Talk:Chios

Lemos family origins

The Lemos family is not a family from Chios, they are from Oinoussai. Most Oinoussai and Chiot big families are related but they dont forget where they are from. Lots of them now live in London or Athens

Spelling and Pronounciation

This entry concerns the island called Chios in English. I suppose the Greeks who insist on Khios don't realize how pretentious and artificial this looks in English. Like Makkah for Mecca. Wetman 19:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I'm from this island, contributing to Wikipedia page, and I suggest it be kept under Chios. --Jkh.gr 23:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both spelling, Chios and Khios, can be found. Yet Chios is more often used.

Google test: 1,500,000 for Chios and 19,700 for Khios.

The "Khios" spelling is sometimes used to differentiate the pronounciation, as "Chios" to a foreigner could also represent "TSA-ee-os". "Hios" also could be mistaken for "HA-ee-os". "Khios" fuses the "k" and the "h" sounds, leading to "kh-EE-os". All these from a linguistic point of view. Nevertheless, the "correct" modern english spelling is "Chios" and the modern greek pronounciation is "HEE-os" (english speakers usually pronounce it - incorrectly - as "KEE-os"). I deleted the absurd reference to Dictionary.com, which had something like "KA-y-os"!!! Sometimes these "citation needed" and "Google test" things in Wikipedia are ridiculous. Take that from the millions of people who actually speak the language.

Rem commercial content

I 've removed the advertisment for appartments. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and if someone needs to find a place to stay can check the list of hotels and appartments, following the assosiation's of Rooms to Let & Apartments in Chios link. MATIA

Move to Chios

Support move to Chios. See Transliteration of Greek into English, Khios would be the BGN transliteration, Chios the UN/official Greek transliteration. Markussep 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Support. – AxSkov (T) 03:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I 've tried to move it myself, but it seems we need the assistance of an admin.

MATIA 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Detail of the painting with the woman

Isn't this propaganda? I know Soviets and Nazis come to mind with propaganda but propaganda has a general meaning, trying to influence one's opinion through various methods. Now if it was the whole painting I wouldn't think this way, but what we have is a zoom in on the face of a wretched woman, makes you wonder.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A painting by Eugène Delacroix, which is now in the Louvre and is presenting one of the most notable events in the history of Chios,has surely its place in the article and it is by no means propaganda.--Hectorian 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not propaganda if you show the whole painting, not a certain part of the painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkagansu, a.k.a. Kagan the Barbarian (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 March 2006

Sorry,i had not understood what u meant...I guess u are right.can u fix it so as to have the whole painting?(i do not know how to do it)--Hectorian 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda is a totally different story. I don't see anything false presented as the truth. The massacre of Chios is a fact, 100.000 people were killed by the Turks and the painter tried to capture a moment. The picture was just a part of the painting in a bigger size, helping to focus on the level of the detail of the painter's work (the woman's face). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.55.253 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2006

While I don't dispute that the massacre of Chios occurred on the scale of tens of thousands, a 100,000-person death toll seems astonishingly high; most sources I’ve come across give figures closer to 20 or 30 thousand.--SupaJames 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Names

Adkagansu: I rvt that edit. I have a feeling I agree with you in excluding alternative names from the opening line and paragraph unless absolutely necessary - further down the paragraphs would be fine and only if historically relevant. I have no desire to find out the former Greek names of Turkish places (only in the history section), and likewise we would be expecting too much of readers by including Turkish appelation of Greek places. Politis 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually recommend a moratorium of all name-related edits/reverts in this area, while the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) is ongoing. Adkagansu, you're very welcome to make your opinion heard over there, we need a broad basis for a consensus if it is ever to work out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chios Genoese.

The island was under the Genoese colonial rule from 1346 until 1566. In the years 1694-1695 Chios was occupied by the Venetians.

