This is an archive of past discussions about Tenedos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If this page should supposedly be at Tenedos on the basis of the name being more common in Google Books than the modern official and genuinely common name of Bozcaada, these pages need to be moved to reflect that logic and that purported Wikipedia naming principle.
I'll open the relevant RMs on all the above (and any others that crop up - these are just a sample of ones Ive found during this debate) when I get some time. I look forward to people who've contributed here in favour of "Tenedos" on the basis of Google Book search numbers coming along to offer their support in each case. N-HHtalk/edits14:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I would advise against doing so. See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... complaining that we resolved disputes in other articles differently will not be a productive argument. I could easily find as many articles that were resolved the other way. Each article is unique, and we happily reach conflicting decisions in resolving different article title disputes. In fact, most of the articles you point to have reached their current titles after a LOT of debate, and re-opening those debates is almost guaranteed to be considered disruptive and pointy. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? I thought we had consistent principles in place on article naming, and that rules on consensus insist we defer to those principles, as evidence of where the wider consensus actualy exists, rather than relying on local votes and veto masquerading as consensus. If simple Google Books hit-counting is deprecated after all, I'll open another RM here instead. N-HHtalk/edits15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope... we do strive for consistency within articles, and between main articles and articles on related sub-topics, but not between articles on completely unrelated topics. This is because each topic has its own unique issues that can affect the choice of title. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
N-HH, suppose you are kidding about the above requests. For example if you search on the name 'Alexandroupolis' (not Alexandroupoli, which isn't the right spelling) [[1]], there are 21.200 hits.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'm kidding about actually proposing moves, not least because I don't think they should be moved, regardless of what GB hits tell us. That's kind of the point. As for Alexandroupoli[s], I can only go on the spelling the WP article title gives me. Maybe it highlights that that needs correcting by adding the "s" - but it still leaves the general point being made by all the other examples that GB hits on their own mean nothing. As for consistency, no we do not have consistency in style, spelling and even terminology etc between pages, but my assertion was about consistent principles when it comes to policy and guidelines, which we very much do have. Application of them may lead to inconsistent results, but my point is that we're not even applying those principles consistently when you compare how we're dealing with evidence and with consensus here to other very similar pages. N-HHtalk/edits18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
My goodness. Still counting the sources ? More English sources for Tenedos than Bozcaada. Rigtht ? Well Tenedos is a small island and district of Turkey. There are hundreds of islands in the World which are more populous and/or bigger than Bozcaada. Why do we have so many sources for such a relatively unimportant place ? Because of Homeric tales. But this article is not about Homer or mythology. It is for the modern district and island of Turkey which is clearly Bozcaada. (And as given in the past discussion and above, there are many examples in WP in which modern valid names are preferred instead of source rich former names.) I don't understand the insistance to keep the historical name of the island. The best solution is to move the name to Bozcaada. If desired, a new article titled Tenedos in Mythology can also be created (Actually Gun Powder Ma's suggestion on 27 Aug. is similar but not identical). In this new article one can expand the copy edit data from the history section of Bozcaada. Possible ? Of course possible. Please see Nyasaland and Malawi, two articles for the very same country; one for the source rich colonial era and one for the independent country. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I think N-HH made a fair point against those who believe a simple Google Books count would resolve the issue. Bombay is more frequently used than Mumbai because that was the name of the city for a longer period. Common practice is to use the historic names in historical contexts. Therefore a Books count is not indicative of the contemporary English use. That is why some users (including me) suggest to filter history and mythology and search in recent (like, 21st century) publications when counting the results.
This can be done with Google Scholar. Searching for academic articles published since last year, Tenedos returns only 22 papers (some of which not related to the island) and Bozcaada returns 77 results (all related to the island). I have done this comparison in Google Scholar excluding social sciences in order to eliminate history and mythology where Tenedos name is of course retained. Comparing with previous years, Bozcaada is used more frequently at least since the year 2000 but the trends is becoming more pronounced. Filanca (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the title of this article be the official name (Bozcaada) or the former name (Tenedos)?
Please see several discussions further up before posting a response.
Bozcaada is the official name given by the country the island is part of. History can't trump the contemporary official name and there is no room for opinion when it comes to simple facts.TMCk (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)And consensus cannot overrule known facts. TMCk (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Bozcaada, with an immediate follow-up in the first sentence to say "also/historically known as Tenedos". Maps and official name in themselves aren't definitive here, and they're not technically the criteria by which WP entries are named, but the evidence as to what the modern, common name in a modern context - which is very definitely how pages here are named - is clear, per the endless debate and sources above, including maps, dictionaries, guide books, academic books that explicitly discuss the naming issue, major international media and institutions etc. As it happens, as with most places - subject to attempts at Anglicisation in some cases - common use does follow the modern official name rather than defer to an entirely different alternative or archaic name. Google Books results that refer to the Trojan War or Byzantine Empire do not count for these purposes. We shouldn't be claiming "no consensus" to correct this error based on a veto. N-HHtalk/edits08:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended content
Questions to Future Perfect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
What is the time span we need, as per policy, principles, rules or procedure to begin a new move request? What are your recommendations to the users who will insist on their request to change the article title, in order to help them do this in a more result-oriented and constructive approach? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
About time spans, there's no fixed rule, but with most discussions (deletion re-nominations and the like), a general expectation is that there should at least be something like four to six months. In a case like this, where there's a longer history of repeated attempts, my personal feeling would be that an even longer waiting time would be reasonable. About process, some recent cases have shown that formal mediation, leading up to a renewed polling procedure, can be useful for these types of protracted disputes. The mediation process can help to reach a structured, shared understanding of what the actual issues and criteria are (as in: "which are the points we agree to disagree about?", "which arguments of the other side are valid in principle?", "which of my own arguments are weak?", "which issues are really crucial matters of policy and which are legitimate matters of personal judgment and preference?"). On that basis, it may be possible to construct a more clearly structured poll, with crucial evidence and arguments summarized in advance and presented to the outside observer in a clear, agreed-on fashion; this then helps to lead outside observers to a reasonable !vote, without the polling procedure itself devolving into chaos again immediately. Fut.Perf.☼14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You're right on a clear structuring of the poll. There is too much unnecessary words on the page and the real evidence tends to get lost in between. However, these move requests are opened by uninvolved editors stumbling upon the article. People like me either already made a move request themselves or they've participated in the previous ones, hence, they'll not really try again by themselves. That's why formal mediation may prove to be useless. What's interesting about this particular move request was that the few of the most strong defenders of this request were uninvolved editors or even people who voted for Tenedos first but then changed their position to Bozcaada after taking a look at the evidence. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I'm getting your point about why mediation would be useless. Just get two or three of the more reasonable people from each of the two camps who are willing to invest this effort in good faith, request a mediator at WP:RFM and try to hack out such a common framework about what the actual issues and criteria are. Fut.Perf.☼15:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the RFM works, I guess you could inform us more on that, but I felt that it's result would be short-lived as new people who are not aware of the past discussion would continue posting move requests for one or the other. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, the mediation process itself cannot really create a "binding" decision, because it's a process between just a few individual editors. But if the mediation process then leads up to a new formal poll, and (if we're lucky) the poll works and results in a clearer consensus for either solution, then the decision of that poll will likely stand for a good long while and renewed challenges to it will not find much traction. If you want more advance advice about how mediation might work, maybe you could contact User:Mr. Stradivarius; I understand he's experienced with that sort of thing. Fut.Perf.☼15:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course, nothing should be binding in that way. I was just skeptic due to frequency of the move requests. A new suggestion: how about not letting people comment on other people's votes? That way people would focus on their own argument and the data they present. New voters can come, check the data and arguments and then vote while people that already can check other people's arguments and data and change their vote if they feel like it. Unsure people can request particular information if in the comments section and the voters would provide them as a part of their own voting arguments. It would be easier for a closing admin and new voters to read it this way. Thanks for the referral as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen a requirement like this used in these kinds of polls, to keep threaded discussion and polling separated as much as possible and avoid the impression that participants get "heckled" by those with a particularly strong vested interest. One example of such a process is currently at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. Fut.Perf.☼15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Table
Proposal: Get rid of the "Population of Tenedos/Bozcaada" Table I would like to remove the table because it is not useful for the article and is just an eyesore, and figured I'd propose it while the most editors are watching the page. I think it should be removed for a couple of reasons: 1. It isn't standardized. Some of it is qualitative evidence ("almost all", "1/3rd of Total", "no permanent settlement"), some is rough numerical estimates, some is precise numerical estimates. Throwing them all together is problematic. 2. There are more blanks than data. 50.5% of the boxes are n/a or empty. If half of a table is empty, it isn't a great table. 3. Original Research. As Wikipedia:No original research makes clear, synthesis that is separate from the arguments of any reputable source is original research. Such a table exists in Takoglu, sure, but the expansion of the table adding onto his sources is probably synthesis far beyond the point. 4. Redundant and needlessly lengthy. Qualitative descriptions are far better for this feature. It is far better to say "the island was primarily inhabited by Greek folks in the 18th Century" than to look at repetitive entries. 5. Consistency. Lemnos an island with 4 times the population, no similar table. Crete, no similar table. Marmara Island, no similar table. Arkoi, no similar table. Kasos, no similar table. Lesbos, no similar table. Samos, no similar table. Gökçeada has one, but it is from 2 sources (really just one with an update) that specifically focused on this issue (comparing them should really highlight the original research colors the Tenedos table). I do not think the table is appropriate for this page. We could describe it in two or three sentences which would be far more useful and clear than this current table. Editors -- Kill the table? Change the table? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with that proposal. Collecting a number of estimations doesn't give much usefull info, considering that the text should objectively summarize the same table.Alexikoua (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I like a table only to eat on it. And seeing the word "objectively" being used here, I might accept a glass of ouzo to enjoy even more my food... --E4024 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
OK deleted and rewritten. Feel free to improve on it. Some notes about editing decisions though: 1. If two sources say the exact same thing and neither is a primary document, I went with the one that has already been used in the article, no need to needlessly expand the reflist. 2. If the source did not clearly discriminate between Imbros and Tenedos, it got cut (example: Çağaptay). 3. Tried to keep it about population and not history. No need to repeat it endlessly. 4. I opted for brevity; however, you may want to add additional censuses, etc. that I cut. Great. Add them in. 5. Since NO DATA prior to 1900 (but really even much later) was clear but just guesstimates, I reflected the vagueness and just said that after the 16th century, Greek and Turkish folk were "significant populations". 6. Deleted stuff about the Patriarch unfairly...and I know I did. It just didn't seem to fit well in it. Maybe as a line at the end? or a section about the Ecumenical Patriarch? I opt for line at the end, but think someone who knows more about the Patriarch should add that section in. That's it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It is done a bit fast, but I would not object deletion of this table, being the person who introduced it first. Yet I fail to understand why organizing data in a table constitutes a violation of "no original research" policy while describing the same within sentences does not violate it. I fully respect aesthetic preferences of our users (though the comments about the table being an eyesore were touching). Yet, nobody spoke of the merits of the table. It represented made visible population trends of ethnic groups over time. We were able to see that prior to 19th century the island had a Turkish majority, which switched to a Greek majority at the beginning of 19th century. I tried, as suggested above, to indicate this in sentences instead of a table, but my edits fail to hold. Result: Lost information for Wikipedia. Filanca (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
@Filanca, thanks for defending the table, I'm sure we can figure out something. My problem with the table as it existed, is primarily that it combined qualitative and quantitative indicators and in doing so, I think, expanded beyond any argument by any single source into the realm of original research. For example, Takaoglu does not interpret his table as saying: "prior to 19th century the island had a Turkish majority, which switched to a Greek majority at the beginning of 19th century." Showing such a trend I think is on the border of 'original research' Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I would not be opposed to a modified version of the chart from Takaoglu, like you originally constructed. But the end table (different from the one you added and edited, so the "eyesore" was not intended against your creation but its adult version) was just too big and unwieldy. Here's a couple ideas, maybe some appeal to you, maybe you got other ideas: 1. Two tables: one with overall population figures which have good numbers from 1900s on so that the table will be consistent but not cluttered with ethnic data and another that is the Takaoglu table maybe with updated points. This would I think maintain felicity to the authors and still represent the issue well. Also, it would avoid the multiple blank spaces in the Turkish censi which do not have national divisions. 2. One table but consistent. Takaoglu's table is pretty good, a table of census figures could be good too. We could pick one and represent the other through text. 3. Just re-insert the table and let it go. We might decide that we want to just provide data and let interpretations happen there. My personal preference is to use interpretations of sources, but we don't have to agree on that. Any ideas?AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
AbstractIllusions, thanks for your kind reply. I was not entirely serious when I said I was "touched" by criticism of the table. No problem with removing, let us not re-insert it and move forward with one of your other suggestions. I am fine with inserting Takaoglu's and table and the census figures in two separate tables. That way we will keep most important information that the deleted table contained. Filanca (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
AbstractI's proposal was reasonable and there was a concensus to get rid this ugly table. He also briefly summarized all these numbers in a neutral way. About the supposed Turkish majority in Tenedos before 19th century, off course there are some travel accounts (they are not even serious estimations), that claim Turkish majority or Greek majority, and there is also one which claims that there were just a few Turks. So, if we should write down something more about the demographics of the specific time period we should include all contradicting accounts.Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the table was instrumental in making population trends visible to readers so I added the table as it appears in Takaogly only, as AbstractIllusions suggested. I also corrected one mistake in Takaogly about 1831 census by giving the reference. Also added "males only" for two 19th century Ottoman figures. Filanca (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Tagaoglu for an unknown reason ignored several accounts of that era which clearly contradict his trends. I would suggest to include only serious censi of 19&20th century, not old, selectively choosen, traveler acounts that counted males or families... who knows how they based their results. Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The closer we get to the modern era, the less neutral the sources become; I don't plan to include much from Tagoglu for the post-Byzantine part; nor from articles by Greek authors highlighting just those dates when there more Greeks. I included the post-Russia British account since the main part (rich Turks didn't come back; more Greeks at that time) is corroborated by other sources. That person is very high ranking (not a traveler) and the publisher is highly regarded. Also, can we have the discussions at the end of the page, since the talk page is so unwieldy? Churn and change (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Splitting the article (Not my suggestion originally, but cannot find who to attribute)
Extended content
WP:MODERNPLACENAME, a guideline and not specifically for article titles, suggests the article use Bozcaada when talking of the modern city and Tenedos talking of the ancient one. The article does stick to this in the body text. So is the title referring to the old or the new? The single thread running through the article is just a geographic landmass, which (unlike, say, the Alps) has had no name independent of the human society inhabiting it. That society has been two different entities in two different times, differing in language, religion, demographics and the larger political entity, and people use two different names to refer to the distinct entities. We are forcing a merger and hence finding it hard to name the merged entity. The difficulty in naming may show a deep problem not in policy but in content.
There are two articles for Constantinople and Istanbul. The difference from the Constantinople/Istanbul case is one of whether there is sufficient material to fill two articles. In just a few minutes of searching, I found lengthy RS material, and another 25-page RS . The article is short not because modern Bozcaada is that non-notable, but probably because the talk page scares editors away. We would call the pages "Tenedos" and "Bozcaada." As to the point where the split is made, I think there would be some gradually tapering overlap, and it is up to the editors (as a note, Turks have called the place Bozcaada for centuries per this RS, so the Ottoman empire's start is a good break point, with the understanding both articles can summarize things on either side). No, even as an island, it didn't have continuity; populations emigrated and immigrated and the language has changed (there are few Greeks—Rum Orthodox—left there now); things such as what resources the island has, and obviously physical geography, have stayed the same. Incidentally, per this reliable source, 'Bozcaada' ironically means barren island. Churn and change (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Right now, editors kind of alternate between Tenedos and Bozcaada within the article; the issue permeates it through and through, not just at the title level. Hence the call for a split. The naming problem reflects the content issue. More sources which could be used to add to the "Bozcaada" article:
Türskoy, F. (1995). "Investigation of wind power potential at Bozcaada, Turkey" Renewable Energy,6(8):917-923. doi: 10.1016/0960-1481(95)00091-7
Akyol, O. & Ceyhan, T. (2011). "Coastal fisheries and fishing resources of Bozcaada (Aegean Sea)" Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 5(1):64-72. doi: 10.3153/jfscom.2011008
There are more along these lines (wind energy source, fisheries and other resources, and plenty on the Turk/Greek politics of the modern era). Interestingly I see a print book published based on our article. That is titled Tenedos. Not an RS for us clearly.
