Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:23, 17 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tenedos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Gökçeada & Bozcaada -> Imbros and Tenedos, No consensus, 26 September 2005, Talk:Tenedos/Archive 1#Proposed move: October 2005 RM, Gökçeada & Bozcaada -> Imbros and Tenedos, Moved, 23 February 2006, Talk:Tenedos/Archive 1#Proposed move: February 2006 RM, Imbros and Tenedos -> Gökçeada & Bozcaada, Not moved, 19 June 2006, Talk:Tenedos/Archive 1#Requested move 19th June 2006 RM, Tenedos -> Bozcaada, No consensus, 12 April 2011, Talk:Tenedos/Archive 2#Requested move (April 2011) RM, Tenedos -> Bozcaada, No consensus, 11 August 2011, Talk:Tenedos/Archive 2#Requested move (August 2011) RM, Tenedos -> Bozcaada, No consensus, 19 July 2012, Talk:Tenedos#Requested move July 2012 RM, Tenedos -> Bozcaada, No consensus, 17 August 2012, Talk:Tenedos#Requested move August 2012 MRV, Endorsed, 10 October 2012, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2012 September 13

Archives

Archive 1 (2006–2008) Archive 2 (2009–2011) Archive 3 (Aug–Sept 2012) Archive 4 (Sept 2012) Archive 5 (Sept 2012)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The destruction of the Ottoman mosque by the Venetians

I have asked for an exact translation from İslam Ansiklopedisi. The encyclopedia itself is used as the bibliography in books on the Ottoman empire, but I would like to know the exact statement there. If the encyclopedia itself is directly stating an earlier mosque at the site was destroyed by the Venetians our text is fine. If the encyclopedia is saying the new mosque's builders stated there was an old mosque there destroyed by the Venetians, then we can't include it since we need to attribute the statement to the new-mosque-builders, and that attribution would not be to a notable person or organization. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation of İslam Ansiklopedisi: "After Bozcaada was liberated from the Venetians, Mıhçı Mosque and its school (which were destroyed) were reconstructed by Köprülü." (Turkish: "Bozcaada Venediklilerden kurtarıldıktan sonra tahribata uğramış olan Mıhçı Camii ve muallimhânesi Köprülü tarafından yeniden inşa edilmiştir.") This is directly told by the encyclopedia therefore I think we can include it. Filanca (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Name Usage in Content

Right now the page is a mess of usage because of the naming debate. This is not a place to discuss what the right name for the Misplaced Pages page is, this is about content not the title. Even if the page's name gets changed to Bozcaada or a split happens, this is irrelevant to finding some consensus on usage for the article's content. Sentences go back and forth and because we are adhering to the current name of the article, some of them sound stupid. Based on academic usage, here and here (the two most authoritative references about the island!) I suggest these guidelines for the content. If we can get agreement on them, it should help the page:

