Talk:İzmir/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about İzmir. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clarification

Hi there. I'm a neutral observer from the US interested in history. I was reading this article and was confused by some parts, can someone clarify them?

"During the Iron Age the houses were huge, small, one roomed buildings. " were they huge or small?

"In the meantime, a class of middlemen, composed seldom of Jews, who had settled in large numbers in the city following their eviction from Spain after 1492 and welcomed with generosity by the Ottoman, particularly of Greeks and, some time later and to a lesser extent, by Armenians, started to take hold." I assume this is supposed to say that "A middle class, composed largely of Jews, ..." Right?

"A man named Baseleus was most probably in charge of the city." When? According to whom? Was he the first ruler? Why is he mentioned and other rulers aren't?

"Greek settlement is attested by the presence of pottery dating from about 1000 BC." does this mean Greeks moved to the city in about 1000 BC? If so, what happened the to previous residents?

"Combined with written evidence, Smyrna and Chios lay the strongest arguments in Homer's claim." According to whom?

"The oldest model of a many-roomed-type house of this period was found in ancient Smyrna. Known to be the oldest house having so many rooms under its roof, this house was built in the second half of 7th century BC" The oldest type where? In the world? In the Mediterranean? In Ionia?

"The city plan in the Bayraklı Mound is the earliest example of this type in the western sphere." Western Sphere of what?

--Awiseman 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --Awiseman 00:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can respond on the "class of middlemen" phrase Awiseman, since I coined it. I tried to put the mention of the Jews first, since there is still a Jewish community in the city. But number-wise, Greeks came first among the "middlemen" for the referred period. We can change it, or I will change it. "huge, small buildings" is definitely an erratum. Cretanforever

How about the other questions? Anybody? --Awiseman 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate links

Once there is a link to another article, like Persian Empire, later mentions don't have to be linked - if they are, it makes it hard to read. Thanks --Awiseman 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

City names in Greek and Armenian

I think the Greek and Armenian names should be added, as the city had large populations of each, and those populations played an important role in the history of the city. This is done on many other cities and other articles. Thoughts? --Awiseman 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said the Greek name is mentioned in the Etymology section of the article. If it didn't then I would agree with you. As for the Armenians, they were a Christian minority who had business roots in the city, there were more Jews than Armenians. Plus historically Izmir was never an Armenian city. So there you go, please stop reverting.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not how you discuss something - we need to reach a consensus. I know the Greek name is mentioned elsewhere, but many, many articles mention variant names in the beginning of the article. I also know it wasn't an Armenian city, but maybe the Armenian name shouldn't be in the intro if what you say is true. --Awiseman 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been adding Turkish names to certain Greek cities in the past but if the article had the Turkish name mentioned further down then it was removed from the beginning of the article; I don't see why Izmir has to be an exception. Anyway for now I'll wait but know I am 100% right ;). Laters.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you do something doesn't mean it's right. As I have said three times, I've seen tons of articles where alternate names are listed in the beginning. And anyway, Izmir was a Greek city for a long time. I think it makes total sense. --Awiseman 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point here, its Greek name and root is mentioned in the Etymology section. Will you please read?--Kagan the Barbarian 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are missing mine. As I have said many times, many articles mention alternate names in the intro, whether or not it's elsewhere. Will you please read? --Awiseman 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, clearly we're not getting anywhere with this. Let's wait for more discussion. --Awiseman 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, we are taking progress. Now, you see, if the city's Greek name is mentioned in detail further down in the article, there is no need to give that information at the start. Then again if the article was about the Greek Izmir, then you could write the Greek name as much as you wanted. Do you want me to exhibit examples for you?--Kagan the Barbarian 18:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I understand you. I'm saying it's common in Wikipedia articles to have alternate names in the beginning, even if they are discussed further elsewhere. I think it's fine the way it is now or maybe put Armenian lower but leave Greek- it's short and gives information. See Delhi for example, that lists 3 languages! Troy and Tashkent also list a lot. Also, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), definitely Greek and probably Armenian are relevant foreign names. --Awiseman 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Genghis of Izmir (otherwise known as Kagan)--introductions by definition repeat stuff contained in the rest of the article--that's the whole point, to give the reader the main points about the subject. The alternate names of a city are important, as they are part of the history, and as Awiseman said, it's common on Wiki. And Armenian history in Smyrna is well known--they were an important part of the city before being massacred by Kemal in 1922. By some accounts, 300,000 were killed, the rest escaped, so I do not count that as a tiny minority.--TigranTheGreat 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Were these 300000 killed at the same time the British were invaded by China, or before the Russians took over Brazil? MonsterOfTheLake 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kağan, check out the Jerusalem page—it mentions the Greek and Latin names at the top, but Israel's only official languages are Hebrew and Arabic! I don't really see people edit waring over there over the names.... —Khoikhoi 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Armenia never owned Izmir, meanwhile Greece and Rome did. You're just cherry-picking facts to support your bs POV. That's why. MonsterOfTheLake 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khoikhoi. My Armenian friend here isn't very good with numbers, which he proved in the past numerous times. TigranTheGreat writes 300,000 Armenians in Izmir. And that's only the number of Armenians who died? Puh-lease... as we say in Turkish "Throw in smaller pieces so the birds can eat".

