Talk:Genisea

Turkish name of Yenice

I added the historically attested Turkish and Ottoman Turkish names of Yenice (Genisea) to the article. These names are relevant because the town was founded by Turks, and they appear in historical sources. Since my addition, User:Demetrios1993 has repeatedly reverted these edits, citing MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, MOS:ALTNAME, or claiming the information is "already mentioned under History." Each time I restored the names, the edits were reverted again. This has led to multiple rapid reversions within a short time. I'm raising this here to seek consensus. It is important to note that "Genisea" itself derives from the Turkish "Yenice." This means that the Turkish name is not a foreign equivalent but the root of the modern name. This makes it relevant historically and justifies inclusion. If there are reliable sources disputing the relevance of these names, please provide them. Otherwise, I propose we include them. Keleci (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Keleci: Genisea being founded by the Ottomans doesn't justify the inclusion of the Ottoman and Turkish names in the first sentence of the article. Yes, this information is already mentioned under § History, and I did cite MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and MOS:ALTNAME, which you apparently haven't read, or at least understood (maybe your text is generated by AI; FYI, there are AI detectors available online). The Turkish name is, by definition, a foreign equivalent, and the fact that it is the origin of the Greek and English names still doesn't justify including it in the first sentence. Per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV:

• Do not include non-English equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.

Furthermore, per MOS:ALTNAME:

• If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

– Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know we, Wikipedia editors, were to abide by your interpretation of Wikipedia style. It's not just to show its etymology since the region is still home a large population of ethnic Turks. If you remember, your first objection was that "Turkish is not a local language" but you are not now defending it anymore. What happened? Now you are proposing that there are three or more names. As far as I can count, there are only Turkish and its historical version which that makes two. This is enough to show that your objections arise from something that is not in line with Wikipedia's principles and you are trying to impose your own personal prejudice against Turkish on others. Keleci (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't cite my interpretation; the quotes above were copied directly from the relevant guidelines, which you apparently haven't read. Furthermore, my first objection was based on the content of the article, and the fact that it doesn't say anything about a modern Turkish presence. I reiterated this in the edit summary of my last revert, where I asked you to provide reliable sources supporting your claim that Turkish is widely spoken in Genisea:

• ... If there is a significant community speaking the language in actual Genisea, then provide reliable sources supporting it, because as it is, there is no such mention in the article. ... (edit summary).

The Ottoman and Turkish names are two, not one. And no, I do not have a "personal prejudice against Turkish". Please do not cast aspersions, as this can be considered a personal attack.

– Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)