Jump to content

Talk:İzmir

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AjaxSmack (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 23 August 2013 (→Requested move 3: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
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:

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. - EstoyAquí(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:

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:

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]
  • 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]
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

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

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]

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?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:New IzmirAirport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:New IzmirAirport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 4.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 7.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 7.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izmir Alsancak 8.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Izmir Alsancak 8.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oteller Street Basmane Izmir.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oteller Street Basmane Izmir.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population

In June, an edit dated the claim as to Izmir's population to 2010. Which would be plausible if it were only the city or metro area, however it's claimed that the metro area is defined as Izmir province. I doubt that say Kınık is really part of metro Izmir, but we'll go with that. A noted at Izmir Province, the 2010 population of Izmir Province is about 3.95 million.[4] I'm changing it to reflect that, but if someone has a better estimate of Izmir's actual metro area.(I'm not sure how this is defined, but this map seems plausible, we should go with that, I think. Regards, Quintucket (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Chart on Great Fire of Smyrna and Izmir Pages

Ethnic composition of Smyrna in 1922 according to Katherine Fleming[1]

  Greeks (49%)
  Turks (24%)
  others (Armenians, Jews, Levantines) (27%)

This pie chart under International Port City on the Izmir page is being deleted by me because the source (Fleming) does not provide the data for the pie chart. Here is the source from Fleming's book Greece- A Jewish History (pg. 81): "The Greek army fled in chaos, heading for Smyrna on the coast, where the Greek population outnumbered the Turkish by a ration of two to one. Before the mass arrival of the refugees, there were about 150,000 living in the city, almost half the population." She provides 1. no percentages, 2. no discussion of others, 3. doesn't even tell us whether there more others or more Turks 4. Is not giving raw data to create percentages either on page 81 or in footnotes. The numbers in the pie chart are an invention. The construction of this pie chart from those two sentences in Fleming is a misrepresentation of her statement. I have tried to resolve this on the Talk page of one person who has reverted edits on this pie chart, but to no avail. Fleming does not provide sufficient data to be a reliable source for the pie chart, and so it gets deleted. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the main reason of my this edit. Thanks for the proper explanation.--Rapsar (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know adding these pie charts are useful, but we can add charts that contains "official numbers" (like this).--Rapsar (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my rationale here [5], and you never bothered to reply. The pie chart is a faithful representation of the figures Fleming cites. I understand that Turkish and consistently pro-Turkish users might not like the chart, but that is not a reason for removal. Athenean (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me this, what number means "Almost Half"? 49%, 46%, 43%, 40%, or a guide to teaching statistics that also uses it to mean 40%? Here is a person named Katherine Fleming, no relation, who says almost half means 45%. What does Almost Half mean in this context? And here's the kicker, this question can't be answered using Katherine Fleming's book, because she doesn't provide it. (You also might want to think about why you round down the number for one ethnic group but round up the other, even though both are at .5, but I'm sure that was unintentional) You got me, I am hereby pushing my POV that wikipedia should not misrepresent the claims of reputable sources and invent numbers where the sources provide none. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in? I like the idea of having a pie chart, but can I ask why we are using Flemming's numbers? Though I've always been inclined to take the Ottoman censuses with a grain of salt, personally I feel like if we're going to use only one source, there's a strong argument George Horton's estimates, given that 1. He was in a good position to know and 2. while his numbers are closer to the Ottoman ones than the Greek ones, nobody could accuse Consul Horton of having a pro-Turkish bias.
There's also the advantage of Horton's estimates including specific numbers for the Jewish and Armenian millets, and estimates for foreigners. The lumping of Jews, Armenians, and foreigners into the "other" column is what I took to be one of AbstractIllusions's main objections on the other thread. It'd say it's an important point to consider, since identifying only specific numbers for Greeks and Turks belies the truly cosmopolitan nature of old Smyrna. —Quintucket (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Flemming, I take "almost half" to mean 45-49%. The population of the city at the time was 300,000 as given by various sources, so 48% sounds right. But even if we change the numbers around a bit (e.g 48%, 24%, 28%), the chart will still end up looking approximately the same. Notice I have added "approximately" to the legend. But I suppose we could use Horton's numbers, if people prefer. Athenean (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I like the idea of having a pie chart, but can I ask why we are using Flemming's numbers? Author note: agree with sentiment but disagree that Fleming has numbers for construction of such a chart Though I've always been inclined to take the Ottoman censuses with a grain of salt, personally I feel like if we're going to use only one source, there's a strong argument George Horton's estimates" Support All I've asked for from the beginning are actual numbers and not invented numbers. I don't care where they come from and don't care if a pie chart exists or not, but don't like numbers which are derived from broad qualitative claims in the source they are ascribed to. A pie chart ascribed to Fleming is inaccurate. A pie chart ascribed to anyone else that actually provides numbers or percentages for the pie chart, cool! AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate ethnic composition of Smyrna before the Great Fire of Smyrna, according to contemporary American consul, George Horton.[2] Other sources suggest that Greeks outnumbered Turks by as much as 2:1.

  Turks (43%)
  Greeks (39%)
  Armenians (6.5%)
  Jews (6.5%)
  Foreigners (5%)

I've created a pie chart above calculating percentages based on Horton's estimate. How does it look? —Quintucket (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks kinda like a side-ways peace sign. I think "foreigners" should be capitalized. Also, for NPOV reasons, could a line be added after Horton sourcing that says something like: "Other sources contend that Greeks outnumbered Turkish population by 2-1. (Source: Flemming)" I think introducing the debate directly in the chart rather than just in the text of the article is the best NPOV method. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pie! I also like the idea of presenting Flemings 2:1 in the caption. Just one additional point: Is it possible to fix a year for Horton's numbers. If it is pre-1922, it might explain some of the difference between him and Fleming. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horton's numbers come from The Blight of Asia, and refer to the period he was consul there, either 1911-1917, or 1919-1922. I assume the latter. —Quintucket (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the disclaimer and I've capitalized "Foreigners," but I haven't added a cite for the disclaimer, since after seeing AbstractIllusions's earlier protestations, I'm not completely sold on the strength of Flemming as a source. The book in question is about the Jews in Greek territories, of which Smyrna was part only briefly in the modern era, and it seems like she she may have mentioned the Greek:Turkish ratio as an offhand comment (though I can't check this at the moment). I'm fairly certain that she's not the only one who's made similar claims about the Greek population, and if we can find one, I'd prefer a source that's more focused on the whole history of Izmir/Smyrna, the Greek population of Anatolia, or the Greco-Turkish War. —Quintucket (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is great! Flemming's sources for the claims are a French newspaper from the period (1918), and it isn't easily findable. I can't find additional data that corroborates the 2-1 claim. The closes I come is Milton's Paradise Lost: Smyrna: "A glance at the 1913 census reveals why his job was not easy. Smyrna's Christians outnumbered the Muslims by more than two to one; his was a majority Christian city in a resolutely Muslim world." (pg. 14) But note, he is talking solely religion and not ethnicity (the problem of possibly other coding errors leading to different percentages). FYI: The Inter-allied Commission on Smyrna (1920) used the following numbers for the Smyrna Zone or Aidin Vilayet (they aren't quite clear) (American estimates): Muslims 325,000 (42.9%), Greeks 375,000 (49.5%), Armenians 18,000 (2.3%), Jews 40,000 (5.3%). Percentages added by me (standard rounding rules at .05=up, .04=down), showing a clear Greek largest percentage. Just putting this stuff out there to get the best pie chart possible, don't know if it adds anything. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although Horton seems ok, at first glance, I have some questions about his estimations: are they pre-wwi or post wwi or just before the events of Sept. 1922? Also where did he base such estimations?Alexikoua (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His numbers are those of the American Consul General (his office) and were considered the most reliable at the time (See Montgomery for this claim) and based sometime in the period around 1919 (according to Congressional record). Hope that helps. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When İzmir was occupied by the Greek Army on 15 May 1919, many of the city's Turks moved to Aydın or other Turkish-controlled cities in the inner Aegean region of Anatolia for the safety of their children and families, so any "unofficial census" figures from 1919-1922 will not include the Turks who fled the city during the Greek occupation. Therefore, a census figure "prior to the Greek invasion of 15 May 1919" will be a more realistic one. 88.251.102.56 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Fleming and George Horton are much better sources than highly partisan and unreliable Ottoman "statistics". Athenean (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time gentlemen, please

I think it is time now to introduce the (second) pie chart to the articles Izmir and Great fire of Smyrna. There seems to be no controversy about the Horton pie, and it would greatly add to the information in the articles. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Average Pie Chart

Why not get the average from both the neutral Horton and the neutral Flemming? Why is this chart such an issue? It would be one of the most interesting things in the article. I dont see why certain editors fear it so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.229.19 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Numbered list item

Requested move 3

Izmir → İzmir – per WP:CRITERIA "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" with en.wp Turkish geo articles, e.g. İzmit. Lonely Planet Turkey 2010 "İzmir's synagogues - İzmir still has a sizeable Jewish population – although not nearly as large as it was in Ottoman times – and it is possible to take a tour of some of the city's beautiful old synagogues". In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The English name doesn't have a dot on "I". In fact, we should change non-English names (which were not a result of a discussion by the way) to English ones, like in the case of Ismit. Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most sources in English use the undotted I - including the US Embassy, the UK FCO, Merriam-Webster, and the news sources cited in previous discussions. The city is widely known in English as Izmir, as we use Istanbul, not İstanbul, Montreal not Montréal, in contrast with any number of smaller places where we use local spelling. Izmir and Istanbul are not exonyms, they are the preferred forms in English. Lonely Planet is very much in the minority.--Mhockey (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics. Wikipedia does not and, for those readers alarmed by unusual typography, the diacritics can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with them can ignore the dot on the i. Wikipedia is an online, Unicode-based reference work that need be not be dumbed down to reflect archaic typographical limitations. —  AjaxSmack  01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a tiny minority of small and medium settlements which use non-English letters, but that's not an argument for a move. Well known metropolises avoid that (Istanbul for example). I've also can't find a German city with umlaut or sz here, or a Greek with diacritics.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have not heard of Göttingen. And I'm sure your "assessment" of "tiny minority" is empirically based. Cavann (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I've said, "small and medium settlements" (i.e. 100k inhabitants), not a big metropolis like this one.Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Wikipedia always keeps diacritics except for exonyms whether a small or large city. Cities over 100,000 with diacritics in their titles include São Paulo, Bogotá, Kraków, Ciudad Juárez, Brasília, Cần Thơ, Łódź, São Gonçalo, Málaga, Biên Hòa, Parañaque, Timișoara, Las Piñas, Gdańsk, Iași, Córdoba, Chișinău, A Coruña, Düsseldorf, Białystok, Târgu Mureș, San José, Liège, Częstochowa, Reykjavík, Türkmenabat, Jyväskylä, Bălți, Forlì, Košice, Cap-Haïtien, Plzeň, Orléans, Agualva-Cacém, Västerås, Bærum, Örebro, and Durrës. Several of those are national capitals. In Turkey, there are 65 cities over 100,000. Of those, over 25 have diacritics or dotless/dotted is in their titles. Far from being hard to find, I can't find an example where Wikipedia strips a diacritic with maybe the exception of Zurich, Da Nang, Riga, and this article. —  AjaxSmack  01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fleming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianopolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. ISBN 978-1-903656-15-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:İzmir&oldid=569799704"