Talk:Place name changes in Turkey

Seven principals ?

Any idea about what the seven founding principals of Turkey are (as cited in republic of Turkey subsection of History) ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• The source already provides the six (not seven) principals of Kemalism; Cumhuriyetçilik, Milliyetçilik, Halkçılık, Devletçilik, Laiklik, İnkılâpçılık. I can also provide you additional sources from official government websites such as Turk Tarihi Kurumu. The six principals are also highlighted in the 1937 revision of the Turkish constitution of 1924 under Article 2. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well. But I've asked for the seventh. Since you've changed seven to six after my talk now it is OK. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

some points

1. "Throughout Ottoman history, Turkish and Kurdish tribesmen have settled into Armenian villages and changed the native Armenian name (i.e. the Armenian Norashen was changed to Norşin)." I think, this information is wrong, because the turkish name is Güroymak and nobady change the name to Norşin.By the way, we cant say; there were no Kurds in Norşin before Armenian genocide.
2. "In 1880 the word Armenia was banned from use in the press, schoolbooks, and governmental establishments and was subsequently replaced with words like Anatolia or Kurdistan." That information is not really correct. Because, there was a Kurdistan before 1880. You can take a look at maps. Therefore, Kurdistan was not new made. But we can say that, Anatolia replaced Armenia and Kurdistan.--Gomada (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Norşin is the Kurdish and Turkish corrupted name of Norashen. The village of Norashen was recorded in a 10th century Armenian document. The Turkish name of Guroymak is being changed to Norsin with new governement initiatives as described in the article.

The maps you showed me are European maps. The word Armenia was banned in Ottoman published newspapers maps and books. The sources clearly said this and as wikipedians we must reflect what sources say. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is politicized nonsense. Abdulhamid II did not ban the term "Armenia", it's all over maps from his reign and through the end of the empire in maps published for schools. For example:

File:Http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3671/9376251257 9131692fcc o.jpg

1913-1914 Map

Armenia is clearly labelled ارمنستان - "Ermenistan. You can find many similar maps by googling. There were name changes under the Republic, but not thousands upon thousands, and many were just given vowel harmony to make them more Turkish sounding, like Diyar-i Bekir -> Dıyarbakır or El-Aziz -> Elazığ. Any town with an ending like "van", "kirt" "shen" have Armenian-origin names. The Balyan family wasn't forced to conceal their "Armenian-ness", they were always referred to as Balyan in Turkish - can anyone fine one primary document anywhere that calls a member of the Balyan family "Baliani"? Maybe an Italian-language one, but I can't locate any.

Something isn't true just because someone says it is. I don't understand why Armenian authors can't just rely on facts rather than making all sorts of nonsense up.

Jpiccone (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

First point; Norşîn is the kurdish pronouciation of it. Nothing related to turkish. It doesnt matter, if there is name of Norashen in 10th century in armenian document. If you can prove, there was no Kurd in Norşîn in that time, then ok. But if Kurds and Armenians were living together, of course there will be difference of pronounciation. You cant expect that, Kurds will have same pronouciation as Armenains. For example, today Kurds say Stenbol for Istanbul. That means Kurds are changing turkish names? Kurds live in Istanbul for a long time and they had such pronounciation. They cant say Istanbul. Its same as Norşîn or Norşên. Therefore you cant say the Armenian Norashen was changed to Norşin.

Second point; you have said we must reflect what sources say. Ok, i checked one of your source here. I couldnt find anything that says, Armenia replaced with word of Kurdistan. Yes, it says, name of Armenia(Ermenistan) was banned but not replaced with word of Kurdistan. About maps i showed you above, it doesnt matter whose maps those are. I tried to show you that, there was already a Kurdistan region.If ottomans or turks had changed name of Armenia as Kurdistan, that means Kurds could have better rights than Armanians. Is there a proof that, Turks gave freedom to Kurds but not Armenians? You know that, Kurds fighting for centuries againist their regime. Coz there is an assimilation on all nations not only Armenians. Cheers.Gomada (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1) According to Suren T. Eremian and his publication of historic Armenian names based on 8th-11th century Armenian documentation stated that the village of Norshen was an Armenian village comprised of the word Nor meaning new and Shen meaning settlement or town. The exact date of the Armenian document is 976 A.D. There is no mention of the village having been resided by Kurds in the 10th century, unless you can prove otherwise. The village is now considered a village with a Kurdish name, which isn't true. Therefore, when a village such as Norshen had an Armenian name and has now changed to Norşin, a name that is considered Kurdish, then I am going to put that there. The difference of pronunciation of the village has become its official name and has subsequently concealed the fact that the original name was Armenian and therefore its name is considered changed.

2) I never said the word Kurdistan didn't exist prior to the banning of the word Armenia. I said that it was replaced with the word Armenia, which would make all of Eastern Anatolia be known as Kurdistan. If you are looking for sources as to the word Armenia being replaced with Kurdistan, here are just a few of the many:

• The government of Sultan Abdul Hamid II substituted the name Armenian with such terms as Kurdistan or Anatolia, fallaciously (pg. 12)
• The present Sultan forbids the use of the name altogether, and insists on the district being termed Kurdistan, or called by the names of its vilayets, Diarbekr, Van, Erzroom, etc. (pg. 21)

Kurds enjoyed many if not all rights that all Muslim communities of the Empire enjoyed, including the right to own a gun. The Kurdish problems during the Ottoman Empire was nowhere near as bad as the Armenians. Armenians were subjected to heavy taxation, lack of basic human rights, massacre, and in the worst case, genocide. In fact, some of these events were from Kurdish tribesman themselves. There's hundreds of documents that prove this. Kurds have seen it worse during the nationalist government of Ataturk which differentiated Turks from Kurds on the basis of ethnicity. Anyways, I have already mentioned in this article that the Ottoman Empire's role as a Caliphate allowed it to become more lenient towards the Kurdish community. For example, even the nationalist government of the three pashas disregarded the name changing of Kurdish and Arabic names due to their religious obligations. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Armenian sources must be removed

Any source on Turkey written by an Armenian cannot be used on pages related to Turkey. Sevan Nisanyasn sources must all be deleted as he is an Armenian irredentist nationalist and thus is heavily biased. The article is complete garbage as long as his work is sourced as he completely lacks any credibility and objectivity.. Also the Kurdish names for provinces were invented after the Turkish ones and thus cannot be considered name changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan192 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Nisanyan in particular (he seems to have published with what looks to me a reputable Turkish organization that is endorsed by definitely reputable international NGOs), but the general claim that all citizens of an entire country cannot be trusted on a given topic is utterly wrong. For the Kurdish name claim you'd need a reliable source. Huon (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Armenian name changes

I realised that several "Armenian name changes" are mainly because of Turkish way of pronunciation of the letters.

• I.e: To pronounce "Sassoun" "correctly" ; Turkish writes "Sason". Morover, one can argue that, even "Sassoun" is not Armenian because it is written in "Latin with a transcription to English" not in " Armenian alphabet" .
• Similarly, "Kayl Ket" transcription to Turkish is "Kelkit" . Kelkit or Sason doesn't mean anything in Turkish. It is simply Turkish way of writing a pronunciation. You can add this list following towns (None of them mean anything in Turkish):
• Sevaverag == Siverek
• Khachkar == Kaçkar
• Govdun == Goydun
• Çermuk == Çermik
• Metskert == Mazgirt
• Pertak == Pertek

Btw, in Turkish "Ani" is " Ani"; not "Anı". see for example : Kars governorship tourism webpage. 86.36.66.12 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for raising these points. Firstly, I wrote Sassoun in the Latin/French way for our English readers to pronounce the term Sassoun correctly. Sassoun, which can also be spelled Sasun or Sassun, was an Armenian village even after the Genocide up until the 1960s. I have no doubt in my mind that the Turkish government had tried to change these terms however lightly in order to rid them of their ethnic pronunciations and connotations. In the Turkish language, Kayl ket can also be pronounced as Kaylket, Çermuk could've remained Çermuk, Khachkar can also be used as Haçkar, Metskert didn't have to be Mazgirt and so on and so forth. Some Armenian toponyms, which had already been transformed somewhat from their original shape under the influence of local dialects, were converted to sound like a word with Turkic roots and pronunciation, thus utilizing the principle of contamination. The name changes of villages, whether they made sense in their new Turkified rendition or not, were nevertheless changed from its original ethnic composition which is what the geographical name changing programs' (Ad Değiştirme İhtisas Kurulu) intent was in the first place.

P.S. About the Kars website...the website also spells it as Anı numerous times which is a term that signifies its "memory" in an almost tauntingly way. In fact, the website doesn't even say it was ever an Armenian city, let alone a capital of an Armenian dynasty which would ultimately prove my point. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Proudbolsahye, I agree with your comments on (Ad Değiştirme İhtisas Kurulu). But, my point is on transcription of letters and given examples. My recommendation would be removing the ones because of poor transcription and adding new ones like you did on Norshen. Believe me, there is no end of controversy for transliterated names. Assume that Turkish government accepts all of your suggestion, then another person would say "No these are wrong, those names should have been this and that..."

I don't know Armenian so I will give you an Arabic example which needs transcription into English. For example, for a Qatari town called : مسيعيد - Mesaieed WP says the name can also be transliterated as " Musay'id and Umm Sa'id " . In fact, on roads, I saw 5 different English transcription for this city. Which is correct transliteration: Mesaieed, Musay'id, Umm Sa'id, Ummsaieed or Mesa'id. And a Turkish would add this list another name "Mesait". For me, the answer is "there is no correct". I think, the truth is adopting the common one, not labeling them. Best! 86.36.66.12 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geographical name changes in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In accordance with lead sections (see left), ideally all it should consist of is a set of summaries of longer or less-joined up statements made elsewhere. Therefore kindly repeat by interweaving into prose the statements into the existing sections, keeping all the references, and thereby free the lead from citations.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	75 sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements. There are a couple of easily verifiable diagrams which simply summarises other facts so are not original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to other articles on comparable etymology, this article is very well developed, even to the extent of having sourced data arranged by 4 languages of original names which rightly sets those places out in a verifiable, concise and logical way and prevents the danger of editors indulging in politically charged view's about minor changes being notable or about the neutrality of other means of presenting the data, such as by period of governing party.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• This article has only one shortcoming in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria and 5 links are to redirects which ideally should be recoded, and 1 is to a "dodgy server" at Hemshin.org which may need to be rewritten as it is to a page of a book google books I believe would be fine. I replaced the Hemshin.org link and another redirect. But I found this weird...most of these websites aren't redirects. They all point to the original website.

Three places need disambiguation in their link coding:

• Kocaeli
• Hatay
• Sakarya - DONE.

Please click on them insert their full link characters, a pipe sign and the shortened versions after the pipe. - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly write ~~~ at end of future edits (bold above). Without the special coding I have used it will turn into your name! - Adam37 Talk 21:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please kindly also now address the lead, in due course, I appreciate after all of your and others' devoted editing this article you may well have fatigue. Also a 'cooling off period' on such a political article is recommended of a week so as to never offend WP:Controversy. - Adam37 Talk 21:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear the article needs to have its references moved down from the lead to the rest of the article.- Adam37 Talk 18:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

There doesn't appear to have been any action on the review in over a month, and no action on the article for over 10 days before then. If the article still doesn't meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, a requirement for GA listing, perhaps it is time to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Laz name changes

Are there Laz name changes?--Kaiyr (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. For example: Fındıklı district. The laz name of fındıklı is Vi3'e. But it is not translating. They just made up. Ceas08 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So could you add it in this article?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geographical name changes in Turkey/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Exoplanetaryscience (talk · contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Review opinions are given as a percentage, 50% or more is a pass, 50 to -50% is neutral, and <-50% is a fail. Each opinion is taken into account with the whole article.

Lead Section

• Summary

The main section is a bit wordy, but sums up the article fairly well. However, no references are sourced for it, which could be improved.

• Details
  • References: 0
  • Length: 17 lines
  • Data: 1.990 KB

• Other

...To strengthen the first official language thousands of names... comma between language and thousands

...In the early decades of the 21st century Turkey has been negotiating... Also add comma between century and Turkey

...Places names that have formally changed in Turkey... either change to Place names or Places' names

... and in some cases are written...

• Opinion

Neutral(-10%)

History

• Summary

The history section sums up the topic well, no large complaints.

• Details
  • References: 30
  • Length: 60 lines
  • Data: 5.369 KB

• Other

No complaints.

• Opinion

Pass(90%)

Current status

• Summary

The section covers a fairly inconsequential topic that might be useful to merge with history.

• Details
  • References: 4
  • Length: 8 lines
  • Data: 0.903 KB

• Other

The section should probably be expanded or merged with history

• Opinion

Neutral(-20%)

Comparative analysis

• Summary

A useful section, no complaints.

• Details
  • References: 9
  • Length: 21 lines
  • Data: 1.443 KB

• Other

The picture of Turkish renaming is fairly small, slightly too small to accurately make out the key. Might be useful to enlarge for both aesthetic and easily readable purposes.

• Opinion

Pass(+80%)

Notable geographical name changes

• Summary

Sums up the individual languages and topics at an easy-to understand level, and to a level well in-depth, but slightly too detailed to a level where a reader's attention span may wander.

• Details
  • References: 40+
  • Length: 50+ lines
  • Data: 10.118 KB

• Other

No complaints

• Opinion

Pass(+60%)

Overall

• Summary

The article doesn't discuss a very notable topic, but does an adequate job of describing the topic. It explains it in a way easily understandable and to a level comprehensible to most.

• Details
  • References: 69
  • Length: 100+ lines
  • Data: 46.99 KB

• Other

None

• Opinion

Pass(+50%)

Review Issues

Unfortunately, Exoplanetaryscience, this is a highly non-standard review that does not seem to be based on the Good Article criteria. Review opinions should not be based on a self-designed percentage scale, but need to go over the various requirements and see whether the article meets them. The lead section review should be based on the criteria in WP:LEAD, and your claim that it needs to be sourced is contrary to that guideline, as lead sections are generally not sourced unless they contain quotes (which must be) or controversial statements. Regular statements in the lead that are sourced when presented with more detail in the body of the article do not need to also be sourced in the lead.

Unless you are prepared to do a standard review that covers how the article compares against the actual criteria—prose quality, for example, and you should check to be sure the article doesn't contain copyvios or close paraphrasing—then the review should probably be halted and the nomination put back into the GAN pool so it can be selected by a new reviewer. Thank you for trying, but perhaps you should wait to review until you have a bit more experience in the process and how it works. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geographical name changes in Turkey/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 06:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to take the task of reviewing this one, nominated nine months ago. I will be printing it out and making comments based on that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC) All right. I will probably be passing this later, after I do some copyediting. I will reserve my comments till that point (hopefully within the next couple of days). Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done OK, it passes. I know it would probably have been best to review this de novo, as it were, but based on the failed FAC and the previous GA nom it looks like the only real issue was the sourcing, and that's been taken care of.

The copyedit I did mainly dealt with the issues created by more or less translating the German article whole hog and dumping it here. I must confess that the level of detail puts me in mind of that old joke in which various nationalities are asked to produce a book about elephants, and Germany contributes A Brief Introduction to the Fundamentals of the Science of the Elephant's Ear, Vols. 1–11 (I am told by people active on dewiki that that's not too much of an exaggeration; also, I'm surprised there's no article about this on trwiki). But it's not too much, and the maps help a bit.

Should the goal be to develop this article further, toward an FAC, I would suggest really keeping an eye on the prose and making sure it stays friendly to the English-speaking reader. I'd also like to read more about what is happening with this during the EU accession. The intro discusses this, but does not really elaborate on it in the article body.

Also, it would be nice if we could find or create an actual image—of something like a sign—that illustrates this a bit better than the maps can.

It has been a long enough journey for this article, nine months on the GAN queue (more time, I suspect, than any other article this year). So it is fitting that it gets approved on Christmas Eve. Have a nice holiday whether you celebrate it or not! Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Izmir and Gaziantep

EtienneDolet, what do you mean Smyrna and Izmir are not the same? Izmir is the Greek name of the city, written in Turkish. It's literally what it says in the article, and evidently someone added Izmir to the table by mistake. You cannot write Smyrna in (Ottoman) Turkish without adding a vowel at the beginning. It is characteristic in loanwords in Turkish. French word station becomes istasyon, statistics becomes istatistik etc. Not writing the last syllable in the loanwords from Greek is characteristic as well. If you create a table to show the cities whose Greek names has not been changed, Izmir would belong there, that city still preserves its Greek name.

Regarding Gaziantep, Nisanyan disputes that there has been a name change there. The earliest source it cites is Evliya Celebi, which uses Ayntab. Nisanyan's claim seems plausible as there haven't been many Kurds in that city historically. I don't have access to your book, but I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that your source is more reliable. But can you tell me what exactly your source says? As far as I can tell, Nisanyan says the Kurdish name for the city derives from a different town nearby, namely Dülük, and the city of Gaziantep has always been called Antep. Does Bengio dispute this? I would be anxious to learn what exactly it says. I am not studying this subject directly, but it would still be helpful to me and your help is greatly appreciated.--Orwellianist (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

İzmir and Smyrna are not the same names. They don't even sound the same. I'd expect Smyrna to be spelt Smirna. But İzmir? That's way too different. İzmir is the Turkified rendition of Smyrna. Even the slightest name changes were enough to cover up the city's cultural and ethnic origins (a good example is Anı as opposed to Ani). But even if you believe that İzmir is not a Turkified name, I can still assure you that there are dozens of sources that state that the name Smyrna was changed in the least, and that it is not just the city's name in Turkish.

The source I provide points to a map that gives the former Kurdish and current Turkish names. It's on page 136. Nisanyan says the Dîlok derives from the older version of its name called Dülük. The current village of Dülük was formed much later. But I'm glad you brought this up because there has been another name change to the town that hasn't been mentioned: Antep > Gaziantep. So I think a more broader elaboration is needed in the case of that particular town. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How they sound to you is irrelevant, etymology do not work that way. As you have rightly put, there may be name changes even when they sound very similar, Ani is one example, Aghtamar is another. Even though they sound very similar, the names have been Turkified to have meanings in Turkish. Anı means momory, Akdamar means white vein etc. In Izmir's case, it is horribly wrong to suggest that it has been changed to Turkify it, and I am surprised that you are still defending it. Izmir doesn't even sound Turkish nor does it have a Turkish meaning. It is a natural change in spelling due to the nature of language, and such changes do not constitute name changes; otherwise virtually every city in Turkey would make the list in this article, and so would every city in every country that has a history. Most cities in Greece don't have the same name in ancient Greek and modern Greek either; spellings and pronunciations naturally change over time. Expecting Smyrna to be spelled Smirna in Turkish can only be due to lack of knowledge on Ottoman Turkish and how loanwords work. I invite you to try to write Smirna in Ottoman Turkish. Go ahead and try. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of Ottoman Turkish would tell you it's impossible, and that Izmir is more or less how you would expect the Turks to write the name of the city in Turkish. If one doesn't even have a superficial knowledge of Ottoman Turkish, then one shouldn't be having expectations how it would be spelled in that language.

And if you believe there has been a name change in the case of Izmir, I wonder when do you think it happened and what did the Turks called it before that. Cedid Atlas, first Ottoman atlas dated 1803, calls it Izmir (see map here). Nisanyan says that the city's name was written as Izmir in the Turkish sources from 1333. Do you claim there are earlier Turkish sources that use a different name and the name was changed to Izmir in the 13th century? There doesn't seem to be any, Izmir was just how the city's Greek name was written in Arabic script since the start, and remarkably its name never changed over almost a millennium. Even if it were true that the spelling actually changed sometime in the 13th century (which is not the case, Izmir was how it was always spelled), it is still not the subject of this article. If you insist that we should keep it, then we are going to need to completely rewrite the introduction of the article. Right now, it is referring to deliberate name changes for purposes of Turkification. If we are going to include trivial spelling changes that occur in every country, the introduction must be rewritten accordingly to include all name changes.

About Gaziantep, since I don't have the book, could you give the quotation regarding the name change in Antep? I guess you misunderstand Nisanyan, he says the name that Kurds currently use for Gaziantep derives from the ancient city of Doliche/Dülük, which is distinct from Gaziantep; that is the modern Kurdish name for Gaziantep is just a misnomer deriving from the name of a nearby city. Are you saying your source disputes that? If so, can I get the exact quote?--Orwellianist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Turks or Arabs may have called it Izmir for centuries. I never disputed that. But it was more of colloquial expression than an official one. And it doesn't have to have a "meaning". A Turkish pronunciation is suffice. The very fact that Turkish government officials opted for the Turkish rendition of the name rather than the Greek one should prove in itself that the goal was to Turkify its name on an official level, let alone the fact that these name changes were an official process that not only included Smyrna, but Angora and Constantinople as well. They were all under the same policies of Turkification enacted by the Turkish Republic, most notably in the late 1920s and 1930s. The catalyst for these particular changes was to formalize to postal system. Moreover, they Turkified the names of these cities simultaneously. According to this source, it was under direct orders from Ataturk:

Culturally, Ataturk sought to make the country distinctly Turkish. He mandated the Turkification of city names: Angora was changed to Ankara, Smyrna to Izmir, and Adrianople to Edirne.

Another source says:

The name of Turkey's capital was officially changed to Ankara, the Turkish form, in 1929. Similarly, Constantinople became Istanbul, and Smyrna, Izmir.

Or this:

The name of Constantinople was changed to Istanbul; Angora to Ankara; Smyrna to Izmir; Adrianople to Edirne, etc.

There's hundreds of sources that will say the same thing. Any official document before this period would most likely use the word Smyrna or Constantinople. In fact, even under Wikipedia standards we don't refer to Istanbul as Istanbul if it relates to anything prior to the 1930s. We call it Constantinople. For example, we say Koharik Gazarossian was born in Constantinople and not Istanbul due to that very reason. The same applies for Smyrna as well.

As for the Gaziantep, I told you that it was a map. And it doesn't really matter where the name Dilok came from. The fact of the matter is that locals called it Dilok. But that has changed. Anyways, I'm fine with removing Gaziantep for now. I need to look more into that matter and get back to you.

P.S. I removed your personal attacks. Please refrain from making such comments towards your fellow Wikipedia editors. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I reinstated my sentences that you removed. I am very careful to refrain from personal attacks, and if you think any of my sentences constitute as such and should be removed, you are welcome to seek arbitration; but in the meanwhile, please refrain from editing my comment. I believe one's lack of knowledge on Ottoman Turkish is a perfectly relevant observation here, essential to the discussion above. I am afraid it appears that you are indeed very much uninformed about it, which is perfectly fine, but unfortunately you are trying to reach conclusions that would require that knowledge.

How do you know the locals called Gaziantep Dilok? If there is a source that verifies it, then it is perfectly reasonable to keep it in the table. But from what I understand from the sources, the locals have always called it Antep. It may be true that Kurds have called it Dilok, but I don't know how you are extrapolating this to the locals. I hope you are not imagining Gaziantep to be a Kurdish city.

As for Izmir, just to be clear, you do accept that its name in Ottoman Turkish has always been Izmir (ايزمير) and not changed, am I right? If you are claiming ايزمير was not the official name of the city and only a colloquial one, may I ask what do you believe the official name was? I understand that you don't know Ottoman Turkish, but surely you must know that Ottoman Turkish was the official language. Every single official document of the Ottoman Empire, starting from before the Ottoman conquest in 1389 up to the collapse of the empire in 1923 referred to the city as ايزمير (Izmir), do you dispute that?--Orwellianist (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the burden is on you to provide sources. All I heard from you so far is how great your Ottoman Turkish is and how "ignorant" I am of mine. You came to the talk page arguing that these two words are the same. So it's your job to prove it. So to be more clear: provide reliable sources that proves Izmir is no different with Smyrna in terms of its name. But more importantly, you'll have to find a source that would have to say that Izmir didn't change from Smyrna, especially during the official name changing period of the 1930s. I have already provided several sources which demonstrate how the Republican government changed the original name of Smyrna, which dates back thousands of years, by adopting the Turkified rendition of Izmir. I don't understand why anyone would need to know Ottoman Turkish to comment on that, especially when there's hundreds of sources that back it up. Nisanyan, the one author you did mention, says exactly what I've been saying all along:

İstanbul, Ankara ve İzmir Türkçeye Yunanca'dan alınmış adlardır. Ancak bu adlar Türk dilinin unsuru haline gelmiş, Türkçeye özgü fonetik dönüşümlere uğramıştır; “Türkçe” olarak algılanır, Türkçe cümlelerde kullanıldıklarında yadırganmazlar. Türkçe şiirlerde, romanlarda, türkülerde, deyimlerde, tarihi belgelerde, sözleşmelerde, reklam metinlerinde, kataloglarda sorunsuzca yer alırlar. Aşırı birtakım ideolojik söylemler dışında kimse bu adların “Türkçe olmadığını” iddia edemez. Buna karşılık Konstantinópolis, Ángira ve Smírni–üçü de etimolojik açıdan Türkçesiyle eşkökenli olduğu halde– Türkçe değil Yunancadır. O şekilde algılanır, “yabancı” sayılır ve gerektiğinde duygusal tepkilere konu olabilirler.

Even slight phonetic changes (dönüşümlere) account for a fundamental change that would rid the original Greek name of itself. The word "Izmir" didn't have to be invented in the 1930s to account for this. As I have mentioned above, Turkish politicians opted to use this word as opposed to the other native or perhaps official wording that have long been in use since the very founding of that city. The 1930s naming conventions were not only done to change specific names, but to adopt an official consensus which was lacking at that point in time. So when the law of 1929 was promulgated, that effectively changed the original name of Smyrna to Izmir in its most formal sense. The surname law of 1934 was no different in that respect, especially when it came to minority last names. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My Ottoman Turkish is not great by any stretch, but I avoid making statements that would require a higher level than mine. I already gave you sources that say that Izmir didn't change from Smyrna during 1930s. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them, you only need to search for Izmir in the catalogs of the Ottoman archive. As for what is available on Wikipedia, a map from Cedid Atlas, first Ottoman atlas dated 1803, is below:

ايزمير

You don't need any Ottoman Turkish beyond basic pattern recognition to see ايزمير as the city's name. You can look at any map in Turkish from any time, any Turkish document from any period, any Turkish novel, anything. Regardless of whether it is from 11th century or 19th, it will invariably refer to the city as ايزمير (Izmir). Yet you insist on claiming that there was a different official naming for the city. And you didn't answer my question, what was the official name of the city in Turkish before the supposed name change? Let's say an official name change took place in the 1930s as you claim, how did the Turk refer the city officially before then?

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the change that took place in 1930s, which is what the sources you mention are talking about. The name of Izmir was never changed. What happened is, Turkey transitioned to Latin alphabet. Before that, official names was in Arabic script, and when writing the city's name in Turkish, always ايزمير (Izmir) was used. When the French, the English etc wrote it in Latin alphabet, it wasn't necessarily Latinized from Turkish, which would be Izmir, but it was Latinized as Smyrna. In 1928, as Turkey transitioned from Arabic to Latin script, and the city's name was kept exactly as it was, as Izmir. The change that happened is, now the cities had official names in Latin script instead of Arabic, and Turkey started to urge other countries that used Latin alphabet to use the city's official names in Turkish as they are written in Turkish. Smyrna indeed became Izmir in English, in French etc, but the city's name had remained the same all along in Turkey. There are dozens of similar, unrelated cases. For example, sultan محمد was usually Latinized as Muhammed in English before Turkey's transition to Latin alphabet. After Turkey started to use Latin alphabet, the English adopted the Turkish spelling as Mehmed, which is what he had been called all along. Turkey didn't change the sultan's name, its Latinization was adjusted in English because now Turkish used the same script as English.

Let me simplify it for you. Initial transliterations at first encounter:

• Σμύρνα → (the English) → Smyrna (11th century or earlier)
• Σμύρνα → (the Turks) → ايزمير → (in the 11th century)

In 1928 Turkish started to be written in Latin:

• ايزمير → (the Turks) → Izmir (1928)

Later other countries adopted this Latinization:

• Smyrna → (the English) → Izmir (1928 onwards)

So there wasn't any name change in Turkish in 1930s, the city's name has always been officially and nonofficially Izmir, as demonstrated by literally hundreds of thousands of sources. If you want to make the case that the city's name was changed in 1930s, you must at least tell us what it was changed from. There are literally 0 documents in Turkish from any time in history that I know of that refer to the city as something other than Izmir. Because no name change occurred at any point, Σμύρνα has always been written as ايزمير in Turkish, invariably.--Orwellianist (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another idea. It is possible to have another list, maybe as an appendix to this article, that lists the name changes that Turkey forced in other languages. Izmir would belong there, and so does a number of cities in Turkey. But Izmir most certainly doesn't belong to a list of name changes in Turkey. On the contrary, its name has remained exactly the same in Turkey for a millennium, even without the slightest spelling change.--Orwellianist (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how Izmir is the same as Smyrna, especially when the sources I provided above specifically point out to Izmir's phonetics as being distinctively Turkish. You haven't provided a source that specifically states that Izmir is nothing but a Turkish phonetic and spelling equivalent of the Greek name of the city. I don't deny that the map says "Izmir", but to say that it is the same as Smyrna is a stretch. And sorry, I'm simply not going to take your personal observations as an RS towards this. But at any rate, it's not important. In fact, whether Izmir was the official name prior to the 1930s is not important either. The fact of a matter is Smyrna was its original name. The cities history didn't begin in 1389 with the Ottoman Empire. Don't forget that this city is much older than a millennia. But I also would not neglect the fact that it was also known as Izmir during the Ottoman era. So a simple note that states:

The name of the city was officially rendered to its present name of Izmir in 1929, but the name has been in use during Ottoman times.

...Or something of that sort. I would have to need a source for the second clause of that sentence to move forward. There really isn't anything to debate here anymore. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't be still claiming that the name Izmir has anything to do with 1929. As I have demonstrated and apparently you do not deny, Izmir has first become that city's official name at the 11th century, and it has been officially called Izmir continuously since at least 14th century. If you insist that Σμύρνα to ايزمير is a name change rather than just a transliteration from Greek to Arabic, then we can only add Izmir as a name change in the 11th century; but that is not currently within the scope of the article and we would need to rewrite the introduction if we are to include that.--Orwellianist (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And just in case you think it is just this map, you can go to Ottoman archives at http://en.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/ and make a catalogue search (it requires registration but it's open to everyone). You can see tens of thousand of government documents with the city's official name Izmir. (You can't access originals online, but you would need Ottoman Turkish to read them anyway). Really, what I have been explaining to you for so long is common knowledge to everyone who studied Ottoman history. If you want to believe that Σμύρνα didn't become ايزمير etymologically naturally but rather somebody deliberately made it ايزمير in order to Turkify it in the 11th century, well, that's nonsense; but I don't think I can find any study that says it wasn't the case, because no scholar ever claimed that Turks had a policy of systematically renaming and Turkifying city names in the 11th century, so nobody ever felt the need to refute that. It is just common knowledge. Turks had no such government policy at the time, variations in spelling only occurred because Turkish language is different and some variation in loanwords is natural.--Orwellianist (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What we both agree upon is that the term Izmir was in use, whether officially or unofficially, throughout the Ottoman period. So I don't think there's anything wrong with my proposal:

The name of the city was officially rendered to its present name of Izmir in 1929, but the name Izmir has been in use during Ottoman times.

Unless you can find a source that specifically says Izmir is a transliteration of Smyrna, I could say this proposal is the safest option. By the way, there are dozens sources that state Turkification began as early as the 11th century when the Seljuks came to the scene. It really isn't surprising to see that village names would also be changed under that process as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You accept that Izmir has been the city's name since the 11th century, so I don't understand your insistence of adding a sentence that says it was officially rendered to Izmir in 1929. I oppose adding Izmir to the article, but if you insist, it is only possible to add it like:

The name of the city was officially rendered to its present name of Izmir in the 14th century.

Actually it is probably more accurate to say 11th century, but I don't have official documents from the time of Tzachas at hand in case you want to see them, so I am fine with a date as late as 14th century, but no later than that. Any later date would be factually incorrect.

Again, I don't support including this in the article, because it would be watering down the content; but if you insist, I won't oppose adding it in that form to avoid further discord. But if you want to add it, I'm going to have to rewrite the introduction accordingly as the article won't only be talking about name changes during the modern times. I can add hundreds of other interesting changes in the spellings of the names of cities in Turkey throughout the 11th-19th centuries as well; there are a lot of fascinating cases (at least fascinating to etymology buffs like me; certain sounds tend to disappear in certain centuries, consonants replace each other at specific times, etc, fascinating stuff). I can also add a discussion of why the names evolved the way they did, because of the linguistic properties of Turkish, effects of the Arabic script, etc. if I have the time. I would prefer to limit the article to the name changes in modern times though, and not include cases like Izmir.--Orwellianist (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Such a sentence can be added only if its sourced. What you're doing is WP:OR and drawing your own personal conclusions. Despite it all, there's no disagreement between us over the fact that the term Izmir was at least used during the Ottoman era. So "The name of the city was officially rendered to its present name of Izmir in 1929, but the name Izmir has been in use during Ottoman times" would be the best option here. Besides, there's more than enough sources to back that statement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You insist on adding information that you accept to be wrong. I have been explaining some basic facts regarding history, assuming you have good faith, but at this point I am starting doubt my assumption. It is very well known, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the city has always been officially and nonofficially called Izmir in Turkish. That is demonstrated by literally hundreds of thousands of sources, and there is not a single one source that disputes this, and fortunately, nor do you. I have seen activists on Wikipedia who insisted on adding dubious information, but I have never seen one who insisted on adding blatantly wrong information, even after admitting that the information is blatantly wrong.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You claim that there's hundreds of sources, can you please provide at least one that says "The name of the city was officially rendered to its present name of Izmir in the 14th century."? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just hundreds, hundreds of thousands. Every single document in the Ottoman archives regarding Izmir. Other than that, one specific example is Ibn Battuta's travel book, which is even earlier than the Ottoman times, which confirms that the rendition of the city's name in the Arabic script was Izmir in 1333. The page number will depend on the edition, but it is in the first page of the Anatolia section. Nisanyan confirms this. Do you have a single source that says otherwise? Not hundreds of thousands, not hundreds, just a single source, which says the city ever had a different rendition in Turkish?--Orwellianist (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are pointing to the fact that the term Izmir was in use, but not necessarily changed on an official level. Something that I can't possibly deny. For example, Ibn Battuta's travel book may confirm the term Izmir as a term used to designate the city in its respective language, but doesn't really go beyond saying at what level this was implemented and at whose expense. Smyrna was still used as an official designation of Izmir throughout the Ottoman period as well, especially by foreign powers. But to limit the city's names to just one term (as it just so happened through official mandates of the postal laws in 1929) would mean to rid itself of every other name, whether officially or unofficially. As a result, the name of the city was changed for good. So until I see a source that specifically says that the city of Izmir was changed through some sort of imperial decree or any other executive mandate by the Sublime Porte, that'll be the moment I will concede. Otherwise, we're just dealing with a hodgepodge of different names towards this city of which all could be considered official or unofficial through their respective agencies. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I also would like to grab your attention regarding this matter because, on Wikipedia, we all know that Constantinople is the term usually referred to Istanbul prior to the postal laws of 1929 and 1930s. I know you've been involved in this matter for quite some time. It is my guess that when it comes to Smyrna, along with other cities like Nicaea or Angora, Wikipedia users would have to apply the same general consensus towards this matter. Can you enlighten us on this aspect? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course :@EtienneDolet:: the consensus reached for Constantinople/Istanbul applies also for Smyrna/Izmir, exactly for the same reason: this was the common name used by the vast majority of our sources dealing with the city before the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. It is clear that the Turks have been using the Turkish name both in Istanbul and in Izmir also before the 1920s, but most of the sources in English (and not only these: in Italy "Smirne" is still pretty much in use, while "Costantinopoli" is now restricted to the Byzantine city) have been using the Greek one. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, I have repeated it quite a number of times already, but I will repeat it one more time, as simple as I can. There cannot possibly be a source that says Izmir was changed through an imperial decree by the Sublime Porte; if there were, that would disprove my point. I think I have made it perfectly clear so far that Izmir has never been, at any point in the history of the city or of the Turkish language, ever been referred to as something other than Izmir in Turkish. ايزمير was how Σμύρνη was transcribed from the start, and not a single source disputes that. There is no question that in the 20th century Turkey forced Western countries to use the Turkish spelling, something which the Ottoman Empire didn't do (and couldn't do, since they didn't use Latin script), so indeed how the French referred to the city has changed, but the city didn't undergo a name change in Turkey, certainly not in the 20th century.

I don't think there is anything to argue anymore. A change necessarily requires the existence of something to be changed from, otherwise a change cannot occur. It has been days now, and you still haven't even told us what Izmir has been changed from, based on a source. (It certainly cannot have been changed from Smyrna, you could not even write Smyrna in Turkish, that is a linguistic impossibility.) We know, beyond any reasonable doubt and based on a plethora of sources, that Izmir's name in Turkey hasn't gone through a name change in the 20th century, and fortunately you have the common sense not to dispute that. If you want to make the case that it was changed earlier, possibly at some point in the 11th-14th centuries, go ahead and try to find a source verifies this, hopefully also telling us what it was changed from. Otherwise I am removing Izmir from the article.--Orwellianist (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind removing it for now. Unfortunately, I don't think you got what I've been saying all along, but at this point I don't mind. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Who knows? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Etienne, I read the article again, and I must admit that before I did not understand well what you meant. I think that here is a matter of the article's scope: if for geographical changes one means new names which the Republic introduced (as for example Yeşilköy, which before was San Stefano/Ayastefanos), well, I don't think that Izmir should be here, since the name existed in parallel with the Greek one since the Turks came in contact with the city.

If the article deals also with the names which were "ethnically cleansed", that means, which were not accepted anymore by the Republic, the name should stay. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However the article is full of examples that do not follow this sane reasoning. Most of the "Kurdish" names for example. Many are not "Kurdish", and many were never official names. A place that had an unofficial name that remains an unofficial name cannot be termed a name change. Minor changes in spelling also should not count as name changes unless the new spelling consciously changes the meaning of the old name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Than people with the necessary knowledge and sources (I have neither of them) should first agree about the scope, and then modify the article. Alex2006 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Alex2006, that's what I have been saying all along. You could certainly make a definition that includes Izmir, but the article currently doesn't. I have been trying to tell in this discussion that if we are to keep it, we need to completely rewrite the introduction of the article, because Izmir certainly doesn't fit. If Izmir went through a name change, it happened during 11th-14th centuries, and it wasn't a name change either, it is just how Σμύρνη was transcribed into Arabic from the start, like how دمشق was transcribed into French as Damas and it is not a name change. If we are to include that for that reason, we will need to expand the article greatly. If we don't limit the article to names changes in Turkey, but how Turkey enforced Turkish spellings in other languages, which could be the second argument, we will again need to expand the article a lot: Every city in Ottoman Turkey had official names written in Arabic, and they were transcribed into English and French according to the rules of that language; after 1928, Turkey transcribed them into Latin using Turkish alphabet, and made other countries used that transcription. This was done for every single city and town in Turkey, and Izmir is no special case. Eskişehir was probably transcribed as Eski-shahir (or something like that), and Turkey made other countries use Eskişehir or Eskisehir after c. 1928.--Orwellianist (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Akhtamar is indeed a mystery

As Tiptoe pointed out to me, the origin and meaning of the word is unclear, although I have seen some sources before claiming etymological roots. I apologize for making quick assumptions about Tiptoe and the edit itself. If there is anyone who can find a proper source about the word, it will be of great help. --92slim (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Exaggeration

This article is somewhat biassed. As noted above, some of the examples shown in the tables are not real name changes. For example, the names of Govdun, Akhtamar, Manavazkert, Çermuk, Khackar, Anı, Sevaverag, Partak, Merdô, Kalipolis, Kalamaniki, Hênî are not changed. They are pronounced according to Turkish phonology.(Pertek instead of Partak, Ani instead of Anı etc.) Besides some names such as İstanbul and İzmir are not examples of name changes. They were already in use during the Ottoman times. (Note that İstanbul is a Greek phrase and it is still in use. ) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're telling me Turks can't pronounce Ani and Pertek? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If Partak is replaced by a Turkish word, than it would be called a name change. Of course there are examples of such changes. But changing a to e is not a name change. (Neither Partak nor Pertek has any meaning in Turkish) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to make sense in the Turkish language. For example, Constantinopolis was changed to Istanbul, but does Istanbul mean anything in Turkish? No. The same goes for Pertek and Partak. The Armenian name, meaning "Little castle" in Armenian, has been changed to such a degree that it is incomprehensible in its original language. That's the definition of name change, regardless of whether that name makes sense in the modern Turkish language or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Very same name can be pronounced differently in different languages. English Henry becomes French Henri and Serbian Beograd becomes Belgrade in Western languages. That's not name change. (Most of the 81 Turkish province centers have their original names sometimes with a minor change according to Turkish phonology; eg; Trabzon for Trebizond, Ankara for Angora, etc.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the general objection expressed by Nedim Ardoğa. The article is about geographical name changes that have been (on some level) officially authorized and enforced, and not about minor and naturally occurring distortions of what are basically unchanged names (where the distortion has not occurred as a result of official policies to change that original place name). However, at least one of the examples Nedim Ardoğa gave (Anı instead of Ani) is actually an example of a state authorized change made to deny or distort the origin or meaning of the original name. It was coined by the notorious Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu as part of his attempt to "Turkify" just about every place name in eastern Turkey by inventing connections to ancient Turkish tribes. The name was then quietly forgotten for decades (except by propaganda sources [1]) but was taken up in 2007 and made official policy at a gathering of Turkish pseudo-archeologists that included the equally notorious Oktay Belli, see [2], which resulted in changes to Turkish tourism brochures, road signs, etc.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I would think Rio Grande, Baton Rouge, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Santa Barbara are much more relevant examples here. The Americans haven't changed the spelling of these names, or in the context of this article, they haven't rid it from its "separatist notions". Americans simply pronounce these words the English way. So it's not a name change, and there never had to be one. However, when it comes to the Turkish geographical name changes, we see something different. The effort is not only focused on changing the Armenian/Kurdish/Arabic origins of place names, it is also focused on distorting them as well, to a point in which the origins of these villages are lost. This doesn't have to be in the form of replacing a Turkish word which makes sense in the Turkish language. I think Chicago is a good example of that.

Sidenote: Pertek/Pertak is not a good example either. The Turks changed Pertek in what it was perceived to be by the state authorities as "it's original Turkish name." (source) Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't find that source trustworthy for a number of its claims. Early on it is citing typical medieval folk etymology, like Evliya Celebi's often silly explanations of what place names mean, in an article meant to be dealing with Turkish 20th century place name renaming. Many of its claims are wrong (and are often so obviously wrong that I think it is due to an aim to exaggerate). For example, Varagavank was also known as Yedikilise long before the genocide, and called by that name by Armenians, so that source is entirely incorrect to imply that the place was being called Yedikilise just to "bury their ethnic affiliation in oblivion". The source gets even more wrong when it claims the same for Ouchkiliseh / Etchmiadzim. The three churches epithet actually arises from Christian religious beliefs, which is why the same name was used for the Uchkilise at Bagavan in the Agri valley to increase its sanctity even though there was only one surviving church there by the 19th century. It talks about 1916 place name changes in Hamshen - hardly a credible claim given Hamshen remained unmapped until the 1930s (it is literally a white empty space on maps that were around in 1916). A great many of the names it claims have been altered to make Turkish look like just a regularization of place names that had numerous versions (look at old maps or travelers accounts and you will find many different spelling variations for the same place name). A desire to decide on one standard name in an age of printed maps, taxation, and postal deliveries is not necessarily part of the policy to Turkify names. So, I am not convinced there was anything sinister behind Pertek / Pertak or many of the very minor changes cited by that source such as Terjan (Derjan), Kemah (Kamakh), Ispir (Sper), Zaroushat (Zarishat), Artemetan (Artamed), Erdish (Arjesh), Zedkan (Zatkan), Egin (Akn), Keban (Kapan), etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geographical name changes in Turkey. 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/20120810003041/http://www.kenthaber.com:80/Haber/Genel/Dosya/gundem/28-bin-yerin-ismi-degisti,-hangi-isim-hangi-dile-ait-/98d48e23-0060-4d49-88ce-3f28d5e94332 to http://www.kenthaber.com/Haber/Genel/Dosya/gundem/28-bin-yerin-ismi-degisti,-hangi-isim-hangi-dile-ait-/98d48e23-0060-4d49-88ce-3f28d5e94332
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929200225/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-293696-turkey-to-restore-some-kurdish-place-names.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-293696-turkey-to-restore-some-kurdish-place-names.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114102054/http://cografya.bilecik.edu.tr/Dosya/Arsiv/Harun%20Tun%C3%A7el%20Makaleler/T%C3%BCrkiye%E2%80%99de%20%C4%B0smi%20De%C4%9Fi%C5%9Ftirilen%20K%C3%B6yler.pdf to http://cografya.bilecik.edu.tr/Dosya/Arsiv/Harun%20Tun%C3%A7el%20Makaleler/T%C3%BCrkiye%E2%80%99de%20%C4%B0smi%20De%C4%9Fi%C5%9Ftirilen%20K%C3%B6yler.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Geographical name changes in Turkey. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kenthaber.com/Haber/Genel/Dosya/gundem/28-bin-yerin-ismi-degisti,-hangi-isim-hangi-dile-ait-/98d48e23-0060-4d49-88ce-3f28d5e94332
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224214559/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=183946 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=183946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212233741/http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=250499 to http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=250499
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021094318/http://www.lraper.org/main.aspx?Action=DisplayNews&NewsCode=N000001527&Lang=TR to http://www.lraper.org/main.aspx?Action=DisplayNews&NewsCode=N000001527&Lang=TR

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yazidis

Recently the user Kaiduo has added Yazidis to this paragraph. This is the paragraph after his addition Names changed were usually of Armenian, Greek, Georgian(Including Laz), Bulgarian, Kurdish, Zazaki, Assyrian, Yazidi[1], or Arabic origin.

• The Yazidis in Turkey speak Kurdish. How can a name be of Yazidi origin when Yazidis speak Kurdish language (which is already mentioned)??? Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The names were of Yazidi origin. Because Yazidis lived in this villages. That does not mean what languages the Yazidis speak.—Kaiduo (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiduo: Hi, thanks for your reply. The paragraph there seems to be about languages not ethnics or nationalities. Yazidis speak Kurdish so I guess Yazidis shouldn't be included because Kurdish is already there. Excuse me if I said something wrong here because I am not expert on this topic but that's just my opinion because all of what the paragraph stated are languages not ethnics. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

People do not understand that language is not a synonyme to an ethnic group. Yazidis are an ethno-religious group they speak Kurmanji and it is called Ezdiki by Yazidis. Kurds claims that Kurmanji is a Kurdish dialect. And the villages in the Tur Abdin region were of Yazidi, Assyrian, Armenian and Kurdish origin. Not all Yazidis speak Kurmanji. You claim that all Yazidis speak „Kurdish“, but some Yazidis speak Arabic as their mother language. The villages were built by Yazidis and were named by the Yazidis.—Kaiduo (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiduo: How about you write "Kurmanji (by Yazidis)" instead of writing Yazidis because Yazidi is not a language and I agree with that but the paragraph there seems that it is all about languages and not ethnicities.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Yazidi villages in Turkey and the Yazidi names of the villages were of Yazidi origin. And in the source you can read this „Changing the Yazidi names of Yazidi villages to Turkish names.“[3] An example is the Yazidi village Cinerya. The village were named by the Yazidi holy person Hesin Ciner.[4]—Kaiduo (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Armenian places renamed.svg (discussion)
• Greek places renamed.svg (discussion)
• Kurdish places renamed.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgian places renamed.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Geographical name changes in Turkey → Place name changes in Turkey – See below (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Geographical name" is much less commonly used phrase in English than "place name", by a factor of more than 5. Also, "geographical name" does not necessarily mean a place name. Judging from the Google Scholar results, it most often refers to non-place names that derive from place names, such as species or products. I also think that "Toponym changes in Turkey" would also be acceptable, as it is equally precise and the main article is located at toponymy. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Well, there's also a similar page titled "Geographical name changes in Greece". (And also, the main page for this concept is titled Geographical renaming.) But to be fair, there's a bunch of pages names "List of renamed places in X", so hmm. I don't have an opinion, just wanted to mention what similar pages exist. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense Red Slash 17:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgian places renamed.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Place name changes in Turkey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference, this is how the article looked like when it first passed the GA review. Much of the content remains from the reviewed version, and the review was quite quick, so I have some questions about the GA review itself.

• There is a table under each sub-section in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes, showing the changed names supposedly from the listed language. Every table includes the reference to Index Anatolicus, which is not RS, since it can be edited by anyone signed up. Much of the content on the tables are also not found on that site. Sevan Nişanyan, the creator of the site, is also not an established scholar. In all sub-sections except "Georgian", there is another reference to a report by the Turkish state, and there is very little doubt that such a report would not back up non-Turkish spellings and etymological explanations. There is a clear problem regarding verifiability with reliable sources. This doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceberg, because I have not scrutinized most of the remaining sources yet.
  • Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
• Large numbers of references lack page numbers, include dead links such as this and this, which aren't particularly RS as well.
• According to Commons, the source for the maps in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes is page 55 of Adını unutan ülke by Sevan Nişanyan, but as far as I can see, that page covers the place names in Bartın, nothing that includes these maps or gives an overview that could back up the maps. These maps were also clumsily drawn and contradict with Index Anatolicus in many instances, which is the updated web version of Nişanyan's book.
  • Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
• One questionable aspect about the article is that in some cases, ancient or alternative names are presented as names that were changed recently. These names are not and should not be this article's focus. Nişanyan's book and Index Anatolicus do not in any way, justify that and distinguish these names as having been changed as part of a deliberate policy. One of the countless examples is Izmir. According to Nişanyan's Index Anatolicus, the name "Izmir" was attested by Ibn Battuta in 1333. A problem with Adını unutan ülke and Index Anatolicus is that it largely lacks commentary and just includes lists of names per a certain year when a particular source used that name. It seems any non-Turkish name/spelling, regardless of its age, was assumed to be changed as part of the campaign of name changes.
  • Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
• There are some excessive citations, many of which do not back up the content. For example, in the lead, this news article was left next to the statement that the languages of origin of the changed names included Syriac, but this article only discusses Yazidis. There are 0 mentions of Syriac or Assyrian.
• It's pretty clear that this article needs a good clean up. The earlier reviews have not addressed many valid questions. The first GA review barely discussed the reliability of the sources or confirmed that at least some of the statements were verified by the given sources. Still, the article failed due to lack of action. The first review misled who made the second review so that these points still weren't addressed. A reassessment should not be aimed at delisting an article, but this article is very short of passing a GA. Maybe the standards were much lower in early 2010s. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I am worried there may be some original research in the article. For example, see the "Notable name changes of Kurdish geographical locations" section. Prior to Turkey being founded, many of these towns and cities had a multiethnic population with many Turkish, Armenian, Syriac etc. residents. Are all of these names post-1923 coinages or was it a case of adopting a Turkish name when multiple had been in use previously? Kızıltepe is listed here as changed from Kurdish but the pre-1915 name was actually Tell Ermen.

  Examples of Assyrian/Syriac names changed are Qudshanis (now officially Konak), Gülgöze, Midyat (formerly Iwardo), and İdil (formerly Azakh). I believe these are genuine name changes but don't have the sources to prove it. (t · c) buidhe 07:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have 0.0 doubts that the article has original research, given that as I listed above, in many cases, references do not back up the content they follow. For example, Index Anatolicus, the reference for the table listing "changed Kurdish names", does not tag "Riha" as a name that was changed to "Urfa" as part of the Turkification policies. There, "Urfa" is shown as an alternative name to "Ruha" from the year 1665. Furthermore, on that site, "Riha" was tagged as an Arabic name from 870, since it was attested in Ibn Khordadbeh's Arabic work Kitabu'l Masalik wa'l Mamalik from 870. Anyone can view it by hovering the mouse on the open book icon next to "A870". This is one of countless obvious cases where "unideal" sources were misrepresented with original research tucked in. Aintabli (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also, for context it should be mentioned the Geographical name changes in Greece and Hebraization of Palestinian place names as, for better or worse, this type of name change is quite common in the region. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Tables and maps

I have removed the tables per the first point I listed above. Anyone disputing their removal feel free to discuss those here, though there isn't much to truly dispute, since the OR is pretty obvious. Best option is to recreate those tables with verifiable examples from RS. Aintabli (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the first table in Place name changes in Turkey#Comparative analysis that showed the number of name changes per province and added those numbers to the map for better readability. Aintabli (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The map I'm talking about

Related question but Aintabli do you think the maps are accurate? I used one of them in a FA rated article and if the sourcing isn't good it should be removed there (as well as here). (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe, I actually found the sources for these maps. However, much of the declared sources on Commons aren't accurate. For example, the map you shared supposedly comes from Adını unutan ülke: Türkiye'de adı değiştirilen yerler sözlüğü, but I couldn't find that map on the specified page. Another book by Nişanyan, Hayali coğrafyalar: Cumhuriyet döneminde Türkiye'de Değiştirilen Yeradları includes similar maps more or less on the same pages. So, I think if we correct the citations (which I will do in a bit), we should be good. The maps could be more precise, but it's not a major problem for now. Aintabli (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli and Buidhe:, where does this GAR stand in your opinions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It needs quite a bit of work. The earlier reviews ignored much of the article. In order to bring this article to the GA level, I would thoroughly check each source and verify the content, tweak the wording, and introduce new sources to make up for the removed content. This is equivalent to a full-on GA review, if not more than that. I will be able to get back to the reassessment a week later, though. Aintabli (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

+1, I concur that the article is not close to meeting the criteria and would support delisting unless anyone is planning to make dramatic improvements. (t · c) buidhe 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.