This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Imbros article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Gökçeada & Bozcaada → Imbros and Tenedos
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (From Gökçeada and Bozcaada to Imbros and Tenedos, counting two support votes and two oppose.) –Hajor 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand that I've missed the vote by a couple of months (I just came upon this page), but if the issue is ever re-opened I would also support the move to the well-known Classical names, since the Turkish names appear to have little prominence. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just reorganized the page into roughly chronological order, and while editing for style and grammar I also tried to tone down what seemed like a very pro-Greek/anti-Turkish POV. However, I'm working without much knowledge here, and the page could benefit from someone who can give specifics (with citations!) for the ethnography of the islands during the 20th century, especially the Turkish policies that promoted the Greek exodus from the islands and exactly how they did or did not violate the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The only way to support the Turkish point of view is if you believe that people can be driven from the land by any means as long as they are not of the right ethnic group to be there. The same view can be taken against Greek actions in Thessalonika, but it is hard to fault the Greeks in Imbros. Johnpacklambert 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch: The Greeks of Turkey (from the “Denying Human Rights and Ethnic Identity” series of Human Rights Watch)
"The Greek community in Turkey is dwindling, elderly and frightened. Its population has declined from about 110,000 at the time of the signing of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 to about 2,500 today."
" A Helsinki Watch mission visited Turkey in October 1991 and found that the government there continues to violate the human rights of the Greek minority. These acts include harassment by police; restrictions on free expression; discrimination in education involving teachers, books and curriculum; restrictions on religious freedom; limitations on the right to control charitable institutions; and the denial of ethnic identity." -The Situation of the Greeks of Turkey reflects the situaton of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos as the Greeks of these two islands make up a considerable part of the few remaining Greeks in Turkey.
Lonely Planet Guidebook:"Although exempted from the 1920's population exchanges, the exclusively Greek inhabitants have been driven out over the last 30 years..."-Referring to Imbros island. Globo 09:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the citation needed sign and the "some Greeks argue" edit, and changed some of the wording. I think that my citations back up my arguments, although it is very hard to find widely accepted authoritative sources dealing with the subject in detail, but i did my best. It is preferable to use stronger wording rather than "some people claim", "It is thought by some" constructions. Globo 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne referring to Imbros and Tenedos
"ARTICLE 14.
The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.
The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos."
-When comparing this article of the treaty to the facts on the ground the situation concerning Turkey abiding by the terms of the Treaty becomes apparent. Globo 09:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the content from The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos per this AfD, as a new section titled "Greek population". I've wikified it slightly, but this section is still very POV, so I've tagged it with {{ npov}}. Do with this content as you will. The original author has given citations for this content in Talk:The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos. -- D e athphoenix ʕ 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have done significant copyediting. There were some word choices and phrasings that looked odd to me. Some of these gave an impression of an NPOV-violation: the repetition of phrases such as, "The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos" where a simple pronoun would have sufficed tends, when done in English, to flag a work as a polemic, if not a screed. This may not be, for all I know, the case in Greek.
In any case, I think that the statements are well-supported by the references, and that all the needed references are in. I have removed the Wikifiy tag and propose to remove the NPOV tag. Comments? Robert A.West ( Talk) 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have copyedited further; and removed the tag. The article about the "Istanbul pogrom" should probably be added to the sources; although it is exceedingly PoV. Its statements on the islands are quite specific. Other sources for these actions (which are in themselves unfortunately all too plausible) should be found in the long run.
I have changed the sentence about Turkish intent to a pure conditional; it is after all entirely possible that they "only" wanted to benefit their own ethnicity, and didn't care whether the Greeks left after they were plundered. It may not be necessary at all.
A Turkish account of the islands would assist neutrality. In particular, their administration from 1920-1923 under King Constantine is unlikely to have been spotless. Septentrionalis 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit 15 March: Concerning the turkish intent; it was the turkish intent to get the Greeks to leave, as stated by many of the sources[ [1]] in particular: ...mais elle a de plus multiplié les efforts pour effacer tout caractère grec des deux îles... It is unlikely that the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit their own ethnicity, as their own ethnicity hardly inhabitated the islands at all... Or in another sense that might be true, the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit its own ethnicity on the islands by making room for it on the two islands in the first place- by removing the Greeks. But that does not change the intent.
It is unlikely that the Greek administration was particularly bad on Imbros and Tenedos, because they were nearly exclusively inhabitated by Greeks, thus there was not really a minority that could be mistreated.... In a sense the Greek administration would, in all likelyhood, have been considered a act of liberation by most of the islands inhabitants at the time! Globo 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit [2] for two reasons. First, because I cannot verify it. Churchill was in the hospital and out of office for most of the period in question. Second, because even if true, it badly needs rephrasing. Robert A.West ( Talk) 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ιμβρος should have both an acute accent and a smooth breathing. This combination will not display on many computers, including mine, without the {{ polytonic}} template. I don't see any need for italic Greek letters here; they're already distinct, and usually lighter than, Roman lettering. Septentrionalis 14:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Aynali added a sentence about the famous wines of Imbros to the ancient section. Is there a source for this statement? Is it still true, or have the wines deteriorated in modern times as Wine Spectator suggests? If still true, the sentence belongs elsewhere in the article. If no longer true, that sounds like an interesting fact. Robert A.West ( Talk) 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The result was Not moved
Please use one sentence comments here
Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this move should be closed as frivolous; there was consensus on the location four months ago, and the move request is based on the position, contrary to guidelines, that we should use the official name when the English language does not. Septentrionalis 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The following paragraph, now deleted, is not neutrally phrased, and I oppose its restoration. Nevertheless, if the claims made are the Turkish case for their actions, they may be useful.