Jerusalem was a Roman and a Greek city in the past (as well as Turkish), Khoikhoi, so it is appropriate to mention its Latin and Greek names at the start but Izmir and Armenians don't have such connection. I think it is more appropriate to mention Izmir's Hebrew name instead of Armenian since they were more crowded than Armenians and there is still a Jewish community living in the city. Armenian name can be mentioned seperately in the history section. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but you removed the Greek name as well (İzmir was a Greek city in the past too, as you already know). What we need is sources on the numbers, can you or Tigran provide any? In regards to the Hebrew name, I'm sure that the Jews of this city only used the language to read the Torah. What language did they normally speak? Ladino? —Khoikhoi 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Greek name because it is already mentioned in detail in the Etymology section. I am more than interested in Tigran to back up his claim of ">300,000 Armenian in Izmir", wonder if he counts the corpses in the cemetaries as well. As for the Jewish community, yes they were -and are- Sephardic Jews and spoke Ladino, I don't know how they wrote Izmir but I can ask our family friend when I meet her. I think it is important to mention the Jewish name because they were and are an important part of the city and thanks to them we have awesome bakery food such as the delicious "boyoz" ;).--Kagan the Barbarian 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion the Greek name should be at the top to conform to other city articles. See Hrodna for example. I know it's already mentioned in detail below, but it doesn't hurt to say it twice, does it? As for the Jews, we do make some great food. :p I can still smell my great-grandmother's kokosh... —Khoikhoi 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is ok to have the Greek name at the start, I don't mind. It is just that on the Chios article I added the Turkish name at the start and someone deleted it saying it is already mentioned further in the article, that's why brought it up here. And it would be nice to have some boyoz right now with tea, it is breakfast time and I have nothing in the fridge :P --Kagan the Barbarian 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time jews owned Izmir? Just leave the Greek part in there, that's the only notable one. The other ones are ridiculous to put in. MonsterOfTheLake 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews are more a part of Izmir than Armenians were that's why. As for the Greek name see the explanation below.

Khoikhoi, this is the guy from IMDB that I was telling you about. The one who tried to vandalize my talk page once.--TigranTheGreat 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered the 300,000 figure for Armenian victims of the Smyrna massacre before on several websites--unfortunately I don't have them available now. According to Professor Rummel, however, the total number of Armenian victims of the Kemalists' genocide (i.e. in the period 1920-22) can be as high as 550,000 of the remaining Anatolian population:

Most likely then, in total during this period [i.e post WWI] the Turks killed from 325,000 to 545,000, most probably 440,000 of their Armenians--these along with those murdered during WWI. [1]

Considering that a large portion (if not most) of Armenians in this period lived in Smyrna (which was untouched by the Young Turks due to German intervention), the number of Smyrna victims was probably close to 300,000. The Greeks and Armenians were the two largest groups in the city massacred in 1922.

The the city was a major center of Western Armenian culture along with Constantinople. Its Armenian notable history is undeniable.--TigranTheGreat 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia gives a lower number of Armenian residents of Smyrna--30,000 in 1915. Which is still significant Armenian presence. Though if Hector and Khoikhoi feel the Greek name alone is enough, I won't protest their removal of the Armenian name (the Greek name obviously should stay)--TigranTheGreat 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to deal with liars I would have become a lawyer. All of a sudden your humble estimate of more than 300,000 is reduced to 30,000? Izmir, Smyrna, Smyrni, whatever was never an Armenian city, under Ottoman rule Armenians were populated in many cities engaging in commerce, that doesn't necessarily make any of which Armenian. I wouldn't be suprised if 10 years from now you call Los Angeles Armenian, which actually you already are. Feel free to mention its Armenian name in the history section though. Either act like a trustworthy man or I am going to start spending my precious time editing Pornography stubs instead and leave you and others edit warring till the end of free editing in Wikipedia.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many Armenians were killed in the city, it seems like an important Armenian city and should be included based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) --Awiseman 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Important Armenian city? Are you kidding me? He is talking about the population of Armenians being 30.000, which I am pretty sure is still a bit of exaggeration considering the user's past records. LA is more important to Armenians than Izmir ever was, add the Armenian name to Glendale/CA. The moment "Sakız" is removed from the Chios article this one is going too as well as the Greek name. If I see double standards here I'll leave the article for eternal edit warring, I can't be bothered with ignorace.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, so far it is only you 2 rooting for the Armenian name.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kagan - it doesn't matter what happens at another page! You're treating this like a battle between Greeks and Turks, "well they made this edit to my page that I don't like, so I'm going to get them back." Wikipedia doesn't work like that. And if KhioKhoi and Hectorian don't think Armenian should be in the intro, then fine, but as far as I can tell they haven't said anything lately. --Awiseman 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the assume good faith policy? I am not turning this into a versus thing, I am way beyond that, I want same standards to apply to all articles, that's the only way the reason prevails, otherwise there is chaos.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean you can do something here because they do it somewhere else. These should be on a case by case basis. --Awiseman 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course Genghiz (Kagan) is moderately angry for getting just blocked--and as it is always the case with anger, he resorts to personal attacks and makes mistakes :) I never stated that the 300,000 figure was the only one, nor did I abandon it--estimates of the total losses of Armenians of that period do not preclude such a number. Nor did I espouse the 30,000 estimate--these are all estimates. While Kagan keeps shifting the focus of discussion to the number of victims, the point is that for the city of its size in 1915, Smyrna had significant Armenian presence, even with the lowest estimates. And the number is not the only important point. Smyrna has had Armenian history for centuries, and it was one of the two major centers of Armenian culture on the Western coast. Other cities like Ankara had Armenian minority too, but we haven't included the Armenian name there--we included it specifically on Smyrna for a reason. Finally, besides numbers, Armenians, along with Greeks, played significant role in the trade and industry of the city. --TigranTheGreat 00:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even at home during the block period. I see you are going to take every chance to run to administrators and complain about me, typical, I wouldn't expect less. Yes there is a little bit, a slight estimate gap between 30.000 and 300.000. I am pretty sure the Armenians were either the 4th or 5th most populated group in the city after Greeks, Jews, Levantines and probably Turks. Anyway you can add the Armenian name I don't care, your edit warring with other users will go on forever, I see you haven't yet realized that important thing in Wikipedia is compromise, not dictate.--Kagan the Barbarian 04:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Smyrna has never been an Armenian city and I didn't see ANYONE here claim otherwise, Smyrna was a historical Hellenic city later conquered and devastated by barbarians, and centuries later stripped of its native Hellenic population by the same barbarians. Your analogy of Los Angeles is absurd, there are many important ethnic groups in LA, Armenians only being one of them. While Smyrna under Ottoman rule only had a significant Armenian population next to Greeks.--Eupator 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably the 4th or 5th significant group in the city, that doesn't make them special. And your simplistic approach to history is charming.--Kagan the Barbarian 04:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably 2nd, and they were quite special. Considering that Turks themselves (being largely peasants and nomads) were the 7th in the socio-economic ladder (nothwithstanding the discriminatory laws of Shariat), I say we should include the Armenian name if we include the Turkish--TigranTheGreat 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not second, Jews numbered more than 50.000. And this: "I say we should include the Armenian name if we include the Turkish", hahaha. Thank you for letting us keep the Turkish name. I thought you'd ask to rename the article to the Armenian name.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Forbes Family are from Izmir?

