This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Istanbul is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2019.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
The article needs substantial work to meet the FA criteria: better referencing (including citing the uncited content, as well as improving the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date. There is also massive overload of images in contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. (t · c) buidhe21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is semi-protected, and I have no intension editing such a page unprompted, so I give my oppinion here
I think an article should start with its formalities and links to other articles close to the subject.
I think the introduction should be:
Istanbul (/ˌɪstænˈbʊl/ IST-an-BUUL,[7][8] US also /ˈɪstænbʊl/ IST-an-buul; Turkish: İstanbul [isˈtanbuɫ] (About this soundlisten)), formerly known as Constantinople (previous capital of the Ottoman Empire and the Roman/Byzantine Empire and was originally Byzantium an ancient Greekcity in classical antiquity, is the largest city in Turkey ...
because very important traces from very important past eras are available in the site (the past cities were not destroyed and there has been a continious development of it). The other eras are described in other articles and so these articles should be linked to immediatly this way.
After the formalities go on and put up history and other aspects of the city. The introduction should be cleaned from history things and put in a history section, becaus eof the subject it must be devided into subsections. The introduction after the first formalities should describe shortly the present city, that is an important commercial centre and large city of Turkey and Europe.
The article should describe the present city and the past eras should mainly be taken care of by links in the formalities and the history section (as they are supposed to be described there). However present day remains (sites, institutions and activeties) from the past history shsould be decribed in the article becauase they are turist attractions of the present and listed in subsections dependent on the era. As a turist I should be able to track the most important present sites dependent on my perspective in the present day city.
I would like to remove the image of 'Colomn of Constantine', 'Statue of Atatürk in Büyükada' and 'Syrian nationals in districts of Istanbul' and 'Pera Museum in Beyoglu'. I find these ones least relevant to the article. Metuboy (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you are trying to make disinformation nationalism with adding "ancient greek.." bla bla thing. It's not allowed according to any Wikipedia policies. Look at the Gdansk article for some education. Old name of the city should be remove.
It's not exactly the prettiest image, but concerns raised about other images might make this the only acceptable one. Uness232 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The view of the Bosphorus Bridge and the modern skyline from Çamlıca Hill (2013) is outdated
The current Bosphorus Bridge image in the infobox is from 2013 and displays an outdated view of the city's modern skyline. This image from 2022 contains additional buildings. Many new towers will appear in the coming years.
These towers are clearly not among the timeless icons of the city. Very few of them are interesting in terms of design. Many of them will eventually be demolished and replaced by newer buildings in the future, similar to the redevelopment projects in New York, London, etc.
The Anadoluhisarı and in particular Rumelihisarı fortresses can be defined as the beginning point for the "Turkish" city of Constantinople (Istanbul). Rumelihisarı played an important role during the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It is one of the timeless icons of the city, definitely more so than some ordinary highrise tower blocks, the kind of which you can find anywhere else in the world.
My proposal is to replace this outdated image with the historical beauty of Rumelihisarı Fortress, combined with the emerald green hills of the Bosphorus, splendid yalı houses and mansions (such as the Yusuf Ziya Pasha Mansion with its unique design, visible in this image) and the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge in the background, named after the person to whom the Turks owe the privilege of owning what is arguably the world's most interesting city. Poppins Potter (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, and I do get that the skyline photo is very outdated, however nearly all city articles on Wikipedia use a general skyline of the city as image1:
Ankara doesn't use the Ankara Castle
NYC doesn't use- (well, they do use the Empire State, but a very panoramic image of the Empire State)
I am for adding the new image of 2022, and for replacing new images with old ones where possible. Our task is to inform readers about the current state of the city, not to preemptively censor the city's development in recent years. Istanbul in the last 20 years has grown enormously, often changing (and not always for the better) the ambience and scenery for which it was famous. The article on the city should reflect these changes. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would not necessarily oppose [6] being added. I do not see a problem with the old photo, and I consider it to be higher quality in terms of composition and color, but I understand the reason behind replacing it.
It's better than the current İstiklal image which is almost 20 years old. It is better than the one suggested by Poppins Potter. Are you ok with this one? [7]Bogazicili (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is updating the top picture. For the rest, I'm open to suggestions. But the new top pic already shows Hagia Sophia. Bogazicili (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the photos of Istiklal Avenue you provided, except the first, are not good quality enough to be placed in the infobox, but I think we all agree on the top image. And @Bogazicili you are correct, Hagia Sophia is shown in the top pic. Still, I think Ortaköy Mosque could be replaced. ~eticangaaa (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: Because the "Turkish" history of the city began with the Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses. Before, it wasn't a Turkish city. Considering the role of Rumelihisarı in the successful conquest of 1453 (Bayezid I, who had built the Anadoluhisarı, wasn't successful in his earlier siege), I thought it was a significant symbol (a starting point) for the "Turkish part" of the city's history. Poppins Potter (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For İstiklal images, I have 2 concerns:
1) People's faces shouldn't be too visible. This is technically not a requirement in Wikipedia rules. But, this page got 27 million page views since 2007 (Wikipedia:Popular_pages#Cities). I feel it's insensitive to put people's faces in a prominent page in the infobox without their explicit consent.
