User talk:Osmanaral

Naming conventions
Please have a look at the naming conventions before deleting/adding the Turkish/Greek/etc names of cities... There has been a debate for a long time on this subject and such unilateral edits can be considered as vandalism if done repeatedly... Her makalenin talk sayfasinda bu konuda bir tartisma olmustur, ilk once oraya bakmanizi tavsiye ederim.. Iyi gunler... Baristarim 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I noticed you removed the Greek name from the İstanbul article. If you're going to do this, shouldn't we remove the Turkish names from Selanik, Gümülcine, Sömbeki, and İskeçe, and Girit as well? &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's wasting any time? :-) My point is that out of all the non-English names for İstanbul, the Turkish and Greek names are the most important. Listing historical names at the top of articles is common pracice in Wikipedia—see Plovdiv for example. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said the only factor is present-day population? As I said before, the Turkish and Greek names are way more important historically compared to the other ones. How many Turks do you think live on Semadirek, İlyaki, and Kilimli? &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Osman Aral, Please take a look Naming_conventions_%28Greek_and_Turkish_named_places%29 firstly. You will see many oppinions there. Some users are seriously trying to find a solution. Please share your ideas there. Sevgili Osman aral, bu konuda çok büyük bir tartışma var. Hem Yunan hem de Türk kullanıcıların aralarında da farklılıklar var. İnanıyorum ki bu konuda genel kabul gören bir uzlaşma sağlanacaktır. Lütfen, Barış Tarım'ın dediği gibi değişiklik yapmadan önce ilgili maddenin tartışma/discuss kısmına ve Naming_conventions_%28Greek_and_Turkish_named_places%29 sayfasındaki tartışmalara bir bakın. İstanbul ile ilgili olarak, Barış Tarım'ın yaptığı değişiklik uygun ve adilane idi.Sonraki değişiklikleri (isim konusunda) geri almanız yeterli olurdu.
 * Regards/Saygılar.
 * Mustafa Akalp 07:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I sure can: because it is common practice on Wikipedia to include historical names at the top (not in some etymology sub-page). See Yalta for example—Ukraine's only official language is 	Ukrainian, but the city is historically important to Russians and Crimean Tatars as well. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When it was called Constantinople it was a mostly Greek city (for many, many years). They spoke Greek, not English. Hence, we have the name of the city that they called it (and still call it). &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I know what is in the etymology section. Don't assume that people are not aware of what is going on as much as you are.. As suggested above please see Naming_conventions_%28Greek_and_Turkish_named_places%29, please don't forget that, since there are many users to Wikipedia and that you are not the only one, there has to be a concensus that was formed before such important edits can be done.. It is not a good way to do things by saying this should be like this, and as such I am doing that.. If you had taken the time to look at the link above as it was given to you by Mustafa Akalp, you would have seen that there has been a very lenghty and serious discussion about this subject.. I know that as a new user to Wikipedia you might be tempted to jump the gun, but please step back and think for a minute before you do such edits... Wikipedia is not anyone's property while being everyone's property.. All the arguments about the name's inclusion is in the link above.. I am not saying you have/don't have a valid argument, but just pointing out that this issue is not as clear as it might seem. I also believe that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipeadia should be inclusive, rather than exclusive.. On the other hand, please feel free to raise your concerns in the talk page of that article.. If you need further guidance please feel free to contact me...Baristarim 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The "this is English Wikipedia" argument only applies to titles. See Naming conventions (use English) for more details. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please rephrase that? I didn't understand what you just said. :( &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have plenty of answers for you buddy. :) However, your logic is absurd. You're trying to prove to me that WP:UE doesn't only apply to titles, and so far you haven't been able to... &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite. :p What part of WP:UE says "Greek names in Greek articles" and "Turkish names in Turkish" articles? That would be pure Chauvinism. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My three points:
 * The Greek alphabet has been used by the Greeks in Turkey ever since it was invented (we're talking about what is known as modern Turkey today, when the city was in the Ottoman Empire, when it was called Constantinople, etc.)
 * It is used vice versa in Greek-related articles: see Rodos, Sakız, Dedeağaç, Taşöz, Kerpe, Nergiscik, Midilli, etc.)
 * For the last thing you said: not really. It is up to you and I to use our judgment as to what names are the most relevant. Out of all of these, two of them sick out. Can you guess which ones they are? &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I had taken a very good look at that page before I replied and saw that you signed your name under that view by Politis.. Again, as I said above earlier, don't assume that people are not aware of what is going on as much as you are.. Lutfen baskalarini aptal zannetme, asil farkina varmadigin olay, digerlerinin de en az senin kadar akilli ve zeki olup ne oldugunun farkinda olmalaridir... I don't consider myself to be your counterpart in this argument because it is not between you and me, that's why there was a specific page to air these concerns.. As I said many times, concensus :)) Considering that the only people that have signed that view are Politis himself and you, that hardly qualifies as concensus.. I have to log off now, but maybe when I got the time I will respond to you later about the specifics (maybe, because, as I am sure you have noticed when you had completely read the naming conventions page, I also signed my name somewhere :)).. Have a look, it will give u an idea :))) Baristarim 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't understand what you can deem so offensive about having the Greek name up there? It is not like 15 million Turks are going to move out of the city and 15 million Greeks are going to move into the city you know :) (I wouldn't mind more people moving out however, of whatever nationality :))) ... For your information, there are SO MANY articles about Turkey that need a lot of effort to be improved.. Honestly, don't you think that we can ALL spend our time much more efficiently by improving them? This argument (both pros and cons) does have serious academic merit in the sense that they do respond to scientific criteria, I am not denying that.. But I think that it is getting a bit lame to tell the truth, simply because people always see the glass half empty (seeing the glass half full would be spending more time improving other articles, as per above:))) Baristarim 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ? I said what you can deem so offensive, I didn't call you offensive.. If you have a problem communicating in English, please read things twice or three times before replying to them (deem means FIND - what you can FIND so offensive).. Eger benim yukaridaki yazimin rahatça yazilmis oldugunu fark edemiyorsan birkaç tane daha ingilizce kursuna gitmeni tavsiye ederim.. Eger excited yazi gormek istiyorsan çok daha excited yazilar gosterebilirim.. Yine ayni sekilde don't assume that people are not aware of what is going on as much as you are.. It's not only for the Greeks or Turks?? Oh really, no shit... I had no idea.. You see, that's your problem, in the favor of Greeks.. What is that?? How is it in favor of Greeks?? Is there a war between Greece and Turkey? What you see as favoring Greeks, I see as the cultural wealth of my city (where I was born, my parents were born, my grandparents were born, and 3/4 of their parents were born - and yes, I am 100 percent Turkish, ethnically, no Rum veya Ermeni kirmasi) Ben sonradan goçme olan milyonlarca kisiden daha Istanbulluyum, hani derler ya, gerçekten Istanbullu musun diye, ha, here it is a yes.. Orada Yunanca ismi olmasi Istanbul'u daha zengin yapar, ama daha az Turk yapmaz. Lutfen bir daha benimle irtibat kurmayiniz, dunyaya bakis açiniz it favors Greeks olaylari daha buyuk bir sekilde (bigger picture) olarak goremediginizi gosteriyor, Ingilizce iletisim seviyeniz, diger kullanicilarin bildigi seyleri onlar aptalmis gibi onlara tekrarlamaniz (Wikipedia kurallari) ve de yeni oldugunuz için size yardimci olmaya çalismama ragmen calm down, you are very excited gibi kuçuk gorucu ifadeler kullanmaniz goze alindiginda sizinle bir daha zaman kaybetmeyecegimi bilin... (Who is moving who: Turkçe: Saka olarak da bilinen, genelde Istanbullularin asiri nufus artisindan sikayet ederken soyledikleri bu sehirde daha az insan olsaydi daha iyi olmazmiydi babina denk gelen espriyle karisik muhabbetimsi konusma kategorisine girer - Ingilizce yeterliligi konusu hakkinda yukari bakiniz)Baristarim 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Again, you haven't showed me where WP:UE says "Greek and only Greek in Greek articles, Turkish and only Turkish in Turkish articles". Because Istanbul's Greek minority is small today does not stop the fact that it was historically very, very, very large. As I said before, it is common practice to have historic names at the top, it has nothing to do with present-day population. Ciao. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)