleteable as POV forks. Septentrionalis 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not believe that i would ever agree with Pmanderson, but in this case i do! the article has to be split, so that each islands would have its own article, even if most of the material will be common. but, there is no chance for them been renamed in the english wikipedia. --Hectorian 11:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very interesting to hear that Byron and Brooke were mentioned as reference. Byron went to Greece's aid in its war against Ottoman Empire and Brooke fought in WWI against Ottoman Empire. NPOV? Brooke? Byron? Hmm... --Volkan 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Kinglake was a friend of the Turks and a historian of the Crimean War, in which Great Britain was allied with Turkey. So? This has nothing to do with English usage. Septentrionalis 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can claim that Kinglake was a friend of Turks. However others' bias is obvious. They were involved in the fight, literally. Their choice of names is a reflection of their political views. Would you expect Byron to use a proper Turkish name when he goes there to save the cradle of western civilization from barbarians? Following the same argument may be we should rename Istanbul as Constantinople, the name used in Lausanne Treaty! I am still not convinced that using Greek names for these territories agree with NPOV.--Volkan 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always tried to stay cool and explained myself to the furthest extent. But trying to change a district's name because it was once called something else can't be more than a joke! Please accept my apologies for my inappropriate phrase. DeliDumrul 06:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the Result

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Here are some examples on how today's English speaking world refers to the islands: Britannica Gokceada entry (there are no entries for Imbros), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Bozcaada entry (search result on Imbros), The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Imroz entry (see how it has a redirect, and there is again no entry on Imbros), Bozcaada and Gokceada entries on MSN Encarta, small map from worldatlas.com showing the islands, weather reports on Gokceada on weatherreports.com and weather underground, World Gazzetteer entry on Bozcaada. I'd find this adequate to illustrate the common English names of the islands. As for official names, I don't think anybody disagrees. DeliDumrul 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, users who cast votes here should take a look at Wikipedia:Voting is evil. DeliDumrul 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since in the light of the last proofs provided by DeliDumrul above, all objections against the move request have been made obsolete. Now it's expected that opposers who don't lack in logic and good faith to remove their oppositions based on Imbros and Tenedos being English referrals to the islands and accept that they're nothing but the ancient greek names to the islands. Besides this article is about districts of Turkey more than about 2 islands. This is not the place to re-name districts of a sovereign country by votation, the facts are clear, Gökçeada and Bozcaada are used as official and English names to the districts as well for the islands. No one opposed that the English names should be used in Wikipedia and above is the proof that Gökçeada and Bozcaada are English names to the islands. Therefore the consensus is upon using English names to the islands which are proven to be Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If you wish, check the references one-by-one yourself, however anyone objecting the move from this point forward is either:

(a) lacking some intellectual skills required for interpretation,

(b) too lazy to have information before having an idea,

(c) does not know anything about the naming convention on Wikipedia,

(d) just politically (anti-Turkish) motivated users without an atom of good faith within.

This discussion ands here and the article should be moved whether there's a consensus or not (though there's a clear conensus that English names should be used rather than greek names), because it's mainly the last group (d) of users distracting the consensus on what's logical and correct by flooding the page without even bothering to argue their POV. As stated before; you can't change facts by votation! Besides it has been just one week since the votation started which does not allow enough time for the discussions and again not enough time for the neutral (non-greek) users to have an opinion on the subject topic. It's not even a fair survey for this reason! KertenkelebekⓉ 08:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other people, I believe that google counts are misleading. Even if they were meaningful, it is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy—the saying that "what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right" applies. (from Voting is evil)
Having said that, I double-checked the google search results for Imbros Tenedos and read through the summaries of the first 40 results. All of the hits, except for a couple of sites, were either pages about history or Greek web sites. DeliDumrul 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish use of Imbros and Tenedos in english

Evidently, even some Turkish sources not trying to propagate their POV use the terms "Imbros and Tenedos" in english, such as this Turkish Government website [[5]] And, for the record, I will forever revert any edits which state anything as ridiculous as the greeks "renouncing their rights"!! I wonder if they were asked or if someone renounced it for them??!! The Turkish government had obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne, and that obligation was ultimately not fulfilled. There was, and is, no way out of that agreement. The greek "native non-moslems" don't lose their rights because Turkey becomes "secular". Guaranteed. Globo 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. So, what you are implying is; all Turkish sources try to propagate their point of view except for a few, and one article written by a zoologist published on a zoology journal reveals the fact. Let's don't forget, because this article was uploaded to a user's personal page on a government web site, it is the Turkish Government website who uses the terms Imbros and Tenedos. This is Evidently an evidence. Please.. DeliDumrul 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Population

This section needs a lot of clean up. Thanks to those who cleaned up some of the mess. Bur more needs to be done. Below does not necessarily mean that I disagree with every bit of the section as it is now. However we can not keep it this way. It has been like this for a long time now and as this is an article, not a sandbox, we can not offer readers unsourced information. We are NOT authors but merely editors who volunteered to find widely accepted sources and compile articles out of them.

  • First paragraph: the islands were inhabited primarily by ethnic Greeks from ancient times through to around the middle of the twentieth century. This needs citation.
Because precise census records are a recent phenomenon, the detailed historic ethnic makeup of the islands must remain a matter of conjecture
This sentence is ambiguous and it represents the authors perception.
  • Later: census taken shortly before the islands were granted to Turkey
Citation neeeded. Don't write down (CITATION NEEDED) but tag it! it's kinda concealing that it needs citaion.
  • Next paragraph after the treaty: In fact, the local Greek population was marginalized in multiple ways,.
Is this a fact? Citation?
  • Next paragraph: Greeks had owned 95 percent of Gökçeada's (Imbros') agricultural land prior to these expropriations, today they own almost none. Citation needed.
  • Next paragraph: the situation of the Greeks of the two islands continually deteriorated. [...] in some accasions resulted in harm both to islanders' property and, in some cases, to the islanders themselves.
This includes both comments and observations any of which can not be done by a WP editor. Source?
  • Last paragraph: These policies and events led to an exodus of Greeks from both islands.
When you say these policies it is a point of view wether NPOV or not. In any case needs proper citaion. All points of view of notable entities can be represented only by addressing their respective owners and with references. If this is a notable POV, then it should be referenced. If not, it's personal POV and can NOT represented in an encyclopedia.
If you say events led to an exodus it would be a conclusion deducted from the rest of the section which is neither sourced nor referenced.

I also want to remind you of this basic, simple yet very important rule guideline about information put down just faute de mieux:


I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag.

Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimbo Wales

Anyways, the section was in a terrible mess before. It's much better now, however it's either properly sourced and referenced or it is gone. DeliDumrul 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenedos&oldid=61379510"