Talk:Istanbul/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Largest city

ıStanbul isn't the biggest city of TUrkey. The biggest city of TUrkey is Konya. The biggest part of the population of TUrkey live in ıStanbul. i have changed the mistake from article.

A large (not big) city is one with a large population. Istambul has 9 million, Konya only 742 690. Andreas 20:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Name of the cities don't have to have an English-language publications. İzmir should be İzmir, Ağrı should be Ağrı.
Thank you, I was confused.

National library

It is stated that there is a national library in Beyazid. Isnt that simply IÜ library? On the site of the Turkish national library - - no library outside Ankara is mentioned. Bertilvidet 08:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this reference. Please revert me if I am wrong. Bertilvidet 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Move from Istanbul

Just for the record, I Oppose' moving this record from Istanbul.

But I am also removing a notice slapped on this talk page, long after the earlier discussions, with no corresponding listing at WP:RM. Gene Nygaard 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential vandal

Please keep your eyes open for edits such as this one. I am not sure if the edit is legitimate, so I've left the edit alone. Kareeser|Talk! 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics/ethnic composition

It would be interesting to show the historical ethnic composition (in percentages) throughout the time. Does anyone has any data on this? bogdan 16:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We could get a rundown on the religious composition of Istanbul, because the Ottomans classified people not by ethnicity, but by religion (see Millet). Then there are other issues to deal with - historically there were Turkish-speaking muslims, Bulgarian-speaking muslims, Romany-speaking muslims as well as turkish-speaking christians, who in the end were legally considered "Greeks" during the 1920s population transfer process.--Kilhan 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
U forgot to mention the greek-speaking muslims, some hundrends of thousands of who still exist... --Hectorian 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Istanbul in both Europe and Asia?

Why does Wikipedia claim that Istanbul is "the only metropolis in the world which is on two continents" since it is situated on both sides of the Bosphorus Strait? According to the Wikipedia article on Europe, this is only one of several (fairly arbitrary) definitions of the Europe-Asia boundary. In reality, the distinction between Europe and Asia is so blurry that it is difficult to place Turkey in either. Culturally, Turkey shares European and Middle Eastern characteristics. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to that article there seems to be concensus on the fact that the Black Sea and the Medeteranian are part of the "border" between Asia and Europe. Guess what connects the two? Of course, if there is another metropolis that borders on two continents, feel free to add it. :) I highly doubt Wikipedia is the place to discuss a redefinition of the border between Asia and Europe. JeroenHoek 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
We could indeed clarify that it is the geographical border. Cultural, political etc. borders are per se harder to define and thus more contested. Bertilvidet 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Congadulations to everyone who worked on this article! It makes me proud!

ethymology page.

/* Etymology */ - In couple different pages the extend of this discussion is going on, please refer your information to Istanbul (Etymology) page . Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the city safe for greeks to go to?

I have always wanted to go and see Istanbul/Constantinople as I am a great lover of both Greek History and Architecture in general. Is it safe like Western capitols or is it like middle-eastern capitols where it is dangerous to go to?

One is tempted to think this is a bit of a joke question, but let's take it seriously: it's perfectly safe, and in all likelihood, much safer than any "Western capitol" that you care to mention (even though it's not the country's capital). —Saposcat 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If taken this question seriously, i have to say that it is, in general, as safe as most european est: there are places and neighbourhoods that it would be better not to visit. the center of the city is as safe as the center of Athens, Rome or Paris, and much safer than the eastern european cities. on the other hand, someone should have in mind that there are frequent incidents of terrorism in the city (November 2003, kurdish bomb attacks, etc). not to mention the Grey Wolves... it would be a rare case, but better not come across any of them... --Hectorian 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had Greek friends come to my wedding last year in Bursa, not only were they made very welcome but they also had a Greek flag put up in their honour by my wifes family (who are Turks). You will of course find idiots, but no more so than anywhere else. I think non contact between Greeks and Turks can only be a good thing.SolDrury 09:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest such debated to be conducted at the sister project Wikitravel: [1].

Name in which languages?

I agree with Miskin that the Bulgarian name of Istanbul does not belong in the header. It is clear that the modern Turkish and the Greek names belong there. I would think that the Ottoman Turkish name also belongs there. All of these are important because they are found in historical documents in both English and other languages. Beyond that, I am less certain. Does the Armenian name belong because of the large Armenian community? If so, then surely the Ladino name also belongs there. I am less sure of the Kurdish name. Though of course there are many Kurds in Istanbul now, and of course many Kurds in Turkey in general, I am not sure whether there is or was a Kurdish community in Istanbul. There does seem to be a distinct Laz community in Istanbul. We can't include all the languages of Turkey or of the Ottoman Empire; we need some reasonable criterion. I am not sure what it should be. Discussion? --Macrakis 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to include the names in the other languages anyways? All governments in the world use Istanbul when corresponding in English, so as all the English media. I don't see any point in including any other names in the main article, as there is already another article on other names of Istanbul and a link to that article in the main article. I would understand inclusion of the Turkish alphabet version, because that would be what you see when you go to the city. Regards DeliDumrul 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical reasons. This city has been known by its Greek name since before the first Turk set foot on Anatolia. As far as I'm aware, a Greek Orthodox community was to be preserved in (amongst other places) Istanbul in return for a Muslim Turkish minority in western Thrace. If one were to go to Alexandroupoli or Xanthi, voilà, the Turkish name is there. Just because Greece adhered to the letter of the Treaty and now the 90,000 Turks of Thrace are flourishing and have on average a higher standard of living than the Turks in Turkey, whereas Turkey did other things to the non-Turks of Istanbul which reduced the Greek minority to the 4,000 old-age pensioners they are today, I don't see why that should make any difference. Anyway, the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church is based in Istanbul. --Tēlex 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Tēlex 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names); Relevant foreign language names[3] are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. . What I'm trying to say is that there is a page for the alternative names already. As the convention suggests the first line should not contain other names if such a section (in this case a section would be too long to include in the article itself) is created. Including the Greek name will tempt others to include other names just like the Armenian name was included couple of minutes ago. I'm not going to revert your edit though, as that wouldn't help anybody but make it a revert war. Cheers! DeliDumrul 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you have to remove the Turkish (alphabet?) name. --Tēlex 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Like you said, it's not an alternative name or a name in an other language. The pronunciations and the words themselves are the same in English and Turkish. It's just the difference in the alphabet. And like I said, I don't find it cruical, however I don't find it unnecessary, irrelevant or against the naming conventions, or even against the usual practice. DeliDumrul 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. It's not pronounced the same in English and Turkish, and if all other names are omitted, then so should the Turkish name, as that's what that it. Or should I add the version in the Greek alphabet, the Armenian alphabet etc. If non-English names are going to be delegated to the seperate article, that means all of them. --Tēlex 16:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense, both removed. If the proposal changes (as it is not a policy yet), we may edit again. -- 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Doubt that'll ever happen. The rate of policy change around here is slower than that of evolution ;-) --Tēlex 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity; can you point out how the pronunciations differ? Because the dictionary says they are the same. Anyways, it looks fine for now. DeliDumrul 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The Turkish "İ" is pronounced like the English "i" in "sit" (Close front unrounded vowel). The I-with-no-dot is a close back unrounded vowel. —Khoikhoi 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
To get the Turkish İ in English, you'd have to spell it ee (as in keep). The English I is pronouned like a Near-close near-front unrounded vowel (as in sit), and sounds more like the Turkish I (although not exactly alike). --Tēlex 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but English I in sit is not even close to Turkish I (the undotted one). In fact, it's not about how the letters are pronounced in English. As you know, English is one of the least phonetic languages of all and pronunciation differs from word to word. But in international phonetic alphabet the symbol for the sound for the English pronunciation of the word is an i with right ascending curved accent on it, which corresponds to the sound as in pit. DeliDumrul 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The ı or I in Turkish is pronounced like the end of vehicle(we-he-kıl) or bible(bye-bıl))), wonder(won-dır) or under(un- dır). Just take the word in the middle of cle,ble, or der and scream it loudly :). Its so hard to explain to you guys because you dont speak like you read in english but i hope i was helpful. 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me try a more straightforward approach: It's pronounced like 'a' in "on a hill" Zocky | picture popups 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys but as an English speaker who has finally mastered her Turkish vowels I'm just going say it cannot be explained in words. Until you hear it in the middle of the muttering you just won't get it. As I said above... spelling it with a I just seems wrong to me in any language, but it's staying. cathenryinc

