Jump to content

Talk:Imbros

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

Untitled

[edit]
Copied from Talk:Imbros and Tenedos. Some of the edit history of this article is also at Imbros and Tenedos. 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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

[edit]

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

[edit]
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

[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]

The only way to support the Turkish point of view is if you believe that people can be driven from the land by any means as long as they are not of the right ethnic group to be there. The same view can be taken against Greek actions in Thessalonika, but it is hard to fault the Greeks in Imbros.Johnpacklambert 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing was Greek government s idea. They wanted to replace Turk population in Greece with Greek pop in Turkish lands. 46.155.128.89 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on the situation of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Many of these are sourced; the source is not perfect. The solution is to bring more sources; not to delete the existing ones. Septentrionalis 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake! You reverted Porfyrios's edits, too. My edits were not on the names. If you want to change the names, just do what you want to do. That's a whole another story. About the source, if I dump information from a nobody source would you keep them?? DeliDumrul 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down and start from here. I tried undoing all Kertenkebelek's vandalism by hand; and the result was not only tedious, but gave less acknowledgement to the Turkish names than the reversion.
  • The bit about the Treaty of Sevres not being ratified seems largely irrelevant, and I recall it otherwise; but I will add the obvious, that the Turkish Republid was not signatory to it.
  • The remaining collateral damage is things about which we disagree: If you feel you must include a nothing source, that would seem only fair; but a better source from the Greek PoV would be much preferable. Septentrionalis 15:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a better source from any point of view would not only improve the article; there is a possibility that it might provoke a better source to replace this one. One can but hope. Septentrionalis 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

[edit]

If this sort of nonsense on the names does not stop, I will request page protection; and there are other measures which can apply to patently disruptive editors.

Asd for the modifications from pure reversion:

You are reverting both my and Porfyrios' changes not Kertenkelebek's. I really don't understand one thing; why do we have to keep unsourced (a couple of parts poorly sourced to POV webpage) information until somebody finds better sources?? If that person who dumped it in the article can not cite it then why are we trying to find sources for his version. Even if we all agree with him, it still can not sit in the article without source. It's destiny is to be deleted (period). The best option you could have in this case is to carry unsourced information to the talk page and wait for it to be sourced. I don't see any rationale in tendentious is better than nothing. In fact, it's the other way around: nothing is better than potentially false or misleading information. DeliDumrul 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous Edits

[edit]

Some of the edits happening are simply ridiculous. You can't just write Gokceada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) in the quote from from the Treaty of Lausanne!!! Its a quote!!! For Gods sake people, the name should be used interchangeably in the article, whatever suits best, and not ALWAYS with a bracket next to it. And a lot of the information that is thought to be unsourced above is actually sourced, from many sources, including facts like that 95 percent of the Greek arable land was expropriated (look in the french one). You can't put a link behind every sentence, it would be really annoying to read. And a pain to do. Some things are obvious, such as the fact that the Greeks left because of Turkish "actions". Look in some of the sources I gave at the start of this discussion page and most of the sources in the references. And to constantly question and delete simple, unbiased conclusions drawn, reflecting sourced material, and summaries made of sourced material, to me is ridiculous POV pushing and vandalism Globo 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which most of the sources in the references?? There is no references section. There are no sources. The French page you call a source is no more a source than something I'd myself write and put on my university's web server. I also don't see how Guide to Lonely Planet can be a source about history. That section is about history and international politics. It's not about the cafeteria around the corner from your house, you can't use everything you find on the web as a source.

Actually you can put a link after every sentence (are you familiar with journal articles?). However those citatian needed tags are not to be replaced by references one by one. Those tags show that you are presenting facts and those facts should be based on references. If one reference covers the facts in a paragraph, you can put the reference after the paragraph (not in every case though, things like census results need to be cited immediately after)
and don't call my edits ridiculous POV pushing and vandalism I wouldn't keep informing people that I reverted their edits if I were a vandal. DeliDumrul 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Civil Law" "revoked rights" part

[edit]

I do not agree with the "subjected to equal conditions as other Turkish citizens" wording. The "civil law" and "unification of education" law clearly denied minorities in Turkey to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, naturally the Turks were still allowed to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, thus the the beforementioned laws actually subjected non Turks to special discriminatory conditions, in breach of the Lausanne Treaty.

Note on cats

[edit]

I notice that several, specifically Turkish, cats, have been moved from Gökçeada and Bozcaada, which redirects here. I really don't care, but some editors seemed happier with having Category:Districts of Çanakkale show Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If anyone, now or in future, wants to move them back, I won't object to that either; the effect is much the same. (If they are moved, they should be commented out here, not removed entirely.) Septentrionalis 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made some good points, but I think the categories should be in the actual article, not a redirect—in order to prevent confusion. However, as you said, I wouldn't object if they were added back either. —Khoikhoi 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think it is time that these articles be split... —Khoikhoi 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree; I've always found it strange they were treated in a single article, when it seemed clear to me that each should have his specific article.--Aldux 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only reason for not splitting into Imbros and Tenedos was that so much of the content was common. Where should Imbros and Tenedos and Gökçeada and Bozcaada redirect to after the split? Imbros, I suppose. Septentrionalis 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it could be a dab page. I know the content is common, but one must not forget that these are different islands. —Khoikhoi 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let's split. I've done a mechanical division, cutting out most of the references to each island. Septentrionalis 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the names

[edit]

Please keep the names as it is. This article is not correct place to discuss the adjective "Ecumenic". I you can see I try to put all place names and history as possible as neutrally. Please discuss "Ecumenic" name in the relevant pages as before.Please See Also link which is used here. Regards Mustafa Akalp(T) (C) 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You object to "Ecumenical Patriarch"? Why? Septentrionalis 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is 'Ecumenical Patriarch". This is the title he uses, the title he is known worldwide and the title under which he is accepted by nations, states, organisations and leaders, etc etc... If someone disputes the usage of this title, he should comment in the respective article's talk page. Thus, i am reverting... Hectorian 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

