Talk:Sarayönü Square

Atatürk vs. Saray[edit]

In his edits in the article of Nicosia, Masri145 does original research and claims that the square was renamed Atatürk Square after 1974. I have personally heard of Atatürk Square, Sarayönü and Konak Square, but never heard of Saray Square. This book, by Kevork Keshishian, printed in 1954 (20 years before 1974, during the British rule), explains this: "Ataturk Square - ex Konak Square". Obviosly it was called Konak Square, and was renamed Atatürk Square during the British rule. Also, see these results (the books are all published between 1800 and 1973): "atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&pbx=1&oq="atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2531l2531l1l2713l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1601b77b80087d5a&biw=1680&bih=872 Atatürk Square + Nicosia = 52, Oca 1800,cd_max:31 Ara 1973&num=10#sclient=psy-ab&hl=tr&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1+Oca+1800%2Ccd_max%3A31+Ara+1973&tbm=bks&source=hp&q="atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&pbx=1&oq="atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2531l2531l1l2713l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1601b77b80087d5a&biw=1680&bih=872 Saray Square + Nicosia = 1, Oca 1800,cd_max:31 Ara 1973&num=10#sclient=psy-ab&hl=tr&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1+Oca+1800%2Ccd_max%3A31+Ara+1973&tbm=bks&source=hp&q="atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&pbx=1&oq="atatürk+square"+%2Bnicosia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2531l2531l1l2713l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1601b77b80087d5a&biw=1680&bih=872 Konak Square + Nicosia = 9 and Sarayönü + Nicosia = 2. Saray Square is the least common name, and Atatürk Square was the most common name even before 1974. --Seksen (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the browser has messed up everyting above, so I am rewriting it without links: In his edits in the article of Nicosia, Masri145 does original research and claims that the square was renamed Atatürk Square after 1974. I have personally heard of Atatürk Square, Sarayönü and Konak Square, but never heard of Saray Square. This book, by Kevork Keshishian, printed in 1954 (20 years before 1974, during the British rule), explains this: "Ataturk Square - ex Konak Square". Obviosly it was called Konak Square, and was renamed Atatürk Square during the British rule. Also, see these results (the books are all published between 1800 and 1973): Atatürk Square + Nicosia = 52, Saray Square + Nicosia = 1, Konak Square + Nicosia = 9 and Sarayönü + Nicosia = 2. Saray Square is the least common name, and Atatürk Square was the most common name even before 1974. --Seksen (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a greek-cypriot and I never heard of anyone speak about Attaturk square in Nicosia. The greek cypriots still call it Platia Seragiou (Serai Square) simply because it's the historical name of the place and probably the official name of the place before the invasion. Serai or Saray or Sarayi means palace (not sure if its translated from latin or turkish) from the Lusignan palace that used to exist in the area. It was also called Konak (ottoman administation centre) because the ottomans used to have their administration in the area. So Attaturk is definately a more recent renaming and definately not a common name shared by the locals before 1974 (who were both greeks and turks, since the city wasn't ethnically split then). Sarayi was still the most common name then. My impression was that it was renamed to Attaturk after 1974 (clearly out of nationalistic excitement after the invasion) since the Greeks who were forced out of their homes in north Nicosia could no longer have a say. If your source is correct (which is in fact a travel-book - i.e. not a very reliable source), the way I interpret it is that some turkish-cypriots nationalists were probably calling it Attaturk themselves in 1954, however that doesn't necessarily mean that this name was share by all Nicosians then. If you find an official map of the Republic of Cyprus of Nicosia before 1974 or even one during the British administration I doubt you'll find it written as Attaturk square. That name has a clear turkish nationalistic connotation and the Republic of Cyprus was supposed to avoid such names as it was based on mutual cooperation between greeks and turks.Masri145 (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources regarding use of Serai or Saray :

Is Kevork Keshishian a Turkish nationalist? If not, why does he use that name? This is The Illustrated London News. The official name does not matter much, if we used official names insted of popular ones, we would name the article of Stepanakert "Xankəndi", which is the official name. And anyway, I am not hopeful for finding a map of Nicosia by the British government or the Repbulic of Cyprus, since they are too hard to obtain and the government of the Republic of Cyprus is too biased to be a reliable source. --Seksen (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you put it Saray is more common to the locals (greeks and turks) than Ataturk. That should be taken into account somehow. I've already provided 7 good references from independent/neutral and reliable sources which refer to it as Saray/Sarai/Serai (before and after 1974). What more do you want? You provided a single reference and a lot of tourist guides which use the name provided by the trnc tourist office. The Ataturk name is clearly a recent one-sided renaming of a place which has hunderds of years of history when Ataturk wasn't even born. Its obvious that for a place of such historical importance for them, the Greeks would have never accepted such naming. A lot of Greeks were living around the area before the invasion and they never used the term Ataturk square. It is clearly a one-sided nationalistic naming and should be treated as such. Looking at a couple of the WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA and the sources we have so far:

Recognizability: The name Saray Square has wider recognition both among locals and seriuos international literature (excluding trnc tourist guides of course)
Naturalness: Given that the place has a longer history under the name of Saray Square and a much briefer one under the name Ataturk, readers interested in the history of Nicosia are more likely to search for Saray rather than Ataturk.

Besides the place has absolutely nothing to do with Ataturk himself. He's never been there and never fought or started a war in Cyprus. Why would anyone associate him with Nicosia or Cyprus? Whereas the name Saray Square is directly related to the history of Cyprus, and the palace of Lusignans, the sqaure created by Venetians, the ottoman administration centre, the public execution of greek priests, the rebuilding of the square from the british. All this history happens under the name Saray square.

Masri145 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Atatürk has anything to do with the square does not matter much. It is just original research. Well, if you want more more sources, aside Keshishian, here they are:

Historical dictionary of Cyprus by Farid Mirbagheri. Certainly not a travel guide.

The Economist - 1964

The Middle East Journal - "A huge portrait dominates Ataturk Square in Nicosia".

Britain and the revolt in Cyprus, 1954-1959

... and: even the Republic of Cyprus (official names does not matter, but if even the Republic of Cyprus has called it "Atatürk Square"): see here, Cyprus Directory.

--Seksen (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atatürk vs. Sarayönü[edit]

As for Mmatso's move, I am reverting it in order to follow the regular practice, WP:BRD. Please do not revert it back until there is a consensus. Now, I know that this square is commonly called "Sarayönü" - even I call it as such - but Atatürk Square is far more established in reliable sources. See Google Books results: [1] [2]. Mmatso, I would not object to this rename if you could prove that it is otherwise. --Seksen (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Kevork Keshishian uses "Atatürk Square". So please, please do not get into politics. We are just discussing which one is common, see WP:COMMONNAME. The rest is irrelevant. --Seksen (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seksen have a better look at the naming policy. As I mentioned above, if you look at WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA you will see that, based on what you're saying above, they're in total conflict with the name "Attaturk Square":

1)Recognizability: The name Saray Square has wider recognition both among locals. Both Greek and Turkish-Cypriots know it as Saray. As you also say you use that name over Attaturk, therefore this criterion is clearly not met.

2)Naturalness: The place was named after the Saray palace which existed in the area. It has a much longer history under that name. The name Ataturk therefore does not meet this critirion either.

But, the biggest problem with this name is that its totally biased and against WP:POVTITLE. How can you still insist in using it?

The sources you provided [3] are not exactly what one would call WP:RELIABLESOURCES as they're mostly TRNC tourist guides and addresses! It is clear from the results we have in google books that it is not possible to have sufficient majority of reliable sources to support either of the two cases so we have to decide based on the policies I mentioned above. Masri145 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. A heated discussion on this is the last thing I am seeking right now. Make it "Sarayönü" (or "Sarayonu", does not really matter) - but not "Saray Square". That is not recognizable, most locals will be unable to recognize it. The first time I heard that name was here on Wikipedia. If you ask a Turkish Cypriot "where is Saray Square", they would answer, "do you mean Sarayönü?" "Saray" means "palace", "Saray Square" means "Palace Square", and "Sarayönü" means "[the place] in front of the palace". Search for "Saray Meydanı", "Sarayönü Meydanı", "Sarayönü" and "Atatürk Meydanı" here (where it says "Ara"). --Seksen (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]