Picture gallery under history

Can we change (meaning both add and remove) the pictures in the gallery under History? I know we are short of images now, but it would be visually more attracting if we could add some colored images (drawings) from Ottoman times of Istanbul. Besides, current three images all look the same despite their captions. DeliDumrul 04:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You might try looking at the images Tommiks has uploaded. He seems to have uploaded a great deal of pictures "from trvallers guide constantinopole c1878" (scroll down a bit). —Khoikhoi 05:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My current connection is terrible. Do you know any good ones? Especially any color drawings? thanks! DeliDumrul 05:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really take a good look at all of them, but none of the ones I saw were color. You might try looking at the Library of Congress. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, it appears the images I was talking about can all be found at Lifestyle of the Ottoman Empire. —Khoikhoi 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I found great color pictures at the Library of Congress. If you go to the search page and search for "istanbul color", you'll get a lot of beautiful pictures. Here are the four images I uploaded; Image:Yeni Cami mosque and Eminönü bazaar.jpg, Image:Street in Eyüp.jpg, Image:Alman Fountain.jpg, Image:Ayasofya Giris.jpg. Thanks a lot DeliDumrul 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, those are great! I believe I might have seen a black & white version of the first one before, or at least something very similar. —Khoikhoi 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
We have sixteen of them now. Check them out here. DeliDumrul 06:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also many old Istanbul pics. Image:OldGalatasaray1.jpg, Image:OldGalataBridge.jpg, Image:OldBosphorus.jpg, Image:OldBeyoglu.jpg. I'm gonna share more later. Doluca 10:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added your new images to Category:Istanbul images. It would be better if we could keep track of the photos, like in a category. (or whatever is more suitable :) DeliDumrul 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Historic names

I'm told there's a consensus to keep historic names out of the first sentence. Whoever reached that consensus is simply wrong. The first sentence of the article is the definition of the topic, and it should include the most relevant data about the topic. A definition of Istanbul which doesn't mention that it was previously called Byzantium and Constantinople is a useless definition of Istanbul.