Three questions do arise:
The legislation specific to Gökçeada and Bozcaada reflecting Turkey's obligations under Lausanne Treaty dates from 1927. It needs a chapter of its own, as well as for the Turkish settlements for which records are available. But, in my opinion, no Turk who respects himself will contribute to this article as long as it is under the present name (this is only a guess). I wouldn't for one, why bother? When people will start sending letters to Tenedos and it will come back to them undelivered, they should sue wikipedia for for the postal expenses. We can have an article titled "Imbros and Tenedos under the Lausanne Treaty" but the two Turkish districts to which they correspond have names. If I wanted to put the templates for the municipalities (as here), I would have to put two templates for two separate districts in one page. And furthermore, there's much information lacking. Once again, why bother adding them? As for Shakespeare, he also used the term (in Othello) "foul and dirty no good black" (as well as others in the same vein), but I don't see a proposal coming for re-naming a wikipedia page according to his terminology. Just try! :) Cretanforever
There was no threat. It is strange to see the word "threat" when I was expressing my opinion and my guess, the choice of the word "strike" is strange as well. I am not trying to secure a name. I put a vote and I expressed an opinion. You can do as you see fit. Cretanforever
in the heading. I don't think that many people in (for example) the U.S. rise early in the morning and ask themselves "What's up in Imbros and Tenedos today?"
Shakespeare is merely the most famous (and one of the oldest) of English writers to speak of Tenedos; to name the most obvious: Byron, Kinglake, Brooke. There are hundreds if not thousands of others. As far as I know, all call it Tenedos - and those I have named are writing of the island in their present, under Turkish rule. Septentrionalis 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should start by splitting the articles on these islands. One article for each. Cretanforever
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Here are some examples on how today's English speaking world refers to the islands: Britannica Gokceada entry (there are no entries for Imbros), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Bozcaada entry ( search result on Imbros), The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Imroz entry (see how it has a redirect, and there is again no entry on Imbros), Bozcaada and Gokceada entries on MSN Encarta, small map from worldatlas.com showing the islands, weather reports on Gokceada on weatherreports.com and weather underground, World Gazzetteer entry on Bozcaada. I'd find this adequate to illustrate the common English names of the islands. As for official names, I don't think anybody disagrees. DeliDumrul 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since in the light of the last proofs provided by DeliDumrul above, all objections against the move request have been made obsolete. Now it's expected that opposers who don't lack in logic and good faith to remove their oppositions based on Imbros and Tenedos being English referrals to the islands and accept that they're nothing but the ancient greek names to the islands. Besides this article is about districts of Turkey more than about 2 islands. This is not the place to re-name districts of a sovereign country by votation, the facts are clear, Gökçeada and Bozcaada are used as official and English names to the districts as well for the islands. No one opposed that the English names should be used in Wikipedia and above is the proof that Gökçeada and Bozcaada are English names to the islands. Therefore the consensus is upon using English names to the islands which are proven to be Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If you wish, check the references one-by-one yourself, however anyone objecting the move from this point forward is either:
(a) lacking some intellectual skills required for interpretation,
(b) too lazy to have information before having an idea,
(c) does not know anything about the naming convention on Wikipedia,
(d) just politically (anti-Turkish) motivated users without an atom of good faith within.
This discussion ands here and the article should be moved whether there's a consensus or not (though there's a clear conensus that English names should be used rather than greek names), because it's mainly the last group (d) of users distracting the consensus on what's logical and correct by flooding the page without even bothering to argue their POV. As stated before; you can't change facts by votation! Besides it has been just one week since the votation started which does not allow enough time for the discussions and again not enough time for the neutral (non-greek) users to have an opinion on the subject topic. It's not even a fair survey for this reason! Kertenkelebek Ⓣ 08:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, even some Turkish sources not trying to propagate their POV use the terms "Imbros and Tenedos" in english, such as this Turkish Government website [ [5]] And, for the record, I will forever revert any edits which state anything as ridiculous as the greeks "renouncing their rights"!! I wonder if they were asked or if someone renounced it for them??!! The Turkish government had obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne, and that obligation was ultimately not fulfilled. There was, and is, no way out of that agreement. The greek "native non-moslems" don't lose their rights because Turkey becomes "secular". Guaranteed. Globo 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of clean up. Thanks to those who cleaned up some of the mess. Bur more needs to be done. Below does not necessarily mean that I disagree with every bit of the section as it is now. However we can not keep it this way. It has been like this for a long time now and as this is an article, not a sandbox, we can not offer readers unsourced information. We are NOT authors but merely editors who volunteered to find widely accepted sources and compile articles out of them.
I also want to remind you of this basic, simple yet very important rule guideline about information put down just faute de mieux:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag.
Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimbo Wales
Anyways, the section was in a terrible mess before. It's much better now, however it's either properly sourced and referenced or it is gone. DeliDumrul 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If this sort of nonsense on the names does not stop, I will request page protection; and there are other measures which can apply to patently disruptive editors.
Asd for the modifications from pure reversion:
You are reverting both my and Porfyrios' changes not Kertenkelebek's. I really don't understand one thing; why do we have to keep unsourced (a couple of parts poorly sourced to POV webpage) information until somebody finds better sources?? If that person who dumped it in the article can not cite it then why are we trying to find sources for his version. Even if we all agree with him, it still can not sit in the article without source. It's destiny is to be deleted (period). The best option you could have in this case is to carry unsourced information to the talk page and wait for it to be sourced. I don't see any rationale in tendentious is better than nothing. In fact, it's the other way around: nothing is better than potentially false or misleading information. DeliDumrul 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the edits happening are simply ridiculous. You can't just write Gokceada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) in the quote from from the Treaty of Lausanne!!! Its a quote!!! For Gods sake people, the name should be used interchangeably in the article, whatever suits best, and not ALWAYS with a bracket next to it. And a lot of the information that is thought to be unsourced above is actually sourced, from many sources, including facts like that 95 percent of the Greek arable land was expropriated (look in the french one). You can't put a link behind every sentence, it would be really annoying to read. And a pain to do. Some things are obvious, such as the fact that the Greeks left because of Turkish "actions". Look in some of the sources I gave at the start of this discussion page and most of the sources in the references. And to constantly question and delete simple, unbiased conclusions drawn, reflecting sourced material, and summaries made of sourced material, to me is ridiculous POV pushing and vandalism Globo 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Which most of the sources in the references?? There is no references section. There are no sources. The French page you call a source is no more a source than something I'd myself write and put on my university's web server. I also don't see how Guide to Lonely Planet can be a source about history. That section is about history and international politics. It's not about the cafeteria around the corner from your house, you can't use everything you find on the web as a source.
I do not agree with the "subjected to equal conditions as other Turkish citizens" wording. The "civil law" and "unification of education" law clearly denied minorities in Turkey to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, naturally the Turks were still allowed to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, thus the the beforementioned laws actually subjected non Turks to special discriminatory conditions, in breach of the Lausanne Treaty.
