Jump to content

Talk:Tenedos/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Extended content
  • The island's name is Bozcaada. That is how the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to it with Tenedos the secondary name (see: here). This is how all the travel books refer to it. This is how ALL contemporary publications refer to the island. Insisting on it having an archaic name as its primary name is doing a disservice to people like me just trying to find out about the island. Resisting moving this is only making the page unhelpful. I leave this up to the people who are more interested in this page, but please consider changing the primary name to the correct name. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I did more research into this because I am a nerd. The name Tenedos for this article is completely inappropriate for this. Bozcaada is the only name used in ALL relevant English Language sources. This includes: NY Times (July 8, 2012), Toronto Star (June 2, 2012), Times of London (Feb. 4, 2012), The Independent (June 16, 2011), The New York Times (November 14, 2010), International Harold Tribune (November 13, 2010), The Guardian (April 10, 2010), Sunday Telegraph (May 10, 2009), BBC (April 29, 2009)...and I could keep going. The only publication in the past 10 years to refer to the island as Tenedos is BBC (November 6, 2005) and that is possibly a historical reference (it isn't entirely clear). The page should be moved ASAP to Bozcaada because that is the correct page for it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • On the naming issue again, I've been on the island recently and nobody was calling it "Tenedos". Shakespeare might have called the island as Tenedos long ago, but it is time people learn the name given to it by its inhabitants. Bozcaada is not only the official name, it is the name of the island acording to islanders themselves.
  • I've deleted the part about prison in Gökçeada, the islands are seperated by sea by many miles, that prison might have had no effect on inhabitants of Bozcaada.
  • Deleted "if Turkey's intentions were ... they were successful" part, because it is a speculation, not encyclopedic.
  • Giving reference to [[1]] web site is a shame. It is a hate page, probably prepared by ultra nationalists. It is not suitable for this encyclopedia's policy of npov.

Filanca 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Anglophones now call the island Tenedos, as they call Rome, Rome. When this changes, and it has not, the article should move; until then, English WP articles should be intelligible in English.
  • Filanca's argument about prison is speculation; the sentence about Turkey's intentions is not; it's a tautology.
  • I would not use that website in Istanbul; I would not use it here if we had better information. But its claims about the two islands are calm, coherent, and uncontradicted. Do find a better source on the matter. Septentrionalis 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speculation? Bozcaada and Gökçeada ara seperated by 30 km (20 miles) of sea. Can you explain how exactly a prison in Gökçeada might have affected inhabitants of Bozcaada? Do you think prisoners swam all the way and back? You are irrational, I'll delete the part about prison again and please don't put it back until you come up with an explanation.
  • Sentences like "if Turkish government's intention was blah blah, it was successful" is pure speculation. What if its intention was not as such? Do you agree to write the opposite case?
  • My changes about islanders using the name Bozcaada were also reverted. This article is creating the impression that Bozcaada is a name coined and only used by Turkish government. This is not true. The name is several centuries old, documented in a book of Turkish admiral Piri Reis and several tombstones on the island. Its inhabitants also used this name. So Wikipedia should refer to it as the current name of the island.
  • The source is not objective, not calm, not coherent, no good for a serious encyclopedia.

This is not a Greek nationalist book. Filanca 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The Greek population of Imbros was in very close relationship with the Greek population of Tenedos, culturally, econimically and politically-had the article 14 of the Lausanne treaty had been respected by the turkish government... (both the islands had a greek majority that time). The prison in Imbros was one of the main reasons that the Greek population had to leave the island, and one of the reasons the Greeks had to leave Tenedos. so, it is relevant.
2. Personally, i would remove the "if Turkish government's intention was blah blah, it was successful" sentence, and i would replace it with something like "the intention of the Turkish government was blah blah blah". the intention is crystal clear... If not, do you agree to write the opposite case? (the sentence i said above?).
3. The island was called 'Tenedos' by its greek majority till some decades ago, and is still called by the greeks. also, this is how it is named in the english-speaking (and not only world). btw, the turkish government renamed the island and most of its current inhabitants came from anatolia some decades ago, right? so, it is not a name its current inhabitants gave to it...
4. the source has material that has not been contradicted by anyone... it has info about laws and action of the turkish government in order to force the greeks out of the island... If u find references contradicting the existance and the content of these laws, let me know... Till then, there is no reason to remove the link.

Wikipedia is noone's nationalistic book... keep this in mind... Hectorian 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Still no explanation how a prison in Gökçeada could have affected Bozcaada. Irrational.
  • If you find a reliable source about someone's intentions, you can write them here.
  • "Greek majority" is disputed, island was half Greek in Ottoman times. Today all its inhabitants call the island Bozcaada, it is a Turkish land, this should be respected.
  • Hate pages do not make objective references.

Evidently, I did not make this article a Turkish nationalist one. For one thing, most of your claims are still there, awaiting for a citation. MY changes are being constantly deleted though. Filanca 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All my reasons are explained and are still here waiting for a reply. Hectorian 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What else do you want as a reply?

  • You say a prison seperated by 30 kilometers of sea has caused damage to the islanders. This is nonsense.
  • The fact is there, that the island is called Bozcaada by its inhabitants and officially.
  • You are deleting other historical information I added about Venetian rule of the island (with reference). You provide no reason yet for that.

Filanca 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The prison in Imbros had effect on Tenedos as well, for reasons i clearly explained.
"Now", do not forget that. it is called such now, officially (cause of the turkish government, not its inhabitants) and by its current inhabitants who settled in the island after its renaming.
sorry 'bout the info on the Venetians. i had not notice that.

In our haste to reply, I think we have both overseen some of the things the other has written:

  • About your argument about prison's indirect influence over Bozcaada inhabitants: I think this would have been possible, but the relationship is very indirect, improbable, both of the islands are closer to the mainland than they are to each other. I still say this prison should not be a part of this article, its true place is the article about Gökçeada. This being my opinion, I no longer insist its deletion.
  • You still think the island was renamed by the government. I wrote above that this was not true. "Bozcaada" is not a name coined in 20th century, this is documented by tombstones on the island and Ottoman books. Various names Ottomans used, Boz Ada, Bohça Ada seems to evolved into Bozcaada, prior to 20th C.
    • The name Bozcaada is attested back in the 16th century, on one of the Piri Reis maps. I can cite if necessary. In fact, I'll go on and add this bit of information to the page. Cliobella (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "most of its current inhabitants came from anatolia" maybe, but not in 20th C, the island's winter population didnt significantly increase since the beginning of 20th C. Summer population did so, naturally they all come from other parts of Turkey and abroad.

Filanca 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the turkish (not greek) census of 1927, there were 2,500 Greeks on Tenedos. now there are just 30. compare this number with the current population of the island and u will see who came there in the 20th century and from where... Also, the article was known and was called by its inhabitants 'Tenedos'. it doesn't really matter if there was also a name used by a negligible number of people at some point during the past centuries... America was called for a time 'Western Indies', for crying out loud! what matters is who made that name official, and who tranfered there people who call the island such... So, yes, it is named 'Bozcaada', now officially (->this is what u remove for no reason). Hectorian 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What you call "negligable" was half of the population. Historical Greek and Turkish neighborhoods are comparable in size. Island's current winter population is about 2.500, there had been some native population increase. Thus there was no great migration to the island. I do not object anyone calling the island any way in their languages, but we should respect to what people call it. I didnt remove Bozcaada is the official name, I only added it was also the name used by inhabitants. Filanca 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you consider the island was totally emptied at the end of 14th century, just prior to Ottoman rule, all of its inhabitants were probably came from mainland Anatolia. Filanca 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This should certainly be included, if it can be sourced. A modern secondary source, please, preferably in English. It does not, however, preclude immigration from the other Aegean islands. Septentrionalis 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two independent sources for the island being empty from the end of 14th century to the middle of 15th. But repopulation of the island by settlers from Anatolia is merely my guess, based upon proximity to the mainland, so I didn't write it in the article. It is also possible that settlers came from other islands or even some families of original islanders came back from Crete (some 50 years after they left?). Filanca 09:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting the information about the islanders callig the island as Bozcaada? As it is, the article is giving the false impression that Bozcaada is a name coined and used only by Turkish government, while this is not true. We are here to provide correct information, besides it is rude to deny the name used by local population, do not delete my changes please. Filanca 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the turkish census of 1927 the Greeks were by far the largest ethnic group on the island, so saying that Historical Greek and Turkish neighborhoods are comparable in size, seems simply POV... In addition, saying that the island was emptied in the 14 century does by no means imply that its new inhabitants (if not the descendants of the Tenedians who came back from Crete) called the island differently. i think its just a waste of time to say that even if its knew inhabitants came from Anatolia, they were Greeks (the Greeks and Greek-speaking populations were in the majority in Anatolia that time). as per all the above, the name of the island were 'Tenedos' since antiquity, for the Greeks still is, and for its Greek inhabitants (id est most of the island's inhabitants till recently) this is how they called it. Officially now is called 'Bozcaada' and this is how its knew inhabitants (who came after the expulsion of the Greeks) call it. Talking about things in present. any attempt to falsify history based on unhistorical claims is uncyclopedic. Hectorian 10:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying two neighborhoods are similar in size is not POV, firstly, I wrote that here in the talk page. I think we are allowed to write our observations here. Besides I suggest you to go and visit the island, you'll see the reality with you own eyes. Secondly, it is also based on the article: "Tenedos, which is close to the Asian mainland, had been ethnically divided between Greeks and Turks since the 14th century, and the division was more or less equal when counts were taken." (I didnt write this) and census results.
  • I didn't imply ALL newcomers called the island as Bozcaada, not in the article or here. However, the current residents of the island call it as such, and the name is at least few hundred years old.
  • "this is how its knew inhabitants (who came after the expulsion of the Greeks) call it" is false, Turkish inhabitants DIDN'T come after "expulsion" of Greek ones, they lived on the island since a long time, probably beginning with the Ottoman rule. Since the island was then deserted, Turks and Greeks probably repopulated the island in 15th century simultaneously.