Other names must be moved further down

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 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are ferries running between Chios and Cesme (sorry, can't spell the name of that city correctly using my keyboard) daily; fewer ones run between Chios and Italy. Not a reason to keep the names in the first para, but your comment re: the ferry lines isn't correct. --Joemadeus 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links - Travel related

I have started a page on Chios on wikitravel http://wikitravel.org/en/Chios

I think I should I move all the travel related external references there; where the belong! Any objections ? George Kontopoulos

Je viens de placer un site dont je suis l'Editeur et qui a trait pour une grande partie, à Chios et les familles nobles y ayant vécu et dont je fais partie. FBB

Shipping families

I have expanded the Chiot Greek shipping text - though I note that the early shipping families of Vaglianos and Rodocanachi are not noted anywhere in Wiki - are there any good biographies of these families? Ephebi 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have found a Biog that actually places them as Cephalonian (contradicting an earlier source) therefore removed their reference Ephebi 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes/references

With everyone having unsubstantiated opinions about history, can we now start using footnotes when adding material to justify the additions/subtractions? Simply insisting on a POV is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. There is supposed to be some external justification. If not, please stop inserting or changing sentences that can't be checked by anyone. Student7 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction on Oros

Thank you for your correction on "Oros." Since we don't say "Sinai Tel" or "Tel Sinai" but Mt. Sinai, in English, shouldn't we be dropping the "Oros" in English, as well? Student7 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some precedent I think for having the Greek names of things in the side boxes, where the English is more appropriate in the article. That being said, looking through a list of articles on Greek islands, the articles that do list a highest point do not use the term 'Oros' - if it doesn't suit you, I'd say get rid of it. Brando130 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion wars between Greek and Turkish

I have edited out the Greek version in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines see "Use English." Please describe below why Turkish is essential to the article, why it is used at all? Neither language can be permitted until reversion wars stop! This pertains to other Greek island articles as well. Student7 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for raising this here rather than continuing to revert - if you re-read the the guidelines you will see the current format has been fine, especially by putting all the archaic forms in their own paragraph (Though perhaps we should add an archaic wikilink as well). However it is inconsistent to censor the Ottoman variant but maintain the Genoese & Italian, when each controlled the area through notable periods in its history. I can't read Ottoman script but I can see that the phonetic of Sakiz is very different from the Latin/Greek script versions, and helps explain some of the items that I see when looking at old papers from the time of the diaspora circa 1822. Ephebi (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Italian and Turkish names are their for historical reasons. At one point or another the islands where ruled by some country other than Greece. I don't see why the name variation shouldn't be included. They don't imply ownership which I think is the reason the IP user is acting the way the he/she is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This problem has come up several times now. The unwritten compromise was working well for a while. The Greek name and transliterations are the most relevant and the only ones that belong next to the title, as before, because that is currently the official name of Chios in the official language spoken on the island. (This is a practice used across Wikis, as seen here for example.) The other names of the islands at different historical times are also relevant, however, as before they belong near the bottom of the intro, where they can be still be found by someone who was looking at, say, a medieval source that listed the island by its Ottoman name. One other quick thought.. I agree its hard to justify throwing out the Turkish name while keeping Genoese, however that has proven to be enough of a sensitive issue that the edit warring to remove the Turkish name simply may not go away in the future. A quick look back at the history of the page will definitely illustrate my point. How do you solve a problem like Maria? Brando130 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As Brando130 has pointed out this problem gets continually reinvented by new editors. On the last go around, it was decided that unless there was a good reason to keep the non-English name, it should go. The good reason being that there was a large indigenous group of <language>-speaking people there, for example. Being once owned by another country was not a good reason in itself.

This works both ways, BTW. I monitor an article on a city in Turkey which has taken its Turkish name from the older Greek. It naturally has the Greek there as a reference. This makes sense to the reader. It has to make sense. The ground war between Greeks and Turks is over. There is no reason to try to refight it here.

