Talk:Kalymnos

message: Why are there no cities listed here? This page should mention and link to the cities of Kalymnos such as Pothia, for which there is already a page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.136.12 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

message: :Why are we including the Turkish and Italian names in the opening paragraph? Neither one is the original name; there are no transport links between the island and Turkey or Italy. 
:As a rule, no tourist map or atlas includes both names (unless they were printed in Turkey).
:Where do we draw the geographical line for including other names? Do we state that Athens is Atina in Turkish in the opening line? It seems that the current geographical line for including other names is on Greek islands claimed by Turkey and whose air space it violates.
:There is a place for other names, after all, it is part of the history of a place, but further down the text. Politis 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current semi-criterion seems to be, in this case, that the island was part both of Turkey and of Italy within the 20th century. For opinions about this, see the well-known old discussion page. And no, Kalymnos is not "claimed by Turkey". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) page, of course, where this has all been discussed in great detail. And as for your German/Italian comparison: occupation during WWII is one thing, legal sovereignty is another. Like it or not, these islands were legally and legitimately Turkish/Italian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As a proud holder and connoisseur of my Ottoman Greek roots :-), I have to point out that Europe was legitimately and legally Ottoman to the Adriatic... and Greeks inhabited far into Asia Minor. So where do we draw the line? Where is the geography? (thanks for the link, I will open it). Politis 12:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) has not come to a conclusion yet. Many Greek users and others participated in it, but the contribution on behalf of the Turkish users was negligible... Also, these islands may had not been legally Turkish... depends on the angle one sees things... For the Greeks, these islands were under Turkish occupation, same as Greece was under triple occupation during WWII. If we are about to talk again about the right of conquest, which supposedly gave to the Turks legal rights on these lands (since they had been conquered prior to the 19th-20th century and the treaties and protocols that established the international law), allow me to ask the rename of Occupation of Izmir (since the Greeks had legal rights according to international treaty to administer the area) and the rename of TRNC into "Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus", since the "right of conquest" is no longer in use, nor any international law allowed Turkey to do that (in fact, quite the contrary)... Hectorian 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And something else, cause sometimes, when trying to be "politically correct", some wikipedians fall in unhistorical traps: there is the article Ottoman Greece, named after a term that is in fact not used. a simple google search (by using Google.uk and not Google.gr for obvious reasons) reveals that Ottoman Greece gives just 623 hits, but "Ottoman occupation" Greece gives 21,900 hits... Same thing appears in a Google Book search 52 and 235 hits respectively... However, if i "dared" to rename that article, or to insert the second term in other articles, like Kalymnos, i would be called "nationalist"... Hectorian 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: not to mention "Turkish occupation" Greece which gives 107,000 hits! Hectorian 13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other names must be moved further down

message: FuturePerfectSunrise proposed : "In principle, we should stick to the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)".
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says:
::I suggest the following action: we keep the other names and move them down into the history section. 
::In the first paragraph we only include the name that existed prior to the current one; the original name. Hence for Alexandroupoli we include Dedeagac (its original name). But for Kalymnos, etc... the subsequent variations go in the history section. Politis 13:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see why having the names at the top is a problem. It's not implying that the island isn't part of Greece, it's just stating the historical names. Secondly, moving these names to the history section on Greek articles will make it seem they're an exception to this practice. People will want to remove the Greek name from Istanbul, the German name from Gdańsk, etc. It is useful for readers to see these names at the top, rather than having to go down and look for each individual one mentioned separately. Therefore, I oppose. Khoikhoi 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I don't see any reason why it's an issue about moving the Turkish and Italian names to the lead. Look at articles about places in Turkey, they all have the Greek name: Trabzon, Samsun, Kars, İznik, Sakarya River. We should be consistent on all articles and not make an exception simply for this one. In fact, these two names were in the lead for years before they were removed a few months ago. Khoikhoi 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that some places in Turkey have the Greek name in the lead is because of strong historical and cultural connections to Greek culture that is not the case here.  Places such as Trabzon and Iznik were founded by ancient Greeks, were major centers of Greek culture for centuries, had large Greek populations until recently, and most historical sources refer to them by their Greek names.  In Kalymnos, as in most Greek islands, the Turkish presence was minimal.  Few if any Turks settled there, they left almost no historical monuments, and no sources outside Turkey mention them by their Turkish name.  Furthermore, if we are to be "consistent", cities such as Istanbul and Izmir should also have the Greek name mentioned in lead, but I do not see you adding it as zealously.  The general consensus on articles such as Kalymnos is that foreign names be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead.  I urge you to reconsider.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually tried to include the Greek (and other names) to Istanbul and Izmir. You will even find one user accusing me of "Greek chauvanism" here. I will revert my own edit because there wasn't any Turkish immigration to this island in particular, but I think that the Turkish names should be added to Kos and Rhodes, since Turks did live those two islands (this would fit-in with your criteria of historical and cultural connection). Khoikhoi 00:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That makes a lot more sense to me.  Thank you for discussing this, and apologies for not assuming good faith on your part earlier.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A small correction: Turks DO still live in Rhodes. I met several of them visiting an ottoman library in the walled city last year. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NCGN I ahve moved the names out of the lead and into the history section, as wikipedia readers are highly unlikely to encounter them in a general context, and only a very specific historical context.  --Athenean (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: The second sentence under the religion heading does not make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.6.193 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kalymnos. 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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article does not give mention in the "HISTORY" section, or as a new section, of inclusion in famous stories and myths. For example, in "Daedalus and Icarus" by Ovid "Daedalus and Icarus" by Ovid, the flight path of the protagonists is stated as being Crete - Samos - Delos - Paros - Lebinthus - Calymne. Here is the passage:
"...They were over Samos, Juno’s sacred island,
Delos and Paros toward the left, Lebinthus
Visible to the right, and another island,
Calymne, rich in honey. And the boy
Thought: This is wonderful! and left his father,
Soared higher, higher, drawn to the vast heaven,
Nearer the sun, and the wax that held the wings
Melted in that fierce heat, and the bare arms
Beat up and down in air, and lacking courage
Took hold of nothing. Father! he cried, and Father!
Until the blue sea hushed him, the dark water
Men call the Icarian now."
Therefore we see that Kalymnos is the last land Icarus passed over before the failure of his wings. His name is memorialized in the name of the "Icarian" Sea [] nearby (another item I see is not visible in text or map). Further, that Kalymnos was known and praised in antiquity for it's honey, an important commodity of much value as it would be along the common shipping trade routes near the coast of Asia Minor. Jopower (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: include mentions in famous stories and myths