Jump to content

Talk:İzmir: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 67.232.200.251 (talk) to last version by Wikifan153
 
(519 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
To the Turkish anon with IPs 81.212.127.249, 81.212.126.129, 81.212.126.173 and 81.212.126.245: while your contribution to the Wikipedia is welcomed, please do not distort this article by removing historic facts. I am aware official Turkish policy is to deny the [[Pontian Greek Genocide|Hellenic Holocaust]], but since this is an encyclopedia and not a Turkish textbook facts must be used. If you feel the text is not [[NPOV]], feel free to edit or introduce an additional point of view. [[User:Darkelf|Jo]][[User talk:Darkelf|'''r''']] 19:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Cities}}
}}
{{To do}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:İzmir/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{old move|date=20 December 2022|destination=Izmir|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1130164841#Requested move 20 December 2022}}


{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1|units=year}}
:To Darkelf: This is a topic in which "you" are trying to change historical facts, not me. Historical truths of Izmir are consistent with that I've posted so far. So, this facts are to be included on this page, not the ones of those generated by occupying nations.


==Image==
:If you think different, which is not consistent with the truth, this is not a place to change people's mind. Stop reading "one sided" books, and try to learn what really happened.
[[File:Entry_of_Joseph_de_Bauffremont_into_Smyrne_28_September_1766.jpg|thumb|Entry of [[Joseph de Bauffremont]] into [[İzmir]], 28 September 1766.]]


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.
:I'm the who have contributed the most of the text in this topic, and as a Turk, you should be able to see that I know more about this rather than you. Please stop ignoring the facts.
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


== Population according to the cited resources. ==
::As I posted initially, I am well aware of the Turkish view of the aftermath of the [[Treaty of Sèvres]]. You should be aware that the Turkish view that the Greeks occupated a Turkish city and then set it on fire is a Turkish view only: historical third parties as well as the Greeks cite that this was done by the Turks as part of the ethnic cleansing commonly referred to as the [[Pontian Greek Genocide|Hellenic Holocaust]]. I will attempt another edit to try and incorporate the Turk POV more, but if you insist on removing any material which is not consistent with Turkish POV we have a problem. That is why I will request peer assistance here. [[User:Darkelf|Jo]][[User talk:Darkelf|'''r''']] 19:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Hi there -- I'm seeing the population of Izmir -- as a city -- as 4,320,519 in 2019. E.g., see http://www.izmir.gov.tr/istatistiklerle-izmir
:::Neither Greek would say "Yes, I burned Izmir," nor a third part that wasn't cooperating with the Turks.
Am I missing something? where do you get the 2.9m number?


==Text sorting==
:::Here, we are not talking about the ancient city, Smyrna, but about Izmir. If you want to provide information on Smyrna, go to "Smyrna" page and tell what you have to say.
I noticed that [[Old Smyrna]], [[Smyrna]], and this article repeated a lot of topics especially on ancient times. Moreover much of it was not referenced and contained obvious editorial opinions. I thought a special effort should be made to define the contents of each article and move the text around accordingly. I brought it up in the talks of the other articles. There was no objection. So, I've been moving material around. I got the material out of here that belongs under Old Smyrna. Some of it is wrong. Now I'm going to concentrate on Old Smyrna. There is still some material here that belongs under Smyrna. This article should start with the Turks. I don't want to move the ancient new smyrna material into smyrna until I am ready to work on Smyrna. Later, but not too long[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 04:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


:{{replyto|Botteville}} This article "should start with the Turks"? Then why was everything deleted until Alexander the Great? Also why would you delete everything until "the Turks" as opposed to summarizing? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, this's not a place that we should judge what happened or what didn't happen. This's the job of historians. This's a topic of Izmir, a city of Republic of Turkey and of course the information resource about the city is Turkey, not Patagonia.
::Hi Mr. B. This reply is post my reply below. Whoa, wait a minute! Your standards are way too high to include humble me. Did I stop? Obviously, a gross error. All I did was move material to Smyrna, first pass. You're acting as though you expect to see a polished article. Not today. As for the summarizing, well, I gave some thought to that. The article is not really amenable to summarizing. You'd be summarizing half the article. I expect both articles to be large as it is. We are talking about a city of millions, the second-largest in Turkey. Do you think we could put New York Cily in a small article like this? But, Izmir is at that level. I think you will feel better about this after you check Smyrna. Right now you are asking the questions of an inquisitor. I feel like the target of a Stalinist purge trial or the trial of the perpatrators of the bomb plot against Hitler. Or worse yet, an interrogation by my wife. Oho, you've caught me, b'god. Caught me indeed. I sure am screwed now. I did say it should start with the Turks. And then I DID stop at Alexander, leaving out the Byzantines. Guilty, guilty, guilty. You got me now. I hope you are chuckling. If not, I don't know what to say, except this is not an interrogation. Why don't you put in whatever time you are going to allot for this. When I get back, maybe this year sometime, I will take a look.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