How we can add citations for "Madam Cafe" and "Barba". They are live and I know them, what kind of citations needed? please help. Mustafa Akalp(T) (C) 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not mentioned anywhere else, then they're not verifiable in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and we should not include them. This is partly because, while WP is not paper, we cannot include even one sentence on everybody on the planet; if no one has found them notable, we have no reason to. See the list of things Wikipedia is not; in addition, Wikipedia is not a neighborhood directory. Septentrionalis 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

Hectorian, Till to today, official name was Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and you change the name and why you move the linked articles. Please contribute with some words/sentences/photos here instead of revert and move. Regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are the articles Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. what i did today was updating Bartholomew's articles to be in accordance with the articles of his patriarchate and his title. I know why u dispute the usage of this title, but it is not something that can be pushed here... Upon next revert, i will present sources by the Patriarchate itself, the Vatican, Greece, EU, BBC, Reuters, Britannica, Columbia, USA, etc etc etc... So, please do not revert. Regards Hectorian 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hectorian. Two hours ago you moved Patriarch of Constantinople to Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. No need nationalism. Did you ever know ,where Barthelomeo was born two days ago. I am trying to be neutral. I contribute many things as well as the Barthelomeo's birth place,and I asked your oppinion(with khoikhoi and Tekleni) not any Turkish user. Please be reasonable.

Much regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gökçeada town"

[edit]

According to this map, there is a town on the island called Gökçeada. Is this the same as Çınarlı/Panaghia Balomeni? I noticed that it appears to be in the middle of the island on the map.

Also, has anyone ever read the book "Imbros" by Murat Yaykın? I found an interesting article while searching Google. —Khoikhoi 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had the article been in english, i would be able to read it...:) Hectorian 02:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I think the people in the image are Greeks. Note here and here you will find instances of the words "Rum", "Rumlara", and "Rumların". :-) —Khoikhoi 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i know... I can understand some scattered turkish words, but not the meaning... (so, i dare not come in conclussions...:)...) Hectorian 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this book sounds interesting as it is a obviously Turkish source, but seems to also talk about the Greek inhabitants of the island and also the ethnography (etnografik! oh man I can speak Turkish!). Note that it is also titled Imbros, and Imroz is used in the article, with Gokceada being in brackets. It would be nice if a Turk could translate some of the blurb... Globo 07:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

It would be nice if people who want to tag this article would look at our WP tags first and see what they say and mean, rather than leaving the article a mess. I have consolidated, I think, the meaningful complaints; but whoever did this should read WP:PEACOCK before using that tag again.

Some of these complaints seem simply groundless; the source, for example, of the text of the Treaty of Lausanne is the Treaty of Lausanne, which is widely published.

Many of the other statements complained of are sourced in the references listed, usually in the obvious one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

[edit]

The pamphlet I have been following asserts that the Greek schools of Imbros were closed in 1927, and the buildings diverted to other uses; the Greeks were permitted to build new ones in 1952-3, and they were confiscated again in 1964. The following sentence was unsourced and disputed, and it looks like an incomplete account of the same events; but I put it here in case anybody can source it.

The teaching in the Greek language in schools was forbidden in 1927 by law 1151 on the “Unification of Education” (Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu).
To move sentence at the bottom and left the sentence above in the article, is created a bilateral-miscorrect info in the article.MustTC 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be clearer; explain more fully what the present text asserts that is false. I don't see from your post. I just want to get this right, not push the Greek PoV; but the Greek pamphlets are the only accessible sources on the 20th century history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the town and in the five villages there were schools which were financed by Greece and constructed by the local inhabitants{{cn}}, and Greek teachers who had Greek nationality worked in these schools together with Turkish Teachers until 1965.{{cn}}
Is my eyewitness enough for above sentence?(For the graffiti on the wall of Primary school of Dereköy; I am the writer/painter.MustTC 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing here is the assertion that Greek teachers were excluded from the schools before 1952. I took this out largely as redundant, not false; we are dealing with two different accounts of the same events. The pamphlet suggests that they were supported by the islanders, not the Greek government; do you know that of your own knowledge? Better yet, do you have a source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not itemized the extensive complaints of deprivation of Greek schooling and curtailment of language rights, because not peculiar to Imbros. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros?

[edit]

Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Imvros' since thats the way it is said? Vita does not make a 'b' sound. Grk1011 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros is the established form in English, just like Lesbos, Euboea, etc. Policy is to USEENGLISH. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's weird, how would how pronounce 'Euboea'? Youboya?!?!, that is not even close to 'Evia'. Grk1011 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Youboya" is probably it. These are just the traditional pronunciations in English, obviously based on the traditional Latin transcriptions of the names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or the strict Erasmian reconstruction of ancient Greek pronunciation, even less like Evia, which would be an anachronism for any time before Alexander; ancient goats said βαα. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Gökçeada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Imros" 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 Gökçeada along the obsolete name "Imros".

The same applies to Bozcaada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Tenedos".

I suppose it may be useful to point out that we don't use WP:Official names; we use the names recognizable to English-speaking readers, because they are in common use in English.
To do otherwise would be to open the whole question of the justice of the official actions of the Turkish Republic, which we do not choose to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience (1972) of post addressed to the Oecumenical Patriarchate according to strict Turkish orthography was non-delivery (this was confirmed as a recurring phenomenon by the English chaplain at the time). Recourse to the British postal authorities for recovery of the item was of no avail----Clive Sweeting

I can not see how the name Imbros is more recognizable to English speaking users more than Gökçeada. Imbros is not an English word, it is not a place with world wide recogition, besides the people who visited the island a few hundred years ago and still alive, if such people ever exists, or historians, who constitute somewhere around %0.0001 of the English speaking community throughout the world, noone possibly can know a place called "Imbros". The official name of the island is Gökçeada for longer than everyone who is alive can remember so whoever in the English speaking word ever visited the island, ever sent a letter to the island(obviously through Turkey) or ever contacted anyone on that island, Gökçeada is the only name he or she could have encountered, besides Wikipedia obviously, there might have been exceptions but excpetions are exceptions.

As such, to state that the name Imbros is more recognizable to English users, the owner of such claim needs to provide evidence. Has there been a poll where English speakers were asked which of the names they recognize? I doubt so. I suppose Wikipedia is a place that values solid arguements and not personal feelings or estimations of some editor.

So whoever has the access, please change the title to Gökçeada, as such, Tenedos to Bozcaada, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there anyone with the privilege to change the title? --Tmhm (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, Tmhm, this cannot be done. The islands are internationally known by their old original names Imbros and Tenedos. If they are under Turkish or Greek rule does not matters. Even in Greece, there are Greek islands that are internationally known and called by their Italian names rather than their Greek names (see for example the english article of the Island of Kerkyra: Corfu instead of Kerkyra). This is the International English Wiki, Tmhm, not the Turkish one. --85.75.135.132 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on Turkey

[edit]

really? what else can be said? pure barbarism. How could the world let that. I understand this is not a forum but it is the first time i discover all that.

No wonder greeks hate turks...who wouldn t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.60.126 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on Imbros only scratches the surface of what has happened. e.g. there are still 500,000 Turks in Greece, but there are only 3000 Greeks in Turkey... Doesn't take a genius to figure out why. But don't generalize that "Greeks hate Turks", because more often than not, they like them. Anyway, I agree with you that this is not the place for such discussions.130.15.114.45 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You guys obviously have extensive insight and knowledge in the issue. Next time you can try and be a little less typical Greek then you already are. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here's a comment from a non-Greek that went to the Island this summer.

I had been to Istambul twice before and had found Turkey a wonderful place. What I found in Imbros though is the hidden face of what this country has (also) been during the last 90 years. Turkey is surely a great place and a european country at least by some aspects. But it can also be quite brutal and unfaire with some of its people. And undoubtedly, the Turkish State hates the Greeks. Go to Imbros (which is amazing btw) and you'll see.

The most interesting thing is to listen to the arguments of the people there. Those who talk about it (if they don't feel you are interogating them) all give you similar answers as to why the overwhelming Greek majority left: first of all many will tell you that "the Greeks have not left! There are still plenty in the mountain vilages" or even "we've always got along well with the Greeks. Imbros was and is a Greek island". Some others (most) will give you one of the regular: "Greeks left for their country cause they wanted to"; "they are better there; here is hard, Greece is better". Oh and by the way guys (so that I also contribute to the discussion) in Imbros, when they see you are a stranger they will always refer to their island as Imbros.

