Talk:Istanbul
| Istanbul has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class. |
| This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, airplane), and some terms 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 featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
|---|
|
|
| Threads older than 2 months may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
New Collage for Istanbul[edit]
I was thinking of creating a new main collage for Istanbul as the current one, though very respectable and well made, seems a little old and it's time for something fresh. I hope you guys will like it and with your approval I will post it.
What do you guys think?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would certainly object to the inclusion of the top panel, which is quite low quality (with those people at the left) and on which you can't even see anything about the city at this small infobox size. Seriously, I first thought it was a picture taken somewhere far outside Istanbul, until I zoomed it in and realized it's taken from Topkapi. (Incidentally, we have a better shot from that point at File:Bosporus-Panorama (CherryX).jpg). You also still need to add the actual sources to the image description page at Commons (i.e. links to each of the source files). And why is Dolmabahce Palais given so much more room than all the other sites? Also, quite generally speaking, with Wikipedia pictures there is no such thing as "a little old" and "time for something fresh". This is an encyclopedia, not a fashion magazine. Once we have some good choice of images, there is absolutely no need to rehash the same old fruitless and timewasting debates about yet other image selections every few months, just for the sake of satisfying some individual's thirst for "something fresh". Please find something more useful to do on Wikipedia than fiddling with images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Vote for a new Image[edit]
|
From Top to Bottom: Topkapı Palace • Hagia Sophia • Ortaköy Mosque • Istanbul University • Bosphorus Bridge • Istanbul nostalgic tramways • Haydarpaşa Terminal • Skyline of Istanbul
Hi there Wikipedia Community. I would like to first apologise for being a little bit of a nuisance here trying to update the Istanbul main image.
That being said, I have taken great, great effort in creating something which I really hope you will like, it took me all night. If you do not like it then that's ok, I just want to see if you would like this instead of the current one.
I highly recommend any possible edits to this to any of the images being replaced or moved around. Some seem to be a little out of place and the border gaps are a little off. This is for the community and I hope you like it and want to make edits to it.
I thank you very much for considering this.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 October 2015
I understand these last collages are not to your liking, I would like to apologise to everyone as i understand that the current one is what you prefer, so i thought this update on it would be better. But i think Ortakoy is a bit out of place, and maybe the top image needs cropping like the original? What do you think:
|image =
|
|
Clockwise from top: View of Golden Horn between Galata and Seraglio Point including the historic areas; Maiden's Tower; a nostalgic tram on İstiklal Avenue; Levent business district with Dolmabahçe Palace; Ortaköy Mosque in front of the Bosphorus Bridge; and Hagia Sophia.
All edits are greatly welcomed and thanked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Sports[edit]
Since the Byzantine and Roman periods, Istanbul is home to many sports activities; host football, basketball, voleyball and various motor races today. The biggest in the league Turkey ; Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray in Istanbul.[1][2] As well as Anadolu Efes, Galatasaray Medical Park, Fenerbahçe Ülker and Beşiktaş in basketball and Eczacıbaşı, Galatasaray Daikin, Beşiktaş Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Fenerbahçe and Vakıfbank Türk Telekom in voleyball and Beşiktaş in handball and in wheelchair basketball Beşiktaş RMK Marine and Galatasaray teams like the city's major clubs.
Ali Sami Yen Spor Kompleksi Türk Telekom Arena, Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı and Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı are in the UEFA five-star stadiums ve Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı, hosted the 2005 UEFA Champions League Finals. [3] Likewise Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı hosted 2009 UEFA Cup Final.
Which is the most important Veliefendi Hippodrome racecourse is home to the city's major races.
- ^ Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı.
- ^ Beşiktaş İnönü Stadı.