Oppose. Tenedos can and should be handled in this article under the title of "Bozcaada". There is no lack of space and the history should be included here.TMCk (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Still, the first decision should be the title of this article which there is now an RFC for.TMCk (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a move-review request, an RFC, a discussion on WP:Article titles, a discussion on the talk page, and a move request closed just days ago. Saying the first decision should be the title of the article is effectively voting for the status quo, since all those discussions have in the past deadlocked. For the excellent reason the article contains two different entities on one page. Constantinople is the history of Istanbul. The question is really whether there is enough material for two articles, and I am showing there is. Churn and change (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec)If there is enough material to make the island's history a fork then don't just say you "showing there is" but point to an article you might have created. But this, afterall, still doesn't answer the RFC posted, or maybe it does, as a separate article about the island from a historical point of view would make the contemporary name the dominating one.TMCk (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I create an article in my sandbox and point to it? That's a real question, not a rhetorical one. I would be willing if there is a chance that would help. Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Support the split: The analogy with Constantinople/Istanbul is evident. In addition both articles would be better off in focusing on their relative historical importance. Regarding the sufficiency of material for two articles: IMO there is sufficient material even for 5. BobNdrenika (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Enough for which one? Bozcaada or Tenedos? If we start with Ottoman rule, there is clearly enough for Bozcaada; most of the sections here will be there in that article. As for Tenedos, there are so many books written on it (hence the Google books search statistic) I am sure we can add far more in than there is right now. As things stand, all those details will probably not be allowed here due to WP:UNDUE. Churn and change (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Enough for a Tenedos article. You're proposing a new article merely for two or three sections that make up no more than few paragraphs of information. It's nothing this article can't handle. At best this is a premature split request. Check WP:SPLIT. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the article is titled 'Tenedos' and the argument is if we take out the Bozcaada part, there isn't much in it. Ok, I will add to the Tenedos part. Churn and change (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That's why we want to change the name to "Bozcaada" to reflect the majority of what the article talks about. If it starts to become an ancient history article then you can propose a split. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is a split, a la New York City/New Amsterdam, it should be because that's what the article seems to want to do at some point in the future. If it is done merely to achieve "conflict resolution" and not for article improvement, I would oppose. Chrisrus (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Per previous comments, and per Chrisrus above, I'm not in favour of this simply as a device to defuse the debate. It's not - or rather shouldn't be - necessary and comes up against our principles on content forking. Sure we could build up enough material to justify a split based on size, but that would be an artificial exercise. Encyclopedic and proportionate content on this place is easily provided in a standard-size WP page - it's a small island. Comparison with Istanbul, a major world city and sometimes imperial capital for thousands of years, doesn't really wash. Also there are practical problems: where would we make the split? What about the Ottoman period, where my guess is that the two names were closer to being concurrent? Would the "Tenedos" page be about pure mythology or more of a real history page? How much history would there then be in the modern Bozcaada page, or would it be excised altogether, which would be very odd and unhelpful? N-HHtalk/edits08:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment When I proposed a split, someone else responded "It is just a city of 2,000 people" (or something along those lines). And that is true. Istanbul/Constantinople is and was a city of millions of people that was the head of two of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Smyrna/Izmir is similarly a site with significant multiple era relevance. This is an island that had more rabbits than people for a hundred years. My question though is an abstract one: how significant does a place have to be to warrant splitting? I'm sure we can find enough info to fill up both pages, but is that intellectually honest to scour the recesses of google for information to fill up two pages for an island that is not in the same category as Istanbul/Constantinople? If this is going to be the only Aegean island with two pages, I need some justification of its historical or modern significance that elevates it above the other islands. And I don't see it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment:I agree with AbstractIllusions. This is a small and unimportant island. But have you noticed that the discussion on the name of this small island is unreasonably lengthy? Maybe splitting will end this unproductive discussion. Moving the name to Bozcaada and creating another article about the mythology of Tenedos is not an ideal solution, but a compromise. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Reply to above: I am not a team leader and I don't expect anybody after me. I strongly support moving. But we came to a stalemate and my suggestion is purely aimed to find a compromise. You are free to agree or disagree. But all the same, you can express your opinion without being harsh. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment I very well understand you Nedim (if I may). Yes splitting would (we hope) end some of the dispute. But for me, I follow evidence. There are hundreds of books written on "Constantinople" and hundred written on "Istanbul". There's no books that separate out the different eras and treat them independently for this geographic location there are just a lot of historical references, some modern news stories, and a few academic articles that deal with the Island through history. The evidence does not seem to suggest a split. However, (as was suggested earlier), the two most prominent discussions of the island the Akpinar/Sustainable development chapter and the Takaoglu/Continuity and Change chapter (the most used source for the content of the article) do use the slash. Now in text they of course use appropriate names for different periods, but when they are talking about the island they use some form of Tenedos/Bozcaada or Tenedos-Bozcaada. Although this may imply that the islands are disputed, the claim against using the slash above, I do find that the primary works on the island do use the slash. So, although the evidence doesn't lead me to support a split, I would find a slash in accordance with the two primary sources on the island. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope and sincerely believe he will develop the section on Ottoman era too. He is writing in chronological order. --E4024 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't really change the point that he's trying to change the article to make it fit in his proposal so that it's accepted. I highly doubt the reliability of his edits when they're added in a matter of minutes as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I plan to develop everything. Toward the later sections, I will face more of a problem, not knowing Turkish. After we have all that is connected to Tenedos/Bozcaada, we will be better able to figure out what the article name should be, and whether it should be split. Churn and change (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The article already has a commonly accepted name: Bozcaada. This recent MR and its review will become a "Before" and "After" for WP on several issues. My sincere belief... --E4024 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Support The article has now grown in size and there is potential for more. Full-detailed analysis of the island's ancient past and place in mythology, even up until the Ottoman period under a separate title is justified. On the other hand, there is the Ottoman period, modern period, the town, all better be detailed under the heading of Bozcaada. Filanca (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
A lengthy summary of the state of affairs on the theory is here: Hesperia article. I am hosting the link per fair-use, and will remove the document in a couple of days.
The crux of the issue is that archaeologists have found no evidence of any Aiolian migration. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, so the theory is not disproved directly. But what it has as support is myths and storied passed on, not physical evidence. Churn and change (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Notability of Dmetri Kakmi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
He does meet WP notability guidelines for authors. Specifically his book meets WP:BKCRIT.
There are 3 reviews of his book, 2 in mainstream UK newspapers, and the 3rd in a magazine, Cornucopia, focusing on Turkey and published in Britain (the magazine is good quality). The Spectator, The Telegraph, Cornucopia
He received a fellowship of $15,000 (Australian Centre Award/Peter Blazey Fellowship in 2008) from the University of Melbourne for working on the book: [4]
Note that every single reference, whether RS or blog/user-comment, I could find was positive. For example, was picked as one of the top books for 2008 at a group blog.
Compromise? Put it in further reading? I just think there are thousands of biographies/memoirs published every year (and thousands that win awards and grants and get covered) and if we put them in every wikipedia article for the places those people are from that is going to create a lot of needless bytes. I don't mind a mention in further reading (actually kinda like that idea), but in content it is not useful information. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was there consensus to Split???
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So the article has been split...but I'm not sure there was consensus for this yet. Maybe more discussion (particularly from some of the editors who opposed the move). AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't ask us, check, for starters WP:Splitting article. Be sure it's done for the right reasons, not as a "Content fork" to achieve "conflict resolution". You may split for the reasons any article may be split. Do not split just to stop a conflict. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
We are over 10,000 words, which is one criterion: WP:SIZESPLIT (not required, but recommended). "At 50 KB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style." 50 KB is roughly 10,000 words. This wasn't a content fork; it was a split removing content from original article. Splitting for conflict resolution, as far as I can see, isn't prohibited by WP:SPLITTING. A split, just like an edit, doesn't require a prior consensus; note that the objections were based on a prior version of the article which was much, much smaller. I am going to tag the article for a split but won't be adding to the discussion, since discussions here tend to be polarized. Finally, I do appreciate User:E4024 removing that remark on the other talk page. Churn and change (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Churn: My objection has nothing to do with the size of the page. If you could please explain a couple of things for me: 1. Why should we split this up when no sources do? Source either briefly mention the island or treat it as a continuous whole. There are no books or articles on "Ancient Tenedos" as a subject...maybe Ferries of Tenedos. 2. Why should we split where you split it? It seems quite arbitrary that "Ancient"=pre-Ottoman. The wikipedia page on Ancient history suggests that Ancient is before about 1000 a.d. That seems an odd place to split, so why there. Hope you'll engage with me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The destruction of the Ottoman mosque by the Venetians
I have asked for an exact translation from İslam Ansiklopedisi. The encyclopedia itself is used as the bibliography in books on the Ottoman empire, but I would like to know the exact statement there. If the encyclopedia itself is directly stating an earlier mosque at the site was destroyed by the Venetians our text is fine. If the encyclopedia is saying the new mosque's builders stated there was an old mosque there destroyed by the Venetians, then we can't include it since we need to attribute the statement to the new-mosque-builders, and that attribution would not be to a notable person or organization. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Translation of İslam Ansiklopedisi: "After Bozcaada was liberated from the Venetians, Mıhçı Mosque and its school (which were destroyed) were reconstructed by Köprülü." (Turkish: "Bozcaada Venediklilerden kurtarıldıktan sonra tahribata uğramış olan Mıhçı Camii ve muallimhânesi Köprülü tarafından yeniden inşa edilmiştir.") This is directly told by the encyclopedia therefore I think we can include it. Filanca (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Name Usage in Content
Right now the page is a mess of usage because of the naming debate. This is not a place to discuss what the right name for the Wikipedia page is, this is about content not the title. Even if the page's name gets changed to Bozcaada or a split happens, this is irrelevant to finding some consensus on usage for the article's content. Sentences go back and forth and because we are adhering to the current name of the article, some of them sound stupid. Based on academic usage, here and here (the two most authoritative references about the island!) I suggest these guidelines for the content. If we can get agreement on them, it should help the page:
When referring to the geographical place i.e. when talking about the island's geographic location or climate, etc. use Tenedos/Bozcaada (this is what is used in both of the main sources above)
When referring to the island before 1923 (including Homeric myths and the Aeneid) use Tenedos (I know it was called Bozcaada before that and that can be in the naming section, but for content coherence this is a good place to break it)
I support that. There are the obvious common-sense exceptions such as "Bozcaada means barren island in Turkish" and "The Turks called it Bozcaada," whatever be the section the statements are in. Also on the explicit proviso this will not be used in a move debate by either side. Churn and change (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, for all, this is a content decision and aims for clarity, not to decide the naming issue or be used to imply any consensus on that issue. Also Churn, we just talked about the lead a few weeks ago, you may want to check that discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The article has expanded so the lead needs to change. Go ahead and feel free to edit it anyway; it is hard to find any discussion on this talk page. Churn and change (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, digging through, found the discussion. Feel free to change the wording; I won't revert. Looking at the whole thing the first time, "systemic discrimination" did seem the right summary since Turkey didn't deny it (they state they are acting just the way the Greeks are toward the Turkish minority there, a "reciprocity principle" but that part is out of scope for this article). We can be more specific as you suggest, though compact wording would help. Churn and change (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment AbstractIllusions' summary seems well balanced except for the second point. In the maps of Piri Reis as of the 16th century the island was named as Bozcaada (I don't see how content coherence changes it .) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I re-read the part about Ottoman history and I'm starting to think Nedim is right-ish. So, we think prior to Ottoman takeover, it should be Tenedos. We think after 1923 it should be Bozcaada. But, there's that tricky little period of 400 years. Proposals for 1600-1923: Tenedos/Bozcaada, judge by the context and switch appropriately, Tenedos, Bozcaada? I don't know. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Use in sources for Ottoman period: Takaoglu uses "The island" when discussing the Ottoman period, but uses Tenedos when closely quoting European travelogues that use Tenedos. Akpinar uses Bozcaada for Ottoman period. Based on this usage from the two sources that consider the island throughout history, I suggest the following amendment to the suggestions above: 4. For the period from 1455 until 1923, if original source prefers a name for the island, use that name. If not, use "The island" or "Bozcaada".AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd personally really prefer to avoid slashed names as preferred in point 1 currently. I think they'd be avoided on WP generally too, and I can't see a case where anything under 1 wouldn't fall anyway under 2 or 3. If we're talking generally about the weather or geography, AFAIK it hasn't suffered major climate change or moved, so we'd always presumably be looking from the vantage point of the present and could/should simply use Bozcaada, eg "Bozcaada has [and has always had] lovely summers". 1923 seems as a good year as any to "switch" usage though - even though Bozcaada was obviously used prior to that, all the evidence I've seen suggests that Tenedos was a more commonly used name in English language sources, at the time and still now. There could perhaps be some leeway if it was being mentioned in a very obviously Turkish context before 1923. N-HHtalk/edits12:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
To repeat a point earlier. For English usage of the Ottoman period the only two sources that make editorial decisions regarding naming during the Ottoman period: Takaoglu uses "The island" when discussing the Ottoman period, but uses Tenedos when closely quoting European travelogues that use Tenedos. Akpinar uses Bozcaada for Ottoman period. The result was this suggestion based on the use in the two most reputable sources on the island, 4. For the period from 1455 until 1923, if original source prefers a name for the island, use that name. If not, use "The island" or "Bozcaada". If people disagree with this suggested guideline, we should have a clear reason for ignoring the decisions by Takaoglu and Akpinar's (the main sources that looked at disputed usage and made decisions) regarding usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Takaoglu and Akpinar's editorial decisions are likely influenced by the fact that they are both Turkish. I also find it extremely hard to believe that they are the "only two sources" that make editorial decisions on the name. Athenean (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Geography and Climate sections, I think the easiest solution would be to just follow the article title. Anything else will likely lead to intractable circular debates of the kind we have seen before in this talkpage. Athenean (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Great points Athenean (except for the assumption of a national POV just because someone is born there--which we don't even know). 1. I'm happy if all we are disagreeing about is the period 1455-1923. The recent edits go far beyond this period, so if that is all we disagree on, we can at least fix those. 2. Yes, sources use Tenedos for the Ottoman period. Great. 3. The wikipedia description of Reputable sources says that not all sources are reputable on all things, hence we should ask: What is the most reputable sources for deciding a complex naming decision for a weird period? 4. I say, we should go with the sources that talk about the island through history because they actually make these decisions and call it Tenedos for one period, Bozcaada for another. That is the Akpinar and Takaoglu pieces. If you have another that makes such a decision, please let me know. Brief mentions of the islands I think show less consideration of the question "what should we name the island in 1600"? 5. What we all want to avoid, I think, is where the Title determines the usage in content (now and in the future). I think liberal usage of "the Island" for the period from 1455 until 1923 may be the best solution. I know it is a little wordy but that is the clear preference by Sources that considered this issue and could make all of us content. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree that the only two sources we should use for the nomenclature of the Ottoman period are Takaoglu and Akpinar. I just cannot accept this. The sources I have presented have also made editorial decisions on this. They didn't just pick "Tenedos" at random. Athenean (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's cool, but just because I set out the conditions that would convince me to change my mind: If you find a source that shows a clear discriminating use (uses Tenedos in 1300, but then Bozcaada in 1700--dates chosen randomly). If you have People writing about other topics that use the island once or twice and show no discriminating usage, I think that is not showing thought to our key question here. So let's work this out: My proposal For the period 1455 until 1923, preferred usage is 1. The island, 2. If this ruins the wording, prefer the usage in the source. That sounds to me like it accounts for your points clearly but also allows us not to change a quotation that clearly uses Bozcaada into one that uses Tenedos (as happened in the recent edits). Does that sound like a guideline that both of us agreeing to disagree folks can buy into? If not, propose something else. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
On other issue of Geography/Climate, I would be fine adopting a "Follow Article Title" guideline. There were some weird sentences that were created with that rule prior to this discussion. Also, I think a compromise might be to establish the first usage in the Geography and Climate section as 'Or'. So something like: "The island of Tenedos or Bozcaada roughly triangular in shape." In the rest of use on Geography/Climate, I would be fine with a "Follow Article Title" rule, but just think whether the name remains Tenedos in perpetuity or whether it changes, some nod to the dual names of the island in the Geography/Climate section would be appropriate. And a simple 'or' seems like the most useful way to do this without confusing slashes or mixed usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The pertinent guideline is WP:Place: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." Since "Bozcaada" is clearly no widely accepted historic name, but always complemented "Tenedos" after the Ottoman occupation, not more, not less, the correct name based on the guidelines is Tenedos. Please remember that any 'deals' sidelining the guidelines are invalid and can be overthrown at any time by any single person, no matter how long and winding this discussion becomes and no matter how many people argue for this or that or claim "consensus" for this and that. It's only the guidelines that count, the rest is chatting, and the guidelines point clearly towards Tenedos. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input GPM. I do love WP:PLACE guidelines. Ignoring for a second that the title that currently exists is a violation of the WP:Place guidelines, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What was the widely accepted historic English name for the place? To make this clear: No evidence has been provided to establish that it was Tenedos, only evidence to suggest that it was Tenedos. Sorry. We have to look at the sources. The two sources that show clearly discriminating use (using Tenedos for some periods and Bozcaada for other periods) show: 1. use of Tenedos for the Ottoman period only when paraphrasing Italian and Spanish travelogues and 2. use of either "the island" or Bozcaada when not paraphrasing these sources. Hence, the widely accepted historic English name for the place for 1455-1923 cannot be said to be Tenedos, at best it can be said to be neither. I, once again, am asking for these for you to claim that the guidelines clearly point toward Tenedos: 1. A clearly discerning source, not a mere mention, that says Tenedos was the name for the Ottoman period or 2. A reason to ignore the two most discerning sources we have who show a preference for Bozcaada during that period. Either of those will answer our question. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If the article had been moved to "Bozcaada", the second clause of WP:PLACE would apply. But it wasn't moved. Therefore we should just stick with the article title and be done with this. The stuff about the "establish" vs. "suggest" distinction and the "two most discerning sources" is just sophistry. Athenean (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd greatly appreciate if the personal attacks were rescinded. I've told you what would convince me to change my position, and also tried to compromise with all positions on this issue.(note: originally I agreed with the 1923 division, but upon a smart challenge from another editor and looking back at the source usage, I think the 1923 division is problematic.) Both of those doors are still open for discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Compromise of all positions Another effort at compromise of how to implement WP:PLACE guidelines on this page:
These will not be used in a move debate by either side (from Churn and Change)
Common sense should be used in all implementation. If it is a quoted piece stick with the quotes, if it is a translated piece use the name in the original, if it is ethymology then keep it appropriate, etc. (from Churn and Change)
Permanent names.Regardless of article title, the island before 1455 should be called Tenedos and after 1923 should be called Bozcaada. As per "specific historical context" of WP:PLACE. (Neither of these have been contested in this discussion, everyone seems to agree so far)
Parenthetical names. For sections talking about the island as a permanent geographical location, use Article Title for regular usage. However, "on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections the use should be": Article Title (Other name). So, Tenedos (Bozcaada) for current article. Also, as said in WP:PLACE, "it is probably better to do too often than too rarely" (Derived from Point 3 of General Guidelines of WP:PLACE). (compromise between the N-HH dislike to slashes, Abstract Illusion's position, and GPM's position).
Floating names. For the period from 1455 until 1923, use the Article Title. Whatever the article title is, it should be used for the fuzzy period of 1455 until 1923. Exceptions should be official quotations (like to Lausanne) or quotations and translations. Also, if article title in some future becomes slashed, this point should be reconsidered for readability. (Compromise between Athenean's position, AI's position and Nedim Ardoğa's position)
I broadly agree (I think, on a skim read) with the above principles. It surely makes sense, whatever the article is titled, that definite and discrete post-1923 references are to Bozcaada and pre-15th century ones to Tenedos. Even people citing the overall preponderance of references to Tenedos as the name acknowledge that this is because of historical baggage - the dispute is more whether that counts for geographic-article naming purposes. For the in-between period, or for non-period-specific references, it's a bit more tricky and we should probably generally go with the article title - if only for consistency reasons and however wrong that title rather obviously currently is per se. Wherever possible and without over-repeating, let's simply use "the island".
I think that would leave us somewhere in between the current flipping - one version of which uses "Tenedos" even when talking about the island today (eg lead text re the 1960s/70s, photo captions and article text re modern wine-making and a recent film) and the other version that has references to Bozcaada in the 15th century. Neither of those read right where we are now, and I'm sure each side could accept switching those individual mentions. N-HHtalk/edits21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and as noted it's a bit odd for people quite happy to ignore the more fundamental requirements of WP:PLACE when it comes to the actual article title to start citing it now when it comes to article text. The parts quoted also of course highlight the surreal absurdity of the position here - the reason wp:place raises the issue of "historic names" that can/should be used sometimes in text rather than the actual article title, and why it makes no similar specific provision for using the "modern" name in text sometimes as opposed to the title, is precisely because it assumes that articles will be at the modern name. Yet now the lack of such similar provision is being relied on to insist that we can't even use the modern name in context-appropriate parts of the article text. N-HHtalk/edits18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There are no deals, there won't be no deals against the guidelines whatever some users try to portrait as "consensus". Changing those parts of the article on the modern history to "Bozcaada" is a direct violation of the previous four request moves, basically you spit on them all: if Bozcaada had been the most common name in this recent time period, the article would have been changed to this name as the naming convention is concerned with current usage. However, the article was not changed to Bozcaada, reflecting the fact that there is no consensus that even today Bozcaada is more common used. This is simple logic, folks. What you are trying now is to undermine the four votes and WP:Place through the backdoor. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No one has ever suggested any deals against the guidelines. Everything I proposed fits closely with the WP:PLACE guidelines and particularly the spirit of those guidelines, and always has. Reverting all usage to 'Tenedos' does not follow WP:PLACE specific or spirit. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. This is nothing to do with "deals", nor has anyone suggested that it should be. It is about using the modern name in modern contexts, while deferring to the current title more generally - as guidelines call for and as the article used to do, as far as I can tell, until you unilaterally first switched away from that with this edit and the following one, in the middle of an open discussion here about the broader principles. Three separate editors have reverted those changes, to varying degrees, and challenged the rationale here, and yet you claim the right to single-handedly edit war your new version in over that opposition. I think it's your behaviour that would be better taken to a noticeboard of some sort. And your citing of WP:PLACE is beyond parody, given how the provisions there have been so egregiously ignored when it comes to article title. N-HHtalk/edits15:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Rv. There is an ongoing discussion on the neutrality board. After three failed moves to Bozcaada in the past couple of months you know pretty well where the real consensus lies. It's been Tenedos by community consensus, not Bozcaada, no matter hard you try to make ground good now by bending the geographic names guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed there is an ongoing discussion there, where at this point in time your view appear to have garnered little support. This is a separate debate and decision from the overarching ones about article title. Again, let's be clear here -
guidelines such as PLACE clearly suggest that we use context-appropriate names in text; and here we are now simply talking about post-1923 references. Pre-1923 are all to Tenedos in the current version. No one's trying to switch any of those currently
your version, with Tenedos throughout, including to post-1923 references, represents a big shift from a stable long-standing version that has stood regardless of the article title debate; and you are now edit-warring alone on this against multiple editors and without any talk consensus, here or at the NPOV board, to implement your version
your citing of PLACE beggars belief given how studiously its provisions are being ignored by you and the one or two other editors who have previously vetoed any move to the modern name
you know full well that the article title is at Tenedos because of the preponderance of references to history. No one seriously asserts that this is the name in a completely modern context. Even if you believe that this is the right decision for the article title, at least quit pretending about why we got there and what this might mean for article text in some cases
You're also removing some minor copyediting by your blind/blanket reversions. There are other noticeboards this can go to, which will focus on your behaviour here as much as the issues in question.N-HHtalk/edits10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The name of the organization according to official ECHR documents is: Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi. Those same documents translated their name already into "Foundation of the Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Greek Orthodox Church." The name of the organization in English according to the European Court of Human Rights is Foundation of Bozcaada Kimisis Tedoku Greek Orthodox Church. We don't have to translate their name into English, the ECHR already did it for us. See: here. People are now changing the actual names of organizations to fit into their POV. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So that is how te ECHR translates it? So what? What is so special about the ECHR's translation that we should follow it to the letter? There are many ways of translating it, and much better ones I might add. The ECHR's translation is veyr clunky and breaucratic. Rather, we are an encyclopedia, and we have a duty to make our articles intelligible to our readers. I don't expect many of our readers to know what "Foundation of Bozcaada Kimisis Tedoku Greek Orthodox Church" means. On the other hand, my translation is simple, clear and intelligible. I'm not going to sacrifice intelligibility forthe sake of attempts to stick "Bozcaada" wherever possible. Athenean (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the church issue in any detail – and do accept that in that context, if there is a formal name, Tenedos may be the better use, despite the ECHR version – but these recent changes also include inserting Tenedos in narrative text when discussing modern wine and travel issues, where even the sources being cited for that info refer of course to Bozcaada. Despite the accusation above, none of us trying to ensure the article uses the appropriate name in appropriate contexts – and hence that modern name in modern, Turkish contexts – are going as far the other way as Athenean and GPM seem to be "for the sake of attempts to stick Tenedos wherever possible". N-HHtalk/edits08:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"What is so special about the ECHR's translation that we should follow it to the letter?" 1. They are the source for the claim being made, 2. They are a legal entity representing all Europe (including Turkey), 3. They have better translators than us. 4. WP:UE says to only translate if there isn't an English language use. ECHR provides it, so we don't even consider translating. 5. WP:UE says to follow the conventions for the country the thing is in "German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on". So, we should use Turkish for Turkish islands. 6. I know WP:USE ENGLISH is about Article titles, but certainly what we should do if we had an article on the church is what we should do when we use it in an article. 7. Although we can translate things for clarity and intelligibility, we shouldn't use the current Article Title to trump translating the formal name. Changing Vakif to organization is different than changing Bozcaada to Tenedos. 8. When you are changing the names of organizations and the sources that talk about that organization, it appears to be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. 9. The easiest way to avoid this is simple: Modern name for modern discussion. Old name for old discussion. This is what the sources do, this is what most people answering in this thread agreed to and thought reasonable, it is how the page was when the information about the modern island was added (the page used Bozcaada for modern discussion a convention going back years) and even though there were name requests, usage stayed relatively stable that Bozcaada is for modern place, and finally for intelligibility (if people are looking for directions to the island, it should be intelligible, if people are looking to buy wine from the island, it should be intelligible, if they want to learn about Homer, that should also be intelligible). Let's work this out, because it is really not helping the page get better. Appropriate name for appropriate period based on sources.AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Split discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The article has a total word count over 10,000, and per WP:SIZESPLIT is ripe for a split. The logical way seems to be to split into Ancient Tenedos and the modern island. The use of the beginning of the Ottoman empire is logical. It is the point of split for Constantinople/Istanbul; it is the point at which Ancient Rome ends (at least on Wikipedia). It is a point at which a severe discontinuity exists for the article subject (entire populace expelled for good, and all buildings razed). However, note that that isn't the only point possible, one could split at the end of the Roman empire too (for many people that is end of antiquity, though WP has a different convention for Ancient Rome). Note that I will not be defending the proposal any further, to avoid long-drawn-out discussions. Churn and change (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