I left the place with the strange feeling that the state had forced the people to swallow the official line and also that many share a common sense of guilt of at least knowledge that something went wrong and has to be hidden (hence the strange answers). Oh and last but not least. There are indeed very few Greeks left and they are all (I mean ALL) elderly people --94.66.23.199 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been twice to Istanbul but still do not know how to write correctly its name (?) I am not going to say "shame on you" nor will reply to your soap opera; only a small detail FYI: The Turkish people (those of my generation) may still refer to the island with the old Turkish name of "İmroz" but not "Imbros". (When I was in the primary school we learned about "İmroz ve Bozcaada" but as you may see in the article, the former island's name has changed since then.) No more comments on your words as this is not a forum... --E4024 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)--E4024 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I spelled the name of Istanbul wrong. its because on the keyboard n is next to m Sherlock Holmes, not cause I haven't been there. As for Imroz or Imbros that was not the point. But as you say, no more words. --94.66.23.199 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested 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 of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Imbros → Gokceada — Using the name Imbros for this island in English Wiki is absurd. If you search for Imbros on google you will not find information about this island but a gorfe in Crete. To find English pages about this island you have to type Gokceada. I understand that Wiki favors the name that's most commonly used in English so If you want your average Englishman to know about this island you need to use the name Gokceada. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Gökçeada leads in general search hits[6] and is the term used locally. The reliable source search produces a greater number of hits for Imbros, Turkey,[7] but they almost entirely relate to the Aegean dispute and the Treaty of Lausanne. I pulled out my copy of the Lonely Planet guide for Turkey (went in 2008) and Gökçeada is the name used, at least in the book, with no reference made to a naming debate. Google maps also list the island as as Gökçeada.[8]--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A move request for Tenedos (the other island named in the Treaty of Lausanne) → Bozcaada might be equally as appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very nearly equally appropriate, yes. 0=0.
    The ravish'd Helen, Menelaus' queen,
    With wanton Paris sleeps—and that's the quarrel.
    To Tenedos they come,
    And the deep-drawing barks do there disgorge
    Their war-like fraughtage. Troilus and Cressida Prologue.
The argument that a play that was written 4 centuries ago is a proof enough for an island to be named for the present time is rather absurd and can be labeled as a straw man argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Shakespeare is not English? Really now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really sure you guys gonna stick to this pathetic argument? Shakespeare used the name Tenedos so it must be Tenedos? I really can't take this argument seriously. But, of course Shakespeare is the sole authority on places names. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most search sites and online dictionaries uses Gokceada. On the other hand if the island is a subject of a book and the book talks about early 1900s then they use Imbros but when they talk about the recent history of the island under Turkey then they use the name Gokceada. It's pretty much same for Bozcaada too. The arguement for using Imbros was that that's how the English speaking people know the island but apparently it's not the case. If you use Imbros you won't be refering to an island but to a gorge in Crete. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. My searching also produced results that would indicate that the gorge on Crete may be the most common modern meaning of Imbros.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given international treaty reference (Lausanne 1924)----Clive Sweeting
  • Oppose Raw google searches and tourist guidebooks are worthless as sources. We must only look at reliable sources, because that is what wikipedia is based on. A search of Google Books shows 1620 hits for "Imbros" [9] and only 640 for "Gokceada" [10] (this is the English wikipedia, so no diacritics). Similarly, a search on Google Scholar shows 1540 results for "Imbros" [11], and only 405 [12] for Gokceada. Thus, established common usage among reliable English language sources is "Imbros". Raw google searches are unacceptable because they contain all manner of junk, such as commercial sites (hotels and such), as well as lots of non-English sites. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the books you mention are about pre-Turkey history and mostly written by Greeks or Armenians. When you search for the island as Imbros in the book and scholar search you will surely get more results for the Greek name as the island has a longer history under the name Imbros. However this does not indicate that Imbros is the common name used by Englishman. A random google search in this case is more valuable than a book or scholar search. Imbros is a gorge in Crete and Gokceada is an island in Western Turkey. The name Gokceada therefore is not just the common name used by the common people which Wiki is for, it also eliminates a possible misunderstanding. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL at "Most of the books you mention are about pre-Turkey history and mostly written by Greeks or Armenians.". No they are not mostly written by Greeks or Armenians. I don't know what "pre-Turkey history" means, but it sure doesn't sound like a valid argument to me. Imbros is the commonly used name among reliable sources. Athenean (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily check the authors names and realize that they're either Greek or Armenian. What I mean by "pre-Turkey" history is the history of the region before 1923. Some books are about Roman Empire and others about the history of the region when the name Imbros was used which is natural. But, if you actually check the same text use Gokceada when they refer to the islands recent history. The real point here important here as Wiki rules suggest is that it doesn't matter if the name was used in a treaty or a book the name that is most commonly refers to the place is to be used. The name "Imbros" may be for Greeks of the World but what it refers to is a gorge in Crete for the rest of the World. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real point is that wikipedia relies on reliable sources. It doesn't matter whether the authors are Greek, Armenian (which they aren't), or Pakistani, or whether they talk about the island during Roman times or yesterday. The only thing that matters is that among reliable sources, common usage is Imbros, the island's name for millennia, and not Gokceada, which was invented out of the blue in 1923. I have nothing else to say on the matter. Athenean (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. When the name is wanted to change to "Gokceada", you guys first say that "Gokceada" is not the commonly used name. Then we show you that the name used for the island is infact Gokceada for common Englishmen. Then you say that it has to be from reliable sources when in fact reliable sources too use Gokceada as well as Imbros in the context I've explained earlier. So I will explain to you point by point from Wikis own rules:
Let's first check the basic outline that a title should follow: [13] Recognizable, Easy to Find, Precise, Concise, Consistent: Imbros constitutes a conflict with the Imbros gorges in Crete as it is the commonly used name for this gorge. On the other hand there enough books, for you they're the only reliable sources only which is also wrong, that use Gokceada. Even those books that use the name Imbros also use the name Gokceada for the history of the island for the recent years. Now, another rule of Wiki kicks in. [14] When serched in Google, the results for Gokceada will be a lot more than Imbros. You can simply eliminate foreign languages by adding "island" to your search. The Google test suggested by the link provides enough reason for this article title to be changed. The other rule is here: [15] Inside the article it's completely ok to use the name Imbros for historical reasons. The name Imbros have some weight on grounds of Recognizable and Easy to Find but no weight on other issues while the use od the name Gokceada wins over almost all grounds if not ties with Imbros. Just because the name Imbros is used more on books does not make the use of the word Gokceada less recognizable, easy to find or common. The simple Google test that is suggested by Wiki also suggests that the name Gokceada is the right one to use to name the island. I would recommend people who participate in this proposal to see past their apparent dislike of Turks and please be consistent with Wiki rules and reality at hand.
