Talk:Adana/Archive 1

message: The information about "Adana Massacre" lacks neutrality.
* the number of fatal causalties in the article (30,000) exceeds even the arguably biased data from the Armenian Patriarchate (21,300 according to the investigation it carried out.)
* the Armenian Patriarch was responsible to a great extent for the incidents, according to a report of the British Ambassador dated May 4, 1909 (Foreign Office, 424/219, No. 83.)
This is not a denial of an actual incident, but the use of adjectives and the use of unchecked or partial sources turn the paragraph into a non-neutral one. It could be better to open a separate article showing the conflicting viewpoints. 216.244.240.249 01:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adana Massacre

message: For user: 211.48.24.219:two sites mentioning the Adana Massacre(i decided not to include an armenian one):,
Why are u denying such a historical event?--Hectorian 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Adana Massacre"  

message: Please don't. Although it is historical most Wikipedia articles have the historical name in the first paragraph. See Gdańsk for example. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
Lukas (T.|@) 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To those who are removing the Greek name 

message: Re. this addition: "Its history goes back to the ancient Hittites,calling the area;Uru Adaniya which means Land of Adana.The city later took the name of the son of Pheonician King Agenor's son Cilic,which turned into Antiochia in Cilicia (Αντιόχεια της Κιλικίας) or Antiochia ad Sarum (Αντιόχεια η προς Σάρο)"
I have severe doubts.
*It's not "Cilic", it's Cilix.
*Cilix and Agenor are legendary personalities.
*Cilix is related to the naming legend not of the city, but of the region of Cilicia. The city was obviously named not directly after him, but after the country.
*If we talk about the naming of "Antiochia in Cilicia", then of course we'll have to talk about some "Antiochus", who is obviously the direct name patron of the Hellenistic founding of the city.
*I'd require solid references for the claim that the name "Adaniya" was used previously by the Hittites. Not that I'd exclude it, at first sight, but the only reference I can find on the web is a single text that is spread identically across a couple dozen Turkish-language websites. Not very confidence-inspiring.
*If "Adaniya" was used before the Hellenistic era, we need a more detailed discussion about the side-by-side tradition of "Adan(iy)a" and "Antiochia" in antiquity.
*Further down in the article it is said that the city was founded in the first century BC. That must be the foundation under the name of "Antiochia", obviously. The relation between that foundation and any previous Hittite settlement must be clarified.
*There's a weird sentence further down in the article that I noticed only now: "Adana is the only city, whose name has remained the same for centuries in the world". What's meant by that? (Given the fact that "Antiochia" and "Adana" are clearly two different names.)
Lukas (T.|@) 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the name of the city comes from an ancient Hititian legend, about the son of King, called Adanus.  Antiochus is about Tarsus, not Adana itself. By the way, Tarsus doesn't locates at the border of city not only in modern time but also in ancient times. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the dab page at Antiochia, both Tarsus and Adana were called Antiochia at one time, there were a hell of a lot of different Antiochias. As for "Adana", I can now at least confirm that it too is ancient, and there's an eponymous report or legend about one "Adanos" as a founder. It's in Greek sources; I wonder if we can trace it back to Hittite ones (I rather doubt it). So, do we have an ancient settlement that was re-founded or re-established under the name of Antiochia at one time but kept the original name of Adana side by side with it? Given this complexity, it might be a better idea after all to move the historical names further down in the article. Lukas (T.|@) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It seems Dbachmann had the same thought. Good, then let's leave it at that. Would be nice to have a source attesting the Hittite name too. Lukas (T.|@) 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name, Hittites, Cilicia etc. 

message: Here is what the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) says about Adana; author is David George Hogarth.  I have preserved it texto, so it uses old spellings for placenames, and calls the Ottomans 'Turks'.
:(1) A vilayet in the S.E. of Asia Minor, which includes the ancient Cilicia.  The mountain districts are rich in unexploited mineral wealth, and the fertile coast-plain, which produces cotton, rice, cereals, sugar and much fruit, and affords abundant pasturage, is well watered by the rivers that descend from the Taurus range.  Imports and exports pass through Mersina (q.v.).
:(2) The chief town of the vilayet, situated in the alluvial plain about 30 m. from the sea in N. lat. 37° 18′. E. long. 35 18, on the right bank of the Seihan (Sihun, anc. Sarus), which is navigable by small craft as far as the town.  Adana is connected with Tersus and Mersina by a railway built in 1887, and has a magnificent stone bridge, which carries the road to Missis and the east, and dates in parts from the time of Justinian, but was restored first in 743 a.d. and called Jisr al-Walid after the Omayyad caliph of that name, and again in 840 by the Caliph Mutasim.  There are, also, a ruined castle founded by Harun al-Rashid in 782, fine fountains, good buildings, river-side quays, cotton mills and an American mission with church and schools.  Adana, which retains its ancient name, rose to importance as a station on the Roman military road to the East, and was at one time a rival of Tarsus.  The town was largely rebuilt by Mansutr in 758, and during subsequent centuries it often changed hands and suffered many vicissitudes.  Its position, commanding the passage of the mountains to the north of Syria, rendered it important as a military station in the contest between the Egyptians and the Turks in 1832.  After the defeat of the Turkish army at Konia it was granted to Ibrahim Pasha, and though the firman announcing his appointment named him only muhassil, or collector of the crown revenue, it continued to be held by the Egyptians till the treaty of July 1840 restored it to the Porte.  The chief productions of the province are cotton, corn, sesame and wool, which are largely exported.  The population of the town is greatly mixed, and, having a large element of nomads in it, varies much from time to time.  At its maximum it reaches nearly 50,000.
So it appears that the EB11, which is normally very keen on classical identifications, does not identify it with any ancient "Antiochia" and indeed explicitly says it kept its ancient name of Adana. We need better sources.... Some of the historical information could also be added to the article. --Macrakis 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the 1911 Britannica says

message: Mücadeleye devam.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helal Bekir 

message: well, Hybridlily added some links to articles, but some unreliable editors still persist to delet it. If you have a problem, dont forget that we have a talk page, this page. Otherwise, this revert war goes further. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why 

message: This edit war can go on forever if you are willing. Either that or we discuss what is what in these allegations of ethnic cleansing from both sides. Consider this a new white page, and post your sources for each allegation then we decide what we write, how we write and how much we write. Until then I say we temporarily remove current stuff related to massacres from the article.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridicilous 

message: Can anyone report 85.0.89.21 for WP:3RR because I don't know how yet?  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help 

message: Mr. Bekir, may I please ask you why you insist on putting irrelevant data in the article Adana. I refer to the surface area figure. This is the figure for Adana Province and the data is placed on the related page. Best regards. Behemoth 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I was about to write to you. The data that I added is not irrelevatn data. Since, it is counted and documented by local governer. Besides, I live in Adana and the city doesn't have adm. district like Adana city and Adana province. The place where you think that is Adana is known as Seyhan, an urban district of Adana. For futher knowledge, please look at geo-district of Turkey. I hope that above is helpfull for you to understand why I add the statement. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I dont have much time, because I am in my launch break.First of all, il and şehir refers to the same area. Adana Büyükşehir Belediyesi exist, because according to Turkish adm. cities holding more than 1 million citizens have to be defined as a Metropolitan Municipality. Thus, they have to have a Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Please, look at page of Adana, the city is composed of more than 15 small region. The central region is called Seyhan. For ins. according to my identity card, I was born in Seyhan region of Adana. Hence, you can understand that Adana is just the name of the city, and used to refer all districts. I know that above is a bit confusing. By the way, it is the web site of local governership, not local governer. They are also more different inasmuch as their responsibiliy and selection procedures as well. I hope that you understand why it is as big as does the numbers say. With kind regards.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, it's my opinion that the area (which needs to be cited) belongs not in the intro, but in a Geography section (which I've added).  Maybe this article also needs an infobox, where such information as area could go.  The dispute also seems to revolve around the definition of Adana's borders or as a city vs. a province.  What the area figure refers to needs to be specified.  If it's the area of the Adana province, say so and cite it as such. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The surface area figure IS for the Adana Province, not for its capital city, Adana. To claim otherwise is absurd. There exists a manifest distinction between a province (an administrative unit) and a city (an urban area). Behemoth 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface area of Adana city 

message: I made the following changes on the Adana page: I placed the gallery, to Adana Province page, since none of them were located in city of Adana. The lists of ruins and festivals (except Altın Koza) were moved there as well. A festival and a historical site, which were in Kadirli and Düziçi were moved to Osmaniye Province page. Also, a strange phrase ("Inhabitants of Selonica") embedded between Abbasid and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in the Chronology was removed. Behemoth 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made