Talk:Tenedos/Archive 1

Forwarded discussions

Copied from Talk:Imbros and Tenedos. Some of the edit history of this article is also at Imbros and Tenedos. 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move: February 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gökçeada & Bozcaada → Imbros and Tenedos

• Support Imbros and Tenedos is the English and Historic title of the two islands. The title "Gökçeada & Bozcaada" is the Official Turkish name, but it has letters unique to the Turkish language, undesirable in a title in english Wikipedia, and it clashes with the English common name and historic name; "Imbros and Tenedos". Wikipedia policy is that if official and english common name clash, use english name. Globo 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until someone can point me to where it says that that's a policy. --Khoikhoi 08:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Proteus (Talk) 00:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support See earlier discussion below. I continue to support this as neither the Greek nor the Turkish name, but the English name; Shakespeare uses Tenedos. If it assists consensus Tenedos and Imbros is perfectly acceptable; no reason to remind people of an obsolete treaty. Septentrionalis 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support either Tenedos and Imbros or Imbros and Tenedos. In addition to the conventions listed by Proteus, we should remember Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the principle of least astonishment. I think that more speakers of English will be searching for "Imbros" than for "Gökçeada". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. This is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move: October 2005

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

• Support These are the English names of the islands, even on modern maps; it is Wikipedia policy to use English; the Turkish names are unknown outside Turkey. Septentrionalis 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose First off, Gökçeada and Bozcaada are the current official names, and it is Wikipedia policy to use the official name to avoid problems concerning neutrality. Also, National Geographic uses these names. --Hottenott

Comment: Imbros and Tenedos is Greek, not English!! --Hottentot

The Greek names are Imvros and Tenedhos, which I would also oppose. Septentrionalis 15:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

March 1 2006 edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ARTICLE 14.

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

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

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

That's all I needed to know. Thanks for providing that. I agree that it's best to avoid weasel phrases like "some think", but sometimes it's an acceptable stopgap while waiting for a citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Your previous edit helped to put my contribution in order, and maybe it did need to be toned down a bit, for the sake of not having that subject take up most of the article!

Thanks, Globo 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The joys of cooperation. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged content from The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos per AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit of 15 March

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

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

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

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

Polytonic

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

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

Wines?

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

I think the sentence used to refer to the period before 1920. Neither Athenaeus nor Pliny mention Imbros; although good wine came from Thrace, and famous, if salty, wine from Lemnos. Athenaeus on Tenedos is worth including; note that the same Greek word can mean marjoram and oregano. Septentrionalis 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was Not moved

Requested move 19th June 2006

Please use one sentence comments here

• I oppose the move to the Turkish name. ObRoy 12:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the official internetional name for the islands.  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I opposed this move before; I oppose it now; no new reason to move has been presented. Septentrionalis 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Read again please.  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too soon after last request --Philip Baird Shearer 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So what?  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Use English. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Imbros and Tenedos are names in ancient Greek  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments above and below. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The names are Gökçeada and Bozcaada. Argumentation below. Cretanforever
• Support as I did the last 3 times. We should be consistent with other Turkish geography articles. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bubba ditto 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose --Hectorian 00:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Lengthy supporting comments moved to discussion, so they can be replied to. Septentrionalis

 Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Use the names that are used in a contemporary context! Seems completely nonsense to refer to the islands with their ancient Greek names. Refering to the history of the islands it is relevant to use their Greek names. However, the Turkish names are used in any contemporary reference to the islands. I just checked my Lonely Planet and Rough Guide guidebooks, obviously they employ the current Turkish name. Wikipedia would be a messy affair if we start to label all kinds of locations with a previous historical name! Bertilvidet 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • These are the English names: the names used in English in a contemporary context. If this were simply a Greco-Turkish quarrel, I would have left it alone; but I see no reason for the English wikipedia to use a name unintelligible to anglophones. Septentrionalis 18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have any evidence of that? From my superficial research on the net and in books surrounding me there seems to be a clear pattern: the Greek names are used referring to the history, the Turkish names used when referring the current islands.
      • Just for the record, Bertilvidet, Imbros and Tenedos are not the ancient greek names, but simply the names in greek, ancient, byzantine and modern. since this is how the english speakers refer to the islands, these are the names that should be used in the English Wikipedia. wouldn't that be stupid to ask the rename of Crete into Kriti and of the Ionian islands into Ionia Nesia, just because the Greeks name these places that way? --Hectorian 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use the English names, obviously. (And Kertenkelebek: I suggest you read WP:SIG and do something about your absurdly long signature.) Proteus (Talk) 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use the English names, per Wiki RuleBook. - Kittybrewster 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support As long as this article is a part of districts of Turkey, official internetional name should be used to be consistent, since Turkey has no districts named as neither Imbros nor Tenedos. And if you people don't know anything at lest be wse enough to learn somethng:Imbros and Tenedos are not english names, they're ancient greek names for the islands Gökçeada and Bozcaada Kultigin 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Second contribution; first on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Septentrionalis 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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

I'm uncertain. One could argue that the official names should be used, and one could argue that the most common name in English should be used. Britannica [3] and the World Book Encyclopedia [4] have used the Greek (and English?) names. A move would have to have Google tests performed etc, and we should take exception to the location of the article East Timor. It is not at Timor-Leste, the name preferred by the state's government. --Tēlex 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Google tests have been performed; see the last two move discussions. They confirm that Tenedos and Imbros are, as they always have been, the common names in English; the Turkish names appear in Turkish/English bilinguals, and the official page of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism. As I've said above, Shakespeare used Tenedos; the Turkish names are not merely obscure, but unknown, to anglophones. Septentrionalis 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One can argue most anything, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and Use English is a pretty rock-bottom requirement. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, things would be easier if the Islands had English names. We have to chose between the Greek names which were used in the past and is relevant when refering to the history, or the Turkish names which are used in any contemporary context. As is the case with Istanbul, aka known as Constantinople. Bertilvidet 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This ground has been so well-trodden I'm surprised that anything can grow on it. Naming apart, if any editor feels that the Turkish perspective is not adequately addressed in the article please discuss it on the talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Bozcaada and Gökçeada (although they're Turkish) are the official names in internetional politics and gerography.
   • Even if this were proven (and no evidence has been presented), it would be irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places); we should use, in the English WP, the only name intelligible to English-speakers. Even [www.bozcaada.info www.bozcaada.info] finds it necessary to include Tenedos to explain Bozcaada
2. This article is a part of "Districts of Turkey" under the topic of "Çanakkale" therefore apart form all it should be referred to as Bozcaada and Gökçeada according to the naming conventions. (NPOV)
   • This can be handled by masking and redirects. Even the categories can be handled without moving the article; in the manner which the present text (18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)) will show. Septentrionalis 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Just like "Constantinople" (Roman name to which is now Istanbul for more than half a millennium) and "Selanik" (Turkish name to Thessaloniki again used for more than half a millenium), Imbros and Tenedos (Greek names to the islands) exists no more (practically since long before it became official) (NPOV)
   • It is not Wikipedia's business to say that Imbros and Tenedos have ceased to exist. When the English language uses them no more, relatively, than Constantinople and Smyrna, the proposed title of this article will no longer be unintelligible to English-speakers, and I will vote for it. That time has not yet come; and WP should not attempt to lead the English language.Septentrionalis 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
4. If one wants to depict the ancient history of the islands, they're welcome to use Ancient Greek names under the relevant topic inside the article. However as they're officially named Bozcaada and Gökçeada all other names should be foregone and the islands must be referred to as the internetional name. (NPOV)
5. If Imbros and Tenedos are so widely used, a simple redirect to the official name should solve the problem, it's no big deal. (NPOV)
6. I am not rejecting the ancient names of the islands (which should be preserved in the article) yet I see of no reason to call a part of Turkish Republic in Greek names rather than its official international referral.

 Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renunciation of rights

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

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

Three questions do arise:

• Is this the legislation of the present Turkish Republic? I presume so.
• In what sense are the islanders supposed to be represented in the Ankara parlisment in December 1920?
• What is the case for national legislation overriding Turkey's obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne, which are not millet rights? Septentrionalis 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As the writer of the famous paragraph, let me explain:

First of all Treaty of Lausanne defines no nation or ethnicity as a minority. It only defines non-muslims as a minority and that's because when the treaty was signed there were still legislations in Turkey directly linked to Muslim religion, in other words the country has not been secularized yet. Due to this fact non-muslims required protectory rights not only to live freely according to their religion but also exclusion from to be judged by the non-secular legal system. However after 17 February 1926, legislation of "Civil Law" the legal system is completely secularized and it also brought the most liberal and modern legal system of its time to Turkey. "Civil Law" of 1926 also included additions like "rights to vote and to be voted for women" to the Swiss law which made it far ahead its time. It also guaranteed free-religion as a legal right and brought secular courthouses based on modern law. Therefore there remained no reason for the non-muslim minorities to be protected from "Muslim Law" anymore. Since it's way ahead its time in terms of modernisation, non-muslim minorities ALSO presented their will to be subject to this most modern system of legislation since even their "priviliges" fell behind the modern law. Hope this covers for everyone.  Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 09:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

What do other editors think? "No Turk who respects himself will edit this article" sounds like a call against blacklegs to me. Septentrionalis 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding This is only a guess Septentrionalis 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is hard to understand about naming articles in the natural way for the language in which they appear? If I spoke French well enough, I would happily edit the article on Etats-unis and consider it no smirch against my honor or self respect. I would hardly expect the French to name the article anything else. If someone wants to start a Lenne-Lenapi Wikipedia and use the appropriate Algonquian name (which I forget) for Pennsylvania, let them. As for the mail point, neither our readers nor, I suspect, the Turkish postal service are that clueless. The official name is given in the lead, and international mail is routinely delivered when addressed comprehensibly in the writer's language. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• There are two islands. From what I could check, this is the only article which presents two Aegean islands of some significance together. I add that there is some distance between them.
• Each island corresponds to a district. Each district and its center town bear the same name as the island as far as the designations in Turkish are concerned. I am assuming that the understanding would be identical for the names Imbros and Tenedos. Therefore, the article's name does not only relate to the names of Turkish islands, but also substitute to those of Turkish districts. And at the present state, they differ from the actual name, the official name used both in administrative and in practical levels. This makes another unique case (as besides their having been presented together). All other districts are under their official names.
• These two islands/districts/center-towns are not administratively bound to each other in any direct manner. They are both part of the Çanakkale Province and they share parallel administrative elements set up in the frame of the Lausanne Treaty. The Treaty unites them but the provisions set up by the Treaty are implemented in a distinct manner for each island/district/center-town.
• They have not had first-rate importance in antiquity or under the Byzantine Empire (unlike, for example, Samos), which would have provided a reason for an attachment to a certain name

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

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

Cretanforever

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

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

Of course they should eventually be divided into Imbros and Tenedos; although doing so while so much of the material is common, including the legislation of the Turkish Republic, seems pointless. I should add that it makes no difference to the question of location: Imbros is also established English usage, even if it lacks Homeric glory. Splits under non-English names are deleteable as POV forks. Septentrionalis 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not believe that i would ever agree with Pmanderson, but in this case i do! the article has to be split, so that each islands would have its own article, even if most of the material will be common. but, there is no chance for them been renamed in the english wikipedia. --Hectorian 11:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very interesting to hear that Byron and Brooke were mentioned as reference. Byron went to Greece's aid in its war against Ottoman Empire and Brooke fought in WWI against Ottoman Empire. NPOV? Brooke? Byron? Hmm... --Volkan 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And Kinglake was a friend of the Turks and a historian of the Crimean War, in which Great Britain was allied with Turkey. So? This has nothing to do with English usage. Septentrionalis 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim that Kinglake was a friend of Turks. However others' bias is obvious. They were involved in the fight, literally. Their choice of names is a reflection of their political views. Would you expect Byron to use a proper Turkish name when he goes there to save the cradle of western civilization from barbarians? Following the same argument may be we should rename Istanbul as Constantinople, the name used in Lausanne Treaty! I am still not convinced that using Greek names for these territories agree with NPOV.--Volkan 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always tried to stay cool and explained myself to the furthest extent. But trying to change a district's name because it was once called something else can't be more than a joke! Please accept my apologies for my inappropriate phrase. DeliDumrul 06:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Objection to the Result

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

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

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

(a) lacking some intellectual skills required for interpretation,

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

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

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

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

Like many other people, I believe that google counts are misleading. Even if they were meaningful, it is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy—the saying that "what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right" applies. (from Voting is evil)

Having said that, I double-checked the google search results for Imbros Tenedos and read through the summaries of the first 40 results. All of the hits, except for a couple of sites, were either pages about history or Greek web sites. DeliDumrul 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish use of Imbros and Tenedos in english

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

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

The Greek Population

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

• First paragraph: the islands were inhabited primarily by ethnic Greeks from ancient times through to around the middle of the twentieth century. This needs citation.

Because precise census records are a recent phenomenon, the detailed historic ethnic makeup of the islands must remain a matter of conjecture

This sentence is ambiguous and it represents the authors perception.

• Later: census taken shortly before the islands were granted to Turkey

Citation neeeded. Don't write down (CITATION NEEDED) but tag it! it's kinda concealing that it needs citaion.

• Next paragraph after the treaty: In fact, the local Greek population was marginalized in multiple ways,.

Is this a fact? Citation?

• Next paragraph: Greeks had owned 95 percent of Gökçeada's (Imbros') agricultural land prior to these expropriations, today they own almost none. Citation needed.

• Next paragraph: the situation of the Greeks of the two islands continually deteriorated. [...] in some accasions resulted in harm both to islanders' property and, in some cases, to the islanders themselves.

This includes both comments and observations any of which can not be done by a WP editor. Source?

• Last paragraph: These policies and events led to an exodus of Greeks from both islands.

When you say these policies it is a point of view wether NPOV or not. In any case needs proper citaion. All points of view of notable entities can be represented only by addressing their respective owners and with references. If this is a notable POV, then it should be referenced. If not, it's personal POV and can NOT represented in an encyclopedia.

If you say events led to an exodus it would be a conclusion deducted from the rest of the section which is neither sourced nor referenced.

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

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

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

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

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

Many of these are sourced; the source is not perfect. The solution is to bring more sources; not to delete the existing ones. Septentrionalis 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake! You reverted Porfyrios's edits, too. My edits were not on the names. If you want to change the names, just do what you want to do. That's a whole another story. About the source, if I dump information from a nobody source would you keep them?? DeliDumrul 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and start from here. I tried undoing all Kertenkebelek's vandalism by hand; and the result was not only tedious, but gave less acknowledgement to the Turkish names than the reversion.

• The bit about the Treaty of Sevres not being ratified seems largely irrelevant, and I recall it otherwise; but I will add the obvious, that the Turkish Republid was not signatory to it.
• The remaining collateral damage is things about which we disagree: If you feel you must include a nothing source, that would seem only fair; but a better source from the Greek PoV would be much preferable. Septentrionalis 15:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And a better source from any point of view would not only improve the article; there is a possibility that it might provoke a better source to replace this one. One can but hope. Septentrionalis 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

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

Asd for the modifications from pure reversion:

• Fine, Kertenkelebek can have his completely unsourced paragraph; the Greeks have several barely sourced ones. I may revise its tone.
• Turkish War of Independence is the name of the article. If you must, go fight there. Septentrionalis 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Ridiculous Edits

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

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

Actually you can put a link after every sentence (are you familiar with journal articles?). However those citatian needed tags are not to be replaced by references one by one. Those tags show that you are presenting facts and those facts should be based on references. If one reference covers the facts in a paragraph, you can put the reference after the paragraph (not in every case though, things like census results need to be cited immediately after)

and don't call my edits ridiculous POV pushing and vandalism I wouldn't keep informing people that I reverted their edits if I were a vandal. DeliDumrul 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Civil Law" "revoked rights" part

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

Note on cats

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

You made some good points, but I think the categories should be in the actual article, not a redirect—in order to prevent confusion. However, as you said, I wouldn't object if they were added back either. —Khoikhoi 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think it is time that these articles be split... —Khoikhoi 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree; I've always found it strange they were treated in a single article, when it seemed clear to me that each should have his specific article.--Aldux 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My only reason for not splitting into Imbros and Tenedos was that so much of the content was common. Where should Imbros and Tenedos and Gökçeada and Bozcaada redirect to after the split? Imbros, I suppose. Septentrionalis 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it could be a dab page. I know the content is common, but one must not forget that these are different islands. —Khoikhoi 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's split. I've done a mechanical division, cutting out most of the references to each island. Septentrionalis 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenedos / Bozcaada?

Since the official name is Bozcaada, would it not make more sense to move the article to that name and change the wordings in the article? Currently it says Ternedos throughout the article. // habj 21:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The discussions on this are the page above. This is the English name for Tenedos, and has been since Shakespeare; Bozcaada is unknown. The Turkish wikipedia will, and should, use Bozcaada; that's Turkish usage. Septentrionalis 17:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Philoctetes

The article about Philoctetes mentions nothing of Tenedos - instead it says he was stranded on Lemnos or Chryse. Regarding these old mythology stories, there are usually several places that claims to be the place where hero X experienced Y. It is not wrong to mention that the people on the island claims that this was the place where Philoctetes was stranded, but it should be rephrased. // habj 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a local claim; it's from the Cypria. I will check the exact phrasing; thanks. Septentrionalis 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unification of Education Law of Turkey

Hi. The article alludes to Tevhid-i Tedrisat (Unification of Education) Law as:

The teaching in the Greek language in schools was forbidden with a law on the “Unification of Education” (Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu)

This is false. In Istanbul, there still are schools (primary and lycee) teaching in Greek and operating since the beginning of Turkish republic, and they are in compliance with Tevhid-i Tedrisat. This is why I delete this sentence. If there were no schools teaching Greek in the island, this should be documented. Filanca 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing

It is amazing to, once again, run into an article like this one (similar to the whole South Tyrol issue) that completely ignores a proper and official name and, instead, uses some obscure name that is 'claimed' to be used in English. Bozcaada is the official name - and the one we use in English (at least some of us English speakers). What a pity. Rarelibra 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use it, you are almost alone. As for me, until I came to this debate, I had never heard "Bozcaada" before; "Tenedos" is what anglophones have used since the Renaissance, and still use. See the debates above.

You are incorrect, as a map was presented showing the use of "Bozcaada" well before "Anglophones" had any influence. This is, again, a POV conflict - and wiki is not always correct, policy or not. Let's go back to calling it Constantinople, then, right? Just as invalid an argument. Times change, names change, and official names are what are to be respected - so if, say, the new Republic of Montenegro wishes to change names, then we should, by all means, respect it, and not say "well, in English we always used this". Not too 'worldly' a viewpoint. Rarelibra 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Using official names when there is clear English usage is contrary to policy; see WP:NAME#use English words. Those who wish to change that policy, either here or in the South Tyrol, should present their arguments there, not here; or arrange for a Wikipedia fork to suit their tastes. Septentrionalis 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we need to stop being "anglophones" and to start recognizing culture. POV has been pushed around so much - the threads read of a "turkish" POV when the only POV being pushed is the 'anglphone' POV saying "this is what is it known as in English". I think the English translation of "Bozcaada" is "Bozcaada". Funny thing, culture. It is the part of Wikipedia that is incredibly closed-minded and inappropriate. Just a thought. Rarelibra 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But this English Wikipedia is anglophone; that's what it's for. There is also a Greek and a Turkish WP, each of which should do things differently. Septentrionalis 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Rarelibra... Begin by calling Greece as Hellas, and the Greeks as Hellenes... This is the official name of the country and this is how the greeks call themselves... I thought it was the english wikipedia, though... Hectorian 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian - I would begin by calling Athina as "Athens". Thus the English translation of Bozcaada is? Being that you are under a Greek influence, I can tell you this much already - English or not, there is a strong Greek POV here. The islands are part of Turkey. Like it or not, their history may lie in another culture or empire, but officially their names are now Turkish. I'm sure you probably refer to an ancient peoples as the Phonecians as well (when their proper name was the Canaanites - check the Bible). While we're at it, we won't call the Greeks as Hellens at all - we'll call them Minoans, since that is their origin (and what we have 'always called it' as 'anglophones'). That is also POV. Rarelibra 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is something directly from Wiki rules:

The testimony of locals and people familiar with the country should be considered above Google evidence...

So it doesn't matter what Google anglophones say, it has a proper, official (local) name. Rarelibra 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the way u are thinking, but still, u should call Greece by the name 'Hellas', cause this is how we the locals call it;-). btw, Tenedos, is de jure and officially autonomous, according to the Article 13 of the Treaty of Lausanne (a treaty that is still considered valid by the signatory parties), due to the island's Greek majority. so, u think it is not important how anglophones call it, how international treaties call it and how the majority of a protected (yet expelled now majority) call it? Hectorian 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hectorian, but article 13 of Lausanne treaty is not about Bozcaada. It is about Greek islands Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria. It states that "No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands" and "Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service ... as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory". However those islands are armed to teeth by the Greek state in violation of the said article. They are huge islands, each one many times larger than tiny Bozcaada. In the view of this violation of such an important article about Aegean islands, Turkish governments might not have cared much about the 14th article of Lausanne which says police force of Bozcaada should be recruited from locals. Mind you, Lausanne treaty sets no limit to the armed force Turkey may place on Bozcaada. Filanca 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. u are right! It is article 14 that is about Imbros and Tenedos, but it does not talk only about the police, as u are keen to believe... This is the article:

ARTICLE 14. The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders. The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos.

And here is its source.

U wanna talk about Treaty of Lausanne violations? U know, Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.... Here we go:

Article 12: Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty.-Imia lie 3.8 nautical miles off the turkish coast. Also, on this, Article 15: Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands [...] and the islets dependent thereon. (In any case u prefer to look at it... pick one of the two, or, u may also want to see the Protocol of Ankara-what? isn't it "binding"? LOL... Then why was it signed?)

Article 42: The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities.-(see Istanbul Pogrom).

Article 40: Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.-(see the Theological School of Halki).

Article 37: Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.-Does the so-called law of the "unification of education" rings u any bell?

I am bored to get into details for all the violated articles... I bet u got my point... Cheers! Hectorian 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But you don't get our point, Hectorian. The article you quote above mentions a police force recruited from the local population - it states nothing about having "Greek troops" on the island (which I'm quite sure would be an act of aggression towards Turkey). I'm sure that these islands aren't as important as Cyprus, but they are owned by Turkey. Plain and simple. Thus, the official name should be used. Of course, the bias in wiki will continue... Rarelibra 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article i mention above, apart from the police force, also says: shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, but u apparently "did not" see that... My mistake was confusing the numbers:article 13 with 14, and this is why i provided the whole article 14. As for the Greek troops in the other (Greek) neighbouring islands of article 13, u have taken it as a fact, didn't u? would u mind telling me how many troops does Greece have on them, or if they have a military airport of naval base? don't take everything that someone throws in discussions as a "fact". u said: (which I'm quite sure would be an act of aggression towards Turkey)... LOL... u did not even use a neutral tone like would be perceived as... or would be regarded as..., and now i begin to understand other bias... Apropos, regardless if Greece has troops in the islands, Turkey has definately in the opposing shores (the Military Air Base in Izmir is a fact, isn't it?), but, according to your logic, this does not constitute aggression towards Greece... As for the name, this is the English wikipedia, so the debate is of no-existance. Hectorian 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do official names. (Neither does the Turkish wikipedia, of course, where tr:Londra is in tr:İngiltere in tr:Büyük Britanya). We are here to communicate in English, with English-speakers. See for example,

• Talk:East Timor
• Talk:Greater Poland Uprising
• Talk:Meissen
• Talk:Bangalore

Or for that matter, consider Los Angeles, where we do not use the City and County of Los Angeles. In any of these cases, the way to move the Wikipedia article is to change English usage, as Izmir is English usage, much to Hectorian's discontent. Bangalooru may succeed in that, as Mumbai has - although they'd better decide how to spell it first. Here there is repeated consensus on Tenedos, as Shakespeare called it. By doing this we avoid most of the argument above, most of the time. Septentrionalis 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Septentrionalis' perspective here, as someone who has no feelings whatsoever about Greek/Turkish conflicts or the Treaty of Lausanne: for the purpose of article naming, the official name is irrelevant, as are ethnic debates. What is relevant is what is known to speakers of English. Until there is sufficient usage of the name Bozcaada in Anglophone cultures to outpace the cultural knowledge of Tenedos, the article remains at Tenedos. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, don't lecture me about "anglophone this" or "anglophone that". I am an anglophone who is culturally seasoned and traveled. How about you? Your quoting "English use" has me sickened. This world is about culture... it was called Bozcaada way before Shakespeare walked the Earth. As for Los Angeles - that is the name of the city. We're not talking long names, we're talking the difference between calling something "Bozcaada" (which is the name) and a POV name that a biased encyclopedia refuses to conform. The irony is your mentioning Mumbai - that is the actual Indian name - which is now used worldwide, as it is recognized and used by Wikipedia. Why don't you present the argument that they have to call it Bombay? After all, it is what the 'anglophone' usage has been for years, right? Maybe because the British POV name was Bombay and now things have changed. Same with this situation with Bozcaada. Your failure to see the same is disappointing, at best. Rarelibra 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The decisive argument about Bombay was that a national dialect of English does use Mumbai, and the others recognize it. Neither is true here, as this ad shows: if "Bozcaada" were the English name, they would have no reason to translate it.
• What's "the name" of London? and why doesn't the Turkish - or French - wikipedia use it?
• If Rarelibra could show that Bozcaada was more commonly used in English before Shakespeare, or indeed now, that would be another matter. (I know Tenedos appears in Shakespeare; it may well be much older, through Pliny or Quintus Curtius or Orosius - or Vergil. )
• There is a Wikipedia fork called Wikinfo which would be much more symparthetic to such arguments. Rarelibra might be happier there, and if it prevails over us, so be it. Septentrionalis 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your logic fails. The national dialect of English called the city "Bombay". They reverted the name back to the native name of Mumbai. "Londra" or "Londyn" are translations of "London" to other languages. Bozcaada does not translate to "Tenedos". Rarelibra 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion; one of the prevailing points was that Indian English uses Mumbai (which does not, of course, antedate British rule; the city doesn't.) Septentrionalis 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The official government of Bozcaada doesn't translate to "Tenedos" in English - See [this link]. The history piece on the site reads "The first inhabitants of Bozcaada – otherwise known as Tenedos in Greek mythology, and as Leukophyrs during the Antiquity– were the Pelazzi’s, believed to be a branch of the Achaeans and to have settled on the island around 2000 B.C.". Here is a passage about administration - "Bozcaada which is a district of Çanakkale has a City Center located on the northeastern zone, and has no sub authorities. In addition to general administrative authorities on the region there is the Municipality and the Governorship which were established as per the legislation for Bozcaada and Gökçeada District Governorship Foundation, number 1151 and dated 25.06.1927".

Leucophyrs is a misprint; the rest of this is irrelevant. Septentrionalis 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Bozcaada has been legit since after WWI. Long enough to qualify as the name used by some of us "anglophones". It's funny and, yet, tragic to have this discrepancy exist on wiki - much like South Tyrol (which official name is not South Tyrol, but Alto Adige or Sudtirol - and someone's POV decision was to translate the German part only to English and call it 'common usage' as you do with Tenedos). Funny how I'm seeing some of the same names surrounding naming discrepancies on Wiki. Oh well - it is Bozcaada and Alto Adige to me and many others, no matter what you choose to keep here. Rarelibra 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The placenames of Turkey were Turkified in 1926;English has not adopted this one. I regret that Rarelibra has not understood the discussion at Talk:Communes of the South Tyrol, which concluded that there probably was no English name for 110 of the 114 communes involved, and that there were multiple official names. Septentrionalis 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about that. Let's take the other island (Imbros), for example. The article about it from Britannica is titled "Gökçeada". Isn't that proof that English has adopted the Turkish name? Khoikhoi 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that's evidence (and it's not alone; the last example I met was their article Wladyslaw II Jagiello, where it specifies that his English names are Jagiello and Jagello) that the on-line Britannica has a different naming policy than we do. It uses Imbros in the text of the article, you will observe. Septentrionalis 06:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In any case, and as usual, the case for Tenedos is stronger than Imbros; EB uses Bozcaada only once; and then it translates, although the article is about the Ottomans. It uses Tenedos a dozen times.
  • Presumably, in time, Bozcaada will be as familiar as Izmir. One of the signs of that time is that English-speakers like Josiah Rowe and myself will cease to find Bozcaada unintelligible. Septentrionalis 06:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably in time... you mean like since 1927 maybe? One of the things I love about English wiki is the POV that goes on uncontested. Rarelibra 07:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That will not be a sign of the time, it will be enlightenment to reality. Rarelibra 07:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but the fact remains that more English-speakers are familiar with "Tenedos" than with "Bozcaada". This is largely due to the literary and classical uses of the ancient name for the island, which I hazard more English-speakers are aware of than the current, official name of the island. That the ancient name is Greek and the current name Turkish is unimportant.

If, for example, a major Anglophone newspaper gave a dateline as "Bozcaada", I would reconsider my position. But barring that, the Google test shows that English-speakers overwhelmingly use Tenedos, and that's the relevant criterion here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, Josiah, and I am going to first repeat what I wrote above... Wiki states The testimony of locals and people familiar with the country should be considered above Google evidence.... Also, specific rules for search-engine testing state none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic or rule of thumb. Counting the number of search results is primarily for Unencyclopedic or spurious topics (which this is not), and is cautioned due to the fact that the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. This is exactly the case we are discussing - 'popular usage' of a term, but not the correct term (which should be used). Google bias also exists with The search result from Google are highly biased towards popular culture. This is also the case here - exactly what I am talking about with POV bias and not what is correct. Wiki rules also state "Much better criteria for deciding upon the use of the diacritic vs. non-diacritic versions of a word would be the entries in dictionaries, other encyclopedias, and style guides." This is exactly the case that has been brought up (Encyclopedia Britannica uses 'Bozcaada' correctly, yet is shunned by such here - when Britannica has been around much longer than wiki). Rarelibra 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We could as well have a look in BBC: 12 results for 'Tenedos', but with the name 'Bozcaada'... Sorry, There are no results for "Bozcaada" on the BBC website... Hectorian 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, all the hits are for the HMS Tenedos, none are for the island. Khoikhoi 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, I think I stated that search results are invalid when it comes to the official and conventional naming case we are discussing. You could search on Mars and Jupiter and it doesn't apply in this case. Rarelibra 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, it seems like you consider Vikipedia as a platform for Greek-Turkish debates. You talk about treaty of Lausanne articles that are unrelated to this article. Here are the answers to your allaged violations, and I hope this issue will not continue any longer:

Article 42: Said event was not done by Turkish government, but by some Turkish citizens. In spite of that Turkish government accepted responsibility and paid indemnities to those who were affected. Turkey fully complies with Lausanne treaty in protecting minority religions as is evident from number of churches and synagogues currently operating. Aside from churches of mentioned minorities in Lausanne treaty, protestant churches are also present.

Article 40: Theological school at Heybeliada is closed because the management of the school does not accept to be a part of the Turkish higher education institution. No school may operate in Turkey illegally, be them Orthodox or Muslim theological schools. This also does not violate article 37 since other Greek schools, as well as schools belonging to other minorities are currently open. Heybeliada School could operate "freely" as long as it is a part of Turkish educational system as the other minority schools are.

I hope we are done with irrelevant articles of Lausanne. Back to article 13 and 14, they are both about Aegean islands and Turkish governments followed a reciprocity policy in the face of Greek violation of art.13. Filanca 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One last reply, and i cease further involvement in this (irrelevant for this article) issue:

U seem not to understand that the Greek minority was expelled, do u? what if there are churches, just the turkish government expelled those who would go there? btw, the Istanbul pogrom was organised, and this is something that modern turkey does not deny... Read the respective article and the works of turkish scholars before putting the blame on some (huh?) civilians...

The "law for the unification of education" contradicts article 40, despite Kemals signature that no law or whatever would ever contradict the treaty's articles. if the turkish government wanted to place the seminary under its control, u should not expect any 'management of the school' to agree on that (not to mention that such a law is indeed a violation)-perhaps u will have heard that everyone else in the world has criticised Turkey for this (including EU, USA, bla bla bla), but if u want to believe that the turkish deep state had the "right" to do so, it's no use even explaining... Hectorian 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

6-7 September 1955 events might have been organized by quasi-sub-whatever governmental bodies, like gladio. Official Turkish policy was not on the side of law breakers, but paying indemnities to those affected. In fact, the prime minister of the time, Menderes later on accused and tried in a court for those events. Greek minority in Istanbul had a considerable number after this event, well into 70's so it was not exactly an "expulsion".

You should understand that the theological school is a sensitive issue for Turkey. The country is strictly secular, so no religious school may operate independently, without binding with the general school system. If an independent christian school exists, islamically oriented parties will immediately (and rightfully) demand such schools and this is dangerous for the political regime. The fact that religious education in Turkey is under control of secular bodies is for the good of religious minorities, as well as the general population. An islamic regime would be harmful for all other religions. Besides, I believe many countries have public institutions where higher education is organized. Filanca 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn! stupid me, but i cannot help myself not replying on this:). Menderes was accused, but not of what he did (of he tolerated being done) against the Rums of Istanbul... And, btw, he was accused by those who had taken the power by force... It was a military coup, that i really wonder why Turkey considers it legitimate... (military coups in Europe are of no existance after WWII-the cases of Greece, Spain and Portugal are different, since those governments consider their dictators' power over their states as 'dark ages', unlike Turkey-, this should ring a bell to the Turks on what is going on in their country...). And this was not the reason Menderes was hanged for... as for the indemnities paid by the turkish gov, lets just not fool ourselves... It seems like the indemnities of the Treaty of Lausanne...! 1,000 (modern Euros) for a property that deserves much more... Like someone getting my house and car and giving me 1,000 euros! What the hell? my clothes cost much more than that! (see the Istanbul pogrom article... it also talks about these issues and how they had been underestimated by the then turkish government). btw, the Greek minority (at least a large number of it) was expelled in 1965, on a 2-day notice... This, my friend, is ethnic cleansing... But, at that time, mine Generation Y, did not even existed; this is why the muslim minority in Thrace was not even affected... (Now, i must say that i am really glad that the greek governments of that time did not follow the inhuman turkish example...).

I have heard a lot in my 2-and-a-half decades life about the "sensitive issues" of Turkey... What should i say? in Turkey, everything is considered "a sensitive issue"!!!: a possible Kurdish autonomy, or even more rights related to their language, the Alevi's religious freedoms, the Ecumenical status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Halki seminary, the Armenian Genocide... Everything is "taboo" in Turkey!, (thanks to the deep state...). and in the case of the Halki seminary, there is a clear (can't be clearer!) violation of the Lausanne Treaty... Criticised by all, condemned by most, and still the school is not operating...! as if it is a "jihad school" in a trully secular state... And since i am looking a lot in articles online (cause i do not trust the greek media either) related to the accession of Turkey in the EU, i am getting sick when i see that the turkish politicians are trying to "blackmail" special conditions for Turkey's entrance... In my view, either Turkey will fullfill all the criteria (so as to become a full member) or some of them (id est, it will get a special relationship, based on the special treatment it may have)... Sarkozy, Royal, Merkell and Austrian, Dutch (especially), etc politicians and, most importantly the population of these countries, agree with my view... So, to sum up (cause this reply was rather long), "sensitive matters" or whatever, is for Turkey's "internal consumption" and only... The others, do not really care about them... Hectorian 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you really insist on making this article, and Wikipedia at large, as a means of debate of your political views, eh? I guess this is quite common in articles about Turkey and Turks, no matter how they are related to politics, that people of anti-Turkish sentiments use them as a place for attack. This is a problem for Wikipedia.

Since you write a lenghty Prime minister Menderes was accused for his role in 6-7 September events and this information is from the Wikipedia article. "After the military coup of 1960, Menderes and Zorlu were charged with violating the constitution at the Yassiada Trial in 1960–61. The trial also made reference to the pogrom, for which they were blamed." I didn't say the trial was fair, it was not. Menderes was hanged because he allegedly violated the constitution. Among many accusations leading to this end was 6-7 September events. I don't know how you calculated current value of the indemnity, I've read it amounted about 4 million TL which is much more than what you say, but my point is Turkish government accepted responsibility for what happened. And you say "muslim minority" in Greece not affected? Your government does not even accept the presence of a Turkish minority in Greece. Nor it seems you do. How dare you try to teach other people minority rights? Denial will not let you change the fact that there is an ethnic Turkish minority in Greece. Nor were Greek efforts to force Turks assume Greek names will improve your pofile as being a human rights champion. It was the Greek government which closed down Turkish association only because it contained the word "Turkish" in its name. Meanwhile nobody in Turkey denies or ever denied those people were Greek. Istanbul has "Greek" schools, churches and other institutions, not "christian" ones. In fact there is a "Turkish Christian Orthodox" church in Istanbul, too, but that is a seperate one from "Greek Orthodox Church" and it is for Turkish speaking Christians. No, not everything is a taboo in Turkey, but Turkish minority in Greece is a taboo for Greeks. Yes, secularism is a sensitive issue in Turkey and we do not intend to let religious schools spring up independently from the state, be them Christian or Muslim schools. And I think many countries have institutions for higher education, that is not a violation of Lausanne. Heybeliada Seminary may not be a jihad school, but of course, if we let it have a complete autonomy, Muslims may ask for their religious schools (and they would be right in doing so). Laws should be equal for all. Turkish-EU relations may be the least related of all issues you raised in this article. EU criteria are clear for membership (those of Copenhagen and Helsinki) and I can not remember when Turkey asked for a special condition. I hope this will end your (as you said, "silly") raising anti-Turkish attacks in this page. We can clearly see you are under influence of nationalism, thus have a sharp POV, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Filanca 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very stupid to accuse people of been anti-turkish, just cause they happen not to agree with what the turkish government and generals say and preach... I have always been very careful to center my arguments on what the turkish government does, and in no way linked it with the people of Turkey. Apropos, there are many Turks who disagree with their government, but u do not call them "anti-turks"... But, of course, i can see your point: a Greek blaming an incident in which the turkish government was involved, is an easy target to be accused as nationalist.... If the turkish government had ashumed responsibility, it would not had expelled the remaing greek minority in 1965. U know, apologising, but doing the same that u apologise for, is just schizophrenic! I am saying "Muslim minority" because as such is defined by the Lausanne Treaty, isn't that right? btw, the minority is composed by 3 ethnic groups: Turks, Pomaks and Roma. both the state and the public knows that there are turks in western thrace, and noone denies it. but naming all the minority as 'turkish' would be at least misleading (i know that Erdogan considers them all as turks... well, that's a remain of the ottoman period: every muslim is a turk! LOL). The same goes for the association u mentioned: they claimed to represent all the muslim minority, so, such a name for it is inappropriate. There are Greek institutions, churches, etc in Turkey, because the Treaty of Lausanne says 'Greek Orthodox', not 'Christians'. the rest Christians (e.g. the Armenians have their own institutions, also according to the same treaty). The "Turkish Christian Orthodox" church has no faithful! a failed attempt of Pan-Turkism! its first "Patriarch" was a Greek from Cappadokia who hoped that this way the Cappadokian Greeks would be excluded by the population exchange... He failed. Btw, who is a Turk, according to u? all the muslims of Greece are Turks, just cause they are muslims, but also, there are Turks in Turkey who are not muslims, but also, all the muslims in Turkey are Turks (u know, the case of the "mountain Turks" LOL). The members of the minority in Greece have their own names, and are elected in state positions and the Parliament (by keeping their names, of course). Their is no policy to force them change their names, and the names of the two current MPs who were elected, reflects this perfectly. on the contrary, no Greek in Turkey has been allowed to hold a state position the last 40 years... Others, like Lefter Küçükandonyadis, had their names changed (cause it would be a "shame" to have a greek name and play football?). The operation of the Halki seminary is in accordance to the Treaty of Lausanne. If the treaty is respected, the school must reopen; religious schools for others than Greeks, Armenians, Jews, are not mentioned in the text of the treaty. if u want to be viewed as democratic when saying Laws should be equal for all, then, i suppose u will agree that schools for Greek-, Armenian-speaking people are not the only who have the right to exist in Turkey... The Kurdish-, Laz-, Arab-, Circassian-speaking population should also have the privillage to maintain their own schools... Cause, as u said "Laws should be equal for all"! The EU criteria are clear, and we recently saw that the Turkish government is not willing to fullfil them... But if someone has the illusion that the EU will accept a country that does not respects its own signature (regardless if it is about the Treaty of Lausanne, the Protocol of Ankara 1932, or the Protocol of Ankara last year), then he is surely mistaken... Oh, and I do dare speak about minority issues! Greece may not be Sweden in this field, but it is surely miles ahead from its neighbours... Hectorian 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont accuse you for being nationalist, be whatever you like, but Wikipedia is not the place for nationalist debates. By bringing not related topics in this discussion page, you are acting against the aims of this encyclopedia. The aim of this page is to communicate and reach agreement on issues about the article. Had Turkish government not assumed responsibility for not being able to protect its citizens, it would not pay indemnties (albeit not considered enough) nor it would accuse its prime minister for being faulty in that crisis. Thanks for accepting a Turkish minority in Greece yourself, but you should be self critical: Greek government does not recognize their existance (or if they do, this is very recent). Calling Pomaks (Bulgarian speaking muslims) as Turks is not a case at all. If Erdoğan does that (which I've never heard of) he is faulty of course. When it comes to the association, clearly the reason of closing it down was its name. Had they claim they represented non Turkish people in a Turkish association, that would only be a reason to laugh at them. Turkish Orthodox Church in Istanbul is right next to my workplace. They are active and though they dont have many followers, they have believers, including some Gagauz, they are not worse than the Anglican church of Istanbul. Speaking of the Anglican church, contrary to what you say, minority temples do not exist only because they are listed in Lausanne treaty. Lausanne speaks of no protestant or catholic minorities in Turkey yet they exist and have churches. Lefter Küçükandonyadis does not seem like a Turkish name to me, although he was half Turkish. Except for "Küçük" in his family name and I dont think anyone forced him to change his family name. There was a Greek policy of changing Turkish names with Greek ones, fortunately that is not the case by now. I didnt know that EU countries have schools for each and every ethnic group in their country. That is not the case, say, in Greece. I don't think Heybeliada school for priests is a violation of Lausanne. No Greek primary school or lycee may exist without being a part of the Ministry of Education of Turkey. Since this is not a violation of the said treaty, Heybeliada school should also be a part of Higher Education Institution. Like the universities in Greece. They should not fear this if they are not doing something illegal in that school. For being ahead of its neighbors Greece must first recognize the very existance of its minorities! Filanca 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist? LOL... I am an ordinary Greek... I claim nothing from noone, but I want from everyone to accept what the Greeks have offered and to obey in the treaties they have signed! Manderes was hanged for "violating the constitution", not for what he was supposendly had to do with the pogrom. i hope u do know that Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, who had a word in the trial, had to hire a translator, so as to be sure that his quotes would not be misinterpreted... And, in any case, the Greeks of Constantinople, cause of Turkish government's acts, have been reduced by 99% (on the contrary to the muslim minority in Greece that has rose up by 300%...). this, is a clear violation of the Lausanne Treaty! expulsion, and labour camps (during WWII, when greece was under triple occupation), pogrom and unfair laws afterwards... Maybe the Turkish deep state wants to present itself as "secular" and "democratic", but their actions have long ago proved them wrong, and they still do! IMHO, i do not believe that Turkey has the will to change (and, yes, the Halki School is protected by the Lausanne Treaty... Read the articles, for Christ's sake! and, also, yes, there are american, german, french, english colleges and universities in greece that have a thousand more privilleges that any school has in Turkey...). the EU slapped Turkey once... The EU members will do it again... Referenda will be held in many European countries, if Turkey will ever be able to join... Full respect of the treaties and european values is all that is required... If Turkey is unwilling to do so, it will be kicked away. no european would like to see a 'pseudo-secular', persecutor of minorities (if not the Greeks, see the Kurds), an unfaithfull to the international treaties country that worships a long dead leader been part of the EU! think about that... Full obligations=equal rights. exceptions and "special treatment"=out of the EU forever... Well, in fact, out of everything, since the Arabs are not fond of Turkey either... All is in Turkey's and Turks' hands: will they prove to be capable of democrasy or not... That's the question... (and, yes, Greece recognises all its minorities, unlike Turkey)... Hectorian 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Oh, come on now, Rarelibra, what PoV do you allege combines the three editors who disagree with you? You might consider, before answering, this edit, still recorded on this page, in which Hectorian expresses surprise that he agrees with me on anything.

Don't insinuate personal attacks; come right out and say what you mean, so you can be challenged to provide evidence for it.

My only interest here is in maintaining this page at the name I have always called Tenedos in English (I do not speak Modern Greek), instead of one that caused me to check that I was at the right article. It is policy that generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize; names literate English speakers do not recognize at all for subjects they know are right out. Septentrionalis 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's funny - because having first come upon this article, I was doing research and verification/validation for mapping layers of Turkish administrative levels. I was checking Bozcaada and when I ended up at Tenedos, I thought I was in the wrong place. You see, it was too easy an assumption that a link to Bozcaada would bring me to an article about Bozcaada, not some obscure name that you claim you have "always used in English". I am a native English speaker, and yet my research brought me to the proper, official name assigned and used by the Turkish government (and, I would think, more parts of the world than you think). I would easily recognize Bozcaada myself (as I would also recognize Alto Adige or Sudtirol, not South Tyrol). It boggles me how you can so easily cast aside cultural awareness and learning and, instead, force-feed a POV so that a non-English speaker who happens to peruse through English wiki would actually think that it's ok to reference something by an incorrect name. Consider the city of Oświęcim in Poland. According to YOUR logic, we should call this place by the name of Auschwitz (which is what is used to be called before it, too, changed hands). Yet I search on the proper name in Polish in ENGLISH wiki and there it is - not under Auschwitz, but under it's proper, official name. An even better (and direct) example is the Polish city called Gdańsk. It used to be called "Danzig", but was renamed. If you search under Danzig you will find you are redirected to the proper, official name. This is THE example of how Tenedos should be redirected to the proper, official name of Bozcaada. NOT the other way around. Therefore, you are presenting a biased POV. Do what you wish, but the facts will remain. Rarelibra 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: If this is PoV, what point of view is it? Septentrionalis 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to answer the question, since it is illogical. My statement rests - it isn't a personal attack, it is a focus on getting rid of the POV that exists - especially with such statements as "as I have always called it in English" or the whole anglophone proof. Rarelibra 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