really? seems odd. --Awiseman 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Your nick's ironic, because you're not. DISS! MonsterOfTheLake 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Monster, stop attacking other editors just cause u have nothing better to do... U think u are wiser? prove it! Gosh! --Hectorian 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Monster, it's my actual name. If you have information about the Forbes family, please share it. --Awiseman 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Cretanforever, you're saying "according to Serge Trifkovic" for one POV but presenting the other POV ("Greek soldiers, largely aided by henchmen among local Greeks and Armenians, committed atrocities") as an absolute fact. If you want to include the information it shold be phrased like "according to the Turkish government...", as your source does appear to be a government website. See what I'm saying? —Khoikhoi 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's 1 page of preface, and 57 pages of report Khoikhoi, and the report is signed:

The Members of the Commission:
ADMIRAL BRISTOL US Delegate
GENERAL BUNOUST French Delegate
GENERAL HARE British Delegate
GENERAL DALL’OLIO Italian Delegate

I will re-phrase by adding these names. Regards.

And the phrasing I used is from the link itself.

Cretanforever

Fine by me, thanks for your cooperation Cretanforever. :) —Khoikhoi 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, why was the footnote in the next paragraph ("The fire started in the largely Armenian Basmane quarter...") deleted? —Khoikhoi 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole article on the fire, and the link is given. It seemed superfluous. I had begun that footnote myself some time ago but then left incomplete, because a distinct article was started. Cretanforever

I see what you mean. Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

During the incursion of the Greek occupation forces, Greek soldiers, largely aided by henchmen among local Greeks and Armenians, committed atrocities against, not only toward the Turkish population, but also to all communities that had been living peacefully in the region for centuries. These atrocities included massacre, pillage, rape and the destruction of towns and villages, as detailed, at an international level, for the period covering May-September 1919, in the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry [2] and further down The Turkish army re-took possession of İzmir, The Turkish side was accused of a number of atrocities against the Greek and Armenian communities, In addition, according to Serge Trifkovic (only one source). Doesn't all these express the turkish POV only? Greeks who massacred, pillaged, raped, destroyed... and Turks who are just accused of a number of atrocities (and only Chrysostomos' case uses the actual word...). so, Cretanforever, would u mind to add George Horton as well? --Hectorian 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, gentlemen, but I think under the rules sources should be published through reputable media. In this case the media is the Turkish government website (which, shall we say, is known for its distortion of facts and quotes). It is not a reliable medium. The quotes could be doctored. --TigranTheGreat 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

REPORT OF THE INTER-ALLIED COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (MAY-SEPTEMBER 1919)

The Members of the Commission:
ADMIRAL BRISTOL US Delegate
GENERAL BUNOUST French Delegate
GENERAL HARE British Delegate
GENERAL DALL’OLIO Italian Delegate

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/sampapers/GREEKOCCUPATIONOFIZMIR.pdf

Read the report. Going to work now. See you tomorrow. Cretanforever

This source can be added, if Horton can also be (have in mind that Horton was an eyewitness, and his book on the issue can be found in non greek sources). --Hectorian 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this issue is getting too big and controversial (sp?) to discuss in an article about the modern city of Izmir? These issues should be carried to another article.--Kagan the Barbarian 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above: the whole sentence is clearly POVish and the source is clearly biased (would anyone expect to find something different in the turkish government's website?). in addition, u removed cited info! would it be ok to add what Horton says as well? he was an eyewitness afterall! a biased source will bring another one, if u insist reverting... --Hectorian 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fire should be mentioned here with 2 or 3 sentences and direct to Great Fire of Smyrna. That way the edit warring here will be resolved.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2-3 NPOV sentences or 2-3 sentences mentioning both POV will be right. but if the turkish government's site will be kept as a footnote, i will add Horton! and i know that Turks don't like him at all... but he is 'neutral' enough (with the current definition or 'neutrality' in this article, shaped recently by reverts and edits...) --Hectorian 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know. That's why we need 2-3 sentences to sum it up as you said and carry all the heated discussion to Great Fire of Smyrna. This article had enough damage already, as an Izmir resident, born and raised here, I would like this article to focus more on the city. I can provide photos, writings etc.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think the atrocities by Greeks and Armenians should be stated as "according to so and so report' rather as facts. Just my 2 cents, phrase it however you like--TigranTheGreat 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the opening line, Smyrna

I respect but disagree with the move to include the other appelation of Izmir - or of any other town - in the opening line. Any other names of a city must appear a few lines further down in the historical synopsis - and only if it is historically significant. The main reason is that this is the norm, but it also avoids controversies. Politis 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See the upper conversation - according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), definitely Greek and probably Armenian are relevant foreign names. I think it's fine the way it is now- it's short and gives information. Look at other cities like Delhi or Jerusalem for example, that lists 3 languages! Troy and Tashkent also list a lot. --Awiseman 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add the Turkish name on the Chios article, watch what happens.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what happens there, it doesn't apply to this page. But if the Turkish name ought to be be there, show them this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Awiseman 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the whole issue in Wikipedia:Greek/Turkish naming conventions. Input by all will be appreciated. --Hectorian 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't apply to this page?! Are you high?--Kagan the Barbarian 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are u referring to me, Kagan? --Hectorian 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To the American.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens on that page has no bearing on this page - it's not a quid pro quo or a Greek vs Turkey issue, though you seem to be making one. If the Turkish name for Chios deserves to be that and someone removes it, I'll back you up based on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) --Awiseman 19:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To be added

REPORT OF THE INTER-ALLIED COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (MAY-SEPTEMBER 1919)

The Members of the Commission:
ADMIRAL BRISTOL US Delegate
GENERAL BUNOUST French Delegate
GENERAL HARE British Delegate
GENERAL DALL’OLIO Italian Delegate
Statements in defense of the Greek government presented by Colonel MAZARAKIS

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/sampapers/GREEKOCCUPATIONOFIZMIR.pdf

No... The source is clearly biased. i could not expect the site of the turkish governmet to claim something different. if we are about to make the article a POV battlefield, the papers of the greek government also have place in it. --Hectorian 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Greek government has a paper prepared by four top-level international profiles under responsibility and the accused country given the right to defense, then you would equal me. Speaking of POV battlefield, anonymous Greek users inserted Misha Glenny (unverifiable) and Serge Trifkovic (gross & suspect) into this page and they are still there. No discussion was held and no one reacted since weeks (not even the usual gendarmes). Do you intend to do something about the present battlefield? Greece is crystal clear in this page as far as I can see now. Cretanforever

If the addition is so valid, it would appear in other sources as well. How come u provided a link from the turkish governmental site? isn't that suspicious? unless if the turkish government "ordered" that paper. and talking about "suspects", as u called Serge Trifkovic, isn't Ataturk also a "suspect"? well, a telegraph attributed to him is editted in Great Fire of Smyrna [2], and forms the first section of that article (an article closely related to this one, and in which u have heavily editted)... Is this NPOV? a telegraph by the guy accused for the Fire been used as a source for his innosense?! U are right when saying that Greece (and the Greeks, i would add) are crystal clear in this page, except for some minor POV edits. e.g. the Greek Army occupied the city: landed, after permission of an international treaty, important Greek population of the city: Greeks formed the majority, according to the Ottoman, not a greek census, offered the western regions of Turkey to Greece as a bonus: as if the Greeks had not fought in WWI and as if the Greeks did not have demographical base in the area... so, it was just a "present" by the Great Powers... Anyway, personally i appreciate your good job and your NPOV attitude most of the times;) --Hectorian 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I stick to the subject of Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Enquiry. Is the Library of Congress good enough as additional source? [3]. You only have the table of contents though. Another copy must be rotting in a government archive in Athens. It must have been officially delivered to the Greek government, which was a party to the issue of the report, while there was no Turkish government to speak of in September 1919.

p.s. I am not fond of the "Greeks did this, Greek did that!" line. But if I have to read that 200000 people had perished on the quays in 1922 in İzmir (in Turkish, we say "OHA!" faced to such affirmations), I can offer much better, much valuable and much pertinent read. Cretanforever

Took out a quote from someone who was neither a witness or an expert authority on the matter, and whose partiality could be called into question; instead replaced it with a more encyclopedic and matter-of-fact approach to the matter, by adding that, sadly, the lack of reliable sources has led the parties to accuse each other for decades of committing atrocities during the period... Reply pls, I am just trying to take the heat off a bit and make the article look more serious... Baristarim 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey look people, have you looked at what this guy has said?? "Islam is a violent cult characterized by the fundamental lack of love", "Rape of enslaved women came naturally to Muhammad."????? I am not a Muslim, but even I would never say stuff like this!!!! And you are quoting this guy??? Besides this guy CAN NOT be a source, he was not a witness, he was born in 1954!!! You have to source this claim to HIS source, that is to to say, considering the fact that he was born in 1954, he MUST have heard what had happenned from someone ELSE, source it to them, until then, this is neither a valid citation, or an impartial one... Does that look like an encyclopedic article to you??? Baristarim 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it too seriously Barış! The idea of massacres that would have been committed by Turks has an orgasmic effect on some minds. I saw your other edits too. Cool it! It's a looking glass world. :) --Cretanforever 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Noone expects from the historians to be eyewitnesses of all the things they write about. This article is very NPOV, and i wonder what are u doing here, Baristarim... And to everyone who talks part in this discussion, have in mind that some people may see things differently than u. --Hectorian 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

An idea

Coming off of Kağan's suggestion, I think a lot of this article should be split off into a new page called History of İzmir—with a shorter version of the history here. That way more information about the modern city can be added without this article getting too long. Any thoughts? —Khoi khoi 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Izmirians - Suffix 'ians'

Izmirnians. Are you sure this word exists? I thought it was Smirniots. However, the suffix 'ians' seems reasonable (Parisians, Athenians, Bostanians, Skopjians etc); but the people from Madrid we use the Spanish expression, Madrileros. What is the Turkish word? But remember that many cities do not have a special inflection for their inhabitants (Los Angeles, Beijing, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Drama, Belgrade, etc). Also, how do you call people from Istanbul? Istanbuliots? I have a feeling that there are no established terms for those Turkish cities. Politis 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In English, both Smyrniot (47 uses in Google books) and Smyrnian (39) are used, but for periods before the Republic of Turkey (from ancient to Ottoman). I don't think there is any standard English term today; the Turkish term is presumably İzmirli (regular -li ending). People from Los Angeles are Angelenos. In modern Turkish, people from İstanbul are presumably İstanbullu (same regular -li ending, with regular phonetic change from vowel harmony); in English, pre-Republic, they were Stamboulis or Constantinopolitans, I believe. --Macrakis 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homer

The page claims that "Aristotle recounts..." the birth of Homer, but I can find no such section in any of Aristotle's works. There is a description of Homer's lineage in "The Contest of Homer and Hesiod," but this is not attributed to Aristotle, nor does the posted description follow what is mentioned in "The Contest." Could the originator of this section please either a) provide a citation for the source of the posted Homeric lineage or b) delete the claim? Thanks. Homeridia 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it mentioned?

That two thrids of the population of Smyrna before the great fire and subsequent events were Greek? Reaper7 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? --AW 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

City name edit war

This has come up again, with most people against Shuppiluliuma. Thoughts? --AW 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOFEEDING is generally a good guideline.--Tekleni 15:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Template not working

Can somebody fix it? The infobox on the city with map and such. --AW 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Important Note: Please do not change the names of İzmir listed in the intro without first raising the issue in this talk page. For further background information on the debates that led to those names being listed, please see the archives on the right. Thank you.

Comments

It doesn't write the the Turkish names of Athens, Yerevan or Thessaloniki in Wikipedia, but why in İzmir page it writes? This makes hard to believe Wikipedia's objectivity. I hope you'll add the Japenese name of the city too! /Qghvz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.82.192 (talk) 01:48, May 1, 2007

The subject has been discussed ad nauseum. Unless you want a headache, don't complain. ALTON .ıl 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Names

For that looong list of alternate names in different languages, I suggest a solution like at Thessaloniki that I also took the liberty of applying to Istanbul. Baristarim 11:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I'd also suggest that we follow the example of Istanbul by using the English name Izmir in most cases, rather than the Turkish name İzmir (which should still be mentioned, of course). --Delirium 02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that proposal would be contested, because Izmir is not as well-known as Istanbul, in my experience. ALTON .ıl 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Defining population

It was mentioned, defined by a couple of paragraphs showing how the trade boom along with the large presence of Greeks and Armenians changed the character of the city itself. The whole idea is not to define a population in numerical terms, but to show how Izmir evolved. To quantify the population along those lines would be unnecessary and would just spark controversy for the sake of it. Monsieurdl 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There have always been Greeks there

So what has that got to do with a sudden trade boom? I am sorry, can someone at least an attempt at my first question? Reaper7 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point

1. Your question is Greeks or Turks, and the answer is BOTH. 2. Every influence in Izmir has been mentioned in the article. 3. After the 15th century, Izmir was a very multicultural city, and MANY different religions were represented. This is also mentioned in the article.

It is very simple to me- a general, accurate history of Izmir is a lot more important than validating an agenda, plain and simple. Monsieurdl 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Use a translator if your English is so bad

1. The question is not Greeks or Turks, reread. It is who had the higher population before 1922. 2. It is not a subject to be hidden in cultural garbage section of the article, we are talking facts and figures. If a city in the UK was almost half or over half spanish before 1922 and now there are none, trust me, there would be a section on it, especially if the city is as old and important as Izmir. 3. Again, what are you talking about? Izmir was multi cultural before the 15 century. Please reread and try not to start and answer a new topic to reply. Thankyou. Reaper7 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Turkish name?

Why is this article under the Turkish name (İzmir) as opposed to the English name, Izmir? Quote from WP:NCGN:

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.

As far as I can tell the widely accepted English name does not contain a dotted capital I (İ) considering it doesn't exist in English. Explanation anyone? You don't find Munich under München. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out similar examples like São Paulo, León, Cádiz, Córdoba, Málaga, etc. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of those, at least half should be changed. The English is Cordova. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As a Turkish citizen and an izmir residence I agree that the name should be either "Izmir" or "izmir" because of the undefined capital "i" in English the ussers who will conduct sources like google also have some difficulties in finding the article through the search engines. So an editor should correct it to one of the above mentioned choices.--Odevlen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be Izmir, rather than İzmir which should of course still be mentioned in the lead sentence. Although I would not go so far as to say the İ "does not exist in English", it certainly is not very widespread. In this case, I could only find citations for İzmir coming from publications originating from Turkey. The wider English speaking world uses Izmir almost exclusively. For instance:

US State Department
UN to include in legal treaty texts
British Foreign Office
Britannica
Encarta (first listing is Izmir, secondary is İzmir)
Webster's
BBC (notice that BBC uses İzmir on their Turkish service, strongly suggesting that using the unadorned I is a professional editorial decision on behalf of English readers, rather than a technical limitation.)
London Times
CNN
CBC
NPR
Washington Post
Survey of Google Scholar English language hits indicates overwhelming preference for Izmir. (It should be noted, however, that Google does not differentiate between I and İ in searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudy (talk • contribs) September 28, 2008

cuisine

It is written:"Historically, as a result of the influx of Greek refugees from İzmir (as well as from other parts of Asia Minor and Istanbul) to mainland Greece after 1922, the cuisine of İzmir has had an enormous impact on Greek cuisine, exporting many sophisticated spices and foods."

so the greek cuisine in smyrna is different than greek cuisine??

i think it shoulbe written like this: " ....the cuisine of Greeks of İzmir has had an enormous impact on the rest of Greek cuisine, exporting many sophisticated spices and foods." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That suggests that the Greeks of Smyrna cooked differently from their Turkish, Armenian, Jewish...etc. neighbors. Excluding dietary laws, is there any reason to believe this true? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not done. No consensus. — Aitias // discussion 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

İzmir → Izmir (see also #Why Turkish name? above). 199.125.109.99 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The above list of evidence is pretty convincing. You have to look at article names case by case, as WP:NCGN tells us. In English we use some diacritics, but not others. So we use São Paulo, but Montreal (not Montréal). The test is whether there is a widely used name in English, and if there is, use that. If there is a source for the assertion that İzmir is widely used in English, let's have it. If there is not, let's rename the article.Mhockey (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I support moving the page to Izmir; Erudy has provided a number of reliable sources showing the use of the common English variant in a variety of sources, including US and UK media, US and UK governmental bodies, the UN, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, I don't know when I've ever seen this with a diacritic in my experience with the sources. Distinguishable from São Paulo. JJB 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for basically the same reasons as to why the article Tenedos should be under the title Bozcaada. To my impression, those who are in a position to contribute the most up-to-date information to this article usually use the spelling İzmir. Changing the title to Izmir will alienate further contributors. NB: We should also buy the line of these blokes. It could interest them for a change. :) Cretanforever (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alienating those Turks so nationalist that they will decline to edit over the absence of this tittle can only improve the article. If we could find some way to alienate Greek nationalists at the same time, the situation would be close to ideal. Now, is there any objection based on evidence, as opposed to WP:MYPEOPLELIKEIT? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support move, in line with the evidence deposited earlier. I think this is a clear case of English convention preferring an unadorned spelling, and we should follow it.Erudy (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support move to Izmir, as the name commonly used in English, and thus the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Ev (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. "Izmir" seems to be a failure to dot the "İ" rather than an actual English exonym and Wikipedia usually includes diacritics on placenames (e.g., Düsseldorf, Kraków, Cádiz) even if many English texts don't. Based on the arguments here, all Turkish cities should be moved to diacriticless titles which would be a mess. İzmir does have an English name, though: Smyrna. Anyone in favor of that move? — AjaxSmack 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. "Izmir" is the common English spelling for the city because most English-language typesetting equipment does not have İ or ı. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons AjaxSmack and Anthony Appleyard give. Many sources with diacriticless spellings simply do not use diacritics or modified latin letters at all, or only use the ones the most familiar to Anglophones or most easy to produce on a keyboard (such as tildes and accents aigu and grave). If a source consistenty uses i for ı and I for İ, that doesn't tell us anything about the individual place-names, just about whether the source bothers with Turkish letters.--Atemperman (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter why Izmir is the most conmmon spelling in English texts. It is, and that should be enough. It may well be that the reason is that most English readers are not familiar with the difference between dotted and dotless i, but that does not alter the fact that they do not use İzmir. Recall the example of the BBC cited by Erudy above:BBC (notice that BBC uses İzmir on their Turkish service, strongly suggesting that using the unadorned I is a professional editorial decision on behalf of English readers, rather than a technical limitation.) This does not mean that we should avoid İ in less familiar Turkish names (e.g. İzmit), where there is no common English usage. Mhockey (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But the BBC doesn't use the "İ" on İzmit either[4] so why should it be any different? Who decides which names are more familiar and which are less? Is it to be ad hoc case by case? While many news services have style guidelines calling for no diacritics, Wikipedia does not. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nor on Istanbul either; should we dot the I there, although no English-speaker does? What basis is there for any line other than what does English do? We have no guidance, and no consensus for it, saying always use diacritics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

English does many things. While news organizations typically don't use diacritics, encyclopedias often do. For example, the folks over at Britannica use İzmir with the "İ" (but not so with Istanbul). — AjaxSmack 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange; this version of the Britannica still uses Izmir, with no dot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose No need to downgrade accuracy. Hús ö nd 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the present title is inaccurate; it misrepresents English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  - English usage is very relative concept. Many English speakers write "İzmir" because they are familiar with the local spelling, and others don't because they are neither familiar, nor bother, nor both. "İzmir" could indeed misrepresent the majority of the English usage, but would definitely not misrepresent the usage per se. Hús ö nd 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    - Speculation; there is no "many". The point of Erudy's accumulation of sources is that English-speakers who use İzmir are extremely rare. There are (of course) pedants; perhaps more frequently, there are Turks who do not know, and have not considered, what English idiom is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 23 May 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who had the higher populations of Izmir before 1922?

Greeks or Turks? If it is Greeks, don't you think it should be at least mentioned? If it is Turks, how many more were there? If there were more Armenians and Greeks before 1922 living in the city, surely it was therefore mainly a christian city up until 1922? Reaper7 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See the article on Greek-Turkish war for more info on that. Basically the Turks said the turks had a majority; Greeks said the greeks did. Historians think the Greeks had a concentrated majority in the city of smyrna itself. Also the complexity of the issue may make it not worth going into in the article itself, especially since there are other pages with that info already (previously mentioned one)Unknown (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was very nice of Ottomans, way ahead of their time, to let all live in peace. Wish the World at large had adopted these customs.--Murat (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beauty

I know this is kinda irrelevant, but that article is plain BEAUTIFUL!! Congratulations on all editors that worked hard to make it happen! --Eae1983 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant:you can nominate this article for "Good articles" or "Featured Articles" AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good but how? I am a really ignorant person when it comes to computer stuff :)) --Eae1983 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Kudos to all who contributed. Such a long and coloful history though! Even I am impressed!--Murat (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed its accurate but beautiful? Maybe if the writing was ten times higher quality Unknown (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is not the place for continuing an argument related to the move request

I removed the argumentative material Mhockey added to the Names and Etymology section, which consisted a statement that Izmir is the primary way of writing the city's name in English and a list of sources that have the city so spelled. This is original research, which, while accepted as necessary and part of the guidelines for deciding how to title a page, is not appropriate for the article itself. If the material I removed were to stay in, then editors who disagree with Mhockey will be just as justified in offering their countervailing points in the article, distracting readers with what should be a "backstage" controversy. --Atemperman (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not meant to be argumentative, I thought it was stating verified facts which were established in the debate. Maybe I misunderstood the arguments put forward in the debate, but I thought we had established that common usage in English is Izmir, but some editors thought that we should use İzmir in English (assuming availability of the appropriate typesetting equipment). I would have no problem if "countervailing points" were included in the article (in fact I included one myself), as long as they can be verified. Plenty of evidence was provided by User:Erudy (not by me) that authoritative texts in English use Izmir. In what sense is that original research? It is citing references, which is what we should always do in WP articles. Mhockey (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no other comments, I am proposing to restore the citations deleted by Atemperman, which are factual and relevant to an undestanding of usage of the name in English. Mhockey (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument is over it seems. It is also becoming clear that there are concerns beyond "accuracy" here. When in any doubt, the "correct" version of a name, as it would appear in formal communications, or a map or a road sign for example, should be preferred, it is common sense. Etno-nationalistic claims and arguments hidden behind a very thin veil do not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WP should deal with verifiable facts, and we must observe WP:NPOV. I have restored the deleted citations.Mhockey (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thumb Picture and Montage

Ok, can someone fix a decent one, please? If the picture is well sourced like the one in Ankara -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ankara_kolajı.jpg there should be no problem at all. I really think İzmir needs it. Cheers! --88.254.241.230 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias in Greek-Turkish War and subsequent fire

Seems a bit biased to me. The bit about how the turks felt (first bullet fire etc.) needs to be more explicitly stated as their POV. Also focus seems to be on Greek atrocities with a bit of "the turks did it too" at the end. I think would be a good idea to look at the wiki page dedicated to the Greek-Turkish war, its pretty unbiased. --Unknown (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, here goes. My view on this whole section is that sources for both sides during the whole period from 1919-1922 are "spoiled", i.e. there is not really a single impartial one to be found anywhere. Hence, we as modern historians are placed in between two sides that hold up examples of violence as proof of complicity against the other. All we can do is be guarded in our language by using such words as "claimed", "accused", and "X have said that Y", and so on, since we are in a minefield so to speak.

The problem that we have is that books that have been written long after the events still use these same tainted sources to draw conclusions as to what happened. All you have to do is turn to the footnotes or the bibliography, and you will see the same oft-quoted sources. We can avoid this whole problem by stating events in the form that I mentioned, and therefore all material can be used with appropriate references.Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Population and Area

First, the population listed in the infobox and the population listed at the beginning of the page don't match despite both giving 2008 as the year of the estimate. The infobox gives a population of 3,210,465 while the page gives a population of 3,795,978.

As for the districts that make up the city, the beginning paragraph first states that it includes eleven districts, but the sentences after says only nine, and only then at the end does it mention that only nine districts make up the central city. This needs to be made much more clear, and I think I'll do that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what the problem is. These numbers are taken from the Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu (the state's statistics org.), which is the most reliable source. However, the numbers imported are incorrect. For example, the infobox number is the "total urban population in all population centers in the province" including far distant towns in the province. So, the infobox number is incorrect. The metropolitan area number was also incorrect, that was actually the province population. I am afraid such numbers might be bad for all/most Turkish cities, but that's a bigger project. --Enozkan (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Smyrna

I propose changing the disambiguation solution currently used for Smyrna. Currently, Smyrna is an article of its own but deals only with the ancient city, with disambiguation notices only in the article heads. But people keep using links to Smyrna in articles mentioning the modern city (under a Greek perspective), especially in pre-1923 contexts. These links should all end up here at Izmir, because that's the article that has the information relevant to those contexts. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Smyrna, most of the incoming links are more relevant to modern Izmir than to the ancient city.

