From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

A watermill on Bozcaada?[edit]

The article now says Köprülü built a watermill here. While we know that there are no permanent running streams on the island. As for the irregular streams are too irregular and small to build a structure, they mostly run on small channels at south-west after rains for a short time. So, howcome? Filanca (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Let's see. It's cited to "Caroline Finkel (2005). The History of the Ottoman Empire: Osman's Dream. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02397-4." Let's track that down.


It says “The most varied of his foundations was that on the island of Bozcaada, recaptured from the Venetians early in his grand vezirate. Here he built two mosques, a school, a caravansaray, a bath-house, a coffee-house, a stable, nine mills, a water-mill, a bakery and 84 shops.”
Why would he have built a watermill on a streamless island? And what the heck is a caravansary? Oh I see. But still, why would a roadside inn designed for camel caravans have been built on Bozcaada? It sounds like he was just going crazy building whatever he knew how to build just to build things. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To make "patria"? --E4024 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the word that E4024 wants here? What would he have established by constructing things, a vocabulary word somewhere at "jurisdiction" or "claim" or "ownership" by the government? Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I don't think Köprülü would be as foolish a person to build random useless buildings, considering his brilliant career as a politician and strategist. You can think of a caravanserai as an Ottoman hotel. They did not only serve camel or horse mounted travellers, but also seafaring ones. Since Bozcaada is so strategically located on an island, right at the exit of the Dardanelles, I am not surprized to hear that it needed a caravanserai. Watermill, however, needs an explanation. The source could not have confused windmills (which were abundant on the island) with watermills, since it says "nine mills, a water-mill". Could it be that it was counting the properties of the foundation of the island, which do not have to be located exactly ON it. Mainland is very close with regular streams for a watermill. An even more likely explanation is that this was not a watermill but a windmill built to lift water from a well on the island. Then this may be somehow transformed to a "watermill" during a translation. Filanca (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply and sorry I never said so earlier. You say it might be a mistranslation in the source. If it is, we might want to change it just to "mill" or find some other solution. Otherwise, sharp-eyed readers like Filanca will notice the apparent contradiction and it will disturb the reader's experience. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ashley reliable source?[edit]

Current article includes four reverences to: Ashley, J.R. (1998). The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1918-0. I've come to the talk page to see if there is any objection to removing the Ashley references, doing a good-faith attempt to check the claims, and if no confirmation is found, removing them. This does not appear to be a reliable source for a few reasons:

  1. The major source for his claims about Tenedos is Curtius whose history of Alexander was analyzed by W.W. Tarn as "a mass of problems", "extraordinary carelessness", and (most damning for its use in this article) "the amateurishness is obvious; he often cares nothing whether or not he gets events in the right order, whether his geography is confused, whether he gives the wrong names...he is going to create a certain impression and he creates it." pg. 91-92 of Alexander the Great vol. II. Ashley's source is then not widely considered reliable.
  2. Ashley's work itself is judged similarly on its amateurishness. The only academic review mentioning the book (which itself should cause pause) that I could find was quite explicit, Professor Waldemar Heckler writes: "nor should students be encouraged to consult the error-ridden and amateurish Macedonian Empire by James R. Ashley"
  3. Neither Curtius nor Ashley are used in the Alexander the Great wiki-page. Curtius is referred to, but only when he is used in secondary reliable sources. Compare that with Arrian or Plutarch who are both used. Normally this doesn't matter, but with the problems above it should cause great hesitance in use.

Ashley then does not seem to be a reliable source for the claims being made (and some of the claims should probably be removed unless they are repeated in other sources that may care about getting geography right). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

With all this explanation does not seem very reliable indeed... --E4024 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The criteria for what is considered a reliable source are listed at WP:RSN. None of the three points raised above have any bearing on those criteria. WW Tarn is himself highly unreliable, and online reviews should be treated with caution. Whether or not a source is used in other WP articles has no bearing on whether it should be considered reliable. My recommendation is that you seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN. Athenean (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
For point 1, actually the preface to the book says "secondary sources form the basis of [his] book" and the author explicitly calls Curtius, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin filled with "exaggerations, inconsistencies and omissions." Plutarch is a primary source to be treated with caution, irrespective of what other WP articles include. I am not able to find much on James R. Ashley (and it doesn't seem like Heckel is particularly notable, but that nobody notable has commented on the book could be a minus); I see other books citing him, those books seem credible, but I don't know what they are citing; you might want to check Wikiproject History or Military History; they are likely more active, and I think this evaluation needs subject expertise. Churn and change (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Responding to all, I'll take this to wherever you all think will decide this appropriately. To correct some problems: 1. I did not use an online review, I used an academic journal review that mentions Ashley's book as amateurish. 2. Heckel is reputable. He's written or translated 10 books on Alexander the Great (through Cambridge and Oxford university presses by the way), including that he wrote the introduction to the main English translation of Curtius. 3. I have Ashley's book in front of me (the 2004 volume), it is great that he says stuff in the Preface about sources used, but if you actually go to the endnotes for his claims about Tenedos they are all to Curtius. Other claims in the book link to other sources, as WP:RS makes clear, it is the context of the claims that matter. 4. Tarn's opinion of Curtius' accuracy is generally held, I just liked Tarn's phrasing: "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (Michael van Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable"), Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History (some phrases: "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead"). 5. Sorry if it wasn't clear how I think Ashley isn't a reputable source. To be clear, Ashley (and his source Curtius for points about Tenedos) appear to have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts" (quote from Questionable Sources on WP:RS). Regardless of all this, I'll take these as objections and of course take it elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Heckel is actually disagreeing with James Romm who seems to have encouraged students to consult Ashley's book. So we have two academics disagreeing on the book here. You are focusing just on Heckel's comments; not on Romm's (actually he is the editor, so the author may be some other academic) which encourages the use of Ashley. I agree Curtius is in general unreliable; I don't see how it is possible to determine whether Ashley used Curtius as is, or did some filtering the way academics normally do, without subject expertise. Hence the need to take this to Wikiproject History or Military History which are active ones with historians contributing. Churn and change (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take it to military history or RSN, no problem. Just one note though, Ashley is not an academic and his book is generally poor on knowledge of the field that would lead us to think he could synthesize it well. As the review of the book in the Classical review makes clear: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2). Just so we understand the question here is that one historian included the work of a popular history text written by a non-historian in a list of additional resources, Heckel says "whoa, this shouldn't even be included in this list" (a harsh criticism). So our question is: Are Ashley's references to Tenedos reputable? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, in that case, I agree this should be taken out. Seemed like academic sources did cite him, but that likely isn't enough, especially considering we have plenty of far more reliable sources in our citations. Churn and change (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Tarn is himself a highly dubious source. But all these conflicts between the (much later) discussions of Alexander, both under the Romans and in the early twentieth century, have to do with Alexander's own actions and intentions, not with details like this. 22:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why the wrong name?[edit]

I tried to follow the archived discussions and the above gymnastics of logic and language, but my simple mind can not grasp why an island named, officially named, Bozcaada is not the name of the article about the said island. If one were to send a postcard to Tenedos today, it would not reach anywhere. Why is this so complicated? Why can not the old and historic names be covered in the body of the article as it is done with all other similar articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. To answer your question directly:
  1. Because the WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't say "Check the appropriate maps. If they all agree, use that." Instead, it leaves it open to other measures of WP:COMMONNAME, such as Google Books searches and such, and as the island was more often discussed in books by its former name than by its modern one, they say they have good reason to keep it by its former name. So fix that and you'll fix this and any others that there might be. It's the simplest and best answer.
  2. Because previously, when administrators and such replied to the move request, instead of seeing "consensus", they saw and endless argument, and said "I see no consensus", And that meant in effect "there is consensus not to move". It's complicated, I'm sorry I haven't explained it well just now. It's a more complicated and difficult solution, but if it could be fixed it would have wide-ranging benefit to Wikipedia. I think this may have been fixed since the last time in some guidelines to some extent.
  3. Because there are a group of proud Greek patriots and classists and such who love the history of Tenedos and can't accept the fact that the name has changed. To me, I wouldn't be surprised if they still call it Constantinople, that's the impression of them I get of many of them. There is nothing that can be done about that, it should be a given and provided for. We have to have a system that gets around such people. I bet there are Turks that refuse to accept that the names of other places have changed from Turkish to something else by now. It's not about being Greek, it's a thing you'll find all around the world. See WP:SEVEN.
  4. Because as long as someone refuses to back down, the admins feel, that means there is no consensus, in their eyes. They are asked to stay "uninvolved", which they understand to mean "don't ask questions and try to get to the bottom of things. Stay neutral means not deciding someone is right and the other wrong." or some such. It seems they are trained to look for compromise, not right and wrong. That's my impression. To fix this would involve detailing what "uninvolved" is supposed to mean, because in order to understand something, it's necessary to get involved. The term should be maybe change to "disinterested" so they don't think it means they can close without proper investigation so they understand which facts are undisputed and what the arguments actually are and aren't, on both sides, and whether they jive with, not only our guidelines and such, but also the basic rules of logic and good rhetoric which ironically are both Greek words.
Until these things have changed, I don't see the point in opening another move request. If you want to open one, I'll try to help, but I think you will find out what I'm saying is true. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have faith that a wider review would actually see through the nonsense that has happened here. Most rational people would be scratching their heads at the objections to moving the page to its usual, modern name and would call them out for the Greek nationalism and classical nostalgia that they represent. N-HH talk/edits 09:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Island Tenedos is well known mainly because it is mentioned in Iliad . OK but the island now is a modern settlement where people live. It is an administrative unit (ilçe or district) and it is named Bozcaada There is absolutely no district (and no mention of any district in any language ) named Tenedos. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are right. What should we do about it? Chrisrus (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if it really is the ideal solution. But under these circumstances (three renaming discussions with even pros and cons ) I think this article (Tenedos) can be dedicated to the history of the island and most of the stuff about the modern Bozcaada can be migrated to the article about modern Bozcaada. (The trouble is that the credits and the history of those edits about modern Bozacaada will be lost) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You could split the article if it naturally seems to want to give birth to a daughter article. You shouldn't make a "point of view fork": split articles just as a compromise to stop people arguing or for there to be two articles expressing two points of view of the same thing, such as for example Greek and Turkish points of view. Chrisrus (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what gave you the idea of nationalistic POV. The split is about the history of the island and the modern district. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is that such a split would be a little OTT for one tiny island. This isn't Istanbul after all. Also, it smacks a little of a Solomon's judgment. And, finally, we should probably correctly call any historical spin-off "History of Bozcaada" rather than "Tenedos" plus we'd have the issue of which of the two "Tenedos" should then be a redirect to. The only other options would be "Tenedos in antiquity/mythology" which would still leave the problem of where all the pre-1900 content would best fit. N-HH talk/edits 11:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: There is a clear definition of how place names are to appear in WP, but we still have problems correcting this absurd situation here? It seems to me there is no need for consensus, for referees, or experts here, all we need is someone of authority to apply the existing rules. This goes to the very heart of the problem with Wiki and why it loses its value for so many as a reliable reference. Nationalists and ideologues and folks with agendas are allowed to run wild with little control, even where there are clear rules. Try mailing a post card to Tenedos and see what happens! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki isn't operating in a totalitarian way. By the way a post-card to Tenedos 'nowadays' goes exactly there.Alexikoua (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it the reason why you connected ″Tenedos″ article to mostly ″Bozcaada″ articles in other Wikis, while we have a Bozcaada (district) article? And did this even in the cases of some foreign Wikis which have separate articles for the island and the district as such or that have accentuated "the district of Bozcaada" in their sole article? Looks like some people are not only incapable of controlling their extreme nationalism but also are not ashamed of lying in public at all for their petty satisfaction. -- (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No, but it doesn't operate under mob rule and veto either. Consensus is meant to be judged in the light of policy and guidelines and real-world sources, which, as noted, are all quite clear in this case. Whether a postcard would or would not get to "Tenedos" as well as Bozcaada doesn't matter so much as what name is usually used in English-language sources to refer to the modern island. And anyone not befogged by prejudice or ignorance can see the answer to that. N-HH talk/edits 11:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Formerly, there had been three or four discussions on moving the title of this article. The pros and cons were equal and the title has not been moved. In most modern maps and atlases, local names are used; but in WP a rather ambigious concept of established-use prevails. Well how can a small Aegean island have an established-use in English ? It can be argued that the name was mentioned in Iliad. But that's a historical-literary usage. Using the historical name instead of the modern name is not much different than, say, calling Ho Chi Minh City "Saigon" or calling Astana “Tselinograd". Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The rules have changed a bit, so it might be time to try again. Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the text of the rules were simply clarified and structured a bit more logically rather than changed as such. The basic principles of common and modern name remain as they were. Either way of course, Bozcaada is obviously the name that should be being used as the primary one here. Hopefully clearer rules will mean a clearer debate and a simpler decision though. N-HH talk/edits 13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say that I don't care what the common modern English-language name of this island is. What matters is the significance of this case with systemic problems with Wikipedia.
What do you think about my four points above? The first point is out of date. It no longer omits maps and such, but it still recommends encyclopedias among the first places to look for the common modern place names. Encyclopedias are not among the place that a good reference librarian would send a common modern place name seeker. There is good reason for this: each encyclopedia mention is just one datum that must be manually checked for usage in context (primacy, commonality, moderness) and then weighed against other usages, while simply looking up a common modern place name on a map or gazetteer or whatnot returns a peer-reviewed conclusion as to the common modern name of a place. So good reference librarians and encyclopedia writing guidelines do not point common modern place name seekers to encyclopedias; they point them to maps and such. So, the presence of encyclopedias among the first-choice places to look in the guidelines impairs determining common modern place names.
As too the second point....what do you think about the other points? How should they be addressed so that these types of things don't happen on Wikipedia in the future? Again, the point is the wider systemic problems brought to the fore, not per se this case. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can we start another move request? It's about time the WP page finally used the nomenclature that the rest of the world uses in modern times for this place. Hopefully we'll get more rational contributions and a more rational conclusion this time. N-HH (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was already settled, although without any discussion, someone created Bozcaada, Çanakkale (also tried to change the interlanguage links), an article supposed to be about the administrative division, but in fact its about the very same island. Before any move request is initiated its obvious that a move to an already existing article doesn't make sense.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged under the correct name: Bozcaada. -- (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There do seem to be unnecessary duplication and WP:FORK issues: one page on the place should be enough. And even if it can be argued that the district per se deserves a separate page, that doesn't negate the fact that island itself is still commonly called Bozcaada these days. Either way there's a problem, as there has been for a long time. N-HH (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but for the sake of the entire project, the systemic problems on Wikipedia with such things as the administrative discussion closure procedures and so on should be first edited, not only so that a new move request will have a chance of success, but also (more importantly), for the greater good of the project, because the repeated failure to move this article since it was first requested so long ago has brought to the fore issues more important for Wikipedia than the name of this tiny waterless island. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't you take up those "issues more important for Wikipedia" in their own talk pages? Keep this talk page on topic, please. (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How can this article be moved to the common modern English place name when administrators consistently close move requests without simple fact-finding? Move requests for this article have failed multiple times. In order to improve this article in this way, the issue of administrative move request closure without fact-finding on the grounds that opposition exists has to be dealt with. Unless you can suggest another way. Chrisrus (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, and you're right, but you probably won't accomplish that on this talk page. With regards to name change requests, the problem of facts being undermined by a "lack of consensus" needs to be raised on the relevant WP policy page. Until then, admins will likely side with the naysayers who use the lack of consensus to work around the empirical evidence pointing to Bozcaada. (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Because we are writing in English, not Turkish; and Tenedos is the established name in English: To Tenedos they come (Troilus and Cressida Prol. 7). Look at the top of the page; this is at least the tenth time we have discussed it, and there is no consensus to move this island from the name we Anglophones have always called it, to one I would not know if it were not for these interminable naming debates; there is no consensus for this proposal.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We also used to call it "Constantinople". The name has changed: don't take it for me, check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
So has English usage, (and the boundaries of the city, for that matter). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The name of this island has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In Turkish, it has. This is, however, the English Wikipedia, not the Turkish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The English language name for this island has changed. Check the maps. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be daft. Are you suggesting that what nearly every modern English-language map, guide book and media source calls the contemporary island is more important than the random assertions of one WP editor about what "we Anglophones have always called it" – by which they presumably mean "what I have always called it", as if that matters – or an individual quote from a nearly 500 year old play about the thousands of years old Trojan War? I did check in to see whether this had been finally sorted out since I gave up. No such luck of course. N-HH talk/edits 20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks for checking in after so long. The systemic problems represented by the repeated move request failures still need some attention.
First, the rules for geographic names should be simplified to, in appropriate terms "Look it up" and NOT send the editors off to do original research counting and interpreting citations and and the whole horrible "commonality" entmoot that causes. These rules are much better in these terms than it had been before, but they still has a distance to go.
Second, closings should not just be "consensus to move" or "consensus not to move", but also "no consensus either way". There's a big difference. As I recall someone was working on that, we should check how it's come along.
Third, the guidelines for closing such requests should ask that they not be closed without proper fact-finding on the appropriate claims of fact. Arguments based on facts that are demonstrably false should not be given weight. No one should close a thread without doing due diligence in terms of checking sources against claims of fact and reasons against our rules and guidelines.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care what the name of this obscure island is. The important thing is the system problems it represents. Given the obvious problems that WP:SEVEN issues have always been on Wikipedia, we have to be prepared with a set of rules to deal with such things, even when, or especially when, they are obscure places that no one has ever heard about. When all the appropriate maps and such change the name or change it back again, we should be quick to follow suit so that we don't end up out of date. In this case, like a century out of date. Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The title should be Bozcaada. With a area of 36 square kilometres (14 sq mi) this island is the 88th island in Mediterranean sea ( List of islands in the Mediterranean) by area and it currently hosts less than a population of 2500. Its name is mentioned neither in List of islands by area nor in List of islands by population. It is more or less an obscure island for an average English speaker. It can't have an established usage in English. According to Wikipedia rules "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject" . It is hard to understand why it is still Tenedos after so many discussions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's a relatively small and obscure island, but there is an established usage in English-language sources, as evidenced by plenty of reliable sources. There's no need to cite that opt-out to get to the "right" answer here – we just need to follow the explicit rules that WP has for naming things, which is to follow the dominant view among such sources for the modern place in a modern context, which may or may not happen to be the same as the local name. In this case, it is the same. So:
You can also compare Google Books, where the entries for Bozcaada are all about the modern island whereas those for Tenedos are most often from old books or from books about the island in history or about other things altogther (let's not play the utterly misleading "number of hits" game, which has been the preferred tactic here for far too long). And then there are all the maps, eg via the CIA page, which clearly marks "Bozcaada". Anyway, this is all academic while the effective veto remains from one or two editors. Plus I am meant to have given up on this place, not least due to the prevalence of ridiculous disputes like this where it takes years to sort out the blindingly obvious. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You're mistaken. The name Tenedos is known just because its fame from semi legendary Homer's Iliad. But this article happens to be about the island and not about the literature or the ancient history. Almost all documents about the modern island refer it as Bozcaada. As I've suggested earlier, a new article titled maybe "Tenedos (in Iliad)" or "Homer's Tenedos" can be created. But this article is about Bozccada. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, what am I "mistaken" about exactly? My point about the use of Tenedos was exactly, and explicitly, the same as the one that you've just made. I was agreeing with your conclusion about the name we should have here – and provided incontrovertible real-world evidence to base such a decision on for those who might disagree – just not about the policy rationale you asserted in favour of it. Anyway, when even people broadly on the same side in a dispute can't even read or understand what's being said, it's yet more evidence for the pointlessness of engaging here. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did this get moved to a Greek name (along with Gökçeada)?[edit]

These islands aren't called by these names, and they are official districts of Turkey. Bruce Jenner's article has been moved to Caitlyn Jenner (even though you'll find more Google Books hits for her previous name, that's for sure), but that argument has been used to move these articles to obsolete names even though they have long been just that -- obsolete. (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


1. The article naming guidelines still don't simply state that if all the appropriate maps and such agree, go with that.

2. The article naming guidelines send users off on an original research project into different measures of commonality even in cases of universal cartographic agreement.

3. The administrative closing procedures still don't call for due diligence in checking disputed claims to fact.

4. The administrative closing procedures still call for compromise in all cases, even when not appropriate or impossible.

5. The mere existence of opposition to moves is deemed sufficient to disallow it.

6. The opposition is transparently WP:SEVEN based and therefore irrational.

7. WP:BACKUP issues cause irrational administrative decisions.

Chrisrus (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are the nationalist Greek editors, and there are the nationalist Turkish editors. And then there are the rest of us mere Anglophones, who prefer the names with which we are familiar in this English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Get a map. Chrisrus (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As an "Anglophone", with no connection to Greece or Turkey, I can confidently say - yet again - that English-language sources nearly universally use "Bozcaada" to refer to this island in 2015. Some people, Anglophones or otherwise, seem to assume that the name they happen to be familiar with and use is what all Anglophones call it. As noted, a brief perusal of any modern map or contemporary writing on the topic would make the actual name used these days abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind. N-HH talk/edits 14:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Well then, is there anything left to discuss first or shall I move it right now? Chrisrus (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I am an Anglophone, and have no particular connexion with Greece or Turkey, and have, what is more, consulted a search engine, I can confidently assert that N-HH's assertion is false. The top hits for Bozcaada remain (aside from this article) Turkish tourism sites - and this article. The top non-commercial hit is in Turkish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
We use the common modern English language name. Check the maps. The name has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The maps, and all the specific contemporary English-language newspaper articles and guidebook entries cited ad nauseam, many of which are linked again in the section just above. There are virtually no equivalent modern sources that use Tenedos or that make the explicit, contrary claim that Tenedos is the current name of the island in English writing. Literally, none. Most of what comes up via Google for Tenedos is from older sources or references to the island in history (this is especially clear in a Books search). This is not simply "assertion" on my part. And neither the pompous statement "I am an Anglophone ... and have, what is more, consulted a search engine" nor the unsurprising and irrelevant observation that Bozcaada is also used by Turkish tourism sites and in Turkish-language sites (or the fact that for a small and obscure modern island, these can rank quite highly in a basic search) do anything to rebut that or to prove the evidence I have cited on numerous occasions to be "false". I, too, have consulted a search engine, but chose to look at the results properly and in some detail and, as noted, with an open mind. When the local name changes, the one used in English doesn't always. However, here it has and all the evidence shows that. But if people are simply going to ignore that, and doggedly stick simply to what they happen to prefer, for whatever reason, what can be done? N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The intention of maps varies; but most use Praha, München, Moskva (or even Москва). We don't; we use Prague, Munich, and Moscow. Our purpose is not to help people follow the streetsigns, or even ferry boats. And our purpose does include history; most of this article - like most of the present writing about Tenedos - is about its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
English language maps only, please. We only consider English language maps. Chrisrus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I was, of course, talking about English maps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Chrisrus (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)