Talk:Trebizond vilayet

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: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Trabzon Vilayet → Trebizond Vilayet – per WP:COMMONNAME and USEENGLISH

Furthermore, the name "Trabzon Vilayet" and "Vilayet Trabzon" was used for the Trabzon Province in early Republican era.


 * "Vilayet of Trebizond" -Llc 251 (1923-2011) 118 (1980-2011) 54
 * "Vilayet of Trabzon" -Llc 25 (1923-2011) 25 (1980-2011) 20
 * "Trebizond Vilayet" -Llc 107 (1923-2011) 35 (1980-2011) 17
 * "Trabzon Vilayet" -Llc 32 (1923-2011) 31 (1923-2011) 20

-- Takabeg (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * The common name is Trabzon. Please see the parallel between Peking and Beijing. We use the common name in English (Beijing and Trabzon) even some other name was also used in the past. Ordtoy (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can challenge for the next time. Takabeg (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ordtoy, can you provide some evidence that "Trabzon" is more common in English language sources? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence can be found in that Wikipedia uses Trabzon for the name of the city. Trebizond is no longer used in English, long ago having been supplanted by Trabzon. If we chhange to Trebizond here then Trabzon should also surely change. As I indicated above, Beijing/Peking is the parallel. In the past, Peking was the English name, but the current English name has supplanted it and Beijing is used throughout Wikipedia for references to both the modern and the historical city. The change to Trebizond is part of what I believe to be a very misguided belief that these names should have 'Engnlish' spellings. See Gumushkhane-Gümüşhane and Kersun-Giresun in this very article. Gumushkhane is a rarely used alternative and Kersun is outright incorrect. The result is that we have two names throughout Wikipedia for each of these locations: a Turkish spelling and an antiquated spelling and this helps no one when it comes to using this resource. Ordtoy (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I also meant to add that if you search Google books for "Trabzon Vilayeti" you get many English results (185 although some are in fact in Turkish). Moreover, "Trabzon province" (since vilayet means province) returns many results about the Ottoman province when you include the Ottoman keyword. Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations. Ordtoy (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. First of all, please stop moving this page, both of you. Any more page moves, and I'm going to have the page move-protected. When there's a conflict, we mustn't move-war over it; it fills the page history with back-and-forth junk. The correct thing to do now is to get more input from more editors, and then move the page once and for all. I'm going to leave notes at some relevant WikiProjects, and we'll see what others have to say. Until then, please leave the page where it is. That means that even if the other guy moves it don't move it back. We need to leave it alone until we arrive at a consensus, which is clearly not going to happen between the two of you. Okay? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left notes with all 5 WikiProjects listed at the top of this page. Let's wait now, and see what people say. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: We do not have to have absolutely consistent naming between different historical & geographical articles, because names change over time. Obviously, that' the problem here; the place has been called "trebizond" or "trabzon" to varying extents at different times so there is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. Specifically, the title of an article on a historic subject should reflect the names used in sources about that historical subject, not sources about a different-but-related subject in the present day. So, what name do sources use for the vilayet itself? I believe Trebizond is more common, after a quick search of historical journals... bobrayner (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that Bobrayner is right here. There is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. There are lot of administrative districts of the Ottoman Empire which do not have the same name as current day city (i.e. Sanjak of Scutari and Shkodër, Janina Vilayet and Ioannina..).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that certain places deserve to have changed names due to historical changes: Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is an excellent example as the names reflect actual historical changes. It also makes sense for the examples of Scutari and Shkodër since the place name actually changed from Ottoman to Albanian. However, I don't see the rationale in this case. I haven't seen much elsewhere on Wikipedia where an archaic English spelling for a place (especially one which is not particularly well-known in English) is preferred over the modern form of the same name. It raises questions: at which exact date do all Wikipedia articles need to switch from Trebizond to the new English spelling? Do all references to the city prior to this date in all articles need to change to Trebizond? What do we benefit by maintaining two separate names for instances such as this and will this advantage mitigate the lack of consistency across articles which are referring to the same place? Why isn't using archaic spellings practiced for other geographic regions in Wikipedia? Peking->Beijing is my earlier example, but there are more: do we need to switch between Muslim to Moslem? Kurdistan and Koordistan? Tbilisi (278 hits for 19th-century books) and Tiflis (119,000 hits for 19th-century books)? Tokyo and Tokio (almost twice as common in the 19th century)? Beirut and Beirout (four times as common)? I'm sure that people who are familiar with other areas would be able to find many more such examples, but in each of these cases the modern English usage is used throughout Wikipedia, often with notes about alternate forms of the name. Modern academics and other modern writers have the same choice when writing about Ottoman Trabzon, and Trabzon is the preferred choice when referring to the Ottoman city and province. If we were talking about a major, well-known place in English which underwent a name change, I could understand the argument, but as I said, I see no benefit in this and other cases. In fact, in some cases it seems that there is an effort to track down obscure old spellings of obscure places: for example how will people know that Kersun is actually Giresun? It seems like a bad idea in each instance. Ordtoy (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Trabzon Vilayet" and the "vilayet of Trabzon" were/are used for modern Trabzon Province during early republican period of Turkey. Not only in English but also in Turkish, Trabzon vilâyeti was the name of modern Trabzon Province, for example "Trabzon 1925 yılında Trabzon vilâyeti Merkez kaza, Vakf-ı kebir, Akçaabad, Maçka, Sürmene ve Of kazalarından oluşmaktaydı." (Nedim İpek, Mübadele ve Samsun, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2000, p. 72.) -- Takabeg (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a claim about Turkish, not English. We're written in English, and the English name of Ottoman Trebizond was and is Trebizond. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What ? I'm sorry but I dont't understand what you want to explain. Takabeg (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The nineteenth century spelling of Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the Treaty of Nanking.


 * However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more. This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism.


 * It is arguable that we should simply use Trebizond for the city; anticipating the curve is WP:Crystal. But that would a separate discussion. We should not use Trabzon before it was common in English.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What about the examples cited above (Tokio/Tokyo; Koordistan/Kurdistan; Tiflis/Tbilisi; Beirout/Beirut)? Wikipedia consistently uses the version which is current today not the earlier spellings. Ordtoy (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from User talk:GTBacchus
I've copied the following discussion from my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Hello, I was hoping to have you follow up on Trebizond Vilayet (and other related articles). The changes are still being made despite your request that we hold back. I'd like to get this resolved because so many articles are affected by the decision which needs to be made about name selection. Ordtoy (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article hasn't moved again, and as far as I can tell, there's no consensus to move it at this time. Do you wish to move the article back to "Trabzon"? The other editor, Takabeg, provided some evidence, which may not be the best available, but I haven't seen any concrete evidence for the other name. You said on that page that "Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations." I agree that raw Google numbers don't mean much, but that means we need to set the bar higher, and produce something more compelling. My common sense doesn't tell me which way the page should be titled, because I'm not familiar with the topic of the article. If you're familiar enough with the literature to say which spelling is more appropriate and why, then I'll certainly listen, but I'm not going to add another move to the page history simply because other Wikipedia articles spell the name of the modern town that way. How do scholars of the Ottoman Empire spell the name of that historic vilayet? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The nineteenth century spelling of Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the Treaty of Nanking.


 * However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more. This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. That's helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I missed your reply here, only seeing it just now. I provided several examples of how there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia-wide convention of using historical spellings for one time period and then switching to modern spellings for a modern period. I know I'm repeating myself, but the examples I gave were along the lines of: Beijing/Peking, Tokyo/Tokio, Beirut/Beirout, etc. In all these cases, Wikipedia takes the modern spelling for all historical periods event though the second form was more prevalent or even the only form used in previous eras. I can't find an example of Wikipedia spelling conventions following English historical usages (please correct me if I am wrong). I am also quite sure that such a practice would only hinder people searching for information. Making an English speaker of today know all the historical spellings of geographical entities just to find articles about them seems counter-productive. As for your question about modern academic (emphasis on those two terms!) scholars of Ottoman history, they almost invariably use Trabzon. The common practice is to use Trebizond for the pre-Ottoman period (this is also true for other places throughout the Ottoman Empire). Ordtoy (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly is no uniform practice.


 * But where it has been discussed, as with the three articles Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul, the decision has usually been to use each name for the city in an appropriate period. In principle, our relevant guideline suggests using the historic name currently used in English for a given period (thus, we do not usually refer to the city on the Bosphorus as New Rome, because English literature generally doesn't); but the most common name for a given place and time is usually the name used at the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of using an appropriate name for an appropriate period is reasonable. However, the periods in question appear to be the Greek period, for which forms of Trapezus/Trebizond are used by scholars. Following the Ottoman taking of the city, the name in literature is Trabzon to reflect the Turkish corruption of the original name. This is the division accepted by academia. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (the most respected encyclopaedia for Middle East history), for example, follows this practice. With Istanbul/Constantinople we are dealing with the name change of a major world city so it is not comparable to Trabzon/Trebizond. If they know it at all, virtually all English speakers of today will be familiar with Trabzon, which is the name of the city today and was the name used in Ottoman times. Moreover, I'm still rather insistent on knowing why the practice of adopting archaic English forms is applicable here but not say for Tbilisi/Tiflis? Ordtoy (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, would Talk:Trebizond Vilayet be a better place for this discussion to occur? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See, for example, Peace to End All Peace, a history of the 1922/3 settlement of the entire Near and Middle East. It calls the city Trebizond, as of 1916.


 * Searching on early uses of Trabzon suggests it was created, as a New Turkish name, around 1935; using it about the city or the Vilayet before then would be an anachronism, and would violate the Principle of Least Astonishment for English-speaking readers, whom this Wikipedia is intended to serve. Works of general reference in English dealing with that place and time are always  welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Trabzon is the Turkish form of the original Greek name (see the Trabzon page). It was absolutely not created in the 1930s but had been in use for centuries. It will absolutely make things more difficult for English-speakers to have the name change in Wikipedia articles at an arbitrary date. Moreover, no such principle applies to other geographic entities, so I do not understand why it should apply here. Ordtoy (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trebizond Vilayet. 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/20111007185405/http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/ermeni_faaliyetleri_pdf/Arsiv_Belgeleriyle_Ermeni_Faaliyetleri_Cilt_1.pdf to http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/ermeni_faaliyetleri_pdf/Arsiv_Belgeleriyle_Ermeni_Faaliyetleri_Cilt_1.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) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adrianople Vilayet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)