Talk:Istanbul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Istanbul. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. |
 |
Istanbul was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Guidelines for editing the Istanbul article
|
 Archives |
[edit] Climate
The temperatures listed for Istabul's climate are so ridiculously wrong that its not even funny. 47 degree average temp? That makes Istanbul as hot as Baghdad or Kuwait. Someone needs to go and get the correct temperature scale. 28 degrees is probably what it should be. 71.197.242.97 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Celcius conversions of the Fahrenheit degrees were wrong. Problems were fixed.Tarikes (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but it still looks wrong and more than just in Celsius conversion. I was just on the weather.com (the source) and it is different... Alxross (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the same. I was chatting with my friend in Turkey and asked her about the ridiculously high temperatures, and she said nothing was like that. I looked at the source and its different than what is displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.120.182 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Population
I think the opening sentence should only mention that Istanbul is the world's 4th largest city and not that it is also the 20th biggest urban area, because, unlike is the case with other cities of the world, there is almost no difference between the city proper population and that of the urban area, and because such a distinction never existed for Istanbullers. Istanbul is simply one big thing that defies the urban area definition. Think for instance of the ranstad in Holland comprising of cities quite far away from each other. I dont think Istanbul should be compared to that, at least not in the first sentence (perhaps urban area population could be mentioned elsewhere). I have therefore edited the first sentence. Feel free to share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.200.7 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And it is not the most populous city in Europe, what about Moscow? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.68.171 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The population figures are completely wrong - 3rd largest is way way off.9 million population density of 7,700 people per sq km.Most cities of the world have problems defining their exact borders.The figures for Istanbul should play by the rules that all others are defined by as far as Im concerned.If figures include places that are not connected the density figures would be very low.So the example about Ranstad is not valid.On the point of Moscow,it has a larger population in every figures i have seen.Over exageration of figures that have no statiscal basis is not something wikipedia should be supporting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseagle123 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Istanbul is the third largest city proper in the world is not in agreement with the list to which it refers (the list of city proper populations). I have ammended the statement accordingly to reflect the list, which puts it in fourth place. Regardless of their accuracy, it is essential that a statement is coherent with the source to which it refers, else both sources are undermined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOdo (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Name
Is Constantinople the original name of Istanbul?
Is this true? It was unsourced so I removed it:
"the name is a corruption of the greek phrase Eis-Tin-Poli which means towards the city"
--AW 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's true. I have read it in many places and I thought it common knowledge. I think it should be added back in. In greek it is: Εις την πόλη (At/in the Poli=Constantinople) = Istanbul -- Olivia Guest 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Eis tin Poli theory was first invented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has become famous through the past decades, even taking its place in Encyclopedia Britannica.
I believe the reality is far less complicated:
(I)stanbul is a direct Turkish abbreviation of Con stan tino pol is
The Turks add an "I" in front of foreign words which begin with "st", like istop for stop, istakoz for stakozi, istavrit for stavridis, istavroz for stavros, etc... (BTW, most fish names in Turkish are of Greek origin, as you may have noticed from these examples) DragutBarbarossa 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- See Names of Istanbul; the "eis tin poli" derivation is the universally accepted etymology everywhere in the literature, hasn't been seriously disputed since the 19th century. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
When a claim/definition is repeated time and time again, and appears in multiple resources through decades, it evolves into a fact. History is largely a narration. This, I believe, is the case for the Eis tin Poli theory. Similarly, for instance, many old historic textbooks claimed that the Egyptians built the pyramids by using slave labour with cruelty. But with the latest excavations, it turned out that most of these "slaves" were actually being payed.
Eis tin Poli, in my opinion, is an over-complicated story, which is designed to fit the Istanbul sound with the closest-sounding words in the Greek language. A modern Greek myth generated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I seriously doubt the Greek villagers in 1453 showed the road to Poli for the invading Turkish army by pointing their fingers and saying Eis tin Poli (as if the Turks were Martians and didn't know where Istanbul is - it was actually the Martians who built the Anatolian Castle on the Bosphorus in 1393 and the Rumeli Castle in 1452)
Furthermore, it is most unlikely that a city would end up being called 'to the city' (virtually a contradiction in terms.)Constantinople - the city of Constantine is preserved in 'Stan' 'bul' is a derivation and shortening of 'polis' (pol... bul) (p and b are phonetically extremely close), and the 'I' is simply put to enable Turkish speakers who find initial consonant clusters foreign to cope - by the same token Smyrna became Izmir.
The city was also called Stambul / Stamboul etc. - note that n and m are also close neighbours - and just try saying 'stampul' to yourself and you'll see why the softer non-plosive 'b' sound would emerge.
The Eis tin Poli derivation falls down on all counts, frankly.
The Turks actually kept using the name Konstantiniyye until the 20th century - not Stanbul or Istanbul, so a Byzantine-era theory for Istanbul is ridiculous, because the Turks didn't use the name Istanbul in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and the 1800s. I seriously doubt the Turks suddenly remembered the Eis tin Poli story of 1453 in the 19th century, when Stambul/Stanbul/Istanbul first appeared.
I think the real story, as I mentioned above, is far less complicated and mythical:
(I)stanbul is a direct Turkish abbreviation of the long and inconvenient name Con stan tino pol is DragutBarbarossa 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite, there are many sources confirming the εις την πόλιν position. You can find many by non-Greek authors on Google Books for example. I have never seen one claiming otherwise.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we've all discussed this a lot, many times.
- Whether you personally find the derivation plausible is of absolutely no importance (WP:V, WP:OR).
- The derivation from "is tin polin" is linguistically much easier than that from "Konstantinoupoli"
- Nobody has claimed the name was invented in 1453, and certainly not by finger-pointing Greeks guiding the invading army. The Turks and Arabs had this name for the city centuries before that.
- "(I)stanbul" is attested in writing since the 10th century, side by side with "Kostantiniyye", and was used without interruption in Ottoman Turkish of all ages.
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the record, the name Istanbul was used by Turks long before the twentieth century. What DragutBarbarossa must be referring to was the official renaming of the city.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Eis tin poli story is a true one as phonetic expressly suggests the natural evolution; istinpoli - istinbol etc. likewise Thessaloniki -saloniki-selanik went through a similar change. First and foremost, the Ottoman Empire kept using the name "Constantinople" together with other names of the city (Asitane, Konstantiniyye etc.). Mehmet the Conqueror declared himself as the emperor of Rums (Easter Romans including Greeks of course!). It was only after the foundation of the Republic that the name Constantinople was abandonned and Istanbul became the only official name of the city. I wonder why we should have a problem with that today, after almost 600 years. My ancestors -the Ottomans- did not have any problem with that! We say Istanbul, some others say Constantinople and some other's history could have recorded another name for the city. So please lets not be ridiculous by claiming conspiracy theories about this (invention of patriarch etc). --Z yTalk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V tells us, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and this is a classic case of the two conflicting with each other. What is verifiable is the "eis tin poli" etymology, so that's what we put here. The truth on the other hand, is what DragutBarbossa said: "eis tin poli" is a folk etymology, and the actual etymology of İstanbul is from Stamboul, which in turn comes from Konstantinopolis. But until someone digs up a reliable source showing this (blindingly obvious) fact, we have to go with what the sources we have say. Of course it's unfortunate that we are presenting a folk etymology as fact, but for now, it's the only way to avoid original research. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- εις την πόλιν is perfectly valid as it is not an isolated case. Where İstanbul is to the city, İznik is Eis Nikea, İzmir is Eis Symrna and İzmit is Eis Media from Nicomedia. One might argue that the eis part is a purely Turkish addition and that the name İstanbul comes from ten polin (the city) but the amount and type of change required to get from Konstantinopolis to İstanbul, mainly dropping two sylables right in the middle the middle; "tin-o", seems to make that theory rather far fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a misconception, as if at 1453, there was an official "name-changing" ceramony, after Mehmet took the city. Turks had a name for this city way before that. They had to call it something during the 4-5 centuries they were in the neighborhood previous to the conquest of this last Roman bastion. More importantly, what did Arabs and Persians call it? Arab armies were in front of Istanbul centuries before Turks. It is very likely that Turks adopted a variation of that like they did adopt very pragmatically most other local names, customs and institutions. On the other hand, the etymology points at a unique Turkish modification with the addition of -ist. Interesting topic and good discussion.--Murat (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nickname
An anonymous user (85.105.110.8) has been adding a supposed nickname, "marmara queen", to the infobox. I really think it's unnecessary, and it looks bad. What do you think? If we were to add nicknames, we should do it like [new york city] did. anyhow, i want to discuss before i remove it. --Ademkader (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External link proposal
Hello, I would like to propose this external link about the city of Istanbul. What do you think?
http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Istanbul/Istanbul_01.html
Please, let me know your oppinion. Thanks! Panex (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm going to add the link. I people desagrees lets talk about. Thanks.Panex (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've deleted a buch of external links, including this one, because things were getting out of hand in the External links section. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikitravel. While the Jordi Busque "photographic essay" is tasteful, it does not add "encyclopedic value", and it is hard to justify (on the basis of taste?) that that link should be allowed to stay while links to other collections of photographs should go. --Lambiam 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Names Section
I love how they downplay the fact that Constantinople is the true name of the city by adding all of the "former names". But I guess history is written by the victors (or invaders in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you also believe that the true name of New York City is Nieuw Amsterdam, that of London Kaerlud, that of Regensburg Radasbona, that of Kerkyra Coryphae, and so on? --Lambiam 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't the "true" name of the city be Byzantium then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit "Constantinople" just sounds cooler than "Istanbul". 58.178.80.251 (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Why its climate is not classified as mediterranean?
By the weather averages for Istanbul, it's obvious that its climate is a typical mediterranean. The summers are probably hot enough, according to the weather data. Even the absolute minimum temperatures are in the boundaries where many mediterranean plants can be grown. Moderate-continental climates are much harsher than Istanbul's climate, and you can hardly grow any palmtrees in moderate-continental climate, but you can see them many in Istanbul...Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Done I've changed this. It is amazing that the classification has remained unchallenged until now since it was introduced as "temperate-continental" on August 8, 2005. --Lambiam 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Population and Density
New stats from the TUIK (Turkish Statistics Foundations) put population of Istanbul at 12,573,836 with a population density of 2,420/km2. Shall we wait for the world gazetteer to update their stats or go ahead? note that we will also have to change List of cities by population. --Ademkader (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was remarked by User:Polaron that the number 12,573,836 is for the il (province), and not the city. Apparently the latter number should be 11,174,257, although the ref given does not work for me. The number 2,420/km2 is presumably for an area much larger than the city's 1538.77 km2. --Lambiam 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Does anyone have a source for the 1 538,77 km² figure? Adding the areas for the 27 'city-districts' gives a total of 1 822 km², according to Statoids. The total population of the 27 districts is 11 372 613, of which 10 757 327 is urban according to this page. --Pjred (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thumb picture
We seriously need a better picture instead of the Hagia Sophia, since HS is in Istanbul, OK, but Istanbul is a huge city with thousands of landmarks, and excluding them is completely unjust. Nor it is defining the center of Istanbul. I would, as discussed before, go for that world famous artistic skyline at dusk or dawn, does anyone have a good picture of it? --Eae1983 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
Wow... Beautiful... Let's put one of them then... How could we do that? --Eae1983 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, Since there is no answer, I am doing it. --Eae1983 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Done!!
I hope you like it, that pic is quite more artistic.. Now I have to go to the Kanyon, but you are always free to comment!! --Eae1983 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OOOOohhhh that new pic is wonderful!!! Now can we LOCK this article once and for all?? --Eae1983 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the best one that I have, at dusk:
 |
Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Monsieur, come on, there is no Hagia Sophia in that picture, (contrary to what the name "Istanbul at dusk with Hagia Sophia" would suggest.
- Also, I guess it is "too Eminönü".. (I guess you may have put a wrong one)
- The one now is the best I have seen, nice weather, Palace + Baslica + Church + Bosphorus + Commuter Ferries (Vapur)... I am kinda cold now of my orientalistic "dusk or dawn" ideas, but I am open for any great looking picture.
- Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External Link
Can we add this (or this one) link? It shows the traffic from live cameras. I know that ibb.gov.tr is added but this direct link can be more helpfull(?). --Ilhanli (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vapurlar
Where are the pictures of the "famous commuter ferries", I really think we need to put something graphic in about that, since one can see those ships in almost half of the pictures featured in the article.