Each country has its own language in Wikipedia. Obviously it can do anything there. But neither adherents should be trying to pollute the English version for political reasons. Student7 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• El Greco's summary sounds perfectly reasonable, though I am aware that there seems to be a lot of heavy-handed anonymous editing that goes on with articles which rather devalues their utily. I'm concerned that by 'censoring' ourselves too heavily we end up with a rather incongruous situation within the English wiki - in this instance "Sakız" means mastic/gum in Turkish, which was a major product from this Island. Subsequently the term migrated across the Ottoman Empire to signify all manner of other things, a few of which appear to have found their way into WP - even the Sakiz-style of architecture?? Personally I'm particularly interested in the Greek section of West Norwood Cemetery and have been building up biographies for a number of the major (Greek) trading families who originated from Chios before and after 1822, and would like to be able to tie this in to a meaningful history without the modern day "baggage". Ephebi (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with El Greco's take on things. Re-reading WP:NC(GN); particularly the bullet point: Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. I'd say that the whole sphere of Byzantine/Ottoman/Genoese/Venetian/Templar influence in the Mediterranean makes inclusion of such historic naming notable. - Nigosh (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Student7 I can appreciate your desire to moderate, but your reversion removes the Greek name, while leaving the Turkish, which is of course ridiculous because the very name of the article is an English transliteration of the Greek word you're removing. The consensus forming here is clearly that the former names need to be somewhere besides the opening sentence, and so they were moved down about 6 months ago, but the official language being used next to the article name has precedent all over Wikipedia. You should be reverting to the version that had stability for months before an anonymous IP triggered all of this by simply removing Sakiz. Once that was restored, I'm not really sure why you removed it again. It is a verifably former name of the island, thus meeting the threshold for inclusion in the encyc., and it was already placed lower in the article. Now you're leaving the Turkish name, and removing the official language used on the island. Brando130 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about leaving any name but English. Oversight on my part. I cannot really moderate here having a POV as I do. I have requested mediation which I guess has to happen every quarter or so on Greek islands. (Sigh). The one plus about this is that no one who participates in this will ever want to start another revert war again! But of course, it all may be postponed if the mediation is rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios and sign your agreement if you choose to do so. Student7 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mediation but I'm not quite sure what we're mediating... perhaps you can better explain how you think the article should look. Consensus has already been formed here that the former names of Chios belong together, isolated from the title of the article. I haven't seen a single post that suggests otherwise, including previous discussions

As for the official name itself appearing next to the title, (in this case in Greek), this practice is not restricted to the Isles but is used on almost all of the major Greek cities (Thebes, Delphi, Corinth, Mount Olympus, etc.) and it is a practice used across languages, and across Wikis. Are you suggesting we abandon this? And if so, why? Brando130 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems the discussion has already begun: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places). _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We can wait for the mediation which may not arrive this time around, but let's be up front. Most Americans who haven't attended college cannot read Greek. Since, Turks have the Roman alphabet, Americans can "sort of" read Turkish names. Having said that, let's admit something else: English is a derivative of many other languages, one of which is Greek. But definitely not Turkic! So my POV is usually to allow the Greek name for a Greek island but not the Turk unless someone can prove some reason why it is there. And "historic ownership" is not a good reason as per many previous discussions. But to avoid revert wars, I would rather eliminate Greek, as perverted an idea as that is for a supposed encyclopedia which is supposed to encorporate logic in its decision-making process. As El Greco has pointed out, there is already past discussions of this issue. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see those discussions did not result in much consensus, and have been mostly abandoned for over a year. However, to go back to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):

2. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.

*Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.

* Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".

Thus, keeping the official, local (Greek) name next to the title is permissible, and so is having the other variant, and archaic names as long as they are listed in a separate paragraph, which is where they have been for months. So what part of the article is currently not conforming to Wiki policy? Brando130 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having set up the current intro section, I should explain the logic... the English names, at least all semi-official forms, have pride of place. Adding the name the locals call it next seems to be standard Wiki (see Cologne, Rome, Munich etc...) and a key bit of info for someone wishing to do further web research. The other names were all officially used, and resulted from changes of national sovereignty. Since this is an encyclopaedia, again writing the name with the original characters just seems helpful for people who really want to look into the subject (regardless of Greek-Turkish sensibilities).

By the way, if any of you have any further information on Chios, that would be really helpful (I am currently trying to find out more about the events during the Greek Civil War to bring the history up to date). AlekH, 21 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlekH (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiction, paintings

While there is nothing wrong and maybe everything right about publishing that a massacre was memorialized by writers of fiction and artists, it seems wrong to me to put this in an article about the event itself (history). To me, it detracts from Chios and focuses attention on these artists unecessarily. Painting okay as a picture. But mention of these others should come later as "media" or something. What if I said there was a game out called "Ottoman masssacre" (about as bad as some of them!) and put that in the history section? You would identify it as wrong immediately. But there is no difference, don't you see? The artists of yesterday have degenerated into the gameboys of today. It's all total invention by the artist. The mixture of fiction and fact (except for the painting itself) does not belong together IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I take your point. The clear difference between a modern depiction and the art/poetry being discussed is that the art here is contemporary to the aftermath of the events, and thus really a part of the history itself, at least the history of the massacre's aftermath. The text says the massacre took place; quite verifiable anyway but now more so since you have added a reference. Then the text says something to the effect that there was 'major outrage in Europe' - and it gives some popular art and poetry of the period that demonstrates some contemporary expressions of that outrage. It's not telling you "Go check Lord Byron for an in depth historical account of the events" - its telling you that you can check Lord Byron to see some of the European flare that popped up in response to the killings. Shouldn't that be relevant? You could even put them in a footnote, but why remove valid examples of European's expressions of outrage over the massacre just because they are artistic and not prose? Brando130 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Temperatures in climate section are wrong

I'm no expert on this, but I very much doubt that Chios has an average August temperature of 105 degrees F, or that December temperatures typically drop below freezing and rise above room temperature in the same day. The source obviously has incorrect or confusingly labeled data, and someone copied wrong. --76.242.82.23 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They look wrong to me too. Thanks for pointing that out. More importantly they have been that way since they were added in January 2008 by AlexH. He is a reputable editor. I left him a note but he hasn't edited since July. I found a history at http://weather-to-travel.com/climate-guides/index.php?destination=chios if someone would like to straighten it out. Note that the source that is listed is dead. Student7 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just got agreement from AlexH. He agreed that they didn't look quite right. I changed from different source, the original link being dead. Copied from new link which seems to look "better," but cannot verify temps myself. I did NOT change average temps which may be wrong too but didn't seem to be displayed, nor did I verify precipitation which now may not agree with link. Student7 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Central Public Historical Library of Chios “Koraes”

Central Public Historical Library of Chios “Koraes”, containing about 250.000 volumes, is one of the largest libraries in Greece. Its history started in 1792 as a department of the Great Chian School. The first books were donated by Adamantios Koraes and his scholar friends, both Greek and foreigners. Adamantios Koraes (1748-1833), one of the most important scholars, with a great knowledge of linguistics, was the founder of the Library. Even though he was from Chios, he never visited the island. Koraes studied medicine in France, but he never practised it. He believed that education would ensure not only the achievement of independence but also the establishment of a proper constitution for the new liberated Greek state

Before the Massacre of Chios in 1822 it was the most important library of the whole region. After a major earthquake in 1881 it was moved into a new building where it has remained ever since. In 1928 it was officially named and recognized by the Greek State as Central Public Historical Library of Chios “Koraes”. Initially the building had only one floor; the second one was added after 1948 by the major donator Philip Argenti.

Argenti helped the library of Chios in many ways. He donated books, manuscripts, maps, paintings, portraits and other cultural artifacts from his private collection, kept in a separate room on the second floor which serves as a museum. The Argenti Folklore Museum that shares the same building with the Koraes Library, was officially inaugurated in 1962 and during 1974-78 it was further expanded. The expansion of the library has been in process since 1993, when the adjoining building was donated.

• www.koraeslibrary.gr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.173.185 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sgraffito houses

in the north of the island there is ancient houses and church with Sgraffito especially in Mastichochoria region. i hope sombody can upload a picture here. פארוק (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chios Massacre

by the Genocide in the Greek island of Chios were able residents Mastichochoria in South - West Island rescued thanks to the Mastic tree crops which produced the resin Mastic was worth the weight of gold that was used by the sultan and the harem wives also served as a valuable material for export of the Empire note octet. man who was stolen the Mastic was executed by the order of the sultan. פארוק (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what editor is saying. Harvesting mastic nearly stopped with the massacre. The massacre demolished Chios trade in that substance which never recovered. Student7 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

.

Flag of Chios?

Does Chios have an official flag, or historical flags? --Nikoz78 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The "asty" (huh?

The word "asty' has been here a long time, since 2006 with this change by an unregistered editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chios&diff=next&oldid=74716590

I'm assuming it was a typo and rm it. Student7 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Turkish name

Chios is Greek, Turkish is not a joint official or national language and as such, it should not be included for islands and mainland regions simply because they are spitting distance from Turkish territory. However, I see no information on the demographics and if there is a long-standing ethnic Turkish population on Chios as is the case in parts of mainland Greece and some islands, then it is fair to include the Turkish name on that premise. This is something I cannot help the conflicting parties on because I haven't yet sought the statistics.Zavtek (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I fully agree with your points. As far as I can tell there is no Turkish minority on Chios. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There is just one thing though, and I really did forget this when I began this section. As the island was controlled by the Ottomans for a time, its inclusion should be fine but not in the lede. As with Xanthi, a lower paragraph should suffice. After all, the Turkish name does form part of the land's heritage, but the only problem will be that it would have to be the modern Turkish name given rather than the Ottoman Arabic as very few people know that writing system for Turkish, and sources are scarce. Zavtek (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

A section on the island's Ottoman past would be absolutely fine, which can naturally include its name at the time, but I agree with you that the lead is not the place to put it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not party to this remember! I'm just looking how things are on Serbian articles with Hungarian names for the Vojvodina region and Bulgaria for places with a Turkish population (there you have it in lede), and existing Greek settlement practice. I now hope the user who insisted on the Turkish name agrees to this. Zavtek (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

We are all party to Wikipedia, so to that extent everyone can be involved everywhere. :) Thank you for your comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of the island in Roman and Byzantine era

"Known as "Ophioussa" (Οφιούσσα, "snake island") and "Pityoussa" (Πιτυούσσα, "pine-tree island") in antiquity, during the later Middle Ages the island was ruled by a number of non-Greek powers and was known as Scio (Genoese), Chio (Italian) and Sakız (صاقيز —Ottoman Turkish)."

It seems from this paragraph that the name of Chios originate from Italian in late Middle Age. But when I look up the wiki dictionary, it says the word of Χίος has been in use since 5 BC. Can anyone explain this?Qijiang ok (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Chios International airport

Chios international airport section or any other transport section is missing.--2A02:587:4401:8126:C014:4130:21CD:33CC (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkish name in lead

Turkish name for the island I have added to lead was removed for invalid reasons by Therealscorp1an. Per WP:NCGN; ″Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.″ Unless valid reasons are submitted here, I will re-insert it. DriedGrape (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Khirurg as well to discuss instead of edit warring. DriedGrape (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that either of those two criteria are met. Which references use the Turkish name? The article only seems to discuss occasional and short-term small clusters of Turkish community. By contrast, the US is currently inhabited by major communities that do speak all sorts of other languages, and large areas periodically owned by Spanish-speaking, the French, and however-many-different Native-American tribes. Our United States article lists none of those. The guideline is can (allowed) not must (required), so I would think it's a WP:CONSENSUS, and you as proponent don't seem to have it at the moment, whereas the current editors and several previous rounds of talkpage comments support excluding it. DMacks (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

While I have been trying to reach a consensus, the objecting reasons given are simply invalid. Many other editors in the past have also argued in favor of the addition of the names, here and the other island articles, but were again shut down by simply unjustifiable excuses. The Turkish community in the island is neither occassional or short-term, given its length and recent exodus. DriedGrape (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no Turkish community on the island, and hasn't been for 100 years now. The Turkish name is of historical interest and belongs in the name section, but not the lede. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Chian earth

Hard to believe the local board of commerce/tourism missed that one. Most places would kill to be famed for centuries as the home of the best all-natural cosmetic in the known world. It probably deserves its own article if there are enough sources to pinpoint the location and chemistry involved. — LlywelynII 05:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)