Side Note: When you look at the first page of the book results you will see that almost half the authors have either Greek or Armenian sounding names and if you check the other books that they've involved with you'd see that they're about Greece. Sometimes almost exclusive to Greece. It's safe to say that these authors are either direct Greeks or Armenians or any similar ethnic group(I'm not really trying to label a group here) or descendants of these groups. Another thing to point out is that when doing the search for book results one should take into considerations that the word Imbros also includes the results for the gorge in Crete increasing it's search number for the island. In overall, the amount of reliable sources that use the word Gokceada is a lot closer to if not exceeding to that of Imbros. Please vote accordingly. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a place for names recognizable to Turks: the Turkish Wikipedia, which duly uses tr:Gökçeada, Çanakkale - and spells it correctly, as this move request does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're incapable of understanding arguments and presenting your own. This in not about the name being recognizable to Turks. I am not giving examples from Turkish documents or Turkish websites. I gave you examples from articles, general search sites and other frequently used search applications that are in Turkish. You can't even refute the arguments given to you and try to come up with different ones, each time they're getting weaker if I may add. The common name used in English speaking world is Gokceada. It's not Gökçeada as you can't write it using the English alphabet as the same goes for Imbros. Both names are anglicized. Simply the origins are different. One refers to the history of the island before creation of the Republic of Turkey which was roughly a century ago and the other one is the common name used for the island for present time. I have explained point by point above why it should be Gokceada. The Wiki rules even give me the right to move it based on a Google test but I chose to open it to discussion not to incite an edit war. I didn't just use a single rule to back up why it should be change but multiple ones. I even pointed out in which points the name Imbros have some weight not to be biased against it. Even though certain evidences suggest that the name Gokceada was in use till 16th century the island can be referred to as Imbros for pre-20th century. I and other people have no problem with that. It's same as referring to Istanbul as Constantinople, New York as New Amsterdam, or Izmir as Smyrna or Konya as Iconium and so on in historical context. This is not a discussion of how the Turks call the island though some did used that argument but a discussion of how the Englishman call it. I have never heard anyone call it Imbros even though I did indeed have talks involving the Aegean islands with many American friends and professors. Looking at online sources it seems to be the same. Yes, there are more books that use the name Imbros but even some use the name Gokceada while referring to the recent history of the island and it's characteristics. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nonsense. The first page of Books.google.com includes names like Cargill, Grote, and Schmitz - news to me that any of them are Armenian. Imbros is the standard English name for the island, and Gokceada is only recognizable to this anglophone because of these nationalist naming debates. If this spreads, I will ask the closing admin to consider admonishing the nominator; the conflict between mindless Hellenic nationalism and mindless Turkish nationalism is amusing enough, but it should not divert us from the central fact here, that "English is what we speak" - to quote another outdated and doubtless irrelevant source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia Britannica uses Gokceada[16], Google Maps[17], Merriam Webster[18] all use the current name. Where does it show that Imbros the is current most common usage. WP:PLACES would have us use the modern context, not the historical context. All of my First World War texts refer to the island as Imbros (no debate there), but that's when its ownership was debated. I also haven't found an English map that does not refer to it as Gokceada. Opposition to the move appears to be rooted in persons seeking to push a historical name on a place where it is no longer used. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources you have presented represent only a small fraction of the thousands of sources out there. One must look at the literature collectively to establish common usage, not cherry-pick three sources here and there. And if we look at the English literature as a whole, we are left with Imbros as the common usage. The argument about Greek and Armenian authors is malarkey. As for the gorge in Crete, that's what hatnotes and dablinks are for, it's not a reason to rename the article. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about three sources that are widely used. They maybe 3 sources but large amount of people use them if not the majority. You also do not need to accuse of cherry-picking while you're cherry-picking arguments that you think you can counter. The Greek and Armenian authors were just a side note and explained above yet you managed to somehow ignore the whole argument stick to that which again can be classified as a straw-men argument. English literature is not a deciding factor here. Some 17th century play by Shakespeare do not give an island it's name. The common usage is a lot more than just usage in literature which if that was the case the numbers are even not that different. When we look at the overall usage in English language "Gokceada" is the common name whereas "Imbros" is used in historic context. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on canvassing. User:TheDarkLordSeth has helpfully contacted those editors, and only those editors, who have expressed a preference for Gokceada in the past; from the first discussion, for example, he has (as of this writing) contacted Khoikhoi, but not Proteus, Josiah Rowe, Robert A. West or myself. I have reminded him of our general policy against canvassing, which may not be obvious; the one-sidedness is another matter. We are invited to assume good faith, not to believe it against the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not invited everyone. There are some others that supported the past move requests that I did not invited. From what I saw most of those who opposed the past requests have already participated in the recent one, including you. It would be simply stupid to invite you to a discussion that you're already part of. If I was canvassing then I would find random but more active Turkish members and make them simply vote "Support". I did not do that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to the marines, if your English dictionary will reach so far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if you believe me or not. You're obviously unable to discuss without your pride kicking in. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, because I don't, and I doubt the closing admin will. Do you really suppose that you are the first nationalist Wikilawyer we've seen? Ban the nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be between me and that admin. I would respect his/her decision on my action as I'm learning the rules of Wiki. It's not your place to reach such a verdict. If proposing a name change for practicality and accuracy is being a nationalist then I have no problem with being one. I see that there are already many blind nationalists here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are; they can be recognized by the unscrupulousness of their struggles for their National Truth: Proposing to replace a name that many anglophones recognize by one they do not - and spelling it wrong to boot - is neither practical nor accurate. Claiming to do in the name of recognizability is brazen-faced gall. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're unable to follow a decent civilized discussion. You're free to refute my points but without refuting them and keep repeating your version of truth should not be allowed in Wiki. I may need to report you if you're seriously unable to keep yourself from attempting to heat up the discussion and make personal remarks. You're free to refute the points made above rather than ignoring them and keep repeating the same thing over and over again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see. His precious points are
  • Imbros is used only by Greeks and Armenians. This is patently false.
  • That Gokceada is recognizable to anglophones, and Imbros is not. This is denied by several anglophones, on this very page. He must have read them to decide not to canvass them.
  • The Britannica uses Gokceada; no, it doesn't. It uses Gökçeada, correctly spelt, in its title, and Imbros in text. There might be a case fot the correct Turkish spelling, although a weak one (and some will object to non-English characters); there is none for barbarism. So also for Merriam Webster.
  • Google Maps uses the form found on street signs, whether it is English or not; shrinking the map a little will show that it uses Athina, Roma, and Firenze, not Athens, Rome, or Florence. Therefore it does not attest to English usage and is no evidence; WP:NCGN specifically warns against this sort of thing. This may also account for MW, as their pathetic entry on Athens, which confounds Latin and Attic Greek, suggests.
I cannot speak for every editor of this page; but I do not dislike Turks - I detest nationalists of every nation, including my own. Their only virtue is keeping each other in check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguements would support your case if only they were true.
  • I never suggested that the name "Imbros" is used only by Greeks or Armenians. I simply made a connection between the use of "Imbros" in books and a lot of those authors being Armenian or Greek.
  • Again, I did not say Imbros is not recognizable, though in many cases for me it was. Both name are used but Gokceada is used more commonly by English speaking people.
  • Britannica does use "Gokceada" When you search for Imbros it gives you a list of articles that the name Imbros is mentioned: [19] The main article for the island uses the title "Gokceada" [20]
  • Google maps claim was not my idea but the interesting is that you used the same argument of maps in a previous move request yourself. You just showed us that you're being logical or objective here but simply trying to push through your own agenda. Good job!
For future reference, please do not twist other people's arguments and try to be more professional. It's simply obvious that the name "Imbros" is not more common than "Gokceada" TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