Cheers!--Eae1983 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Districts
The side panel says there are 25 districts but the actual article says that there are 31? Anyone know the correct number or a reason why they are different?
TheArtOfTheWarrior (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is the difference between the districts of Istanbul Province, and those that constitute the City of Istanbul. I've edited the text to make the distinction clear. I've also changed 31 to 32 because both the article Istanbul Province and Category:Districts of Istanbul give 31 districts. (When counting the pages in that category, do not count the page Greater Istanbul which is not a district, and do not double-count Adalar = Princes' Islands.) I've also changed 25 into 27.
- The 32−27 = 5 outer districts of the Province that are not part of the City are Büyükçekmece, Çatalca, Silivri, Sultanbeyli (an enclave of formerly rural terrain within the City), and Şile. --Lambiam 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nominate for GA or FA again?
Maybe after some copyediting the article should again be listed for GA? It has significantly been improved, and I made the Hungarian article FA on the basis of the English article. I had to search for some more references that could also be put here to expand the number of references (in the HUwiki article there are over a hundred refs). What do you think? --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- For the issues raised in the previous GA review, see Talk:Istanbul/Archive 3#GA Review. I think the present article is too long; perhaps we should spinout some sections into separate articles. --Lambiam 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- How about a separate article entitled Art and Architecture of Istanbul (more detailed than Architecture of London, but as an example), or something similarly titled? That way, it could combine Cityscape and parts of Life in the City, which would help to reduce the bulk of the article. What do you think? Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Formally, article length is not among the GA criteria but only among the FA criteria, but nevertheless it will also be an issue of criticism in GA reviews. Also for the normal reader, the article is too long and has too much detail about things they are not likely to be interested in. I think we should attempt to bring the article back from its current 132,000 bytes or so to about half, say 70,000. Your proposals are good and will make a dent, but the resulting article will still be well above 100,000 bytes. Other sections that could be spun out are Religion (way too long), Economy, Transportation, Recreation, and Education. I've compiled an overview of the byte counts of the sections (where the determination what a section is is just as naive as for the [edit] buttons). --Lambiam 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
132040 Main
2934 Names
12799 History
5496 Geography
3093 Climate
1816 Geology
20845 Cityscape
16524 Architecture
2501 Ancient Greek and Roman monuments
8131 Byzantine monuments
5300 Ottoman monuments
4307 Urbanism
2898 Administration
998 Organization
1881 Districts
19398 Demographics
14907 Religion
1449 Crime
10335 Economy
2134 Financial Sector
1637 Industry
2613 Tourism
15105 Infrastructure
1780 Health and medicine
5382 Utilities
7924 Transportation
731 By Air
2323 By Rail
806 By Road
3288 By Sea
674 Public
16789 Life in the city
5159 Art & Culture
1347 Media
9024 Recreation
188 Shopping
5772 Bars, Cafés and Restaurants
1504 Clubs
7497 Education
1368 Universities
5483 High Schools
163 Libraries
4926 Sports
3291 Town twinning
481 Related lists
231 See also
27 Notes
4053 External links
I would be glad to get started with the dent ant work on the creation of the Architecture in Istanbul article, for combining Art and Architecture would be supremely difficult- I want to maintain the same format as other cities. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First edit: Architecture of Istanbul, 11K off
I created the article, removed the entire text to that article, and added certain items that are the heart and soul of Istanbul. It is merely a start, because there is just so much within the city that the branched article will need to be beefed up. As for this article, the flow of the summarized section is fractured, and it needs to be fixed somewhat. What I did was merely a start- 11k of it is now pared off. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Monsieur, please know that I am ready to help you in every possible way for this. Contact me as you wish.
- --Eae1983 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Great! I would love to see some help. The idea in the Architecture section is to create a subsection for each of the main structures of Istanbul, which I pretty much have here:
- Hagia Sophia
- Suleymaniye Mosque
- Galata Tower
- Dolmabahce Palace
- Topkapi Palace
- Leander's Tower
- The Grand Bazaar (missing, should be added)
I could possibly add Sultanahmet Mosque, but I'm afraid it might be too much. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 00:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok very well, I'll attack all these during the course of this week! :))
- --Eae1983 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yalılar
Can I know why did the picture showing the typical Yalıs of istanbul has been removed?
