Talk:Istanbul/Archive 4

Climate
The temperatures listed for Istabul's climate are so ridiculously wrong that its not even funny. 47 degree average temp? That makes Istanbul as hot as Baghdad or Kuwait. Someone needs to go and get the correct temperature scale. 28 degrees is probably what it should be. 71.197.242.97 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Celcius conversions of the Fahrenheit degrees were wrong. Problems were fixed.Tarikes (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still looks wrong and more than just in Celsius conversion. I was just on the weather.com (the source) and it is different... Alxross (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the same. I was chatting with my friend in Turkey and asked her about the ridiculously high temperatures, and she said nothing was like that. I looked at the source and its different than what is displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.120.182 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Population
I think the opening sentence should only mention that Istanbul is the world's 4th largest city and not that it is also the 20th biggest urban area, because, unlike is the case with other cities of the world, there is almost no difference between the city proper population and that of the urban area, and because such a distinction never existed for Istanbullers. Istanbul is simply one big thing that defies the urban area definition. Think for instance of the ranstad in Holland comprising of cities quite far away from each other. I dont think Istanbul should be compared to that, at least not in the first sentence (perhaps urban area population could be mentioned elsewhere). I have therefore edited the first sentence. Feel free to share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.200.7 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And it is not the most populous city in Europe, what about Moscow? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.68.171 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The population figures are completely wrong - 3rd largest is way way off.9 million population density of 7,700 people per sq km.Most cities of the world have problems defining their exact borders.The figures for Istanbul should play by the rules that all others are defined by as far as Im concerned.If figures include places that are not connected the density figures would be very low.So the example about Ranstad is not valid.On the point of Moscow,it has a larger population in every figures i have seen.Over exageration of figures that have no statiscal basis is not something wikipedia should be supporting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseagle123 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement that Istanbul is the third largest city proper in the world is not in agreement with the list to which it refers (the list of city proper populations). I have ammended the statement accordingly to reflect the list, which puts it in fourth place. Regardless of their accuracy, it is essential that a statement is coherent with the source to which it refers, else both sources are undermined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOdo (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Name
Is Constantinople the original name of Istanbul?

Is this true? It was unsourced so I removed it:

"the name is a corruption of the greek phrase Eis-Tin-Poli which means towards the city"

--AW 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's true. I have read it in many places and I thought it common knowledge. I think it should be added back in. In greek it is: Εις την πόλη (At/in the Poli=Constantinople) = Istanbul -- Olivia Guest 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Eis tin Poli theory was first invented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has become famous through the past decades, even taking its place in Encyclopedia Britannica.

I believe the reality is far less complicated:

(I)stanbul is a direct Turkish abbreviation of Con stan tino pol is

The Turks add an "I" in front of foreign words which begin with "st", like istop for stop, istakoz for stakozi, istavrit for stavridis, istavroz for stavros, etc... (BTW, most fish names in Turkish are of Greek origin, as you may have noticed from these examples) DragutBarbarossa 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See Names of Istanbul; the "eis tin poli" derivation is the universally accepted etymology everywhere in the literature, hasn't been seriously disputed since the 19th century. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When a claim/definition is repeated time and time again, and appears in multiple resources through decades, it evolves into a fact. History is largely a narration. This, I believe, is the case for the Eis tin Poli theory. Similarly, for instance, many old historic textbooks claimed that the Egyptians built the pyramids by using slave labour with cruelty. But with the latest excavations, it turned out that most of these "slaves" were actually being payed.

Eis tin Poli, in my opinion, is an over-complicated story, which is designed to fit the Istanbul sound with the closest-sounding words in the Greek language. A modern Greek myth generated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I seriously doubt the Greek villagers in 1453 showed the road to Poli for the invading Turkish army by pointing their fingers and saying Eis tin Poli (as if the Turks were Martians and didn't know where Istanbul is - it was actually the Martians who built the Anatolian Castle on the Bosphorus in 1393 and the Rumeli Castle in 1452)

Furthermore, it is most unlikely that a city would end up being called 'to the city' (virtually a contradiction in terms.)Constantinople - the city of Constantine is preserved in 'Stan' 'bul' is a derivation and shortening of 'polis' (pol... bul) (p and b are phonetically extremely close), and the 'I' is simply put to enable Turkish speakers who find initial consonant clusters foreign to cope - by the same token Smyrna became Izmir.

The city was also called Stambul / Stamboul etc. - note that n and m are also close neighbours - and just try saying 'stampul' to yourself and you'll see why the softer non-plosive 'b' sound would emerge.

The Eis tin Poli derivation falls down on all counts, frankly.

The Turks actually kept using the name Konstantiniyye until the 20th century - not Stanbul or Istanbul, so a Byzantine-era theory for Istanbul is ridiculous, because the Turks didn't use the name Istanbul in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and the 1800s. I seriously doubt the Turks suddenly remembered the Eis tin Poli story of 1453 in the 19th century, when Stambul/Stanbul/Istanbul first appeared.

I think the real story, as I mentioned above, is far less complicated and mythical:

(I)stanbul is a direct Turkish abbreviation of the long and inconvenient name Con stan tino pol is DragutBarbarossa 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite, there are many sources confirming the εις την πόλιν position. You can find many by non-Greek authors on Google Books for example. I have never seen one claiming otherwise.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we've all discussed this a lot, many times.
 * Whether you personally find the derivation plausible is of absolutely no importance (WP:V, WP:OR).
 * The derivation from "is tin polin" is linguistically much easier than that from "Konstantinoupoli"
 * Nobody has claimed the name was invented in 1453, and certainly not by finger-pointing Greeks guiding the invading army. The Turks and Arabs had this name for the city centuries before that.
 * "(I)stanbul" is attested in writing since the 10th century, side by side with "Kostantiniyye", and was used without interruption in Ottoman Turkish of all ages.
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the name Istanbul was used by Turks long before the twentieth century. What DragutBarbarossa must be referring to was the official renaming of the city.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Eis tin poli story is a true one as phonetic expressly suggests the natural evolution; istinpoli - istinbol etc. likewise Thessaloniki -saloniki-selanik went through a similar change. First and foremost, the Ottoman Empire kept using the name "Constantinople" together with other names of the city (Asitane, Konstantiniyye etc.). Mehmet the Conqueror declared himself as the emperor of Rums (Easter Romans including Greeks of course!). It was only after the foundation of the Republic that the name Constantinople was abandonned and Istanbul became the only official name of the city. I wonder why we should have a problem with that today, after almost 600 years. My ancestors -the Ottomans- did not have any problem with that! We say Istanbul, some others say Constantinople and some other's history could have recorded another name for the city. So please lets not be ridiculous by claiming conspiracy theories about this (invention of patriarch etc). --Z yTalk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V tells us, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and this is a classic case of the two conflicting with each other. What is verifiable is the "eis tin poli" etymology, so that's what we put here. The truth on the other hand, is what DragutBarbossa said: "eis tin poli" is a folk etymology, and the actual etymology of İstanbul is from Stamboul, which in turn comes from Konstantinopolis. But until someone digs up a reliable source showing this (blindingly obvious) fact, we have to go with what the sources we have say. Of course it's unfortunate that we are presenting a folk etymology as fact, but for now, it's the only way to avoid original research. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * εις την πόλιν is perfectly valid as it is not an isolated case. Where İstanbul is to the city, İznik is Eis Nikea, İzmir is Eis Symrna and İzmit is Eis Media from Nico media . One might argue that the eis part is a purely Turkish addition and that the name İstanbul comes from ten polin (the city) but the amount and type of change required to get from Konstantinopolis to İstanbul, mainly dropping two sylables right in the middle the middle; "tin-o", seems to make that theory rather far fetched.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a misconception, as if at 1453, there was an official "name-changing" ceramony, after Mehmet took the city. Turks had a name for this city way before that. They had to call it something during the 4-5 centuries they were in the neighborhood previous to the conquest of this last Roman bastion. More importantly, what did Arabs and Persians call it? Arab armies were in front of Istanbul centuries before Turks. It is very likely that Turks adopted a variation of that like they did adopt very pragmatically most other local names, customs and institutions. On the other hand, the etymology points at a unique Turkish modification with the addition of -ist. Interesting topic and good discussion.--Murat (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
An anonymous user (85.105.110.8) has been adding a supposed nickname, "marmara queen", to the infobox. I really think it's unnecessary, and it looks bad. What do you think? If we were to add nicknames, we should do it like [new york city] did. anyhow, i want to discuss before i remove it. --Ademkader (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

External link proposal
I would like to suggest this link, walkingistanbul This is a site that sugests self-guided walking routes, giving detailed informations about the historical and interesting buildings found on the routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskece (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to propose this external link about the city of Istanbul. What do you think?

http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Istanbul/Istanbul_01.html

Please, let me know your oppinion. Thanks! Panex (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to add the link. I people desagrees lets talk about. Thanks.Panex (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted a buch of external links, including this one, because things were getting out of hand in the External links section. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikitravel. While the Jordi Busque "photographic essay" is tasteful, it does not add "encyclopedic value", and it is hard to justify (on the basis of taste?) that that link should be allowed to stay while links to other collections of photographs should go. --Lambiam 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Names Section
I love how they downplay the fact that Constantinople is the true name of the city by adding all of the "former names". But I guess history is written by the victors (or invaders in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you also believe that the true name of New York City is Nieuw Amsterdam, that of London Kaerlud, that of Regensburg Radasbona, that of Kerkyra Coryphae, and so on? --Lambiam 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the "true" name of the city be Byzantium then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. Actually, the Greeks who founded it called it "Byzantion." The later Byzantium was what the Romans called it until 330. Constantinople was never the "true name" of the city; its official name after 330 was Nova Roma. The Turks called it all sorts of names (Konstantiniyye, Stamboul, Istanbul, Islambol, etc.) before they settled on Istanbul. In the case of the original poster, I guess he's still upset about how the Battle of Sakarya turned out. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why its climate is not classified as mediterranean?
By the weather averages for Istanbul, it's obvious that its climate is a typical mediterranean. The summers are probably hot enough, according to the weather data. Even the absolute minimum temperatures are in the boundaries where many mediterranean plants can be grown. Moderate-continental climates are much harsher than Istanbul's climate, and you can hardly grow any palmtrees in moderate-continental climate, but you can see them many in Istanbul...Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've changed this. It is amazing that the classification has remained unchallenged until now since it was introduced as "temperate-continental" on August 8, 2005. --Lambiam 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The climate of Istanbul is definately not mediterranean. Its climate is temperate and accepted as such. In fact the climate of Istanbul is a transitional climate as it is far too erratic to be classified as mediterranean and continental, though it is influenced by each climate: in winter (frequent heavy snowfalls and sub-zero temperatures) and in summer (heatwaves and little rainfall). Though summer is the driest season, there is no real summer drought as rain does occur all year round, and so the climate cannot be considered mediterranean.

Population and Density
New stats from the TUIK (Turkish Statistics Foundations) put population of Istanbul at 12,573,836 with a population density of 2,420/km2. Shall we wait for the world gazetteer to update their stats or go ahead? note that we will also have to change List of cities by population. --Ademkader (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was remarked by User:Polaron that the number 12,573,836 is for the il (province), and not the city. Apparently the latter number should be 11,174,257, although the ref given does not work for me. The number 2,420/km2 is presumably for an area much larger than the city's 1538.77 km2. --Lambiam 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a source for the 1 538,77 km&sup2; figure? Adding the areas for the 27 'city-districts' gives a total of 1 822 km&sup2;, according to Statoids. The total population of the 27 districts is 11 372 613, of which 10 757 327 is urban according to this page. --Pjred (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is possibly an old figure from when several of the current metropolitan districts had not yet been urbanized. The website of the municipality gives the figure of 1,830.92 km2, closely corresponding to what you calculated. I've updated the infobox. --Lambiam 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thumb picture
We seriously need a better picture instead of the Hagia Sophia, since HS is in Istanbul, OK, but Istanbul is a huge city with thousands of landmarks, and excluding them is completely unjust. Nor it is defining the center of Istanbul. I would, as discussed before, go for that world famous artistic skyline at dusk or dawn, does anyone have a good picture of it? --Eae1983 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Monsieur, come on, there is no Hagia Sophia in that picture, (contrary to what the name "Istanbul at dusk with Hagia Sophia" would suggest.
 * Also, I guess it is "too Eminönü".. (I guess you may have put a wrong one)
 * The one now is the best I have seen, nice weather, Palace + Baslica + Church + Bosphorus + Commuter Ferries (Vapur)... I am kinda cold now of my orientalistic "dusk or dawn" ideas, but I am open for any great looking picture.
 * Cheers!  --Eae1983 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link
Can we add this (or this one) link? It shows the traffic from live cameras. I know that ibb.gov.tr is added but this direct link can be more helpfull(?). --Ilhanli (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vapurlar
Where are the pictures of the "famous commuter ferries", I really think we need to put something graphic in about that, since one can see those ships in almost half of the pictures featured in the article.

Cheers!--Eae1983 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Districts
The side panel says there are 25 districts but the actual article says that there are 31? Anyone know the correct number or a reason why they are different?

TheArtOfTheWarrior (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the difference between the districts of Istanbul Province, and those that constitute the City of Istanbul. I've edited the text to make the distinction clear. I've also changed 31 to 32 because both the article Istanbul Province and Category:Districts of Istanbul give 31 districts. (When counting the pages in that category, do not count the page Greater Istanbul which is not a district, and do not double-count Adalar = Princes' Islands.) I've also changed 25 into 27.
 * The 32−27 = 5 outer districts of the Province that are not part of the City are Büyükçekmece, Çatalca, Silivri, Sultanbeyli (an enclave of formerly rural terrain within the City), and Şile. --Lambiam 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 32−27 = 5 outer districts of the Province that are not part of the City are Büyükçekmece, Çatalca, Silivri, Sultanbeyli (an enclave of formerly rural terrain within the City), and Şile. --Lambiam 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for GA or FA again?
Maybe after some copyediting the article should again be listed for GA? It has significantly been improved, and I made the Hungarian article FA on the basis of the English article. I had to search for some more references that could also be put here to expand the number of references (in the HUwiki article there are over a hundred refs). What do you think? --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi  10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the issues raised in the previous GA review, see Talk:Istanbul/Archive 3. I think the present article is too long; perhaps we should spinout some sections into separate articles. --Lambiam 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a separate article entitled Art and Architecture of Istanbul (more detailed than Architecture of London, but as an example), or something similarly titled? That way, it could combine Cityscape and parts of Life in the City, which would help to reduce the bulk of the article. What do you think? Monsieur dl   mon talk-mon contribs 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Formally, article length is not among the GA criteria but only among the FA criteria, but nevertheless it will also be an issue of criticism in GA reviews. Also for the normal reader, the article is too long and has too much detail about things they are not likely to be interested in. I think we should attempt to bring the article back from its current 132,000 bytes or so to about half, say 70,000. Your proposals are good and will make a dent, but the resulting article will still be well above 100,000 bytes. Other sections that could be spun out are Religion (way too long), Economy, Transportation, Recreation, and Education. I've compiled an overview of the byte counts of the sections (where the determination what a section is is just as naive as for the [edit] buttons). --Lambiam 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

