Talk:Komotini

Gümülcine

Why is Gümülcine not listed in the lead? Not every town within the borders of modern Greece needs a Turkish name, but Komotini on account of its significant Turkish minority and prominent Ottoman monuments seems to warrant one. Aramgar (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I see no problem with the infobox title as follows: Komotini (Κομοτηνή / Gümülcine). Aramgar (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Turkish name doesn't belong in the infobox regardless of whether the city has a Turkish minority or not. Komotini is a city and Greece and thus the Greek name of the city is added in the infobox, as the native name spoken in that language. The Turkish name is in the history section where it belongs, not in the infobox. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Amargar doesn't expect Greek names to be in the lead paragraph of Turkish city articles like Istanbul, Izmir etc?? And indeed they shouldn't be, because this is the place where only one name is mentioned, the one in the official language of the country where the city is located.--   Avg    17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would support the inclusion of historical or, in the case of Komotini, still current names in the lead. I would support this for cities in both Greece and Turkey, so long as there is a sound historical reason for doing so. Please consider the leads of Sinop, Iznik, Istanbul, and Izmir. I have and will continue to argue that the Greek names are necessary for these and dozens of other places within the borders of the Turkish Republic. I have removed silly etymologies for Sivas motivated by nationalist concerns more than once [1]. Yes, User:Avg, it does go both ways. My interest in this matter is academic, not nationalistic. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. It's certainly refreshing to see people having a purely academic interest in heated topics. Still, there are a lot of involved people with different and conflicting POVs who have been and will continue to be engaged in a kind of tug-o-war, with the sole point of achieving a better positioning of their own language in city names (it might sound absurd, but this has been the reality for years now in almost every Balkan-related article). This has led to the (unofficial) decision of having only one name in the lead paragraph and all the others in a separate name section.--   Avg    22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the problem of names in Balkans-related articles and try to limit the amount of time I spend on such issues. Komotini, however, seems a rather easy case. A significant portion of the population calls the place Gümülcine, and in my reading I encounter the latter name (along with Gumuljine) almost as often as I see Komotini. As I said above, not every Greek town with an Ottoman past needs a Turkish name in the lead, but Komotini, known outside of Greece (so far as it is known) primarily for its Turkish minority, does in fact need such. Aramgar (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Veria does not need Karaferiye in its lead, nor Serres Sıruz; and this, for example, is totally ridiculous. Komotini is entirely different. Aramgar (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Turkish-Greek Wikipedia user board, the significant Turkish majority of the city requires a name addition in the lead, as with Turkish cities with a Greek majority... Now, thank you very much, but what will we do with the WIKI TR-GR user board??? Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One mention should be enough. Either the infobox or the lead, it's supposed to be information not definition and keeping both looks like that. I don't think you can't have it all. It was alread bold enough to leave it in the infobox, lead is unnecessary. Or vice versa. I'll wait for your reply but soon I'll put it back the way it was.Arheos (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why keeping both names in both locations is unacceptable. Consider the example of Derry, where a sectarian divide is responsible for two names, both of which —Derry and Londonderry— appear in both the infobox and the lead. Certainly we can do the same for a pleasant town in Western Thrace. Also, could you please elaborate further what you mean by "it's supposed to be information not definition"? Regards, Aramgar (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that way is good. I also do not understand why it is "bold" to leave it in the infobox or anything... Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Derry example is not the best analogy but it's good that you mentioned it because it's the one to avoid in this particular article (and probably the other Greek-Turkish naming issues), meaning that in that case it's about a name dispute and here it isn't. It's a different thing having in the lead "Language:...:Name:..." which is extra information on the subject than having a header in the infobox with multiple names which is definition of the subject. Each place has an official name from the country it belongs to and this information belongs to the header of the infobox. Quite often it has other names which co-exist or existed sometime in the past and this belongs in the lead or in certain cases in the short historical reference in the lower part of the infobox. The one very similar example I see, is "Istanbul/Κωνσταντινούπολη" and even there (which I'm sure you'll agree is a much bigger/important case than Komotini) the Greek name (in the Greek language) is neither on the infobox-header nor in the lead and I might add it at some point and see what happens. But I'm not going to request this inclusion in the infobox-header. It doesn't belong there. Same with Izmir. Furthermore if you check Imbros or Tenedos where the case is so extreme that even the international community has followed the Greek name and the wikipedia also uses this as the name for the article, but still the Greek wording appears only in the lead and not in the infobox-header. I hope you get my point now. BTW if you want my non-Greek--non-Turkish equivalent/analogy try Sri Lanka or the more recent Bombay-Mumbai where the name separation is quite recent but still the old name appears only in the lead and not in the infobox.Arheos (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and you have made the argument well. You are correct: the example of Derry is not the best. The divide is one of language rather than politics. The Romanian cities of Miercurea-Ciuc and Sfântu Gheorghe perhaps provide a closer example. Both cities have a significant Hungarian minority and both the Hungarian and Romanian names are represented in the infoboxes. A third example, also from Romania, is Sibiu where the infobox includes the German name Hermannstadt. As for the "definition" of Komotini, I am not sure the city or Greece suffers by the inclusion of Gümülcine in the infobox. The NPOV solution might just be to describe the two names in current use rather than prescribe which name is the real one. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history behind the examples you mentioned so I can't tell how similar the cases are to this and there's not much discussion about it in their talk pages. You didn't comment at all, though, on the ones I brought up which back the solution I propose i.e. Only in the lead, not in infobox-header, maybe lower in infobox in mini-history section. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the city "suffers" from such inclusion but you might be taking the influence of wikipedia a bit too lightly. We have to make clear/distinct what the "real"/official -and most used- name is, that's the info-header, and of course we have to mention the other names which are often heard/used by part of the population, and that is what the lead is for. That follows the NPOV solution and doesn't provoke reaction/confusion from people who either don't understand why the double name in the header or don't know which the real one is.And TBH if one added "Κωνσταντινούπολη" in the header of the english article, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it either. So I will remove it from the infobox-header, leave the lead as is and see how it goes. Please, make an effort to meet halfway.