I notice that several, specifically Turkish, cats, have been moved from Gökçeada and Bozcaada, which redirects here. I really don't care, but some editors seemed happier with having Category:Districts of Çanakkale show Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If anyone, now or in future, wants to move them back, I won't object to that either; the effect is much the same. (If they are moved, they should be commented out here, not removed entirely.) Septentrionalis 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the names as it is. This article is not correct place to discuss the adjective "Ecumenic". I you can see I try to put all place names and history as possible as neutrally. Please discuss "Ecumenic" name in the relevant pages as before.Please See Also link which is used here. Regards Mustafa Akalp (T) (C) 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How we can add citations for "Madam Cafe" and "Barba". They are live and I know them, what kind of citations needed? please help. Mustafa Akalp (T) (C) 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hectorian, Till to today, official name was Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and you change the name and why you move the linked articles. Please contribute with some words/sentences/photos here instead of revert and move. Regards. Mustafa Akalp TC 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Much regards. Mustafa Akalp TC 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this map, there is a town on the island called Gökçeada. Is this the same as Çınarlı/Panaghia Balomeni? I noticed that it appears to be in the middle of the island on the map.
Also, has anyone ever read the book "Imbros" by Murat Yaykın? I found an interesting article while searching Google. — Khoi khoi 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if people who want to tag this article would look at our WP tags first and see what they say and mean, rather than leaving the article a mess. I have consolidated, I think, the meaningful complaints; but whoever did this should read WP:PEACOCK before using that tag again.
Some of these complaints seem simply groundless; the source, for example, of the text of the Treaty of Lausanne is the Treaty of Lausanne, which is widely published.
Many of the other statements complained of are sourced in the references listed, usually in the obvious one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The pamphlet I have been following asserts that the Greek schools of Imbros were closed in 1927, and the buildings diverted to other uses; the Greeks were permitted to build new ones in 1952-3, and they were confiscated again in 1964. The following sentence was unsourced and disputed, and it looks like an incomplete account of the same events; but I put it here in case anybody can source it.
I have not itemized the extensive complaints of deprivation of Greek schooling and curtailment of language rights, because not peculiar to Imbros. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Imvros' since thats the way it is said? Vita does not make a 'b' sound. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Gökçeada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Imros" as the address, then the letter will be returned. (If there is a return address) This is also the case even when someone writes the official name Gökçeada along the obsolete name "Imros".
The same applies to Bozcaada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Tenedos".
My experience (1972) of post addressed to the Oecumenical Patriarchate according to strict Turkish orthography was non-delivery (this was confirmed as a recurring phenomenon by the English chaplain at the time). Recourse to the British postal authorities for recovery of the item was of no avail----Clive Sweeting
I can not see how the name Imbros is more recognizable to English speaking users more than Gökçeada. Imbros is not an English word, it is not a place with world wide recogition, besides the people who visited the island a few hundred years ago and still alive, if such people ever exists, or historians, who constitute somewhere around %0.0001 of the English speaking community throughout the world, noone possibly can know a place called "Imbros". The official name of the island is Gökçeada for longer than everyone who is alive can remember so whoever in the English speaking word ever visited the island, ever sent a letter to the island(obviously through Turkey) or ever contacted anyone on that island, Gökçeada is the only name he or she could have encountered, besides Wikipedia obviously, there might have been exceptions but excpetions are exceptions.
As such, to state that the name Imbros is more recognizable to English users, the owner of such claim needs to provide evidence. Has there been a poll where English speakers were asked which of the names they recognize? I doubt so. I suppose Wikipedia is a place that values solid arguements and not personal feelings or estimations of some editor.
So whoever has the access, please change the title to Gökçeada, as such, Tenedos to Bozcaada, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there anyone with the privilege to change the title? -- Tmhm ( talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
really? what else can be said? pure barbarism. How could the world let that. I understand this is not a forum but it is the first time i discover all that.
No wonder greeks hate turks...who wouldn t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.60.126 ( talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a comment from a non-Greek that went to the Island this summer.
I had been to Istambul twice before and had found Turkey a wonderful place. What I found in Imbros though is the hidden face of what this country has (also) been during the last 90 years. Turkey is surely a great place and a european country at least by some aspects. But it can also be quite brutal and unfaire with some of its people. And undoubtedly, the Turkish State hates the Greeks. Go to Imbros (which is amazing btw) and you'll see.
The most interesting thing is to listen to the arguments of the people there. Those who talk about it (if they don't feel you are interogating them) all give you similar answers as to why the overwhelming Greek majority left: first of all many will tell you that "the Greeks have not left! There are still plenty in the mountain vilages" or even "we've always got along well with the Greeks. Imbros was and is a Greek island". Some others (most) will give you one of the regular: "Greeks left for their country cause they wanted to"; "they are better there; here is hard, Greece is better". Oh and by the way guys (so that I also contribute to the discussion) in Imbros, when they see you are a stranger they will always refer to their island as Imbros.
I left the place with the strange feeling that the state had forced the people to swallow the official line and also that many share a common sense of guilt of at least knowledge that something went wrong and has to be hidden (hence the strange answers). Oh and last but not least. There are indeed very few Greeks left and they are all (I mean ALL) elderly people -- 94.66.23.199 ( talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Imbros →
Gokceada — Using the name Imbros for this island in English Wiki is absurd. If you search for Imbros on google you will not find information about this island but a gorfe in Crete. To find English pages about this island you have to type Gokceada. I understand that Wiki favors the name that's most commonly used in English so If you want your average Englishman to know about this island you need to use the name Gokceada.
TheDarkLordSeth (
talk)
06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this [21]. The reference [22] clearly states on page 120 that ""During the 1960s and 1970s, a series of legal and administrative restrictions relating to minority educational and cultural rights, coupled with a program of expropriations forced the local Imbriot and Tenediot Greek Orthodox to abandon their islands....". This is state-sponsored persecution because a) it was a state policy, b) it was deliberately targeting the Greeks of Imbros so as to make them leave the island, therefore persecution. Second, the reference says unambiguously on page 120, sentence 3: "Indeed in the case of Imbros the population was entirely Greek". I honestly have no idea why the cn tags was added back. I agree that the article needs additional references, but that is a separate matter. Athenean ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Çağdaş Kaplan, Sadık Topaloğlu, "Yok edilmeye çalışılan tarih: İmroz ve Tenedos" (The history attempted to be eliminated: İmroz ve Tenedos)", (originally DİHA) Evrensel, May 3, 2011. (in Turkish)
Maybe someone would say that this is Kurdish propaganda, it's not completely neutral (because this article was printed by the Dicle News Agency and provided to Yeni Özgür Politika [23], Özgür Gündem [24]). But I think they provided only facts about the works of Murat Yarkın precisely in this article.