132040 Main 2934 Names 12799 History 5496 Geography 3093 Climate 1816 Geology 20845 Cityscape 16524 Architecture 2501 Ancient Greek and Roman monuments 8131 Byzantine monuments 5300 Ottoman monuments 4307 Urbanism 2898 Administration 998 Organization 1881 Districts 19398 Demographics 14907 Religion 1449 Crime 10335 Economy 2134 Financial Sector 1637 Industry 2613 Tourism 15105 Infrastructure 1780 Health and medicine 5382 Utilities 7924 Transportation 731 By Air 2323 By Rail 806 By Road 3288 By Sea 674 Public 16789 Life in the city 5159 Art & Culture 1347 Media 9024 Recreation 188 Shopping 5772 Bars, CafÃ©s and Restaurants 1504 Clubs 7497 Education 1368 Universities 5483 High Schools 163 Libraries 4926 Sports 3291 Town twinning 481 Related lists 231 See also 27 Notes 4053 External links

I would be glad to get started with the dent ant work on the creation of the Architecture in Istanbul article, for combining Art and Architecture would be supremely difficult- I want to maintain the same format as other cities. Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First edit: Architecture of Istanbul, 11K off
I created the article, removed the entire text to that article, and added certain items that are the heart and soul of Istanbul. It is merely a start, because there is just so much within the city that the branched article will need to be beefed up. As for this article, the flow of the summarized section is fractured, and it needs to be fixed somewhat. What I did was merely a start- 11k of it is now pared off. Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Monsieur, please know that I am ready to help you in every possible way for this. Contact me as you wish.
 * --Eae1983 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! I would love to see some help. The idea in the Architecture section is to create a subsection for each of the main structures of Istanbul, which I pretty much have here:


 * Hagia Sophia
 * Suleymaniye Mosque
 * Galata Tower
 * Dolmabahce Palace
 * Topkapi Palace
 * Leander's Tower
 * The Grand Bazaar (missing, should be added)

I could possibly add Sultanahmet Mosque, but I'm afraid it might be too much. Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 00:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok very well, I'll attack all these during the course of this week! :))
 * --Eae1983 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yalılar
Can I know why did the picture showing the typical Yalıs of istanbul has been removed?

Cheers!

--Eae1983 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article size no longer an issue
The article is now below 100K (details have been channeled to related main articles) so size is no longer an issue for resuming the bid for Featured Article status. Best regards. 151.57.206.77 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Re-Submission
I believe we can now re-submit the article's application for Good Article status. I cleaned and tuned every single nut and bolt inside the engine. Better than this? I don't think so. 151.57.184.245 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is looking a lot better in terms of the balance of content, but I think it will fail on the lack of references. The following sections have either a lack of or no references at all:


 * Architecture
 * Urbanism
 * Administration
 * Religion
 * Life in the city
 * Education
 * Sports


 * Should be aiming for one reference per paragraph to be safe. Also on the issue of pictures, I think there are too many in the Religion and Economy sections and third panaroma in the History sections is poor in terms of quality. The article really is looking better, but I'm just trying to pre-empt what a GA reviewer would say. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added some references, I hope others will try and do the same. --A.Garnet (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline
I'd like to clarify when we should use Istanbul and when Constantinople, à la Talk:Gdańsk (but hopefully with less contention). Here is my initial proposal; feel free to comment and alter.

In general,

1. When referring to Istanbul in a pre-1453 context, use "Constantinople". Exceptions may include a specifically Turkish context: "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul". Use "Byzantium" for mentions predating 330 AD.

2. When referring to Istanbul in a 1453-1923 context, either "Istanbul" or "Constantinople" may be acceptable.
 * If the context refers to the city alone, to central Ottoman institutions, or to Muslim provinces of the Empire, "Istanbul" may be preferred. Examples:
 * "The streets of Istanbul were widened in 1608."
 * "The Ottoman Navy sailed from Istanbul."
 * "The Sultan was born and raised in Istanbul."
 * "The men rode from Mecca to Istanbul."
 * If the context refers to Christian provinces of the Empire, Church institutions in the city, or the West in general, "Constantinople" may be preferred. Examples:
 * "The influence of Constantinople was felt lightly in Wallachia."
 * "Constantinople had sixteen churches in 1820."
 * "France and Britain occupied Constantinople in 1918."

3. When referring to Istanbul in 1923- context, use "Istanbul". Exceptions may include a specifically Greek or Orthodox context: "The people of Crete look to Constantinople for spiritual guidance."

Note: whenever using "Constantinople" in a post-1453 context, link to Istanbul as follows: Constantinople, because the Constantinople article stops at 1453.

Thoughts? Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the current guideline for this? El Greco(talk) 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is one. We have three articles - Istanbul, Constantinople and Names of Istanbul, but no advice to editors on when to use what name. Biruitorul Talk 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul's draft makes sense. The important thing is that this is likely to match what reliable sources out in the English-speaking literature actually do. Earlier discussions about this have often sidelined into a senseless debate of whether 1432-1923 "Istanbul" or "Constantinople"/"Kostantiniyye" were "official", whatever that means (I doubt the Ottomans even had a notion of "official names" comparable to ours.) At other times, it has been argued that pre-1923 all English sources would have used "Constantinople" – but that's beside the point too, because the criterion is not what English speakers did back then, but what English speakers do today when talking about back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, we should be clear that the question of "what name to use" is slightly different from "what article to link to". Our article called Constantinople covers only the history of the city prior to 1453. Biruitorul's recommended practice involves using Constantinople also in contexts where the appropriate link target will be Istanbul nevertheless, because that article will have the information relevant to the period. So we'll often end up with piped links like the modern Greek dialects of Constantinople , or the modern Greek dialects of Constantinople (Istanbul) . Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fut. Perf. on both points. I agree in general with Bitorul's proposal. My chief reservation is that I would not say, even with may, in a specifically Turkish context: "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul". for two reasons:
 * Many of the problems with the Gdansk agreement have been efforts to establish articles as bubbles of German or Polish context, which then ignore the other side (and both ignore the Lithuanians).
 * I would not write "By 1450, the Ottomans had set their sights firmly on Istanbul"; it is worth reminding the reader that we are dealing with a separate, although dependent, state (and if we do not call it Constantinople, what do we call it?)
 * We should include the date of the founding of Constantinople (either the beginning of construction in 324, or the consecration in 330.


