...

Thanks for the quick response Khoikhoi. I was quite impressed with how level headed your second reply to me was (you didn't immediately go into a defensive ego trip like some others I've bumped into. Very much appreciated. A rare quality ). I will take your advice and will refrain from doing such edits temporarily. If possible though I still would like a little more clarification on the matter before I make any final decision on the matter. 

While there are occasional exceptions, a visit to virtually any article on any city in the world (new or old) doesn't show the pattern of a long list of multiple old not in use historically insignificant foreign names on the first line. For instance FYROM/Republic of Macedonia's title  lists Macedonian: Скопје, pronounced [ˈskopje], Albanian: Shkup, or Shkupi)[1] (their two largest demographics). There is no mention of older Turkish and ancient Greek pronouncement for Skopje).  So it seems very fishy to me that obscure Greek islands are seemingly being prioritized with old Turkish occupation names over major cities.

Also I would like to note the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) specifically states 

"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names"  (i.e. not "must" be) 

It further clarifies the point (with regards to use  of older historical foreign names on the first line)...

Relevant foreign language names (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) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3).

Unless you can demonstrate that these obscure alternate foreign language name qualify as "Relevant foreign language names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or used by a group of people which used to inhabit the geographic place"... I don't believe an obscure set of Greek islands remotely qualifies for this rule of prominent display. And this point of sensitivity to names is further clarified at the head of the geographic naming convention article where it explicitly states...

Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

Notice the words "and should be used in articles with caution". I think it's pretty clear that the Balkans are an extremely sensitive area with regards to names. (it stirs the pot for old ethnic conflicts)

I think perhaps you've misunderstood my motivations here a bit. The issue for me wasn't whether the names could be mentioned (they obviously always should be in there somewhere)... but exactly where in the article they are mentioned. Unless it is historically important (e.g. Constantinople) any mention of older historical Turkish or Greek occupation names should only be added later in the article in a historical or etymological context.... not be given equal airplay upfront with current names or historically unimportant names.  Doing so is both bulky and highly provocative to sensitive political regions. (and incidentally the same rule should apply for inappropriately using historically insignificant Greek names for Turkish cities)
  
I'm sticking to my guns that my edits were kosher according to existing Wikipedia geographic naming conventions and current widely observable conventions. I'd even go further and suggest leaving those old historically insignificant foreign names prominently displayed is far more disruptive than removing them (both in a Wikipedia sense and in a human toll sense) I therefore would like to once again remove those old names from the first paragraph but will delay pending your response to me (to confirm I have (or have not) convinced you of the accuracy of my assertions)

Thanks in advance for all your help.