Takabeg ( talk) 05:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot find "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" in any sources. I think this term is the product of your chauvinism. Can you find any sources for "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ? Takabeg ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Gökçeada is common name of this island. But we must exclude historical usages of this name and other Imbros such as Imbros Gorge (or "Imbros Pass") in Crete, Imbros Gold Cup, Imbros (horse), Battle of Imbros (1717), Battle of Imbros (1918) etc., when we research with google books. Takabeg ( talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It would of course be quite all right if anyone wanted to make a "List of Turkish regions through history", and it would make sense to include Greece in that list, provided it filled the criteria for inclusion. A list like that would obviously need inclusion criteria, just as the "List of Greek countries and regions" needs -- and has.
An alternative would be to argue that the "List of Greek countries and regions" should be deleted, but I can see no good reasons to do that. I do, however, think that the list might have a name reflecting the fact that it is a historical list, such as "List of Greek countries and regions through history", but that is another discussion.
As it stands now, the list exists, Tenedos/Bozcaada and Imbros/Gökçeada are on the list (and rightfully so, as they fulfil the inclusion criteria for the list), and it makes no sense to remove the intra-Wiki "See also"-reference. Regards! -- 79.160.40.10 ( talk) 14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I will remove the below part from the section Human Rights, as it is unsourced. Make this notification in case any editor wishes to add references from Reliable Sources to this part:
"The Greek émigrés from Turkey assert numerous violations of the religious, linguistic, and economic rights guaranteed as matters of international concern by the Treaty, including freedom of the Orthodox religion and the right to practice the professions. Leaders of the Greek community in Turkey "voluntarily waived" these rights in 1926; but the Treaty provides (Article 44) that these rights can only be modified by the consent of the majority of the Council of League of Nations. The émigrés assert that the signatures to the waivers were obtained by orders of the police, and that Avrilios Spatharis and Savvas Apostologlou, who refused to sign, were imprisoned. The Greek government appealed this action to the Council and was upheld, but Turkey has not complied." -- E4024 ( talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this article about an island? Does the reader learn enough about this island by reading this article? Or is the article used as a means to judge Turkish history from a selective angle? (This is why I added a "tone" tag.) The island belonged to the Ottoman Empire for centuries but the relevant sector is simply "empty". I request comments and contributions, especially from uninvolved, impartial WP editors. Thanks in advance. -- E4024 ( talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to add information about the Ottoman period, but this is irrelevant with the 'tone' used in the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In the article it says it is an island of Turkey but the article's name is Imbros. That does not make sense. The article name must be Gökçeada. Do we use Turkish names of the Greek islands on their article names? Thanks. Aditdigo ( talk) 10:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Imbros → Gökçeada – Previous discussion ended with no consensus. "Imbros" is the island's previous name which is much less commonly used today. As User:Aditdigo said, why should we use a Greek name for a Turkish island when we don't do it vice versa? --Relisted. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Liongrande ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Why are there two very weird contents on this page? The first one is in fully Greek, not English and so useless for all non-Greek speakers.
And the second claim is based on a source which is not even valid anymore. It is not accessable. That's why I think it should be removed too. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway yes I think the policy should change. Also it's obvious thos page is heavily edited by Greeks as there is only greek information mentioned and almost nothing about the Turks, the Ottoman era and the Selxuk era etc. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I see and understand. So it's forbidden to say this page is edited by Greeks? I mean the editors themselves mentioned on their page that they are Greeks, as long as insulting is not used, I don't saw the problem. But anyway. I just said that this page is heavily influenced by Greek information, as it's not fair for the Turks, but ofcourse I could expand it which I may do in the future. Kind regards. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but the source is not available. They website says link not found. It's failed. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 07:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
|checked=failed DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No I mean the other link which this person added on. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
From earlier discussions, names of these two islands (Gökçeada and Bozcaada) are represented as their (distorted) greek romanizations (imvros-imbros) in English Wikipedia. However, the capital city of Kazakhstan, Astana renamed as Nur-Sultan in 2019, is moved to Nur-Sultan immediately. What is the difference? Please explain.
This edit is problematic [30] for the following reasons: First, the association of Luwian "Imrassa" with Imbros, while possible, is tentative and not suitable for the first line of the lede. There is nothing definitively linking Imbros with "Imrassa" - all this is speculation based on phonetic similarity in records found at other locations. Even if it were true, it is unsuitable for the first line of the lede, given Luwian has been extinct for literally millennia. Second, the Hittite cuneiform is nowhere to be found in the sources, it is entirely made up by the user who added it. Third, I find it problematic that it is repeated twice in the lede (no doubt intentionally for greater effect). Fifth, even if all this is true, it is a minor detail base don a single inscription found in the mainland and not lede material. Lastly, the use of the loaded word "colonists" to describe (and de-legitimize) the Greek inhabitants, despite the fact that the Greek community dates back 2,500 years. I moved the recent additions to the body text, since they do appear sourced, but they are clearly WP:UNDUE for the lede. The lede is meant to present a summary of the main points of the article, not one's favorite cherry-picked details. Khirurg ( talk) 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information.I highly doubt even 1% of the Enlgish-language literature even mentions "Imrassa". It is just too obscure and tentative for the first line of the lede. Khirurg ( talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
A different page is needed for the town. The article refers to Gökçeada as the seat of the district of Gökçeada, but this article is about the island, and the whole island administratively belongs to the district, then is the administrative seat of the island and district the island itself? Aintabli ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The boundaries of Gökçeada District are exactly same as those of the island. I believe the article for the district can be merged with this article. In the case of a merger, there is very little to add: the population as of 2022, list of villages and towns, the governor and mayor, and one or two templates. Aintabli ( talk) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Imbros article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Gökçeada & Bozcaada → Imbros and Tenedos
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (From Gökçeada and Bozcaada to Imbros and Tenedos, counting two support votes and two oppose.) –Hajor 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand that I've missed the vote by a couple of months (I just came upon this page), but if the issue is ever re-opened I would also support the move to the well-known Classical names, since the Turkish names appear to have little prominence. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just reorganized the page into roughly chronological order, and while editing for style and grammar I also tried to tone down what seemed like a very pro-Greek/anti-Turkish POV. However, I'm working without much knowledge here, and the page could benefit from someone who can give specifics (with citations!) for the ethnography of the islands during the 20th century, especially the Turkish policies that promoted the Greek exodus from the islands and exactly how they did or did not violate the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The only way to support the Turkish point of view is if you believe that people can be driven from the land by any means as long as they are not of the right ethnic group to be there. The same view can be taken against Greek actions in Thessalonika, but it is hard to fault the Greeks in Imbros. Johnpacklambert 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch: The Greeks of Turkey (from the “Denying Human Rights and Ethnic Identity” series of Human Rights Watch)
"The Greek community in Turkey is dwindling, elderly and frightened. Its population has declined from about 110,000 at the time of the signing of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 to about 2,500 today."
" A Helsinki Watch mission visited Turkey in October 1991 and found that the government there continues to violate the human rights of the Greek minority. These acts include harassment by police; restrictions on free expression; discrimination in education involving teachers, books and curriculum; restrictions on religious freedom; limitations on the right to control charitable institutions; and the denial of ethnic identity." -The Situation of the Greeks of Turkey reflects the situaton of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos as the Greeks of these two islands make up a considerable part of the few remaining Greeks in Turkey.
Lonely Planet Guidebook:"Although exempted from the 1920's population exchanges, the exclusively Greek inhabitants have been driven out over the last 30 years..."-Referring to Imbros island. Globo 09:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the citation needed sign and the "some Greeks argue" edit, and changed some of the wording. I think that my citations back up my arguments, although it is very hard to find widely accepted authoritative sources dealing with the subject in detail, but i did my best. It is preferable to use stronger wording rather than "some people claim", "It is thought by some" constructions. Globo 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne referring to Imbros and Tenedos
"ARTICLE 14.
The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.
The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos."
-When comparing this article of the treaty to the facts on the ground the situation concerning Turkey abiding by the terms of the Treaty becomes apparent. Globo 09:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the content from The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos per this AfD, as a new section titled "Greek population". I've wikified it slightly, but this section is still very POV, so I've tagged it with {{ npov}}. Do with this content as you will. The original author has given citations for this content in Talk:The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos. -- D e athphoenix ʕ 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have done significant copyediting. There were some word choices and phrasings that looked odd to me. Some of these gave an impression of an NPOV-violation: the repetition of phrases such as, "The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos" where a simple pronoun would have sufficed tends, when done in English, to flag a work as a polemic, if not a screed. This may not be, for all I know, the case in Greek.
In any case, I think that the statements are well-supported by the references, and that all the needed references are in. I have removed the Wikifiy tag and propose to remove the NPOV tag. Comments? Robert A.West ( Talk) 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have copyedited further; and removed the tag. The article about the "Istanbul pogrom" should probably be added to the sources; although it is exceedingly PoV. Its statements on the islands are quite specific. Other sources for these actions (which are in themselves unfortunately all too plausible) should be found in the long run.
I have changed the sentence about Turkish intent to a pure conditional; it is after all entirely possible that they "only" wanted to benefit their own ethnicity, and didn't care whether the Greeks left after they were plundered. It may not be necessary at all.
A Turkish account of the islands would assist neutrality. In particular, their administration from 1920-1923 under King Constantine is unlikely to have been spotless. Septentrionalis 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit 15 March: Concerning the turkish intent; it was the turkish intent to get the Greeks to leave, as stated by many of the sources[ [1]] in particular: ...mais elle a de plus multiplié les efforts pour effacer tout caractère grec des deux îles... It is unlikely that the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit their own ethnicity, as their own ethnicity hardly inhabitated the islands at all... Or in another sense that might be true, the turkish governement "only" wanted to benifit its own ethnicity on the islands by making room for it on the two islands in the first place- by removing the Greeks. But that does not change the intent.
It is unlikely that the Greek administration was particularly bad on Imbros and Tenedos, because they were nearly exclusively inhabitated by Greeks, thus there was not really a minority that could be mistreated.... In a sense the Greek administration would, in all likelyhood, have been considered a act of liberation by most of the islands inhabitants at the time! Globo 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit [2] for two reasons. First, because I cannot verify it. Churchill was in the hospital and out of office for most of the period in question. Second, because even if true, it badly needs rephrasing. Robert A.West ( Talk) 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ιμβρος should have both an acute accent and a smooth breathing. This combination will not display on many computers, including mine, without the {{ polytonic}} template. I don't see any need for italic Greek letters here; they're already distinct, and usually lighter than, Roman lettering. Septentrionalis 14:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Aynali added a sentence about the famous wines of Imbros to the ancient section. Is there a source for this statement? Is it still true, or have the wines deteriorated in modern times as Wine Spectator suggests? If still true, the sentence belongs elsewhere in the article. If no longer true, that sounds like an interesting fact. Robert A.West ( Talk) 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The result was Not moved
Please use one sentence comments here
Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this move should be closed as frivolous; there was consensus on the location four months ago, and the move request is based on the position, contrary to guidelines, that we should use the official name when the English language does not. Septentrionalis 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The following paragraph, now deleted, is not neutrally phrased, and I oppose its restoration. Nevertheless, if the claims made are the Turkish case for their actions, they may be useful.
Three questions do arise:
The legislation specific to Gökçeada and Bozcaada reflecting Turkey's obligations under Lausanne Treaty dates from 1927. It needs a chapter of its own, as well as for the Turkish settlements for which records are available. But, in my opinion, no Turk who respects himself will contribute to this article as long as it is under the present name (this is only a guess). I wouldn't for one, why bother? When people will start sending letters to Tenedos and it will come back to them undelivered, they should sue wikipedia for for the postal expenses. We can have an article titled "Imbros and Tenedos under the Lausanne Treaty" but the two Turkish districts to which they correspond have names. If I wanted to put the templates for the municipalities (as here), I would have to put two templates for two separate districts in one page. And furthermore, there's much information lacking. Once again, why bother adding them? As for Shakespeare, he also used the term (in Othello) "foul and dirty no good black" (as well as others in the same vein), but I don't see a proposal coming for re-naming a wikipedia page according to his terminology. Just try! :) Cretanforever
There was no threat. It is strange to see the word "threat" when I was expressing my opinion and my guess, the choice of the word "strike" is strange as well. I am not trying to secure a name. I put a vote and I expressed an opinion. You can do as you see fit. Cretanforever
in the heading. I don't think that many people in (for example) the U.S. rise early in the morning and ask themselves "What's up in Imbros and Tenedos today?"