To sum up: Bozcaada is not an officially coined name, it is a name used by its inhabitants since a long time and currently THE name of the island for the remaining islanders. Your version of the article is WRONG. Filanca 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have supplied no source for this; and, if true, it would not affect English usage, which is our test. Septentrionalis 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to supply sources for such simple facts like the name of an island in a particular language. If you have doubt, any search in Google in Turkish pages would do. I didn't ask for change in English usage, naturally English speakers will decide on it. Just don't delete my note about Bozcaada being current usage of people living on the island, otherwise the article is giving the false impression that it is only an official name coined by Turkish government. Filanca 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The presemt Turkish name is more than adequately sourced; what is unsourced is that "it is a name used by its inhabitants since a long time"; indeed, any time before 1926. Septentrionalis 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So far I've found one source for that and it is in Turkish. If that is acceptable, I may write it in the article. So I guess the article is OK as it is now? Filanca 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Piri Reis map depicting Bozcaada

This map is taken from an Italian web site [2] I had to flip it, since it was misoriented, then cropped to show the island alone. It is drawn by Turkish cartographer Piri Reis in the 16th century, depicting Bozcaada / Tenedos with good detail (even small rocks are visible). Look at the 2nd line under the hill. It is written in Ottoman alphabet: ﺍﺩﻩ and ﺑﻮﺫﺠﻪ which can be rendered to latin alphabet as "BVZCA ADA", or Bozcaada by modern Turkish latin. Filanca 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A secondary source would be preferable; maps are sources which can be difficult to interpret (in full context), per WP:ATT, whereas a secondary source would be likely to comment on the frequency of the name. Therefore this justifies only a statement about Piri Reis, not anything broader. Septentrionalis 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

right. WP:ATT policy also states: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist; are promotional in nature... Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves." so it we are to abide by this rule, we should remove "website on the misfortunes" from references. since the article itself says that source is "tendentious". not only it is against wikipedia rules, there is also an ethical problem with using such extremist partisan pages as reference. they spread hatred and enmity. by quoting them, we increase their google rate, help them seem more reliable by being quoted by wikipedia, and diminsh the reliable image of this encyclopedia. Filanca 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of the island

The island was invaded by Venetians in 1377, but after a conflict with the Genoese, they evacuated it with all its inhabitants in 1381. The population of the island was deportated to Crete. The island remained deserted for a long time. Spanish traveller Clavijo having visited the island in 1401 wrote that it was deserted, but he found many vineyards, fruit trees, rabbits and the ruins of a great castle. [3]

This is fascinating; but it should have a secondary source supporting it. Does deserted here mean literally zero population, or does it mean, for example, that the Venetian settlement was evacuated? There are parallels in Xenophon for both. Septentrionalis 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

there are some other sources:

  • [4] - Settlement of 4.000 tenedians in crete in 1380's
  • [5] - "Venice was to evacuate the island of Tenedos, the fortifications of which were leveled to the ground", also account of another spaniard in 1437, saying all the vineyards are spoilt but the port was anew and there were ottoman soldiers around.
  • [6] - "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?)"

it seems venetian-genoese war was a very important event in the history of the island and i intend to write more on it when i have time. Filanca 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i am aware that i havent yet found a source saying the island was completely evacuated, yet i think there is enough reason to say venetians not only evacuated the island themselves, but also deportated greeks and the remaining population (if any) was negligible. Filanca 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The natural reading of the sources cited is that they evacuated the Venetians (including Venetian settlers, if any). The conclusion Filanca wishes to draw is original research, so far. The link to Vassiliev also reveals that Venice abandoned the island, not to the Turks; but to the Count of Savoy. Septentrionalis 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

www.katolsk.no is a secondary source, saying the island is evacuated for a century, although with a question mark. there are two primary sources, those of clavijo and tafur, about the island being evacutaed. laiou paper is a secondary source about 4.000 islanders being settled in crete (that is a great number for this island, if not whole islanders). don't you still think these are enough? i think this information is better documented than most others in the encyclopedia. Filanca 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i respect your scepticism in historical matters. surely we need sound sources for what we write in this wikipedia, and in history that means we need good second hand resources. you'd appreciate that internet is not full of such material. and i find it strange when you still question an information with maybe not perfect, but quite good references, while you accept a statement like "In all likelihood, the island was inhabited primarily by ethnic Greeks from ancient times through to around the middle of the twentieth century" without questioning. Filanca 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Filanca, cause i think i know where are u getting at, just leave it! even if the island was evacuated in late 14th century, by the time the Ottomans took it, it was inhabited again, and its inhabitants were not Turks. nothing supports this, so stop implying it. Hectorian 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i didn't get at, nor implied the thing you said, don't make me seem like done things i didn't :) but since you alluded to it, yes, the island was probably populated by greeks and turks in the beginning of ottoman era. the mosques in the island are quite old. (see [7]) this would not be the only ex-venetian island that ottomans settled by their turkish and greek orthodox subjects living in anatolia, the other big example being cyprus. there too, muslim and orthodox settlement occured together. so turkish and greek re-settlement of tenedos being in close dates is something one can reasonably "get at", yes, but i avoid adding such probable but undocumented information into an article.

about your "even if the island was evacuated", after finding 4 seperate sources, 2 primary, 2 secondary, there is little doubt that it was emptied by venetians but good ehough reason to doubt that settlement was continuous. Filanca 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move July 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was Still no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 13:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos → Bozcaada – Frankly, I would be shocked that the Greek name continues to be used rather than the Turkish if it werent for centuries of bias against the names and conventions of Eastern peoples. Somehow we've let the leash out a bit and allowed for names like Mumbai (not Bombay) and Sri Lanka (not Ceylon), but we continue with the anachronistic usage of the Greek name Tenedos. The vast majority of major publications use Bozcaada, including the New York Times, Lonely Planet, Fodors - why is Wikipedia insisting on being anachronistic? The point of Wikipedia per its guidelines is to adopt the common usage as per established and well-read sources -- such as the US' main newspaper and the largest travel guides. Mlepori (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This has been discussed an innumerable number of times before, and the current state of the literature in the English language is that Tenedos is more common than Bozcaada. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of major US publications using Tenedos - the above user gave a link to a NYTimes article that uses Bozcaada. Please offer hard evidence so the community can make an informed opinion. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Support The majority of English publications refer to the island as Bozcaada. For one example, the editors of the New York Times refer to it as Bozcaada in a recent (7/4/2012) article: http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/travel/on-a-turkish-isle-winds-tend-the-vines.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.240.127 (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The island is internationally recognized as Tenedos, under the terms of the Treaty of Laussane, and still part of the de jure administration of Imbros and Tenedos. Apart from that English bibliography prefers the name Tenedos too.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The treaty of Lausanne is from 1923. Surely you can give a more recent example of the usage of Tenedos from a popular press? Given above are multiple examples of high-readership English publications (e.g. the New York Times) which uses Bozcaada.
Let me remind yo that you voted twice for support. I've mentioned Lausanne in order to refer to the official name of the island. Off course we have plenty of recent biblography that makes use of that name.Alexikoua (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You fail to provide popular sources, on the level of the New York Times, where Tenedos is used. The Treaty of Lausanne established borders--not names. The name Bozcaada (like Tenedos) is much older than 1923. Your evidence is spurious. Furthermore, I believe you are unable to separate your desire to maintain Hellenic culture from the guidelines of Wikipedia. These firmly state that the popular, mainstream nomenclature is to be preferred over antiquated naming. In 2012, Bozcaada clearly is more common.

Oppose - doing a move request every half year doesn't change the fact that Tenedos is more common in English. Besides opposing this 3rd move request within a year, I also propose a 2 year "snowball close" on all further move requests. Maybe in 2 years the commonly used name in English might have changed, although I would be highly surprised by that! noclador (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you provide no evidence whereas the Pro-Bozcaada side does. Second, I don't believe you have the authority to enact such a moratorium.

Support - if major US newspapers are using Bozcaada, then Wikipedia needs to do so also. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - the Independent (national UK newspaper) also refers to the island as Bozcaada (2009): http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/unspoilt-and-cheap-can-bozcaada-really-be-in-the-med-1785745.html. Seems most major English publications use Bozcaada nowdays, which the guidelines suggest should be the main determinant of a page's title. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Ottoman Flagship

"In 1822, during the Greek War of Independence, the revolutionaries under Konstantinos Kanaris managed to attack and burn the Ottoman flagship off Tenedos" was changed by me because it is incorrect. The Flagship was left unharmed, while Kanaris destroyed one of the other ships. From Robert Vaughn's history (available here, pg. 456): "On the 10th of November, the war was illustrated by another brilliant exploit of Kanaris. The Ottoman fleet was riding anchor between Tenedos and the Troad. Two line-of-battle ships were anchored windward of the rest of the fleet. Kanaris steered a fire-ship right on the windward quarter. The sails of the fire-ship were nailed to the mast and steeped in turpentine. The Greek hero performed his task with his usual coolness and perfect contempt of danger. He scarcely had time to jump into little boat and row off, ere the flames burned up higher than the maintop of the seventy-four. The crew leaped into the sea and most were drowned, as they were far from the shore. The huge vessel blazed up, and the magazine exploded, killing, it is said, eight hundred men. The companion of Kanaris, who, in a sister fire-ship, undertook the destruction of the flag-ship, failed in his enterprise, and the fire-ship burned harmlessly." This is a preferred source to the original source that said Kanaris destroyed the flagship because it provides significantly more context than a brief mention with limited original citations.

I will again change the context to properly reflect the historical accuracy that a brave attack destroyed an Ottoman ship, but not the flagship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbstractIllusions (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the selective use of 19th century books (erroneously the same outdated sources like the above are completely rejected in the current move request because they use only the name Tenedos when they refer to the island). Since we are talking about a major event in the Greek Revolution, there is plenty of post wwii material that confirms the sinking, which wasn't an ordinary ship:
  • Reynolds, Clark G. (1998). Navies in history. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 9781557507150.:

"In separate fireship attacks at Chios and Tenedos during 1822 his fleet destroyed 2 Turkish flagships with their admirals"

"near the Island of Tenedos, Canaris duplicated his achievement of the previous June, by burning the flagship of the vice-admiral in the same daring manner."

