From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Turkish name?[edit]

Foreign and historical placenames are explicitly encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names). Specifically:

"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."

Quite simple, really. Lukas (T.|@) 12:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that foreign language names are permitted doesnt mean that it is correct. I have never read a serious Encyclopedia that states other possible names besides the official name of the place at the start of an article. Besides that, it is stupid as well. A place can be called with a 1000 different names by 1000 different foreign countries. Of course someone can say that because of historical reasons one should add the names that a place was called by various civilizations that had an effect on that place. But again if you look carefully for a strange reason, that we all know, only in the islands of the Eastern Aegean is the Turkish name added and nobody has seen Turkish names in Athens or Corfu or Arachova or Thessaloniki etc etc etc. Last but not least, various parts of Europe Asia and Africa used to belong to the Ottoman Empire and I dont see Turkish names there not to mention other Empires before the Ottoman. Should we add how every single place is called in every single foreign language of every single civilization that used to belong that place to??? Of course not..pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14 March 2006, 22:09

(a) If you have a problem with the guideline, take it to the guideline's discussion page.
(b) Nobody wants to add all names of all places. But this is a pretty clear case where because of geographical and historical proximity the name is appropriate and interesting. For the same reasons that Greek editors have (rightfully) been insisting on "Monastiri" for Bitola and other instances. The purpose of that guideline is to spare us all the predictable stupid nationalist blather that you get in each and every such case, time and again. I'm really sick and tired of it. Lukas (T.|@) 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(a) I have a problem cause it is stupid and I will do that. (b) Of course nobody doesnt do it, thats why it doesnt happen. Only guys like you want to add Turkish names to Eastern Aegean Islands. It is not clear either from a geographical or historical proximity why the name is appropriate at the start of an article. I can tell you many examples for other countries that this doesnt occur. And if it occurs it occurs at the appropriate History section. You can add if you want Turkish, Vietmanese, Korean, Thai or whichever language you wish but at the HISTORY SECTION and not the START of an article. It is simply wrong and doesnt happen in any serious Encyclopedia. Why do you want to turn Wikipedia into a non-serious Encyclopedia? Not adding the Turkish name at the start of an article about a Greek island is as nationalistic as not adding the Monastiri name for Bitola. Not at all. We are practical and correct here not nationalists...personally I dont care if you name an island even yourself but its WRONG to put that name at the start of an article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14 March 2006, 22:44

Before you start shouting in your ever so rightful indignation, you might try actually looking into other encyclopedias. The first one I opened, just now, did exactly what the guideline proposes. But please do bring the issue to the central discussion page, people there will problably teach you what "consensus" means in Wikipedia. You might also want to learn to sign your contributions properly. Lukas (T.|@) 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, the guideline you're linking to is merely a proposed guideline. It has absolutely no force. I also think that the proposed guideline cited above is unsatisfactory, as it could indeed lead to an endless list of alternative names. Fortunately there's a much more satisfactory option, which is to link to Wiktionary - e.g. Wiktionary:Kos. -- ChrisO 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary and an encyclopedia are very different things. A dictionary is strictly about language and legitimately and usefully tells us, for example, the Japanese, Urdu, and Hausa names for Iraklion (Crete) and for hamburgers because these words or expressions exist in those languages (thank you, McDonald's), even though they have nothing special to do with those cultures. In the WP framework, this information can also be found in the interwiki links.

An encyclopedia, on the other hand, is about (among other things) cultural history, which is often closely tied to language. In an English-language encyclopedia, there is no interest in the Japanese name for Iraklion, because it has no special cultural relevance. On the other hand, Iraklion has had several names over the centuries, all closely tied to its history, literature, and culture and its inhabitants, conquerers, and rulers in interesting ways. The various Greek, Arabic, Ottoman Turkish, and Venetian names for Iraklion are important parts of its cultural history., and are also found in English-language sources for various stages of its history. It is an anachronism, for example, to say that El Greco was from Iraklion: he was from (Venetian) Candia. Without endorsing any political position such as nativism or irredentism, we can also say in an NPOV way that Istanbul and Constantinople are two names for the same place, with very different historical and political implications.