- ^ hosted the 2005 UEFA Champions League Finals (English)
2012-2013 Season Club, in which the leagues, stadiums and sport halls[edit]
Football[edit]
| Club | Stadium | Capacity | Year Of Establishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| İstanbul BŞB | Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadyumu | 82.576 | 1990 |
| Galatasaray | Türk Telekom Arena | 52.650 | 1905 |
| Fenerbahçe | Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadyumu | 50.530 | 1907 |
| Beşiktaş | BJK İnönü Stadyumu | 32.145 | 1903 |
| Kasımpaşa | Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Stadyumu | 14.234 | 1921 |
| Club | Stadium | Capacity | Year Of Establishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kartalspor | Kartal Stadyumu | 15.000 | 1949 |
| Club | Stadium | Capacity | Year Of Establishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sarıyer | Yusuf Ziya Öniş Stadyumu | 10.000 | 1940 |
| İstanbul Güngörenspor | Mimar Yahya Baş Stadyumu | 7.589 | 1983 |
| Pendikspor | Pendik Stadyumu | 4.000 | 1950 |
| Gaziosmanpaşaspor | Gaziosmanpaşa Stadyumu | 4.000 | 1965 |
| Tepecikspor | Tepecik Belediye Stadyumu | 3.000 | 1988 |
| Bayrampaşaspor | Çetin Emeç Stadyumu | 2.500 | 1959 |
| Eyüpspor | Eyüp Stadyumu | 2.500 | 1919 |
| Club | Stadium | Capacity | Year Of Establishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sancaktepe Belediyespor | Hakan Şükür Stadyumu | 7.000 | 2008 |
| Fatih Karagümrük | Vefa Stadyumu | 6.500 | 1926 |
| Beylerbeyi | Beylerbeyi 75. Yıl Stadyumu | 5.500 | 1903 |
| Anadolu Üsküdar 1908 | Beylerbeyi 75. Yıl Stadyumu | 5.500 | 1908 |
| Maltepespor | Maltepe Hasan Polat Stadyumu | 5.000 | 1923 |
| İstanbulspor | Bahçelievler İl Özel İdare Stadyumu | 4.350 | 1926 |
| Silivrispor | Silivri Stadyumu | 3.000 | 1957 |
| Ümraniyespor | Ümraniye Belediye İlçe Stadyumu | 655 | 1938 |
Basketbol[edit]
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Anadolu Efes | Ayhan Şahenk Spor Salonu |
| Beşiktaş | Abdi İpekçi Arena |
| Fenerbahçe Ülker | Ülker Sports Arena |
| Galatasaray Medical Park | Abdi İpekçi Arena |
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Beşiktaş | BJK Akatlar Arena |
| Fenerbahçe | Ülker Sports Arena |
| Galatasaray | Abdi İpekçi Arena |
| İstanbul Üniversitesi B.G.D. | Prof. Dr. Turgay Atasü Spor Salonu |
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Beşiktaş RMK Marine | Süleyman Seba Spor Salonu |
| Galatasaray | Ahmet Cömert Spor Salonu |
Voleybol[edit]
Acıbadem Bayanlar Voleybol 1. Ligi
Acıbadem Erkekler Voleybol 1. Ligi
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Fenerbahçe Grundig | Burhan Felek Spor Salonu |
| Galatasaray | Burhan Felek Spor Salonu |
| İstanbul BŞB | Haldun Alagaş Spor Salonu |
Hentbol[edit]
Türkiye Erkekler Hentbol Süper Ligi
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Beşiktaş | Süleyman Seba Spor Salonu |
| Yeditepe Spor | Hakkı Başar Spor Salonu |
Türkiye Kadınlar Hentbol Süper Ligi
| Club | Stadium |
|---|---|
| Maltepe Belediyesi Gençlik Spor | Yakacık İTO Spor Salonu |
| Üsküdar Belediyesi Spor | Haldun Alagaş Spor Salonu |
-
Resim:Galatasaray-Sivas00.jpg
-
Resim:Beşiktaş-Antalyaspor match in 30 October 2008.jpg
-
Resim:Fenerbahce Stadion.JPG
|}
Spelling of the Thracian Settlement[edit]
The correct spelling of the Thracian settlement is "Lygos", not "Ligos". I understand that in Turkey the preferred spelling is that with "i" (Istanbul is filled with "Ligos" kebab places), but we must stick to the sources. And here, the only source is Pliny the Elder, the only ancient author to cite this name in his Naturalis Historia. Consequently, "Lygos" is also the spelling used by serious academic scholars, like Raymond Janin. Alex2006 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
I looked at this in the brief time it was listed as TFA before it was withdrawn as not being of FA quality. I tried my best to fix the problems with the writing, which was all over the place; even the spelling wasn't consistent between US and UK.