I can see how some people would find this controversial, but allowing the quality of articles to suffer because of petty nationalism one way or the other is simply wrong. Zocky | picture popups 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that listing relevant other names in the first sentence is standard practice in Wikipedia. See Danube, Gdansk, Graz, etc. To illustrate a potentially controversial case, the article about my home town (Maribor), includes its German name, even though the names is currently not in use even in German texts, and the last time it was used was during the bloody occupation in WWII. Yet, defining Maribor without mentioning its historic name would be useless. Zocky | picture popups 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, the consensus seems to be to not list even the official spelling anywhere in the intro.... Zocky | picture popups 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, "That's not just official spelling, that's the Turkish name for the city." :) Anyways, there was a long and bloody discussion, even to the point how the Turkish letter I with a dot is pronounced and wether the English and Turkish pronunciations are different from each other or not. As for the relevant other names, the list is too long for the first line, even for the article itself so it's moved to a seperate page. It looks like, in history, almost every nation who heard about the city gave a different name to the city. I think it's better to leave it this way. DeliDumrul 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And believe me, the discussion was not limited to this page. It was discussed between almost every user who edited this article and on discussion pages of other Greek and Turkish cities (which is the wrong way to do it). Anyways, I'm not disagreeing with all your arguments, I reverted your edit just to avoid any more conflicts. DeliDumrul 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all other relevant names are equally important. The ones that this should have to satisfy the minimum is the official spelling, and the English historic names, a grand total of 3, which would be hardly atypical for a large city with a lot of history. Zocky | picture popups 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally understand what you mean, and we have to stick to what's right rather than what pleases most of the editors. But once you make that edit, I'm afraid this place will become a mess with everybody poking into it. Regards, DeliDumrul 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for some more opinions before I make that edit. The only hard choice really is whether to include the Greek spelling in the definition. It is one of relevant names because of the history and the modern minority. However, that criterion would also require us to include Armenian, Jewish and even Bosnian names, which would indeed be too much for the first sentence. I suggest ending the first paragraph (which should provide the context for the definition) with "Other names of the city include .... ... (see Names of Istanbul)". Zocky | picture popups 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the users who argued against including the other spellings on the first line based on the same argument you put down. However, I don't want to follow my preference for now, due to my worries I expressed above. DeliDumrul 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So, can someone remove this historical images?! Because Istanbul doesn't exist by history at all. We live in 2006!! Please someone upload new and more quality images of Istanbul. Please...

Images of Istanbul

As we know, all images removed and I think there is no quality image of Istanbul. Someone should upload cool photos like old version.

I'm gonna add some cool photos in so far as I can. Doluca 11:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Images of Istanbul

This is worst than Palestinian-Israeli conflict...Everyone sees the problem but no one acts...We want the pictures back.I would upload them, but I dont know how to...

World heritage

I came in on off an internal link from Hattusa pointing to other world heritagesites in Turkey and mentioning that parts of Istanbul are inscribed. There is no mention of this in the Istanbul article. Is there a separate article - meaning someone should change the link, or should someone include mention of the UNESCO inscribed sites? --5telios 10:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New Pictures

It took me five hours to upload and reformat picture gallery. Anyone who attemps to damage these pictures may be subject to GNIY complaints. If you are planning to re-edit the gallery, email me first at ltimur

How about using some of the pics from Commons? Bertilvidet 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is very poor - help needed?

Sorry to say, but most of the article and the discussion parts deal with names and history of the city at a level of obsession. Every name is explained where it comes from, which is ridiculious. Important aspects like Administration, population and architecture and their history are missing whereas it is full with text-book unrelated history and misunderstood concept of demographics-population section. History does not mean history of the rulers, but life, fires, earthquakes, attackes, epidemies, city planining etc. However to change significant parts of it definitely will cause edit wars or strong reactions. What is the solution? Argonit 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul shipwreck?

If people care to go to Google Earth and look at the southern shoreline of Istanbul, almost due south of the Blue Mosque, they will see what appears to be a large ship lying on its side (refs N, E). It wasn't there the last time I looked. Does anyone know what it is? There also appears to have a long cable running out diagonally into the Sea of Marmara. Adam 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG, You are right..You know what is more interesting, I remember a shipwreck like that almost on the same spot from my childhood when I was living in Istanbul. If it is the same ship, that means either Istanbulian Gov't didn't take any action to relocate it, or that is a 7 year old picture. Exact spot would be N, E user:ltimur

No, it is a new picture, because the ship wasn't there a few weeks ago. Adam 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Istanbul a few years ago, a shipwreck was lying at the southern shore, some fifty meters from the city walls. It may be the same one. Iblardi 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, its there. Near to Kumkapi. See photo at commons. Now it is completely rusty, split into two and is being broken up. Bertilvidet 19:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neden Yunanca okunuş özel olarak yaılıyor

Tüm Türk kullanıcılara sesleniyorum bu satırı buradan kaldırmalıyız. Ya da Greece sayfasına Türkçe okunuşu Yunanistan dır diye eklemeliyiz. Bu kadarda ırkçılık yapılmaz. Zaten diğer dillerde yunanca okunu belirtilmişken neden ısrarla buradaki şahsiyetler yunanca okunuşu Türkçenin yanında belirtiyor!!!