PS. A little online search on the first example you provided gives the impression that both names are used equally and probably interchangeably from the online community which is not the case with Komotini. Of course one cannot use online references without having a real feel of the issue but it's an indication. Arheos (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the examples you provided but have offered examples which seem more applicable to the case of Komotini: the Romanian cities of Miercurea-Ciuc and Sfântu Gheorghe have a mixed population of Romanian and Hungarian speakers in much the same way that Komotini has a mixed population of Greek and Turkish speakers. In the Romanian examples, the Romanian name is the title of the article but both the Romanian and Hungarian names are represented in the WP:LEAD and the infobox. The names are not interchangable as you suggest but have everything to do with the native language of the speaker. Similarly, our city is Komotiní to the Greeks and Gümülcine to the native Turks. Both names are daily used on the streets of the city. Komotini seems to be the exception to the naming conventions for Greek cities.

Perhaps we should seek a third opinion: the administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to me an even-handed observer of the Balkans on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board might also be options. I am certainly willing to compromise but feel the discussion would benefit from other informed voices. Aramgar (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Fut.Perf. has made this proposal and from what is in there, the lead should suffice. In any case I'm sure this conversation is being monitored already and if needed one would jump to make adjustments. The point is to find the way ourselves. I'll let it rest for a few days though and see if there are any other reactions.Cheers. Arheos (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This situation has been discussed extensively in the past. The bottom line is that adding a foreign name at the start of an article right beside the official native naming, misleads the reader and creates the wrong impressions. The readed will ask himself:Why do we have two names in two different languages? Are they both official? and so on... Komotini, doesnt have a Turkish minority. It has a MUSLIM minority and only that is officialy accepted by the Greek Government. This muslim minority includes Pomaks and Turkic descent people, but those people are Greek citizens, bearing Greek ID's and Greek passports but are of Muslim Religion. Regardless of that, past naming belongs clearly to the History section and it that section should stay.Aee1980 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have understood from the discussion above that a compromise solution had been reached whereby the Turkish name is listed in the WP:lead but not in the infobox. The suggestion that Gümülcine is a foreign name is false. The so-called Muslim minority of the city consists almost entirely of Turkish speakers whose linguistic rights were established by the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by the European Union. The name is daily used on the streets of the city, as any sensitive visitor will quickly realize.

The recent actions of single purpose accounts and anonymous ip address to avoid tripping the three revert rule have been unproductive. Such unwillingness to abide by the even-handed talk-page consensus smacks strongly of nationalist POV and not good faith attempts to build an encyclopedia. Aramgar (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The compromise solution is that a Turkish name should be added in the History section as it already is. The Turkish name belongs to the history section because this is how officially it used to be called Komotini during ottoman times. The Muslim minority, does NOT consist entirely of people from Turkic backrground. This is a propaganda from the Turkish side. They consist of Pomaks as well. Regardless of that, they are Greek citizens with Greek ID's and passports and the official naming used by Greece and anyone else is Komotini. When someone adds the Turkish name right beside the Greek at the start of the article, he creates wrong impressions to the average reader. He will wonder why on Earth there are two names (one in Turkish) if we are talking for a Greek city. Also it should be reminded that the Treaty of Lausanne establishes a Greek Minority in Istanbul, but firstly all Greeks were expelled under force, and secindly I dont see in the relevant Wikipedia page the (in Greek: Κωνσταντινουπολις-Constantinople). Why is that?Aee1980 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is clearly still in current use by a significant percentage of the city's population. The Istanbul article has the name Constantinople in the Roman alphabet; I'm not sure why it isn't written in Greek as well. In my opinion, it probably should be, but I haven't had a chance to read up on the rationale behind its exclusion. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to be provocative. I have supplied reliable and verifiable sources for all the statements I have added to the article. I have explained all the additions I have made on this talkpage. Including "Gümülcine" only in the history section is not an appropriate compromise because it is not only an historical name but has common currency in the city today. The Istanbul Pogrom is indeed regrettable but has little relevance to what we do in this article. Aramgar (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok tell you what, Kafka Liz and Aramgar. First try will all your powers to add (in Greek: Κωνσταντινουπολις-Constantinople) right beside the Turkish name in the Istanbul article, and then come in this article and do the exact opposite. If we want to be fair and not provocative we need to treat same cases in the same way. Dont you agree? I dont think this its very fair to try here with all your powers to change things and not in the Istanbul article.Aee1980 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Aee1980, you can not compare Gümülcine and Constantinople, I think this is your first error. I seriously ask you to read the Turkish-Greek Wikipedia userboard (We agreed on something there, now why ignoring it??) and the Lausanne Convention. The fact that this article is about a "Greek City" does NOT mean we have to abide by Greek propagandas, right? We have to give the truth to our fellow readers, wether that'd be in Greece, Turkey or Gabon. Now deleting the FACT that this city is almost majoritarly Turkish Speaking is not relevant to our encyclopedial understanding.

On the other hand I think that you are right about the fact that Istanbul has not got a greek name in the lead, but remember what we agreed? Cities with a SIGNIFICANT Turkish or Greek minority have to possess a name in the other language. This is why the very essence of the example you give is wrong. If you want a REAL example, please look at the articles Imbros and Tenedos, that in Turkish are respectively "Gökçeada" and "Bozcaada" where the very NAME of the article is in Greek, let alone the lead. Also, those two examples are a lot closer to Gümülcine by economic and political terms.

Please feel free to discuss my comments as you wish. Until then, Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eae1983, of course Komotini and Constantinople are not the same nor are Imvros and Temedos. YOu forget one thing in your analysis. That All of these cities and islands were inhabited (and the names created) by Greeks thousands of years ago. The name Constantinople was used for thousands of years. The name Istanbul not. Turks passed by from Komotini then left and now the Muslim Monority consists of various ethnic backgrounds, Turkic included. But of course saying that the majority of people there speak Turkish is absolutely laughable and forgive me to say shows exactly why things you write must be deleted. I have been there many, many times and the last thing I listen to is Turkish spoken. In fact Muslim people speak Greek, because they live in Greece and are Greek citizens. Whether they know another language is irrelevant. In Greece there are lots of Albanians, who also know Albanian, does that mean that we have to start adding Albanian names to places? On the other hand, Istanbul is a city created by Greeks and was called Constantinople for thousand years, till now. So in fact you should first strive to add the Greek name there and then make your useful, I am sure, contributions in this article. The bottom line is that the Turkish name I am affraid cant stay at the start of the article, because then we should have to add the Albanian, Bulgarian or Polish names as well. We have one official name for each place universally and the rest could go in a seperate paragraph as per Istanbul. Cheers.Aee1980 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll read up on Istanbul and see what can be done. That said, I think each city needs to be evaluated separately (although I agree with you regarding Istanbul), and blanket resolutions cannot easily be applied to these regions. But in a town with a 50% Turkish minority -- and we have sourced information for this, published by an Oxford scholar (who happens to have a Greek name) in a peer-reviewed journal -- that still call the city Gümülcine, I think we should have the name in the lead. The name is a not a historical relic, but a current reality. If you believe this is "Turkish propaganda," then the onus is on you to prove it. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all we dont know this scholar (maybe its a PhD thesis or something). But apart from that she is talking about Turkish-speaking Minority (obviously Muslim) NOT Turkish Minority! These are two things very different, that for your own reasons would like so see as the same. Be careful on that. Turkish-speaking Minority and Turkish Minority is NOT the same. And I hope I see a useful contribution to Istanbul and other articles.Aee1980 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. So you admit that there are still Turkish-language speakers within the city which would typically be all that is needed to add their version of the name on the article. Their identification as Greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, etc is less relevant here than the language they are using. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Aee1980, you fail to realize that for us Turks, the definition of "being a Turk" is not by blood, as it is trying to be done in Greece. Turks are basically anyone that identifies him or herself to the Turkish Culture, and a Turkish Speaker, for the Most part, does! Also about names, you say the classical greek line that "these places were once Grrreeek" (please read with a nice "my big fat greek wedding accent" :) ) well before being Greek, these places, such as istanbul were also something else, and we have to honour these identities too, this is why we even have a different article for that. What we are talking now is not this, we are talking about ethnic presence, which is undeniable in Komotini, as a Turkish presence, as the Greek presence it is undeniable in these 2 islands, this is why the Turkish-Greek userboard concluded to that very solution of adding Turkish or Greek nhames to the lead for cities that have a significant Turkish or Greek minority. I think that if you want this to change, you can contest to the Userboard yourself. The target cities are: Alexandroupoli, Komotini, Ksanthi for greece, and Imbros and Tenedos for Turkey. Period.

Also, about your remark "I have been there many times, it is undeniable that it is Greek" I would tell you also that the first time I have been there when I was a kid, I really thought that it was still Turkey. Of course, it is not, but that was to underline our difference of perception. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have always used the phrase "Turkish-speaking minority" in the article itself. I believe that this issue has been resolved: the Turkish name and mention of the notable minority will remain in the lead. I believe we can now return to improving the article. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish minority

Two assertions have been raised repeatedly in revert summaries which I believe ought to be addressed here on the talkpage: first that Gümülcine is a foreign name and second that the Greek government recognizes only a Muslim not a Turkish minority. The first concern may be easily dismissed: Turkish is the native language of 50% of the inhabitants of the city, and these inhabitants refer to the place as Gümülcine. I have added a reliable source for this information published by a scholar working at Oxford University.

The second objection, that mention of a Turkish minority in Komotini is inappropriate as the Greek government recognizes only a Muslim minority, cuts to the very heart of the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. While it is true that the Greek government recognizes no specifically Turkish minority, objective external sources may be adduced which state that the Muslim residents of Komotini are in fact Turkish. Wikipedia is not required to respect the onomastic preference of Greece in this matter. Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia is to describe the ethnic and linguistic composition of the city from a neutral point of view using reliable and verifiable sources. The sourced information I have added is a step toward fulfilling our goal of providing neutral, verifiable information.

I have also added a statement about the city's "Turkish-speaking minority" to the lead (diff). Komotini's primary notability for those who are neither Greek nor Turkish is the very presence of this minority in an otherwise ethnically homogenous country. Aramgar (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion above, I cannot help but wonder, how did we get to the point of summarily identifying the entire Muslim minority of Komotini as Turkish? Yes, some choose to identify openly or not as such, but how do we assume that everyone feels the same? After all, we are talking about Greek citizens that participate in every context in the Komotini community? How do you decide that the minority is Turkish, when in fact we have Pomaks that do not even speak Turkish, Roma that have repeatedly expressed their discomfort at being summarily considered Turkish and oppressed within the community, and many, many others that simply are Muslim and have no connection to Turkey whatsoever today? Aramgar speaks of Greek propaganda but conveniently forgets that Turkey is the master of it, and knowingly or not, it is Turkish propaganda that he supports here. The Greek minority was systematically exterminated in Turkey after 1923, whereas the muslim minority in Greece thrived and prospered, increasing in numbers. The sources referenced are at least dubious, and it takes a lot more than an academic's opinion to collectively characterise the minority as Turkish. This is anything but neutral and verifiable information that we have here. Alfadog777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.48.207 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that it is also weird that the topic of the "Turkish minority" is one of the first things that is mentioned when someone encounters the article? Like, is it normal that such a topic is mentioned in the first paragraph when referring to a city? I honestly think it is suspicious. Lmagoutas (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ottoman monuments of Komotini

For the Ottoman monuments of Komotini, including the 16th century Yeni Camii which possesses Iznik tile decoration of the finest period, see Machiel Kiel, "Observations on the History of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule: Historical and Architectural Description of the Turkish Monuments of Komotini and Serres, their place in the Development of Ottoman Turkish Architecture and their Present Condition" Balkan Studies 12 (Thessaloniki, 1971), pp. 415-444. Aramgar (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good point... But Where is the mosque in the main article? I am confused. --Eae1983 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several architecturally significant Islamic buildings in Komotini. I am assembling resources on the Byzantine and Ottoman history of the place and will add material soon. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Aramgar, this will only help to improve the quality of the article. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Aramgar, I prepared some ground for your work, by finally adding the Ottoman Era that was missing until now --Eae1983 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Let me know if anyone objects to the month of semi-protection. There is a small problem with a blocked user who keeps creating new IPs to evade his block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems all fine for now. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Komotini is a Greek city and as such I cannot grasp the concept of having two names at the top of the article. It's not happening in Instanbul for example, and I think that if it did, it would never be accepted. Also, I read something in the previous discussion about the Turkish population of Komotini. There is no such thing. There is a Muslim population in Komotini, that is all. Minor segments of it choose to identify themselves as Turkish, but that is not the norm or by any means, the majority. Lets try and be realistic and stop putting ethnic labels based on the religion of people. That was done in the Ottoman Empire and is nowadays not accepted as a means of distinguishing social or racial minorities. In this fashion, every Muslim within Greece should be self-identified as Turkish and vice versa, which is ridiculous. Alfadog777 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 21:23, 18 April 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise protected Komotini ‎ (edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC))) (hist)
• 03:52, 14 May 2008 EdJohnston protected Komotini ‎ (User:Aee1980 creating new IP socks to revert this article while his registered account is blocked [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC))) (hist)
• 19:24, 6 July 2008 Khoikhoi protected Komotini ‎ (banned user Mywayyy editing [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

As the article is still semiprotected 15 months later, I'd like to review this to see if the article could be unprotected now. I've contacted the protecting admin, Khoikhoi but I would also like to hear from regular editors. --TS 10:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

edit war for turkish name of Komotini

There is an old discusion about the turkish name of Komotini but there is running an edit-war.. Ggia (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish community

Hello. My name is Moti and I'm an editor mostly on the Hebrew Wikipedia. There is an inaccuracy in the data regarding WW2. Researches by Prof. Michael Bar-Zohar and also Yad Vashem institute, thoroughly examining Bulgarian Archives, and other records have states as follows: On March the 4th 1943 after midnight Bulgarian police had arrested 863 Jews from Komotini. They were rounded up in a deserted tobacco warehouse, called the Chelborov building. On March the 5th at 02:30 the were put on a Freight rail transport to the town Simitli in Bulgaria and from there to Dupnitsa. About 20 of them were Released because the were foreign subjects mostly Turks, Spaniens and Italians. The rest were deported on March the 19th by Ferries on the Danube from Lom in bulgaria to Vienna, then on Freight rail transport to Katowice, poland and from there to Treblinka extermination camp. Most of them were murdered on the day they arrived. Only 8 survived.--Assayas (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixing municipality population & muslim population according to 2011 census

The figure referenced for muslims in the city is 45% and belongs to the leftist writer from Cyprus Olga Demteriou - she came up with this figure in 2002 for her thesis...