2) I'd prefer a night time image but open to a really good day time one. Bogazicili (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No to both, people's faces are too visible if you zoom into pictures. Among your suggestions, I'm only ok with this [8] (most people have blurry faces). This was my suggestion [9]. I'm ok with eticangaaa's suggestion [10]Bogazicili (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy rules do not apply in public spaces such as streets, squares, etc. If someone takes a photo of you when you are walking at a street, you legally don't have any privacy reservations (you can't complain about it). But if someone takes a photo of you while you are inside your home, or inside your garden, without your permission, you may sue the photographer. Poppins Potter (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bogazicili, he mentioned that it isn't in Wikipedia rules nor is it a law, yet it is insensitive and it's really not that common to use photos with peoples faces in wikipedia, especially not in the infobox of an article that gets 5000+ views daily. ~eticangaaa (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the agreement with the top pic, I changed it. As I mentioned in above sections: "I checked Level 3 vital articles for cities, Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Cities. There are no FA ones, but there are Good Articles: Mumbai, London, and Paris. They all use 1-3-2-1 format in the infobox (top and bottom large image, 3 images in second row, 2 images in 3rd row)."
So we can also switch to 1-3-2-1 format. We can replace the Hagia Sophia picture with something else. What do you guys think of this pic [11]? It'd look like this: User:Bogazicili/sandboxBogazicili (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mind. I'm fine with the proposed images. My priority are top and bottom images. You prefer Maiden's Tower to Ortaköy Mosque? Ortaköy Mosque has Ottoman Baroque architecture. Poppins Potter, I'm ok with this [15]. At least only 2 people are visible. Or something like this with blurry faces [16]. But I'm also ok with eticangaaa's suggestion [17]. This [18]is from 2008, so it's a definite no. Bogazicili (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili Jumping in here; as I still think we are moving way too fast for consensus to form, I do not have the time to argue in favor of or against every change. I will say, however, that I strongly oppose that specific FSM bridge photo. It is of poor quality, especially color-wise. Uness232 (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the sad incidents in recent years, maybe it's better to keep the current image of Istiklal Avenue with the policeman, also as a warning to potential troublemakers that the area is well-protected. Poppins Potter (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
View of Istiklal Avenue from the entrance of Galatasaray High School (this is the Photoshop fine-tuned version, with clearer facade details and higher resolution. I also gave the file a proper name and a properly written caption.)
That's the light of the Sun during the early morning hours. It also exists in the original image. I reduced the color saturation and now it looks good. The details on the building facades are now much clearer compared to the original file. Poppins Potter (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poppins Potter I am still not convinced of the quality of that image; I think it has to do with the exposure of the camera when it was being taken. I'd still prefer the Taksim Square photo you proposed. Uness232 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too dark, and the surrounding buildings don't look like İstiklal Avenue at all. It looks like an ordinary street in a small Anatolian town. I would prefer maintaining the current image. Poppins Potter (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Istiklal Avenue special is its grand historic buildings, not the nostalgic tram installed in the early 1990s. You are concentrating on the wrong detail. Poppins Potter (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an fyi: I dipped out of this discussion because the multiple threads got too complicated for my little mind to handle. If it makes any difference, still i think it should be this. ~eticangaaa (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "empty one" was taken during a curfew (sokağa çıkma yasağı), which is the only time you can find İstiklal Avenue so empty. The curfew was probably due to COVID-19, but people may think other things (e.g. civil unrest due to political instability, a terrorist attack, etc.) so I don't think it's a good idea. It also doesn't reflect the true nature (crowded and busy) of İstiklal Avenue. The other image is too dark, I prefer daylight. Poppins Potter (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was ok with the empty one because it was your own suggestion. I'm ok with this too [25]. Or anything from this set where all faces are blurry [26][27] (more images here [28])
ugh yea you're right my apologies, i've just been busy due to school as of late (which is ironic because i usually do this while i have free time at school ~eticangaaa (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili I think we need to start things over and talk it out one image at a time to come to a meaningful consensus, and that would mean that on practical grounds I oppose a change to the format unless enough photos are changed. Uness232 (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this thread is super messed up, it would be impossible for a newcomer to come to any consensus as there are so many branches ~eticangaaa (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232, we are already going one image at a time? Not sure what you mean by "start things over". Uness232 and eticangaaa, currently we need to replace the Hagia Sophia image because Hagia Sophia is repeated twice (both in top image and has its own image). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, we need to aim for variety. We should also aim to show Istanbul adequately. That's why I'm suggesting replacing Hagia Sopia image with a wide image which would show a larger area. Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili We are not going one image at a time; that would involve different subsections and different discussions for each photo in those subsections. We are, as of now, a few editors trying to achieve consensus on this highly visible page, and we have a "structure" that no previously uninvolved editor can understand. Uness232 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232: I am going one image at a time, but the talk page can be restructured. I'm closing this subsection, as I believe we have achieved consensus on top image [29], which was already changed? Is that correct? Bogazicili (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the lighting on the far plane is quite overexposed/oversaturated, but it's fine. As long as we do not come across a better photo of the historical peninsula, I do not see a need for it to be changed. Uness232 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That photo has faces that are far too clear. Reverting for now, we can discuss and come to a new consensus as necessary. Uness232 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about absolute perfection. We just reached a consensus about the earlier set of photos, and part of the discussion was about the clarity of faces. Discuss first; if this image is favored by others involved here, I am perfectly willing to concede. But for now, WP:QUO stays. Uness232 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is having "faces" in a photo so bad? Who came up with this absurd fixation? In public places, there is no privacy. Only in private places (owned by a person) you can complain if someone takes your photo without your permission. This is taught in all schools of media and journalism. Poppins Potter (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Bogazicili and @Eticangaaa argued that having visible faces in the infobox of a highly visible page is problematic. It's not about whether someone can legally complain. It's a preference; to avoid such photos out of sensitivity. Uness232 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark and dull street flanked by ordinary buildings in a small town"
The current picture in the infobox gives the impression of a "dark and insufficiently lit, unimpressive and dull street flanked by small ordinary buildings, in a small town". It's one of the worst and most unfair pictures of Istiklal Avenue I have ever seen - as if you want people to avoid the place. Poppins Potter (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings in this photo look a lot more like "İstiklal Avenue" and it also contains the tram.
Besides, what makes you think that the people who appear in the photo that I shared would be disturbed to be among the "faces of Istanbul"? I'm sure many of them would feel proud and happy about it. It's no different than being selected among the "faces of Paris" or "faces of London". "You" are being unnecessarily disturbed, not "them". Don't make decisions on behalf of other people. Poppins Potter (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take your own sentence into account, Poppins Potter. Just because you would be honored, and others might be as well, because we're nerds who argue over images in Wikipedia infoboxes, but others may be offended. Additionally, you were not present in the later discussions before we finalized the infobox images for the time being. It is aesthetically not pleasing to have visible people in the infobox of an article as browsed and as relevant as Istanbul, maybe fine for smaller articles, but with so many images available, it is quite silly to opt in for a bad quality one, just because it shows a more "modern" version of the street. That is all. ~eticangaaa (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person who thinks that the "dark and dull image" doesn't look like İstiklal Avenue at all? It looks more like one of its side streets, but not the avenue itself. Poppins Potter (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hagia Sophia image
Uness232 and eticangaaa, currently we need to replace the Hagia Sophia image because Hagia Sophia is repeated twice (both in top image and has its own image). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, we need to aim for variety. We should also aim to show Istanbul adequately. That's why I'm suggesting replacing Hagia Sopia image with a wide image which would show a larger area. Bogazicili (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, after the above changes, the infobox would be like this: [33]. I might have to resize the bottom pic a bit though, it may be too wide. Now that Ortaköy Mosque is in the bottom pic, I'm going to suggest changing it below. Bogazicili (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galata tower is nice, however i am unsure about the Basilica cistern, maybe its my weird way of thought, but the color palette doesn't quite match nicely ~eticangaaa (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coyotes do not appear anywhere in Turkey. I am unable to edit to remove coyote from the list of mammals in Istanbul, so thought I would bring it to the attention of someone who can. No idea about the other animals cited, but I guess I am suspicious now. 134.243.253.241 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the whole paragraph as Daily Sabah is not a reliable source. I suspect there was a mistranslation of whatever Esra Dağlı said in Turkish. If anyone has a reliable source they could put some animals back in Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eticangaaa: After the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#RfC: Daily Sabah an example of a wildlife problem (cannot find the discussion offhand but could probably dig it out if you need it) was a mistranslation of ‘’kızılçam’’ as “red pine” which misled me into making a stupid link to an American tree article whereas it should have been Turkish pine. Are you able to find what Esra Dağlı actually said - presumably she gave the interview in Turkish? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
i'm so tired of this discussion.. i think the previous image was way better but if poppins potter is going to act like a fool, not participate in debates, and then continue to edit wikipedia pages to his likings after said debate has already been concluded, then he is free to do so. ~eticangaaa (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_-_420.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done Tollens (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_Street_tram_in_January_2024.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatihistanbul.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul,_Turkey_(November_2023)_-_122.jpg){kind=link}
_-_420.jpg){kind=link}
_-_124.jpg){kind=link}
_-_479.jpg){kind=link}
_-_478.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Istanbul%2C_Turkey_%28November_2023%29_-_124.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatih_Sultan_Mehmet_Bridge_from_Otagtepe_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosphorus_Bridge_-_Istanbul.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Topkap%C4%B1_Palace_from_the_Galata_Tower,_Istanbul,_Turkey_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilica_Cistern_in_2012_5831.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beyo%C4%9Flu_Tramvay_May%C4%B1s_2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Galata_tower_01_23.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bondinho_de_Istanbul_(2893156868).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Istanbul%2C_Turkey_%28November_2023%29_-_478.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galatasaray_Square_and_Ist%C4%B1klal_Avenue_during_a_curfew.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Beyo%C4%9Flu_Tramvay_May%C4%B1s_2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul,_Turkey_Bosporus.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cisterna_Bas%C3%ADlica,Turqu%C3%ADa.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}