So you aren't going to care what we have to say? Again: My caution for the splitting of Bozcaada is that it is intellectually dishonest. This isn't Rome, this isn't Constantinople, this isn't Smyrna, etc.. This is a tiny island. It is easy to find lots of information and then say we need to split, but is it based on the evidence or is it making the evidence fit what we want it to say. I'll support it if it is the former, I won't if it is the later. It isn't about words or bytes, it is whether it is appropriate based on the evidence. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Aargh, you are baiting me. I'll respond to just that part then: I won't be the one removing the tag and deciding at the end what to do; as to the evidence of the content you, and others, should judge its notability, encylopedic relevance and so on directly. Churn and change (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No baiting man, just a fair question. If you won't answer my concern then I have to Oppose. Even with expanded content, it seems the reason for the split is artificial and not based on any actual substantive usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have serious issues with this possible split. Churn initially proposed a split at a time the article didn't have enough content for a split. When people opposed his proposition, he added stuff overnight almost doubling the length of the article. I highly doubt the quality of his entries. Now, he's proposing the split again as if he had nothing to do with the reason the article became this long. I find that troubling. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Repeating previous concerns and agreeing with much of the above. This appears to have been part of a planned and artificial process, all aimed at this end result and propelled by the nominating user. We have a small island here, with no clear dividing point as to where we would split the "ancient" and the "modern" anyway. I can't see the benefit of having such a huge level of detail on this topic in an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a book on the island and its history), or of any consequent split. In fact it would all just make finding relevant and high-level information more difficult for people. N-HHtalk/edits08:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The split is logical from one perspective, namely the simultaneous presence of a lot of scholarly work on Ancient Tenedos (see Google books searches mentioned above) as well as a ton of mainstream media discussion of contemporary Bozcaada. Both names are in common usage today, but by two different communities: those who are interested in ancient Greece, and those who are interested in the modern island of wine and tourism. Two articles makes sense in that regard. I see the Constantinople/Istanbul analogy as an apt one -- some are curious about Roman/Byzantine history, others about Turkish history or contemporary Istanbul life. Obviously there is room for crossover, as in any binary you'll find people who are interested in both. But there appears to be a logic to the split and I think we should endorse it. 76.90.237.102 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Question to admins: The above is the "only" contribution of the above IP user in WP. In these cases do you check these users? Could it be a registered user who for one or another reason enters into a discussion logging out? Why do you think they would do something like this? Thanks for any answers. --E4024 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Name of the article
In the article it says it is an island of Turkey but the article's name is Tenedos. That does not make sense. The article name must be Bozcaada. Do we use Turkish names of the Greek islands on their article names? Thanks. Aditdigo (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This has long been a contentious issue, however odd that may seem (see talk page above and archives, as well as various past requested moves). The basic logic has been "Google Books gets more hits for Tenedos than Bozcaada, therefore it's the more common name". A couple of editors make a noise about that and the page is stuck at its current name. WP rules do indeed require us to use the common name rather than the "official" name – but they do not say "simply count raw Google numbers" and of course the only reason Tenedos gets more hits is because of references to the island's past in the huge number of books about ancient Greek myths and medieval history. WP rules and common sense also suggest we should use the modern, common name, which is undoubtedly Bozcaada, as every atlas and every serious piece of writing about the modern island calls it. Most such sources, as well as simply using Bozcaada, even explicitly state that it is the modern name, which has displaced the previous one. However, all that will cut no ice so long as one or two people claim the right to effectively veto any change and hence any passing admin says "no consensus" to move to the standard, obvious modern name for this Turkish island. N-HHtalk/edits10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Point of order, Bozcaada is not only an island. It is an official district of Turkey. All Turkish districts (about 900) have articles in WP with the exception of Bozcaada just because of google counts. That's ridiculus and a kind of censorship. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. However, there is no point in opening up a new move request until the reason for the failures of the last bunch is fixed. N-NH points out that WP:COMMONNAME needs to spell out what to do between the time when a name of a place changes and when Google Books counts and such have yet to catch up. It should say to use the name that appears on the appropriate maps, that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously googlebooks isn't the only argument, but one of many. One of the was that the island was officially supposed to be under a special autonomous status due its Greek character, under this name, but due to various reasons this changed dramatically. In general I can name several examples where the article name doesn't coincide with the language of the state. After all this is the English wiki not the Turkish.Alexikoua (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you name another article where the title differs from what all the appropriate maps call it? By "appropriate" I mean all current English-language maps published by companies such as National Geographic or Rand McNally and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, for example, Gönyeli in wiki, is Kioneli in National Geographic. Looking at the article's talk page Gönyeli is preferred due to google results. In Tenedos on the other hand the arguments are stronger gbooks and gscholar are not the only arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Tenedos is a historical name and when the sources refer to its history, the name Tenedos is rightfully used. But for the last 550 years, the official name is Bozcaada and Tenedos is something like New Amsterdam for New York City. When we refer to the present settlement, the name is Bozcaada. Keeping the name Tenedos for the Bozcaada maybe romantic but is absolutelly unencyclopaedic. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And the Google Books argument was pretty much the only argument and evidence deployed in favour of Tenedos, against a plethora of arguments and evidence in favour of Bozcaada. Debates about provisions for special status in a 100 year-old treaty were rarely raised and have nothing to do with WP naming rules anyway. And Alexikoua is raising total red herrings with mention of places in Cyprus and by suggesting that this is about using the "Turkish" name. The argument for Bozcaada is not that it is the name in the Turkish language but that it is the name used for the modern island in the vast majority of English-language publications, even if one or two might use both or even just Tenedos. It is. There is, simply, no way round that for anyone with eyes to see, just as there is no way round the fact that the name of this page should follow that, as the WP:NAME policy and the WP:PLACE guideline both require. This is an incredibly simple naming issue, compared to many. The only problem is the veto that has been consistently wielded. N-HHtalk/edits21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet time and time again it fails. Until we figure out where things go wrong, we shouldn't put in a move request. We need a simple rule that when the maps agree, go with that. Other than spelling out exactly what we mean by "maps" that's it. Also we have to explain the reason behind the rule: timely response when the name of a place changes. When the name of a place changes, it takes a long time for the Google searches to reach 50%, so just check the appropriate modern maps and if they all agree we are to go with that. Simple. I argued this at some length and was told to accept the ipse dixit argument that averages of books and papers should still be checked and weighed against universal cartographic agreement, but that's absurd because why bother when all the maps agree?
Also there are problems with closing instructions for administrators. As it stands, they are to step in, look for consensus within the debate, and, finding none, they are to close, which by default keeps the article where it is. They are not instructed to do a good job, or given outlines of what doing a good job would be, of understanding what the people are talking about, and have allowed move closes to stand that were closed with edit summaries blatantly betraying fundamental misunderstandings of the undisputed facts of the case.
It's not an important place, but it's an important case because of what it means for guidelines and policy. Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue that this kind of thing is pretty clearly covered now at WP:MODERNPLACENAME. But equally, as you say, with people seemingly closing their eyes to that provision, maybe something more explicit is needed. Ultimately though, I fear people who wish to ignore or bend the rules and the evidence, for no obvious objective benefit, will simply continue to do so and to claim a veto. All the rules in the world can't make human beings see sense if they don't wish to, especially if they can hide behind computer screens. And, as noted, the problem with the WP process is that this then means "no consensus" in the eyes of anyone asked to adjudicate the bid to sort the problem out. N-HHtalk/edits08:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you are right. But I would hope you'd agree that there still needs to be somewhere WP:CALLITWHATMAPSDO that says "If all the (appropriate) maps agree, use that name." It maybe should be incorporated into that or other guidelines. And second, please agree that closing procedures need to be revised to explain what "consensus" means; it means "in accord with consensus guidelines". Third, WP:BEFORECLOSING should describe how, and actually also why, a discussion should be closed. You have to go in asking questions that all end with the explicit or implied clause "is that correct"? As in "Ok, you're saying "blah, blah, blah" is that correct? Do you dispute such and such fact, upon which his argument depends? Why wouldn't edit X be in violation of guideline Y? And that if an administrator does not have the motivation or wherewithall to conduct such an investigation, he/she should not close. And WP:UNDOCLOSING should explain that all closings not accompanied by evidence of proper investigation or edit summaries that blatently mis-characterize the knowable facts and competing positions should be undone immediately.
Until these, actually-more-important-than-the-name-of-this-island, things are done, I don't see the point in opening another move request. Chrisrus (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A watermill on Bozcaada?
The article now says Köprülü built a watermill here. While we know that there are no permanent running streams on the island. As for the irregular streams are too irregular and small to build a structure, they mostly run on small channels at south-west after rains for a short time. So, howcome? Filanca (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It says “The most varied of his foundations was that on the island of Bozcaada, recaptured from the Venetians early in his grand vezirate. Here he built two mosques, a school, a caravansaray, a bath-house, a coffee-house, a stable, nine mills, a water-mill, a bakery and 84 shops.”
Why would he have built a watermill on a streamless island? And what the heck is a caravansary? Oh I see. But still, why would a roadside inn designed for camel caravans have been built on Bozcaada? It sounds like he was just going crazy building whatever he knew how to build just to build things. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the word that E4024 wants here? What would he have established by constructing things, a vocabulary word somewhere at "jurisdiction" or "claim" or "ownership" by the government? Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Chrisrus, I don't think Köprülü would be as foolish a person to build random useless buildings, considering his brilliant career as a politician and strategist. You can think of a caravanserai as an Ottoman hotel. They did not only serve camel or horse mounted travellers, but also seafaring ones. Since Bozcaada is so strategically located on an island, right at the exit of the Dardanelles, I am not surprized to hear that it needed a caravanserai. Watermill, however, needs an explanation. The source could not have confused windmills (which were abundant on the island) with watermills, since it says "nine mills, a water-mill". Could it be that it was counting the properties of the foundation of the island, which do not have to be located exactly ON it. Mainland is very close with regular streams for a watermill. An even more likely explanation is that this was not a watermill but a windmill built to lift water from a well on the island. Then this may be somehow transformed to a "watermill" during a translation. Filanca (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply and sorry I never said so earlier. You say it might be a mistranslation in the source. If it is, we might want to change it just to "mill" or find some other solution. Otherwise, sharp-eyed readers like Filanca will notice the apparent contradiction and it will disturb the reader's experience. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Why the wrong name?
I tried to follow the archived discussions and the above gymnastics of logic and language, but my simple mind can not grasp why an island named, officially named, Bozcaada is not the name of the article about the said island. If one were to send a postcard to Tenedos today, it would not reach anywhere. Why is this so complicated? Why can not the old and historic names be covered in the body of the article as it is done with all other similar articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.149 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to my world. To answer your question directly:
Because the WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't say "Check the appropriate maps. If they all agree, use that." Instead, it leaves it open to other measures of WP:COMMONNAME, such as Google Books searches and such, and as the island was more often discussed in books by its former name than by its modern one, they say they have good reason to keep it by its former name. So fix that and you'll fix this and any others that there might be. It's the simplest and best answer.
Because previously, when administrators and such replied to the move request, instead of seeing "consensus", they saw and endless argument, and said "I see no consensus", And that meant in effect "there is consensus not to move". It's complicated, I'm sorry I haven't explained it well just now. It's a more complicated and difficult solution, but if it could be fixed it would have wide-ranging benefit to Wikipedia. I think this may have been fixed since the last time in some guidelines to some extent.
Because there are a group of proud Greek patriots and classists and such who love the history of Tenedos and can't accept the fact that the name has changed. To me, I wouldn't be surprised if they still call it Constantinople, that's the impression of them I get of many of them. There is nothing that can be done about that, it should be a given and provided for. We have to have a system that gets around such people. I bet there are Turks that refuse to accept that the names of other places have changed from Turkish to something else by now. It's not about being Greek, it's a thing you'll find all around the world. See WP:SEVEN.
Because as long as someone refuses to back down, the admins feel, that means there is no consensus, in their eyes. They are asked to stay "uninvolved", which they understand to mean "don't ask questions and try to get to the bottom of things. Stay neutral means not deciding someone is right and the other wrong." or some such. It seems they are trained to look for compromise, not right and wrong. That's my impression. To fix this would involve detailing what "uninvolved" is supposed to mean, because in order to understand something, it's necessary to get involved. The term should be maybe change to "disinterested" so they don't think it means they can close without proper investigation so they understand which facts are undisputed and what the arguments actually are and aren't, on both sides, and whether they jive with, not only our guidelines and such, but also the basic rules of logic and good rhetoric which ironically are both Greek words.
Until these things have changed, I don't see the point in opening another move request. If you want to open one, I'll try to help, but I think you will find out what I'm saying is true. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have faith that a wider review would actually see through the nonsense that has happened here. Most rational people would be scratching their heads at the objections to moving the page to its usual, modern name and would call them out for the Greek nationalism and classical nostalgia that they represent. N-HHtalk/edits09:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Island Tenedos is well known mainly because it is mentioned in Iliad . OK but the island now is a modern settlement where people live. It is an administrative unit (ilçe or district) and it is named Bozcaada There is absolutely no district (and no mention of any district in any language ) named Tenedos. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if it really is the ideal solution. But under these circumstances (three renaming discussions with even pros and cons ) I think this article (Tenedos) can be dedicated to the history of the island and most of the stuff about the modern Bozcaada can be migrated to the article about modern Bozcaada. (The trouble is that the credits and the history of those edits about modern Bozacaada will be lost) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You could split the article if it naturally seems to want to give birth to a daughter article. You shouldn't make a "point of view fork": split articles just as a compromise to stop people arguing or for there to be two articles expressing two points of view of the same thing, such as for example Greek and Turkish points of view. Chrisrus (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what gave you the idea of nationalistic POV. The split is about the history of the island and the modern district. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is that such a split would be a little OTT for one tiny island. This isn't Istanbul after all. Also, it smacks a little of a Solomon's judgment. And, finally, we should probably correctly call any historical spin-off "History of Bozcaada" rather than "Tenedos" plus we'd have the issue of which of the two "Tenedos" should then be a redirect to. The only other options would be "Tenedos in antiquity/mythology" which would still leave the problem of where all the pre-1900 content would best fit. N-HHtalk/edits11:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: There is a clear definition of how place names are to appear in WP, but we still have problems correcting this absurd situation here? It seems to me there is no need for consensus, for referees, or experts here, all we need is someone of authority to apply the existing rules. This goes to the very heart of the problem with Wiki and why it loses its value for so many as a reliable reference. Nationalists and ideologues and folks with agendas are allowed to run wild with little control, even where there are clear rules. Try mailing a post card to Tenedos and see what happens! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.149 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it the reason why you connected ″Tenedos″ article to mostly ″Bozcaada″ articles in other Wikis, while we have a Bozcaada (district) article? And did this even in the cases of some foreign Wikis which have separate articles for the island and the district as such or that have accentuated "the district of Bozcaada" in their sole article? Looks like some people are not only incapable of controlling their extreme nationalism but also are not ashamed of lying in public at all for their petty satisfaction. --141.196.153.37 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No, but it doesn't operate under mob rule and veto either. Consensus is meant to be judged in the light of policy and guidelines and real-world sources, which, as noted, are all quite clear in this case. Whether a postcard would or would not get to "Tenedos" as well as Bozcaada doesn't matter so much as what name is usually used in English-language sources to refer to the modern island. And anyone not befogged by prejudice or ignorance can see the answer to that. N-HHtalk/edits11:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Formerly, there had been three or four discussions on moving the title of this article. The pros and cons were equal and the title has not been moved. In most modern maps and atlases, local names are used; but in WP a rather ambigious concept of established-use prevails. Well how can a small Aegean island have an established-use in English ? It can be argued that the name was mentioned in Iliad. But that's a historical-literary usage. Using the historical name instead of the modern name is not much different than, say, calling Ho Chi Minh City "Saigon" or calling Astana “Tselinograd". Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the text of the rules were simply clarified and structured a bit more logically rather than changed as such. The basic principles of common and modern name remain as they were. Either way of course, Bozcaada is obviously the name that should be being used as the primary one here. Hopefully clearer rules will mean a clearer debate and a simpler decision though. N-HHtalk/edits13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say that I don't care what the common modern English-language name of this island is. What matters is the significance of this case with systemic problems with Wikipedia.