Therefore, it seems to me highly appropriate that articles on places which are closely linked culturally, politically, or historically to more than one language community should include all the relevant names. Thessaloniki (for example) was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, had a majority Ladino-speaking community for centuries, had a minority South Slavic-speaking community (and more in the hinterland), and of course is today a completely Greek city, so should rightly have its Greek, Ottoman Turkish, South Slavic, Ladino, etc. names included in the article (as it does, unless someone has recently changed it). --Macrakis 15:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the vaunted 'guideline' says "If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it." In fact, it rather deliberately states that it not be named what it "should be" which seems to be the point of the Turkish language inserts. BTW, I have the same trouble in reverse with former Greek places in Turkey. I'm not just being pro-Greek! Anyway, my change just got reverted. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That is what is says for the title. If you look at the next section, it says "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses" and then describes the reasons: historical, minorities, etc. I don't see any evidence that anyone is proposing that the name "should be" Istankoy today. There are lots of historical names on Wikipedia, and in fact Greek ones in Asia Minor and Greater Syria are very common. --Macrakis (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it in the history section. Thus having it in two places make it somewhat redundant and to some extent prevents those IP users from vandalizing the page for no reason. El Greco(talk) 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the Italian and Turkish names doing in the middle of the Roman Period section? And with peculiar syntax. Anyway, got to run. --Macrakis (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A belated addition: The article says 'Kos has also been called İstanköy by the Ottomans'. I visited the island several times and spoke in Turkish with the Turkish minority there, the last time some 5 or 6 years ago (not exactly Ottoman era :-), who called their island 'İstanköy' just like the Turks of Turkey. My questions: Why is the Turkish name not in the intro when much older -and not used since centuries by anybody- Greek names of places in Turkey are at the intro of Turkish articles? Secondly, why is there no mention of this Turkish minority in the article? Can someone who is a regular contributor to this take care of this important issue please? Thirdly, I read somewhere in the Turkish media recently that these Turks were 'inhibited' (by some circles) not to speak Turkish any more. Is there a reliable source available to also add that fact to the article; I mean if its true? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Since there is a "Name" section, the alternate names go there, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If İstanköy is also the Turkish name, feel free to add this information in the name section. About the "inhibition", if you have reliable sources you can add the information too. I was in Rhodes some years ago and we could speak Turkish with the inhabitants without any problem, but maybe now things have changed. A last remark: the problem with these Greek/Turkish names is that they are often vandalized by Turkish or Greek "patriots". Alex2006 (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Patriots? Are there Patriots on the island? But how? They should be demilitarised per international treaties... Forget that one, I still did not receive an answer to my question about the Turkish presence there. It looks like there are more Turks only on this tiny island than all the Greeks in Turkey and the Council of Europe is worried about their situation. We have many articles on those few Greeks in Turkey but we dont even mention the presence of the Turks on this island, let alone the difficulties they are facing. Then we claim that Ottomans called it this or the other way without referring to the many actual references to the islands Turkish name: İstanköy. How do we expect to be relied on in these issues if we ignore the Turks and hail the Greeks? I mean what about our neutrality policy? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Alex2006, I took this link, Gulf of Gökova, from this very article. It is about a place in Turkey. Although the article has a name section, the Greek name of the place is written in the lead. Are you sure we treat Turks and Greeks equally in Wikipedia? Are you going to apply the rule you referred to above also to the articles about Turkey? Please respond in deeds. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No, User:Why should I have a User Name?, you did not understand: "patriots" are the wikipedians of both countries that spend (waste?) their time vandalizing the work of the others. Anyway, I advice you to focus on the issues, and not on the people: if you think that on Kos article there is a problem, be bold and correct it (of course following the guidelines). So you will be automatically on the right side. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Oops, sorry, I did not see that you already did it. :-) Anyway, remember to add always reliable sources to your edits, since each unsourced statement can be erased. Alex2006 (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"İstanköy" and the "Stanko" and "Lango" names on the Dapper 1702 map are obviously related. And a similarity is suggested with the example of Istanbul / Stamboul. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Macrakis for adding this, with a reference, to the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Geography issue[edit]