cn tags

[edit]

I don't understand this [21]. The reference [22] clearly states on page 120 that ""During the 1960s and 1970s, a series of legal and administrative restrictions relating to minority educational and cultural rights, coupled with a program of expropriations forced the local Imbriot and Tenediot Greek Orthodox to abandon their islands....". This is state-sponsored persecution because a) it was a state policy, b) it was deliberately targeting the Greeks of Imbros so as to make them leave the island, therefore persecution. Second, the reference says unambiguously on page 120, sentence 3: "Indeed in the case of Imbros the population was entirely Greek". I honestly have no idea why the cn tags was added back. I agree that the article needs additional references, but that is a separate matter. Athenean (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed During the 1960s and 1970s, a series of legal and administrative restrictions relating to minority educational and cultural rights, coupled with a program of expropriations forced the Imbriots...." =state-sponsored persecution. In short this is only your claim and explanation by your POV. When you transfer imformation, please do it faithfully to sources. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My paraphrasing of the source is well within the bounds of WP:V and WP:PARAPHRASE and outside WP:OR. This was a state-sponsored (the islanders didn't do it to themselves, did they?) campaign to ethnically cleanse the island of its Greek community. Nothing new or surprising here, these policies are well-known. You are welcome to ask for a third opinion, but don't be surprised at the result. Athenean (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Unfortunately you couldn't understand. Alexis Alexandris didn't use the term persecution. We cannot use this term easily. For exampla, to explain the massacres committed by Greeek forces during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), the term Yunan mezalimi or Yunan zulmü (Greek persecution) is used in the nationalism-oriented historiography. But we try to avoid the usage of this term, because Wikipedia is neutral encyclopedia. And even if you want to use the term state-sponsored, Alexis Alexandris didn't claim this. Was state sponsor ? Or persecutor (if they accept our usage of this term) ? If state was a sponsor, whose sponsor ? This term is not appropreate in accordence with article of Alexis Alexandris. Moreover Alexis Alexandris is a Greek. I don't want to think he propagated it. However, we must also use other more nuetral sources to prove the fact. So this source is not enough to prove this desputable issue. Now can you understand your POV pushing edits ? Let's ask other users who have more neutral point of views (I've already asked Constantine). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to ask whoever you want. Athenean (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we can use this article:

Çağdaş Kaplan, Sadık Topaloğlu, "Yok edilmeye çalışılan tarih: İmroz ve Tenedos" (The history attempted to be eliminated: İmroz ve Tenedos)", (originally DİHA) Evrensel, May 3, 2011. (in Turkish)

Maybe someone would say that this is Kurdish propaganda, it's not completely neutral (because this article was printed by the Dicle News Agency and provided to Yeni Özgür Politika [23], Özgür Gündem [24]). But I think they provided only facts about the works of Murat Yarkın precisely in this article.

Takabeg (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This [25] is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS before proposing such sources. You suppose all those Greeks left of their own free will? Come on now. Athenean (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot find "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" in any sources. I think this term is the product of your chauvinism. Can you find any sources for "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ? Takabeg (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[26], and I could easily find many more. Now stop wikilawyering by requiring that everything be sourced verbatim, and knock it off with the insults while you're at it. Athenean (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a mountain of bibliography someone can easily find the specific part word by word "repressive and discriminatory policies undertaken by ..." [[27]]. So I would say better avoid trolling expressions and stick to the relevant works which is plenty.Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Imbros

[edit]

I don't think Gökçeada is common name of this island. But we must exclude historical usages of this name and other Imbros such as Imbros Gorge (or "Imbros Pass") in Crete, Imbros Gold Cup, Imbros (horse), Battle of Imbros (1717), Battle of Imbros (1918) etc., when we research with google books. Takabeg (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek region?

[edit]

It would of course be quite all right if anyone wanted to make a "List of Turkish regions through history", and it would make sense to include Greece in that list, provided it filled the criteria for inclusion. A list like that would obviously need inclusion criteria, just as the "List of Greek countries and regions" needs -- and has.

An alternative would be to argue that the "List of Greek countries and regions" should be deleted, but I can see no good reasons to do that. I do, however, think that the list might have a name reflecting the fact that it is a historical list, such as "List of Greek countries and regions through history", but that is another discussion.

As it stands now, the list exists, Tenedos/Bozcaada and Imbros/Gökçeada are on the list (and rightfully so, as they fulfil the inclusion criteria for the list), and it makes no sense to remove the intra-Wiki "See also"-reference. Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "you can have a ridiculous page too, so ours is ok" argument specious. The problem with the inclusion of Island A and Island B (I've adopted these names for the island to ease time. A=I/G B=T/B) is that they don't meet the criteria specified. Are they Empires? No. Are they Countries? No. Are they States? No. Are they Regions? No (they appear nowhere in the Autonomous area page, which is the definition the page links to). Are they a territory? Maybe, if we go to the end of the list of definitions on Territory (administrative division), but if you look at the example of Chatham Islands provided there, you find that they are actually administratively called a Territory (that's important). No reputable sources refer to them now or ever as Island A Region or Island B Territory. Island A and Island B are not administratively "Territories" and so it is problematic. So it fulfills none of the criteria at the top of the page. Maybe, the list is just "places that Greeks were the majority" (change the title in this case), in which case New Smyrna Beach, Florida should be added, along with a number of other random places in the world that Greeks lived, including a thousand cities and towns in Turkey (I also nominate my old neighborhood in the Bronx where everyone was Greek). It remains that Island A and Island B do not meet any of the inclusion criteria (a fact exemplified by the fact that they are the only places on the list that don't have flags in the modern section) for this list, they are just places (not empires, countries, states, regions, or territories) where Greeks were the majority and now they aren't. Their inclusion on this list is problematic at best, and biased at worst. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Objective" contributors who filled this article with "information" forgot to write the Ottoman era, which lasted about half a millenium. If I make any reference to editor nationality, people rightly get disturbed. However, this does not explain their editing an article only from certain angles. I thought WP was not being made by everybody writing their own story.. Sorry to be this honest and always tell the truth. --E4024 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info - courtesy notification of imminent removal

[edit]

I will remove the below part from the section Human Rights, as it is unsourced. Make this notification in case any editor wishes to add references from Reliable Sources to this part:

"The Greek émigrés from Turkey assert numerous violations of the religious, linguistic, and economic rights guaranteed as matters of international concern by the Treaty, including freedom of the Orthodox religion and the right to practice the professions. Leaders of the Greek community in Turkey "voluntarily waived" these rights in 1926; but the Treaty provides (Article 44) that these rights can only be modified by the consent of the majority of the Council of League of Nations. The émigrés assert that the signatures to the waivers were obtained by orders of the police, and that Avrilios Spatharis and Savvas Apostologlou, who refused to sign, were imprisoned. The Greek government appealed this action to the Council and was upheld, but Turkey has not complied." --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the original entry (back in 2007), and it turns out that it is sourced, but that later edits have disconnected the cite from the text. The source is the note that now is at the end of the "Human rights" section (number 17). And this is also given as source for all the entries that are marked with "citation needed" in the whole "Human rights" section. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island article or Turk bashing?