Outstanding problems:
- Some sources need updated; the content that goes with the sources too obviously
- Why use BC/AD in an article about a city in a predominantly Muslim country? Surely this is a classic case where BCE/CE would be more appropriate?
There may be others. Long term if these problems were to persist we would probably need to consider delisting it, but I am sure it can be saved. --John (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- If the article was originally set up with BC/AD, we stick with that per the rules - it has nothing to do with religion. This is also the ENGLISH Wiki, and that is to be expected. 68.19.0.57 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing updates[edit]
If this cannot be done in a requisite timescale the article may have to be delisted. I would be very sad to see this. Does anyone have access to the original sources and/or the time and inclination to find more?--John (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Date formats[edit]
Can I take the lack of opposition to my proposal as assent to making the change I suggest? I know this can be a contentious area and I would welcome some more comment before just changing it. --John (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I went ahead and enacted this change. I would welcome further discussion here if anyone feels it is a retrograde step. --John (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- as the IP just rightly said in the section above, WP:ERA suggests we should keep with any one consistent system once it's established. Indeed, this article has apparently followed the BC/AD convention ever since it first got a history section back in 2004 [6]. Sorry John, I totally missed your proposal here the other day, over all the simultaneous fuss over that "Lygos" nonsense, otherwise I'd have raised this objection before you made the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
History of names[edit]
I see the following passage has been reinstated.
Although Semistra predates Ligos by date of foundation,[1] Semistra had not been on the appropriate location to give rise to modern Istanbul because the later Byzantium was located on the site of Ligos[2], thus it is accepted that Istanbul was founded about 3 millennia ago under the name Ligos.[3]
1) What does it mean?
2) Is it possible to rewrite it in a way that looks like English?
3) What makes The Black Sea Encyclopedia a good source?
4) Does it add anything to the article?
--John (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sense is clear. However, I have the same doubts about you. I don't think that The Black Sea Encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source (look at the pages accessible on the internet: there are no references for the single voices). What is sure, is that Pliny the Elder writes that before the Greek foundation of Byzantion, the city was already there and was named Lygos. This is reported by serious scholars, but I could not find any evidence until now that archeological findings had confirmed what Pliny says, stating that Lygos was a "city", and not just one of the many fisher settlements which happened to be in the place chosen by the Greeks to found Byzantion. I put a "citation needed" template on the Lygos article hoping that someone bring some solid evidence. Until then, all this information, which had been inserted a couple of months ago in the article, should be taken "cum grano salis" and eventually rewritten, since without solid sources (and Lonely planet cannot be considered a source in this respect) this would be undue weight. Alex2006 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some of this article has been butchered beyond recognition since it passed FA. This needs to be fixed before it goes on the mainpage in a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: But it's not going on the mainpage. It has been pulled. What this article needs is a FA reassessment. There's no other way to bring the community together to help salvage this mess. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some of this article has been butchered beyond recognition since it passed FA. This needs to be fixed before it goes on the mainpage in a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed the offending material pending proper sourcing and better wording being agreed. There are quite a few other problems with the article but this is one we do not need. --John (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Firstly, sorry for reverting you. Semistra along with Lygos were mentioned by Pliny the Elder.[4]. At the same place where Semistra and Lygos were located, at Sarayburnu, the earliest settlement was build during the Neolithic in the 6000s BC[5] So do these two settlements deserve to be included in the intro?--Sevt V (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in the lead of a featured article. As presented it is poorly written and poorly sourced. If more scholarly sources can be found, a reworded version could be placed in the History section, in my opinion. --John (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding Semistra, which I included, I don't think that this belongs to the intro too, as well as Ligos and Byzantium as they are mentioned already in the infobox and in the first section, on top hat-rick for each name. By the way the infobox may be corrected because scholarly sources say that the foundation of Ligos was in 900 BC. In my opinion, if we want a brief intro, only Constantinople should remain as a capital of three empires and the largest city in the world. Instead of Byzantium, Ligos and the Thracian settling, the first human settlement founded by them in 5800 - 6400 BCE may be mentioned in my opinion. See Athens for example, it is stated that the earliest human presence was around the 11th–7th millennium BC.