I would aprreciate if the external reference to is not deleted again considering that a substantial amount of info has been taken from that site. (word for word)

What info, specifically? —Khoikhoi 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The specific information is:

The island is part of a chain of mountains from which it became separated after earthquakes and subsidence that occurred in ancient times. These mountains include Kalymnos and Kappari which are separated by an underwater chasm 40 fathoms deep, as well as the volcano of Nisyros and the surrounding islands.

There is a wide variety of rocks in Kos which is related to its geographical formation. Prominent among these are the Quaternary layers in which the fossil remains of mammals such as horses, hippopotami and elephants have been found. The fossil molar of an elephant of gigantic proportions was presented to the Paleontology Museum of the University of Athens.

The shores of Kos Island are washed by the waters of the Karpathian Sea. Its geographical location is between latitude 36 degrees and 50 minutes north and longitude 27 degrees and 10 minutes east. Its coastline is 112 km long and is caressed by long immaculate beaches of golden sand

The main religion practiced is Orthodoxy and as such, Kos has one of the four Cathedrals in the entire Dodecanese. There is also a Roman Catholic Church on the island as well as a Mosque catering to the Muslim community of Kos. The Synagogue is no longer used for religious ceremonies as the Jewish community of Kos was practically wiped out by the Nazis in World War Two. It has however been restored and is maintained with all religious symbols intact and is now used by the Municipality of Kos for various events, mainly cultural.

The above info is taken from here I do not mind at all that this is the case but if you take a look at, it is not merely another commercial site. There is a wealth of information on history, mythology, Hippocrates of Kos, the surrounding islands, a virtual tour which includes details on the capital, the villages, photographs, port excavations, central, eastern and western excavations, Medieval monuments and the castle, the Asklepieion and the Hippocratic foundation as well as other useful information. In fact the entire site is dedicated to the island of Kos by two people from Kos. To help cover hosting costs there are google ads. I agree with you completely that wikipedia is not a place to simply add your link and to promote commercial sites, but I sincerely do not think that this is the case here. -- AmethyStos 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, how does this look now? You know, if you had just said that in the first place, this page would never have to have been protected! Oh well (let me know what you think of the article now). —Khoikhoi 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You! That is perfect. -- AmethyStos 11:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove spam links[edit]

This page is currently protected, but there are a few spam links... could some one remove them?

These links are :, and

Thanks, Fmanos

Done. Khoikhoi 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Kos is a favorite destination for Iranians. Iranians usually travel to Kos by way of Bodrum, and most travel agents sell Bodrum+Kos packaged deals where visitors spend a few days in Kos and a few days in Bodrum. This practice is commonly known as "Kosbazi".

What are the other tourist countries which frequent Kos?--TGC55 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This must not be done by observation but by statistical polling or sampling by a reputable scholarly organization that is reliable. And there needs to be a footnote from that source. Someone who has run into a bunch of "Scots and Welsh" is not going to be of much help here! Student7 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Municipality of Kos (Δήμος Κω)[edit]

The island of Kos is comprised of three municipalities: Kos, Dikaio, and Irakleides. We do not have an article for Kos municipality, the biggest of the three. Backspace 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to start one! We look forward to reading it! Student7 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of photo[edit]

An editor has persistently deleted, no edit summary, then replaced, no edit summary, Western archeological site Kos town.jpg. I am putting it here for the record.Student7 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review[edit]