 * But do we really need to say more than WP:NCGN (which discusses this very example at some legnth)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Names of Istanbul, "Istanbul" is attested as far back as the 10th century. Then again, perhaps no situation exists pre-1453 where "Istanbul" should be used. (Or maybe there does.)
 * Your example is fascinating, but I suspect a misprint or moment of carelessness. Murad II didn't order translations to appear in Istanbul, and if he had, they would have been less than useful to him. Did the author mean to write "Edirne"? Or possibly Mahmud II and 1480, with misprint and the wrong copyedit?
 * On the broader point, that's usage in Armenian and Turkish, not English. I have no problem with using Istanbul in italics and discussing the word, except the question of whether it belongs in Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In either case, I suppose we don't need any guideline, but it wouldn't hurt either. It would clarify situations like this by making explicit that it is sometimes acceptable to use "Constantinople" in a post-1453 context, though I agree with Fut. Perf. that Constantinople may be necessary in such situations. Biruitorul Talk 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly; not doing so will leave actual quotations from most nineteenth century documents (in English or other Western languages) floating in mid-air or doctored. Similarly, there may be reasons to use Istanbul for the city in exactly 1450; I just think Turkish context will be abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the guideline is a good idea, atleast this way we will have a uniform agreement of when each name should or shouldn't be used. El Greco(talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is NOT to figure out what names to drop but to discuss which one is suitable when. Most people seem know it by instinct. The disucssion seems rather academic. The fact that there is a whole article dedicated just to the name of the city should be enough on this matter.--Murat (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but would you actually object to such a guideline? In other words, you may not be thrilled by it, but it can't hurt, right? Biruitorul Talk 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul: Bibliography, Songs and Paintings
So many songs about this city, maybe we could list them here. How about famous paintings of Istanbul, or Istanbul painters? A bibliography is sorely needed. If someone gets it started, I will help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul map
have you heard about the change in the ilce system of istanbul? Are there any new maps available on commons? --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi  19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul Live!
I found this link http://tkm.ibb.gov.tr/yolDurumu/Kameralar.aspx# to 75 traffic cameras placed all around Istanbul (they call them MOBESE?). It is a live feed and very exciting. Can someone more apt than myslef add this at the end of the Transportation section? It would go there well, maybe it can be a side box, or some other creative arrangement.--Murat (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Istanbul listed as European, and why did this edit occur just before the page was locked?
It is incorrect to call the city the largest in Europe, when the part of the Turkey that one could perhaps argue to be "Europe" only includes half of the city of Istanbul. In which case, Istanbul is NOT the second largest city in Europe - London is. -Phalangst

I dont personally find the definiton European side Asian side valid - as a person living in istanbul myself. But i do question the population rankings.By most reasonable accounts,Moscow is the largest city of Europe,followed by Paris, then Istanbul and London in 4th place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseagle123 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Istanbul was established in Europe. Until several decades ago it was only in Europe. Now about %80 of it is in Europe and %20 is in Asia. Almost all cultural activities (%95) are in Europe. --144.122.250.202 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone rename the whole article into İstanbul
The correct name of the city is İstanbul, not Istanbul (observe the letter, i). Could someone change the title of the article so I can change the rest of the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman88 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this has been heavily discussed before; somebody wanted badly to move it to İstanbul back in 2005 but it was always moved back (], ). Proposing this move again now would very likely be quite controversial. Our rule is that we normally use whatever spelling is more common in English; whether that includes leaving out diacritics where English writers usually do so is a bit of a contentious area. Please don't make unilateral changes in this area without obtaining consensus first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The English name is Istanbul. Since this wiki is English wiki we are using the English names. İstanbul is Turkish. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * English wiki has SO MANY pages with diactricts for Italian, Spanish and Franch names.

Letters é, ñ, è, á and so on ARE used!!! The I-İ discussion is therefore logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.210.80 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

the third in europe?
The information about Istanbul being the third largest city of europe is wrong. It's the largest. See Moscow, it says its 10,470,318 BUT iSTANBUL IS 11,372,613. It's the third largest city in the WORLD not Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.148.97 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

names
Why in IPA you use isˈtanbul (for İstanbul, not for Istanbul)? It should be isˈtambul. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the climate of Istanbul not classified as a transitional climate?
Why is the climate of Istanbul not classified as a transitional climate? Istanbul's climate like most of the Marmara region it is situated in is exactly in that category, midway between that of the oceanic climate of the Black Sea, the humid continental climate of the Balkan peninsula and the mediterranean climate of the southwest. The climate of Istanbul is definately not mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.69.110 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 'Names'-section: Istanbul, or Istambul?
I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but in the 'Names'-section it's said that Istanbul has been derived from 'εἰς τὴν Πόλιἰν' or 'ἰς τὰν Πόλιν', in which the 'ν' in τὴν/τὰν stands for an 'm'. I thought that the 'ν' always used to be pronounced as an 'n', so I've looked it up (it could be that in ancient Greek the 'ν' was pronounced as a 'm'), and it has always been pronounced as an 'n' (as far as I could see). So I've changed it. If it is not correct, and the translation should be with an 'm' in it, I think it would be helpful to explain why it is translated as such. --Robster1983 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Montage Picture
This new pic is way too small for a montage, the details are not visible. The pic that was previously there has been over a year now, and, of course we can change it (although I find it extremely beautiful). I am reverting for now. Let's have a discussion concluded by a consensus before changing it again, I say. Cheers! --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the non-montage photo, as the skyline is very unique to "The City". The montage looks like any other city anywhere in the world and is too 'busy' - Dinkytown 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, Montage pic way too busy, and can look like "anywhere in the world". A better work can be done. As far as pictures are concerned, I think this one is the very best until now! --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the new photo is much better and this is not even an official vote. so i am restoring it back. Elmalili (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Much Better" according to what? :S --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, look, you want a montage pic, I can see many cities have one, let's do it like the one in the Zürich article, in a much bigger way and better quality,including this present "bosphorus skyline" picture in the top part of the Monkage, as seriously, Istanbul deserves a better picture than the previous small montage. Elmalili, can you work on it? --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, New York City, Moscow and several others have montage images on their articles. -- Turkish Flame ☎  14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Montage, OK, but a better quality montage! (Read what's above). --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am looking at New York City right now, and I think we need THAT kind of montage. Ours now is WAY too dense, busy and dark. Please, someone who knows that kind of thing, let's do a collection a few montages so we can elect a good one. We should do it more or less like New York, in the shape of an straight rectangle, at the top should sit our current picture of the historical skyline, then under, the bosphorus with the bridge and THEN under those, sideways the tram in the snow, the Ağia Sophia, etc. (I am brainstorming). But the main idea is, if we want a montage like NYC has, please let's do a real quality work that would suit our beloved Istanbul. --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, look, you see that pic:, it's the NYC pic. Very well done indeed. I would suggest we stick to the same format and light, as to put: (please forgive my amateurdom, I'm a real dumb with computers)





So There you go, it's just a brainstorming, showing Istanbul's unique skyline, 19th century side and modern side, of course, I am open to any changes, but, anything we do, we should keep the picture, big, like the NYC one, and well lit as the previous one was both too dark and too small.

Cheers! --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, since no one is doing it, I contacted a friend who is doing it... --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got two very nice montage pictures ready, I think they'll be posted for your perusal here, then we'll choose one in them. --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Well here is two montage works in proposal for you to choose from:




 * Of course, your suggestions are all wellcome. --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

why not showing the "modern" face of istanbul a little bit. also two hagia sophia's are not necessary. Elmalili (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I thought about it too, and there's actually another montage with the Kanyon in the middle, (instead of the Agia Sophia), it's still under construction, as the ratios are not equal I heard it was kind of a hard work. (If you have a montage proposition, I remain 100% open for it) Anyways the Bridge is an important modern work in all that for now. But also, we should not forget that what makes Istanbul is mostly that Skyline, and not Levent + Maslak (not that they do not look better then 90% of their European counterparts), as you can find such Skylines all over the world, but this one is very unique to our city, showing Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire, the Bosphorus, and the Genoese colonies in one shot. With respect, --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * just because other cities have skyscrapers doesnt mean we shouldnt put them here. This is supposed to represent Istanbul and skyscrapers are a part of it too. 81.213.106.74 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, part of it, but an important part of it? Do you think they are as important as the Leander Tower or the Galata Tower? Still, I await your nice montages including skyscrapers, as you should participate actively in the debate instead of just criticizing. --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this one :

I think it is the ideal montage for a huge city like Istanbul, all sights on this montage, someone has only to make borders if he knows how Baltic Seaman (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your montage has the same problems as the other ones above. It looks like a hundred cities on the planet. The above photo does not separate Istanbul from any other city. Dinkytown 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you a lot Baltic Seaman for contributing, I hope more will come from you, you are on a good way.
 * -Now, let's be critic:


 * 1- Too repetitive, except the upper skyscraper pic, all of them are same size squares, there should be according to my honest opinion, more diversity in shapes, and balance the long/tall ones with the smaller square ones.
 * 2- I know Istanbul is a huge city but... Ahem... There's just "too much" pictures... We should focus on less, since many of them are already covered on the article.
 * 3- Well I do not know how to express that, but I guess I'd go with Dinkytown for that the Montage looks "too grey", you, or anyone who'd attempt a montage should try playing with colors a little bit more...