== Massive amount of deletion in article ==
:::Guess what would an American do if an Iraqi wrote "This's the most ugly city of ever" for New York City on Wikipedia? (I'm not discussing if it's ugly or not. Just an example.) This post would be removed. Because they are dominant in Wikipedia and think that what they say is "law."


Looks like there was a mass deletion by {{u|Botteville}} in 7-8 September 2023 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0zmir&diff=1174385688&oldid=1174276572]. Entire sections were deleted such as "Names and etymology" and everything in history section until Alexander the Great. This is the main article. Per [[Wikipedia:Summary style]], it should still have something in history until Alexander the Great. Child articles can be more detailed. The deletion of "Names and etymology" is also inexplicable. We now have an entire paragraph in the lead about:
:::Finally, just go search for information how beautiful Izmir is or just come to see it when you have time to see and be able to write more about it. Don't blame others while sitting on your chair.


"The modern name İzmir is the Turkish rendering of the Greek name Smyrna and "Smyrne" (Σμύρνη). In medieval times, Westerners used forms like Smire, Zmirra, Esmira, Ismira, which was rendered as İzmir into Turkish, originally written as ازمير with the Ottoman Turkish alphabet."
::::Exactly, this is not the place where we should judge what happened. Thus since history is not 100% clear, both views should be incorporated. That is what NPOV means. It is inevitable that to a Turk any indication the Turks were to blame for the fire that destroyed Smyrna is inacceptable, just like blaming the Greeks is inacceptable to the Greeks. This page is now listed as having an NPOV conflict in the hope that others may be able to establish a better version of this page. [[User:Darkelf|Jo]][[User talk:Darkelf|'''r''']] 20:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


While the lead doesn't cover large parts of the article such as education. Not to mention large amounts of information such as Ti-smurna was also lost without being summarized. Also given the article size, the removal seems unnecessary. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's clear to me, but I'm not making judgement, I'm telling what actually happened. I've read tens of thousands of historical documents and tens of books about this issue. My uncle is a historian has a great "deep knowledge" of Izmir history. I've had a chance to meet and talk with the most known historians of Izmir. So, please stop posting the "changed" version of my city and begin to call it Izmir. (We are talking about Izmir, not ancient Smyrna.) Or open a new page titled "Historical Fire Blames" and start to type what you know about this.


