Talk:İzmir: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	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)[reply] ; Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on August 9, 2006; Archive 2 - Archived on November 24, 2006; Archive 3 - To be Archived on ... ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:25, 27 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the İzmir article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Turkey High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Anatolian Civilizations task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But the BBC doesn't use the "İ" on İzmit either[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Oppose No need to downgrade accuracy. Húsönd 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the present title is inaccurate; it misrepresents English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. Húsönd 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image

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

Turkish Portal

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

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 [[2]] or aggresive without giving an argument [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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?