Talk:1921 in Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve 1921 in Greece, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article

[edit] Perspective

Hi,

I am afraid this article is far from NPOV. The title implies it covers events in Greece, but it mainly covers events in Turkey. Also, older names are used for town and cities, which usually is a sign of pro-Greek bias. If you want to cover the Greco-Turkish war, you can do so in that article and refer from this article.

I'd appreciate your comments.

User:Ato

It doesn't cover domestic Turkish events, but naturally it deals with the Greco-Turkish war. The older names are those that were commonly used in English at the time. They are linked to the modern names. --Wik 14:06, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
You did not answer my objections. It covers events not specific to Greece more than events that is specific the Greece, I do not see the justification of the title with this context. Also, the names may be used at those times, but we are not living at those times, nor are we imitating those times. There is no confusion which dates are being referred to in the article. It says right in the title. Are you considering moving material from this to Greco-Turkish war article? Ato
Well, I disagree. This article cannot exclude the war just because it is not specific to Greece. Of course 1921 in Turkey will mention it too, from the Turkish perspective. And when talking about cities in historical context they should be called what they were called at the time; most people have agreed with this principle in other cases (e.g. Gdansk should be called Danzig when talking of its pre-1945 history). --Wik 17:07, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ato replies: I am not contesting the relevance of these events to Greek history. I am just defending that the title is misleading. Also, since you seem to agree that this article is written from POV of Greece/Greeks, why not put a notice near the beginning making this clear.
No, it is not POV. It is just on topic. It deals with the war from the Greek perspective (which is not to mean a "pro-Greek" bias) precisely because the title is "1921 in Greece". --Wik 18:13, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Names

How about writing something like "Bursa (also spelled as Brussa)" for city names? I would be very surprised if there is any evidence that the inhabitants of Eskişehir were calling their city Eskishehr. As a native Turkish speaker, I can testify that the latter is much harder to pronounce for Turks. Keeping old and weird spellings makes the article harder to read, and since in some cases the link is dead, one needs to know the history and geography to know that "Bandırma" is being mentioned when it is spelled as "Panderma". In some cases it is not simple spelling, e.g., Nicea which is İznik. Why use the ancient name? Should I go ahead and make changes? Ato

The spelling "Eskişehir" didn't exist at the time. Turkey was still using the Arabic script and the common Romanization was Eskishehr. The point of this, and any other "<year> in <country>" article is to describe the events from the perspective of the time, not in the context of later history. I don't think it would be helpful to introduce modern names except in the links. Maybe you can add some of the missing links like Panderma. --Wik 19:50, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Two points. First, providing a broken link and not changing the name does not help at all. People will need to follow the link, see it points to the current spelling and will still not see the name since Wikipedia's naming convention will not allow the correct Turkish characters used in the name. To be informative, the places of names must make sense, and Brussa does not. Second, and maybe more importantly, the city was called "Eskişehir". "Eskishehr" is an incorrect Romanization. If there is a correct Romanization, why not use it? Maybe the spelling did not exist, but the name was certainly "Eskişehir", no? Also, you did not comment on Nicea etc. That is not simple Romanization, but reverting back to ancient names.Ato
Both "Eskishehr" and "Nicaea" were the correct versions used at the time. What do you mean, the name was certainly "Eskişehir"? That is only the Romanization that was introduced in 1928. It is not inherently more correct than "Eskishehr". I don't think the dead links are a great problem, and in any case you can remove them by creating articles about the places concerned. --Wik 23:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
When I said the name was certainly "Eskişehir", I meant that the name is Eskişehir/Eskishehr/Eskisehir/Eskishehir etc. I am not referring to the spelling but to the name itself. For the spelling, I do not see a reason to use an incorrect Romanization. You are referring to Eskişehir/Eskishehr/Eskisehir/Eskishehir, and there was no consensus on how to spell the names as the official names were in Arabic script. Now there is consensus on how it should be spelled, so why not spell it that way. This will make the article easier to follow.

There are two issues regarding names. Romanization and ancient names. Let's try to come to an agreement by first stating them clearly.

First, Romanization of names. You (Wik) say you used the Romanization of the names that was most common form of that time. I object on two grounds. First there is no consensus on former Romanizations (I will provide references on this), and second this usage makes the article more confusing as those names are no longer used and sometimes are far from the current usage. I have proposed to use something like "Bursa (also spelled as Brussa)", we can also use "Brussa (now spelled as Bursa)", or "Bursa (then commonly spelled as Brussa)". IMHO the last one is most clear, it provides: 1) The current correct spelling with a link, 2) The former spelling, 3) That this was the common spelling rather than the former spelling. A more elegant approach would be to put a note near the beginning regarding names such as:

note on spelling of names
At the time of the events described in this article the names of some of the places had no common spelling in Roman script. In those cases the current spelling of the name is given in parantheses at the time of first usage, and the former spelling is used throughout the text. The links (some of them possibly dead links) generally point to current spelling, unless an entry exists for the former spelling and that entry is more relevant than the entry corresponding to entry for current spelling.

Or we can change the role of current and former spellings, but I have a feeling you prefer it this way ;-). With this note, we can write "Brussa (Bursa)" the first time and later on "Brussa".

For using ancient names, e.g., Nicea vs. Iznik, we can find a similar solution. But, I think it will be easier to tackle one dispute at a time. Ato 19:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Those parenthetical solutions look ugly, and just using the new version will give the false impression that those were used at the time. And there's nothing "incorrect" about Eskishehr as you claim. No one spelled it Eskişehir in English at the time. --Wik 20:39, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I did not say so and so spelled it Eskişehir in English or even in Turkish at that time. I did say it is the current spelling. I do not think the paranthetical solutions are ugly. I think they add to the article and remove the confusion about names. Do you think it is midleading to provide this information along with the previous spellings or are you objecting purely on esthetical grounds? Ato 20:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't look good, and is not necessary, as the article deals with 1921 and is not supposed to take later developments into account, even if it's just the spelling of place names. Linking to the current versions seems to me entirely sufficient to remove any confusion. --Wik 20:56, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think it doesn't look bad, and I think it is necessary. We obviously have a difference of opinion here. Would you like to ask the opinion of a third party? Ato 21:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, consider a sentence like this:
It was proposed that the demilitarized zone of the Straits should be reduced to the following lines: on the European side - Gallipoli peninsula and the coast along the Sea of Marmora as far as Rodosto; on the Asiatic side - from a point opposite the isle of Tenedos to Kara-Bigha (west of Panderma), including the islands in the Sea of Marmora...
This would become something like that:
It was proposed that the demilitarized zone of the Straits should be reduced to the following lines: on the European side - Gallipoli peninsula (now called Gelibolu) and the coast along the Sea of Marmora (now spelled Sea of Marmara) as far as Rodosto (now called Tekirdağ); on the Asiatic side - from a point opposite the isle of Tenedos (now called Bozcaada) to Kara-Bigha (now spelled Karabiga) (west of Panderma (now spelled Bandırma)), including the islands in the Sea of Marmora...
I don't like this. But yes, maybe some third parties want to comment on this. --Wik 21:24, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Or it could look like this:
It was proposed that the demilitarized zone of the Straits should be reduced to the following lines: on the European side - Gallipoli (Gelibolu) peninsula and the coast along the Sea of Marmora (Marmara Sea) as far as Rodosto (Tekirdağ); on the Asiatic side - from a point opposite the isle of Tenedos (Bozcaada) to Kara-Bigha (Karabiga; west of Panderma [Bandırma]), including the islands in the Sea of Marmora...
along with the note I proposed above. I don't think this looks bad at all, you are talking about locations and borders, of course there will be many place names. Is this acceptable for you? If not, do you have someone in mind? I could propose Adam, but he already showed some inclination towards my choice in another context, so it may not be fair. Ato 22:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, I still don't like it, but I realize it's a subjective question. Feel free to ask Adam or others to comment; if most people agree with you I will accept it. --Wik 23:49, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I did not want to bother anyone, instead decided to wait and see if people who are actually interested would comment by themselves. It looks like Wik's choice received 100% approval. So, I withdraw my objection. My apologies for wasting everyone's time. Ato 20:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) (I don't know why indentation gets screwed up, it is not intentional)

I agree with Wik. Older names are fine, especially in an article like this, so long as they're linked to the modern names. john 22:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] why tags were added

article looks like a mess to be honest needs to clean up and put into to selcations to make it readabel for everyoneOo7565 17:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)