--Sevt V (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is an old story, which can be found in the archives of this article. All the major sources (Mamboury, Müller-Wiener, Janin) mentions a human presence in the place of the future Istanbul: anyway, neither Lygos (with "y", not "i") nor Semistra were cities or towns, but only small fishermen villages. The first city here was Byzantion, founded by the Greeks. So it is OK to cite Lygos and Semistra in the history section, but we cannot write that Istanbul was founded as Lygos, since this is not supported by the mainstream academic sources (and does not correspond to the concept of ancient city, as defined by historians and archeologists). Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. What was the name of the user who insisted on the very same points? I think it was Cavann. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he was Cavann, you have a good memory. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Alex, but it is hard to forget someone who caused so much disruption. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree to exclude Ligos and Semistra from the intro, but not the first human settlement and 6000 years of the city's history, this is more than the two thousand years since Bizantium was founded. Byzantium had also been a fishing village until Constantine selected it.[6] The same names are mentioned in four places - in the intro, in history, in names and in the infobox. The intro at least may be abbreviated.--Sevt V (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Alex, but it is hard to forget someone who caused so much disruption. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he was Cavann, you have a good memory. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. What was the name of the user who insisted on the very same points? I think it was Cavann. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is an old story, which can be found in the archives of this article. All the major sources (Mamboury, Müller-Wiener, Janin) mentions a human presence in the place of the future Istanbul: anyway, neither Lygos (with "y", not "i") nor Semistra were cities or towns, but only small fishermen villages. The first city here was Byzantion, founded by the Greeks. So it is OK to cite Lygos and Semistra in the history section, but we cannot write that Istanbul was founded as Lygos, since this is not supported by the mainstream academic sources (and does not correspond to the concept of ancient city, as defined by historians and archeologists). Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding Semistra, which I included, I don't think that this belongs to the intro too, as well as Ligos and Byzantium as they are mentioned already in the infobox and in the first section, on top hat-rick for each name. By the way the infobox may be corrected because scholarly sources say that the foundation of Ligos was in 900 BC. In my opinion, if we want a brief intro, only Constantinople should remain as a capital of three empires and the largest city in the world. Instead of Byzantium, Ligos and the Thracian settling, the first human settlement founded by them in 5800 - 6400 BCE may be mentioned in my opinion. See Athens for example, it is stated that the earliest human presence was around the 11th–7th millennium BC.--Sevt V (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in the lead of a featured article. As presented it is poorly written and poorly sourced. If more scholarly sources can be found, a reworded version could be placed in the History section, in my opinion. --John (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, sorry for reverting you. Semistra along with Lygos were mentioned by Pliny the Elder.[4]. At the same place where Semistra and Lygos were located, at Sarayburnu, the earliest settlement was build during the Neolithic in the 6000s BC[5] So do these two settlements deserve to be included in the intro?--Sevt V (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
Sevt V: you need to provide reliable sources (the "Lonely Planet" isn't one, neither is the "Black Sea Encyclopedia"). We need reliable sources from modern academic publications for all of the following: (a) that there is a consensus in modern scholarship that "Lygos" (a name mentioned only a single time by a single Greek author) really was the name of a real settlement, and that it can be equated with whatever pre-Greek archaeological remains have been found in the area; (b) that there was a continuity of settlement between that hypothetical "Lygos" and Byzantium, such that they could be legitimately called the "same" town (as far as I know, that is certainly not the consensus view in scholarship); (c) anything about the age of that previous settlement and its original foundation (the sources you provided are completely inadequate for that.) As for "Semistra", I have to say I cannot find anything about it at all – the only references I've been able to find about such a name say that