Note: Dinky, what do you think about the montage that is up now in the article? Can we Improve on that one too?? --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing images without the consent of other users
The User:El Greco obviously misunderstood the WP:NOT guide, which says:

"4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."

All images in the article are supported by the text in the sections where they are located. Jarvis76 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia is NOT an image repository. So add the pictures to their relevant articles/sections. This is not a picture guide nor a tourist guide nor a image gallery. El Greco(talk) 21:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore please read WP:LAYOUT and MOS:IMAGES, for appropriate use policy. El Greco(talk) 00:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note if you would read those two section you would see, that the images must be in relevant sections and it is unnecessary to cram a section with photos. El Greco(talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again please familiarize yourself with the two wikilink policies above (WP:LAYOUT and MOS:IMAGES) and WP:MOS. El Greco(talk) 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to put my nose where it doesn't belong, and I believe in good discussion; however, this page is very image heavy, most of the images belong in seperate articles that specifically address the location in question. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

New montage



 * Well done Jarvis, absolutely orgasmic, and the best picture ever for the best city ever... --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I used a calculator to find the optimum height and width pixels so that "stretching" the images wouldn't be necessary. I'm glad that you liked it. Cheers... Jarvis76 (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey what happened to that one?? --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Image reduction project
This has been proposed for a while. So that this is transparent and unbiased, I want to begin by posting the images that I find to be unnecessary and cluttersome, and even detracting from text:

So, if you want to stand up and defend any of the accused above, be my guest. Since "it look pretty" is not a valid argument, this is a fairly open and shut case to me.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone ahead and removed the most egregious photos from the article, combining and reorganizing sections based on the city articles I've worked with previously. I haven't really touched the text, with the exception of the long paragraph listing high school and their dates, which I haven't deleted, but moved to the summary of List of schools in Istanbul. More will likely be move to there and other relevant articles in the future. This is mainly about making the article easier to edit and easier to improve.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I did touch the text. Again, in Education, much of the section was just unsourced advertisements for various schools. Perhaps there could be an article Education in Istanbul where this might fit.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Illustrating the Demographics section is difficult. I had three thoughts: first, the Haiga Sofia is an example of the changing populations of the city, though it doesn't feature actual people. People could be featured nice by two photos, File:Newroz Istanbul(4).jpg or File:Ablution.jpg. The first one might be problematic, since it introduces an unnecessary spelling war and what not, but it does nicely feature people being ethnic in Istanbul. I also liked File:Istanbul - Monestir Mevlevi - Dervixos dansaires.JPG of the whirling dervishes for the spot. Thoughts?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 02:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sections I find problems with: I'd love thoughts on how to improve and fix up these problem sections.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Transportation: This section is far too long in general. Most of the info is better presented already on Public transport in Istanbul.
 * Trams: Very listy! We need not mention every tram, just that they are there and perhaps the citable statistics.
 * Restaurants and shopping: What is the deciding factor for inclusion of a specific night club or cafe? There are millions of each, and I'm not sure these sections are useful.
 * Education: Still problematic. Need to be broader, less about this school or that school.
 * Media: Listy! Again, every station that is available on TV need not be listed. Stations and newspapers that don't even have their own articles are probably not notable to begin with.
 * Christians: Though important to certain users, the tragic history of Christians isn't as notable as how they live today. While historic trends should be noted, Demographics is not a history section.

Dear Patrick, As an Istanbulite (for multiple generations) I felt the need of sharing with you some "local" information: 1) Motor vehicles are not allowed in the Princes' Islands, where you can either rent a horse carriage (phaeton) or rent a bicycle. 2) Newroz is a festival that's celebrated only by the Kurds in Turkey, and has its roots in Zoroastrianism (Kurds are an Iranic people.) The Kurds in "Istanbul" live in "far away suburbs" such as Halkalı, Bağcılar, Esenler, etc, from where it takes about 1 hour of car ride to reach "Istanbul proper." Turks in general do not "welcome" Newroz, because it's the time of the year when Kurds in these outskirts hang Abdullah Öcalan posters, vandalize shops and throw stones at the Turkish Police. And all of these things take place "far away from Istanbul proper." 3) The "dark picture" of "a man" beside a so-called "ablution fountain" doesn't represent the "average Istanbulite" or the "daily life in Istanbul" either. (Maybe in the imagination of a "foreigner" like you, but not in the reality of a "local" like me.) The location of the photo doesn't look like Istanbul at all (probably taken at a place in the countryside.) Anyway, both pictures are "problematic" in many ways and do not represent the average Istanbulite. There are many pictures of "pedestrian crowds" in articles such as the Istiklal Avenue, Bağdat Avenue, etc; which give a better "general description" of how "Istanbulites" look like. 4) It took hundreds of years to build Rome, but it took only a few days to destroy it. Please be careful when deleting content and make sure that the information is always "saved" in the relevant sub-sections. 208.79.239.160 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to year from you, I do want a conversation going. I understand the reasoning behind some of these pictures, such as the horse and carriage, which is still used, its just that I think the image choice could be improved to better reflect the text and the city itself. Again, I do know the history and status of Newroz, and as soon as I proposed using it I noted the inherent problems above. I would note that despite the opinion of residents of "Istanbul proper", Kurds are an important part of the city. I actually recognize the ablution photo as one of my favorite mosques in Eminönü. I realize the link is incorrect, and you need to click through to the the commons since that filename is in use here.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Climate
There is an apparent inconsistency in the climate section. In the first paragraph, the text says, "Istanbul experiences a Mediterranean climate...", but in the next paragraph, it says that "... there is no real summer drought as rain does occur all year round, and so the climate cannot be considered Mediterranean." This reads oddly and probably ought to be changed, perhaps by amending the second paragraph to read something like, "... there is no real summer drought as rain does occur all year round, and so the climate cannot be considered fully Mediterranean in all respects." What do people think? Ondewelle (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The climate of Istanbul is definately not mediterranean. Its climate is temperate and accepted as such. In fact the climate of Istanbul is a transitional climate as it is far too erratic to be classified as mediterranean and continental, though it is influenced by each climate: in winter (frequent heavy snowfalls and sub-zero temperatures) and in summer (heatwaves and little rainfall). Though summer is the driest season, there is no real summer drought as rain does occur all year round, and so the climate cannot be considered mediterranean. The Köppen categorization for the mediterrannean climate (Csa) though influenced by it especially in the summer does not suffice.
 * Thanks for the info. I think the text is clearer now in that it no longer contradicts itself in the way that it did before. Ondewelle (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Istanbul is classified as a transitional climate.
 * Istanbul's climate like most of the Marmara region it is situated in is exactly in that category, midway between that of the oceanic climate of the Black Sea, the humid continental climate of the Balkan peninsula and the mediterranean climate of the southwest. Obviously an anonymous user has argued this with you already with a Turkish wikipedia link of a map with climatic zones of Turkey. While the climate of Istanbul lies in the temperate zone with temperate central european flora especially dominating, it cannot be simply categorized into one particular climate as such, in this case mediterranean, because it simplifies and also misleads. Though influenced by each, none of these climates can be said to be the dominating ones throughout the year, but their influence is particularly felt according to each season.
 * Saguamundi
 * Thanks, Saguamundi. I fully see what you are saying. In fact, my concern was not to argue which type of climate Istanbul has (I bow to other's knowledge in that regard) but to try to avoid the text contradicting itself from one paragraph to another.


 * It does that now in terms of climatic types. However, it now says in the first paragraph that the "humidity of the city is constantly high which makes the air feel much harsher than the actual temperatures" in such a way that it reads as if this applies all year. However, wouldn't the humidity make the situation feel worse in the summer rather than in the winter? (Summer humidity is unpleasant, whereas a dry cold is also unpleasant compared with a wetter cold.)Ondewelle (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though the average annual temperatures of Istanbul are not extreme (on charts anyway) whatever season, the humidity is indeed high throughout the year (the price for being situated by the sea) does make the air very unpleasant even unbearable/gruesome especially in the summer, summer nights included; even though the temparatures fluctuate around the high 20°C's and low 30°C's and the summer night are usually below 20°C. With rainfall, though fortunately not very frequent, makes the situation much worse, like a Turkish bath! The winters are definately more bearable but the humidity and wind chill can also make it feel much colder than it is. At least one has to dress warmly to avoid that, but in the summer there is no such reprieve, since most people do not have air conditioners. Obviously I make it sound like New Delhi or Baghdad or even New York. The locals try to avoid the heat, if they have no business to attend, by staying indoors, under the shade or swimming in the dirty cold sea.


 * The annual average humidity should definately be put to make it more "scientific" and "professional".


 * Here are some websites with charts showing the annual average humidity of Istanbul:


 * http://www.allaboutturkey.com/iklim_ist.htm Istanbul, Turkey Historical Weather Data with Monthly Details (Source: International Station Meteorological Climate Summary)


 * http://www.istanbultravelguide.net/facts.htm Istanbul, Information - Facts for the visitors: Climate (Shows the average annual humidity)


 * http://www.mahalo.com/istanbul Istanbul, Climate (Shows the average annual humidity)


 * http://www.wordtravels.com/Cities/Turkey/Istanbul/Climate/ Istanbul Climate and Weather (Used as reference in the Istanbul Wikipedia article)


 * However the first website, though very detailed, does not show the average annual humidity, it shows the Average Morning Relative Humidity and Average Afternoon Relative Humidity as well as Average Wind Speed, Highest Recorded Temperature, Lowest Recorded Temperature among many other data. And the other two websites show different information, though close to each other, on the average annual humidity. The last website does not show the average annual humidity but is used as reference in the Istanbul Wikipedia article. However most annoyingly the official meteorological website of Turkey http://www.dmi.gov.tr/ does not have a separate climate page for Istanbul at all.


 * I hope it helps Saguamundi

Edit-warring about climate section
I've had enough of this permanent edit-warring and tinkering with the climate section. None of the editors who have been so busy expressing their opinions about whether this is a mediterranean or an oceanic or a continental or whatever other type of climate has ever bothered to bring even the slightest hint of a relevant source for their claims. Now, I'm very much tempted to install a special hands-off rule: anybody making substantial changes to the climate section without citing reliable sources for their claims will be blocked, immediately and without further warning. This just has to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a way I'm sorry that I raised it. I profess no particular knowledge about the climate of Istanbul; I was merely concerned that the text was self-contradictory (I presume because different sections had been written at different times by different people), and it therefore looked somewhat ridiculous. Ondewelle (talk)

Too Many images
Remember Wikipedia is NOT an image repository nor a tourist guide. El Greco(talk) 13:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also removed to external links that do not meet WP:EL. El Greco(talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * El Greco, you are the only person who is disturbed by Istanbul's beautiful images, and I know the reason why your "frustration" suddenly appeared towards May 29: The 556th anniversary of a very special day for some people. But alas, the Turks are here to stay, and Istanbul still ***** shines ***** - unlike in the popular myths of Greece that "Constantinople today is a destroyed city in darkness, infested by barbaric Mongoloids from the east." It disturbs you to see that this popular Greek myth is far from the truth. Learn to live with the fact that Istanbul "by far and large outshines" any city in Greece and Cyprus, including Athens. Pristinick (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pristinick is a sock puppet and has been blocked. He also made a death threat as described here.  He has been blocked, but would someone please report this threat.  I can't find where to report it.  Dinkytown 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry too much about Shuppie. He's a fierce dangerous pirate and will kill us all until we're dead if he can get hold of us, but other than that he's really a nice guy and fairly harmless. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Too many images. The "Transportation" section has twelve images! I see four different trains and two stations! I also especially have an issue with the non-photos used, such as the race track map, and the transit map. These don't belong on the main article. I also want to reduce the number of panoramas, those should be use more sparingly. I'm of a mind to start hacking away at this article in general. Besides the pictures, its too sprawling, far too many sections and subsections. Too much overlap, with "Geography", "City arrangement", "Urbanism". The lists must go too, such as the last paragraph of "Education". New York City is a good example of what this article could look like. Anyway, weening some images is a good place to start.--Patrick «» 06:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, go for it. El Greco(talk) 21:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is the new Shuppie puppet, can he fix us a decent montage like the one he did with the bridge lit in purple... That one way better scaled and all. Look at the one in Ankara, its so well scaled... Argh I am jealous. We also need a good one for İzmir, don't we?... Şimdiden kolay gelsin! --88.254.241.230 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Montage Pic V2
Whoever is the new Shuppie puppet, can he fix us a decent montage like the one he did with the bridge lit in purple... That one way better scaled and all. Look at the one in Ankara, its so well scaled... Argh I am jealous. We also need a good one for İzmir, don't we?... Şimdiden kolay gelsin! --88.254.241.230 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article
The name of the article is Istanbul. I think it must be İstanbul with capital İ. Of course it can be argued that in English Wiki words must be written acoording to English grammer rules. However the noun İstanbul is a proper noun and proper nouns should be written in their original form, provided that the same alphabet is used in both languages. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the idea- if it is good enough for İzmir, then why not İstanbul? Good point. Monsieurdl  mon talk 14:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move. Per WP:NCGN, common usage in reliable English-language sources should be used.  That usage is Istanbul, not İstanbul.  The latter is common Turkish usage, which is fine for the the Turkish Wikipedia, but not the English wikipedia.  As for Izmir, I note there was no consensus on that page in favor of either Izmir or İzmir, which favored the status quo, İzmir.  However, that is certainly not an endorsement of the latter spelling.  In fact, I note more people voted for "Izmir" than "İzmir" (6-5).  --Athenean (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When using Wikipedia, the Turkish I does not alter the search for or the links to this article, and therefore should not be objectionable in the least. I could understand if it forced changes to links, but it does not. Monsieurdl   mon talk 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per wp:nc, English equivalent is more common.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving the article is not vitally important. My suggestion is based purely on principle that proper nouns should be written in their original form. I think the notion of common usage is irrelevant here. Because, the reason of using the letter I in İstanbul in English texts is that the English keyboards usually don't have the dotted capital İ. So they replace it with the undotted version. But this is Wikipedia and all letters are welcome. (For example, some words are written with dotted Ä and although this letter is not in my alphabet, I have no objection against using it.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose the change, since the normal spelling of the city's name in English is "Istanbul" not "İstanbul". There are plenty of precedents for this: the Italians have "Roma" and "Milano" but in English (and in the English-language Wikipedia) we have "Rome" and "Milan"; similarly "München" and "Munich"; "Wien" and "Vienna", and so on. Equally, the French-language Wikipedia has articles on "Londres" and "Édimbourg" rather than "London" and "Edinburgh". We need to be wary of showing a greater ignorance of English than a greater knowledge of Turkish here. Ondewelle (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That the religious minorities still have"sizeable" populations in their traditional districts is grossly misleading. Only very few remain, as they either emigrated or moved to other districts.
Some districts used to have sizeable populations of these ethnic groups, such as the Kumkapı district which had a sizeable Armenian population, the Balat district which had a sizeable Jewish population, the Fener district which had a sizeable Greek population, and some neighbourhoods in the Nişantaşı and Beyoğlu districts which had sizeable foreign European populations. Except for the foreign Europeans who used to inhabit the wealthy Nişantaşı and Beyoğlu districts in large numbers, very few of these religious minorities remain in these aforementioned districts as they either emigrated or moved to other districts. These traditional districts are one of the poorest districts in Istanbul, and those religious minorites who remained overwhelmingly moved to wealthier middle-class districts which have better municipal facilities and better accomodation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Istanbul's minorities still have their "unwritten rules". For example, the Armenians and Assyrians almost exclusively prefer Kınalıada Island in the summers (where they have their summer houses) while the Jews almost exclusively prefer Büyükada Island (which is also the most cosmopolitan island and has other minorities, i.e. the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.) Burgazada, until recently, was almost exclusively preferred by the Greeks (until its beautiful southern beach and its fish restaurants became universally popular among all Istanbulite ethnic and religious groups within time); who also exist in Heybeliada and Büyükada. As for the City of Istanbul itself, to give a few examples: The Armenians still prefer Kumkapı, Bomonti and Kurtuluş (Tatavla, originally a Greek neighbourhood); the Greeks still have small groups in Fener, Samatya and Balıklı; the Jews still have small groups in Balat, Galata, Beyoğlu and Nişantaşı (the latter three districts are also preferred by the Levantines.) Of course, the numbers of these minority groups have dwindled since the early 1900s, but some "unwritten rules" have not fully changed and still remain valid. 151.57.140.211 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also importan to note that these religious minorities though concentrated in these traditional districts never were restricted nor lived like in a ghetto, as was the case among the Jews in Europe. Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Nobody said that... Everyone knows that Astoria is the Greek neighbourhood of New York, but it's not a ghetto. The same thing is valid for Glendale, which is the Armenian suburb of Los Angeles - but not a ghetto. Kreuzberg is the Turkish neighbourhood of Berlin. Nobody "forces" these ethnic groups to choose such neighbourhoods - it just happens. 151.57.194.36 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
The modern Turkish name İstanbul (, colloquially ) has been used to describe this city, in a range of different variants, from as far back as the 10th century; it has been the common name for the city in normal Turkish speech since before the conquest of 1453.

I don't buy this. In the 10th century, the only Turkic tribe which had any contact with Constantinople were the Khazars, but very few (close to none) written documents have survived from them. The Seljuk Empire was established in 1037, so the Seljuks are also out of question. The only other Turkic people who had any contact with the Byzantines during the 10th century were the Pechenegs who were employed as palace guards or mercenaries, but they haven't left behind any written documents either (much less than the Khazars.)

Etymologically, it derives from the Greek phrase "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" or in the Aegean dialect "εἰς τὰν Πόλιν"  (modern Greek "στην Πόλη" ), which means "in the city", "to the city" or "downtown".

Even though this is a "widely cited theory" that exists in numerous sources, it's still a "theory" and not an "indisputable historic fact." If you ask my opinion, the "eis tin Polin" story (of wandering Turks asking the direction of Constantinople, and the Byzantine Greeks responding "eis tin Polin" and pointing towards the city) is just another "myth" invented by the Greeks (they love to invent such stories.) When you keep repeating a myth, and when it's cited by numerous sources, it eventually becomes a "fact" (history is largely a narration.)

Probably, the source of the name "Istanbul" is "Constantinople" itself.

Bear in mind that the names Konstantinoupolis or Constantinopolis are too "inconveniently long and difficult to pronounce" for the Turks, so with all probability, "Istanbul" is merely a "shortened and Turkicized form" of Constantinople.

It's not too difficult to see how:

CoSTANtinoPOLi -> (i)STAN-POL (Turks add an "i" or "ı" in front of foreign words which start with "st", "sp", "sk"; e.g. "ıstakoz", "istop", "istavroz", "iskonto", "ispirto", "Isparta", "ıspanak", etc...)

Also, in Turko-Persian tradition, the word "istan" or "stan" is used for describing geographic land names, so the Turks might have picked the STAN sound in KonSTANtinouPOLis and perceived it according to their own culture. As for POL eventually becoming BUL, it's not difficult to imagine, is it? Actually, in most Middle Eastern languages, the "p" sound is often pronounced as "b" (e.g. most Arabs say "Bebsi" instead of "Pepsi", for example) 151.57.170.33 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few points:
 * Read the Names of Istanbul article before you start arguing here.
 * the 10th century date is from the references cited in that article. It refers to the first written attestations in languages other than Turkish – Armenian and Arabic. Written attestations in Turkish itself come only later, obviously. (Whether, in spoken language, the Armenians and Arabs got it from the Turks, or perhaps the other way round, is an independent matter.)
 * Nobody has proposed silly stories about "asking directions" and "pointing to the city" or other such nonsense. That's not part of the story as the academic literature has it.
 * I've explained the regularity of the derivation several times earlier.
 * We still go by WP:V here and not by somebody's personal speculation. Especially not if that somebody is a longterm banned user and sockpuppeter, mi hearty. As long as not just some reliable references but all reliable references, without exception, propose this etymology as a fact, it is a fact, for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's because you refuse to use your imagination and blindly accept the dogma that's served to you :) Every vein inside my body tells me that the "eis tin Polin" story is a myth, probably invented by the Greek Orthodox priests. It's so ridiculous that any person who uses a little logic won't buy it. 151.57.170.33 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those truly silly arguments that never seems to die. One would think Turks never heard of Istanbul before 1453! One would think there never was a Turkic name for the city way before 1453, or before 1071. I am no expert, but it is almost a given that the name was not something they invented. At best they adapted, like they did so many names and words from Arabic and Persian. These were the cultures long in contact and conflict with Romans, way before Turks appeared on the scene.--Murat (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate (Again)... and Snow
I've added back the fact that Istanbul sits firmly in a mediterrannean climate regime (Koeppen Csa). There is absolutely no doubt about that, and some editors insist on making much more on the transitional aspect than merits. Please look at the references I provided, which talk about the "big picture" and not micro-level phenomena that result because of the surrounding geography. That aspect is still there, but subservient to the overall climatic zone. The data does not lie. Comparing it to Athens is not justification. Many places in the Mediterranean climatic zones receive oceanic influences- see Genoa or Porto. The other thing is the snow- OK, I gather snow is not "uncommon" in Istanbul, but please keep it in perspective. from what I've read, it usually receives "light" snowfall and "heavy" snowfall is rare. This is, again, similar to Genoa or even Santiago, Chile. No need to make it look like it's Siberia every winter. Koppenlady (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Koppenlady, you've been plying that reference around on numerous city articles I watch, and I've seen resistance to it at every turn, and it really makes me wonder. I don't think that Hydrology and Earth System Sciences PDF and its various tiny maps are a good source. I agree with emphasizing the snow, it does snow often in the winter, and I think limiting Istanbul's winter snows to "a week or two annually" is a gross misstatement. More broadly, and I realize this might blow your mind, but I don't actually believe the Koeppen codes are of any use to Wikipedia's readers, and shouldn't be used on the main articles, but instead be reserved in general for "Climate of Footown" articles.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Patrick... "resistance to it at every turn"?? Hardly... That article shows an update to many Geiger-Koeppen maps that preceded this, and is no different- as it pertains to Istanbul- than earlier Koeppen maps, or even Trewartha's modified classifications- Cs Mediterranean. Period. As for the resistance you note, you are referring to a few situations only where (a) where the zone is borderline (Washington, DC and New York, NY) and I was "proved wrong", or (b) Sydney, where I am correct but there is a strong aversion by a band of editors to any label. Furthermore, the quote regarding snow for "a week or two" was actually there before I got involved, and happens to be supported by various internet sources (do a quick Google search). Emphasising snow is OK (since regular snow is unusual in Csa climates), but not at the expense of skewing the image a reader gains to one of frigid winter wastelands- heavy bizzards are rare by all accounts. I've accepted the "light snowfall" aspect, but there is little (other than hearsay) that heavy snowfalls are common. We cannot rely on recent abnormalities to determine the climatic characteristics of any world location. By the way, even the "transitional climate" reference is about changes brought about by climate change and not historical data- and even it states that Istanbul's climate is Koeppen Cs! Really!... have a look. Koppenlady (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul does not sit firmly in a warm mediterranean climate regime (Köppen Csa) even if it is still categorized as such in various sources, not neatly according to climatic attributes of Istanbul - and that does not include any micro-climatic condition because of its geography, such as the Bosphorus Strait as an example. Furthermore the summer while being the driest season, receives substantial rainfall, but is not very dry or extremely dry, as it is the criteria for a mediterranean climate. Istanbul does not have a "dry season" with a total absence or near absence of rain during summer. The categorization of Istanbul as a warm mediterranean climate regime (Köppen Csa), is questionable and likely obsolete, and not due to "climate change".

An important fact is that the Köppen system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind. But Istanbul’s natural vegetation definitely does not fit the warm mediterranean climate regime (Köppen Csa) unlike Athens, Rome or Los Angeles whose mediterranean vegetation does correspondent with their warm mediterranean climate (Köppen Csa). Istanbul’s dominant biome is the humid temperate broadleaf and mixed forest and constitute the Balkan mixed forests which belongs to the European-Siberian ecoregion of the Palearctic ecozone. The vegetation of Istanbul like the whole Turkish Black Sea and northern Marmara Sea coasts correspondents to the oceanic (Köppen Cfb) and humid subtropical (Köppen Cfa) climate regimes even if Istanbul’s climate is not categorized as such. The mediterranean maquis shrubland vegetation is predominant only on the Princes' Islands just south of the Asian side of Istanbul; and palm trees for example which are not native to Istanbul and Turkish Black Sea and northern Marmara Sea coasts, are not able to grow to their natural height and thrive because Istanbul’s winters are too cold for them and stay miniscule and often die and are replaced by new ones.Saguamundi (talk)
 * You are giving undue weight to the "shrubland" as representative of a Mediterranean climate. While it is the dominant vegetation in classic Med climates (Athens, Los Angeles), it is not the only vegetation in areas of this climatic regime. Istanbul is not a classic example, but it is still firmly in the Csa zone. It has a dry summer with several months receiving less than 30mm of precipitation, at least 8 months are warmer than 10 deg mean, and it rains less than 890mm annually. The fact that oceanic infuences bring regular snowfall in the winter and humidity in the summer do not change this, they only make Istanbul unique within this regime. I have strong references for my statement. What do you have?? Koppenlady (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I would suggest we say the following:

Istanbul has a Mediterranean climate (Koppen climate classification: Csa''), but it is located in a transitional zone with oceanic influences. '' What do you say? Koppenlady (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Saguamundi is correct in that Istanbul does not fit the "typical" Mediterranean format, but based on Koeppen it is still in a Csa climatic zone. This has led me to search for more detailed info, and another wikipedian has introduced me to a much more detailed Spanish anaysis that is truely, in my opinion, more appropriate with its sub-categories and detail. This detailed map, although not based on Koeppen, shows Istanbul as sitting between two Mediterranean Microbioclimatic zones- on the transition between two levels of a Mediterranean bioclimate (Sm and Mm). As you can see, the Sm level (lower Itc levels) stretches through the Black Sea and the Mm level is extensive throughout the Mediterranean basin. Athens, by comparison, sits on a transition with a higher thermal value zone common to other parts of Turkey's southern coast. This other map shows Istanbul in a zone appropriately called "Mediterranean Pluviseasonal Continental". Koppenlady (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding NPOV
I'm not Greek, but the Turkish bias here is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.42.172 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic population
Where do the data for the historic population table come from (especially for the period before the 19th cent.)? There is only one source cited for the year 1477. --Dada (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the "Aegean dialect" mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.37.86 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
About the recent edit-warring: my personal opinion is I find neither of the two collage images very satisfactory, but I find the one favoured by Reenem considerably worse. It has far too many component images. The whole set is too large (pushing the main "info" parts of the "info" box down off the screen), while the individual images are so small they are hardly discernible. The blurring and the manneristic rounded edge at the top are aesthetically unpleasing. And several of the images seem to show uncharacteristic, uninformative buildings.

In general, I don't like the whole idea about these collages. They convey, at best, the aesthetics of a cheap tourist picture postcard, and carry very little actual encyclopedic information. We have a reason we don't encourage "galleries" at the bottom of articles either: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mere image gallery. But the recent proliferation of bad image galleries posing as infoboxes is a perversion of both ideas, that of the gallery and that of the infobox. They are just a waste of screen space, and of the most valuable space on top of it.

I would personally prefer going back to just one single photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Future, I'll give you that credit. The last collage is utterly out of this world... Well on the "Collage" issue in Wikipedia, there are two "schools", from what I can see:


 * The now ubiquitious Collage Pic, with some very nice and some less successful examples as in NYC, Rome or Zürich


 * The Single Pic, as in Isfahan or Paris that can be equally aesthetically pleasant, especially for cities that carry such a soul like Istanbul, but on the other hand, but not being as informative at the first sight as a collage. Of course, a slight perusal of the article is ought to bring up more information for the reader, but again, I want to stress that the collage pic will have the upper hand for the first few seconds.


 * Finally, I do not find the idea of a collage a bad one, as long as it can remain simple and be informative.

Now, (and please) anyone who wants to express their respective opinions abouft the picture issue should please do so, as we should close the subject once and for long, with all respect to the past efforts.

Cheers!

--85.105.212.143 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I myself would favor either one, as Istanbul is one of the world's largest and most historic cities, and it is custom on Wikipedia to give such places a collage. Although I would favor the Lupus-collage as it seems more informative, I would still prefer the other to the current title image.--RM (Be my friend) 04:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I remain strongly opposed to either. (More comments on my user talk.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the top one is fine, certainly much better than the one with all the fuzzy edges. I was originally bewildered by all the collages on city articles, but I have come to like them and now prefer them over the single pictures unless there's something really iconic about a city. That's not the case for Istanbul, and the city is so large and spread out that no one single photo could encapsulate its qualities (no single collage can either, but it gets closer). --  tariq abjotu  22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys I really do not understand what is to be liked about the puzzle-like collage... Can you see ANY thing in it? Anyways if it has to be a collage, let's leave this one and not the big one with too many pictures. Now when talking about the "Wikipedia Custom" of putting collages for historic big cities etc, I think now every metropolis gets one, like Manaus for example has one too, so talking about a custom is quite irrelevant here. Let's put a pic if it is nice and beautiful, not because it is a "custom".

--85.105.212.143 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sister cities
I know sister cities are in the WikiProject Cities Guideline, but at times like this, it gets ridiculous. Insofar as I can tell, the municipality website has no official list of sister cities, and there are more than fifty, based primarily on two unscholarly sources. These cities do not, in any way, help someone understand Istanbul, so I think the article would do just fine without the eyesore of a list. --  tariq abjotu  22:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)