Cheers!
--Eae1983 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article size no longer an issue
The article is now below 100K (details have been channeled to related main articles) so size is no longer an issue for resuming the bid for Featured Article status. Best regards. 151.57.206.77 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Re-Submission
I believe we can now re-submit the article's application for Good Article status. I cleaned and tuned every single nut and bolt inside the engine. Better than this? I don't think so. 151.57.184.245 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is looking a lot better in terms of the balance of content, but I think it will fail on the lack of references. The following sections have either a lack of or no references at all:
- Architecture
- Urbanism
- Administration
- Religion
- Life in the city
- Education
- Sports
- Should be aiming for one reference per paragraph to be safe. Also on the issue of pictures, I think there are too many in the Religion and Economy sections and third panaroma in the History sections is poor in terms of quality. The article really is looking better, but I'm just trying to pre-empt what a GA reviewer would say. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed guideline
I'd like to clarify when we should use Istanbul and when Constantinople, à la Talk:Gdańsk (but hopefully with less contention). Here is my initial proposal; feel free to comment and alter.
In general,
1. When referring to Istanbul in a pre-1453 context, use "Constantinople". Exceptions may include a specifically Turkish context: "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul". Use "Byzantium" for mentions predating 330 AD.
2. When referring to Istanbul in a 1453-1923 context, either "Istanbul" or "Constantinople" may be acceptable.
- If the context refers to the city alone, to central Ottoman institutions, or to Muslim provinces of the Empire, "Istanbul" may be preferred. Examples:
- "The streets of Istanbul were widened in 1608."
- "The Ottoman Navy sailed from Istanbul."
- "The Sultan was born and raised in Istanbul."
- "The men rode from Mecca to Istanbul."
- If the context refers to Christian provinces of the Empire, Church institutions in the city, or the West in general, "Constantinople" may be preferred. Examples:
- "The influence of Constantinople was felt lightly in Wallachia."
- "Constantinople had sixteen churches in 1820."
- "France and Britain occupied Constantinople in 1918."
3. When referring to Istanbul in 1923- context, use "Istanbul". Exceptions may include a specifically Greek or Orthodox context: "The people of Crete look to Constantinople for spiritual guidance."
Note: whenever using "Constantinople" in a post-1453 context, link to Istanbul as follows: [[Istanbul|Constantinople]], because the Constantinople article stops at 1453.
Thoughts? Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's the current guideline for this? El Greco(talk) 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there is one. We have three articles - Istanbul, Constantinople and Names of Istanbul, but no advice to editors on when to use what name. Biruitorul Talk 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Biruitorul's draft makes sense. The important thing is that this is likely to match what reliable sources out in the English-speaking literature actually do. Earlier discussions about this have often sidelined into a senseless debate of whether 1432-1923 "Istanbul" or "Constantinople"/"Kostantiniyye" were "official", whatever that means (I doubt the Ottomans even had a notion of "official names" comparable to ours.) At other times, it has been argued that pre-1923 all English sources would have used "Constantinople" – but that's beside the point too, because the criterion is not what English speakers did back then, but what English speakers do today when talking about back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, we should be clear that the question of "what name to use" is slightly different from "what article to link to". Our article called Constantinople covers only the history of the city prior to 1453. Biruitorul's recommended practice involves using Constantinople also in contexts where the appropriate link target will be Istanbul nevertheless, because that article will have the information relevant to the period. So we'll often end up with piped links like the modern Greek dialects of [[Istanbul|Constantinople]], or the modern Greek dialects of Constantinople ([[Istanbul]]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Fut. Perf. on both points. I agree in general with Bitorul's proposal. My chief reservation is that I would not say, even with may, in a specifically Turkish context: "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul". for two reasons:
- Many of the problems with the Gdansk agreement have been efforts to establish articles as bubbles of German or Polish context, which then ignore the other side (and both ignore the Lithuanians).
- I would not write "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul"; it is worth reminding the reader that we are dealing with a separate, although dependent, state (and if we do not call it Constantinople, what do we call it?)
- We should include the date of the founding of Constantinople (either the beginning of construction in 324, or the consecration in 330.
- I agree with Fut. Perf. on both points. I agree in general with Bitorul's proposal. My chief reservation is that I would not say, even with may, in a specifically Turkish context: "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul". for two reasons:
-
- But do we really need to say more than WP:NCGN (which discusses this very example at some legnth)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- According to Names of Istanbul, "Istanbul" is attested as far back as the 10th century. Then again, perhaps no situation exists pre-1453 where "Istanbul" should be used. (Or maybe there does.)
- Your example is fascinating, but I suspect a misprint or moment of carelessness. Murad II didn't order translations to appear in Istanbul, and if he had, they would have been less than useful to him. Did the author mean to write "Edirne"? Or possibly Mahmud II and 1480, with misprint and the wrong copyedit?
- On the broader point, that's usage in Armenian and Turkish, not English. I have no problem with using Istanbul in italics and discussing the word, except the question of whether it belongs in Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- In either case, I suppose we don't need any guideline, but it wouldn't hurt either. It would clarify situations like this by making explicit that it is sometimes acceptable to use "Constantinople" in a post-1453 context, though I agree with Fut. Perf. that [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] may be necessary in such situations. Biruitorul Talk 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly; not doing so will leave actual quotations from most nineteenth century documents (in English or other Western languages) floating in mid-air or doctored. Similarly, there may be reasons to use Istanbul for the city in exactly 1450; I just think Turkish context will be abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is NOT to figure out what names to drop but to discuss which one is suitable when. Most people seem know it by instinct. The disucssion seems rather academic. The fact that there is a whole article dedicated just to the name of the city should be enough on this matter.--Murat (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken, but would you actually object to such a guideline? In other words, you may not be thrilled by it, but it can't hurt, right? Biruitorul Talk 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul: Bibliography, Songs and Paintings
So many songs about this city, maybe we could list them here. How about famous paintings of Istanbul, or Istanbul painters? A bibliography is sorely needed. If someone gets it started, I will help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul map
have you heard about the change in the ilce system of istanbul? [2] Are there any new maps available on commons? --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul Live!
I found this link http://tkm.ibb.gov.tr/yolDurumu/Kameralar.aspx# to 75 traffic cameras placed all around Istanbul (they call them MOBESE?). It is a live feed and very exciting. Can someone more apt than myslef add this at the end of the Transportation section? It would go there well, maybe it can be a side box, or some other creative arrangement.--Murat (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why is Istanbul listed as European, and why did this edit occur just before the page was locked?
It is incorrect to call the city the largest in Europe, when the part of the Turkey that one could perhaps argue to be "Europe" only includes half of the city of Istanbul. In which case, Istanbul is NOT the second largest city in Europe - London is. -Phalangst
I dont personally find the definiton European side Asian side valid - as a person living in istanbul myself . But i do question the population rankings.By most reasonable accounts,Moscow is the largest city of Europe,followed by Paris, then Istanbul and London in 4th place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseagle123 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Could someone rename the whole article into İstanbul
The correct name of the city is İstanbul, not Istanbul (observe the letter, i). Could someone change the title of the article so I can change the rest of the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman88 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure this has been heavily discussed before; somebody wanted badly to move it to İstanbul back in 2005 but it was always moved back ([3]], [4]). Proposing this move again now would very likely be quite controversial. Our rule is that we normally use whatever spelling is more common in English; whether that includes leaving out diacritics where English writers usually do so is a bit of a contentious area. Please don't make unilateral changes in this area without obtaining consensus first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- The English name is Istanbul. Since this wiki is English wiki we are using the English names. İstanbul is Turkish. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- English wiki has SO MANY pages with diactricts for Italian, Spanish and Franch names.
-
Letters é, ñ, è, á and so on ARE used!!! The I-İ discussion is therefore logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.210.80 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] the third in europe?
The information about Istanbul being the third largest city of europe is wrong. It's the largest. See Moscow, it says its 10,470,318 BUT iSTANBUL IS 11,372,613 . It's the third largest city in the WORLD not Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.148.97 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] names
Why in IPA you use isˈtanbul (for İstanbul, not for Istanbul)? It should be isˈtambul. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