there is a promontory in the Golden Horn that was called like that, or that there was a myth about a nymph of that name, but nothing about a settlement. The only texts that claim there was a settlement called "Semistra" and that Pliny referred to it appear to be the Lonely Planet guides and other sites that copied from there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. moreover, we need also reliable sources which state that Byzantion was nothing more than a fishermen village. Alex2006 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- The more I look into this, the more it all appears a mess. There is absolutely nothing at all I can find about that settlement called "Semistra" – no reference to it in any Latin or Greek work searchable online; certainly not in Pliny (websites that make this claim don't even agree on whether it's supposed to be Pliny the Elder or the Younger…) The only places this story about "Semistra" seems to have been circulated is travel guides (the oldest ones I could find from the 1960s), and then of course scores of websites copying either from that Lonely Planet text or from Wikipedia. That place is a phantom. Also, the reference in our article to "Thracians" inhabiting the place since the "6th millennium BC" seems bogus too – Thracians weren't around yet at that time; the 6th millennium BC is well before even the split-up of Proto-Indo-European into daughter languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The user is now edit-warring on Constantinople and Names of Istanbul adding the exact same stuff that was removed here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion Lygos and Byzantium are both mentioned names of a settlement on the Sarayburnu, villages or not. Definitions vary, sometimes Byzantium is said to be a village, sometimes Lygos is regarded as a city[7]. Sometimes it is said Istanbul was founded under the name Byzantium, but the Black Sea Encyclopedia and Pliny probably claim that the foundation was Ligos. Also how exactly Pliny define Lygos, I haven't read the orginal, does he mention a town or a village?
-
I doubt that all academic sources support the colonization of the settlers from Megara as the foundation date, in fact many say that 667 BC was just a colonization, for example this source says that no one knows when exactly Istanbul was founded but mentions that the first settlement was the city of Lygos according to Pliny.[8], while this source claims that Ligos was a town.[9] And that's right there is a controversy, not consensus among scholars. Actually if Lygos was a village, Byzantium was the town[10] not the city and Constantinople was the city proper To me it is pointless to argue which of the two, Ligos or Byzantium is the foundation, both settlements existed, and in my opinion both may be excluded from the intro since the first human settlement on Sarayburnu predates both with 5000 years. And of course this Neolithic settlement was not Thracian, does the original really claims so, I haven't read it? This was a nonsense. I don't think the settlement and the time of contionous habitation have to be excluded from the intro because of the nonsense about the Thracians. Even if only Byzantium was the city, there is no chronicles when the transition from village to town(exact year) happened, it was certainly gradually, not immediately in 660 BC.--Sevt V (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am really fed up to repeat what we wrote "ad nauseam" not long time ago, but I will repeat one last time: here we are talking about a city, not a settlement. None contest that there were settlements on the place of the future Istanbul, but a fishermen village cannot be considered a city. There are tons of books about the definition of the "ancient city", and if one reads them one can understand the reason why these settlements cannot be considered as "cities". Exactly as in the case of Rome, whose birth is set around the middle of the eight century b.c., and not in the middle bronze age, although then there were already villages on the Palatine, we should consider the city on the Sarayburnu as born only at the moment when the archaeological proofs show that this social organism starts to behave in an "urban" way. Now, where are the archaeological proofs that this happened for the settlement known as Lygos? Kuban & co. just assert what Pliny the Elder wrote, and this is not enough. Alex2006 (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Byzantium was as much as town as Lygos at the begging, when it was founded in 660 BC, possibly both were villages. There is a controversy about the foundation date of Istanbul, we should state that, given the views of Pliny and the Black Sea Encyclopedia. If these two are not academic scholarship sources, then what is regarded as such sources? In my opinion we should summarize the controversy similiarily to this source, "no one knows when exactly Istanbul was founded".[11] The source mentions that the first mentioned settlement was the settlement Lygos however, so this is the second academic source I found that rejects the foundation of Istanbul as Byzantium and there are more to be found for sure. There are many academic sources that do not support this view, so I don't get it for what academic consensus that the city was founded as Byzantium you are talking about. It would be more correct if we describe that this is the foundation according to Greek mythology.
Good example with Rome. Not urban setllements do not deserve mentioning, but the time since the city has been continuously inhabited maybe does. It is said in the article "while Roman mythology dates the founding of Rome at only around 753 BC, the site has been inhabited for much longer, making it one of the oldest continuously occupied cities in Europe.", I think here could be said something like that mentioning the Neolithic era too. The continuous habitation is mentioned in the introduction of many cities, so I don't see why we should not mention it here.--Sevt V (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- For heavens sake, get a grip. Your latest edit doesn't even make sense grammatically [7]. And you really, really need to let go of all those cheap travel guide books as sources. The latest one you just linked to is just another example of why they are all unsuitable. It says: "The Roman historian Pliny [...] wrote that in the ninth century B.C. a small settlement named Lygos existed on what is now Sarayburnu". Now, that's just spectacularly wrong. Pliny wrote no such thing. These guidebook authors all keep copying this crap from one another without ever bothering to check their facts. Pliny wrote exactly three words about "Lygos": ...antea Lygos dictum. That's it. These three words are the absolute sum total of what anybody has ever known about "Lygos" or is ever going to know. Nothing about when this was, nothing about what it was then, nothing about where it was. And of course Pliny wrote these words a full 700 years after the supposed time that "Lygos" existed – he himself basically had no way of knowing anything about all this in the first place. All the rest is pure speculation, including the modern idea that this name "Lygos" might be connected to whatever pre-Greek archaeological remains have been found in the area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon, you are absolutely right, I haven't read the original, Pliny indeed states only these three words and the book I cited is a peace of crap. It seems that he have never mentioned the Seraglio point. But he means that this was the former name of Byzantium, so it seems Lygos may fit in the name section. No historian can tell for sure what was it, Pliny lived 700 years after Lygos ended, but modern historians live a lot later than all these settlements, so why modern historians' considerations can be something more than Pliny's historia? Few modern sources as the Black Sea encyclopedia provide an alternative view, that Istanbul was established as Lygos at some time, how good source this encyclopedia is? This may be not that crap as the last I linked, I don't know, somebody rate this? --Sevt V (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- About the Black Sea Encyclopedia: given the fact that their English is abysmal, it's pretty obvious it was published without any editorial quality control, which in itself points towards unreliability. The authors are political scientists and oceonographers, with no visible credentials in matters of ancient history. They even manage to spell the name Lygos wrong (with "i" instead of "y") but then in turn misspell polis with "y" instead of "i", which clearly indicates they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to antiquity. There are also tell-tale signs of poor academic management, for example the fact that they accidentally cite themselves in their bibliography (p.888). Given this and the lack of identifiable sourcing for the history parts of the article, and the publication date (2014), they may very easily have copied that history stuff over from Wikipedia, for all we know. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that they did just that: the sentence "Istanbul served as the capital of four empires: the Roman Empire (330–395), the Byzantine Empire (395–1204 and 1261–1453), the Latin Empire (1204–1261), and the Ottoman Empire (1435–1922)" is verbatim taken over from what we used to have in the article: "it served as the capital of four empires: the Roman Empire (330–395), the Byzantine Empire (395–1204 and 1261–1453), the Latin Empire (1204–1261), and the Ottoman Empire (1453–1922)" (and we had that sentence before their book was published [8]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Was the settlement turned into city by the settlers from Megara, or they established a completely new settlement, do any authors say something about that? I see that Janin, Raymond (1964) is cited in the history section about Lygos but there is not link to his statement. There was a Neolithic settlement at the Seraglio point which means that Byzantium was established on the site of another settlement and is not a new foundation by itself. So, maybe change the wording - not founded in 660 BC but founded according to Greek mythology and/or turned into city by settlers from Megara? What about the Neolithic settlement and the continuous habitation, does it deserve to be mentioned in the intro?