Therefore: Move Smyrna to Smyrna (ancient city), redirect Smyrna to İzmir, include dab notices:

at the head of İzmir: Smyrna redirects here. For the ancient city, see Smyrna (ancient city), for other uses see Smyrna (disambiguation)
at the head of Smyrna (ancient city): For the modern city, see İzmir

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I ended up here by accident but can't help but also ask about the redirect of Izmir to the turkish name with the "İ". Did you mess something up while working out the Smyrna disambiguation? You quoted the English Izmir at first and then the Turkish İzmir. Shouldn't the articles be in the english language and use/quote the local writing inside the article? And to anyone answering please read carefully what I ask. I am not talking about the modern name of the ~~island~~ city. I am asking why the name of the article is in the Turkish language when this is the English page.Arheos (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out similar examples like São Paulo, León, Cádiz, Córdoba, Málaga, etc. İzmir is not an island by the way. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the island reference. Don't know how that slipped away, I was on another page about Imbros and Tenedos and I was on auto-mode. Still, even for those, can you brief me on the explanation behind it? I'm sure it's hidden around the talk pages, most probably the archives, but if you can be bothered...Cheers. Arheos (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds great. Now, of course, that should be done with every city that might need it along the whole of Asia Minor. I'll be back to work here tomorrow and will see if any need the same treatment. Monsieurdl 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets do it now! User:Eae1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.123.154 (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

These anonymous and even logged-in (!) Turkish jokers are sufficiently answered at Talk:Smyrna. --Wetman (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wetman as I am no Wiki-friendly, I posted my comment without logging in then logged in and signed it. I know that is stupid, now could you refrain of calling me a "turkish joker"? Thanks! --Eae1983 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a fake?

http://www.agiasofia.com/horton/table.jpg

If it is not, can it be added? Reaper7 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These figures are ridiculus... Nearly 3 milyon Greeks living in todays Turkey borders... in 1915... you must be kidding... with a projection from 1915 to 2008, there should be at least 10 to 15 million Greek people out there, somewhere... I believe it is more than todays population of Greece... Therefore you have to consider the fact that (if all Greeks forced out of the Turkey by 1915) todays Greece should be empty in 1915 in order welcome this nearly 3 million Greeks... some math wont harm... Turkey had near 10 million population in 1930's... now is around 80 million.. do the math yourself...--Odevlen (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

? There are 15 million Greeks all over the world.Reaper7 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make a general comment about the "Smyrna" reference to Izmir, at least to the people that have scientific and historical and not nationalist-driven doubts about it. I think it is wrong to wonder why the name Yerevan (unknown to most, in contrast to Smyrna) is not used for Athens while Smyrna does for Izmir, in wiki. First of all, the etymology of the name Izmir itself is derived from the greek, former name. Also, they name "Smyrna" was indeed kept in use by both Muslims and Christians. In contrast, the turkish name Ayvalik was alwasys used, instead of ancient "Kydonies" term. But there is another, substantial reason: The civilization and activities developed throughout history in Izmir were almost exlusively achieved by its greek citizens. This is proved by the cultural and aesthetical fall of Izmir for many decades, after the greeks left under the Population Exchange. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, born in Salonica and not in Anatolia, was aware of that fact: He knew that there would be a significant financial and cultural downfall after the departure of the urban population of the area, but the stabilisation inside his country was of course of highsest importance at those critical times.

Dimitris Chrisafinos  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.85.4 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Portal

Why is this article not labeled under the Turkish Portal? Murat (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ionian University

There has been recent activity by removing the Ionian University (first established in the city, at 1920), from the list of universities, with edit summaries that are either irrelevant [[5]] or aggresive without giving an argument [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move (revisted)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

İzmir → Izmir – I'm going to bring this up again because having been in Turkey for awhile, I've noticed that English sources usually distinguish "ü" and "ö" from their un-umlauted counterparts, and sometimes distinguish "ş" and "ç" and rarely write the dotless "i" in the lower case, but I have never seen "İzmir" or "İstanbul" except in Turkish sources. I find an almost definitive list of reliable sources using "Izmir" here, and poking around expat forums shows English usage in Turkey is exclusively without the capital "İ." I find examples here and here.

If I search for "Izmir" and ""Bakirkoy" on MyMerhaba (the only one of these sites I heard of before googling), I find dotless Izmir and umlauted Bakirköy. I also find direct evidence of the distinction between umlauted vowels or ş/ç and the dotted "i" here, here. And this forum shows the difference in usage between Turks advertising apartments and foreigners seeking them. Basically, common usage in both reliable sources and in English among people living in Turkey spells it "Izmir." The only people who spell it "İzmir" are Turks, and even then they don't always spell it that way when writing in English. --Quintucket (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The diacritic-free form of the name is used by Columbia Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia, the UN News Center, BBC, Reuters, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and TurkishPress.com. Although the Turkish ambassador to the UN has a diacritic in his name, his master's degree is from a school in diacritic-free "Izmir", according to his CV. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Britannica and Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (recommended by The Chicago Manual of Style) use İzmir, which suits our encyclopedic purpose. Prolog (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Almost all sources in English use the undotted I - including the US Embassy, the UK FCO, Merriam-Webster, and the news sources cited in previous discussions. Britannica was found to be inconsistent in previous discussions. Using the dotted I for a well-known place like Izmir (or Istanbul for that matter) is spurious accuracy, akin to writing Montréal for Montreal. It's just not the usual form in English.--Mhockey (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. I find the arguments of Quintucket, Kauffner and Mhockey to be more convincing than Prolog's. Jenks24 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alsancak Train Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alsancak Train Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?