:<nowiki>Mr. B, Things like this are pretty much subjective. The bottom line is, I think you should follow your judgement. I can tell you what I intended and why, but of course I have no license to push that ahead of someone else's opinion. Now, Izmir is quite a large city, and there is much materal on the modern city there. There is also much material on the ancient city to be covered. It seemed to me all the material was way too much for a single article. But this is not a unique or unusual situation. There are a lot of big cities like that. The usual Wikipedia answer is to split the article. Some stuff should be offloaded to one or more other articles. In my experience, and I think you will find this to be true generally on WP, old cities like this that have gone on into the future and now have a modern history as well as an ancient are usually described by an article for the ancient and an article for the modern. I tentatively split the article. What I did NOT do is clean up and finish either one. We never finish anything around here. I do not see the point however in repeating the historical material twice! We don't need two etymologies, two archaeologies, two ancient histories, etc. My sentiment was that Izmir should cover the Turkish city. Smyrna should cover the Greek and Byzantine city. If necessary we could create a Smyrna (Byzantene) also. Why did I not continue on it? Well, I got careless and slipped in some modern opinions which when it was pointed out to me I quickly deleted. Then I thought I was too close and needed a break. Also this would give people like you a chance. I would like to say, go ahead, do your stuff. I know, however, how much work it is. Unfortunately it can't get any better unless someone does it. I'd rather not get back to this right now. There are articles worse off that I'm on to. I will eventually get there. Meanwhile I accept all your qvetches. Go ahead, do it the way YOU think it should be done. When I DO get back to it I will try to evaluate it afresh and tackle what seems to be the problems of those times. I will be starting with the same view, that the ancient material belongs primarily under Smyrna and should not be extensively under Izmir. The etylomoly for Smyrna, for example, is a Smyrna-article affair and does not belong in Izmir. The Turkish form, Izmir, however, would go under Izmir. Hope this helps. Ciao for now.~~~</nowiki> [[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::"It's clear to me what actually happened": please read [[NPOV]]. I am not trying to make judgement here, just trying to introduce the other point of view. I am sure there are many Greeks who are also clear on "what actually happened". I will make one more attempt to incorporate both points of view. [[User:Darkelf|Jo]][[User talk:Darkelf|'''r''']] 20:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::Oh, Mr. B, looking at your evaluation again I realize that you think I just plain deleted material from Wikipedia. I did not. Check under Smyrna and if you do not find that material there let me know or put it there yourself. Also the key to making the connection is the hatnotes. "This article is about the modern city of Izmir. For the predecessor ancient city, see Smyrna." If they are not there, put them in, will you? And, you comment about how there ought to be more about education in Izmir is undoubtedly true. But, putting it in gives us all the more reason to keep the split so we can have room to put it in. Remember, the name of the game is not to find fault with botteville, which is easy to do no doubt, but to build credible articles. Right now the ball is in your court.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Botteville}} see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]. This is the main article for all İzmir related articles, which includes [[Smyrna]] and [[Old Smyrna]]. What you did is equivalent to deleting [[United_States#Economy]] section and moving it to [[Economy of the United States]]. All cities are comprehensive. [[London]] includes "Prehistory" and "Roman London" sections, and doesn't just start with arrival of Anglo-Saxons. I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 07:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Mr. B, no, not all cities are comprehensive. That is the problem, is it not? For these large city articles, shall they be comprehensive or not? You want us to say by fiat, yes indeed they are so when the problem is still before us. That is begging the question in formal argumentation. You can't logically argue that they are ao when that is the question, whether they should be so. Your second begged issue is whether this should be "the main article for all Izmir related issues." You say it is. I say that is the question. I appear to oppose you on both issues, but that is specious. I don't oppose you at all. Well, yes there should be one continuous article for one continuous place. It should start with the first remains of the stone age. It should govern all articles about any parts of it. So what is my problem? Unexpectedly from a logical point of view it has nothing to do with either issue. Other matters inteject themselves, matters quite unexpected and quite unwanted. That is space! Yes, SPACE is our problem. I'm saying, SPACE forces us to go beyond logic, beyond what we intended. How can we get all that material into one article without resorting to an unacceptably large article? I know you would say it isn't unacceptable. But, it will be. Athens is running into this problem right now. You just can't put every last detail about Athens into one article. Maybe you've seen these solitary gigantic articles to which no one can add anything. The end of it is, someone puts on a tag stating the article is too large. Nobody can do anything with it. Now, Izmir has a good logical break. There was a war there between the Greeks and the Turks. The Turks won. Izmir was totally rebuilt by the street by street, name by name. I thought, this is a good breaking place. Greek Smyrna, Turkish Izmir. This is a serious break in continuity. Well, that's the end of my story. You want a different outcome. It happens on WP. You seem rather passionate about Turkish Izmir. Well, so am I, but we have this SPACE thing hanging over us. What is realistic here? What can fit into one article's space? [[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 09:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Again, see [[Wikipedia:Article size]]. The article wasn't too long. Your "moving" was totally unnecessary. Again, I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. You haven't given a reasonable reason why not. Your edits also look biased that you removed all pre-Greek history. İzmir has 8,500 years of habitation. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.2478/s13386-012-0013-5] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 10:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK. We've reached the impasse. I have too given reasonable reasons, but you don't agree. I proposed. You rejected. I got no counter-proposal. I come out on the losing end of the three reversions. We don't need to go thru that. The next move is to call for a consensus, someone to break the tie. Consider it called. As it may be some time in coming, au revoir for now. Good luck with it. Here's where I go from here: I'm mainly interested in the ancient turquoise coast, which was Anatolian and then Hellenic and then Byzantine. I'm taking a break from it for a bit. When I get back I will not be working on Izmir, as we disagree on that. The future is not an open book. The article might get much longer, as I suspect it will. You might change your mind, as I suspect you will. Someone else might take an interest. In essence you got Izmir for now. Good luck. There is one caution I would make. Not all the ancient material in Izmir is academically sound or referenced. Needs work. Once anyone gets started it might turn into something bigger than you thought. I got to go now. Got other things I want to work on. Ciao.[[Special:Contributions/76.23.135.216|76.23.135.216]] ([[User talk:76.23.135.216|talk]]) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 ==
:::::::Ha ha... I see your posts in every topic about Turkey or the Turks. You must be an Armenian, or a Greek or must be financed by them to change the truths everwhere about them in Wikipedia. But you are doing wrong.


{{edit semi-protected|İzmir|answered=yes}}
'''To the Anon Poster''': by making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks, you are hurting your argument. And please add either 3 or tildes (the character "~") at the end of your posts so we know who is speaking. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The population resing in İzmir increased by 112.274 people compared to 2019 and became 4.479.525 in 2023 according to Turkish Statistical Institution.


Source: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=The-Results-of-Address-Based-Population-Registration-System-2023-49684 [[User:Papyrus and Parchment|Papyrus and Parchment]] ([[User talk:Papyrus and Parchment|talk]]) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
~ I'm not hurting the argument. BTW, see the latest version of the page.
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Charliehdb|Charliehdb]] ([[User talk:Charliehdb|talk]]) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== İ ==
:Yes, you are hurting your position. Wiipedia is built on a basis of debate, compromise, & acknowledging other people's POVs. The words "You must be an Armenian, or a Greek or must be financed by them to change the truths everwhere about them in Wikipedia" suggest that you are not interested in finding a middle ground, but only pushing your own POV; further, those words suggest paranoia on your behalf. In both cases, it makes you appear less sympathetic, & alienates people who might agree with you. Consider my words, & act accordingly. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 23:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Is this just a capital i? Why does it have the dot? It seems to be a Turkish letter, but English doesn't have it, so why would this article use it? [[User:Wikifan153|Wikifan153]] ([[User talk:Wikifan153|talk]]) 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
~ I wish Flockmeal had let it

: It is so bad that Turkey following the principles of Kemalism is trying to erase a historic timeline of 3,000+ years by such a vandalistic way. You should be proud being a Turk for all your historic achievements, I am sure! [[User:Astavrou|Astavrou]] 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

----

'''to the anon:''' Hi, Can you please list here, on the talk page, some Web links which contain the info you want us to include in the article? We'll have a look and we will incorporate the info in the article in an NPOV way, acceptable by everyone. [[User:Optim|O]][[Rosicrucian|p]][[AMORC|t]][[Freemasonry|i]][[Western mystery tradition|m]]<sup><small>[[S L MacGregor Mathers|·]][[Hellenic Ministry of Culture|.]][[User_talk:Optim|·</small></sup>]] 21:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~ http://www.izmirturizm.gov.tr/e_history_of_izmir.html

First of all, this's a goverment site and there's no copyright issue. Some information I provided come from my mind, so I am unable to give a link for that. BTW, I hope Darkelf reads my latest edit, before Floskmeal's. We were about to come to an agreement.

~ To Flockmeal: Me and Darkelf don't do vandalism. We're from the same IPs (of two differen user) and trying to solve something. I've added some new paragraphs.

== POV Dispute over? ==

Given that there have been no more reverts can I safely assume that the history bit in this article is now sufficiently NPOV to remove the notice? Typed when the most recent edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Izmir&oldid=2670803], the one edit after it was the removal of the neutrality disputed note. [[User:Darkelf|Jo]][[User talk:Darkelf|'''r''']] 22:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Somebody reverted my changes and plugged in the claim of killing of christians by turks around symrna, about which i had provided references. maybe that person would want to discuss these changes here? any other comments are welcome of course. [[User:Ato|Ato]] 15:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Book by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin==
I removed the following:<br>
: ''This book gives an historical account of the events of Sept. 1922 when Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) led his troops into Smyrna (now Izmir)- a predominantly Christian City as 27 Allied warships including 3 American destroyers stood by. Turkish troops proceeded to victimize the residents of this city and subsequently set fire to this historic city and totally destroyed it. A massive coverup by agreement of Western Allies followed, because of oil and trade interests in Turkey.''
If there is any truth to these claims (especially ''predominantly Christian City'' and ''oil and trade interests in Turkey''), provide sources and include them in appropiate places in the article, not in description of a book. I'd like to point out that the killings at this time is mentioned in the article, as well as the dispute about the source of the fire. AFAIK, that dispute is not resolved conculusively. [[User:Ato|<tt>at</tt>]][[User talk:Ato|<b><tt>0</tt></b>]] 00:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

===Proper location for article===
Should this actually be located at [[&#304;zmir]]? [[User:Gerry Lynch|Gerry Lynch]] 23:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

===Contextual name===
Shouldn't the name of the city in its history change according to whatever name was used at the time? Compare [[Vyborg]], which was also called variously <i>Viborg</i> and <i>Viipuri</i> before it acquired its modern Russian name.

I have a proposal. We call the city '''Smýrna''' during the ancient period, then '''Smýrnē''' during the Hellenistic period, then '''Smýrni''' during the Byzantine period, then '''İzmirni''' from the start of Ottoman rule up to the point where the contraction '''İzmir''' became official by the Turkish government, with explanations about the gradual name changes. For example, Smýrna is an Aeolic name, but Smýrnē is Ionic/Attic/Koine. From the Byzantine period, ''ē'' became ''i'' in all contexts (except for [[Pontus]] and [[Cappadocia]], but those don't pertain to Smýrni), and İzmirni was the closest available Turkish approximation of the Greek name. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

== Editing needed ==

This article has a rambly quality and needs to be edited for clarity and flow.

Also, some sections come near broaching the neutrality question, in my opinion. The "Homer" section, for instance. The article uses purple prose to describe Homer and states without equivocation that he was born in Izmir, but a quick jump to the Homer article would make it clear that many places are claimed to be his birthplace and his entire existence is tstill hotly debated. Perhaps this could be worked into a "Cases for Izmir being Homer's birthplace" section? (after adding a link to the Homer page)

It's great to have such a wealth of information about such a beautiful city (I learned much from the article), but the article deserves a higher standard of composition.


----

You are welcome to try, but anyone who tries to edit any article to do with Greece and/or Turkey is asking for trouble. The Wikipedia Greek and Turkish Nationalist Parties are always ready to restart the war. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 13:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Can't we all get along? :)

---

Also, the part about Tantalus doesn't belong at all in the article. [[User:Gakrivas|Gakrivas]] 11:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Merge Smyrna into this article? ==

I added a boilerplate to merge Smyrna into this article. Both articles contain information about the ancient period of the city, and I think that either the information about the ancient city from this article should go to Smyrna, or the two should be merged.

On the other hand, maybe this is not the right time to attempt this, because there seems to be a Greek - Turkish edit war going on in that article, concerning the events of September 1922 (that part really belongs to this article, as it is not about ancient Smyrna). [[User:Gakrivas|Gakrivas]] 11:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Festival at Metropolis ==

''"... gave recitals and performances at various venues in the city and surrounding areas, including the ancient theatres at [[Ephesus]] and [[Metropolis]].''

I've been working on disambiguating Metropolis references. What's this referring to? Is there a place named Metropolis in Turkey? [[User:Whitejay251|Whitejay]]<sup>[[User talk:Whitejay251|251]]</sup> 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Metropolis is an antique Ion city near Izmir. It is actually situated near the town of Torbali and villages of Yenikoy and Ozbeykoy.

== Origin of the name "Izmir" ==

Not sure how true this is, but a Turkish friend of mine says that the Turkish form "Izmir" isn't actually a contraction of "I Smyrni", but that the initial vowel is inserted to fit into the Turkish phonological system - the "sm" or "zm" combination is not possible at the beginning of a word in Turkish, according to him, so an initial vowel is inserted to make it possible to pronounce. I think that it would also be an idea to mention that the "z" in "Izmir" reflects Greek pronunciation, if not spelling.



Though not a turkish speaker myself I can verify that this is a plausible theory. Turkish cypriots when speaking greek would add an i in front of certain words starting with z or s. [[User:Mavros|Mavros]] 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== merge with [[Smyrna]] ==
Opinions? [[User:Tedernst|Tedernst]] 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am writing the page in Turkish on Smyrna, I and also made some contributions to the already existent İzmir page, and I am approaching the Smyrna page in the sense of the description of the archaeological sites (there are more than one) as well as their discovery and excavation. Anything on historical events should belong to the 'İzmir' page, starting from the beginning, since it is the history of the city. That holds with the general pattern in the Turkish wikipedia. There is a page on Foça, and there is one on the archaeological site of Phokaia (with a description of the temple etc.). Turks (I am Turkish, by the way) would say 'Smyrna excavations' or 'Phokaia excavations' etc. İzmir is the name of the city for about 700 years now, and it is its name today. If article headings for place names and the articles for their history had to be based on what they used to be called at a given period in the past, a lot of new pages would need to be opened for virtually the entire Greek geography.

As for the great fire of İzmir in 1922, the general pattern in history is that it is usually the fleeing armies who burn cities, not the victorious ones. And in the ten days between the Greek rout in Afyon on the 30th of August, 1922 and the final retrieval of İzmir by the Turkish Army on the 9th of September, there has been terrible precedents of cities other than İzmir in Western Anatolia that have been put to flames by the Greek army (Uşak, Alaşehir -a town with a great Greek and Christian past, that one, ancient Philadelphia-, Turgutlu -about 1/8 left intact-, and Manisa)

--[[User:Cretanforever|Cretanforever]] 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Whether to merge or not ==

Smyrna and Izmir are essentially two very different cities that have absolutely nothing to do with eachother, other than the geographic location. Smyrna should always have a separate article. --[[User:Eupator|Eupator]] 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree. Smyrna was renamed Izmir when the Turks took it in 1922. It was very different in 1923 than it had been in 1921, but it had the same buildings, the same farms, etc. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Aydinoglu Turks took İzmir in 1320, the Genoese took back the lower castle (called St. Peter) in 1344, Turks held the upper castle (Kadifekale, Mount Pagos), Tamerlane came and destroyed St. Peter castle in 1403, chased the Genoese and gave the whole city to Aydinoglu Turks, and the Ottoman (Osmanli-Osmanoglu) took it together with the entire Aydinoglu principality in 1420. Apart from the brief interval between 1919 and 1922, the city has been a Turkish land since, and named İzmir. It wasn't renamed under the present Republic of Turkey, but before. I notice that approach in many Greek minds. As if the present names of Turkish cities were recent inventions. They are not. The Ottoman administrators (and the Turkish population) did not pronounce the names Smyrna or Constantinople, they said İzmir and İstanbul (and else). These were their official names.

İzmir's Greek population increased due to migrations from the islands and the Peloponnese (which, at that time, were Ottoman too, sorry!, I meant Turkish:) when it became an international trade center as of the beginning of the 18th century. In 1717, there were only two Orthodox chuches in the city (compared to 19 mosques and 18 synagogues) (source: Ανάγνωστοπούλου Σ. 1997). In 1912, 58.5 % of the city's population was Greek, 33 % Turkish.

I tried to draw comparisons with other cities that were founded by one people and brought to our day by another. There is a brief article on Nieuw Amsterdam, but New York City is (naturally) treated under the article with that heading. There is no article for Nouvelle-Orleans, that city's whole history is recounted under 'New Orleans'. --[[User:Cretanforever|Cretanforever]] 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I really do not agree in the proposed merging. Basic historic knowledge suffice here! [[User:Astavrou|Astavrou]] 19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Merge''' - think of the cities in Poland which were majority German (and ruled by Germans) for hundreds of years until 1945 and then the Germans fled and the cities became 100% Polish. They only have one article, eg [[Wroclaw]]. The cultural, linguistic and ethnic transformation was total but that is irrelevant. It's the same city, just with different people living there. [[User:Jameswilson|Jameswilson]] 03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Merge''' - Izmir is just the turkish language adaptation of Smyrna, like Istanbul/Constantinople. Same word different spelling. Same city different people. And I think this comment has its place in this particular discussion too, as extremely relevant:
:::I have a proposal. We call the city Smýrna during the ancient period, then Smýrnē during the Hellenistic period, then Smýrni during the Byzantine period, then İzmirni from the start of Ottoman rule up to the point where the contraction İzmir became official by the Turkish government, with explanations about the gradual name changes. For example, Smýrna is an Aeolic name, but Smýrnē is Ionic/Attic/Koine. From the Byzantine period, ē became i in all contexts (except for Pontus and Cappadocia, but those don't pertain to Smýrni), and İzmirni was the closest available Turkish approximation of the Greek name. - Gilgamesh 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, a side-notice: my own grandfathers left Smyrna as refugees in 1922. [[User:Michalis Famelis|Michalis Famelis]] 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:44, 26 November 2024

Image

[edit]
Entry of Joseph de Bauffremont into İzmir, 28 September 1766.

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

Population according to the cited resources.

[edit]

Hi there -- I'm seeing the population of Izmir -- as a city -- as 4,320,519 in 2019. E.g., see http://www.izmir.gov.tr/istatistiklerle-izmir Am I missing something? where do you get the 2.9m number?

Text sorting

[edit]

I noticed that Old Smyrna, Smyrna, and this article repeated a lot of topics especially on ancient times. Moreover much of it was not referenced and contained obvious editorial opinions. I thought a special effort should be made to define the contents of each article and move the text around accordingly. I brought it up in the talks of the other articles. There was no objection. So, I've been moving material around. I got the material out of here that belongs under Old Smyrna. Some of it is wrong. Now I'm going to concentrate on Old Smyrna. There is still some material here that belongs under Smyrna. This article should start with the Turks. I don't want to move the ancient new smyrna material into smyrna until I am ready to work on Smyrna. Later, but not too longBotteville (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville: This article "should start with the Turks"? Then why was everything deleted until Alexander the Great? Also why would you delete everything until "the Turks" as opposed to summarizing? Bogazicili (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. B. This reply is post my reply below. Whoa, wait a minute! Your standards are way too high to include humble me. Did I stop? Obviously, a gross error. All I did was move material to Smyrna, first pass. You're acting as though you expect to see a polished article. Not today. As for the summarizing, well, I gave some thought to that. The article is not really amenable to summarizing. You'd be summarizing half the article. I expect both articles to be large as it is. We are talking about a city of millions, the second-largest in Turkey. Do you think we could put New York Cily in a small article like this? But, Izmir is at that level. I think you will feel better about this after you check Smyrna. Right now you are asking the questions of an inquisitor. I feel like the target of a Stalinist purge trial or the trial of the perpatrators of the bomb plot against Hitler. Or worse yet, an interrogation by my wife. Oho, you've caught me, b'god. Caught me indeed. I sure am screwed now. I did say it should start with the Turks. And then I DID stop at Alexander, leaving out the Byzantines. Guilty, guilty, guilty. You got me now. I hope you are chuckling. If not, I don't know what to say, except this is not an interrogation. Why don't you put in whatever time you are going to allot for this. When I get back, maybe this year sometime, I will take a look.Botteville (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massive amount of deletion in article

[edit]

Looks like there was a mass deletion by Botteville in 7-8 September 2023 [1]. Entire sections were deleted such as "Names and etymology" and everything in history section until Alexander the Great. This is the main article. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, it should still have something in history until Alexander the Great. Child articles can be more detailed. The deletion of "Names and etymology" is also inexplicable. We now have an entire paragraph in the lead about:

"The modern name İzmir is the Turkish rendering of the Greek name Smyrna and "Smyrne" (Σμύρνη). In medieval times, Westerners used forms like Smire, Zmirra, Esmira, Ismira, which was rendered as İzmir into Turkish, originally written as ازمير with the Ottoman Turkish alphabet."

While the lead doesn't cover large parts of the article such as education. Not to mention large amounts of information such as Ti-smurna was also lost without being summarized. Also given the article size, the removal seems unnecessary. Bogazicili (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. B, Things like this are pretty much subjective. The bottom line is, I think you should follow your judgement. I can tell you what I intended and why, but of course I have no license to push that ahead of someone else's opinion. Now, Izmir is quite a large city, and there is much materal on the modern city there. There is also much material on the ancient city to be covered. It seemed to me all the material was way too much for a single article. But this is not a unique or unusual situation. There are a lot of big cities like that. The usual Wikipedia answer is to split the article. Some stuff should be offloaded to one or more other articles. In my experience, and I think you will find this to be true generally on WP, old cities like this that have gone on into the future and now have a modern history as well as an ancient are usually described by an article for the ancient and an article for the modern. I tentatively split the article. What I did NOT do is clean up and finish either one. We never finish anything around here. I do not see the point however in repeating the historical material twice! We don't need two etymologies, two archaeologies, two ancient histories, etc. My sentiment was that Izmir should cover the Turkish city. Smyrna should cover the Greek and Byzantine city. If necessary we could create a Smyrna (Byzantene) also. Why did I not continue on it? Well, I got careless and slipped in some modern opinions which when it was pointed out to me I quickly deleted. Then I thought I was too close and needed a break. Also this would give people like you a chance. I would like to say, go ahead, do your stuff. I know, however, how much work it is. Unfortunately it can't get any better unless someone does it. I'd rather not get back to this right now. There are articles worse off that I'm on to. I will eventually get there. Meanwhile I accept all your qvetches. Go ahead, do it the way YOU think it should be done. When I DO get back to it I will try to evaluate it afresh and tackle what seems to be the problems of those times. I will be starting with the same view, that the ancient material belongs primarily under Smyrna and should not be extensively under Izmir. The etylomoly for Smyrna, for example, is a Smyrna-article affair and does not belong in Izmir. The Turkish form, Izmir, however, would go under Izmir. Hope this helps. Ciao for now.~~~ Botteville (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Mr. B, looking at your evaluation again I realize that you think I just plain deleted material from Wikipedia. I did not. Check under Smyrna and if you do not find that material there let me know or put it there yourself. Also the key to making the connection is the hatnotes. "This article is about the modern city of Izmir. For the predecessor ancient city, see Smyrna." If they are not there, put them in, will you? And, you comment about how there ought to be more about education in Izmir is undoubtedly true. But, putting it in gives us all the more reason to keep the split so we can have room to put it in. Remember, the name of the game is not to find fault with botteville, which is easy to do no doubt, but to build credible articles. Right now the ball is in your court.Botteville (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Botteville: see Wikipedia:Summary style. This is the main article for all İzmir related articles, which includes Smyrna and Old Smyrna. What you did is equivalent to deleting United_States#Economy section and moving it to Economy of the United States. All cities are comprehensive. London includes "Prehistory" and "Roman London" sections, and doesn't just start with arrival of Anglo-Saxons. I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. Bogazicili (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. B, no, not all cities are comprehensive. That is the problem, is it not? For these large city articles, shall they be comprehensive or not? You want us to say by fiat, yes indeed they are so when the problem is still before us. That is begging the question in formal argumentation. You can't logically argue that they are ao when that is the question, whether they should be so. Your second begged issue is whether this should be "the main article for all Izmir related issues." You say it is. I say that is the question. I appear to oppose you on both issues, but that is specious. I don't oppose you at all. Well, yes there should be one continuous article for one continuous place. It should start with the first remains of the stone age. It should govern all articles about any parts of it. So what is my problem? Unexpectedly from a logical point of view it has nothing to do with either issue. Other matters inteject themselves, matters quite unexpected and quite unwanted. That is space! Yes, SPACE is our problem. I'm saying, SPACE forces us to go beyond logic, beyond what we intended. How can we get all that material into one article without resorting to an unacceptably large article? I know you would say it isn't unacceptable. But, it will be. Athens is running into this problem right now. You just can't put every last detail about Athens into one article. Maybe you've seen these solitary gigantic articles to which no one can add anything. The end of it is, someone puts on a tag stating the article is too large. Nobody can do anything with it. Now, Izmir has a good logical break. There was a war there between the Greeks and the Turks. The Turks won. Izmir was totally rebuilt by the street by street, name by name. I thought, this is a good breaking place. Greek Smyrna, Turkish Izmir. This is a serious break in continuity. Well, that's the end of my story. You want a different outcome. It happens on WP. You seem rather passionate about Turkish Izmir. Well, so am I, but we have this SPACE thing hanging over us. What is realistic here? What can fit into one article's space? Botteville (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see Wikipedia:Article size. The article wasn't too long. Your "moving" was totally unnecessary. Again, I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. You haven't given a reasonable reason why not. Your edits also look biased that you removed all pre-Greek history. İzmir has 8,500 years of habitation. [2] Bogazicili (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We've reached the impasse. I have too given reasonable reasons, but you don't agree. I proposed. You rejected. I got no counter-proposal. I come out on the losing end of the three reversions. We don't need to go thru that. The next move is to call for a consensus, someone to break the tie. Consider it called. As it may be some time in coming, au revoir for now. Good luck with it. Here's where I go from here: I'm mainly interested in the ancient turquoise coast, which was Anatolian and then Hellenic and then Byzantine. I'm taking a break from it for a bit. When I get back I will not be working on Izmir, as we disagree on that. The future is not an open book. The article might get much longer, as I suspect it will. You might change your mind, as I suspect you will. Someone else might take an interest. In essence you got Izmir for now. Good luck. There is one caution I would make. Not all the ancient material in Izmir is academically sound or referenced. Needs work. Once anyone gets started it might turn into something bigger than you thought. I got to go now. Got other things I want to work on. Ciao.76.23.135.216 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

[edit]

The population resing in İzmir increased by 112.274 people compared to 2019 and became 4.479.525 in 2023 according to Turkish Statistical Institution.

Source: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=The-Results-of-Address-Based-Population-Registration-System-2023-49684 Papyrus and Parchment (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İ

[edit]

Is this just a capital i? Why does it have the dot? It seems to be a Turkish letter, but English doesn't have it, so why would this article use it? Wikifan153 (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]