What do you think about my four points above? The first point is out of date. It no longer omits maps and such, but it still recommends encyclopedias among the first places to look for the common modern place names. Encyclopedias are not among the place that a good reference librarian would send a common modern place name seeker. There is good reason for this: each encyclopedia mention is just one datum that must be manually checked for usage in context (primacy, commonality, moderness) and then weighed against other usages, while simply looking up a common modern place name on a map or gazetteer or whatnot returns a peer-reviewed conclusion as to the common modern name of a place. So good reference librarians and encyclopedia writing guidelines do not point common modern place name seekers to encyclopedias; they point them to maps and such. So, the presence of encyclopedias among the first-choice places to look in the guidelines impairs determining common modern place names.
As too the second point....what do you think about the other points? How should they be addressed so that these types of things don't happen on Wikipedia in the future? Again, the point is the wider systemic problems brought to the fore, not per se this case. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we start another move request? It's about time the WP page finally used the nomenclature that the rest of the world uses in modern times for this place. Hopefully we'll get more rational contributions and a more rational conclusion this time. N-HH (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought that this was already settled, although without any discussion, someone created Bozcaada, Çanakkale (also tried to change the interlanguage links), an article supposed to be about the administrative division, but in fact its about the very same island. Before any move request is initiated its obvious that a move to an already existing article doesn't make sense.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There do seem to be unnecessary duplication and WP:FORK issues: one page on the place should be enough. And even if it can be argued that the district per se deserves a separate page, that doesn't negate the fact that island itself is still commonly called Bozcaada these days. Either way there's a problem, as there has been for a long time. N-HH (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but for the sake of the entire project, the systemic problems on Wikipedia with such things as the administrative discussion closure procedures and so on should be first edited, not only so that a new move request will have a chance of success, but also (more importantly), for the greater good of the project, because the repeated failure to move this article since it was first requested so long ago has brought to the fore issues more important for Wikipedia than the name of this tiny waterless island. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't you take up those "issues more important for Wikipedia" in their own talk pages? Keep this talk page on topic, please. 132.147.64.75 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How can this article be moved to the common modern English place name when administrators consistently close move requests without simple fact-finding? Move requests for this article have failed multiple times. In order to improve this article in this way, the issue of administrative move request closure without fact-finding on the grounds that opposition exists has to be dealt with. Unless you can suggest another way. Chrisrus (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, and you're right, but you probably won't accomplish that on this talk page. With regards to name change requests, the problem of facts being undermined by a "lack of consensus" needs to be raised on the relevant WP policy page. Until then, admins will likely side with the naysayers who use the lack of consensus to work around the empirical evidence pointing to Bozcaada. 67.161.124.202 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Because we are writing in English, not Turkish; and Tenedos is the established name in English: To Tenedos they come (Troilus and Cressida Prol. 7). Look at the top of the page; this is at least the tenth time we have discussed it, and there is no consensus to move this island from the name we Anglophones have always called it, to one I would not know if it were not for these interminable naming debates; there is no consensus for this proposal.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't be daft. Are you suggesting that what nearly every modern English-language map, guide book and media source calls the contemporary island is more important than the random assertions of one WP editor about what "we Anglophones have always called it" – by which they presumably mean "what I have always called it", as if that matters – or an individual quote from a nearly 500 year old play about the thousands of years old Trojan War? I did check in to see whether this had been finally sorted out since I gave up. No such luck of course. N-HHtalk/edits20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks for checking in after so long. The systemic problems represented by the repeated move request failures still need some attention.
First, the rules for geographic names should be simplified to, in appropriate terms "Look it up" and NOT send the editors off to do original research counting and interpreting citations and and the whole horrible "commonality" entmoot that causes. These rules are much better in these terms than it had been before, but they still has a distance to go.
Second, closings should not just be "consensus to move" or "consensus not to move", but also "no consensus either way". There's a big difference. As I recall someone was working on that, we should check how it's come along.
Third, the guidelines for closing such requests should ask that they not be closed without proper fact-finding on the appropriate claims of fact. Arguments based on facts that are demonstrably false should not be given weight. No one should close a thread without doing due diligence in terms of checking sources against claims of fact and reasons against our rules and guidelines.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care what the name of this obscure island is. The important thing is the system problems it represents. Given the obvious problems that WP:SEVEN issues have always been on Wikipedia, we have to be prepared with a set of rules to deal with such things, even when, or especially when, they are obscure places that no one has ever heard about. When all the appropriate maps and such change the name or change it back again, we should be quick to follow suit so that we don't end up out of date. In this case, like a century out of date. Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The title should be Bozcaada. With a area of 36 square kilometres (14 sq mi) this island is the 88th island in Mediterranean sea ( List of islands in the Mediterranean) by area and it currently hosts less than a population of 2500. Its name is mentioned neither in List of islands by area nor in List of islands by population. It is more or less an obscure island for an average English speaker. It can't have an established usage in English. According to Wikipedia rules "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject" . It is hard to understand why it is still Tenedos after so many discussions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's a relatively small and obscure island, but there is an established usage in English-language sources, as evidenced by plenty of reliable sources. There's no need to cite that opt-out to get to the "right" answer here – we just need to follow the explicit rules that WP has for naming things, which is to follow the dominant view among such sources for the modern place in a modern context, which may or may not happen to be the same as the local name. In this case, it is the same. So:
Etc ad nauseam, including at least on this occasion, no less than the English-language website of the Greek Foreign Ministry, who you'd think might be the last hold-outs in favour of Tenedos
You can also compare Google Books, where the entries for Bozcaada are all about the modern island whereas those for Tenedos are most often from old books or from books about the island in history or about other things altogther (let's not play the utterly misleading "number of hits" game, which has been the preferred tactic here for far too long). And then there are all the maps, eg via the CIA page, which clearly marks "Bozcaada". Anyway, this is all academic while the effective veto remains from one or two editors. Plus I am meant to have given up on this place, not least due to the prevalence of ridiculous disputes like this where it takes years to sort out the blindingly obvious. N-HHtalk/edits10:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You're mistaken. The name Tenedos is known just because its fame from semi legendary Homer's Iliad. But this article happens to be about the island and not about the literature or the ancient history. Almost all documents about the modern island refer it as Bozcaada. As I've suggested earlier, a new article titled maybe "Tenedos (in Iliad)" or "Homer's Tenedos" can be created. But this article is about Bozccada. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, what am I "mistaken" about exactly? My point about the use of Tenedos was exactly, and explicitly, the same as the one that you've just made. I was agreeing with your conclusion about the name we should have here – and provided incontrovertible real-world evidence to base such a decision on for those who might disagree – just not about the policy rationale you asserted in favour of it. Anyway, when even people broadly on the same side in a dispute can't even read or understand what's being said, it's yet more evidence for the pointlessness of engaging here. N-HHtalk/edits09:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