  • 19:03, 7 July 2008 Khoikhoi protected Kos ‎ (Mywayyy editing [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As the article is still semiprotected 15 months later, I'd like to review this to see if the article could be unprotected now. I've contacted the protecting admin, Khoikhoi but I would also like to hear from regular editors. --TS 10:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As before, would rather keep semi-protection. Hard for newbies, often school children to contribute anything really valuable at this point. As a result unregistered "contributions" are mostly vandalism, all from the same group of school children ages about 11-14, who are seeing this in their history books for the first time and think it would be terrifically amusing (to say nothing of original) to vandalize it! Student7 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Silk production in ancient days[edit]

I've been able to trace silk production back to 6th century BC through 2nd century AD. Can't seem to get any further. And as with any ancient fact, hard to get concrete idea of importance to trade. I'm guessing middling rather than "heavy." But I don't know what else they had for trade. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible unfree image[edit]

Please could someone add {{pufc| Aerial_kos.jpg |date=14 April 2012}} to the caption of the image in the infobox. I've raised a discussion about this image but I can't add the notice to the image caption as the page is locked to IP editors. Thanks (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial kos.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Aerial kos.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 19 April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Aerial kos.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Isle of Lango[edit]

Some references to the Isle of Lango, cited in Sir John Manville's Travels, suggest that Lango is Kos. See for example If this is the case then the wikipedia disambiguation of Lango should include a reference to Kos, and the Kos entry, here, may want to include Manville in its references, e.g.,, especially the wonderful story Manville recounts about the dragon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-WP:TOPIC material rm, then reverted[edit]

The material "Some sources state their number together with the Turkish population of Rhodes as 5,(cite) or 7 thousand.(cite)" was removed since it does not seem to indicate statistics germane to Kos. Like saying that the population of the Bronx and Kos is 4,000,000. More perplexing than germane. This is why the policy WP:TOPIC was established: to eliminate non-germane material. All articles require perpetual maintenance. Eliminating material that is not germane not only reduces maintenance, it reduces confusion on the part of readers who come to this article, not because they are interested in Rhodes, but because they are interested in Kos. If there is an article that incorporates both islands, this material could certainly be considered. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

They are a minority on those two islands and the sources (mainly Turkish) keep their population number as a whole. If you delete those sources -as you did once- it may seem like you have a nationalist POV in trying to hide from alien eyes the existence of this Turkish minority in Greece, just as -I believe- the Greek State and society does too, which is a fact that I would never add the article without reliable sources. If you try to occult those sources again, I will lose my belief in your objectivity in this issue. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree. It would be WP:OR to make any arbitrary assumptions about the population of Kos based on conflated numbers. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I don`t understand the need to add an info about the total Turkish population of Rhodes and Kos. If the sources provided to reference the 2,000 inhabitants of Kos are reliable, this is all what we need. Of course, if we had only sources giving the Turkish population of the two islands as a whole, the matter would be different, but this is not the case. Alex2006 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
When are you going to add the 5.000 strong Turkish community to the Rhodes island? Perhaps what you dont understand is something different. Begin counting how many articles we have in WP about the much less Greek community in all Turkey. You know, a 2.000 people community is very important on a tiny island, but we somehow chose to ignore them, just as we do with the Turks of Rhodes. (Ow its a red link!) I see here that there are so many editors (some are sure Greeks and dominate the Greek language) here that write articles about so many different aspects of Greece. I wonder if there is any Greek editor volunteering to write that red link, or say, something about the Turks of Kos. For example, how many mosques they have and in which state, what happened to their schools etc. If I knew Greek I would try to find local sources and write those things. What you dont understand is too superficial, perhaps; what I dont understand -and cannot accept- is a bit deeper... Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears that a consensus has been reached with regard to conflated statistics. Student7 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached -much before you were born- that trying to make disappear a minority from (the article of) the place they belong is perverted nationalism. It has caused a lot of pain in history. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment - there was not RfC, so it is probably not correct to use consensus as a reason to remove the content. However, I agree with the removal. The article is not about Rhodes, so population statistics concerning Rhodes should not have been introduced. The lack of a source for the current ethnic-Turkish population of Kos alone is not a reason to have of-topic or misleading data in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article treats the topic of the Turkish population correctly. There is historical information, there is current information, and there is a link to an article on the Turks of the Dodecanese. I don't see why the Turks of Rhodes need to be mentioned here, as they are well covered where they should be, namely the Turks of the Dodecanese and the Rhodes articles. --Macrakis (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Bishopric of Kos[edit]

The paragraph beginning "The bishopric of Kos" should, IMO, be moved into its own article. Maybe placed under notables, or summarized tersely here? It seems to have little to do with Kos itself. Just the church outside of Kos. This seems to distract from the place in favor of Church history. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations on notable people[edit]

Someone has demanded citations for all notable people listed here [1]. This is not normal. Notables in a simple list are referenced by their own articles. They only need citations if there are no main articles. I've removed the cite demands once. I will not do this again. Nor am I watching this article. Kleinzach 06:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. There is no need for citations on existing articles which are already cited within their domain. I hope this edit-warring does not continue because the options in such a case are not desirable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Alex2006 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Peeople's notability can be easily detected by a blue link. Their tie to Kos (or any other place) cannot be verified by watching editors easily. This is one reason why all articles in Wikipedia are stand-alone. That is, a fact in one article cannot be used to verify a fact in another article. More importantly here, watching editors do not each have to exit the article, search the other article for a fact that often does not have a citation in that bio article - their relationship with a place. This is covered under Wikipedia:Verifiability and more importantly, it makes sense. How else can an editor verify President Obama had a "summer home" in Dubuque in 1984? Nothing in his bio. No reason to think that the editor is not telling the truth, but nothing to sustain it either. The point is that WP:BURDEN is on the entering editor to show that this is true. Student7 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Student7:, Student7, you are a reasonable editor and I know you. I was not expecting this tagbombing on the article, that's why I stated in my earlier post that I didn't know what happened. Pe[e]ople's notability can be easily detected by a blue link. Their tie to Kos (or any other place) cannot be verified by watching editors easily. This presupposes that there are no active editors who watch the article. But this is not true. Editors like me, Alex, etc. watch this article and verify these facts. We don't have to import references for individual people associated with Kos to this article. It makes for cleaner lists in articles and avoids unnecessary source duplication. Two of the articles, as Macrakis mentioned in his edit-summary, have Kos in their names, so that's an obvious historical connection. The others have their wikilinks which enable the doubting reader to verify the fact. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not mean that we have to over-verify. It just means that we can verify at some stage in situ, on Wikipedia. That stage is going back to that person'a article where we can enjoy the verifying sources in their native surroundings and thus satisfy WP:V locally not in every instance where Hippocrates, for example, is mentioned as a Koan. This method constitutes a simple and elegant solution to WP:V. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Nor did I revert when I saw who was commenting!
I think WP:STANDALONE pertains here. Yes, it may be that you and some other editor currently have Kos thoroughly covered so I don't personally have to worry about it. But you and the other editor might go on to other endeavors/articles "someday." And what about the 1 million other places with "Notables." I cover some where I am the only monitoring editor with any experience.
In my area there lives a once famous sports figure who grew up here, and moved back after his career. About once a quarter, some well-meaning newbie tries to "claim" him for his hometown (in the area). I've got a cite on it (!) which cannot be denied. End of argument. Without that cite on it and about 1200 or so other place articles I monitor, there is chaos. (There are other articles where I have "plenty" of company and the person is reverted long before I get there. I deliberately lag my watchlist a week so I am not involved much in arguments!)
Note that you should be able to read any article I watch and find the same credibility with "notables" even though you may not know them and/or the place. "Well-known figure X lived in Y? Give me a break? Nope, there's the WP:RS."
These notability sections are hard to maintain. Please don't relax standards to allow anything other than total credibility. Thanks. 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't relax standards to allow anything other than total credibility. Thanks. You need not thank me while at the same time accusing me that "I relax standards", if for nothing else than to avoid backhanded requests. No, I am not relaxing any standards. Definitely not I, neither all the other editors who agree with me. Implying that I relax standards is unfair given my record of adding thousands of reliable sources both to tens of articles I created and to other articles on Wikipedia and my long campaign of upholding verifiability across the project. Just look at the thousands of my reversions of edits as "unsourced". My record of upholding WP:V is clear and strict. So you don't have to worry about any standard relaxation on my part. Although I understand that long lists with disputed entries may have to be treated differently, this is not the case here. It's a tiny list, with two ancient entries which have "Kos" in their names, i.e. no brainers, and the other which are all supported by RS in their articles. As I said before, verifiability which exists in the native articles, should not be overdone by exporting it to a myriad of other articles. Instead, it should be applied on a case by case basis, as needed. Longer articles with disputed entries may need a different approach. But we don't have to apply WP:V rigidly, pedantically and redundantly in small articles with tiny lists such as this one. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried this out on a WP:MOS page. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_list_entries. Following the commenters suggestion, I can supply footnotes for the list myself. Student7 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It is likely that I have cleaned up more Notable People lists than most other editors (argument from experience, not authority). The first issue to address, which proceeds the citation debate, is that there is no prose explaining why these people are even listed here (i.e., their relationship with Kos). So we are adding citations where no claim has been made and asking the reader to link over and find not just the citation, but also the specific claim of relationship. The title doesn't explain their relationship, and for good reason. Student7 and I were both involved in the consensus discussions years back that led to that specific title becoming the standard. The reason for settling on the more general title was because there are lots of reasons Notable People might be listed as from a given place. The individual list entry should be where the specific claim of connection should be made, in prose form. Were they born there? Did they just live there? Did they only serve in the military there...etc. Perhaps if the prose for the claim were added to each list entry, then the uncleanliness you perceive might fade into the background of the prose. Another resource we built back than specifically addresses Notable people sections, found at the Notable people section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. So I find the argument for a clean look to be a bit premature as the list itself false short of preferred standards. Cities which have reached Featured status have inline citations and detailed prose describing, the relationship, reason for notability, and time periods. A very detailed 'people from list' is the List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois where you can see the depth one can add to make this information useful to the reader at the source instead of asking them to link through for each entry. While I would never recommend something this detailed for a short list of names like Kos, I think we can add some detail to boast up the presentation. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Guzelce Pasha[edit]

Dear Athenean, it does not matter if he's born in Kos or not, his father is from there. In Wikipedia we add notable people, if the person born in Kos or not. The important part is, if one of his ancestors are from there, we add them on "notable people". Beshogur (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to the wikipedia guideline that says " if one of his ancestors are from there, we add them on "notable people"? If your father was born in Armenia, does that mean you are Armenian? Athenean (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"If your father was born in Armenia, does that mean you are Armenian?" Yes. You can see by other cities on Wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So then by your logic, since Ataturk's father was born in Thessaloniki, that means Atuturk is Greek? This is ridiculous. Someone can only be added to the list of Notable People if they were born or grew up there. Otherwise the same person will appear all over wikipedia. If we add someone where their father was born, why not add them where their mother was born. What about the grandfathers? The grandmothers? Then the same person would appear in the list of notable people of potentially 7 wikipedia articles. Ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this surreal discussion. If this nonsense continues someone has to be reported for disruption. Dr. K. 06:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Şükrü Kaya[edit]

Well, there's currently an edit war ongoing, about if the fact that Şükrü Kaya was one of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide is irrelevant or not.

My point about this is more than clear: No, it is definitely relevant.

This is like claiming that it's irrelevant to mention that Josef Mengele was member of the SS and stationed in Auschwitz concentration camp.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Beshogur#December 2016 Beshogur (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the most notable thing about Sukru Kaya? That he was minister of this and that for a few years, or that he was one of the main perpatrators of the Armenian Genocide. I think the answer is obvious.Athenean (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed it, based on the arguments to include above, and those by Etienne and Ermanarich on Beshogur's talk. . Dr. K. 21:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kos. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)