this isn't a personal attack, this is a discussion of POV. As for the quoted "Google test" above, wiki states clearly NOT to use such tests. Rarelibra 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare's time is long past and many words he used then are used differently now. I feel calling the island as "Bozcaada" would be more proper today, with the current knowledge of ours. I think we have sufficiently proved Bozcaada is not a recent coinage by the Turkish government, but dates back to at least 16th century. It is on old books, gravestones, etc. I am not being disrespectful to Greek speakers. Those who travelled to Turkey would see signposts containing old Greek names of many historical towns, and surely Tenedhos is a name we should preserve and remember. But Bozcaada is really THE name used by all islanders today. In spite of that, native English speakers should decide which name they want to use. Filanca 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is I think it is a farce to even allow 'native English speakers' to override the real and official name of somewhere. I would understand if the English translation of Bozcaada would be Tenedos (and it isn't). That's one thing. But this is saying "well, it's always been called that for centuries, so no matter what we are going to call it that now". Times change, governments change, geography changes. Otherwise we would refer to a lot of the European and Middle Eastern areas by Hellenic names, now, wouldn't we? ;) Rarelibra 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture changes more slowly than official names do. If you feel the reliance on "native English speakers" for article naming is a farce, you should raise the issue at the talk pages of WP:NAME or WP:ENGLISH, rather than here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Josh - use my entire quote next time... to include "native English speakers overriding the real and official name". Don't cut my quote short and twist it around. Raising such issues never gets traction, as we have seen with South Tyrol - you get plenty of comments, and even when it seems the name should be adjusted, somehow it still doesn't get adjusted. We could get plenty of input of opinion to change the name back to Bozcaada, but somehow those who have "always called it Tenedos in English" would ensure that it didn't change. If I decide to raise the issue, I will. If not, it will rest with my opinions here. Such issues on wiki now seem more than just simply, isolated events. It won't change my contributions or my drive to create more maps to enhance articles... it will just continue to remind me that fair and impartial are not words that exist in kind for English wiki articles like South Tyrol, Bozcaada, and Gökçeada. And I won't be surprised when I find even more in the future as I comb through more geography articles. And you didn't even comment on the direct example of Danzig and Auschwitz - which now exist as Gdansk and Oswencim properly (and the articles even redirect properly). That is how Tenedos and Imbros should be (as well as South Tyrol). Rarelibra 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the lead of WP:PLACES, the document Rarelibra's quoting, says: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Tenedos fits that better than Bozcaada. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Akhilleus - my wife is an "English speaker" (originally from Poland). She sees the name as "Bozcaada" (or at least what was taught in her Geography class). "Tenedos" is a historical name, period. Or are you going to only categorize "English speaker" as one that was native to the language? I hope not. Rarelibra 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Tenedols a really more recognizable name for this small island? When there is virtually no practical reference to it its country? English speakers will have hard time finding the island by asking the way to "Tenedos", few people in the country knows the island by that name. This is so in the books, ferry tickets, maps etc. Filanca 08:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that English-speakers may be more likely to know the island from the context of classical history or literature than from the context of modern geography. For example, I know it from my interest in the Trojan War, and hence know it as Tenedos. I don't think my experience is that atypical, either. If the island had attained any particular notice in the time that it has been named Bozcaada, that name would be more widely known in English. Gdansk is a major city and port, and thus its former name (Danzig) has been supplanted in popular awareness. Auschwitz/Oświęcim is a more complex case, in which I believe the deciding factor is that most editors searching for Auschwitz would be looking for the concentration camp, not the town; in this case, the two terms have a useful disambiguation function, with Auschwitz redirecting to Auschwitz concentration camp and Oswiecim redirecting to Oświęcim. This naming pattern follows the principle of least astonishment, as does calling this article "Tenedos".

Is it culturally insensitive of me to observe that the island is better known in the Anglophone world for its involvement in classical mythology and history than for any events that have taken place under the name Bozcaada? If the island were more significant, it might be appropriate to split the ancient and modern usages into two pages, as has been done at Smyrna and İzmir. As it is, I personally think that more readers will be looking for the island in the ancient context than in the modern. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Josh, your statement of "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is limiting and disappointing at the same time. I happen to work in the telecommunications industry (and I work with the military as well), and I can tell you that if you go to provision a circuit, you don't look up carrier networks in "Tenedos", you look up "Bozcaada". In the military, we won't be referring to training, traveling, or visiting "Tenedos" - we'll be referring to "Bozcaada". We can probably continue such quotation in a majority of industries - other than anthropology, ancient history, and other references to what the name used to be a very long time ago. Fact of the matter is, the name IS "Bozcaada" and should be properly reference in Wiki, English or otherwise. Rarelibra 15:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Which military? I have no doubt that the Turkish military uses "Bozcaada"; the Turkish wikipedia does, and they ought to; there is no question that this is Turkish usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States military - and it is referred to as "Bozcaada". That would be an English-speaking nation. Rarelibra 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, yet information here should be good enough to be used in as much fields as possible including travel. I used knowlege I got from here in my travels successfully in the past. An approach may be splitting the town (which was rebuilt and repopulated in the Ottoman time from ruins) and the island into seperate articles. Filanca 12:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Names used by other references

Here is some information for those who wish to continue denying the rightful name of Bozcaada:

• Upon searching Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.), which is the standard online (English-speaking) encyclopedia used by most search engines (including Google and Yahoo), for "Bozcaada", it states "Bozcaada (bozjä"ä'dä) [key]or Tenedos (ten'udos) [key], island, 15 sq mi (39 sq km), NW Turkey, in the Aegean Sea. The strategically located island was a station of the Greek fleet during the Trojan War. Xerxes used it (5th cent. B.C.) as a base for the Persian fleet. The Ottoman Turks captured it in 1657." (this, by the way, was when it was renamed to Bozcaada by the Ottomans). If you look up "Tenedos" in the same search, it states "Tenedos, Turkey: see Bozcaada."

• Here is a Greek website (Greek Travel Press) search result: "Type of location: District, Homeric island" ; "Other Names: LEUCOPHRYS, CALYNDA, LYRNESSUS (Ancient), TENEDOS (Greek name)". This specifically shows that Tenedos is the GREEK name for the island (not an English translation).

• MSN Encarta, which has an extensive geographic reference section, has a search result for "Bozcaada" as "Bozcaada, Turkish island, also the chief town of that island, in the Aegean Sea, 5 km (3 mi) off the west coast of Asia Minor and 19 km (12 mi)...". When you search for "Tenedos" in MSN Encarta, the results are "Search for 'tenedos' - No results were found for your search in Encarta".

This is using reference, not a "Google" search (as wiki explains not to do for such cases). If you would like, I can contact friends of mine at either the US government mapping agencies and/or National Geographic and give you their opinion. Rarelibra 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do find this evidence somewhat persuasive, but on closer examination it may be somewhat equivocal. Contemporary maps published in English-speaking countries should be taken into consideration — however, it's worth noting that the National Geographic, for example, always lists the local name first and puts the English and other alternate names in parentheses: see their Russia map for example, where they list the capital city as "Moskva (Moscow)". Now take a look at their map of Greece, which includes all the Aegean islands. They list the mythical home of Hephaestus' forge as "Limnos (Lemnos)". Similarly, they list the island we're currently discussing as "Bozcaada (Tenedos)". I take all these examples to be giving the local name first, and the English name second. On the other hand, they also have the capital city of Turkey as "Istanbul (Constantinople)", so these may also be interpreted as alternate names instead of English names. My point is that the evidence of English-speaking maps may be somewhat equivocal.

As for the evidence of other encyclopedias, it's worth noting that if you type "Tenedos" into the search box at britannica.com you get eleven results, while a similar search for "Bozcaada" gets only one result. I think that Britannica is at least as authoritative as the Columbia or Encarta encyclopedias, if not more so. The evidence you present above is important and worth considering, but I think this is as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize, Josiah, but in all due respect and attempt at assuming good faith, I find your words offensive, insulting, and pompous at best. I don't know what you do for a living, but I have many years working with geography within various organizations (public, private, and government). I've traveled to 24 countries (including Turkey) and my work is both proven and award-winning. My research has helped even 3-letter agencies with their analyses and efforts after 9/11, for example. So your statement about "closer examination it may be somewhat equivocal" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. National Geographic publishes the OFFICIAL name with any alternate (or historic) names in parentheses (or do you think that they still refer to Istanbul as Constantinople in any part of the world?). The evidence is overwhelming to use the official (and proper) name of "Bozcaada". Rarelibra 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt your professional experience, Rarelibra, and I can understand how it's left you with strong opinions, but the standard for geographic names is not the official name, but the most common name in English. Also, WP:NAME says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." You're looking at this from a specialist's point of view, but so far I haven't seen compelling evidence that Bozcaada is the most common term in English--it looks to me as if a general audience will find Tenedos more often.

As a side note, it might be good if you could ratchet your rhetoric down a few notches, because calling editors (or their posts) "offensive, insulting, and pompous" is not a great method of building consensus. I really don't mean to be rude, but naming disputes don't need this level of vitriol. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Akhilleus, it is the official named used in English - we've thrown plenty of examples, we can go to such places as the CIA (who refer to it as Bozcaada) or National Geographic (as stated above) or the UN (who recognizes the legitimate district of Bozcaada, not Tenedos), the list goes on and on and on. Optimizing it for readers would point them in the direction of the official place name with reference to the historic (or alternate) name - as wiki rules state (accordingly). What you are, in essence, suggesting is that the general audience - now assuming a person who knows enough English to be searching through the English wiki articles (not necessarily a "native" English speaker), and searches (like I did) for Bozcaada - will suddenly be redirected to "Tenedos" and wonder if there is a discrepancy in the naming for the document or such that the person is researching or referencing. If you look at all of the other old names - Constantinople, Ionia, Pontus, Galatia, Pamphylia, Doris, Lycia, the list goes on and on - you will see that they correctly go to a historic article. Using your same logic, the Istanbul article should redirect to Constantinople - after all, one could argue the usage as several here do, correct? It doesn't make any sense at all. So in that case, you would begin to persuade the aforementioned person searching through English wiki that the name "Tenedos" is correct for that district of Turkey, when it's proper and official name is "Bozcaada". This article, at best, should be split in its entirety - one article for the official district of Turkey, the other for the historic name and area. Rarelibra 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict: this was my original remark) I'm sorry if I've offended you, Rarelibra, but I honestly don't know why you feel insulted. None of my comments are indended as any personal reflection on you or your expertise — I have only attempted to respond to your arguments and refer to existing Wikipedia policies. Perhaps I misinterpreted the parenthetical usages on National Geographic maps — I am not a geographer. However, I don't see that a possible error like this justifies the tone of your response. And I don't see why the Brittanica evidence should be dismissed out of hand.

As Akhilleus indicates, the determining factor for the purpose of Wikipedia article naming is not what is official, but what is most common. My background is in classics, which may skew my perspective on this matter. However, if you exclude a Google test, how do you propose we determine which name is more familiar to speakers of English? (Not what is official — we all accept that Bozcaada is the official name.) We should try to find a way to balance the interests of people looking for the modern island and people looking for the place where Philoctetes was abandoned. Is there perhaps enough material to justify two articles, Tenedos for the classical usages and Bozcaada for the modern ones? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Added after edit conflict: it's interesting that Rarelibra and I both suggested splitting the article at the same time. Is this a way forward? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care that much, but I don't think there's enough material to justify two articles. There's also the small problem of where to split the article--at the "Ottoman Empire" section, or what? But I don't really see the necessity, since a clear statment that Bozcaada is the official name of the island in the first paragraph ought to reassure confused users that they're at the right article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. However also see my comment below. It's current name is Bozcaada. Maybe split the article and rename the split one to "History of Bozcaada"? :)) I am being serious though, not quite maybe. It will be the history of the island now known as Bozcaada, that's simple. If the "Tenedos" article that you suggested would not touch upon earthly matters, than it would be ok. However if it were to even touch upon the slightest mention of an actual political, social, cultural event, that would not be appropriate, they belong to the article "History of Bozcaada". People who might search this island by the name of "Tenedos" will simply learn that it has been renamed and their general culture will expand, it is pretty simple actually. I am still smelling some orientalism here, and it generally isn't a good smell :))) Please read the example I gave below about the embassies of the Western countries that were only moved to Ankara 20 years after the foundation of the republic. The funny thing is, there are many foreigners that vacation in Turkey, if they will make a search on this island, they will end up here, they will take a look at their ticket(s) and become really confused, no? :) I mean, this issue has been discussed extensively in many instances Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Pekin, Tswane/Pretoria, Gdansk/Danzig etc. It is the official name!! It is pretty simple, I don't know what the big deal is, I mean, Akhilleus, we can also put a clear statement in the intro that "Tenedos" was the former name to reassure the confused reader that they are at the right article, no?? :)))))) Baristarim 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we continue below? There are way too many edit conflicts, and I am losing track of conversation. Baristarim 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim, if we determine that Bozcaada is the most common name in English, then it would certainly be appropriate to mention that the island is also called Tenedos, as you suggest. But so far I think the most common name is Tenedos. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is only your opinion, Akhilleus. My campaign will begin with official sources as to the 'common name' used by other than those in the classical or historic setting. I greatly agree with Josiah in that this article could be named "Bozcaada" with the history linking to the article on Tenedos (which would serve more along the lines of a classical article like the ones I mentioned above - Constantinople being a good example). Let's do the right thing and split the article, with linkage from the official article to Tenedos and from Tenedos only in the modern naming of the place. ? Rarelibra 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Only my opinion, I suppose, but it corresponds with what I find in various sources. Such as:

The New York Times -- google search for "Tenedos site:nytimes.com": 8 results. Search for Bozcaada site:nytimes.com: 1 result, which reads in part 'The southernmost Aegean island visible is Tenedos, Turkish Bozcaada, from where Apollo sallied forth at crucial moments to intervene in the struggle on Troy's behalf. To its north is rugged Imbros, Gokce in Turkish.' Now, I know that the NYT is not the end-all be-all of English usage, but it's a pretty good indicator of the conventions used by well-edited publications addressed to a general audience.