[edit]

Is this article about an island? Does the reader learn enough about this island by reading this article? Or is the article used as a means to judge Turkish history from a selective angle? (This is why I added a "tone" tag.) The island belonged to the Ottoman Empire for centuries but the relevant sector is simply "empty". I request comments and contributions, especially from uninvolved, impartial WP editors. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add information about the Ottoman period, but this is irrelevant with the 'tone' used in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • RFC comment: stop wasting everyone's time — close this RfC and go write content. RfC's are not for amusement and chatting, they are about ongoing disagreements. As long as you don't have one, don't use this tool. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Dmitrij said. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more orders?.. You must have too much time to write these where you have no intention to discuss; so you should better use some of that time to read the so-called article and think about it. --E4024 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above and as denoted in an article tag dated 2008, the section on the Ottoman Empire should be expanded. However, randomly chosen RFC commentators, such as myself, are unlikely to be able or willing to do that for you. It does not appear that you have attempted to expand this section yourself. Is there a reason why you initiated a RFC instead of writing content for this section?FiachraByrne (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this article is about an island which has its history and population. Some reader could learn more about this island if Ottoman era section would be written. I am randomly chosen RFC commentator.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article

[edit]

In the article it says it is an island of Turkey but the article's name is Imbros. That does not make sense. The article name must be Gökçeada. Do we use Turkish names of the Greek islands on their article names? Thanks.Aditdigo (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros → Gökçeada – Previous discussion ended with no consensus. "Imbros" is the island's previous name which is much less commonly used today. As User:Aditdigo said, why should we use a Greek name for a Turkish island when we don't do it vice versa? --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Liongrande (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Imbros" is overwhelmingly the commonly used English name for the island, as opposed to "Gökçeada", which is rarely used. A quick search of Google Books shows 100,000 hits for "Imbros" [28] and fewer than 3,000 for "Gökçeada" [29]. The argument "Why use a Greek name for a Turkish island?" is a non-starter, for the reasons outlined by AjaxSmack above, and also per wikipedia naming policy. Wikipedia naming policy is clear: An article's title is solely determined by common usage in English language reliable sources, NOT "perceived fairness" or "reciprocity" or any such woolly notions. Athenean (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This has been already settled in previous move requests.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Culture??

[edit]

Why are there two very weird contents on this page? The first one is in fully Greek, not English and so useless for all non-Greek speakers.

And the second claim is based on a source which is not even valid anymore. It is not accessable. That's why I think it should be removed too. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read our policy of WP:RELIABLESOURCES where there is no mention that foreign-language sources are not allowed. If you have something against foreign-language sources you are welcome to take this up at the talkpage of the policy and try to change the policy. But discussing this issue here is not going to change the practice of using foreign-language sources on this wiki. As far as your second comment, it doesn't matter if a source is no longer available on the Internet. You can always use the Internet Archive to fix the link. But you should never remove sources even if they don't function. Finally, the movie My Grandfather's People has its own article on Wikipedia, so there is no reason to remove it from this article. In addition, have you tried to find more sources for this film using Google instead of complaining about the Vimeo source? I assume you know how to Google. Dr. K. 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway yes I think the policy should change. Also it's obvious thos page is heavily edited by Greeks as there is only greek information mentioned and almost nothing about the Turks, the Ottoman era and the Selxuk era etc. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you removed this very helpful comment, left on your talkpage by an admin, explaining why policy allows the use of foreign-language reliable sources. If you think information is missing, you are welcome to expand the article, instead of removing sections in a wholesale fashion and for no good reason. Further, mentioning the ethnicity of other editors is contrary to our central policy of WP:AGF. Dr. K. 01:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see and understand. So it's forbidden to say this page is edited by Greeks? I mean the editors themselves mentioned on their page that they are Greeks, as long as insulting is not used, I don't saw the problem. But anyway. I just said that this page is heavily influenced by Greek information, as it's not fair for the Turks, but ofcourse I could expand it which I may do in the future. Kind regards. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the source is not available. They website says link not found. It's failed. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|checked=failed DavidThomson1997 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I assume you mean this link: https://vimeo.com/43207711. Let me help you fix this link. 1. Copy the link I gave you. 2. Go to: http://archive.org/web/ 3.Paste the vimeo link on the search field and click the button "Browse History. 4. Select a year and then click on the date highlighted by a light blue circle. 5. Copy that link and paste it in the article. 6. Let me know if you need any more help.
Second method: Alternatively you can Google the title of the movie and find an improved reference, better than the Vimeo link that is already in the article.
Third method: You can also click on My Grandfather's People and check the links which appear in the article on this wiki. Dr. K. 11:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean the other link which this person added on. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a person. It is actually a robot. It improved the structure of the link template. The link it modified actually works for me and opens the pdf. Dr. K. 16:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Island

[edit]

From earlier discussions, names of these two islands (Gökçeada and Bozcaada) are represented as their (distorted) greek romanizations (imvros-imbros) in English Wikipedia. However, the capital city of Kazakhstan, Astana renamed as Nur-Sultan in 2019, is moved to Nur-Sultan immediately. What is the difference? Please explain.

POV-pushing

[edit]

This edit is problematic [30] for the following reasons: First, the association of Luwian "Imrassa" with Imbros, while possible, is tentative and not suitable for the first line of the lede. There is nothing definitively linking Imbros with "Imrassa" - all this is speculation based on phonetic similarity in records found at other locations. Even if it were true, it is unsuitable for the first line of the lede, given Luwian has been extinct for literally millennia. Second, the Hittite cuneiform is nowhere to be found in the sources, it is entirely made up by the user who added it. Third, I find it problematic that it is repeated twice in the lede (no doubt intentionally for greater effect). Fifth, even if all this is true, it is a minor detail base don a single inscription found in the mainland and not lede material. Lastly, the use of the loaded word "colonists" to describe (and de-legitimize) the Greek inhabitants, despite the fact that the Greek community dates back 2,500 years. I moved the recent additions to the body text, since they do appear sourced, but they are clearly WP:UNDUE for the lede. The lede is meant to present a summary of the main points of the article, not one's favorite cherry-picked details. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PLACE archaic names can be used as long as they are clearly marked which I did. It does not mention that extinct languages cannot be used. Extinct languages are sometimes used in Wikipedia articles. For example, Old Persian is also an extinct language but in the Behistun Inscription article, the Old Persian name of the inscription (Bāgastana) is included in the parenthesis in the first sentence of the article.
Writing the indigenous name of a city or region is definitely suitable with WP:PLACE and WP:LEAD. For example, in the New Zealand article the indigenous name Aotearoa is written right after New Zealand in the first sentence. Also according to the MOS:LEADALT “significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned”.
Writing information about the indigenous peoples of an area in lede cannot be considered adding “one's favorite cherry-picked details” and is definitely not POV-pushing. It is also common in Wikipedia. For example, in the article about the US state Virginia, in the lede it is mentioned that several indigenous groups such as Powhatan lived there before. So, you cannot arbitrarily move the additions to the body text. This is against the rule of WP:NPOV.
“Second, the Hittite cuneiform is nowhere to be found in the sources, it is entirely made up by the user who added it.”
What are you talking about? Writing this shows that you did not even read my revision properly before arbitrarily editing it. I did not add any Hittite cuneiform to the article. The Luwian word Imrašša is not even written in Hittite cuneiform. It is written in Luwian hieroglyphs but the Luwian hieroglyphs are not supported in Wikipedia so even if I knew how the word is written I have no way to add it. Therefore, I only added the transliteration Imrašša. What you say is completely unrelated with the content.
There is no rule in Wikipedia against using the word “colonist”. The word colonist is used in many articles about the place names in Wikipedia. Mexico, Florida and Canada are just a few examples.
I added sources that show Anatolian presence in Imbros before the arrival of the Greek settlers. I am adding three more academic sources below that say that the indigenous culture and pottery found in Imbros strongly resembles the ones in the Western/Northwestern Anatolian Neolithic sites and the first settlers of the island are from Northwestern Anatolia, but there is no mention of any Greek or Minoan culture. Since Imbros is much closer to the Anatolian mainland than the Greek mainland, Anatolians being the natives makes more sense.
Since the first settlement in the island dates back to circa 6800 to 6600 BC[1], 2500 years are less than half of the humanity’s existence on the island. All of my revisions and claims are sourced. If you have a source that says the Greeks settled in Imbros before the Luwians or Anatolians therefore they are not colonists but the indigenous people then feel free to add it and we can revise the article accordingly.
Sources
[2]: “. Strong parallels to Uğurlu V pottery were found in Western Anatolian Neolithic sites as well as at the Marmara region sites and at Hoca Çeşme IV-III in Turkish Thrace (Bertram et Karul, 2005; Figure 1 and 3).”
[3]: “The archaeological evidence from Uğurlu indicates that around ca. 5000 cal BC the impact of the North-Western Anatolian Kumtepe IA-Beşik Sivritepe cultural horizon began to appear through the island of Gökçeada (Imbros).”
[4]: “The earliest Neolithic settlement of Uğurlu was probably founded by newcomers from Northwest Anatolia.” Cerulean Breeze (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in your sources about Luwians being the "indigenous" (another loaded) word. A few pot shards doesn't change that. There is a single inscription on Anatolian mainland that some scholars have identified with Imbros, but nothing definitive, and nothing more than that. Adding a name based on a tentative connection to the lede is WP:UNDUE. There is nothing to prove a Luwian presence on the island. Sure, the island has been inhabitant for a long time, but for the Luwian name to be even considered for the first line of the lede, you specifically need to show a Luwian presence (and even then it's debatable). Khirurg (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, WP:NCGN states: Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. I highly doubt even 1% of the Enlgish-language literature even mentions "Imrassa". It is just too obscure and tentative for the first line of the lede. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Erdoğu, Burçin (2016). "The Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros)". In Ghilardi, Matthieu (ed.). Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area During the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Oxbow Books. p. 368.
  2. ^ Erdoğu, Burçin (2016). "The Neolithic landscape and settlement of the Island of Gökçeada (Imbros, Turkey)". In Ghilardi, Matthieu (ed.). Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée Geoarchaeology of the Mediterranean Islands. CNRS Éditions via OpenEdition. p. 93.
  3. ^ Erdoğu, Burçin (2016). "The Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros)". In Ghilardi, Matthieu (ed.). Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area During the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Oxbow Books. p. 372.
  4. ^ Zangger, Eberhard; Woudhuizen, Fred (2014). "GÖKÇEADA UĞURLU ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT: A Preliminary Report from the 2011-2013 Field Seasons". Anatolica. 40: 164.

Island=/=town

[edit]

A different page is needed for the town. The article refers to Gökçeada as the seat of the district of Gökçeada, but this article is about the island, and the whole island administratively belongs to the district, then is the administrative seat of the island and district the island itself? Aintabli (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another editor had pointed out the existence of the town of Gökçeada on #"Gökçeada town", so I have moved on and created Gökçeada (town). Aintabli (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The boundaries of Gökçeada District are exactly same as those of the island. I believe the article for the district can be merged with this article. In the case of a merger, there is very little to add: the population as of 2022, list of villages and towns, the governor and mayor, and one or two templates. Aintabli (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imbros&oldid=1207461853"