1. When referring to the geographical place i.e. when talking about the island's geographic location or climate, etc. use Tenedos/Bozcaada (this is what is used in both of the main sources above)
2. When referring to the island before 1923 (including Homeric myths and the Aeneid) use Tenedos (I know it was called Bozcaada before that and that can be in the naming section, but for content coherence this is a good place to break it)
3. When referring to the island after 1923 use Bozcaada AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this idea, so I Support. Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I support that. There are the obvious common-sense exceptions such as "Bozcaada means barren island in Turkish" and "The Turks called it Bozcaada," whatever be the section the statements are in. Also on the explicit proviso this will not be used in a move debate by either side. Churn and change (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for all, this is a content decision and aims for clarity, not to decide the naming issue or be used to imply any consensus on that issue. Also Churn, we just talked about the lead a few weeks ago, you may want to check that discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has expanded so the lead needs to change. Go ahead and feel free to edit it anyway; it is hard to find any discussion on this talk page. Churn and change (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, digging through, found the discussion. Feel free to change the wording; I won't revert. Looking at the whole thing the first time, "systemic discrimination" did seem the right summary since Turkey didn't deny it (they state they are acting just the way the Greeks are toward the Turkish minority there, a "reciprocity principle" but that part is out of scope for this article). We can be more specific as you suggest, though compact wording would help. Churn and change (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Support as it makes sense and thanks to AbstractIllusions for addressing this issue.Filanca (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment AbstractIllusions' summary seems well balanced except for the second point. In the maps of Piri Reis as of the 16th century the island was named as Bozcaada (I don't see how content coherence changes it .) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the part about Ottoman history and I'm starting to think Nedim is right-ish. So, we think prior to Ottoman takeover, it should be Tenedos. We think after 1923 it should be Bozcaada. But, there's that tricky little period of 400 years. Proposals for 1600-1923: Tenedos/Bozcaada, judge by the context and switch appropriately, Tenedos, Bozcaada? I don't know. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Use in sources for Ottoman period: Takaoglu uses "The island" when discussing the Ottoman period, but uses Tenedos when closely quoting European travelogues that use Tenedos. Akpinar uses Bozcaada for Ottoman period. Based on this usage from the two sources that consider the island throughout history, I suggest the following amendment to the suggestions above: 4. For the period from 1455 until 1923, if original source prefers a name for the island, use that name. If not, use "The island" or "Bozcaada". AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally really prefer to avoid slashed names as preferred in point 1 currently. I think they'd be avoided on WP generally too, and I can't see a case where anything under 1 wouldn't fall anyway under 2 or 3. If we're talking generally about the weather or geography, AFAIK it hasn't suffered major climate change or moved, so we'd always presumably be looking from the vantage point of the present and could/should simply use Bozcaada, eg "Bozcaada has lovely summers". 1923 seems as a good year as any to "switch" usage though - even though Bozcaada was obviously used prior to that, all the evidence I've seen suggests that Tenedos was a more commonly used name in English language sources, at the time and still now. There could perhaps be some leeway if it was being mentioned in a very obviously Turkish context before 1923. N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• To repeat a point earlier. For English usage of the Ottoman period the only two sources that make editorial decisions regarding naming during the Ottoman period: Takaoglu uses "The island" when discussing the Ottoman period, but uses Tenedos when closely quoting European travelogues that use Tenedos. Akpinar uses Bozcaada for Ottoman period. The result was this suggestion based on the use in the two most reputable sources on the island, 4. For the period from 1455 until 1923, if original source prefers a name for the island, use that name. If not, use "The island" or "Bozcaada". If people disagree with this suggested guideline, we should have a clear reason for ignoring the decisions by Takaoglu and Akpinar's (the main sources that looked at disputed usage and made decisions) regarding usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Takaoglu and Akpinar's editorial decisions are likely influenced by the fact that they are both Turkish. I also find it extremely hard to believe that they are the "only two sources" that make editorial decisions on the name. Athenean (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some sources that use "Tenedos" for the Ottoman period: . Athenean (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Geography and Climate sections, I think the easiest solution would be to just follow the article title. Anything else will likely lead to intractable circular debates of the kind we have seen before in this talkpage. Athenean (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Great points Athenean (except for the assumption of a national POV just because someone is born there--which we don't even know). 1. I'm happy if all we are disagreeing about is the period 1455-1923. The recent edits go far beyond this period, so if that is all we disagree on, we can at least fix those. 2. Yes, sources use Tenedos for the Ottoman period. Great. 3. The wikipedia description of Reputable sources says that not all sources are reputable on all things, hence we should ask: What is the most reputable sources for deciding a complex naming decision for a weird period? 4. I say, we should go with the sources that talk about the island through history because they actually make these decisions and call it Tenedos for one period, Bozcaada for another. That is the Akpinar and Takaoglu pieces. If you have another that makes such a decision, please let me know. Brief mentions of the islands I think show less consideration of the question "what should we name the island in 1600"? 5. What we all want to avoid, I think, is where the Title determines the usage in content (now and in the future). I think liberal usage of "the Island" for the period from 1455 until 1923 may be the best solution. I know it is a little wordy but that is the clear preference by Sources that considered this issue and could make all of us content. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree that the only two sources we should use for the nomenclature of the Ottoman period are Takaoglu and Akpinar. I just cannot accept this. The sources I have presented have also made editorial decisions on this. They didn't just pick "Tenedos" at random. Athenean (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, but just because I set out the conditions that would convince me to change my mind: If you find a source that shows a clear discriminating use (uses Tenedos in 1300, but then Bozcaada in 1700--dates chosen randomly). If you have People writing about other topics that use the island once or twice and show no discriminating usage, I think that is not showing thought to our key question here. So let's work this out: My proposal For the period 1455 until 1923, preferred usage is 1. The island, 2. If this ruins the wording, prefer the usage in the source. That sounds to me like it accounts for your points clearly but also allows us not to change a quotation that clearly uses Bozcaada into one that uses Tenedos (as happened in the recent edits). Does that sound like a guideline that both of us agreeing to disagree folks can buy into? If not, propose something else. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On other issue of Geography/Climate, I would be fine adopting a "Follow Article Title" guideline. There were some weird sentences that were created with that rule prior to this discussion. Also, I think a compromise might be to establish the first usage in the Geography and Climate section as 'Or'. So something like: "The island of Tenedos or Bozcaada roughly triangular in shape." In the rest of use on Geography/Climate, I would be fine with a "Follow Article Title" rule, but just think whether the name remains Tenedos in perpetuity or whether it changes, some nod to the dual names of the island in the Geography/Climate section would be appropriate. And a simple 'or' seems like the most useful way to do this without confusing slashes or mixed usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The pertinent guideline is WP:Place: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." Since "Bozcaada" is clearly no widely accepted historic name, but always complemented "Tenedos" after the Ottoman occupation, not more, not less, the correct name based on the guidelines is Tenedos. Please remember that any 'deals' sidelining the guidelines are invalid and can be overthrown at any time by any single person, no matter how long and winding this discussion becomes and no matter how many people argue for this or that or claim "consensus" for this and that. It's only the guidelines that count, the rest is chatting, and the guidelines point clearly towards Tenedos. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input GPM. I do love WP:PLACE guidelines. Ignoring for a second that the title that currently exists is a violation of the WP:Place guidelines, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What was the widely accepted historic English name for the place? To make this clear: No evidence has been provided to establish that it was Tenedos, only evidence to suggest that it was Tenedos. Sorry. We have to look at the sources. The two sources that show clearly discriminating use (using Tenedos for some periods and Bozcaada for other periods) show: 1. use of Tenedos for the Ottoman period only when paraphrasing Italian and Spanish travelogues and 2. use of either "the island" or Bozcaada when not paraphrasing these sources. Hence, the widely accepted historic English name for the place for 1455-1923 cannot be said to be Tenedos, at best it can be said to be neither. I, once again, am asking for these for you to claim that the guidelines clearly point toward Tenedos: 1. A clearly discerning source, not a mere mention, that says Tenedos was the name for the Ottoman period or 2. A reason to ignore the two most discerning sources we have who show a preference for Bozcaada during that period. Either of those will answer our question. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If the article had been moved to "Bozcaada", the second clause of WP:PLACE would apply. But it wasn't moved. Therefore we should just stick with the article title and be done with this. The stuff about the "establish" vs. "suggest" distinction and the "two most discerning sources" is just sophistry. Athenean (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate if the personal attacks were rescinded. I've told you what would convince me to change my position, and also tried to compromise with all positions on this issue.(note: originally I agreed with the 1923 division, but upon a smart challenge from another editor and looking back at the source usage, I think the 1923 division is problematic.) Both of those doors are still open for discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Compromise of all positions Another effort at compromise of how to implement WP:PLACE guidelines on this page:

1. These will not be used in a move debate by either side (from Churn and Change)
2. Common sense should be used in all implementation. If it is a quoted piece stick with the quotes, if it is a translated piece use the name in the original, if it is ethymology then keep it appropriate, etc. (from Churn and Change)
3. Permanent names. Regardless of article title, the island before 1455 should be called Tenedos and after 1923 should be called Bozcaada. As per "specific historical context" of WP:PLACE. (Neither of these have been contested in this discussion, everyone seems to agree so far)
4. Parenthetical names. For sections talking about the island as a permanent geographical location, use Article Title for regular usage. However, "on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections the use should be": Article Title (Other name). So, Tenedos (Bozcaada) for current article. Also, as said in WP:PLACE, "it is probably better to do too often than too rarely" (Derived from Point 3 of General Guidelines of WP:PLACE). (compromise between the N-HH dislike to slashes, Abstract Illusion's position, and GPM's position).
5. Floating names. For the period from 1455 until 1923, use the Article Title. Whatever the article title is, it should be used for the fuzzy period of 1455 until 1923. Exceptions should be official quotations (like to Lausanne) or quotations and translations. Also, if article title in some future becomes slashed, this point should be reconsidered for readability. (Compromise between Athenean's position, AI's position and Nedim Ardoğa's position)

Any possibility of agreement to these? It adheres to WP:PLACE and seems to account for everyone's different positions in some way. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Aiolian migration theory

A lengthy summary of the state of affairs on the theory is here: Hesperia article. I am hosting the link per fair-use, and will remove the document in a couple of days.

The crux of the issue is that archaeologists have found no evidence of any Aiolian migration. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, so the theory is not disproved directly. But what it has as support is myths and storied passed on, not physical evidence. Churn and change (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Dmetri Kakmi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

He does meet WP notability guidelines for authors. Specifically his book meets WP:BKCRIT.

• There are 3 reviews of his book, 2 in mainstream UK newspapers, and the 3rd in a magazine, Cornucopia, focusing on Turkey and published in Britain (the magazine is good quality). The Spectator, The Telegraph, Cornucopia
• There is a reference in a magazine from Turkey.
• The book was short-listed for the 2009 NSW Premier’s Douglas Stewart Prize for non-fiction:
• The short list was of just 6 books:
• He received a fellowship of $15,000 (Australian Centre Award/Peter Blazey Fellowship in 2008) from the University of Melbourne for working on the book:
• The judges report for that award is here:
• Note that every single reference, whether RS or blog/user-comment, I could find was positive. For example, was picked as one of the top books for 2008 at a group blog.
• He has published many reviews and was senior editor for Penguin

Churn and change (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Compromise? Put it in further reading? I just think there are thousands of biographies/memoirs published every year (and thousands that win awards and grants and get covered) and if we put them in every wikipedia article for the places those people are from that is going to create a lot of needless bytes. I don't mind a mention in further reading (actually kinda like that idea), but in content it is not useful information. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Was there consensus to Split???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

So the article has been split...but I'm not sure there was consensus for this yet. Maybe more discussion (particularly from some of the editors who opposed the move). AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What split? Which consensus? --E4024 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Most Pre-Ottoman details were taken and put in Ancient Tenedos article yesterday. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave!.. --E4024 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask us, check, for starters WP:Splitting article. Be sure it's done for the right reasons, not as a "Content fork" to achieve "conflict resolution". You may split for the reasons any article may be split. Do not split just to stop a conflict. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We are over 10,000 words, which is one criterion: WP:SIZESPLIT (not required, but recommended). "At 50 KB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Misplaced Pages:Summary style." 50 KB is roughly 10,000 words. This wasn't a content fork; it was a split removing content from original article. Splitting for conflict resolution, as far as I can see, isn't prohibited by WP:SPLITTING. A split, just like an edit, doesn't require a prior consensus; note that the objections were based on a prior version of the article which was much, much smaller. I am going to tag the article for a split but won't be adding to the discussion, since discussions here tend to be polarized. Finally, I do appreciate User:E4024 removing that remark on the other talk page. Churn and change (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Churn: My objection has nothing to do with the size of the page. If you could please explain a couple of things for me: 1. Why should we split this up when no sources do? Source either briefly mention the island or treat it as a continuous whole. There are no books or articles on "Ancient Tenedos" as a subject...maybe Ferries of Tenedos. 2. Why should we split where you split it? It seems quite arbitrary that "Ancient"=pre-Ottoman. The wikipedia page on Ancient history suggests that Ancient is before about 1000 a.d. That seems an odd place to split, so why there. Hope you'll engage with me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Split discussion

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. 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 split request is: No consensus to split. Therefore the status quo should remain. Non-admin closure by uninvolved editor. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has a total word count over 10,000, and per WP:SIZESPLIT is ripe for a split. The logical way seems to be to split into Ancient Tenedos and the modern island. The use of the beginning of the Ottoman empire is logical. It is the point of split for Constantinople/Istanbul; it is the point at which Ancient Rome ends (at least on Misplaced Pages). It is a point at which a severe discontinuity exists for the article subject (entire populace expelled for good, and all buildings razed). However, note that that isn't the only point possible, one could split at the end of the Roman empire too (for many people that is end of antiquity, though WP has a different convention for Ancient Rome). Note that I will not be defending the proposal any further, to avoid long-drawn-out discussions. Churn and change (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So you aren't going to care what we have to say? Again: My caution for the splitting of Bozcaada is that it is intellectually dishonest. This isn't Rome, this isn't Constantinople, this isn't Smyrna, etc.. This is a tiny island. It is easy to find lots of information and then say we need to split, but is it based on the evidence or is it making the evidence fit what we want it to say. I'll support it if it is the former, I won't if it is the later. It isn't about words or bytes, it is whether it is appropriate based on the evidence. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Aargh, you are baiting me. I'll respond to just that part then: I won't be the one removing the tag and deciding at the end what to do; as to the evidence of the content you, and others, should judge its notability, encylopedic relevance and so on directly. Churn and change (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No baiting man, just a fair question. If you won't answer my concern then I have to Oppose. Even with expanded content, it seems the reason for the split is artificial and not based on any actual substantive usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Churn, why did you split the article? Chrisrus (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why? --E4024 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have serious issues with this possible split. Churn initially proposed a split at a time the article didn't have enough content for a split. When people opposed his proposition, he added stuff overnight almost doubling the length of the article. I highly doubt the quality of his entries. Now, he's proposing the split again as if he had nothing to do with the reason the article became this long. I find that troubling. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeating previous concerns and agreeing with much of the above. This appears to have been part of a planned and artificial process, all aimed at this end result and propelled by the nominating user. We have a small island here, with no clear dividing point as to where we would split the "ancient" and the "modern" anyway. I can't see the benefit of having such a huge level of detail on this topic in an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a book on the island and its history), or of any consequent split. In fact it would all just make finding relevant and high-level information more difficult for people. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The split is logical from one perspective, namely the simultaneous presence of a lot of scholarly work on Ancient Tenedos (see Google books searches mentioned above) as well as a ton of mainstream media discussion of contemporary Bozcaada. Both names are in common usage today, but by two different communities: those who are interested in ancient Greece, and those who are interested in the modern island of wine and tourism. Two articles makes sense in that regard. I see the Constantinople/Istanbul analogy as an apt one -- some are curious about Roman/Byzantine history, others about Turkish history or contemporary Istanbul life. Obviously there is room for crossover, as in any binary you'll find people who are interested in both. But there appears to be a logic to the split and I think we should endorse it. 76.90.237.102 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Question to admins: The above is the "only" contribution of the above IP user in WP. In these cases do you check these users? Could it be a registered user who for one or another reason enters into a discussion logging out? Why do you think they would do something like this? Thanks for any answers. --E4024 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Churn. Please do explain why you split it. Chrisrus (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (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.

A watermill on Bozcaada?

The article now says Köprülü built a watermill here. While we know that there are no permanent running streams on the island. As for the irregular streams are too irregular and small to build a structure, they mostly run on small channels at south-west after rains for a short time. So, howcome? Filanca (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Let's see. It's cited to "Caroline Finkel (2005). The History of the Ottoman Empire: Osman's Dream. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02397-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=9cTHyUQoTyUC." Let's track that down.

........

It says “The most varied of his foundations was that on the island of Bozcaada, recaptured from the Venetians early in his grand vezirate. Here he built two mosques, a school, a caravansaray, a bath-house, a coffee-house, a stable, nine mills, a water-mill, a bakery and 84 shops.”

Why would he have built a watermill on a streamless island? And what the heck is a caravansary? Oh I see. But still, why would a roadside inn designed for camel caravans have been built on Bozcaada? It sounds like he was just going crazy building whatever he knew how to build just to build things. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

To make "patria"? --E4024 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the word that E4024 wants here? What would he have established by constructing things, a vocabulary word somewhere at "jurisdiction" or "claim" or "ownership" by the government? Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Start-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Start-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles