User talk:Ormands

Greek names of cities in Turkey
Ormands, I see you have been removing the Greek names of cities in Turkey. Those names are there because for large parts of the histories of these cities, the Greek name was an important name used either officially (under the Byzantine Empire) or by the local population (under the Ottoman Empire). You will note that following the same policy, the Turkish names of Thessaloniki (Selânik), Thrace (Trakya), etc. are on the pages of Greek cities. In fact, I just added Kandiye to Herakleion because it was missing. It is useful for readers of the Wikipedia to know how exactly to write these names in Greek. You will find similar policies in other areas which have been governed or populated by many different language groups over time. For example:


 * Sibiu (IPA [si'biw], German: Hermannstadt, Hungarian: Nagyszeben) -- in Romania
 * Lviv (Ukrainian: Львів, L’viv ; Polish: Lwów; Russian: Львов, Lvov; German: Lemberg; Yiddish: לעמבערג; Latin: Leopolis; see also Cities' alternative names) -- in Ukraine

I think it is a good thing to represent all the history of a place, not just its recent history. --Macrakis 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more. Definitely all the history of a place must be mentioned. I am proud of the history of our towns. Like Istanbul. I am proud of its "Byzantium"nuss, its "Konstantinopolis"ness. Its Roman, Greek and Turkish cultures. The point is; the historical names must be mentioned within the context. That is; in the historical part of the text. In the examples you are giving, in the Thessaloniki example, the Turkish name Selanik is not mentioned on the first line and for the good reason. Regards. Ormands 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ormands, iyi günler. The Greek names were used by local populations in most of the places you mention until 1923, and in Istanbul, even today.  So it is misleading to identify the name Constantinople with only the pre-Ottoman period.  What's more, for some reason you are removing the Greek version of the names in (for example) Antalya, even in the body of the article.  As I've shown you in the above examples (Sibiu and Lviv), Wikipedia practice is to keep all the important names, in their original orthography.  I tend to agree that putting them all in the first line of the article gets too heavy when there are a lot of them (like Lviv), but going around systematically changing things when there is no consensus is not a productive way to get things done on the WP.


 * Another thing ... Edit summaries like "(Placing information within the context.)" are evasive and could be considered dishonest. You should be clear about what you're doing.  Remember, this is not usenet -- we are collaboratively building an encyclopedia. --Macrakis 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I never contested the use of the name of Konstantinopolis (which I very much prefer to Francophone-sounding Constantinople) during the Ottoman times, or that it might even be in use by Turks of Greek origin today. But the point is; the official, and current English name for "the city" today is Istanbul. There are no parallel names in English. If it is called "Konstantinopolis" in Greek, fine, but it belongs to Greek Wikipedia, not the English one. Otherwise Konstantinopolis is a historical name and it needs to be mentioned within the history section. After all, you would not call New York as "also known as 'New Amsterdam', but instead you would mention it in its history. The name Konstantinopolis is a very important one (I can not think of Istanbul without its Greek past - actually I can not think of our culture without the Greek past - after all, I am a Turk of Kurdish and Cretan descent.), but it is a historical one, and knowing from my Greek friends, promoting it as a parallel name is a very sneaky chauvinistic attitute. I believe we both have to be less chauvinistic about a lot of things. Believe me I am very familiar with this attitude. My Greek friends always stress that Istanbul also means "to the city" in Greek. So what? You should only be happy. About the Antalya; I did not remove the Greek name from the body. I moved it to the historical part and I removed the Greek Alphabet one. I left the Greek name in Latin alphabet "Attalia" as it is. What is the point of placing Greek alphabet version in the English language Wikipedia? Should we also have it in Cyrillic, and beautiful Georgian, Arabic and Armenian alphabets also? Yes, but, NOT in the English Wiki!. Best Regards. Ormands 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ormands, the Greek spelling actually is important in the English Wikipedia. It is useful when you are looking things up.  From the English spelling Attalia, how would you know that it is Αττάλεια and not Ατταλία or Αταλία? I do understand your point about chauvinist attitudes, and if you study my edit history, you will see that I fight them especially among my fellow Greeks.  What this means to me is that all important and useful perspectives should be included.  For example, I think it important to include the history of Greek cities in the Ottoman period, and not skip from the Byzantines to modern Greece as though nothing happened in between, or even worse to call the Ottoman Empire an "occupier" when in fact it was just part of the imperial system that existed everywhere at the time.  There is much too much Greek nationalism and boosterism on the WP, but there is also much too much Turkish nationalism and boosterism.  --Macrakis 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow
I'm not doing anything wrong. It hurts no one to say the other names in parenthesis, it's not like I have it in the page title or anything. This is very common on Wikipedia pages. --Khoikhoi 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I happened to read this and necessarily have to agree: Former placenames can be very helpful to the reader and are usually placed in parentheses at the very beginning of such articles. This is especially important in the cases where the former names are actually alternative names, i.e. when there are still plenty of people around who continue to use the old name, in spite of official name changes in the recent past. //Big Adamsky 10:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, keeping the former names is in keeping with WP policies, I direct you to: Redirect and Guide_to_writing_better_articles. When a user clicks through Antiochia ad Sarum and Adana shows up, you better tell the user in the 1st paragraph why that happened.  The path of quickest information is that pursued, by putting the former names in parantheses.  It's not chauvinism, it's done with historically Turkish names for Greek and Bulgarian sites as well. See, e.g., Sozopol. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Selam
Türk karşıtı Khoikhoi admin oluyor,tanıdığın bütün türklere haber verirsen engelleyebiliriz burdan oy verebilirsin (Metb82 14:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC))