Talk:Kos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turkish name[edit]

@Alexikoua Long story short: The Turkish name is relevant due to the minority that lives there. Hoever, this island will remain the only one with the Turkish name on the lead because on Rhodes, there are too many relevant names to include the Turkish one on the lead. And as long as I know, those two islands are to only ones that are inhabited by a Turkish minority. Gökçeada has also the Greek name on the lead (actually, it is even the articles' name). AlexBachmann (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an Italian name due to the long-term Italian presence in the island (Knights era & early 20th century): As such per wp:NCGN it is recommended to have a name section if there are at least three alternate names and there is already a name section as in the case of Rhodes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a Italian minority living there. Also, see Gjirokastër. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long term political control by an Italian authority warrants inclusion of the Italian name. See the article's history.Alexikoua (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you would agree to include the Turkish and Italian name? AlexBachmann (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off course, in fact they are already there in the name section.Alexikoua (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then the Greek, Turkish and Italian names will be removed from the lede of Sarandë (like Kos Italian language has importance for its history, Ottomans had "long-term control"), and the Greek and Aromanian names from the lede of Gjirokastër. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should the Turkish local name be in the infobox? Alexikoua, we need a policy-based response so we know how to proceed with similar situations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you apply the over 3 names on the lead rule, too many places would be affected, e.g. Gjirokastër, Sarandë, Palasë, etc. Alexikoua could also dismiss his argument and the other articles would not be affected. However, trying to keep one and remove the other won't work. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to apply Alexikoua's rationale on the Italian language, then Turkish names would be added to many articles of Greek settlements. Sth which ofc is against common sense. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you begin a generic discussion about NCGN in Kos. As for Kos I've replied that the alternative names can stay in a seperate section since we have at leat three alternative names. then Turkish names would be added to many articles of Greek settlements? Sure, you can propose that on those settlements. Gjirokastër, Sarandë, Palasë? I'm afraid that based on the same rationale Filiates, Igoumenitsa are also part of this group.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're fine with removing the Greek name from Saranda, Gjirokastra, etc., then okay. As for NCGN, it is recommended to have a section if there are more than 3 names. What does that mean? By consensus, we can overrule this recommendation. As I said before, keeping one and removing another won't work. Do you really want to remove the Greek names from the lead in certain articles in order to keep the Turkish name here out? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: so how will we proceed with Kos and Saranda since they are identical cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Kos and Saranda, another identical case is Bar, Montenegro. If the alternate name is removed from Saranda and Kos, the same will apply to Bar. We need consistency across articles. Which is why I propose that if native speakers of a language live in a settlement, the alternate name should appear in the first line, unless there are more than 3 alternate names, in which case we go to the "Name" section. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I don't agree with the removal, both here and at Saranda and Gjirokastra. As I have consistently said many times, if a living community is present, the name of the settlement in that community's language should be present in the first line of the lede as a service to reader. So the Turkish name should be included in the first line of the lede here, and the Greek name at Saranda and Gjirkastra. Btw there is over a dozen articles of settlements in Greece where the Albanian name is included in the first line of the lede. Khirurg (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is different. Yes, there are minorities living, however, there are more than three relevant names. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which situation and which names are you referring to? Khirurg (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include the Greek and Turkish names in the lead, since those are the living communities on the island, and have the others appear only in the "Names" subsection. The Italian name is not on the same level as Greek or Turkish because no Italians now live on the island, Italy only ruled it for 35 years, and they haven't controlled it for nearly 80 years. Furius (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions about other articles are clearly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and should be happening on the talk pages of those articles; not here. Furius (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree regarding the Turkish and Italian names. Khirurg (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good nobody is supporting Alexikoua's weak rationale. @AlexBachmann: feel free to redo your edit in this article. Also readd the Greek name to Saranda. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, if you are OK with having the Turkish name here and the Greek name on Saranda, why were you so quick to remove the Albanian one from Bar? It seems you have not forgotten that one even almost 2 years after the RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about you explain why you removed the Greek name from a town that is ~30% Greek, but insist on the Albanian name for a town with less than 1% Albanians? Khirurg (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about you carefully read what I said above? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. Btw, Kos is an island while Saranda is a town, so they are in fact completely different cases. The Turks on Kos are all concentrated in the town of Kos, they are not spread all over the island, thus having the Turkish name in the lede here is somewhat undue. A separate article for Kos (town) will be created, and the Turkish name can go in the lede there. Khirurg (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like a good solution, since no such article exists and this article says that Turks also live in Platani. Saranda and Bar are irrelevant here. Furius (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Platani is a suburb of Kos town though, and an article for the town can easily be created (long overdue in fact). As in Rhodes, the Turkish population is concentrated in and around the island capital, because that was where the center of Ottoman administration was. I completely agree regarding the irrelevance of the other towns. Khirurg (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree to add the Turkish name on Rhodes? A Turkish minority lives here. That's what it is. You just don't want the Turkish name on such a prominent article.AlexBachmann (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making irrelevant arguments. The Turkish name in Rhodes is in the name section, remember your own words on Rhodes, there are too many relevant names to include the Turkish one on the lead.. Why are you so interested in Kos and Rhodes btw? Khirurg (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't I change my mind? You're asking me why I'm so interested in Kos and Rhodes while you are constantly observing Saranda and Gjirokaster? That's all I have to say. Turks live in Kos and Rhodes and use the name. The fact that you want the Greek names on articles in Albania and Turkey but not in prominent Greek articles is just double standards. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You only edit Albanian topics, and there are no Albanians on Kos and Rhodes. I get the feeling you are only interested in Kos and Rhodes to use that as a "bargaining chip" to remove the Greek names from Saranda and Gjirokaster, which I suspect has been your goal all along. Wikipedia is not a bazaar, we don't make "deals", and there is no quid pro quo. Each article is its own case, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Khirurg (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to figure out what I'm doing. There's no need to ask for Khirurgs' permission to edit a Greek article. Okay, let's focus on Kos. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is going around in circles. Time to bring in other editors, I think, probably by appealing to the relevant wikiprojects. Furius (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about a RFC? AlexBachmann (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will create a separate article for Kos (town) and you can add it there. The island has a dozen alternate names, and they can't possibly all go in the first line of the lead. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When will you create Kos (town)? You have been saying that for a week, while spending lots of time around on Wiki. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I've been distracted by another matter, largely caused by you Talk:Albania#Selective_use_of_images Khirurg (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone apart from you has agreed with my edit, including one editor responding to your request at WP:Countries. You decided to waste time trying to argue with everybody else. Your own problem, not mine. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editor from WP:Countries did not agree with your edit. Everyone else that "agreed", well, we know why they did. Now stop cluttering this discussions with irrelevant junk. Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to waste time arguing over a dead issue: the important thing is the pic does not clutter the section anymore. Hope you are fine with it. Waiting to see your Kos (town) article. Bye. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your post on Wikiproject Greece @Furius. If it helps, my view:
  • English name ("Kos") as the article states
  • Name used by the country that controls the territory ("Κως") as the article states
  • Other languages if the name originates from those languages. In this case, it's the Greek so nothing additional.
  • If a language is an official language of the country, and there is a minority, then I can see merit in including that language name. Although the Turkish minority is significant, Turkish is not an official language of Greece.
All other names belong in corresponding Wikipedia language articles of the topic (in this case, İstanköy) Biz (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how that works. See Himara, Istanbul, İskenderun and so on. We have agreed to add the name on the lead of the town (Kos), when the article will be published. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Istanbul starts with the English name, mentions the Turkish name İstanbul, and mentions the origin of the name which based on established research is from the Greek (transliterated, Constantinopolis). This is in line with what I said. I don't get your refutation? Biz (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Istanbul doesn't come from Constantinopolis. It comes from εἰς τὴν Πόλιν. This just doesn't make any sense. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. That means "in the City". Like saying "the City". Polis is Greek for city. Constantinopolis is the city of Constantine. Now, did the call it the City because it was the capital or because it was in the name, we can't say with confidence one or the other. But either way, the name was derived from the word that appears in the Greek name. Biz (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So because -polis and Πόλιν sound the same the Greek name is included in Istanbul? No. Because it is known by a significant minority of the sources like that. Look, we can't have double standards. You can't have it there and leave it out here. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the same word. The Turkish word derives from the Greek short hand of the Greek name for the city. Anyway, we're going in circles here let's look at the other cities.
The reason I said not Turkish despite a minority on Kos is because in Greece, they are legally considered Muslims and not Turkish. In Albania, it's different: Greek is a recognised minority language so for Himara even if there was no Greek presence (which there is) it would make sense as it's an official name. In the case of İskenderun, it's showing Turkish, Arabic which the Turkish is from and the original name the Arabic derives from which is Greek. But yes, it should lead with the English not Turkish spelling as this is the English Wikipedia.
This part of the world has a complicated history, so it's hard to find comparable cities outside this region for a standard. And nationalism in this part of the world is strong, so it's understandable this is a tense topic. Biz (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And because Greece doesn't recognize existing minorities, we should remove the names from the lead? This is an encyclopedia. We do not have to follow any political rules, decisions or laws about minorities. We have to focus on what languages are spoken in certain towns and how these towns are known in sources. I agree that this part of the continent is unique, but the fairest thing is to include the name on the article (which hopefully will appear soon). AlexBachmann (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good suggestion. Based on my quick scan of JSTOR, all references to İstanköy are Turkish or Ottoman related sources (35 total). There are 58,588 for Kos. Κως gets 490 results. (kos) AND (İstanköy) get 22 results, (kos) AND (Κως) 108 results.
While this is just one way to measure sources, based on wp:NCGN
  • Kos (common English name)
  • Κως (local official name)
  • ...but not İstanköy (does not meet 10% of 58,588).
Regarding population, there are 33,388 people on Kos according to the article, 2000 who are Turks which makes it 5%. I don't see a way how to interpret wp:NCGN with regards to that. Biz (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look. We're talking about Kos (Town) not about the island. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So using the town, you are saying 10% of the population of the geography in an article's topic justifies adding that communities name in the lead paragraph. This is despite English sources (albeit, I only looked at JSTOR) and the country (in this case, Greece) not recognising the language as official, which you say is not relevant to this discussion.
I don't see anything in wp:NCGN, including wp:MLN, that support this. So if other people agree, this should be something to include in wp:NCGN as this sets a precedent. I've got no issue having a special section about names as that is interesting, but for the lead, I'm not convinced. Biz (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of articles including the Kurdish name in the lead even though they are not recognized in Turkey. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, this is an issue of what sources say versus what is reality. The politics of minorities you're right is why we can't define it off official local names only. With regards to the Kurds, these cities tend to dominate with Kurds in the population so it's a different kind of minority situation. (And I'd be amiss to say, deliberate media censorship that distorts sources.)
With Kos, this is a small population with minimal usage of the term in English sources. I'm trying to just find an answer based on policy. Sorry I just don't it see it yet. Whether population should factor into decisions of how local variant names are ranked for the top 3 alternate names, and how they should rank up against historical names well established in English sources, in the lead I think are reasonable questions. Biz (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the Kurdish name for those cities do not dominate the results in Google. 5 % vs 10 % is a great difference. So what do we do now? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to have to be an RfC as Alex2006 suggests. The Turkish name falls short of 10% of English sources per WP:NCGN.
You want to ask if including the biggest minority merits consideration, even though the name falls short of the 10% guideline. Or you can open this up to discuss the Kurd issue and make it more generic, and in addition to the above, what population is sufficient to justify over-riding the 10% English sources requirement. Biz (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex' grounds for a RFC were existing consensus in this article. We're not talking about an other article. There are articles where the Greek name in the lead is not known to a significant part of sources. If @Alessandro57 may state his opinion after hearing my argument? AlexBachmann (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is making a decision that conflicts with state policies of names and does not follow Wikipedia's philosophy of what sources say. It needs an RfC in my personal opinion.
Let me take stock of this to explain why:
  1. There's nothing in wp:NCGN that supports adding a minorities name of a city in the lead that is below 10% of being mentioned in English sources. There is something that says it's ok for people that used to inhabit this geographical place (but with no reference to how many how long ago).
  2. There is consensus in this discussion to have a section on both articles about names to include the Turkish name.
  3. There's no consensus here to add the Turkish name to the lead on this article. To be clear, I'm neutral, not supportive, of doing so on the yet-to-be created article on the town.
An RfC asking if it's appropriate that a proven language minority with 10% of the population of a geography that currently lives there but which is not well documented (ie, under 10%) in English sources should be grounds to include it in the lead. This is a valid question that may help other articles in Wikipedia. The implication is it would give more weight to demographic sources than general published sources in decisions like this which is appropriate.
Again, the issue here is the lead. If you really care about this, an RfC is a healthy way to decide this as this is a deeply political topic. Biz (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I don't think you're neutral, you are clearly preventing a consensus which has been supported by Ktrimi and Khirurg above. (And that's okay, everyone can express their opinion) Ktrimi even wanted to include the name on the lead on this article, Khirurg limited this to the city. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe more people need to weigh in on this topic before consensus can be called.
If it comes down to it, I think 10%+ of a population -- past or present -- should be grounds to include a communities name in the lead when sources in English do not support it. But to include that as part of the consensus you are claiming, I would like other people to give their input as well. Biz (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i tried to read this thread but it is extremely confusing. I just want to point out that there was a discussion in the past in which it was agreed to allocate all Kos names in a special section, as suggested by the guideline, and to leave only the Greek name in the lead. If someone wants to change, perhaps it would be better to make an RfC. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s the best solution. Biz (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I see what you mean, however, the discussion you're most probably refering to is from 2006/2014 while we're discussing whether to include the name on the Kos (Town) article (that will appear soon). So we're not discussing about this article, but about Kos (Town). Khirurg and Ktrimi above have agreed to include the name, however, Biz is trying to bring up random points to surppress the Turkish name. The city has a population of ~20k while Turks that live mainly in the town amount 2k. That's ~10%.
I want to thank you for trying to find a fair solution. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining! Of course, several Turks live in Kos city (as in Rhodes city, where they have a nice cultural centre), the Turkish name must be mentioned, either in the lead, or in a special section (considering that the Italian name is also significant), according to the guideline on geographical names. But this has already been mentioned above, I am not saying anything new. In spite of that, one can always make an RfC. I just wanted to add that in the 1929 guide to Italy's possessions and colonies by TCI, under the entry for Coo (as for every other island in the Italian Dodecanese), both Greek and Turkish names are mentioned, despite the problems between Italy and Turkey at that time. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kos&oldid=1212084628"