From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image

Entry of Joseph de Bauffremont into İzmir, 28 September 1766.

I would like to make a general comment about the "Smyrna" reference to Izmir, at least to the people that have scientific and historical and not nationalist-driven doubts about it. I think it is wrong to wonder why the name Yerevan (unknown to most, in contrast to Smyrna) is not used for Athens while Smyrna does for Izmir, in wiki. First of all, the etymology of the name Izmir itself is derived from the greek, former name. Also, they name "Smyrna" was indeed kept in use by both Muslims and Christians. In contrast, the turkish name Ayvalik was alwasys used, instead of ancient "Kydonies" term. But there is another, substantial reason: The civilization and activities developed throughout history in Izmir were almost exlusively achieved by its greek citizens. This is proved by the cultural and aesthetical fall of Izmir for many decades, after the greeks left under the Population Exchange. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, born in Salonica and not in Anatolia, was aware of that fact: He knew that there would be a significant financial and cultural downfall after the departure of the urban population of the area, but the stabilisation inside his country was of course of highsest importance at those critical times. Dimitris Chrisafinos

Population according to the cited resources.

Hi there -- I'm seeing the population of Izmir -- as a city -- as 4,320,519 in 2019. E.g., see http://www.izmir.gov.tr/istatistiklerle-izmir Am I missing something? where do you get the 2.9m number?

Text sorting

I noticed that Old Smyrna, Smyrna, and this article repeated a lot of topics especially on ancient times. Moreover much of it was not referenced and contained obvious editorial opinions. I thought a special effort should be made to define the contents of each article and move the text around accordingly. I brought it up in the talks of the other articles. There was no objection. So, I've been moving material around. I got the material out of here that belongs under Old Smyrna. Some of it is wrong. Now I'm going to concentrate on Old Smyrna. There is still some material here that belongs under Smyrna. This article should start with the Turks. I don't want to move the ancient new smyrna material into smyrna until I am ready to work on Smyrna. Later, but not too long Botteville ( talk) 04:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Botteville: This article "should start with the Turks"? Then why was everything deleted until Alexander the Great? Also why would you delete everything until "the Turks" as opposed to summarizing? Bogazicili ( talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi Mr. B. This reply is post my reply below. Whoa, wait a minute! Your standards are way too high to include humble me. Did I stop? Obviously, a gross error. All I did was move material to Smyrna, first pass. You're acting as though you expect to see a polished article. Not today. As for the summarizing, well, I gave some thought to that. The article is not really amenable to summarizing. You'd be summarizing half the article. I expect both articles to be large as it is. We are talking about a city of millions, the second-largest in Turkey. Do you think we could put New York Cily in a small article like this? But, Izmir is at that level. I think you will feel better about this after you check Smyrna. Right now you are asking the questions of an inquisitor. I feel like the target of a Stalinist purge trial or the trial of the perpatrators of the bomb plot against Hitler. Or worse yet, an interrogation by my wife. Oho, you've caught me, b'god. Caught me indeed. I sure am screwed now. I did say it should start with the Turks. And then I DID stop at Alexander, leaving out the Byzantines. Guilty, guilty, guilty. You got me now. I hope you are chuckling. If not, I don't know what to say, except this is not an interrogation. Why don't you put in whatever time you are going to allot for this. When I get back, maybe this year sometime, I will take a look. Botteville ( talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Massive amount of deletion in article

Looks like there was a mass deletion by Botteville in 7-8 September 2023 [1]. Entire sections were deleted such as "Names and etymology" and everything in history section until Alexander the Great. This is the main article. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, it should still have something in history until Alexander the Great. Child articles can be more detailed. The deletion of "Names and etymology" is also inexplicable. We now have an entire paragraph in the lead about:

"The modern name İzmir is the Turkish rendering of the Greek name Smyrna and "Smyrne" (Σμύρνη). In medieval times, Westerners used forms like Smire, Zmirra, Esmira, Ismira, which was rendered as İzmir into Turkish, originally written as ازمير with the Ottoman Turkish alphabet."

While the lead doesn't cover large parts of the article such as education. Not to mention large amounts of information such as Ti-smurna was also lost without being summarized. Also given the article size, the removal seems unnecessary. Bogazicili ( talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mr. B, Things like this are pretty much subjective. The bottom line is, I think you should follow your judgement. I can tell you what I intended and why, but of course I have no license to push that ahead of someone else's opinion. Now, Izmir is quite a large city, and there is much materal on the modern city there. There is also much material on the ancient city to be covered. It seemed to me all the material was way too much for a single article. But this is not a unique or unusual situation. There are a lot of big cities like that. The usual Wikipedia answer is to split the article. Some stuff should be offloaded to one or more other articles. In my experience, and I think you will find this to be true generally on WP, old cities like this that have gone on into the future and now have a modern history as well as an ancient are usually described by an article for the ancient and an article for the modern. I tentatively split the article. What I did NOT do is clean up and finish either one. We never finish anything around here. I do not see the point however in repeating the historical material twice! We don't need two etymologies, two archaeologies, two ancient histories, etc. My sentiment was that Izmir should cover the Turkish city. Smyrna should cover the Greek and Byzantine city. If necessary we could create a Smyrna (Byzantene) also. Why did I not continue on it? Well, I got careless and slipped in some modern opinions which when it was pointed out to me I quickly deleted. Then I thought I was too close and needed a break. Also this would give people like you a chance. I would like to say, go ahead, do your stuff. I know, however, how much work it is. Unfortunately it can't get any better unless someone does it. I'd rather not get back to this right now. There are articles worse off that I'm on to. I will eventually get there. Meanwhile I accept all your qvetches. Go ahead, do it the way YOU think it should be done. When I DO get back to it I will try to evaluate it afresh and tackle what seems to be the problems of those times. I will be starting with the same view, that the ancient material belongs primarily under Smyrna and should not be extensively under Izmir. The etylomoly for Smyrna, for example, is a Smyrna-article affair and does not belong in Izmir. The Turkish form, Izmir, however, would go under Izmir. Hope this helps. Ciao for now.~~~ Botteville ( talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, Mr. B, looking at your evaluation again I realize that you think I just plain deleted material from Wikipedia. I did not. Check under Smyrna and if you do not find that material there let me know or put it there yourself. Also the key to making the connection is the hatnotes. "This article is about the modern city of Izmir. For the predecessor ancient city, see Smyrna." If they are not there, put them in, will you? And, you comment about how there ought to be more about education in Izmir is undoubtedly true. But, putting it in gives us all the more reason to keep the split so we can have room to put it in. Remember, the name of the game is not to find fault with botteville, which is easy to do no doubt, but to build credible articles. Right now the ball is in your court. Botteville ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Botteville: see Wikipedia:Summary style. This is the main article for all İzmir related articles, which includes Smyrna and Old Smyrna. What you did is equivalent to deleting United_States#Economy section and moving it to Economy of the United States. All cities are comprehensive. London includes "Prehistory" and "Roman London" sections, and doesn't just start with arrival of Anglo-Saxons. I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. Bogazicili ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Mr. B, no, not all cities are comprehensive. That is the problem, is it not? For these large city articles, shall they be comprehensive or not? You want us to say by fiat, yes indeed they are so when the problem is still before us. That is begging the question in formal argumentation. You can't logically argue that they are ao when that is the question, whether they should be so. Your second begged issue is whether this should be "the main article for all Izmir related issues." You say it is. I say that is the question. I appear to oppose you on both issues, but that is specious. I don't oppose you at all. Well, yes there should be one continuous article for one continuous place. It should start with the first remains of the stone age. It should govern all articles about any parts of it. So what is my problem? Unexpectedly from a logical point of view it has nothing to do with either issue. Other matters inteject themselves, matters quite unexpected and quite unwanted. That is space! Yes, SPACE is our problem. I'm saying, SPACE forces us to go beyond logic, beyond what we intended. How can we get all that material into one article without resorting to an unacceptably large article? I know you would say it isn't unacceptable. But, it will be. Athens is running into this problem right now. You just can't put every last detail about Athens into one article. Maybe you've seen these solitary gigantic articles to which no one can add anything. The end of it is, someone puts on a tag stating the article is too large. Nobody can do anything with it. Now, Izmir has a good logical break. There was a war there between the Greeks and the Turks. The Turks won. Izmir was totally rebuilt by the street by street, name by name. I thought, this is a good breaking place. Greek Smyrna, Turkish Izmir. This is a serious break in continuity. Well, that's the end of my story. You want a different outcome. It happens on WP. You seem rather passionate about Turkish Izmir. Well, so am I, but we have this SPACE thing hanging over us. What is realistic here? What can fit into one article's space? Botteville ( talk) 09:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Again, see Wikipedia:Article size. The article wasn't too long. Your "moving" was totally unnecessary. Again, I'll be restoring all removed or "moved" material. You haven't given a reasonable reason why not. Your edits also look biased that you removed all pre-Greek history. İzmir has 8,500 years of habitation. [2] Bogazicili ( talk) 10:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
OK. We've reached the impasse. I have too given reasonable reasons, but you don't agree. I proposed. You rejected. I got no counter-proposal. I come out on the losing end of the three reversions. We don't need to go thru that. The next move is to call for a consensus, someone to break the tie. Consider it called. As it may be some time in coming, au revoir for now. Good luck with it. Here's where I go from here: I'm mainly interested in the ancient turquoise coast, which was Anatolian and then Hellenic and then Byzantine. I'm taking a break from it for a bit. When I get back I will not be working on Izmir, as we disagree on that. The future is not an open book. The article might get much longer, as I suspect it will. You might change your mind, as I suspect you will. Someone else might take an interest. In essence you got Izmir for now. Good luck. There is one caution I would make. Not all the ancient material in Izmir is academically sound or referenced. Needs work. Once anyone gets started it might turn into something bigger than you thought. I got to go now. Got other things I want to work on. Ciao. 76.23.135.216 ( talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

The population resing in İzmir increased by 112.274 people compared to 2019 and became 4.479.525 in 2023 according to Turkish Statistical Institution.

Source: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=The-Results-of-Address-Based-Population-Registration-System-2023-49684 Papyrus and Parchment ( talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:İzmir&oldid=1219880084"