It clearly appears that that the ship wasn't just a ship (i.e. the flagship of the vice admiral).Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Charanis Source

I reedited the Late Middle Ages section with sourcing in all instances. Four source references were removed. 1. Intratex of the Byzantine empire is a bad source. 2. the Doaks source is broken and I couldn't find what it was about. 3. Treadgold was a good source removed on accident, will be put back in. But, the Charanis source was problematic and maybe should be returned(?). The original text wrote: " 4000 Greek islanders from Tenedos were resettled in Crete and Euboea.[1][2]" I have poured over Charanis Studies book (the source of this claim) to try and find the relevant page or confirm the evidence elsewhere. Does anyone have a good link or the page in Charanis studies where this claim is provided? It seems historically relevant, but I could find no quality confirmation. Thanks to Dr.K for opening this conversation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your kind comments. I have found a working link for the Dumbarton Oaks from the internet archive. I will try to check for the Charanis citation but I cannot guarantee success. Thank you for your efforts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Restored. Thanks. I'm still wary about the 4,000 Greeks moved claim. If Charanis says it, that will end the hesitation, but I'm going to Jaboby's (Dumbarton Oaks) source for the claim in the library tomorrow and will try to figure it out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I added a quote to the Dumbarton Oaks reference and revived the link through the Internet Archive: diff. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ For the islanders, see here
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference chanaris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Chronology of Catholic Diocese Source

More fact-checking the sources. This time the "Chronology of Catholic Diocese" source seems highly problematic. The claim it is supposedly providing evidence for is "The island remained depopulated[22][21] for about 72 years before the arrival of Ottomans in 1455[49]". So I follow the links to this page at katolsk.no which does not seem to be excellent evidence for the claim, for a few reasons:

  • They, themselves do not know when it happened. As they say on the webpage up top: "We ask our readers to kindly help us establish...when the dioceses of Carpathos, Nicaria and Tenedos were suppressed." Although if they find this information, this may be a good source, right now they are themselves asking for this exact information.
  • The other main mention of Tenedos in the list is "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?) - (Byzantine Empire)- Turkey" This neither makes clear if Tenedos was abandoned, was the Catholic church abandoned? This list also includes mostly the existence of churches, not their destruction. Regardless, the source itself is operating largely in the dark with the (abandoned?) note to themselves.
  • Finally, evidence does not match up with claim. The claim is that the island was abandoned, but the evidence is about Catholic churches. Just because the Catholic Church left an island, does not mean that it is empty.

I think this source should be removed from the article, the claim should stand with the Kiminas source only linked. Hive says? AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what source and/or claim it is that you are questioning? I'm confused. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it is source #49 that supposedly says Tenedos was empty for 72 years. But if you go to the link of the source (it is in my original post), it doesn't say anything of the sort. It has a line about "1400-1500 Tenedos (abandoned?)", but that doesn't say anything, does it? Filanca used it earlier (see above in the disorganized talk section) to write that the entire island was emptied at the end of the Venetian-Genoan war, but it doesn't say that either. All it says is "(abandoned?)" Anyway, I'm just trying to clean up this page and thanks for any help! AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested nameing it "Tenedos or Bozcaada" or "Bozcaada or Tenedos "?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Extended content

Has anyone suggested "Tenedos or Bozcaada" or "Bozcaada or Tenedos "? Chrisrus (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any other Wiki page that fits your suggestion? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Imia/Kardak. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Any others? I don't think putting Bozcaada in the same category as a disputed territory would help either side of this move request. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a disputed name, internally in Wikipedia, not a disputed territory. Not all disputes have to be territorial. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Imia/Kardak is a disputed territory. How about an other example? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the Tenedos naming dispute seems so intractable that even the example I contributed is not enough. I guess that's where I end my example submission. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this one. Chrisrus (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think "Bozcaada (Tenedos)" would be a reasonable solution for the near term while the community long-term figures out what to do. I put Bozcaada first as it's the name used in the majority of English media outlets (newspapers, etc). Tenedos is an important name for those studying the classics, so we keep it alongside Bozcaada. I'll raise again AbstractIllusion's idea of a "two-page solution" where Tenedos has a page devoted to its role in antiquity and a Bozcaada page is created for the contemporary island. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dr.K, the failure of your example has nothing to do with the nature of the naming discussion. It has to do with it being invalid and incomparable. You're free to find an example that is useful. @Chrisrus, that is no different than the Imia/Kardak example. New Moore/South Talpatti is a region claimed by two different states. Bozcaada is not claimed by Greece or any other state to be theirs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is according to your own opinion. I have to disagree. But let's just agree to disagree because I have better things to do than open a side-show here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other places that are part of one country but with the majority who live there from the other country and they have two different names for the same place? Aren't there some places in the Baltic that belong to, say Finland, but are populated mostly by, say for example, Swedes, and everyone pretty much who lives there calls it one Sweedish thing, but officially it's called thing two becuse it's owned by, say for example, Finland? If so, what do we do? Chrisrus (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Derry/Londonderry in Ireland naming dispute may be an insightful compromise. In that case the editors split the name: The city is Derry, the county is Londonderry. I proposed a similar split earlier: The pre-1923 island is Tenedos, the modern island is Bozcaada. Similar to Aeminium/Coimbra, Istanbul/Constantinople, and others. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Bozcaada is not a disputed territory, so no reason to have a disputed name. Like many other places we can make references to its older names in the article and that is all about it. --E4024 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's make it clear. Almost all ancient settlements have historical names. Lutetia, Furstad, Londnium, Krasnovodsk etc. Of course these names can be used in articles about history. But this article is about an island and an official district of Turkey. Its name is Bozcaada and there is absolutely no reason to name it Tenedos.(see [8]) In the article there is history section and the name Tenedos can be given in this section. Other than that, it is Bozcaada . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
To talk about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), they are clear about the steps to take: 1. "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." 2. If a widely accepted English name, in a modern context does not exist, "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." 3. If multiple local names are officially recognized, "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one" and slashing names or adding an 'or' "should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." As noted by others, since this is not a disputed territory and there is a clear official name (even used by the Greek inhabitants of the island in official court filings with the European Court of Human Rights, see here), the order in this case: 1. Is Tenedos or Bozcaada a widely accepted English name for the island in a modern context? 2. If neither is, then Bozcaada should be used because it is the official name. 3. Multiple names does not come up because there are not two equally recognized names. We can of course choose to ignore the Naming Conventions, but should do so consciously and with good reasons. I personally think that default to the official name is the proper course of action for reasons of neutrality, precision, and fit with other Wikipedia pages (like Districts of Turkey which lists Bozcaada, appropriately, but then gets redirected to Tenedos--that would be like going to the States of the United States, clicking on Texas and being redirected to some other page. That is inappropriate). AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. What the locals call something is irrelevant because if it were, the article Germany would be moved to "Deuschland" and Japan to "Nihon" and so on. I heard that the Albanians and Hungarians call their country something completely different. We call articles by the name they are found on English-language maps; that is all. Rightly or wrongly. For example, people from Brazil spell it with an "s" and complain that the English spelling is "wrong". In the face of this arguement, should those in favor of renaming it to the name the majority of locals use should stand down? Or if they continue to favor a move, do they have some other reason other than the "majority of locals" arguement?
There are more than ten islands which are considerably larger than Bozcaada in the Aegean Sea. It is not a internationally well known island . Only Aegean people and possibly Homer fans know something about it. That is to say we can't compare it with say Hungary or Albania. Besides this article is not only about the island. It is also about the district center of Turkey which was never Tenedos. I don't see any reason why the the name Bozcaada is not used in the title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why whether it's a very famous place or not matters as long as it's been known to English-language cartographers and others who make maps or write about it in English. We don't need to go back any further than the earliest English language reference to it.
You second point ("Besides, ...never Tenedos."), however, is a different matter all together. I only know what I've read in this article but if it's two different things it maybe should have two different articles, a la Hawaii. Surely if English language maps call the Island one thing and the city another then there could be two articles. The one about the island be a stub that just talks about geology and such and mentions that it has a town on it called "X" and send the reader to another article to talk about the human aspects of the place. How about that? Of course, it all depends whether or not it's true that English maps and such do call the island by one name and the city by another. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chris, the "district" (not city) covers all the island and has the same name with it: Bozcaada. --E4024 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok. So the island the "district" never have different names on the same English language map or whatever? Chrisrus (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Well please see Britannica Atlas. (77 edition, pg 38-39 Southeastern Europe to be exact) The names of two Turkish islands are Gökçeada and Bozcaada respectively. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that Atlas but if it's true it's a powerful reason to rename the article "Bozcaada". We're just supposed to name articles what Atlases such as the Britannica call it and not get our own ideas about what a place should be called. We call things what sources call them even if we think it's a bad name. Chrisrus (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not a bad name, Chris; the compound word just defines the "flora" of the island: Ada means island and Boz(ca) tells us it is not lush green. I can reassure you that it fits the place. On the other hand I can understand sentimentalism of some users; but the reality is always surprising. F. example the best "Turkish coffee" on the island is served by an old "Greek" couple, Turkish citizens. Whatever, Bozcaada is Bozcaada and so it may be here in WP. --E4024 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinque stelle (talk • contribs)
See my original name request above. Or the link here. I went to two R-1 Research Libraries and looked at every Atlas for the past 20 years. EVERY Atlas in the world uses Bozcaada. Including, Times of London atlas, Oxford World Atlas (listed in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions specifically as a reputable source), National Geographic Atlas, Britannica Atlas, Google Maps, and others. Go to any research library, grab a recent world atlas and the name of the island will be Bozcaada and if it distinguishes between settlement and island, that will also be Bozcaada. That is along with every other edited source written about the island in modern times. They all use Bozcaada. This is why, although this has been discussed before without a consensus for one or the other and instead just default to the current page, I reintroduced the debate, because the evidence of modern use for Bozcaada was overwhelming. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't want to go all the way to check it out. Here is the National Geographic Visual Atlas of the World (2005) which uses Bozcaada for the island.Here is the index reference for Bozcaada, and here is the lack of an entry for Tenedos. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit, in the name of full disclosure. Not every English atlas uses Bozcaada, just all the ones about the modern world and modern place names. Atlases about the "Greek age" use Tenedos. If you go to your library and find one in the past decade or so that uses Tenedos over Bozcaada for modern usage, please let me know, I couldn't find one. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Chrisrus, apart from all the Atlas's in the world using Bozcaada, the largest travel guide uses the name Bozcaada as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. Does anyone dispute these claims to fact; meaning specifically does anyone say that these English language don't call it that and only that? If not, does anyone have other English-language maps or whatever that call it by the other name? If not, what other grounds do those who oppose the move to the name that they admit is in fact what these English-language maps and such give? Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No one has yet challenged a single one of the sources I, or others, compiled. The debate is that Google Books, if you put in both names (with filters), will produce significantly more hits for Tenedos than Bozcaada. But no one above has disputed a single source I provided, or sources added by others nor answered why we should prefer Google Books raw number of hits over edited, reputable modern English use. Athenean argues that Google Books results are better because it is more exhaustive and includes more sources. There are lots of criticisms made by lots of people about Google Books, and I don't want to speak for them, so I myself find that Google Books results are 1. exaggerated, 2. not necessarily neutral (as Britannica is better at, for instance), 3. not helpful in establishing modern usage (Constantinople still has more Google Book hits than Istanbul, for instance), 4. has endemic metadata problems (for example, see this search for Czechoslovakia, a name created in 1918, for books published in the 1800s with 1,090 results the second of which is about Hitler. There are severe and endemic problems), and includes a lot of not reputable results (like the ironically titled 'Not Even My Name' which comes up in Google Book searches for Tenedos, but does not actually even use the word). That is where the debate is: Google Books preference for Tenedos vs. Edited/Reputable Preference for Bozcaada. Hope I reflected Athenean's point decently and kept it short (I did try). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So does everyone agree that the GoogleBooks data proves that the other name used to be what it was called in English. No one claims that one name is what English maps and stuff used to use, but that English maps and such no longer use the old name? Or do they have proof that at least some of these GoogleBooks hits are modern and as authoritative? Chrisrus (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second Chrisrus, AbstractIllusions & co. are misreading the policy on article naming. According to wikipedia's naming policies, it goes like this: If there exists a common English name for a place, that name should be used. If, and only if, such a common name does not exist, then the matter should be decided by users, looking at reputable atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc..What the people pushing "Bozcaada" are missing, either deliberately or out of inexperience, is that there is a common name for this island in English, and that is name is "Tenedos". The evidence from this comes from a search on Google Books, and it is quite compelling, as this graph shows [9]. Tenedos is more common than Bozcaada by an overwhelming margin. As the graph shows, this goes for both older and newer sources. Thus it qualifies as the '"common English name"', everything else is irrelevant. While it is true that the frequency of Bozcaada has been increasing and that of Tenedos decreasing, we are still very far off from a break-even point. Atlases and guidebooks always use official names, but that has nothing to do with common English usage. Whether we like it or not, Google Books is the onlyway we have of determining common English usage. Google Books has featured prominently in every naming debate on this page (see previous discussions and archives), and in fact in every single naming debate I have participated (and they are many!). There is something very rich about a brand-new single purpose account ( and a bunch of IPs) coming out of nowhere lecturing the community on the evils of Google Books. True, as a search engine test, it is not perfect. However, any errors in the search are systemic, in other words, they would impact both "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada" equally. AbstractIllusions proclaims that the Google Books search for "Tenedos" contains false positives. But heignores the fact that is also contains false positives for "Bozcaada". There is nothing to suggest that the percentage of false positives for "Tenedos" is higher than that for "Bozcaada". Same goes for the "endemic metadata problems": While they do exist, they are systemic: they neither favor "Tenedos" nor "Bozcaada", but affect both equally. The arguments that Google Books is "exaggerated", and not "helpful in establishing modern usage" are patent nonsense (Google Books is the way to establish common English usage), and the claim that Google Books is "not neutral" is simply ridiculous (as if a search engine had some sort of Greek bias). If the Google Books results were similar for "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada", or even only slightly in favor of "Tenedos", then it would be the case that there is no common English name and we should look at individual atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc to establish common English usage. But when the results are 10-1 in favor of "Tenedos", over several searches with different search parameters (see above), there is no room for doubt that "Tenedos" is the common English name for this island. This is also the reason why the Google Books search has been so ferociously attacked by the people favoring "Bozcaada": they just don't like the results. If Google Books were 10-1 in favor of Bozcaada, we wouldn't be hearing about how it is "exaggerated" and its "endemic metadata problems". In fact we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all. To summarize: Google Books, warts and all, is the best way to establish common English usage, and it is clear that that usage is "Tenedos". Athenean (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if I do a search restricting itself to 21st century English-only sources, I still get 1200 hits for "Tenedos" [10] versus only 165 for "Bozcaada" [11], in other words still close to 10-1. In addition, many of the hits for "Bozcaada" mention the name "Bozcaada" while using "Tenedos" throughout [12] [13] (see Use-mention distinction). It is clear that the name "Bozcaada" hasn't really caught on with English-language sources, except those that generally use official names as a matter of policy (such as atlases, newspapers, and guidebooks). Athenean (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a back and forth with Athenean (who I would prefer if he stayed on content and not baseless allegations), but "according to wikipedia's naming policies, it goes like this: If there exists a common English name for a place, that name should be used. If, and only if, such a common name does not exist, then the matter should be decided by users, looking at reputable atlases, major newspapers, Britannica etc." is wrong (and doesn't even make any sense). The Wikipedia Naming Conventions is Use the common English phrase for the place. The question is then How do we know the common English name for the place, and Wikipedia provide 6 different ways to decide, of which Google Books is one, Encyclopedia Britannica is one, primary reference sources (Oxford, Library of Congress) are one, translated source is one, etc. Athenean wants to elevate Google Book searches above all other sources, which is not what the Naming Conventions suggests is proper. But notice, he is not denying that all reputable edited sources about the modern island refer to it as Bozcaada. Nor is he showing that any of the Google Book results are appropriate for the name of the modern island. Think about Constantinople/Istanbul. Constantinople dominates Google Books (Constantinople 800,000+, Istanbul 600,000 in 21st Century English books). But, because the edited, modern, reputable, listed evenly with Google Books sources use Istanbul, Wikipedia properly has that. The key feature that Athenean is missing is that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Google Books is one metric amongst many (look under the heading "Widely accepted Name) and, according to the same conventions, when using Google Book Search "Always look at search results, don't just count them" for reasons of precision, neutrality, and to see if the results are talking about the modern place. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, all of the problems I have with Google Books, come from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) under a section called "Search Engine Issues" and Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers, and Wikipedia:Search engine test. I don't think its fair for me to get credit for other people's hard work. So, although it may be "ridiculous" to Athenean when Wikipedia conventions say things like, "Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does...Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles", I found it convincing enough to suggest that neutrality may not be guaranteed in Google Books searches. I do not hate Google Book Searches, just think that we should treat it for what it is: A broad resource capable of collecting general popularity of terms for all time, and only problematically for a specific period. It is not a surefire collection of reputable sources definitively talking about the place we want to name. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"All reputable edited sources about the modern island refer to it as Bozcaada"? Surely you're joking, right? The many sources that use "Tenedos" give the lie to that. Tenedos is the common English name for the place. That is what you are missing. If it were 1-1, I would agree with you, but at 10-1, no, there clearly is a common English name. The comparison with Constantinople/Istanbul is meaningless, there are two separate articles for that. What you are proposing is akin to renaming Ephesus to "Efes". Athenean (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Athenean, does your Google searches account for the results that are about ancient history of the island? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC) @Athenean, I also see that you claim guidebooks to use official names as a policy. Are you sure about that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Chrisrus. So, to answer your questions, 1. No one disputes the privilege for Bozcaada in modern, reputable sources like Encylopedias, Atlases, and Library of Congress Subject headings. 2. No one has provided another reference to the modern island in an Encyclopedia, Atlas, or major subject heading that uses Tenedos (the closest I came was 2005 Webster's unabridged, but the online version now uses Bozcaada and I looked at everything I could find). 3. As is clear, Google Books hits is the major ground for those arguing for Tenedos, saying that the large difference in numbers of hits for Tenedos provides clear evidence of common usage in a modern context. That's the crux of the debate right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Google Books searches skew toward one name and not the other. The hypothesis that occurs to me is this: Google books shows a heavy bias toward one name because, of all the English language book references to the place, a large number of them are history books or something else that are refer to the historical place. I know that books talking about New York instead call it New Amsterdam when speaking about the particular time period when that's what it was called. Of course, it was only very briefly called New Amesterdam, compared to the amount of time it's been called New York, and the opposite is true in this case, so that might explain why books use the old name more frequently - the time period when it had the Greek name was much longer than the period when it was called New Amsterdam, and maybe if most books that do mention this place are history books or something quite like history books, that may explain why Google Books searches skew toward the historical name. My question is this, can we figure out whether this is the reason Google Books searches skew one way and not the other? Or if this idea is not really the reason Google books skews that way, then what is the reason Google Books searches skew the way they do; can that be determined, or if not, is there some other theory that might explain the fact that book usages skew the way they do? Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think your hypothesis has pretty good evidence. I looked at the first 20 results and counted those that are contemporary and those that are historical or literary. If it was slightly ambiguous, I coded it as contemporary. The results are in my original Spreadsheet. And show that of the first 20, at most 9 of the first 20 are contemporary. For Bozcaada, all 20 are contemporary and none are historical. It is also important to remember that HMS Tenedos was a famous British naval vessel, a fort in British Zululand, and others which figure prominently in searches even when I filter them out. Or we can look at the Books in Google for Tenedos this year, whose titles are, in order: "Ancient Signs", "Homer the Preclassic", "The Greek Myths", "The Extant Odes of Pindar", "World History 4 Book Bundle", "Inscribed Athenian Laws 352/351-322/321 BC", "The Campaigns of Alexander", "Old and New Islam in Greece" (refers to 1923 treaty), "A Story of Venice in the 14th Century", "Vergil's Aenead", "The Greeks: History Culture, Society" (mentioned only in Homeric context), "Callimachus", "Encyclopedia of the War of 1812", "Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage", "How Venice Ruled the Seas", "The Odyssey,", "The Moon Riders" (about ancient Troy), "The Trojan War", "Encyclopedia of the War of 1812" (appears again), "U.S. Navy Pictorial of the War of 1812", "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict", "Irresistible North" (Book about a Venetian in 14th century), "A Companion to Roman Love Elegy", "Gallipoli", "History of Greece", "History of Greek Revolution", "Pindar", "Niles Weekly Register" (a historical text), "Alexander's Veterans and the Early Wars". And I could keep going. I went through six pages of Google Book hits without finding a single 2012 book using Tenedos referring to the island after 1923. Bozcaada has far fewer hits, but they are all about the current island. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Really interesting side note (but with key proof) to be discussed maybe for later editing (but probably not). The first book in 2012 Google Books Searches for Tenedos is Ancient Signs that includes this quote on page 183: "Gaius Julius Hyginus, previously mentioned, provides more evidence that the current identification of the ancient island of Tenedos as the tiny island Bozcaada (39 square kilometers) is wrong....Although the girth given to islands by Hyginus is flawed, it is remarkable that the island Tenedos is given the largest size of all these islands, so that it is unlikely that ancient Tenedos could be the tiny modern island Bozcaada" Note, how the author continually refers to it as the "modern island Bozcaada". But regardless, when this discussion is done, we may need to assess whether this claim should be included in the article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


You can partially do that by comparing the search pages. Look at the first search page for "Tenedos island" and "Bozcaada island". Now, look at the dates and subject of those books. You'll see that overwhelming majority of the books that primarily use the name Tenedos are pre-1923 publications or talk about the non-modern history of the island. On the other hand, almost (I'm saying almost because I might have missed one or two) all the books on the first page is about the modern times. You can go back page by page and compare them like this to see the answer to your question. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like, in English, it is rarely spoken of as a modern place compared to how often it's spoken of as a historical place. If so, it "most common usage" and "modern usage" seem to conflict in this case. So which trumps which? Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there is actually a very easy answer to that. If you look at the naming conventions page you would see this line: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." So, we're supposed to use a widely accepted English name, yes, but it's also supposed to be within a modern context. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Then the article should be moved. Unless..... Why does it say "should be used" instead of "use it"? No particular reason? What would happen if I changed the guideline to read "When a ..., then use it". It'd have more force that way. Chrisrus (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wiki policy pages never order like that. You can see that's how Wiki talks in general. Does this mean you'll vote in support of the move? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Seth, yes, I don't see that I have any choice, given the facts that don't seem to be in dispute. A few things, though. First, I'd like to note that even after the move, those sections referring to historical times when it had the old name should still be able to use it, as we do here sometimes when talking about the days when this place was called New Amsterdam. Second, I'd like to know how many times has this move request been made and why did if fail each time? This is what confuses me now. There's not point in making or supporting a move request that's repeatedly failed without first understanding why it failed before and doing something differently this time around. Chrisrus (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the naming norm would have us use the name according to the context of the section we're talking in. To answer why other move requests failed so far would have me violate Wiki rules. Let's just say that you'll stumble upon a lot of POV pushing in articles about Turkey. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
From my skimming of the other attempted moves, I second what DarkLordSeth puts forward. Cinque stelle (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to vote? Everything is so clear; Bozcaada is the name of the island that used to be known as Tenedos... --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by "consensus" though does not work by pure voting mathematics. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." WP: ROUGH CONSENSUS. Consensus requires achieving a solution recognized by all participants as a reasonable solution. "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view." WP:CON It's hard to call it consensus at this point since there are a group of persons who refuse to see Bozcaada as the "reasonable" name for the island. Yet, the evidence and Wikipedia naming policies together point to Bozcaada as the proper page name. Based on the discussion in this section, I argue that "rough consensus" has been reached. Cinque stelle (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ regarding consensus, I don't think we have any kind of consensus, whether rough or smooth. I note there are plenty of sources that refer to the island as Tenedos in a modern context [14] [15] [16] [17] (although of course they are not as many as the ones that refer to Tenedos in a historical context). Athenean (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank the editors in this section for staying on topic and dealing with substantive issues related to the dispute. Kudos, this is what discussion ought to look like! :-) Cinque stelle (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't see for my life any consensus for Bozcaada. Can't see any new arguments from the Bozcada side either. The only thing quite clear now is that a couple of users are overdoing it with the creation of new IPs and new user accounts. This 'discussion' has gone a long way of becoming a mockery. It's becoming lame. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Bozcaada option is quite convincing with very clear, strong and conclusive arguments. If a user does not wish to be convinced no argument will be able to convince him/her. I see no need for more arguments in favour of Bozcaada because already there is more than enough. --E4024 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I see a lot of users, real Wikipedia users, supporting Tenedos, while I have more difficulties making a count for Bozcaada with all the IPs and single-purpose accounts involved... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We have 11 support with only 2 of them IP accounts and 7 oppose. Even if we take out the 2 IP accounts that makes 9 against 7. Attacking new editors as being single purpose accounts is not ok. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. --E4024 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
9-7 is pretty much "no consensus". Even 11-7 is "no consensus". Athenean (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not how it should work. Just because you can muster a certain amount of people who don't think the rules should be followed in this case, that's not fair. Consensus wrote the guidelines without thinking about any particular case so they would be neutral and should apply in all cases. These rules say to use the modern name used on the latest maps and such, not historical names or names used by the majority of locals or what a bunch of Wikipedians think that a place should be called despite the fact that it belongs to another country now. This straw poll approach is wrong, ignore every vote based on the fact that it used to be called that or is called that by the locals or that it rightfully should be a Greek isle. We should always go by the latest English maps. Ignore any vote that does not point to a modern English language maps or something quite like that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No one ever said the move should be opposed because "it rightfully should be a Greek isle" or "because it is used among the locals". The votes that should be struck are those that support the move because "it is a Turkish island" and all the sock and IP votes. And I have shown well over a thousand sources that refer to it as "Tenedos", many in a modern context, while only a few hundred refer to it as "Bozcaada". Maps are important, but they are only one type of source among many. What we have here is a "no consensus" situation. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

We've reached a standstill on the discussion of whether to rename Tenedos to Bozcaada. WP policy would seem to indicate that Bozcaada is the preferred page name given the prevalence of usage by modern English media (newspapers, travel guides, atlases). The "pro-Tenedos" side does not see it this way, citing the hit count in Google Books (which seems to favor Tenedos) as overturning any other evidence. Would be nice for the community at large to review the arguments and help forge a consensus. Cinque stelle (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is clear about this: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This is still Tenedos by an entire order of magnitude as the Google Books query above amply demonstrates.
New users participating in the discussion should be aware that only last month there was already a move discussion which resulted in no consensus effectively keeping Tenedos. In this discussion several anonymous IPs and newly registered users have been voting and arguing for Bozcaada. Seasoned users will know what kind of 'discussion' is going on here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Gun Powder, as a relatively new (several months old) user can I ask you what is your argument in favour of Tenedos? Frankly I have not seen any arguments here that outweigh the extensive and convincing Bozcaada arguments... --E4024 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
E4024, I find your inquiry more than a bit irritating considering that a) you only need scroll to my arguments and evidence pro Tenedos above and b) you actually replied there to me (implying you know my arguments). Are you sure you are fully aware of WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Clarification for GPM: I had no intention to irritate you. I was simply trying to ask if you had any other argument than the Google thesis which has been duely responded by another user. You can ignore my question though; sorry to disturb you. --E4024 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being that rude, but I find the discussion above completely wrongheaded. Demographic proportion? NYTimes versus Google Books Search hit count? Seriously??? Let's actually overlook the valid reasons to choose this or that name:
    • The Island seems to be mostly mentioned in relation to its history (which is, as is common for Balkan-related topics, written from point of view of those, who opposed Ottoman Empire) and to Odyssey (where it is mentioned). Both of this topics are tied to Tenedos name.
    • The article is an overview of modern populated place (its history, economy and demographics), which is called Bozcaada and is commonly referred as such.
So, the question "What is the most appropriate title for this article" is in fact equivalent to the question "What are these island and town mostly notable for?" Though definitely the history of Mediteran is a topic, which attracted much more interest then the populated place, but the main topic of those publications is normally ways more general. I would note that I specifically exclude the sources focused on relations between Greece and Turkey (or Greece and Ottoman Empire), as these works tend to be opinionated, and the amount of opinionated sources isn't much relevant at all. That said, the modern sources about populated place almost unanimously refer to it as Bozcaada.
Taking all of above in consideration I would support the Bozcaada title. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you have to express your vote on the Requested move August 2012 section for it to be counted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: I haven't read the discussion preceding this RFC, but I made a short investigation on my own by checking which name is predominantly used by the BBC, the Guardian, the NYT and the Independent. The three latter ones use Bozcaada as the predominant name, explaining somewhere in the text that the island also has a second name. (source1, source2 and source3). Therefore it seems based on this (admittedly small) sample of reliable English-language sources that Bozcaada is the most commonly used name, and consequently should be the name of the article. The argument based on Google Books hits fails since it isn't established that all those documents are high-quality English-language sources. A redirect from Tenedos is of course in order. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
According to gscholar and gbooks Tenedos seems to be by far the preferred name, even in contemporary bibliography. As I see above the usual argument that the Bozcaada side uses is that we should ignore every work that's about history (from antiquity to 60s). But how can an encyclopedia of general interest ignore this field? Nevertheless, Tenedos is a similar case with toponyms in Northern Cyprus: there is a de jure name (also the historical one) and a name used by the de facto present authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
We hear your arguments on why we should look at Google results. Can you please tell us why we should ignore the use of "Bozcaada" in major news agencies, maps, major travel guides, encyclopedias and etc and rely solely on flawed Google results?

TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this is not an encyclopedia operating in 1960. In 2012, the English media uses Bozcaada. Scholars will continue to write books on ancient Greece and therefore keep Tenedos in the contemporary lexicon. This will keep Google Books/Scholar firmly directed towards Tenedos. But we don't pick article names on Wikipedia based solely on Google Scholar/Books, we also must consult the broader English media. The broader media uses Bozcaada, this much is clear. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." I'll grant that both scholars and newspapers, atlases, and encyclopedias are reliable sources. Therefore both Tenedos and Bozcaada are possible article names. The question really is: why prioritize one over the other? I argue that the general American/English reader comes here looking either for Tenedos as the Homeric island or Bozcaada as the modern island of tourism and wine. It strikes me therefore that two articles are necessary.Cinque stelle (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Constantinople outnumbered Istanbul the last time I did a Google books search for both, but we of course use Istanbul because that is clearly the modern name in a modern context, in the media, reference sources AND books that are talking about the modern place. We then note the historical/former name in the the first sentence of the lead and in more detail in the body, especially in those sections dealing with history, with "Tenedos" a redirect to this page (although if there is sufficient history or distinction, give the historical entity a separate sub-page as well). This is how WP works, full stop, and it is frankly bizarre to hear people claiming we should be dragged down by the weight of historical references (whether those references themselves are in "new" or "old" books). As I said above, I'm not sure people can really believe that when they say it. And don't bring Northern Cyprus into this, where the underlying questions about politics are very, very different ... unless the actual argument being peddled here is that this place is somehow "occupied" by the Turk "de facto" and we must do all we can here to fight that. In which case, the arguments here are even more meretricious and easily dismissed than I thought. N-HH talk/edits 07:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Constantinople also has its own WP page, for the exact same reasons as why I believe Tenedos ought to have its own page separate from Bozcaada. The two cases could not be any more similar. I also believe that this maneuver represents the best hope we have to achieve consensus. If we can bring the "Tenedos" side (Athenean et al) over to agree on this point, I believe the "Bozcaada" group will settle for this as well. This is precisely what AbstractIllusions advocated above, and I think he is correct. Cinque stelle (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Although is there really enough material to justify that in this case? Istanbul is obviously a major world city and, as Constantinople, was capital of the Roman Empire for a long time. With a small island there's less justification for a split, which could also be seen simply as a naming/content fork. Unless the size of the article were to become unmanageable, I'm not sure this is the right option. It seems slightly too close to the Judgment of Solomon to me. N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The rationale for the split is that there is (1) a large body of literature that refers to Tenedos via the Homeric tradition. Therefore, Tenedos is in the English lexicon and people do make reference to it. At the same time, (2) today's tourists and wine aficionadi are looking for and discussing Bozcaada. As such, Bozcaada appears frequently in newspapers, journals and guides. In addition, due to the general preference among geographers to use native names, in atlases (such as Google Maps) we find Bozcaada also in use. Therefore, in conclusion, it strikes me that there is sufficient rationale for two articles because we are not splitting the same baby in half. We may, in fact, be dealing with two babies (to follow your Solomon analogy) and two publics.Cinque stelle (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, counting google hits is no substitute to going through reliable sources one by one, to determine which name they use. The policy says that weight in reliable sources decides, not that google searches decide. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Per WP:LEDE, the article's lede is supposed to present a summary of the article's main contents. I think the Greek community, to which a significant portion of the article is dedicated to (including a table that takes up about half the article), qualifies for inclusion in the lede. This subject is certainly more notable than all that "wine" and "grapes" stuff. My addition is neutrally worded and sourced to a top-notch source, I don't see any valid grounds for its removal. It is only one sentence, so there is no question of WP:UNDUE either. Athenean (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you that the lead should include a mention of the Greek exodus from the island, so we can get that out of the way. But, the wording is not neutral, supported by multiple sources, nor based on consensus. Consensus through discussion with multiple editors was mixed on using "state sponsored discrimination" (a phrase absent in the source) to describe the situation. See Tenedos Talk Archive. I would prefer if the lead discussion of this topic reflected not one source (and a problematic paraphrasing of that source), but all sources on the topic. Maybe the Council of Europe study on ethnic Greek population on Bozcaada would be appropriate for such an approach. That study claims that: "as a consequence of various measures taken by the authorities at that time (closure of all Greek community schools on the islands, large-scale expropriations, maltreatment), but also for economic reasons, the vast majority of the original (ethnic Greek) inhabitants of the islands have emigrated, leaving only about 250 members of this community on Gökçeada (Imbros) and 25 on Bozcaada (Tenedos), mainly elderly people." Regardless, thank you for taking this to the community for input. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for not revert-warring, I appreciate that. Now, if the issue is that it sourced to only one source, there are plenty more that can be found: [18] (A Turkish newspaper) [19] (see page 192) [20] (Human rights watch), many of which use even stronger language than the source I used. Land expropriation, closure of schools, closure of churches, what is that if not discrimination. "Discrimination" is in fact the mildest way of putting it. The Council of Europe study is too verbose, I would prefer if we kept this succinct. Athenean (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
There should be a also link to the policy of turkification (or dehellenization) which was undertaken that time & also a mention to the violation of international treaties.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I think precision in this matter should be preferred over broad terms. My opinion, changeable, is that the lead discussion should be very precise on contestable things. How bout this as a working draft (I got no love for it, so please improve it): In the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), Tenedos was joined with the nearby island of Imbros as areas to be under Turkish sovereignty but with self-autonomy. Since that time, closure of Greek schools, expropriation of land held by Greeks, general maltreatment, and other violations of the self-autonomy for the Greek residents in the Treaty of Lausanne, were violated by the Turkish government. As a result, most of the Greek residents of the island emigrated to Greece, the United States, and elsewhere. Thoughts??? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree some reference should be made to history in the lead - including both this point about population movement and possibly the administrative point mentioned in a previous section. However, I think there is a middle and neutral ground between over-lengthy detail and the simple but highly charged description of "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" that we have now. There is almost certainly some element of truth in that, but we can't rely on just the views of one or two sources and/or our own terminology. As to the administration point, I'm not sure the details of what form of administration was prescribed in a 90 year old treaty are lead-worthy, unless there's a lot more contextual detail about the history of the island overall. It currently reads as an odd statement out of the blue, of no particular enduring significance. And finally, the "wine and grapes stuff" seems fairly widely noted to me, if a little cliched perhaps, and hence worth including. I guess it seems less important if the most interesting thing about this island for you is its place in Greek-Turkish relations. Not all of us have that perspective or obsession ... N-HH talk/edits 16:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The lede is supposed to pique the interest of the reader, which it already does by culminating in the phrase "state sponsored discrimination". Perhaps it's because I study politics, but any time I see something like that I am going to go "below the fold" to find out more. That is where this extra information belongs. The lede is to be a concise description/summary. Cinque stelle (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I do think that exact phrasing is a bit loaded though, and it needs evidence that this is a widely asserted analysis, rather than just the preferred description of one side in a fractious broader dispute, or of one authority when another might dispute it. N-HH talk/edits 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the lead by N-HH. Although points I quibble about, but generally representative of the content in the article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Per this reversion of part of the changes - "Bozcaada, historically known as Tenedos" is clearly more accurate and informatiave as to the names and the differences in their general application. There is also no firm requirement in WP:LEAD or common WP practice for the (current) title to necessarily be the very first word/phrase that appears in the first sentence. However, I'll happily leave it until the title does change and put it back then. N-HH talk/edits 08:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The policy of discrimination against the inhabitants of the island is well-documented and uncontested. It's not a question of one or two sources. Even mainstram Turkish newspapers acknowledge it [21], and it has been amply documented by international human rights organizations [22], and many more authors [23]. I have consequently removed the "reportedly", as it is too weasel-wordish considering the weight of the evidence. Athenean (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree it wasn't ideal and was a little weasel-ish - I included it more as a safeguard, given that it's a topic I only have a very broad overview of, and was wary of simply taking a claim as specific as this as read based on one or two sources, however convincing they might be. I'm not naive about Turkey's record on the treatment of minorities, but I'm conscious how loaded these debates get and how often each "side" - both on WP and in the real world - will usually manage to present just as authoritative-looking reports as to what might have happened somewhere as the other. I'm fine with losing "reportedly", although of course you did a little more than just that and apportioned responsibility on the Turkish state as well as then adding more specific details later. Btw it was definitely worth adding the years of Greek control in the lead (I think I left that out because I couldn't clarify it from the material in front of me). N-HH talk/edits 16:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The details I added were suggested by AbstractIllusions, and I don't see why they are objectionable anyway. By the way, I have found an excellent in-depth source on the island [24] (these are hard to find). I may use it to make edits to the main text in the future, while I am satisfied with the current state of the lede. Athenean (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not objectionable as such, I'm just wary of making the lead focus in too much detail on politics and also read too much like a charge sheet, while at the same time suggesting that's the only reason behind every single Greek departure or that the issue as a whole is that clear cut. I note as well that the link you've cited above talks about the impact of "pull factors" such as the better economic prospects available elsewhere and is a bit more equivocal about whether many of the "push factors" were imposed with the intention of forcing ethnic Greeks out - and also highlights that much of this happened in the context of alleged attacks on ethnic Turks in Cyprus and Thrace at the time. It also says that Turkey has done a lot recently to put things right. We can't go into that overall level of detail in the lead, so it's questionable how far we should go down the level of detail and assigning blame there at all. I'd ideally prefer something broader, more like my previous wording, albeit without the "reportedly". N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The above source is also quite explicit that the "push" factors contributed far more to the exodus than the "pull" factors. Athenean (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
My skim read did not suggest that - I may well have missed that conclusion, but either way the point stands that the situation, according to this presumably impartial and thorough review, was not as simple as the current formulation of the lead would suggest. Also, it's worth noting, in respect of the name change debate above, that the main name used for the island is Bozcaada. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
But the emigration of almost all ethnic Greeks form the island in such a short period of time cannot be explained, in my view, by the general migratory "pull" factors prevailing at the time. Note also how the "pull" factors are given only one sentence, while the "push" factors are detailed in several pages. It's a question of relative weight. While "pull" factors probably did contribute, it is clear that the "push" factors contributed far more. I suppose we could mention the "pull" factors, but not give the two equal weight. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, he says both contributed and that there is no one single explanation. He does not say one contributed more, let alone "far more", than the other. The reason why he gives more detail of the unfair treatment by Turkey rather than comparative global econometrics is as likely to be because the former is the issue the report is trying to address and resolve - I'm not sure we can prove much by indulging in that kind of meta-interpretation. Anyway, I included a line about economic pull factors, but noted it as a secondary cause, which I'd argue is good enough when it comes to weight, especially our own guesswork as to weight. N-HH talk/edits 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does the lede end in the 1970s? If you're going to make the lede a lightning-summary of the island's history, shouldn't it progress to the present day? As is, it reads like a history of the Greek people of Tenedos, rather than a history of Tenedos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.187.203 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead opens with some detail about the island as it is today. The ethnic/political divisions seem a relevant part of the island's history, with repercussions to this day - but if there's something worth adding to the brief historical round-up, feel free to include it. N-HH talk/edits 15:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

De jure status

The de jure status of the island is described by the Treaty of Laussane, which is still in force today. In fact this piece of information is described in detail inside the article and the provisions of the Treaty are well referenced.Alexikoua (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention outside Wikipedia of the "Semi-autonomous District of Imbros and Tenedos" The name doesn't exist. People say "it was meant to be semi-autonomous", but the formal title doesn't exist. The infobox lists official information like population, state it is in (cankkale or whatever), etc. The infobox is not the place to put names which do not exist outside of the wikiverse. Also remember, that rarely do treaties expire, they just sort of wither away. Remember that the Treaty of London (1827), which has formally never been declared void, declared Greece to be a "Dependency of the Ottoman Empire"...no one would add a "de jure: Dependency of the Ottoman Empire" into the infobox for Greece, that wouldn't fly. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: You are right, this point belongs in the lead. That is a fair/accurate compromise that I didn't see, sorry. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What autonomy?

(Text of the Treaty)

1. In English (one of the two official languages of the treaty):

"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 person 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."

2: In French (one of the two official languages of the treaty):

Here.

We are not here to make original research. Nor we are academicians to evaluate primary sources like a treaty text. Nor we are historians to have recorded which elements of this text are still valid, or not, after which acts by the concerned parties. Anyway, leave all the above-said apart, could someone show me the words "autonomy" in these English and French texts? I only see "organisation" and "local administration". Organisation does not mean autonomy. Neither local administration means anything more than municipal functions. Could someone tell us that the word "autonomy" did dot exist in 1923? Then why is it not in this text? Have the Governments of the States Parties to this Peace Treaty left it to us, a bunch of Wikipedians, to decide whether that article envisages an autonomy? On the other hand, why not the first paragraph does not make reference to Greeks but "non-Moslem population"? Could it be because the first Turkish (Republican) Constitution of 1920 was not a secular one, although only four years after this treaty it was secularised? (BTW the second paragraph does not either say anything about "the Greek population of those two islands" if one understands English -or French- well.) In short, let us not invent a status of autonomy that is in our own thinking, not that of the Governments that signed the said Treaty, please... --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A special self-governing status is the definition of autonomy. You should stick to correspondent sources inside the article like Babul Elif (May 2004). In general someone can easily notice that by clicking Tenedos+autonomy+Lausanne in gbooks there is a mountain of bibliography, so original research can't be the case here[[25]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's manifestly inappropriate to have an entry in the infobox - or a description anywhere else - suggesting that the island is "de jure" administered in a way that it has never been, based on the minor stipulations of a near-100 year old treaty that have never been implemented and almost certainly never will be. Of course there's lots of material in authoritative sources discussing the autonomy provisions and the history around them, but you'll struggle to find one that asserts explicitly the claim you want in this article, ie that they have some abstract yet simultaneously substantive application today. Source-bombing is one thing, but it means nothing when twisting what they say in a bid to get them to back up the nonsensical. N-HH talk/edits 21:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think "autonomy" may be the right word. I defer to the neutrality (the author is a Swiss Socialist after all) and exhaustiveness of the Council of Europe Report: "But article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulated a strong regime of local autonomy in favour of the traditional inhabitants" (sec. 12). Having said that, the word appears nowhere in the ECHR Decision on Bozcaada (which deals extensively with Article 14) does not use Autonomy (but doesn't use special administrative status or anything close either). I think it may be a good summary word for the lead, but may be inappropriate for the main text which should aim for precision. But if we decide it is skewed, I once again believe precision should trump needless contention. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Having said that I believe it is an apt description of Articles of the Lausanne treaty, it should not be used to argue that there is either de jure or de facto status of autonomy on the islands. I think it suffices to say that the Lausanne treaty grants local autonomy, but not that those islands have some status through the treaty which means anything today. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Although it's quite a strong word and does not appear to be there explicitly in the treaty, it seems an arguably fair description and one that is used in other sources. If we wanted to be pedantic, we could say that "a strong regime of local autonomy" is not the same as being an "autonomous" entity. Also, pace Alexikoua, there is definitely no suggestion that the intention was for the island to have been "self-governing". The fact the the treaty called for local involvement in the island's administration is of course a relevant part of the history of the island. But, as agreed I think, we should not be describing this place, in the infobox or anywhere else, as actually having some sort of extant and different "de jure" administrative status from the one it actually has in Turkey today, whether described as autonomy or anything else. N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm gonna be the curmudgeon that doesn't like the phrase "special autonomous administrative status". It just seems wordy when "autonomous administration" could be as sufficient and I don't think it loses any meaning. I don't see what "special" or "status" add to the mention in the lead. Am I being too nit-picky here? AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right. As noted, I'm just a bit wary of explicit, unqualified claims about "autonomy", which is a very loaded term and one that was not explicitly required by the treaty. Mind you, there might be less cumbersome - and clearer - ways of doing that. N-HH talk/edits 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I appear to be the only one that has a problem, so I won't go messing with it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I agree it's cumbersome at the moment. Feel free to change it of course, that's how WP works. I'll try to think of a better wording as well. N-HH talk/edits 08:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What are we waiting for ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Extended content

In principle, all Wikipedians are invited to discuss on the request. But frankly I don't see why we should focus on historians. This article is not about history. Almost all articles may have sections about history (Even chemical elements) But this does not mean that the article is about history. In fact there is no notable event in the history of the island other than occasional captures (like all other islands of the World). The article is about a administrative division (district) of Turkey which is situated on the island.(seeDistricts.) Since this is clear by now, starting another discussion with the historians may only mean delaying the move. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the island since it rose from the sea. This island goes in English by the name of Tenedos. However, I would not mind the establishment of a separate article on the modern Turkish administrative unit Bozcaada (district). This article, though, would only cover events after the district has been established by the Turkish government and only those events which are directly related to administrative affairs. I think this may be even a good compromise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Should we also make a separate article on the Ottoman period of the island? Are we going to do the same in other island articles? Why do we pretend not to hear the arguments about the modern day naming of the island? Just this morning there was an acronym here but I will possibly never learn to use those abbreviations... -E4024 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenedos is not the English name of the island. It seems GunPowder Ma hasn't read the previous discussions. All reliable sources name the island as Bozcaada. It is Tenedos only with regard to Byzantine history and Iliad. Besides this is a district of Turkey and it was never named as Tenedos district. (One thing more, Pekin or Peking is the capital of PROC in English and it is immensely more well known than Tenedos. But in Wikipedia it is Beijing. Now I would kindly ask how to separate Beijing into two articles with different names as Gun Powder suggests). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"All reliable sources name the island as Bozcaada"? You're kidding right? Because I have presented over a thousand sources [26] that show that Tenedos is the commmon English name, and not just with regard to "Byzantine history" and the "Iliad" [27] [28] [29] [30] (and there are dozens more). So the only one who hasn't read previous discussions is you. Now do you have anything constructive to say or are you just going to be disruptive ("What are we waiting for?")? Athenean (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. I am serious and I am tired of repeating. This article is not "Ancient History of Tenedos" or "Tenedos in mythology". In such a case I'd vote for Tenedos instead of Bozcaada. (Actually in one of the history articles I've created, I prefered the name Tenedos). But this article is about a district and island of Turkey and its name is Bozcaada in maps. It is only too natural to use the valid name. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even look at the sources I presented? Didn't think so, because they all show that "Tenedos" is still used in a modern context. You're just pretending not to hear. Athenean (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
First, you have offered no empirical evidence whatsoever that Tenedos is mainly used only in connection with mythology and history. Second, assuming for the sake of the argument that this is so, you should know by now that Wikipedia Naming Conventions do not make any distinctions with regards to the fields the name is most used in. Your argument is thus not valid and, I am afraid, Homer's heroes will continue to land on the island of Tenedos, not in the district of Bozcaada. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
(on Homer) Forever. But that's another story... --E4024 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The naming convention explicitly tells us to use the name that is used in the modern context. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
And what does this mean exactly? A scholar discussing in 2002 which beach ancient Greek heros may have used to land on "Tenedos" is discussing the Iliad and Tenedos in a modern context. An archaeologist pointing out in a 2005 newsletter that some Byzantine village has been excavated in the north of "Tenedos" is discussing archaeology in a modern context. A 2012 conference on the botany of "Tenedos" in ancient times is using the island's name in a modern context. It is a fallacy to believe that discussing something from the past automatically makes the context unmodern. Nothing can be further from the truth. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Just because they're using the ancient name of the island today to refer to a location or event from ancient times doesn't make it a modern context. Just like people use Constantinople for the history of the city from Constantine to half the Ottoman times, doesn't make the name being used in modern context. They use it to refer to the ancient times of the city. That should be rather obvious. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You might wanna get yourself comfortable with this section: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have presented plenty of sources above that show that it is referred to as Tenedos even in a modern context. You and Nedim Ardoga are not listening. Athenean (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
TheDarkLordSeth, actually it is true. Discussing the place where Tenes beached his ship in 1200 BC on the isle of "Tenedos" is discussing the island in a modern context because the scholar is looking for a beach which still exists. And this is mutatis mutandis true of my other instances. And you still have offered no empirical evidence whatsoever that "Tenedos" is mainly used only in connection with mythology and history. And even if so, it makes no difference because usually there is no neat line between ancient and modern contextes. It only is in cases like Istanbul which has become the standard name in English for the city since the 1930s. However, the standard name in English for this island is in 2012 still Tenedos, so we use this word as a title, not the relatively rare "Bozcaada". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, again. The scholar looking for where the beach is in doesn't make it the modern context. He's still looking for a beach from an event that occurred in 1200 BC. It's not the modern context. Now, if the scholar is talking about how the wine industry is making a comeback on the island [31] or how the wind farms on the island are very important that is the modern context [32]. Here is an article that utilizes the correct use of Bozcaada and Tenedos [33]. Clearly, the modern English name of the island is Bozcaada. You can check the Google results and see them for yourself how Tenedos used in the ancient context while Bozcaada is used in the modern context. I'm wondering though why you'd ignore multitude of evidence for Bozcaada and rely purely on Google results... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can call Bozcaada "rare" considering that everyone not writing books refers to it as Bozcaada. Doing my research for my trip to the island, I made use of several newspaper articles as well as travel guide sites that refer to the island as Bozcaada. For this reason, it is simply false to say that Bozcaada is rare, except perhaps to say that by comparison Santorini or Sicily is less "rare".Cinque stelle (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Which source refers to Tenedos district ? None. To be sure, there are references to Tenedos island. But modern maps don't call it Tenedos anymore. Please be reasonable. An article about a part of Turkey (for the last 6 centuries) should be called in its valid name except for matters before the 15th century. Above I've given the example of Beijing. I can also give other examples like Mumbai, Astana, Türkmenbaşy and Bishkek. In each case you can find thousands of sources about the former names of these cities in English. But still Wikipedia uses the valid names and not the former names. Under the light of these examples lets move the title to Bozcaada. Extending the discussion is a waste of time and energy. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is the hard proof of that? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
As I see, several recent tourist articles use Tenedos quite often: [www.todayszaman.com%2Fnews-288598-return-to-tenedos----a-look-at-bozcaada.html&ei=oNRAUIS3HPD14QT-5oC4Dw&usg=AFQjCNH0lbPCra1FaK2h7-yu1ZAIohc0LQ Return to Tenedos], Troy-Tenedos. The article concerns the English wikipedia not the Turkish one, thus argumentation against Tenedos is still extremely weak.

This obsessive -every month- request for a new title, should at least be initiated by users which at least can get rid from these pov campaings.Alexikoua (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Now this last link destroyed all the argument... :-( --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious where any POV is coming from. If you are really going to post a link to a random historical tour guide website that does, yes, refer to Tenedos and a (non-functioning, but I worked round that) link to an online newspaper report that explicitly uses the term "Bozcaada" for the island and explicitly describes Tenedos as the "old Greek name" that has not been used since 1479, and claim that those two between them justify keeping this page at Tenedos in 2012, then I can't really help you much. Random and one-off cites don't prove anything about overall usage among serious and relevant sources. And the Zaman article contradicts your position anyway. It's appalling that this kind of nationalist crap and random link-dropping can, yet again, clog up a Wikipedia talk page when the answer is blindingly obvious to any genuinely disinterested observer. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Here, here! Chrisrus (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC), a disinterested observer.
Agreed N-HH. The only thing we can do at this point is include as many possible outside editors to achieve a rough consensus. Otherwise the Tenedos group will continue to filibuster by repeatedly telling us about the Treaty of Lausanne, Google Book hits, and the frequency of name-change requests. This is why I post a Request For Comment, because it's obvious to any outside observer where the POV issues lie. Cinque stelle (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just picked up as well that precisely the same points - not only the name but the contents of the lead re "state-sponsored discrimination" and the inclusion of non-existent "de jure" administrative divisions - are coming up in respect of "Imbros". More outside eyes would indeed be helpful across this debate. It's another WP echo-chamber farce currently. N-HH talk/edits 17:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Speaking to those who agree, would http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_vote_on_everything help? Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This article's name shoulde be changed because of wikipedia's policy. We should use modern names not historic. Also Takabeg wrote about this discussion please see.--Reality 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would this help? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polls_are_evil This has gone on far too long. It doesn't matter how many vote to keep a historical name in favor of the modern one. Just do it. Can we move it today? Chrisrus (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. There is clearly no consensus for that. Your move will be reverted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We do have consensus. It's just not one that some editors like. It's supported further with uninvolved editors as well. In this case we have both the majority vote and the higher quality of the arguments. The first is not a requirement but an added bonus. At the moment, we only have few people who are holding the move request at ransom due to singular flawed evidence that they use while ignoring all the other evidences. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You are one of the parties in this dispute. Your opinion therefore about the quality of the arguments is tainted by your POV. I make no claims who won this argument and neither should you. This is why we have closing admins who can make the call. They don't have a COI but all involved parties do. I do too. Also as a party in this dispute you should try to keep cool and not talk about inflammatory stuff like "ransom". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Then why did you say that there was no consensus? Also, I am entitled to my own opinion. And, don't worry about my coolness, it's subzero. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Because I read the arguments above and I don't see any broad agreement or consensus between the opposing groups. That's why we have WP:UNINVOLVED admins closing moves. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as am I, that's not the issue. I'm glad to hear you are cool. Just don't accuse other editors of holding things to ransom. That's just not cool. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Then how come you're claiming that you've made no claims when you've claimed that there was no consensus in the post I replied to? You're confusing me a lot as now I believe you were actually responding to your own post. You tell me not to claim but you make the reverse claim just before my post which was why I posted in the first place. Also, just because the contents of a statement is not cool doesn't mean the person who stated it was not cool. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confused when you talk about what I claimed so I will not try to add to your confusion by replying to the first part of your comments. Meanwhile you claim that when you wrote that other people hold this decision to ransom you did it in a cool fashion. Perhaps so. But although you claim you were cool when making the "ransom" statement, it still does not change the fact that it is an angry and inflammatory message which unfairly attacks your opponents. Remaining calm or not is irrelevant when making unfair and angry comments which cause friction and it is not constructive, so please avoid making them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, you did contradicted yourself but I'll drop that. For the rest, that is your opinion. To use your wording, also as a party in this dispute you should try to keep cool and not talk about inflammatory stuff like "unfair and angry", so please avoid making them. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough, let's agree to disagree on the contradiction. As far as your second point I was trying to describe your "ransom" comments the way I perceived them. I don't know if there is an easy or effective way to describe this type comments but I wouldn't be surprised if my description fell short of the optimum, assuming there is such a thing as an optimum description of difficult comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


About the supposed majority mentioned above I have to note that after excluding 4 votes due to clear wp:SPA activity (newly created accounts, unlogged & a double vote), there is a majority on the 'oppose' site.Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. Mlepori, TheDarkLordSeth (me), E4024, TaalVerbeteraar, AbstractIllusions, Mike Cline, Khutuck, Cinque stelle, Nedim Ardoğa, Chrisrus, N-HH and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff voted in support of the move. That makes 12 votes. There is an additional IP vote as well. Athenean, Dr. K, Labattblueboy, Alexikoua, Gun Powder Ma, Macedonian, Seleukosa, WhiteWriter and Antidiskriminator votes in opposition of the move. That makes 9 votes. You can't really attack the editors who voted in support of the move with SPAs. The majority belongs to support votes. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no proof of sockpuppetry and Athenean's attempt to brand me as such failed. The admin's have closed the investigation. Second, we are not allowed to discriminate against IP accounts or new users. Third, several "No" votes do not include any argumentation and simply contest the number of times the Request for Move has been made. These no votes should be removed from the tally and discarded, as they add nothing to the merits of the discussion. Cinque stelle (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you both are wrong here. Please read wp:SPA, and you'll see that at least 2 of the support votes are clearly into that category (newly created in order to vote support here). Attack about wp:spa editors? I don't thing so, please reconsider your accusations. There are also 2 support votes by the same user: Noone says that it was sockpuppetry, but one user voted twice (one as ip and one as newly created account, so both votes should be concelled due to manipulation attempt of the proccess). So, please stop suggesting that there is a majority in support votes, which isn't if we consider that kind of unconstructive agenda.Alexikoua (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with SPAs. Please stop trying to intimidate editors. If you continue with such disruptive accusations action gonna have to be taken. I clearly provided you the count with names. Your count is obviously wrong as the evidence suggests. Also, don't accuse people with having nonconstructive agenda. The same can easily be said for the Oppose voters but we don't look at our perceived assumptions about other people's agendas. These kinds of attacks by you are getting really annoying. There is a majority vote and please do not continue such attacks to change that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) These things are also not a majority vote anyway. It's about the arguments and WP policy, both of which are so staggeringly obviously in favour of having this page at Bozcaada. Those like myself who have come to this debate from the outside have grasped that in about two seconds and explained the point accordingly. It's an absolute disgrace that people are holding this up and wasting everyone's time - theirs included - over this, seemingly out of some kind of nationalist wish-fetish. Whether that's down to genuine self-delusion or something more malicious, only they can say. This is one of the worst pieces of RM obfuscation and filibustering I've seen, and I've seen a few. N-HH talk/edits 08:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
My last comment: I really appreciate how, but also wonder why, we have been discussing with so many arguments simply to restore the current, official, accepted name of a small island in the language of a certain country, to which the island has belonged for centuries; although with a short occupation interval, now about 100 years ago; and is still part of that country. (And has been called so for centuries in Turkish, the country's language.).. Please look at the Chișinǎu article; the discussion about the name has been minimum. Capital of a country (Moldova) accepted under the name in the valid language of the country. So simple as that... --E4024 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't thing that this 'since centuries' argument is a valid one for wikipedia. The island is part of Turkey but Tenedos is a well established name in English literature (and history is a part of this literature). No wonder that all this move requests were unsucessfull due to lack of valid arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Although what it's called in Turkish or its official name are factors to consider, the key question is what the common term is in English in a modern context. As it happens, and as noted above, that follows the Turkish form, as any glance at at a sample of the following will show -
Against that, all we have is a raw count and comparison of Google Book hits - which merely reveal that there are a lot of historical references to the island in the written record. No sh#t. That is not the trump card that people claim it to be. Doing a Google Books search for "Tenedos" will make this obvious from the first results onwards - 90% are either books published decades ago or books discussing the Trojan War, classical antiquity or the mid-Ottoman period. These have no weight in this discussion. N-HH talk/edits 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: and here's the quote from the relevant guidelines, in case we've forgotten what we're trying to work out here - "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." Since the place does still exist, and we have a "widely accepted English name in a modern context", we are done. NCGN is also very explicit about the limitations of raw search engine data; and where it says - in a section under that very title - "Use modern names". N-HH talk/edits 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Alexikoua's rationale explains many things. Temedos is an established name in English literature. Well, what kind of literature ? Romance, action, psychology or what ? No, the only reference is to Homer's work. Naturally enough, the articles about Homer and Iliad call this island Tenedos. But it so happens that this article is not about the history or mythology. It is about an unimportant Aegean island which also is a district of Turkish administratice system. How can it have an established name ? Please be frank. There are hundreds of islands over the world which are considerably bigger and/or more populous than Tenedos. Yet they are known by their valid names in WP. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Recycling the same and the same data all these months is really unconstructive, especially after so many unsucessfull requests. Human Rights Watch [[34]], Council of Europe [[35]], and the European Parliament [[36]], aren't romance or something similar and they use Tenedos as the main name quite clear.Alexikoua (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's more constructive - especially for those trying to work their way through the tangle of obfuscation here - than yet again citing three random one-off pieces of literature. Especially when you misrepresent at least two of them. The two European documents you cite are not publications of those bodies. They are a question and motion tabled by mostly Greek representatives. Even the human rights report is from a third party, but is 20 years old and focused on the plight of the ethnic Greek populations of the islands. It is not surprising or probative that especially the first two privilege the preferred Greek nomenclature. Anyway, in every single naming dispute on WP, people on a mission can always find such one-off examples and cite them if they know what they are looking for. They prove nothing, even if they are from genuine third parties. What matters is to go looking with an open mind, in objective sources, to establish the preponderance or consistency in major reference sources in a modern context. Are you saying that the fact that every guide book, and every non-Greek or Turkish media and institutional source, appears to use Bozcaada is overriden by what you've just thrown up there? N-HH talk/edits 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And if you want to know for example how the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly - and hell, even the Greek foreign ministry on occasion - actually seem to refer to the island in their own official publications, you could always search through the links provided. N-HH talk/edits 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I doesn't appear that this [[37]] (Torosyan isn't a Greek representative) and [[38]] are simply reports but official documents that use well established terminology.It just proves that Tenedos too is a well established name by the European Parliament and Council. Alexikoua (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've already pointed out that you are misdescribing those documents. Let's try again in baby steps. I didn't say the first was a report (it isn't, and might carry more weight as an example if it was). Nor did I say or imply Torosyan was Greek (he is though Armenian, which may or may not be interesting - I am not ignorant about regional politics but nor am I going to leap to any assumptions). I did, however, refer to it as a a record of a "motion tabled by mostly Greek representatives" (which it is). I didn't say the second was a report either (it isn't). It is however, as I suggested, a record of a question tabled by a Greek representative. Neither are evidence of what the bodies being addressed as a whole might prefer to call the place in question. By contrast, my counter-examples are closer to doing that (although not definitive themselves either of course).
Now, on to the conclusions and the general principles. All those examples prove is that Bozcaada is still sometimes referred to as Tenedos, especially in the context of preferred Greek terminology. This is not news - we all know this. Nor is having conflicting names for things a new phenomenon that we have to work out radical news ways of dealing with on WP. What we have to do is look at overall, predominant usage in reliable and reputable sources in a modern context, not one-off cites. We can investigate that by going to the usual reputable and relevant sources, with an objective and open mind, to find out what they might happen to say. Not by desperately Googling for cherry-picked evidence to back up our existing personal preferences. N-HH talk/edits 21:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting, here [39] you seem to be fine with using Google Books searches for nomenclature disputes. Athenean (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I am, as one factor worth looking at. I have never said we should ignore Google Books searches, just that we need to evaluate and think about what they might actually be telling us rather than flinging raw numbers back and forth. You'll also note, were you to engage your critical faculties, that I am simply making a broad observation as to usage in books, not making definitive claims about number of hits or coming to any conclusions as to where the - mixed - evidence should take us in terms of naming. N-HH talk/edits 08:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenedos/Archive_3&oldid=1136229604"