Shakespeare is merely the most famous (and one of the oldest) of English writers to speak of Tenedos; to name the most obvious: Byron, Kinglake, Brooke. There are hundreds if not thousands of others. As far as I know, all call it Tenedos - and those I have named are writing of the island in their present, under Turkish rule. Septentrionalis 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should start by splitting the articles on these islands. One article for each. Cretanforever
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Here are some examples on how today's English speaking world refers to the islands: Britannica Gokceada entry (there are no entries for Imbros), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Bozcaada entry ( search result on Imbros), The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Imroz entry (see how it has a redirect, and there is again no entry on Imbros), Bozcaada and Gokceada entries on MSN Encarta, small map from worldatlas.com showing the islands, weather reports on Gokceada on weatherreports.com and weather underground, World Gazzetteer entry on Bozcaada. I'd find this adequate to illustrate the common English names of the islands. As for official names, I don't think anybody disagrees. DeliDumrul 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since in the light of the last proofs provided by DeliDumrul above, all objections against the move request have been made obsolete. Now it's expected that opposers who don't lack in logic and good faith to remove their oppositions based on Imbros and Tenedos being English referrals to the islands and accept that they're nothing but the ancient greek names to the islands. Besides this article is about districts of Turkey more than about 2 islands. This is not the place to re-name districts of a sovereign country by votation, the facts are clear, Gökçeada and Bozcaada are used as official and English names to the districts as well for the islands. No one opposed that the English names should be used in Wikipedia and above is the proof that Gökçeada and Bozcaada are English names to the islands. Therefore the consensus is upon using English names to the islands which are proven to be Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If you wish, check the references one-by-one yourself, however anyone objecting the move from this point forward is either:
(a) lacking some intellectual skills required for interpretation,
(b) too lazy to have information before having an idea,
(c) does not know anything about the naming convention on Wikipedia,
(d) just politically (anti-Turkish) motivated users without an atom of good faith within.
This discussion ands here and the article should be moved whether there's a consensus or not (though there's a clear conensus that English names should be used rather than greek names), because it's mainly the last group (d) of users distracting the consensus on what's logical and correct by flooding the page without even bothering to argue their POV. As stated before; you can't change facts by votation! Besides it has been just one week since the votation started which does not allow enough time for the discussions and again not enough time for the neutral (non-greek) users to have an opinion on the subject topic. It's not even a fair survey for this reason! Kertenkelebek Ⓣ 08:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, even some Turkish sources not trying to propagate their POV use the terms "Imbros and Tenedos" in english, such as this Turkish Government website [ [5]] And, for the record, I will forever revert any edits which state anything as ridiculous as the greeks "renouncing their rights"!! I wonder if they were asked or if someone renounced it for them??!! The Turkish government had obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne, and that obligation was ultimately not fulfilled. There was, and is, no way out of that agreement. The greek "native non-moslems" don't lose their rights because Turkey becomes "secular". Guaranteed. Globo 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of clean up. Thanks to those who cleaned up some of the mess. Bur more needs to be done. Below does not necessarily mean that I disagree with every bit of the section as it is now. However we can not keep it this way. It has been like this for a long time now and as this is an article, not a sandbox, we can not offer readers unsourced information. We are NOT authors but merely editors who volunteered to find widely accepted sources and compile articles out of them.
I also want to remind you of this basic, simple yet very important rule guideline about information put down just faute de mieux:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag.
Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimbo Wales
Anyways, the section was in a terrible mess before. It's much better now, however it's either properly sourced and referenced or it is gone. DeliDumrul 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If this sort of nonsense on the names does not stop, I will request page protection; and there are other measures which can apply to patently disruptive editors.
Asd for the modifications from pure reversion:
You are reverting both my and Porfyrios' changes not Kertenkelebek's. I really don't understand one thing; why do we have to keep unsourced (a couple of parts poorly sourced to POV webpage) information until somebody finds better sources?? If that person who dumped it in the article can not cite it then why are we trying to find sources for his version. Even if we all agree with him, it still can not sit in the article without source. It's destiny is to be deleted (period). The best option you could have in this case is to carry unsourced information to the talk page and wait for it to be sourced. I don't see any rationale in tendentious is better than nothing. In fact, it's the other way around: nothing is better than potentially false or misleading information. DeliDumrul 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the edits happening are simply ridiculous. You can't just write Gokceada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) in the quote from from the Treaty of Lausanne!!! Its a quote!!! For Gods sake people, the name should be used interchangeably in the article, whatever suits best, and not ALWAYS with a bracket next to it. And a lot of the information that is thought to be unsourced above is actually sourced, from many sources, including facts like that 95 percent of the Greek arable land was expropriated (look in the french one). You can't put a link behind every sentence, it would be really annoying to read. And a pain to do. Some things are obvious, such as the fact that the Greeks left because of Turkish "actions". Look in some of the sources I gave at the start of this discussion page and most of the sources in the references. And to constantly question and delete simple, unbiased conclusions drawn, reflecting sourced material, and summaries made of sourced material, to me is ridiculous POV pushing and vandalism Globo 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Which most of the sources in the references?? There is no references section. There are no sources. The French page you call a source is no more a source than something I'd myself write and put on my university's web server. I also don't see how Guide to Lonely Planet can be a source about history. That section is about history and international politics. It's not about the cafeteria around the corner from your house, you can't use everything you find on the web as a source.
I do not agree with the "subjected to equal conditions as other Turkish citizens" wording. The "civil law" and "unification of education" law clearly denied minorities in Turkey to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, naturally the Turks were still allowed to exercise their culture and language in Turkey, thus the the beforementioned laws actually subjected non Turks to special discriminatory conditions, in breach of the Lausanne Treaty.
I notice that several, specifically Turkish, cats, have been moved from Gökçeada and Bozcaada, which redirects here. I really don't care, but some editors seemed happier with having Category:Districts of Çanakkale show Gökçeada and Bozcaada. If anyone, now or in future, wants to move them back, I won't object to that either; the effect is much the same. (If they are moved, they should be commented out here, not removed entirely.) Septentrionalis 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the names as it is. This article is not correct place to discuss the adjective "Ecumenic". I you can see I try to put all place names and history as possible as neutrally. Please discuss "Ecumenic" name in the relevant pages as before.Please See Also link which is used here. Regards Mustafa Akalp (T) (C) 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How we can add citations for "Madam Cafe" and "Barba". They are live and I know them, what kind of citations needed? please help. Mustafa Akalp (T) (C) 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hectorian, Till to today, official name was Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and you change the name and why you move the linked articles. Please contribute with some words/sentences/photos here instead of revert and move. Regards. Mustafa Akalp TC 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Much regards. Mustafa Akalp TC 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this map, there is a town on the island called Gökçeada. Is this the same as Çınarlı/Panaghia Balomeni? I noticed that it appears to be in the middle of the island on the map.
Also, has anyone ever read the book "Imbros" by Murat Yaykın? I found an interesting article while searching Google. — Khoi khoi 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if people who want to tag this article would look at our WP tags first and see what they say and mean, rather than leaving the article a mess. I have consolidated, I think, the meaningful complaints; but whoever did this should read WP:PEACOCK before using that tag again.
Some of these complaints seem simply groundless; the source, for example, of the text of the Treaty of Lausanne is the Treaty of Lausanne, which is widely published.
Many of the other statements complained of are sourced in the references listed, usually in the obvious one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The pamphlet I have been following asserts that the Greek schools of Imbros were closed in 1927, and the buildings diverted to other uses; the Greeks were permitted to build new ones in 1952-3, and they were confiscated again in 1964. The following sentence was unsourced and disputed, and it looks like an incomplete account of the same events; but I put it here in case anybody can source it.
I have not itemized the extensive complaints of deprivation of Greek schooling and curtailment of language rights, because not peculiar to Imbros. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Imvros' since thats the way it is said? Vita does not make a 'b' sound. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Gökçeada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Imros" as the address, then the letter will be returned. (If there is a return address) This is also the case even when someone writes the official name Gökçeada along the obsolete name "Imros".
The same applies to Bozcaada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Tenedos".
My experience (1972) of post addressed to the Oecumenical Patriarchate according to strict Turkish orthography was non-delivery (this was confirmed as a recurring phenomenon by the English chaplain at the time). Recourse to the British postal authorities for recovery of the item was of no avail----Clive Sweeting
I can not see how the name Imbros is more recognizable to English speaking users more than Gökçeada. Imbros is not an English word, it is not a place with world wide recogition, besides the people who visited the island a few hundred years ago and still alive, if such people ever exists, or historians, who constitute somewhere around %0.0001 of the English speaking community throughout the world, noone possibly can know a place called "Imbros". The official name of the island is Gökçeada for longer than everyone who is alive can remember so whoever in the English speaking word ever visited the island, ever sent a letter to the island(obviously through Turkey) or ever contacted anyone on that island, Gökçeada is the only name he or she could have encountered, besides Wikipedia obviously, there might have been exceptions but excpetions are exceptions.
As such, to state that the name Imbros is more recognizable to English users, the owner of such claim needs to provide evidence. Has there been a poll where English speakers were asked which of the names they recognize? I doubt so. I suppose Wikipedia is a place that values solid arguements and not personal feelings or estimations of some editor.
So whoever has the access, please change the title to Gökçeada, as such, Tenedos to Bozcaada, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there anyone with the privilege to change the title? -- Tmhm ( talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
really? what else can be said? pure barbarism. How could the world let that. I understand this is not a forum but it is the first time i discover all that.
No wonder greeks hate turks...who wouldn t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.60.126 ( talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a comment from a non-Greek that went to the Island this summer.
I had been to Istambul twice before and had found Turkey a wonderful place. What I found in Imbros though is the hidden face of what this country has (also) been during the last 90 years. Turkey is surely a great place and a european country at least by some aspects. But it can also be quite brutal and unfaire with some of its people. And undoubtedly, the Turkish State hates the Greeks. Go to Imbros (which is amazing btw) and you'll see.
The most interesting thing is to listen to the arguments of the people there. Those who talk about it (if they don't feel you are interogating them) all give you similar answers as to why the overwhelming Greek majority left: first of all many will tell you that "the Greeks have not left! There are still plenty in the mountain vilages" or even "we've always got along well with the Greeks. Imbros was and is a Greek island". Some others (most) will give you one of the regular: "Greeks left for their country cause they wanted to"; "they are better there; here is hard, Greece is better". Oh and by the way guys (so that I also contribute to the discussion) in Imbros, when they see you are a stranger they will always refer to their island as Imbros.
I left the place with the strange feeling that the state had forced the people to swallow the official line and also that many share a common sense of guilt of at least knowledge that something went wrong and has to be hidden (hence the strange answers). Oh and last but not least. There are indeed very few Greeks left and they are all (I mean ALL) elderly people -- 94.66.23.199 ( talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Imbros →
Gokceada — Using the name Imbros for this island in English Wiki is absurd. If you search for Imbros on google you will not find information about this island but a gorfe in Crete. To find English pages about this island you have to type Gokceada. I understand that Wiki favors the name that's most commonly used in English so If you want your average Englishman to know about this island you need to use the name Gokceada.
TheDarkLordSeth (
talk)
06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this [21]. The reference [22] clearly states on page 120 that ""During the 1960s and 1970s, a series of legal and administrative restrictions relating to minority educational and cultural rights, coupled with a program of expropriations forced the local Imbriot and Tenediot Greek Orthodox to abandon their islands....". This is state-sponsored persecution because a) it was a state policy, b) it was deliberately targeting the Greeks of Imbros so as to make them leave the island, therefore persecution. Second, the reference says unambiguously on page 120, sentence 3: "Indeed in the case of Imbros the population was entirely Greek". I honestly have no idea why the cn tags was added back. I agree that the article needs additional references, but that is a separate matter. Athenean ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Çağdaş Kaplan, Sadık Topaloğlu, "Yok edilmeye çalışılan tarih: İmroz ve Tenedos" (The history attempted to be eliminated: İmroz ve Tenedos)", (originally DİHA) Evrensel, May 3, 2011. (in Turkish)
Maybe someone would say that this is Kurdish propaganda, it's not completely neutral (because this article was printed by the Dicle News Agency and provided to Yeni Özgür Politika [23], Özgür Gündem [24]). But I think they provided only facts about the works of Murat Yarkın precisely in this article.
Takabeg ( talk) 05:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot find "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" in any sources. I think this term is the product of your chauvinism. Can you find any sources for "a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ? Takabeg ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Gökçeada is common name of this island. But we must exclude historical usages of this name and other Imbros such as Imbros Gorge (or "Imbros Pass") in Crete, Imbros Gold Cup, Imbros (horse), Battle of Imbros (1717), Battle of Imbros (1918) etc., when we research with google books. Takabeg ( talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It would of course be quite all right if anyone wanted to make a "List of Turkish regions through history", and it would make sense to include Greece in that list, provided it filled the criteria for inclusion. A list like that would obviously need inclusion criteria, just as the "List of Greek countries and regions" needs -- and has.
An alternative would be to argue that the "List of Greek countries and regions" should be deleted, but I can see no good reasons to do that. I do, however, think that the list might have a name reflecting the fact that it is a historical list, such as "List of Greek countries and regions through history", but that is another discussion.
As it stands now, the list exists, Tenedos/Bozcaada and Imbros/Gökçeada are on the list (and rightfully so, as they fulfil the inclusion criteria for the list), and it makes no sense to remove the intra-Wiki "See also"-reference. Regards! -- 79.160.40.10 ( talk) 14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I will remove the below part from the section Human Rights, as it is unsourced. Make this notification in case any editor wishes to add references from Reliable Sources to this part:
"The Greek émigrés from Turkey assert numerous violations of the religious, linguistic, and economic rights guaranteed as matters of international concern by the Treaty, including freedom of the Orthodox religion and the right to practice the professions. Leaders of the Greek community in Turkey "voluntarily waived" these rights in 1926; but the Treaty provides (Article 44) that these rights can only be modified by the consent of the majority of the Council of League of Nations. The émigrés assert that the signatures to the waivers were obtained by orders of the police, and that Avrilios Spatharis and Savvas Apostologlou, who refused to sign, were imprisoned. The Greek government appealed this action to the Council and was upheld, but Turkey has not complied." -- E4024 ( talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this article about an island? Does the reader learn enough about this island by reading this article? Or is the article used as a means to judge Turkish history from a selective angle? (This is why I added a "tone" tag.) The island belonged to the Ottoman Empire for centuries but the relevant sector is simply "empty". I request comments and contributions, especially from uninvolved, impartial WP editors. Thanks in advance. -- E4024 ( talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to add information about the Ottoman period, but this is irrelevant with the 'tone' used in the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In the article it says it is an island of Turkey but the article's name is Imbros. That does not make sense. The article name must be Gökçeada. Do we use Turkish names of the Greek islands on their article names? Thanks. Aditdigo ( talk) 10:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Imbros → Gökçeada – Previous discussion ended with no consensus. "Imbros" is the island's previous name which is much less commonly used today. As User:Aditdigo said, why should we use a Greek name for a Turkish island when we don't do it vice versa? --Relisted. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Liongrande ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Why are there two very weird contents on this page? The first one is in fully Greek, not English and so useless for all non-Greek speakers.
And the second claim is based on a source which is not even valid anymore. It is not accessable. That's why I think it should be removed too. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway yes I think the policy should change. Also it's obvious thos page is heavily edited by Greeks as there is only greek information mentioned and almost nothing about the Turks, the Ottoman era and the Selxuk era etc. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I see and understand. So it's forbidden to say this page is edited by Greeks? I mean the editors themselves mentioned on their page that they are Greeks, as long as insulting is not used, I don't saw the problem. But anyway. I just said that this page is heavily influenced by Greek information, as it's not fair for the Turks, but ofcourse I could expand it which I may do in the future. Kind regards. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but the source is not available. They website says link not found. It's failed. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 07:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
|checked=failed DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No I mean the other link which this person added on. DavidThomson1997 ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imbros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
From earlier discussions, names of these two islands (Gökçeada and Bozcaada) are represented as their (distorted) greek romanizations (imvros-imbros) in English Wikipedia. However, the capital city of Kazakhstan, Astana renamed as Nur-Sultan in 2019, is moved to Nur-Sultan immediately. What is the difference? Please explain.
This edit is problematic [30] for the following reasons: First, the association of Luwian "Imrassa" with Imbros, while possible, is tentative and not suitable for the first line of the lede. There is nothing definitively linking Imbros with "Imrassa" - all this is speculation based on phonetic similarity in records found at other locations. Even if it were true, it is unsuitable for the first line of the lede, given Luwian has been extinct for literally millennia. Second, the Hittite cuneiform is nowhere to be found in the sources, it is entirely made up by the user who added it. Third, I find it problematic that it is repeated twice in the lede (no doubt intentionally for greater effect). Fifth, even if all this is true, it is a minor detail base don a single inscription found in the mainland and not lede material. Lastly, the use of the loaded word "colonists" to describe (and de-legitimize) the Greek inhabitants, despite the fact that the Greek community dates back 2,500 years. I moved the recent additions to the body text, since they do appear sourced, but they are clearly WP:UNDUE for the lede. The lede is meant to present a summary of the main points of the article, not one's favorite cherry-picked details. Khirurg ( talk) 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information.I highly doubt even 1% of the Enlgish-language literature even mentions "Imrassa". It is just too obscure and tentative for the first line of the lede. Khirurg ( talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
A different page is needed for the town. The article refers to Gökçeada as the seat of the district of Gökçeada, but this article is about the island, and the whole island administratively belongs to the district, then is the administrative seat of the island and district the island itself? Aintabli ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The boundaries of Gökçeada District are exactly same as those of the island. I believe the article for the district can be merged with this article. In the case of a merger, there is very little to add: the population as of 2022, list of villages and towns, the governor and mayor, and one or two templates. Aintabli ( talk) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)