Talk:Lapithos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This article appears to be written from a rather blatant POV regarding the Greek-Turkish partition of Cyprus. Choess 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph about 1974 is too long and should be moved further down in the history section. Or at least reduced to a brief, non-POV entry? Politis 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • if a Turkish wiki user writes "Athens was occupied by Greeks and all Turks there were forced to migrate Turkey" then that would be a correct info since Athens was in the domination of Turks for 450 years. But it would be non-sense. Similarly, A Greek can write Constantinolple was occupied by Turks and all Greeks there were forced to migrate Greece....History should not be used to produce enemities between nations. So Greek Cypriots are expected to respect Turkish Cypriot Wiki pages 88.232.161.234 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is no such thing as "Turkish Cypriot Wiki Pages". All editors are permitted to edit all pages. Please note that all pages must abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

This town is universally spelled Lapithos in Latin, never Lapethos. Therefore I am moving it back to its original place. Passportguy (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. The Latin spelling, speaking only of the language, is of course Lapethus, following usual Latin conventions. But other Western languages using the Roman alphabet, quite commonly spell it Lapethos, as with these hits. More importantly, this is the usage of Brill's New Pauly, the relevant work of general reference.
Lapithos is a modern day town in Cyprus. That town is universally spelled Lapithos. Lapithus/Lapethus is only used when refering to the place in biblical or other historical contexts. Since the article is predominantely about the modern town, that name should be used. Compare Nineveh and Ninawa Governorate
What should we do in such cases? There is no decisive majority of usage, but WP:GREEK is quite clear; represent eta as e, to distinguish it from iota. So, for example, our article is at Mytilene, not Mitilini, which is properly a redirect. This is doubly important here, since the Demoticizing transliteration implies a spurious connection with the Lapiths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, almost all Greek places are located at their current, modern-day official spelling, as it appears on official Greek government documents, maps, signs etc. Comapre e.g. the places listed on Template:Achaea (I just picked a random one), which are all spelled in this way. The only exceptions are places that have commonly used English names or spelling variants, such as Paphos or Euboea. We should use some kind of official transcription, inventing a new one that just exists here on Wikipedia is not a good idea. Passportguy (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Not practice. Not advisable. And, above all, not English; if you believe that the standard transliteration of Greek summarized at WP:GREEK is somehow our invention, please try reading ancient history. (And if you had followed the link, you would have seen that I invented nothing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as ignorant on the matter but I do see that Lapithos is the spelling used in English language press, articles and books while Lapethos seems only used in history articles. If the wider world uses one spelling it seems silly for us to pick another - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no; just over half of this article is historical, and more would be if it were pruned for notability. The "wider world" speaks of Lapethos in its historical context or hardly at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we chose to divide the article, as the subject of Nineveh or Constantinople is divided, using the Demotic pronunciation for the modern period would bother me less. Of course, then, we would face the question of how widely disseminated the Turkish name for the town is. (And it would be fairly silly to divide; the Ninawa Governorate is a 1976 restoration of an ancient name, unused for two millennia and with a different meaning then; the changes that have resulted in the three names of Istanbul are well known. Nothing like that happened here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Divide the article, just in order to make naming purists happy? Doesn't strike me as a very good idea, as long as the article doesn't demand a split on grounds of size. And as for naming practice, the η=e transliteration convention is provided in WP:GREEK explicitly only for ancient Greek; in articles spanning all periods the modern name will normally take precedence, and the parallel of cases like "Mytilene" only goes for frequent, well-established names that have conventional English versions ("Mytilene", "Sparta", "Athens"). I'm happy with leaving this article where it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is the least of the problems of this article: it is almost entirely unreferenced and often very POV (which I have tried to tone down). As for the name, Google Books (searching for [lapXthXs cyprus]) shows almost identical counts for Lapithus, Lapethos, and Lapethus (with the ancient variant Lapathos much less frequent), so there seems no compelling reason to use the classicists' name for this town; the modern spelling reflecting the modern pronunciation seems fine to me (with redirects of course for the variants). --macrakis (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for toning down the special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

However, use of the classicists' term, when discussing classical antiquity - and the explanation that there are two transliterations - will, I hope, be unexceptionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lapithos. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lapithos. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lapithos&oldid=1208097736"