--Sevt V (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- When Greeks went to new places to found colonies, the main idea was to establish a new political entity, a polis, i.e. a society with its unique, specifically urban, institutions and social structures, which would be very different from any kind of settlement that might have existed in the area before. To what extent they might have incorporated any of the physical infrastructure of previous settlements in their new city is anybody's guess; I haven't seen any hints that they normally did that. The same is true for the question of how much of any previous population might have been incorporated into the new polis. We don't even know if the previous settlements were even temporarily continuous with Byzantium – a previously settled place might easily get temporarily abandoned and re-settled again later in the course of the centuries. As for Janin, he doesn't really say that much – he tentatively speaks of Lygos as a bourg and identifies it with archaeological finds "at the point of the peninsula" and "underneath the pavement of Hagia Irini", where "numerous shards of proto-corinthian pottery" (i.e. Greek pottery, but from a time before the foundation of Byzantium) were found. In your favour, he does end up saying that "Byzantium" appears to be etymologically of Thracian origin, and that this is an argument for some form of continuity of settlement ("[les Grecs], en s'installant dans la petite cité thrace, n'ont pu faire disparaître complètement l'ancien état des choses. Ils ont dû composer avec l'élément indigène"). This is, of course, just one author's speculation (though a reputable author, as far as I can tell). Whether it's consensus in scholarship, I can't tell. This [9] standard reference work on Thrace and this [10] specialized study on Greek colonialization of Thrace have no mention of Lygos at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon, you are absolutely right, I haven't read the original, Pliny indeed states only these three words and the book I cited is a peace of crap. It seems that he have never mentioned the Seraglio point. But he means that this was the former name of Byzantium, so it seems Lygos may fit in the name section. No historian can tell for sure what was it, Pliny lived 700 years after Lygos ended, but modern historians live a lot later than all these settlements, so why modern historians' considerations can be something more than Pliny's historia? Few modern sources as the Black Sea encyclopedia provide an alternative view, that Istanbul was established as Lygos at some time, how good source this encyclopedia is? This may be not that crap as the last I linked, I don't know, somebody rate this? --Sevt V (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for you long answers. The Atheneans from Megara were much more skilled city builders than the Thracians and I think it's clear to anybody that their settlement was much more devoloped at any level. The question is whether the settlement named Byzantium started with the settlers from Megara in 660 BC or it was an earlier Thracian settlement. If the name Byzantium may be Thracian etymologically, it is unlikely that the Megarans who did not speak Thracian, named their foundation with a Thracian name for no reason, if this etymology is true I conclude that Byzantium had been a Thracian settlement before it was colonized. There are such authors who say that the foundation of Byzantium was earlier not in 660 BC by Byzas as the myth claims, these are the possibilities that are not stated in the article. Anyway, may we include in the introduction a statement about the continuous habitation of Istanbul as the intro of Rome, or if we can't be sure about it because of possible gaps just to mention when the earliest human presence was(not setttlements) as the intro of Athens?--Sevt V (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:Lead fixation. I suggest you go and rid yourself of it. The info is already in the history section, where it belongs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I read it, let's forget about the Neolithic. Actually what is the difference between essays and guidelines? Your citation that Byzantium is etymologically Thracian, makes me suggest that the year 660 BC when settlers from Megara settled should be removed. And that Lygos was a bourg i.e. town has an urban meaning, not rural. These are only mine suggestive interpretations of your interesting quotes and I can't conclude anything, you seem to be better informed than me to conclude what the scholarship says. Is then 660 BC actually the certain foundation year of BYZANTIUM, not Istanbul? I mean what about if the etymology is Thracian, then is this year incorrect?--Sevt V (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I can get the point of anything else, but I don't understand why if all other cities mention their earliest human habitation Istanbul should not. Why the same rule does not apply to all articles? Thoughts? After all what is the consensus?--Sevt V (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Maxwell, Virginia. Istanbul. Lonekly Planet.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
cathencwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
The_Black_Sea_Encyclopediawas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Lonely Planet Istanbul".
- ^ Rainsford, Sarah (10 January 2009). "Istanbul's ancient past unearthed". BBC. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
- ^ https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ae6KAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT165#v=onepage&q&f=false
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ [4]
- ^ [5]
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- Wikipedia FA-Class vital articles in Geography
- Wikipedia FA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Cities articles
- FA-Class Greek articles
- Mid-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- FA-Class Ottoman Empire articles
- Top-importance Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Ottoman Empire articles
- FA-Class Turkey articles
- Top-importance Turkey articles
- WikiProject Turkey articles
- FA-Class Version 0.5 articles
- Geography Version 0.5 articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection