Talk:Çeşme

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

Comments[edit]

English[edit]

This page needs help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.95.189 (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name of Chios island[edit]

I do not see why we should use the Turkish name for the island of Chios in this article. All relevant names (including the Turkish one) are mentioned in the island's article. The common English name of the island is Chios and I see no other context here for using the Turkish form or the Greek form for that matter (i.e. Χιος). - Zippocar 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

greek pigs everywhere ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.57.53 (talk) 09:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant because this is a Turkey-related article. Khoikhoi 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The island is not in Turkey, not that I have any problem at all (!) with its Turkish name (or any other name for that matter). I see no "relevant" context here, let's say a history narrative from the early 19th century that somewhat warrants to mention how the island was referred in an Ottoman document, by Turkish people or something. In this particular example I think that the island was mentioned in Western (English) historiography as "Chios" , but this is not the point anyway. Point is, that, using the your logic, we are warranted to mention the Turkish names of -all- places in every article (note: not in its particular article) that is somewhat connected to Turkey, Ottoman empire, culture ect or vise versa (for Greek names).
On the other hand, I am not saying that the Turkish name must be "confined" only in the Chios article. A good example would be if some notable Ottoman Turkish figure was born on the island, then certainly it would warrant to use the common contemporary name (in his/her article), paying of course particular attention to English sources (since we are on an English-speaking encyclopaedia). -- Zippocar 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zippo, I agree this is not a dictionary 100% and I've been arguing that in many places. Although, there are Greek translations on many many many many Turkish city names e.g. Ankara, Ordu, Izmir, Ephesus (just a start) - their relevance is from a historical perspective where the city may have been founded by Greeks or what have you (Constantinople), and nobody argues with that relevance - although I do not understand some of the other translations myself Ayran (when it's an exact phonetic translation in cyrillic for example). But in this case, when you say the "ferry leaves from Turkey to Chios", well, there are no ferries to Chios from Turkey, there are ferries to Sakiz from Turkey. Make sense ? This is in the same context as Ephesus, where the Wiki entry is actually the Greek name, with the Turkish name as secondary, when the city itself is in Turkey. It's ok to add Greek names, but deleting the Turkish name in this case is harmful, especially if you are an English speaker trying to catch a ferry chios from Turkey (hey, I saw it on Wiki!!, what do you mean there's no Chios?). So I'm reverting to Khoikhoi version. Side note to Khoikhoi: I'm not "stalking" you and never did, it's just that you have your hand in 90% of the Turkish pages I've been to, and ALL without any real contribs from what I can tell -just a million reverts. Nice job!!! Can you teach to me how to do that? --Oguz1 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, you seem to use the 'Turkish name' for all the wrong reasons. Chios is the common English name and usually this name is applied within Wikipedia (some exceptions, which may serve the 'encyclopaedic', historical, etymological or whatnot context do apply as explained in my previous post). There are flights from Athens to Istanbul, should we always mention the Greek name Konstantinopolis and/or use the English form Constantinople when referring to some modern (contemporary) context? I presume that there are flights from Ankara to Vienna or Damascus; should we use, in every article relevant to Turkey, the Turkish names Viyana and Sam (Şam) respectively? Simply put, there is no reason whatsoever for applying the name just because people from Cesme are presumably booking tickets for Sakiz. This is not a Turkish tourist rough-guide.
The Turkish name is mentioned in the respective article, thus covering some historical context. In this article it somewhat looks like an antagonistic attempt for countering the use of the Greek name Κρηνη. --Zippocar 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice :) Certain users, me included, have thousands of pages on our watchlists, and Khoikhoi is someone who has been interested many articles and subjects relating to the region.. The more you stick around, the reverts start taking more of your time - just how it works.. lol. Besides he is an administrator, therefore he actually has to do maintenance work from time to time.. Baristarim 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no offense, fresh air never hurt anyone is all i'm saying. --Oguz1 18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you :) Baristarim 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, airports use a standards for city names and communication and it is law in most countries, for safety reasons. if there's a maritime law for island hopping, or some other law that says you can't use the local, colloquial, or the a.k.a. name, i'd like to know about. nobody is being subversive with the name here. bottom line is, it's useful info if you are reading about a ferry that goes to Chios - who else in the world would care about that in the first place but a tourist? the whole thing about the ferry itself seems like Greek tourism office propaganda in the first place, but nobody is complaining about that. and that was just one example of why it's relevant - not the whole reason. I see no ferry going to cesme on chios page - maybe we should add it? --Oguz1 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly that curious antagonistic attitude I was referring above. Please present your argument/s and refrain from suggesting imaginary "Greek tourism office propaganda" nonsense. Please -- Zippocar 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is as it was pointed out before - this is an article about a Turkish town - and it's perfectly fine to include the Turkish translation of "whatever" in there for whatever reasons. No other reasons needed. That's it. My earlier examples were in hopes to make understand the relevance in a certain context. And I was wrong, sorry I tried to explain it with sarcastic examples. --Oguz1 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just delete the paragraphe about Chios. It is not important anyway. Achi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.167.9 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyrights violation[edit]

Section: "The Çesme Peninsula, lapped by the waters of the Aegean Sea, lies west of İzmir, in Turkey's Aegean region. Çesme, meaning fountain in Turkish, derives from the many sources of water found in the area. It is one of Turkey's most beautiful stretches, surrounded by clear blue seas, with landscapes of cultivated fields of aniseed, sesame and artichokes dotted with fig and gum trees. In the un-spoilt bays you can swim in absolute peace. Visitors will find excellent holiday accommodations, restaurants and sports and entertainment facilities. Çesme has an international harbor linked to İzmir with a superb highway (80 km)."

The above seems like a possible copyvio from pages as [1] and [2] to name just but two. I would appreciate if someone more experienced than me would look into it. --Zippocar 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastic is not a brandname of Çeşme.[edit]

I discern some desperate efforts from Turks (in this article and other articles) to propagate that Çeşme produces mastic. Please my friends be patient and try to rein your gluttony, Chios is not yet a part of Turkey. I live in South Chios and I am mastic producer. This is the only place in the world were there is mastic production. Not even in the North part of this small island. So Mastic is not a brandname of Çeşme, and despite the climate similarities, mastic of the Chios quality is not known to be able to produced in Çeşme. The Cesme mastic production is close to zero. The only source of mastic for Çeşme is the blooming contraband activities. Maybe this is the reason for these lies. I think this endeavor may shoots to rationalize the product of smuggling.

See here for unsuccesfull attempts: ecologic-evaluation-of-pistaciahttp://burcincokuysal.blogspot.com/2010/01/ecologic-evaluation-of-pistacia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardos (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Çeşme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Çeşme&oldid=1211981542"