about Atilim Gunes Baydin changes. we dont need greek name. its english version. why we use greek writing. my idea : only own language writing in english version of a city. other names could be write in other names link or wikipideas other language page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwl (talkcontribs) 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be talking in English if you are determined to contribute to the English Wikipedia. The issue of Greek / Turkish naming conventions has been an issue of conflict at least since I began to participate in Wikipedia. You, as a newcomer, should spend some time to check the previous effort by a lot of users (both Greek and Turkish) on this subject, before starting a straight revert war in the fashion of a jihad / crusade. Could you please check the archives of this talk page and other talk pages belonging to cities of similar status, observe that the issue is not specific to Istanbul, and than hopefully realize that you cannot achieve anything with this attitude of yours. For such conflicts, Wikipedia depends on consensus and compromise, and there is an effort to solve this issue here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places). Please join the discussions, propose your solution and talk with other users. And if you do care about Turkey and Istanbul, this issue is nothing next to the overall poor quality of the articles related to Turkey and Turkish people on the English Wikipedia. I hope you can work on something more useful and of encyclopedic value and join the efforts of me and fellow Wikipedians trying to improve Turkey related articles over here.
As a note, my personal view about this page is that the Greek name should be standing there since I have an interest in the antiquity and it makes me quite pleased to see the original ancient name of the city written in the Greek alphabet. Another reason is that the city is highly important for the history of the Greece and the Greek people, and you could show some hospitality. And specifically for your concerns, I hope you can realize that having a foreign name of any Turkish city anywhere won't hurt anything, Istanbul belongs to the Turkish people since more than half a millenium, and I do not think this is going to change. Then the question is why you can't tolerate a mention of a historically significant name. That will just provide a certain cultural richness. Best regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

there are several writing samples of this stiuation at above link. my idea : city name must write according to official name of a city that belongs country. is it simply? why we need others. other writings must write in their language page. you can write others in the page but at the top its foolish.--Xsara 13:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name is there because for large parts of İstanbul's history, it was an important name used officially (under the Byzantine Empire) or by the local Greek population (under the Ottoman Empire). You will note that following the same policy, the Turkish names of Thessaloniki (Selânik), Thrace (Trakya), etc. are on the pages of Greek cities. It is useful for readers on Wikipedia to know how exactly to write these names in Greek. You will find similar policies in other areas which have been governed or populated by many different language groups over time. For example:
  • Sibiu (IPA: [si'biw], German: Hermannstadt, Hungarian: Nagyszeben) -- in Romania
  • Lviv (Ukrainian: Львів, L’viv [ljviw], German: Lemberg; Polish: Lwów; Russian: Львов, Lvov; see also other names) -- in Ukraine
I think it is a good thing to represent all the history of a place, not just its recent history. —Khoikhoi 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you can write it to the etymology, history or other names tabs. its more useful. and how we choose the important places? balkans are important for turkey. every where you must write turkish. --Xsara 05:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It's common pratice (as I just showed you) to have historical names at the top. Out of all these names, the most important are definately the Turkish and Greek ones. If you can name me a city historically important to the Turks, then we should probably have the Turkish name up there as well. See Dimetoka for another example. —Khoikhoi 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i think offcial name must be alone with IPA. other way it is more longer sentence at the top with turkish, greek, italian, espanol, german, russian bla bla. it s not useful. you can write russian to here. they can say its important for us at WW1. you must write other countries languages from ottoman empire. why especially greek. if you say look at history you must write firstly italian.--Xsara 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the Turkish and Greek names are more important historically than the Spanish, German, Italian, etc. names for the city. I'm afraid that the consensus we have simply disagrees with you, Xsara. —Khoikhoi 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i want to write bulgarian, romanian. because these countries' capital when they were in ottoman empire. and i want to write all ottoman empire countries.--Xsara 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

and why the italian not important. istanbul was the capital of byzantium after rome. --Xsara 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the Turkish name to Sofia. ("Sofya", right?)
BTW, the Romans didn't speak Italian, they spoke Latin... —Khoikhoi 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

but they also not speak greek.--Xsara 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) how you can choose a city important for a country. that choosing is variable. if we try to scientific we need more clear rules.--Xsara 07:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This language barrier sure isn't helping... :-( —Khoikhoi 07:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

firstly you must write the rules! after that you must use every page that rule without any exceptions. is it right?--Xsara 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just explain what pages you want me to add the Turkish name to and I will add them for you. —Khoikhoi 08:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i dont want any addition to the other countries' english pages for the turkish writing. if you try to add ATHENS to write turkish they will answer you :). --Xsara 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

view by Xsara: my suggestion is like Athens (Greek: Αθήνα, Athína IPA: /a'θina/). is it more useful?

look at the wikipedia link in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). that conventions dont say 'you can write other language writing'. that about several alternative names (Volgograd or Stalingrad,Istanbul or Constantinople,Vilnius or Wilno). that DONT say 'you can write other language writing'. according to that i can remove greek writing. --Xsara 08:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What? —Khoikhoi 08:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) there is a solution. did you learn anything from athens talk page ?--Xsara 09:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) please say ONE thing to write greek language writing!--Xsara 09:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the solution? Revert to your version? Doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me. What's at Talk:Athens? —Khoikhoi 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

guideline says also collate the names under a link(G tab and number 2, sentence continuos 'alternatively'-See:(In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names)). and Istanbul pageinclude this sentence. and also greek writing in it. different way. greek orthography also is not a different name. and thats not a relevant. is the relevant against the Istanbul. and wikipedia answers that problem on (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). it says 'Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name'. you are trying to write Constantinople to the lead (from back door with greek orthography). --Xsara 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

according to above, please remove the greek orthography!--Xsara 09:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul comes from Greek Language

They must added from where comes the Name Istanbul From Greek Language "eis tén polín" Sources:

So waht? To be honest, i dont know if u r rite or worng. But I do know that the city NOW, is called ISTANBUL period. Not constantinipolisusususususus or whatever... So i.e. referring to the city as Istanbul would be the most healthy choice.In addition, i do not think it would come from islambol, since the earlier names refferring to Istanbul all sounds similar to Istanbul. And a stupid question to all those that ask stupid questionhs (such as "Istanbul safe enough to visit?" or "There are other cities that are in the border of Euroasia, y is Istanbul called the city built on 2 continents?") y do all the greeks/armenians try to belittle our national symbols such as Istanbul? Dont u guys have anything better to do? If you wana discuss armenian/greek ottoman relations do that on the appropriate page. Not on Istanbul's page. ProudTurk

LOL, u are Stupid..

Istanbul is a Greek NAME!!!!! From Greek Language "eis tén polín" Sources: Change this Text now!!! OR i eill inform that to the WIKI Masters.. Come on guys.. change that.. I have 4 Sources.. What u want??? Sources:

Suggested solution for name

It is obvious relevant to make it clear in the lead of this article, that present day Istanbul is identic to Constantinople. Thus, I find attempt to remove this reference rather disturbing. But on the other hand, this is English Wikipedia, and I do really not see what use there is of having the name written with an alphabet that the readers under no circumstances can be expected to know. In order to adress both issues, the relevance of the Greek name and the accessibility of the article I will suggest that the first paragraph goes like this:

Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul, formerly known by its Greek name Constantinople; see other names) is Turkey's most populous city, and its cultural, and economic centre.

Bertilvidet 10:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Avoid Wikipedia:Lead fixation. I was discussing this with Xsara on his talk page, and he asked me to throw in a suggestion of my own. [2]. (Compare my principles as laid out earlier.) So, here's my version, brain-storming:

Istanbul is Turkey's most populous city, and its cultural, and economic centre. Located on both sides of the Bosphorus, it is the only metropolis in the world which spans two continents (European (Thrace) and on the Asian (Anatolia). Istanbul has a history of over two millenia and has been known under many different names, most notably Byzantium, Constantinople, and Stambul (see Names of Istanbul for more).

. Fut.Perf. 10:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree the future perfect for perfect solution :) ( without orthography). someone may add link Byzantium, Constantinople, Stambul to the article in the page. --Xsara 11:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

well it could have only a turkish name up there but with the correct greek etymology so both parties' right wings are happy. Istanbul comes from a greek expression of the time "in stin Poli" (in=inside, stin=to, Poli='city' i.e. "inside the City", but 'city' meant with a capital to be "the" big and important city of the previous empire)

That etymology is already treated in the Names of Istanbul article, and it needs too much explanation and is too long to fit in the lead sentence. It really makes sense only in the context of a discussion of all the names. Fut.Perf. 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i endorse Fut.Perf.. sentences are more useful and clear. everyone already find the orthography with Names of Istanbul. we can use 'it is a metropolis in the world' instead of 'it is the only metropolis in the world'. because we dont need to highlight with 'only'.its already a metropolis. i want to learn ideas of Khoikhoi, AtilimGunesBaydin, Tekleni, Hectorian, Miskin, Bertilvidet, Baristarim. :) thanx to Fut.Perf.. --Qwl 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will accept Fut.Perf's suggestion. However, I think it is enough just mentioning Constantinople and doing so in brackets. Bertilvidet 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it clear that I have no intention of pushing this suggestion of mine - I wouldn't want such a change as long as it is not integrated with a general consensus across the different articles, and as long as it would risk sparking "reciprocal" foreign-names purging campaigns elsewhere. As long as there's a general feeling that the position of foreign names in the lead sentence is something highly significant and symbolic (which it shouldn't be, in my view), I will err rather on the side of too many names than too few. Let's include lots of foreign names everywhere, but simply because they are interesting encyclopedic information, not in order to make certain groups of readers feel good (or bad). And let's talk about their position in the text solely in terms of what's best for optimal readability and text organisation. Fut.Perf. 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Byzantium and Constantinople are enough. Stambul is extra. and this talk page need more contributes, because the page is locked. we dont compromise if admins dont join the discuss.--Qwl 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion:

Istanbul is Turkey's most populous city, and its cultural, and economic centre. Located on both sides of the Bosphorus, it is a metropolis in the world which spans two continents (European (Thrace) and on the Asian (Anatolia). Istanbul has a history of over two millenia and has been known under many different names, most notably Byzantiumand Constantinople(see Names of Istanbul for more).

This solution is as the Ankara solution. There is an example in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Here is: 'Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.' i think historically names must write in a sentence at the the top about history. please write your opinions about the sentences.thanx --Qwl 15:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think all three suggestions (Bertilvidet's, Fut.Perf.'s, and Qwl's) for the paragraph are good. In any case no one seems to want any Greek letters over there. Although I cannot understand why, I can live with that. I also agree that this should not be a special treatment solely for the Istanbul article and should be an instance of a generally agreed upon guideline for such cases, which can also be a basis for solving edit conflicts highly probable to occur when other new users join the project. And thank you all for starting to discuss this in a civilized manner. Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur. I am happy with anything mentioning the name Constantinople and possibly Byzantium, and avoiding alphabeths that users of English Wikipedia not are expected to know. Bertilvidet 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The turkish alphabet, thought coming from the latin one, has letters that the readers of wikipedia are not expected to know either... However, i see a rather bizzare approach to the "name solution" in this article. Names in different alphabets are used in other articles about cities (and not only), e.g. Alexandria. Allow me to say that this discussion and the deletion of the name in the Greek alphabet, along with the words "formelly known as" lead me to believe that this is not about searching for a solution, but about removing info linked to Greeks/Greek language from the lead. I am rather disappointed to see users who support this format here, not supporting the same leading in articles like Thessaloniki... Hectorian 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the Greek letters in an English encyclopedia. Any solution for the lead that contains the very prominent name of Constantinople without the false information "formerly known as" (because it is still known as such by many, and because Greece and many countries still officially call the city with this or similar names) finds me agreeable. Fut.Perf's and Qwl's proposals are very nice. •NikoSilver 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the rules as below
an example about giving names:

Germany is in english but Deutschland in German, also Almanya is in Turkish. All of them explain the same country and more different all of them.

  • (Germany side): Germany dont press about this stiuation. Germans dont say '-it must be Deutschland in English'.
  • (Turkey side): And also Turks dont try to write Almanya to Germany page in paranthesis. they dont say '-we say Almanya and it must write there'.
  • View of Istanbul (Turkey side): İstanbul in Turkish but Istanbul in English.
  • View of Turkey (Turkey side): Turkey in English but Türkiye in Turkish.
  • View of Istanbul (Greek side): Κωνσταντινούπολις in Greek but Istanbul in English.( Which one you choose if you can translate the Κωνσταντινούπολις to English in a? If you say the Constantinople, English Reader thinks a city about history. If you say the Istanbul, English Reader thinks a metropolis in Turkey. therefore English Reader dont interest Constantinople and Istanbul are the same in Greek.
  • View of Istanbul (English Readers side): Istanbul is Istanbul now. Constantinople is in history (until 1453-Guide says).
i think All the problems are about Translation.
about using the paranthesis in wikipedi and other encyclopedias.
  • example: Germany (German: Deutschland IPA: [ˈdɔɪtʃlant]).
in parenthesis. firstly orthograpy of name in official language(s) and then IPA.
i think it is not more necessary.--Xsara 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand your position. Care to explain? BTW, the nutshell of the "Guide" you included reads: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution." I doubt that any third-party would agree that the name Constantinople cannot be considered "popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers". If this particular reference of WP:NC(GN) does not apply to this city, then which city could be a better example? •NikoSilver 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i m not against Constantinople. I Also confirm the sentence above. i think, Constantinople is not relevant and it shouldnt be writen in paranthesis. It should be writen in a sentence about city history at the top (look at the Guide/Dispute resolution/example).--Xsara 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What u say contradicts the well established way in using and adding alternative/past/foreign names in city articles in wikipedia. Look Gdansk as a tiny example. The deletion, removing or rewording of the greek name 'Constantinouplois' (without the greek alphabet) is a clear example of nationalistic turkish pov, which i am willing to deal with. so, if the greek name will not be added here as the turkish is in Alexandroupoli, Komotini, Xanthi, Thessaloniki, Symi, etc etc, i will begin by removing the turkish name from all those articles and many more... If this article has become "protected" by turkish nationalists and the admins are not interesting in intervening, that's the only semi-solution... I've spoken and i will do it. Regards Hectorian 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Guide says:

  • Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution.
  • Guide/Dispute Resolution/Example:

Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.

I think this lead is twisted by some admins. there is a foolish consensus between Greek and Turkish admins. i think two sides write natiolatistic. Greek and Turkish admins' Consensus is not neutral view. Turkish and Greek names should be removed all cities pages. Rules are clear. --Qwl 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add io:Istanbul and oc:Istambol


Done. Fut.Perf. 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

I think there's too much POV pushing around here. The Greek name is immediately relevant (due to the indigenous Greek minority and the Greek Patriarchate), and frankly, I think we should also include the Armenian and Ladino names. The see other names formula is POV pushing; wouldn’t it be possible to say «Thessaloniki (Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη; see other names)» at the Thessaloniki article. There is nothing wrong with including foreign names, even names which are purely of historical interest as there is no longer a community speaking that language at the city in question (e.g. Turkish in Thessalonica).--Tekleni 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

The recent Merge tag added in October is being discussed at Talk:Byzantium#Merging. -- Stbalbach 13:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)