Luckily a long overdue official census was conducted of the city in 2011 - Turkish Muslims comprise 40% of the total population of 55,812 (2011 census). So therefore I am correcting the population for the city and muslim minority figure. http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/RE_Block/outputs_media/ReBlock_baseline_study_121031.pdf

Reaper7 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish name

North Rhine-Westphalia population is 32% Turkish speaking, should we add it's Turkish name "Kuzey Ren-Vestfalya" in lead?? If that had been the case, it might have been relevant there. The reality is that 6.0% of the population of North Rhine-Westphalia are Turks, and (being a immigrant community now in the third generation) we do not even know how many speak Turkish as their first language. (The 32% number refers to the part of Turks in Germany living in NR-W, which is something completely different.) More to the point is that the Welsh name is given for Cardiff, the Basque name (and the French) for San Sebastián, the Sami and the Kven name for Tromsø, the Greek name (and even the Turkish and Italian, which probably is stretching it too far) for Sarandë, the Pomak name for Echinos etc. etc. We can only guess at the percentages of most of then, but the main thing is that these names have been and are today used by a significant part of the population. This follows the guidelines in WP:NAME:CITY.

rm from lead, listed in History section. It is stated in the History section that Gümülcine was the name used in Ottoman times. That info belongs there, as does also the Bulgarian name (or both in a new section about Names with the etymology added). But it does not say that Gümülcine is a name used today. That information belongs in the lead (but the Bulgarian name does not).

I have earlier removed several "alternative", but irrelevant names from the lead of other articles (Turkish from Echinos, Turkish and Italian from some Dodecanese islands, Bulgarian from Komotini), but I have also defended the use of some names when they are relevant according to WP rules. This is one such case. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The alternative name appears to be absent in English literature, at least it receives less than 10% hits. However, a mention in the correspondent section is a good idea (either in history or in name section).Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You will probably neither find 10% of English sources using Caerdydd, Romsa, Άγιοι Σαράντα or Шахин. They do, however, all follow the relevant guideline that says one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. The bolded part surely also applies here, too. --T*U (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned in history section. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

... which tends to obscure the fact that it is name in the language used by 40% of the population today, more than 100 years after the Ottoman Empire disappeared from the area. --T*U (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored the turkish name for the city. I generally agree with the last comment by T*U: Gumulcine is the city' s current name in the mother tongue of an important portion of the local population . After all, Turkish is formally recognised as a minority language in Greece, taught at public, minority schools throughout Western Thrace. P.S. Ottoman Empire remained a neigbouring country in the area until 1923, 91 years ago. Routhramiotis/Ρουθραμιώτης (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Komotini. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160303183824/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00086.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00086.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Komotini. 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/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00086.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) 15:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Komotini. 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/20131022121326/http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/RE_Block/outputs_media/ReBlock_baseline_study_121031.pdf to http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/RE_Block/outputs_media/ReBlock_baseline_study_121031.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721082730/http://www.paratiritis-news.gr/detailed_article.php?id=134100&categoryid=20 to http://www.paratiritis-news.gr/detailed_article.php?id=134100&categoryid=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610050409/http://www.xronos.gr/detail.php?ID=28984 to http://www.xronos.gr/detail.php?ID=28984
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721083118/http://www.paratiritis-news.gr/detailed_article.php?id=134599&categoryid=11 to http://www.paratiritis-news.gr/detailed_article.php?id=134599&categoryid=11

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) 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bulgarian name

@Velko01: Your description of the historical development is not very accurate. You claim that until 1945 it was mostly populated with Bulgarian Christians and muslims. In reality virtually all Bulgarians left the area in 1919, when Western Thrace was handed over to Greece as a result of the Treaty of Neuilly after WWI. Apart from a short period of strong Bulgarization during the Bulgarian occupation in WWII, the population of the city has for 100 years been Greek and Turkish with a sizable Roma minority, while the Jewish minority was mostly eliminated during the Bulgarian occupation. Today, only the Greek and the Turkish names are relevant, while the Bulgarian name (official from 1913 to 1919) is of course very much relevant for the history section, where it is presented. The Bulgarian presence before 1919 is not enough reason for presenting the Bulgarian name in the very first sentence per WP:UNDUE. See WP:PLACE for the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. --T*U (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)