Talk:İskenderun

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

İskenderun → Alexandretta – For the same reason we don't have articles on "Konstantiniyye" and "Iskandariyya". "Alexandretta" is the original name, and is also easier for English-speakers to spell and pronounce. Also, Greek-origin place names are usually filtered to English through Latin, and not through Turkish. The current article title would be like having articles about "Selanik" or "Kibris". Lovesaver (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. İskenderun (sometimes a plain I) is the common name in English-language sources for the modern city, used by tourist guides and hotel booking sites, Google Maps, GeoNames and so on. As we do with Bombay, Peking and so on, we use the common, current name. We do have Gulf of İskenderun redirecting to Gulf of Alexandretta, though. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose @Lovesaver: I notice you have just registered an account and issued several RMs, all of which look badly thought through. Have you had an account before under another name? If not maybe start by contributing to article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is the current name of a city. Mumbai or Dubrovnik seem like better comparisons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Not moved per strong consensus. No such user (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

İskenderun → Alexandretta – I believe that this it more common name to the plurality of English readers. Hard to know for sure, but this is what the data seems to show. It is true that Iskenderun (not İskenderun) is used more in guidebooks, we are almost certain. Most guidebooks give both names right off, but with Iskenderun usually (not always) coming first. However, Alexandretta is written more in books, per this Google Ngram (in the last half of the last century Iskenderun kept about even with Alexandretta, but per this Ngram that isn't true since (or before), for some reason.

Naturally guidebooks are going to favor Iskenderun because the signs say that, I assume, and their job is for people to not get lost. We don't want people to get lost, but we don't really care, we are not Wikivoyage. People will be coming here from history books, from novels, from atlases, etc. as well as guidebooks. The guidebooks matter, but Ngrams are an awfully strong argument. And after all the Ngrams include the guidebooks (I assume). FWIW there was a poorly-attended an RfC about four years ago, above. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposer additional comment: (Also, if its not to be Alexandretta, it should be moved to Iskenderun, since the "İ" version is seldom used in English sources, whether guidebooks or other (says the Ngram), and is certain to be most confusing to most readers. Maybe that's because the writers are lazy, or stupid, or don't have an "İ" character in their fontset, or whatever; doesn't matter, we don't judge, we just present the reader with term they are most likely familiar with. Serve the reader; technical issues or cultural sensitivity etc are way less important.) Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct that to "Proposer additional comment". Proposers don't normally support, that is assumed. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, good point, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose and frankly inclined to call for early close as time-wasting. This is the 2023 Wikipedia and İskenderun is a large Turkish town with 250,976 population. "İskenderun is" test in GBooks shows that the modern name for the town is in modern use. Whereas "Alexandretta is" shows zero modern results. Strong oppose also changing the pronunciation from /ɯː/ to long /iː/ - we don't do that sort of thing with foreign place names or people on Wikipedia unless they are that one particular blonde Serbian tennis Olympic medalist. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I hear you. How can we explain the Google Ngram then? Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily explained, you included history books in your Ngram "was" test instead of doing an "is" test in current books. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The crunch question per Wikipedia:Article titles is what the English-language reliable sources use. The use of İskenderun seems to be overwhelmingly in the Turkish language sources and in low-grade tourist publications in English which are not peer-reviewed. The English-language reliable sources overwhelmingly use Alexandretta, including (for instance):

1. Majid Kadduri, The Alexandretta Dispute (1995)
2. Edward Weisband, The Sanjak of Alexandretta: a Case Study of Law and Power During the Inter-war Period, 1919-1939 (Stanford University, 1966)
3. Matthew Hughes, Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East, 1917-1919 (Routledge, 2013)
4. John Fisher, Curzon and British Imperialism in the Middle East, 1916-1919 - (Routledge, 2012)
5. Paul G. Halpern, The Naval War in the Mediterranean: 1914-1918 (Naval Institute Press, 2015)

I could easily list a few dozen more, but life is short. Moonraker (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the editor who canvassed me prior to this RM. Life is indeed short and attempting to rename a modern town with WWI history sources makes it shorter for all of us. @Moonraker: crunch question per Wikipedia:Article titles is what the English-language reliable sources use for the article subject. If you can find a single reliable source using the pre-WWI name for the the city I would like to see it. So far you have not provided one. If you want to fork out the content relating to history of Alexandretta prior to 1939 then you might have a case. But as it is the article is not forked and pre-1939 history is a section in the article on the modern city. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite by chance, In ictu oculi I did leave you a message about it, but I have no idea why Herostratus chose this moment to raise it here. Maybe he saw me asking you to take a look at the reliable sources. I have given some recent ones above. I see your point, but are you suggesting two pages, as with Constantinople and Istanbul? If not, it needs to be either the Turkish name or the Greek name. But see what the IP writing above at Talk:İskenderun#Name says about that. Moonraker (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I happened to lurk into that post, felt like looking at the previous RfC, and thought it was under-attended and under-argued, so another was appropriate. Nothing nefarious there. Herostratus (talk)

• Strong oppose. Of course the historical name Alexandretta is used when discussing history, just as Gdansk is called Danzig in the appropriate historical setting. This is one reason you have to be careful with Google nGrams. Yes, "Alexandretta" is more common than "İ/Iskenderun" in Google nGrams, and you will see why if you search Google Books for those names. Pretty much all the books using the name Alexandretta use it as a historical name. --Macrakis (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis, I see you say there is a split, so we agree on that, but naming policy (Wikipedia:Article titles) isn’t interested in all books, only in reliable sources. What do you believe is the split within those? Moonraker (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker Reliable sources say different things at different times: The Britannica 9th Edition (1875-1889) uses "Scanderoon (Iscanderûn)" as the article name, and mentions Alexandretta as an alternative. The 11th Edition (1910) gives Alexandretta as the article name and mentions "Iskanderun (med. Scanderoon)" as an alternative. The 15th Edition (1985) gives "Iskenderun, formerly Alexandretta". The current online edition gives "İskenderun, formerly Alexandretta".

And Google nGrams pretty much confirms that pattern: Iskenderun / Iscanderoon / Iskanderun / Iscanderun / Scanderoon is most common until around 1860; Alexandretta from 1860 to 1960, and thereafter the two are roughly equally common. If you then look at the book evidence that nGrams relies on, you find that the Alexandretta spelling since 1960 is almost entirely used in historical contexts, especially around WWI, whereas the Iskenderun spelling is used in all sorts of contexts: studies of water pollution, travel, shipping, defense, fisheries, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I also probed the nGram - it's so easy, there are links to Google Books for selected years on that page - and found a massive preponderance of books about World War I for the Alexandretta usage. If People will be coming here from history books, from novels, Wikipedia's redirects support historical place-names very nicely. As for from atlases, my 2000 Times Atlas and 1989 Peters Atlas have only "Iskenderun", but the 1973 Bartholomew mini-atlas beside me does show "Iskenderun (Alexandretta)" and their 1970 1:4,000,000 Middle East map has "Iskenderun (Alexandretta)". Now I'm wondering how old Herostratus's atlases are if they only show "Alexandretta" and whether they also show the Ottoman Empire. Bartholomew 1970 and 1973 also show "Trabzon (Trebizond)"; will we rename Trabzon next? NebY (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of my atlases are historical atlases. Which aren't useful only for kindling after all. I'd actually never hear of Trabzon, I didn't know they'd renamed it. I'm well familiar with Trebizon, which outlasted Constantinople in Greek rule, and the rather depressing story of how it finally and bloodlessly got squeezed out. Maybe I'm a wierdo, but maybe not. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical atlases will naturally show contemporaneous usage. Depending on the historical period and point of view being covered, they may use (e.g.) Tsaritsyn, Stalingrad, or Volgograd; Trapezous, Trapezounta, Trebizond, or Trabzon; Pylos, Port-de-Jonc, Avarinos, Varinos, Anavarinos, Navarino, Anavarin, Neokastro, Pylos; etc. Wikipedia uses the modern English name, even if the place is strongly associated with some historical episode under a different name (e.g., Battles of Stalingrad, Navarino). --Macrakis (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per recent useage.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re the the "İ/I" thing, if we don't like "Alexandretta", couple points: according to the Ngram, very books use "İ", and those few only recently. Most guidebooks use "I" I think. I suppose this is because (excepting Turks) probably not one reader in 200 knows how to pronounce "İ". I sure don't; I pronounce it as a short I, because what else am I supposed to do? A few characters outside the English characters are known somewhat generally -- ö, maybe a couple others. "İ" sure isn't one of them. I don't see the benefit in us being an a far outlier among English language books about using "İ". OTOH it doesn't much matter, since both are (de facto) pronounced as short "I". Still, why annoy and bamboozle the reader with a unknown character, when almost no one else does. What the Turks do means little to us, or should. Most of our readers have not gone to college, you know. Herostratus (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not doing that. There is no evidence for a cod-Turkish mis-spelling. I don't know why you are mentioning that some English speakers would misread it even spelled correctly. That's not the point. The only article we deliberately misspell on en.wp is the blessed Serbian tennis star. And if you want to misspell all our Turkey geo articles you'd need to start an RfC, there are hundreds of them. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you would read this Ngram and discuss.

2) It's not a question of misspelling anything. It's a question of alternate spellings, and which to use.

3) As to "That's not the point", we are here to serve the reader, period. We don't, or shouldn't, care much about what the Turkish government thinks, or what the people who live in that city think, or what Kemal's committee would have thought, or how Turks, nationalist or not, think, or to signal our academic or cosmopolitan chops, or any of that. We are here to serve the English-language reader. Presenting her with weird, unpronounceable glyphs that most other publications don't use, this doesn't serve. That is why our article is named "Moscow" and not "Москва" and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of native diacritics on Latin characters is well-established in Wikipedia placename titles. We have Łódź, Køge, Thủ Đức, Panevėžys, Nivå, Đurđevac, Borås, Nagykőrös, and also special letters as in Garðabær. Very few English speakers can pronounce å, æ, đ, ð, ė, ł, ó, ö, ø, ő, ủ, ứ, ź, or ž correctly (well, maybe ž). If you want to change that policy, this page is not the right place to do it. (Yes, I know that some of these symbols are considered as "letters" and others as "letters with diacritics", but that's irrelevant here.)

I don't know what nationalism or the Turkish government has to do with it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; consistency is an import considerations for article titles. Thanks for pointing that out, and for my part I withdraw the "I" suggestion. Anyway, that's only if we don't elect Alexandretta, which I guess we should. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. The city is Turkish today, and per the evidence provided by Macrakis and others, sources discussing the city as it is today overwhelmingly use its Turkish name. Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would just confuse English speakers unfamiliar with Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for Alexandretta as per Macrakis's points. Strong support for Iskenderun. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayıntaplı: Do you mean "Iskenderun" or "İskenderun"? Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskenderun. Ayıntaplı (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]