Talk:Kalymnos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 Kalymnos, 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) | ||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as a Low priority article | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
[edit] Other names must be moved further down
- Why are we including the Turkish and Italian names in the opening paragraph? Neither one is the original name; there are no transport links between the island and Turkey or Italy.
- As a rule, no tourist map or atlas includes both names (unless they were printed in Turkey).
- Where do we draw the geographical line for including other names? Do we state that Athens is Atina in Turkish in the opening line? It seems that the current geographical line for including other names is on Greek islands claimed by Turkey and whose air space it violates.
- There is a place for other names, after all, it is part of the history of a place, but further down the text. Politis 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Which page? Well, regarding the '20th century criterion', the Ottoman Empire extended to the Adriatic. Also, at one point, most of Europe was German or Italian and they had their own place names. Do we include those as well? The answer has to be yes, because the Dodecanese only became Italian in 1912. Politis 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) page, of course, where this has all been discussed in great detail. And as for your German/Italian comparison: occupation during WWII is one thing, legal sovereignty is another. Like it or not, these islands were legally and legitimately Turkish/Italian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- As a proud holder and connoisseur of my Ottoman Greek roots :-), I have to point out that Europe was legitimately and legally Ottoman to the Adriatic... and Greeks inhabited far into Asia Minor. So where do we draw the line? Where is the geography? (thanks for the link, I will open it). Politis 12:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) has not come to a conclusion yet. Many Greek users and others participated in it, but the contribution on behalf of the Turkish users was negligible... Also, these islands may had not been legally Turkish... depends on the angle one sees things... For the Greeks, these islands were under Turkish occupation, same as Greece was under triple occupation during WWII. If we are about to talk again about the right of conquest, which supposedly gave to the Turks legal rights on these lands (since they had been conquered prior to the 19th-20th century and the treaties and protocols that established the international law), allow me to ask the rename of Occupation of Izmir (since the Greeks had legal rights according to international treaty to administer the area) and the rename of TRNC into "Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus", since the "right of conquest" is no longer in use, nor any international law allowed Turkey to do that (in fact, quite the contrary)... Hectorian 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And something else, cause sometimes, when trying to be "politically correct", some wikipedians fall in unhistorical traps: there is the article Ottoman Greece, named after a term that is in fact not used. a simple google search (by using Google.uk and not Google.gr for obvious reasons) reveals that Ottoman Greece gives just 623 hits, but "Ottoman occupation" Greece gives 21,900 hits... Same thing appears in a Google Book search 52 and 235 hits respectively... However, if i "dared" to rename that article, or to insert the second term in other articles, like Kalymnos, i would be called "nationalist"... Hectorian 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS: not to mention "Turkish occupation" Greece which gives 107,000 hits! Hectorian 13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And something else, cause sometimes, when trying to be "politically correct", some wikipedians fall in unhistorical traps: there is the article Ottoman Greece, named after a term that is in fact not used. a simple google search (by using Google.uk and not Google.gr for obvious reasons) reveals that Ottoman Greece gives just 623 hits, but "Ottoman occupation" Greece gives 21,900 hits... Same thing appears in a Google Book search 52 and 235 hits respectively... However, if i "dared" to rename that article, or to insert the second term in other articles, like Kalymnos, i would be called "nationalist"... Hectorian 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) has not come to a conclusion yet. Many Greek users and others participated in it, but the contribution on behalf of the Turkish users was negligible... Also, these islands may had not been legally Turkish... depends on the angle one sees things... For the Greeks, these islands were under Turkish occupation, same as Greece was under triple occupation during WWII. If we are about to talk again about the right of conquest, which supposedly gave to the Turks legal rights on these lands (since they had been conquered prior to the 19th-20th century and the treaties and protocols that established the international law), allow me to ask the rename of Occupation of Izmir (since the Greeks had legal rights according to international treaty to administer the area) and the rename of TRNC into "Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus", since the "right of conquest" is no longer in use, nor any international law allowed Turkey to do that (in fact, quite the contrary)... Hectorian 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal
FuturePerfectSunrise proposed [1]: "In principle, we should stick to the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)".
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says:
 |
This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution. |
-
- I suggest the following action: we keep the other names and move them down into the history section.
- In the first paragraph we only include the name that existed prior to the current one; the original name. Hence for Alexandroupoli we include Dedeagac (its original name). But for Kalymnos, etc... the subsequent variations go in the history section. Politis 13:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - I hadn't noticed that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) had been updated and promoted to actual guideline status in the meantime. It's been slightly modified too from what I had seen then. That's a positive step. Perhaps if you plan to apply changes based on that text to a wider group of Greek/Turkish articles, we should hold another brief consultation on our previous Greek/Turkish discussion page first. Add your proposal there, and refer to the now updated general guideline page with a short explanation on what consequences that has for the Greek/Turkish articles status quo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see why having the names at the top is a problem. It's not implying that the island isn't part of Greece, it's just stating the historical names. Secondly, moving these names to the history section on Greek articles will make it seem they're an exception to this practice. People will want to remove the Greek name from Istanbul, the German name from Gdańsk, etc. It is useful for readers to see these names at the top, rather than having to go down and look for each individual one mentioned separately. Therefore, I oppose. Khoikhoi 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
