Talk:Yanartaş

Isidore 1.40.4 discusses the monster only, discussing it as a symbol. or trope, for the Three ages of man; youth being hot and vehement, age inflexible. Not useful here, unless the connexion with the monster is discussed at more length. Septentrionalis 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Consensus Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support TobyJ below. Chimera is the real name of this place, as you will see the official Turkish road sign for historical places that read "Chimaera" if you go there. Yanartaş only means Burning Rock in Turkish and it is the folk name for the place and it is not official. The official name is still Chimaera. Elmalili (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The official name doesn't count for much. There seem to be three arguments for the rename, but two of them are based on the presumption that the official name should be the article name too, and there seems disagreement as to whether the third argument (the claim that the official name is the common name too) is accurate. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support, but it should be moved to Chimaera (geography). The official name is nothing to me; the subject of the article is the ancient placename, with the modern park mentioned in passing. This thus effectively comes under the provision of WP:NCGN: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... lead currently reads Yanartaş is the name of a geographical feature near Olympos valley and national park in Antalya Province in southwestern Turkey..., and this is also what the article was about almost a year ago, before the recent messy spate of editing (which included a cut-and-paste move for example). So, don't we need an article about this current (and quite fascinating) feature? And if so, isn't the question here what should be the name of the article on the topic of this current place, as described in the current lead? If there's also a need for an article on the place that does not exist any more (and I'm yet to be convinced of that), then certainly WP:NCGN becomes relevant in deciding its name. But that's a different (and hypothetical) article. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We could restore Chimaera in antiquity, in addition to being the name of a monster, was the name of a volcanic site which was held, by euhemerizing geographers, to have inspired the myth. The article used that before the meddling. But let's decide where it is first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, since the contents of the article have not been altered to its benefit, I restored the old text. In the presence of a reverter, it may clarify things to give a permanent link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... so, you've now changed the lead to reflect the proposed name change. That rather begs the question IMO. Yanartaş seems to be an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Changing my vote to plain oppose. A strong oppose would need to be based on much better information than seems to have been offered as yet. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yanartas is an obscure place in Turkey. The subject of this article was the ancient Chimaera, and 90% of it relates to that. If this article is not to be about Chimaera, it should be divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So it seems there are two questions: How many articles, and what's the one article to be called if it's to be combined. Pointless trying to answer the second until we answer the first, as the second question presupposes a particular answer to the first. Content is currently about 50-50 IMO, and before the recent shenigans was even more focussed on the locality. Disagree that it's a particularly obscure locality, and can't see the relevance even so. It's encyclopedic IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Let it be two articles. The ancient one should contain everything after the second paragraph except the novel, and be called Chimaera. It will need a disambiguator from the genus of fish; what one would you like? The modern one will have the present title and be a stub; the monster is another article, at Chimera (mythology). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mount Chimaera, perhaps? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The practical question is: which keeps the edit history? Since the bulk of this is going, the edit history should really go with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to remove everything that relates to historical events at, or references to, the modern site; To do so would simply be disruption IMO. So there's no reason that the edit history can't stay with this article. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance. We don't need to list the ancient sources, much less quote them at length, in an article on the Turkish scenic attraction. That's most of the article. even now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

that's the thing, the lead is misleading. The area including that feature as a whole is named Chimaera. Even the mythology says it takes place in Lycia, so probably the myth comes from the place. But the place was named Chimaera even in ancient times. Actually, the real Turkish adaptation(evolved) of the name(Chimaera) is Çıralı, it is also the name of the beach and the little village there, as Greek Attalia became Antalya and Angora became Ankara.So we can mention Chimaera in the Çıralı article,but as we have seperate articles for Constantinople or Istanbul, or Symrna and İzmir, i think We can have a seperate article for Chimaera. By the way Yanartaş is only used between Turkish people like the Hadrian's Gate is called "Üçkapılar" which means "Three doors". But the wikipedia article is not named "Üçkapılar". I hope you get my point. 78.161.143.88 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose -- It's name is what it is, what it used to be called (and especially when that's being argued to try to support the advancement of a fringe POV) is not relevant. Wikipedia naming conventions are clear, as is WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

look dude that's the point. It's name is not Yanartaş! Elmalili (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. But I'm leaning towards a split of the modern and ancient material into separate articles. I've been looking for sources on what this place is currently called, and the evidence I found is pretty equivocal--I haven't been able to decide whether Chimaera, Yanartas, or Cirali is the more prevalent name. But splitting the material solves the problem just fine. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The proponents of the change seem to have made a case for a separate article, but I wonder whether this is just a straw man. They then seem to want to gut the article on the current place of any reference to its past, for what reason other than to prove a point I don't know. Other articles on current localities include an outline of their history, with a separate article on the historical site only if there's too much material for one article, which hardly seems the case here. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself; what this originally was, and what I would like to restore somewhere, is an article on the ancient place. How much on that subject remains under this title? I don't really care, but it seems that it might answer DreamGuy's fractious claims of POV-pushing if this did not express a point of view on its connection with antiquity. I would be satisfied with a statement of the verifiable link: Francis Beaufort identified these springs with the ancient site called Chimaera during his survey of Anatolia in 1811. More is optional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not convinced by the supporting arguments. Húsönd 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, could you please explain us what you are not convinced of? Let's look at 1911 Brittanica to Chimaera article. It says "The origin of the myth was the volcanic nature of the soil of Lycia (Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 110; Servius on Aeneid, vi 288), where works have been found containing representations of the Chimaera in the simple form of a lion." Do you think there is another volcanic natured soil in Lycia? Ok if this is not enough for you, let's look at Lycia article in Brittanica 1911 [look what it http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Lycia says], "Between the Milyas and the Pamphylian Gulf was the lofty mountain range of Solyma, which was supposed to derive its name from the Solymi, a people mentioned by Homer in connexion with the Lycians and the story of Bellerophon. In the flank of this mountain, near a place called Deliktash, was the celebrated fiery source called the Chimaera, which gave rise to many fables. It has been visited in modern times by Captain F. Beaufort, T. A. B. Spratt and Edward Forbes, and other travellers, and is merely a stream of inflammable gas issuing from crevices in the rocks, such as are found in several places in the Apennines. No traces of recent volcanic action exist in Lycia." That is Brittanica and i know is the best source for Wikipedia. I really don't understand why you are so insistent on a subject that the whole world doesn't have a doubt about Elmalili (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article discusses Chimera more than it does Yanartaş. Furthermore if this article is about the ancient place of Chimera, then what does the Turkish name have to do with it? The Turkish name is irrelevant when discussing Ancient sites. What it was called back then is more relevant that what its current name is in its current geographical/political state. Now, what it is used for today can be made into it's own seperate article. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chimaera/Yanartas - a matter of time & place?

I note that DreamGuy has returned doggedly to this issue. This follows the democratic decision taken over a year ago, and the subsequent division of the original 'Chimaera' article into what was 3 - and is now 4 - separate fractions.

There are 3 reasons for reversing the redirect:

• On grounds of accuracy: The Chimaera (geography) article gives detailed sourcing (Strabo etc.) for the location of the geographical feature to this place, which I think is convincing enough;
• On grounds of linguistics: 2000 years ago it was known to the Greeks as 'Chimaera' and nowadays it is also known a little less poetically in Turkish as 'Yanartas'. This is not a problem. It is not true that the feature "is not known by the name today". As I have previously pointed out, places very often have two names. Populations move and cultures evolve. A comparison might be that one would have a main article 'Istanbul' with redirects from 'Byzantium'and 'Constantinople'. However those two articles would also exist in their own right, explaining the city at those two historical periods. Perhaps the issue is to decide whether time or place takes preference in the naming of Wikipedia articles (if one can make a general principle);
• On grounds of accessibility: I think 'Chimaera' is the more common name for the feature, and the place most users would probably look to first. We are therefore compiling a more useful and relevant encyclopaedia by entitling the article so. (This is the argument that has led to the modern scientific uses of 'chimaera' being placed before the ancient mythological meaning from which they are derived.)

On the other hand there may be a good argument, on the grounds of respect for current-day national sovereighty, for entitling the main article in Turkish and having a redirect to it from the classical Greek name (as DreamGuy has implemented).

I also have a question for DreamGuy: does he think that someone is trying to perpetrate a fraud here? There is something intemperate about his edits that suggests impatience to say the least. Has he been to the place to check it out? (This type of 'research' is I hope unoriginal enough to be permissible within Wikipedia!)

Any more opinions? TobyJ 08:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Does he think someone is trying to perpetrate a fraud? Apparently. But he is notoriously intemperate; he is currently under an editing restriction against incivility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, the highly uncivil tone above is quite over the top. It's bizarre that this is being portrayed as my "returning doggedly to the issue" when it was a new editor out of nowhere who suddenly showed up and tried to rename the article by copying and pasting the text. The article followed Wikipedia policy for at least a year without anyone raising a fuss, and now I'm surprised to see a group of editors quite aggressively trying to attack my character here. Certainly the claims of impatience and intemperance are an example of the WP:POT calling the kettle black in this situation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds awfully like an assumption of bad faith to me; I was drawn back to this article by its appearance on WP:RM. I am not sure what claims DreamGuy supposes to be non-neutral; the major changes to the article (aside from a sentence on the Olympos National Park, which has somehow wandered into the lead) are such peculiar English as

Some sources state that this geothermically active region was the inspiration for the myth Ctesias.

This was grammatical, at least, when I saw it last; and Beaufort is a source for the identification - so is the Park's web site. If DreamGuy can (civilly) make clear his complaints, I will see what can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy's only argument is that it has been Yanartaş for a year so it has to continue that way. So he will call a Sheep a Llama for a year then the Sheep will turn into a Llama. I guess he also thinks all the ancient geographers identifying this place as Chimaera for thousands of years are also part of the conspiracy. :) geez. Elmalili (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DreamGuy

I trust that DreamGuy will eventually explain what he thinks a fringe POV, and why, preferably with sources. In the meantime, I have no intention of dealing with these accusations of WP:OWN; let Arbitration Enforcement do so. The section is here.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

btw, DreamGuy is also erasing the Chimera (geography) link from Chimera disambiguation page. I think he should be stopped by an admin. Elmalili (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that's not very constructive behaviour by DreamGuy. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Elmalili. It certainly seems DreamGuy has an incurable idée fixe on this point and will have to be watched in perpetuity. TobyJ (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

wish you arrived a little earlier for voting TobyJ. It is really sad that people vote without even reading the article or doing a google search. 78.161.64.210 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have duly made an article on Mount Chimaera, which does not overlap this one. If people want to add back material, it can be found in the edit history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)