The University of Texas at Austin -- google search for Tenedos site:utexas.edu: 26 results, including a result for a company named Tenedos LLC, and results in Latin. Most results are related to Classical Mythology or Latin classes. Searching utexas.edu for Bozcaada turns up nothing.

Google scholar: Tenedos gets about 682 results, Bozcaada about 198. Some results have both Tenedos and Bozcaada in the titles or text, so the numbers should be handled with care. Still, I found this abstract by Beytullah Özkan from the Turkish Journal of Zoology interesting. The title is "Rodent Fauna of Imbros and Tenedos (Mammalia:Rodentia)", which indicates that at least some Turks think the English names for the islands are Imbros and Tenedos. However, three other articles published in this journal use "Bozcaada" (in English), so here, at least, the Turkish form is more common. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, Akhilleus. For what it's worth, I searched for "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada" on the websites of many major newspapers. Most of the sites gave me no hits for either name (and I tried English-speaking newspapers from around the world, including the Times of London, The Hindu and The Statesman in India, South Africa's Mail & Guardian, the Age of Melbourne, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star from Canada). The only newspaper whose internal search gave me any mention of the island under either name was the Guardian, which provided a 1999 usage of Tenedos and a 2004 usage of Bozcaada, hardly conclusive either way.

I had more success in the academic realm. A Google search of harvard.edu got 12 hits for "Tenedos" (all classical or literary) and none for "Bozcaada". At ox.ac.uk (the domain for the University of Oxford), there are no hits for "Bozcaada" and 10 for Tenedos, including this fascinating lecture on the citizens of Imbros in the 20th century, which uses "Imbros" and "Tenedos" throughout — it mentions Gökçeada once as the Turkish name for Imbros, but never mentions Bozcaada. Ah (I hear you start to say), but that lecture is probably by someone with a Greek bias. Well, the author is one Elif Babul, of Boğaziçi University. That seems to me like more evidence for Akhilleus' assertion above that English-speaking Turks in academia believe the English name to be Tenedos. A similar search at cam.ac.uk (Cambridge's domain) yields a whopping 61 results for "Tenedos", some of which are referring to Fort Tenedos or the ship HMS Tenedos, but most of which seem to be about the island. A search for "Bozcaada" at Cambridge yields only one result, and it happens to be the index of the Cambridge History of Turkey, which includes both "Bozcaada (Tenedos)" and "Tenedos (Bozcaada)".

The importance of these results, as I see them, is that they show how the island is referred to by reliable sources. This is different from either the crude Google test or the official name as used by governments or travel agencies. Barestarim suggests that this is the result of orientalism, a Western bias against the East. This accusation may be true — however, it is not the job of Wikipedia to correct the biases of Western civilization. Wikipedia has chosen to reflect common usage, which in this case does not align with the official name of the island. As I said before, if you believe that the official name should overrule common English-language usage, take it up at WP:ENGLISH and WP:NAME, not here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take it up where I please, thank you. As for "it is not the job of Wikipedia to correct the biases of Western civilization" I beg to differ. It is extremely disappointing to see people volunteer to put blinders on and walk down the path of fire and continue to say "it's so cold in here". The very fact that the standards you quote create a bias is why we have the responsibility to ensure that such bias cannot or will not exist (except in cases where the minority receives due recognition). In this instance, however, the example is one where, let's say you're name is Robert, but everyone around you remembers your grandfather and chooses to recognize you by calling you George (which was your grandfather's name). Even though your official name is Robert, everyone else pulls some westernized "I'm an anglophone" rule and says "well, we all remember your grandfather so we're just going to call you George anyway". Nice.

This is a primary example of bias, whether it be western, english, or otherwise. As an American-born anglo-heritage male, I volunteer to fly the flag of bias here until things get corrected. Just because you can find examples in academia or newspaper where they use the form of Tenedos does not mean that it is correct. We have a situation where people continue to refuse to recognize culture and proper names. Yet if it happened in your own back door, well, you would want to fly the same flag that I am flying (which then becomes a double-standard). Fact of the matter is, if you want to, we can find historical examples whereby a place name was once used and you can get enough people to alter the use where the perception becomes one that it should be regularly used that way - and then you can make a case for establishing a standard like the one we are discussing that incorrectly refers to a place name without its correct (and official) name.

I still say that this article needs to be split out. Rarelibra 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Officially renamed?

"Tenedos was officially renamed Bozcaada"(during 20th century) what is the source for that? I have already provided information about Bozcaada was the name of the island in the Ottoman times sine at least 16th century. If there is no source, I'll delete this sentence. Filanca 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weren't placenames in general modernized and Turkified in 1926? Please don't delete, please mark with {{cn}}; it may take some time to locate a specific citation for so detailed a point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some placenames were officially changed during 20th century. You should prove this was one of them. An Ottoman Admiral and cartographer using the name Bozcaada in 16th century, and Ottoman tombstones with the name "Bozcaada" on them suggest it was not the case for this island. You doubt documented information like the island was evacuated at the end of 14th century by Venetians (two primary and two secondary references), but you want to keep information like "Tenedos was officially renamed (during the republican era)" in spite of the evidence to the contrary. OK I will not delete the sentence yet, but please explain this seemingly double standard. Filanca 11:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Bozcaada shows up on a 16th-Century map is proof enough. Names change as cultures switch geographical areas, but the original name for the Turks was Bozcaada and that is who owns the place. This is not a slight on the Greeks, just as being named Gdansk is not a slight on the Germans (when it used to be called Danzig). There are thousands of examples of this, and so far only a few have this trouble. The focus should be to do what is correct, not what you think is correct. Rarelibra 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not unless

• the 16th century map was an official declaration of the Sublime Porte, and
• The Turkish Republic accepts Ottoman names as automatically still official.

I doubt the first, and strongly doubt the second. As for what is "correct" in English: we have no Academy, usage is the only test. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You lost all ground for argument with your statements, Pam. You lost all credability with strongly doubting what is pointed out below in terms that the Turkish state is the direct descendant of the Ottoman empire. You have a lot to learn - which is half of the reason we are having this debate, with the basis of having "always called it" something in "English". We could take a survey of various courses throughout the US and Britain (the two primary English-speaking nations) and see how various geography and history courses are taught. At best I think you would find your position rather reversed - as the minority of people calling it "Tenedos" strictly for historical reference and not for official reference. Better yet - get on a plane, debark in Ankara, Izmir, or Istanbul, and tell them you want a ticket to Tenedos, see for yourself what they have to say. I'm sure your ticket will say "Bozcaada" on it. Rarelibra 01:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for some time now, but I didn't have the time to join in the party. I just would like to remind that "official change of name" means nothing in the sense that:

• The decrees in question didn't change the name of the islands/cities/villages: They only decreed that, from then on, only that name will be used: that is not the same as changing the name to something completely new. I have had a lot of trouble explaining this difference to some people on many articles, especially in articles where there is always a debate going on about Constantinople/Istanbul. For more information about this, I give you the example of Beijing/Pekin, Mumbai/Bombay, Tswane/Pretoria (in South Africa)... All of these places were always called by the first names listed, however, for myriad reasons, they were not the only official name. There is an important difference.
• If the question is if the Ottomans called it Bozcada, then an "official declaration" doesn't mean anything, there is no need for such as long as that was the "usage"
• Of course the Turkish Republic accepts Ottoman names as automatically official! ? Turkey is the direct successor state of the Ottoman Empire per the Treaty of Lausanne, and as such, names/laws/decrees/sentences/debts/property automatically apply. I am a lawyer, believe me. This is not a question to even ponder.
• Most importantly, the island has belonged to Turkey for the last ninety years (sorry, i am adding this since it occurred to me that it belonged to Turkey and its predecessor state, Ottoman Empire, for more than a couple of centuries). I wonder how long Turkey has to wait before its official names can be accepted as "usage". I mean, it has the right to name it to anything it wants.
• In fact, I find it extremely arrogant such attitude. Did you know that after 1923 when Turkey changed its capital, many Western countries didn't transfer their embassies to Ankara from Istanbul for twenty years just because they thought that the new republic wouldn't last? :))) It is the same arrogant attitude I am sorry to say.. Believe me, the joke is not on the Turks, it is on the others, that's all I am saying :) Baristarim 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the same situation with Israel, you know. Israel's capital is Jerusalem, but the rest of the world still insists that it is Tel Aviv (even to the extent where the embassies are located in Tel Aviv - except for a few consolate offices that serve mostly the Palestinian population. In fact, all of the Israeli government seats are in Jerusalem.). That is the argument I present here - except that the "rest of the world" calls it Bozcaada, and the POV few on wiki insist it should be Tenedos. Rarelibra 01:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I know that story as well. I had always found it a bit odd, I mean, if there are political issues to be dealt with Israel/Palestine, they can be dealt with in other forums/ways/plans/projects/talks. However, I find that such attitudes are a bit silly to say the least. If they don't like Israel, they can put an embargo, cut off relations blah blah. That I can understand.. But insisting as if the capital of Israel is Tel Aviv is extremely silly, I mean, Israel knows and can decide where its capital will be. Huh, if you don't like it, fine, cut off relations or something, but don't just keep on pretending as if the clocks have stopped thirty years ago. It is simply not logical. C'est la vie I suppose :) Baristarim 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an Ottoman naval minister named Bozcaadalı Hasan Hüsnü Pasha who was born on the island. He was quite an influential person, founded the Naval Museum of Istanbul in 1897, a library at Eyüp and built a mosque, reparied another one. For an English reference to his name see here and his picture here. I know some people here may claim he was actually named "Tenedhoslu Hasan Hüseyin Pasha" but this is only laughable. Filanca 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is, again, evidence of Turkish usage. There is no problem with the location of tr:Bozcaada, Çanakkale; that's where it ought to be. Official names will become English usage when they do; and one of the pieces of evidence for this will be that anglophones no longer object to Bozcaada, any more than they do to Istanbul - which has become English usage. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for six tests for widespread English usage. (As to the question of official renaming - I'm going to go see if I can find something on it now.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If anybody wants, I point out that categories can be put on the redirect page Bozcaada, and the island will then appear under that name in those categories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of your ill-fated logic, really. I am an anglophone, and I accept the usage. According to you, we need to have some kind of campaign for the next 200 years and then "finally" wait for some anglophone to go "OK, it's time to recognize Bozcaada". NO. Bozcaada has been formally recognized for many, many years. To refuse to recognize such is a POV bias and apathetic approach to containing the usage of improper names. Really. Let's go about introducing this to all of Wikipedia, that way we can teach everyone how NOT to call something correctly. This completely strips Wikipedia of any and all educational usage. Rarelibra 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Go convince a majority of the English-speaking world, and Wikipedia will follow -indeed, must follow.

In looking for a statement on the official name, I found John Freely: Turkey around the Marmara, a travel guide published in Istanbul in 1998. If any publication is likely to use Bozcaada as the English name, he is; he uses Bodrum and Gelibolu - as other travel guides use Roma and München, although Wikipedia does not. But what he says is "Tenedos, known in Turkish as Bozcaada" (and, splitting the difference, "Gökçeada, the island known to the Greeks as Imbros"). Rarelibra's position remains opposed to policy, usage, and the service of our readership. We inform our readers that the official name of the island is the Turkish Bozcaada, as we inform out readers that the official, Italian, name of Rome is Roma; we are not required to confuse them in order to ladle knowledge down their throats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson, for renaming issue, you should also consider the late Ottoman minister's name. Do you still think there is any doubt that the island was not renamed in 20th century? Filanca 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's another source I want to check, and I won't be able to lay hands on it for a couple days. But it does seem quite likely that the statement is a confusion with Imbros, which was renamed (in Turkish) from Imroz. The renaming wasn't in the article when it was split; can you see when it was added? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was put in by "03:29, 7 November 2006 Globo (Talk | contribs) (cleanup and edits)". Filanca 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Not even the lists of Greek complaints mention any such thing; they ignore Turkish naming altogether. However, they are a good source for detailed history of both islands, as would books by Turks claiming peace and harmony - if there are any. I couldn't find them. Such sources (preferably in English) would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the extract from Vasiliev says, as far as I can see; Tenedos was valuable to Venice and Genoa because the Turks had not set foot on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We've given sources, and this isn't a history contest. We can see at least back to the 1920's (I think, above) that the name was used as "Bozcaada". Claiming historical naming isn't accurate or correct. Otherwise, we'll just keep calling you by your grandmother's name, since she was around longer. Same logic.

This is completely irrelevant to the question about Vasiliev. We do have other things to do with this article than Rarelibra's objections to Wikipedia policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed a GREEK web site (.gr) that referenced it as Bozcaada. In English. Translated. As long as you (and others) wish to live in this world of incorrect naming, fine with me - as a geographer, I know better. The difference is, I will ensure any and all references outside of this wiki place of "popularity rules" will use the official and correct name. I'd like to meet you in the Izmir, Istanbul, or Ankara airports and witness what happens when you ask for a passage to Tenedos. Especially when your ticket returns as "Bozcaada". Popular usage is not always correct, especially in this case when the translation of "Bozcaada" to English is "Bozcaada", not some obscure "used to be used" term. Rarelibra 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And "correct" usage is not always popular - or intelligible. Wikipedia has chosen to go with popular; it is always possible to make a fork and go the other way.

Demotic usage matters at the Greek Wikipedia, not here. For what it's worth, they do not yet have an article, but they link to Τένεδος. Good luck in changing their minds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't GET IT, do you? Τένεδος is what the GREEKS call it in their language. Bozcaada is what the Turks call it in theirs, with the proper translation to English as "Bozcaada", NOT "Tenedos". Bad example. As for intelligible, it is highly intelligible... you just don't wish to identify such. Rarelibra 05:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And "Tenedos" (Roman alphabet) is what it's called in English, just as the Turks call London Londra. See Josiah Rowe's evidence above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect again. In English, it is called "Bozcaada". That is the translation of "Bozcaada" from Turkish to English. You are only quoting popularity and failing to recognize what some official sources call it (including government sources and valid international reknown mapping authorities). To the UN, it is "Bozcaada" as well. We've gone through Josiah's "evidence" (as you call it) and it doesn't hold up as valid. Just keep this popularity naming - but I'll look forward to the moment (when? 50 years from now? LOL) when the "anglophones" finally wake up and say "OK... today, we'll officially recognize it as 'Bozcaada'". Maybe then you, too, will say "Yeah, you know what, I agree too." Maybe by then other names will 'finally' be recognized. What a shame, really. Rarelibra 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Set foot on the island

That's not what the extract from Vasiliev says, as far as I can see; Tenedos was valuable to Venice and Genoa because the Turks had not set foot on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ok I added that reference and it mentions Turkish soldiers laying ambush on the island to the ships anchoring in the harbor. Since the island was deserted and castle destroyed at that time, I presume this was easy to do. Quoting Vasiliev: "the harbor is one of the best in the world. No ship can enter the straits without first anchoring there to find the entrance, which is very narrow (no, it is not!), and the Turks, knowing how many ships touch there, arm themselves and lie in wait and kill many Christians". Do you think this reference is not enough? Filanca 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the link is to the wrong page; "ambush" does not occur on the page linked to. I will not be able to do much about this this weekend; but if you can find it, that would be good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it; "ambush" is your word, not Vasilev's. The quote is, from Tafur:

There are other places where ships can anchor, but this is the best, since it is opposite the entrance to the Straits of Romania [Dardanelles]. Above the harbor is a great hill surmounted by a very strong castle. This castle was the cause of much fighting between the Venetians and Genoese until the Pope sentenced it to be destroyed, that it might belong to neither. But, without doubt, this was very ill-advised, since the harbor is one of the best in the world. No ship can enter the straits without first anchoring there to find the entrance, which is very narrow, and the Turks, knowing how many ships touch there, arm themselves and lie in wait and kill many Christians.

Does this refer to Turkish soldiers on Tenedos, or Turkish boats operating in Tenedos harbor, and free to do so because there are no cannon in the castle? That is the sort of interpretation of primary sources (and Vasilev is quoting a primary source without interpretation) best left to experts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see how they could do those by not "setting foot" on the island. There are other sources for earlier (at least 100 years) "setting foot" on the island but they are not in English. Filanca 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

By operating out of any of the other ports in or around the Dardanelles, which they did control. I will see if I can get an annotated edition of Tafur, which should settle the question; one reason for skepticism is that Tafur's party (which looks quite small from this extract, the sailors were busy) explored Tenedos without, apparently, meeting any Turkish soldiers.

Non-English sources are acceptable if a translation is provided available, either published elsewhere or as a footnote in WP. A European language would be less trouble to me, and probably to our readers (if any). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But ANY language of a source is quite acceptable. Rarelibra 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Big article for a small island

Maybe we were not able to solve all disagreements about this article, but we could settle some of them. And all those discussions worked for the good, the article grew a lot and mostly in the positive way. I am happy with it. :) Is there any other small (in population and area) island which has so much text and visual material on Wikipedia? Happy christmas/new year/bayram to all who contributed. Filanca 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this works well. Is Tenedos smaller than Heligoland? (Now that I check, we don't give the area; we should). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are only one person, and several people have noted difference. Thus, it doesn't work 'well' - only within quoted policy of popularity (but remaining incorrect in the official naming - the proper name being "Bozcaada"). Rarelibra 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rarelibra that the name of the article should be Bozcaada. Look at the current situation: "it is called as such by Turks..." as if this is not a legitimate name. "dont forget to call Tenedos as such when you go to Turkey". This is arrogant. Look at Gdansk/Danzig page. There the Polish name, although it is not the more common name in English in history is the page title as well. Besides, it accepts both names as the name of the city. Not "Poles or Germans call it as such...". Besides, the district of Çanakkale province is misnamed now. Filanca 12:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the district, that can be fixed; both in the template, by piping, and in the category, by moving the cat tag to the redirect. Both of these were proposed; if there is now sentiment for them, fine. Which, if either, is the problem?

The actual wording of the intro is "called officially and by the Turkish inhabitants". This is of course open to change; but it does not seem to me to bear the sense implied. Both halves of it were introduced by Turkish editors, IIRC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that a search on "Bozcaada" should go to a page titled "Bozcaada" with the "Tenedos" being either redirected to Bozcaada OR to a historic page with information about Tenedos as a historic location (as Constantinople and other pages are historic). The district name is Bozcaada, thus, the page should be Bozcaada in keeping with matching all of the other district pages. Rarelibra 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A search on Bozcaada arrives here; but the important thing is that a search on Tenedos arrive at a name that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" as WP policy provides. Josiah Rowe, Robert West, Proteus, and myself concur that this is Tenedos; so does the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Negative. You are only a handful - if we take this to the public forum, let any and all English wiki users comment, you will see a different viewpoint. Also, evidence is that the proper, correct, and official name is Bozcaada, no matter what fantasyland you are in. Rarelibra 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rarelibra. Look at the article for Guangzhou It was called "Canton" in the past in the English language, but Wikipedia sticks to the official name. Cliobella (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

page a forum any wiki can ===Map=== you stop warring the Both them unsatisfactory. d a in with (Bozcaada) the The map in article on city Canakkale, the map my opinion, on the wrong scale to help readers of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus - sure thing. As a mapmaker, consider it done in the next day or two. The map that is there does show Bozcaada better than a small blip on a huge map of both Greece and Turkey - Bozcaada is a part of Turkey, and that should be the focus. Rarelibra 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Canakkale Map.gif

My only objections to this map are that it is hideous, in an artifical perspective and a poisonous shade of green, and encumbered with altitudes which claim that the Troad rises high above Gallipoli. What unfortunate tourist guide does it come from? A reasonable map of Çanakkale_Province would be welcome both here and there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking it way too far, here. You are over-analyzing what is meant to be a very meaningful and creative map. "Poisonous" shade? Where is that definition? "Artificial" perspective? How? I don't think so. "Unfortunate" tourist guide? You have proven to be an offensive, rude, and inconsiderate editor of Wikipedia. When things are not as you wish, you instead make personal and insulting attacks against others' work. Instead, try to find the GOOD in peoples' contributions and not find insulting words to put them down. "Troad rises high above Galilpoli"? Please. You never answered my question about your qualifications - and I think it is probably because you are neither a cartographer nor a graphic artist. How can you comment on someone's map/work of art like that? Incredibly rude. Rarelibra 14:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly original, and in that sense creative, to show the Gallipoli peninsula as flat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson - go ahead this weekend, go to a bookstore, and read a book on mapping perspective. Maybe that will help cure any such deductions about images in the future. Or download an art or map software and try doing one yourself - would LOVE to see that, and use the same judgmental ways that you have. Rarelibra 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perspective? From what viewpoint? High and to the south, close enough to the map that it can have no consistent scale.

• More seriously still, the map elevates the land south of the Strait to a high plane (although it is not by any means flat), and the rest of the province (the Peninsula and the two islands) to a much lower plane. The NE corner of the province, by Sinekci and the road from Biga, is in fact at sea level, but the map shows it above a line which is longer than the one below Tenedos, indeed, almost as many pixels as the whole of Tenedos.
• This cannot be true perspective; Tenedos must be closer to the viewpoint than Sinekci. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I really am not going to explain this to you, other than telling you the map doesn't "elevate the land" - it is called a "drop shadow" for perspective reasons. That's like saying a map should be 'flat' when the Earth is truly NOT flat (and is not circular, before you suggest that - it is elliptical). So before you so eloquently attempt to analyze any more, READ about map perspective and LEARN what you are attempting to analyze. There are MANY perspectives and projections that can be used to show maps in various forms, such as "true area" or "true distance" (but NEVER both). 'Nuf said. Rarelibra 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Come, let us calculate. The simplest area-preserving projections have relative error of scale of the order |d cos φ|/cos φ = |tan φ| dφ. This map is a degree wide at 40° N. That comes to somewhat less than 1% scale error at maximum, trivial on this degree of detail.

Educated or not, you are severely lacking in several things - 1)education and knowledge on maps and cartographic principles (this isn't a geometry class with cosine and tangent); 2)respect, courtesy or otherwise for people. I don't care if you don't like me personally, but your attitude and tone need to change, and I will not tolerate your inflammatory words to me. Rarelibra 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be genuinely interested in the proposition that it is possible or desirable to have "cartographic principles" without geometry; but this is not the place to discuss it. As for my words: I have deprecated the map as ill-appearing misinformation; I hold Rarelibra's remarks of yesterday to be showing off with irrelevanccies (some quite true, but still irrelevant) and jargon. His character, even insofar as he takes credit for the above, I say nothing about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I didn't "take credit" for any above, as you mention. You really are something else. Rarelibra 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are not imputing criticisms of this map to yourself, what do you claim is inflammatory? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are your qualifications? Seriously? What do you do for a living? Rarelibra 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian answer to that is "none of your business"; that line of inquiry invites arguments from authority, which are at best invalid. I see my userpage is still in a category, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories mean nothing, as they are easy to assign when not justified. Si tu prefieres, es posible comunicar en otras idiomas diferentes a veces. Do you play chess? Would be fun to play someone of your sort - though are you a sore loser? :) And it may be none of my business, however, your persistent edits and slanderous tones are my business. Rarelibra 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So would any other answer, except a suggestion that you look at my edit history. My rating is in the 1400's; but it has been some years since I have played; I prefer the French Defense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be no problem to find a decent map of Çanakkale_Province; although Aknilleus is right that what we really want is a map centered on the island. If the Turkish geographical survey does not make public domain maps, there are satellite images. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you as well that I will create one soon that will suffice just fine. Rarelibra 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I would describe the color as bilious rather than poisonous, I do note that the shade resembles one used in old and highly-toxic paints. Whatever the description, I agree that it is an ugly color. As for false-perspective 3D effects, while I know that they are fashionable among graphic design students, I don't think that they are all that informative, precisely because they can be mistaken for showing relief, as did Septentrionalis. Yes, professional graphic artists and cartographers will not make that mistake, but most readers are not professional cartographers.

One thing I liked about the map was that, by placing the island off-center, its strategic location was made clear. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in reference to the review of eighth-grade geography and trigonometry above, I should point out that calling the Earth an ellipse is no better than calling it a circle. Both are two-dimensional euclidean figures, and the fundamental problem of projection is that the surface of a spheroid is decidedly non-euclidean. The actual variation from a true sphere is a mere fraction of a percent, and for maps of this scale, the difference is probably of the same order of magnitude as aliasing. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive Branch

Pmanderson - let us both stop this and focus on productive edits and contributions. Shall we clean this talk page of many paragraphs? Rarelibra 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Provided you rethink this map; selfish shows excessive emotional involvement. You are free to contribute to Wikipedia elsewhere; I feel no urge to disturb the other use of this map; but I deprecate it here, and have offered four alternatives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that this will not be possible with you, then. Pity. As far as excessive emotional involvement - look in the mirror. As far as deprecating anything, your 'alternatives' don't measure up. You are only one, and there have been several (including Khoikhoi) who support using that map. You are only a critic, and not an expert (mathematician, maybe... geographer? no). Rarelibra 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikpedia policy against personal attacks extends to the user of obscene insults in languages other than English. I ask you to remove the above offensive words (replacing them with "[offensive words removed]") and to refrain from using any such language at any time about any Wikpedian in the future. It crosses the line. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if my words were offensive, I can only remove them when the offensive words against me are removed. After all, policy is supposed to be fair, correct? Rarelibra 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "fair" you mean that if he insults you then you can insult him with impunity, then no, it isn't. There is a line that one does not cross, regardless of provocation, and I feel that you crossed it. I have been following the thread, and have not noticed Septentrionalis using any obscenities or direct words of unmistakable insult. If I missed any, please point out where he did. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, however, I am not one to sit back and allow such treatment of myself without baring my own teeth. Arguing peception with someone is always a losing battle, so I'm not going to even attempt to explain this to you, because I feel the outcome is still unworthy. There seems to be difficulty in deciphering intelligent insults. Simply because you do not perceive his words as obscene or unmistakable doesn't make them right. If you would, please point out what you think is 'crossing the line' on my part - because I have no wish to continue this any further. Really. You use the terms "obscenities" and "unmistakable insult" - I would be interested to know what your interpretation of such is, as I clearly didn't use any such obscenities nor unmistakable insults. Rarelibra 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. West appears to mean this edit. I am glad to see Rarelibra has removed his obscenities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson - do me a favor, and drop the third person act. Seriously. You can speak directly to me, as I give you proper respect in doing the same. However, again - there were no obsencities as you mention. I think you are mistaken. Because I know what you would say and, unfortunately, can be proven wrong. Move on... learn from being banned (like me). Or did you enjoy that? Rarelibra 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, approaching me again about things without using some kind of fairness and impariality utilized in the proper manner will go nowhere. As it happens, both Pmanderson and myself were banned for 24 hrs - or did you not perceive that? That means that we were both incorrect in our approach. This isn't a popularity contest, nor is there a need for a knight in shining armor. What's done is done, so move on to brighter pastures. THank you. Rarelibra 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another map

The map to the right is in true perspective, and the change of scale involved is clearly indicated, both by meridians (on the full image) and by the insert. I think it's rather pretty; but I do not prefer it to the present, pinkish, map. Others may; if they want changes, they should talk to Niko, who drew it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I think it is too much. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise worked very hard at creating the current one, which works very well - the color choices, the focus, the overview, etc. The satellite view is too busy and the text is illegible/unreadable, especially in the thumbnail view. It is a good map, but the current one is much simpler and better in quality and color than the satellite one. FYI - the current one has a tannish background and the islands of focus are a reddish-orange color, not 'pinkish'. Rarelibra 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Move?

Um, I don't think there was any consensus to move this page from Tenedos to Bozcaada (Tenedos). In fact, I'm pretty sure that consensus was against this move. Am I missing something? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources and authors that cite Bozcaada	Year of publication	Sources and authors that cite Tenedos	Year of publication
BOOKS: Turkey by Verity Campbell ...Windswept Bozcaada (formerly Tenedos) has always been known to Anatolian oenophiles for its wines...	2007	Frederick Walpole	1851
BOOKS: Turkey by Pat Yale, Virginia Maxwell, Miriam Raphael, Jean-Bernard Carillet ...Windswept Bozcaada (formerly Tenedos) has always been known to Anatolian oenophiles for its wines...	2005	John Overton Choules	1854
BOOKS: Studies in Turkish local government by Albert Henry Hanson ...Administration of the islands of Bozcaada and İmroz...	1955	Frederick Trench Townshend	1870
BOOKS: by The Rough Guide to Turkey by Rosie Ayliffe, Marc Stephen Dubin, John Gawthrop ...The island of Bozcaada — formerly known as Tenedos...	2003	John Murray Firm, Robert Lambert Playfair	1890
BOOKS: Bulletin de la Société géologique de France par la Société géologique de France ...L'île de Bozcaada est située dans la mer Egée, à environ 5 km «le la presqu'île de Canakkale...	1830	Plutarch	46-127 AD
BOOKS: Dispensing Justice in Islam: Qadis and Their Judgements by Muhammad Khalid Masud, Rudolph Peters, David Stephan Powers ...The sultan approved their banishment to Bozcaada again, as a "deterrent to others..."	2005	Virgil	70-19 BC
BOOKS: Turkey and Greece: the Aegean disputes : a unique case in international law by Deniz Bölükbasi, Ahmet Deniz Bölükbasi	2004	Zweiten Athenischen Seebund by Martin Dreher	published 1995, relates to 4th century BC
BOOKS: Armies of the Ottoman Turks, 1300-1774 by David Nicolle, Angus McBride ...A confused melee followed which drifted to Bozcaada...	1983	Mycenaean Chronicle	1247 BCE
BOOKS: Somewheres East of Suez by Tristan Jones ...Bozcaada was inviting...	1990	The Naval Memoirs of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: The Narrow Seas to the Dardanelles by Roger Keyes	1934
BOOKS: Footprint Turkey Handbook by Dominic Whiting ...If you are looking for somewhere to get away from it all the island Bozcaada, the more southerly of Turkey's two Aegean islands...	2001	A Description of Active and Extinct Volcanos, of Earthquakes, and of Thermal Springs by Charles Giles Bridle Daubeny	1848
BOOKS: Auf den ersten Blick kahl und braun, besitzt Bozcaada (früher Tenedos) Türkische Westküste by Jürgen Gottschlich, Dilek Zaptcioglu	2006	Notes and Comments on the Dardanelles Campaign by Alexander Kearsey	1934
BOOKS: Constantinople 1453: A Bloody End to Empire by Dr David Nicolle ...island of Tenedos (now Bozcaada) at the entrance to the Dardanelles...	2000	Our New Protectorate: Turkey in Asia, its geography, races, resources and government by James Carlile McCoan	1879
REFERENCE SOURCES: Falling Rain World Index BOZCAADA	2007	The Turkish crime of our century (web archive) (21st century?)	2004
PRESS: Austrian Der Standard (News article on Bozcaada)	1 March 2007	The invasion of Tenedos (Greek mythology link)	?
Google Books hits for Bozcaada = 428 (mostly in English)	2007	Google Books hits for Tenedos = 1155 (mostly in English, including a frigate by that name, Fort Tenedos in Zululand and Aristagoras of Tenedos)	2007
Google cumulative hits for Bozcaada = 440.000	2007	Google cumulative hits for Tenedos = 177.000	2007

Cretanforever 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the chart, but there have been many discussions on this page about the name of the page, and so far the consensus has been that the title should be Tenedos. It is quite possible that consensus could change, but we need to have a discussion first, perhaps including a discussion at WP:RM. Please don't move the page unilaterally, as you just did; I have moved the page back to Tenedos, and would be happy to discuss (yet again) what the title of the page should be. Please note, however, that the date you've just provided show that Tenedos is more common in English-language books, and the raw Google searches are not terribly useful because searches for Bozcaada and Tenedos overlap quite a bit, and include non-English websites. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is...an official name is an official name is an official name...It can be changed in two ways. By decree or by conquest. For the first, you need a decision of Turkey's Council of Ministers, for the second, you need folks with those guts and brains. It is not changed by discussion or consensus. I am adding the disambiguation for Fort Tenedos in Zululand that you removed, possibly a more fitting place for the present title, and putting this island's title back to Bozcaada. Also, please ask Dora. Cretanforever 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, no one has ever denied that Bozcaada is the official name of the island. However, WP's naming conventions tell us to use the most common name in English (see WP:NAME). Sometimes the most common name will not be the official name. This has been discussed again and again on this page, and the consensus so far is that "Tenedos" is the more common name for the island in English. I'd appreciate it if you'd move the page back to Tenedos, in accordance with consensus and policy. I won't do it myself, because I've already reverted your move once, and I have no interest in getting into a page move war. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, please do check the table (if you are still checking this article), also see Deliogul's addition above. Directly it is used as Bozcaada or Bozca ada (by which I mean there are eg. encyclopedia articles entitled as such). Indirectly it might have been used otherwise. For instance, Homer might be mentioning Tenedos, referring to the God (?) or the island, and any research on Homer's relevant work might very well include words in it, but I don't think, by any means this means that it is the common usage in English. Google searches wouldn't be much helpful without the table above, as there are other stuff named Tenedos, and I don't see any reason to default Tenedos to the island (if the name of the island's article should stay Tenedos), rather than Tenedos (disambig). Also Turkish people use a Latin based alphabet (just like British, French and German people do), so a good chunk of WP:UE does not apply here. Deniz^T_C 12:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But this certainly applies (from WP:UE):

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works"

And how do the encyclopedias refer to it? Deniz^T_C 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica prefers Tenedos; note that the articles concerned do include topics since the Turkish conquest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also a section like "Greek population" is POV as long as one for "Turkish population" does not exist (I am not talking about the content which is already POV, esepecially the lead para of section) Deniz^T_C 12:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add sourced assertions on the Turkish population. I would have if I had found any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem resides in the fact of misguided judgment on English usage. PManderson refers to usage before Shakespeare above, when you have cities like Bombay and Calcutta that are now known as Mumbai and Kolkata, respectively. They were changed by the Indian government - similar to the changes to Bozcaada and Gokceada. Why is it, then, that the Indian articles have no resistance to the current usage, yet the articles of Bozcaada and Gokceada have resistance? Is it because of failure to recognize the changes? Or is it a cultural POV problem? Vargwilku (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

30 Greeks

When were there 30 Greeks on the island?

A valid question; I'm not sure. It is consistent with the 1993 account of the Greeks in Turkey in the sources, but I don't recall them claiming a specific number. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Tenedos

You consider the name is common in English and keep it to make it more mistakenly common ? What is a cultural POV problem ? Does it weight as heavy as "We are used to see everything from a Westernized eye and cause.. we like that way" problem ? --89.106.17.226 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We consider the name English, because it is. This English Wikipedia is written in English for English-speakers; those who read and write the language with difficulty are welcome as guests, but if they wish to rearrange the furniture, they would be better employed on their own Wikipedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)