Talk:Linobambaki

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Linovamvaki → Linobambaki – The common English-language form of the name is "Linobambaki," which is also often used in academic literature and historical works. The current Wikipedia article uses the name "Linovamvaki" it is only found in around 85 sources in Google Books and does not have any valid ngrams in Google Ngram Viever. However, the word "Linobambaki" is found in around 1,850 sources in Google Books and does have valid ngrams in Google Ngram Viever. Furthermore, search engine results also supports this common knowledge. Ghuzz (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support more common usage in the sources. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to begin with the official sources. The English version of "The Latins of Cyprus" work published by, the Press and Information Office of the Cypriot Government (Republic of Cyprus), is an important source due to the fact that the Linobambaki community is from Cyprus. Secondly, this fact is supported when we observe modern English literature. For example, Stuart Land's "The Linobambaki Prophecy" or "The Minorities of Cyprus" published by Cambridge Scholars are both primary examples of this as well. Perhaps one of the most influential text is William Hepworth Dixon’s “British Cyprus” published in 1879, which best exemplifies how deeply rooted the transformation of this word has been on the English language as well as “Missionary Herald” published in 1852 by American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. These are just few examples of thousands of sources (besides Google Books, Ngram and search engine results that I point out before) clearly proves that the form of the word, “Linobambaki”. For example, the Wikipedia title currently used is like referring to “English” as “Anglosh,” and was probably used by someone who didn’t have any knowledge about the topic.Ghuzz (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support sources shows that common form of the name is Linobambaki. Pasedembo (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

April 2015
Regarding the reinstatement of this material: "reawakening of Linobambaki roots in Turkish Cypriot society that has led to the formation of organizations and groups" is a highly contentious claim and cannot be tolerated without a reliable source. Even if sources supporting the presence of some movements are present, these should not be presented as movements representing all Linobambaki and their popularity/strength should be taken into consideration to determine if they merit inclusion.

Regarding the photo of the protester with the Cypriot flag, I have removed it as it seems to be the continuation of the same POV-pushing original research. The people who displayed Cypriot flags were apparently members of the Yasemin Movement. They are not represented in the parliament and are a rather minor movement and should by no means be included in the article as the representative of a communal movement.

Given this, I fail to see how the Turkish settlement is relevant here.

--GGT (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The source provided only states that there is a "Linobambaki organization", to which a couple claims that they belong. Quoting from the article: "explains Oz Karajan from LINOBAMBAKI organization", this is the only possible reference to such a movement and there are no indications regarding its popularity, aims or anything stated in the article. The statement remains one of heavy original research (WP:OR) and POV (WP:NPOV). And again the couple's tone of speech is extremely biased, ruling out the possibility that any of their claims could be reliable. Without any further sound evidence with regards to its aims, its popularity, and the causal relationship between Turkish policies and such a mass movement, such a statement cannot stay on the article. Anonymous user, could you please justify your reinstatement of the Cypriot flag photo as a representative of the Linobambaki community today, with due consideration of the fact that this is a rather big community comprising several villages? I am giving one week for the provision of such resources, if not provided, the parts in question will be removed from the article. --GGT (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a political discussion page and Wikipedia articles are not place for it. There is no need to argue about this issue. This is an article about Linobambaki. If you are arguing about that one sentence is biased or POV, you can suggest for editing it. Since there is an organization called "Linobambaki" and its clear with relevant sources (which is an article from The Huffington Post) this information is related to article and can be mentioned in it. So questions about the size, popularity, aims, ideological details of organizations or who is holding the flag doesn't have anything to do with this article and Wikipedia. Deleting sourced contributions related to the subject is Vandalism (WP:VAN) and in this specific case it looks like it has political reasons behind it. My suggestion is editing sentence if needed but deleting is not an option. 78.183.7.231 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no ongoing political discussion here, this is purely a matter of sources and implications. You are using the sentence above, which simply verifies the existence of an organization called "Linobambaki organization" to claim that there is a mass movement of the Linobambaki "returning to their roots", which is rather ambiguous by itself. The article states nothing about this movement apart from the fact that it exists. Is it a mass movement reflecting the common beliefs of all Linobambaki? Is it an informal group formed by this couple and a few friends with marginalized views? Is it a group of Linobambaki usually talking about agricultural problems or researching their past? What are the roles of these people in the organization, do they represent it? What you are doing is akin to taking a source that states that an organization researching alternative forms of curing cancer exists, and then claiming that there is a mass movement to these methods because our existing cures are not proving efficient for some forms of cancer. It is misleading, biased and an original claim. The current claims are by no means supported by the article and there have been no attempts to rectify the situation. --GGT (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If we include terms like "marginalized views" to the discussion that clearly makes all point political like most of comments you did. I told my opinion before, I also think like that sentence is biased in a way that its writing right now. But that doesn't mean that we can delete contributions with sources right away. At the end of the day we have a data here which has a relevant source and related to the article. Which simply says, "there is an organization called Linobambaki today" with a source from The Huffington Post and all related to the article subject. I don't see any claim there says that its a mass movement but I agree with you about "returning their roots" part is clearly a POV and this sentence needs editing. 78.183.7.231 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linobambaki. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727070731/http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=1140 to http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=1140
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224204344/http://eprints.sdu.edu.tr/163/1/TS00329.pdf to http://eprints.sdu.edu.tr/163/1/TS00329.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Disputed edits
, would you please explain your revert of my edit: Special:Diff/867272719/867569331? Your edit summary "There is no such information that indicated sources" appears to be mistaken. The existing Pericleous2009 source says:
 * "Mutual religious tolerance in Cyprus presents evident signs of syncretism, the most manifest example of this being the linobambaki (lit. linen-cottons), who became integrated into the Turkish community when, with the development of the two opposing and conflicting nationalisms, compromise situations were no longer tolerated in either community."

My edit added the text:
 * "During British rule, in the face of rising nationalism in both the Greek and Turkish communities, their syncretism was no longer tolerated by either, and they became mostly integrated into the Turkish Cypriot community."

I believe that is an accurate interpretation of the source. It's difficult to understand why you insist on having "They were forced to assimilate into the Turkish Cypriot community during British rule", and is all the more surprising, since it seems it was you who added this source in 2014, when you wrote simply "Today, they are a part of the Turkish Cypriots." I will await your explanation for the deletion. In the meantime, I will remove the word "forced", which was added only a couple of weeks ago by an IP editor, per the discussion at Talk:Turkish Cypriots, and restore the sentence to its stable version which has been the status quo since 2014. --IamNotU (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Good job. Let me explain what is wrong with your edit. Which is so simple.

The existing Pericleous2009 source says: "Mutual religious tolerance in Cyprus presents evident signs of syncretism, the most manifest example of this being the linobambaki (lit. linen-cottons), who became integrated into the Turkish community when, with the development of the two opposing and conflicting nationalisms, compromise situations were no longer tolerated in either community."

And your edit is: "During British rule, in the face of rising nationalism in both the Greek and Turkish communities, their syncretism was no longer tolerated by either, and they became mostly integrated into the Turkish Cypriot community."

Adding there mostly is a great move but it does not match with the source since it says that Linobambaki people integrated in Turkish community. Your unsourced efforts in Turkish Cypriots article is also with the same aim. Which is against all sources, trying hard to create a distance between Linobambaki and Turkish Cypriot articles.

And it is clearly a vandalism that you are trying to do these efforts by changing both articles against the source materials at same time to support your idea. Here it is from Talk:Turkish Cypriots:

''The original source used in the Linobambaki article states that they "became integrated into the Turkish community when, with the development of the two opposing and conflicting nationalisms, compromise situations were no longer tolerated in either community." --IamNotU (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)''

You made this edit on Linobambaki article to support your idea for Turkish Cypriots article at the same time. This is a clear vandalism and an action against WP:Assume Good Faith This is against Wikipedia policies.

I am going to ignore your claims of me insisting about some kind of edits. Only thing that I am insist is Wikipedia articles with reliable sources and protecting them against any kind of ideological vandalism like Turkish nationalism.

About the "forced" word. Yes there are many reliable sources uses that term which is a source that used in this article as well. Mikropoulos2008 source says: "During the 20th Century and during the island's English occupation, Linovamvaki forced to join the Turkish population of Cyprus" (p94)

So we have to find consensus here. You made changed it to some kind of "stable" version but since we are having a dispute about your edit, I believe we have to revert the article the version before your edit. This will be more suitable with Wikipedia policies.Pasedembo (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)