Talk:Istanbul/Archive 8

Picture in the UNESCO infobox


UNESCO's protection in Istanbul covers two areas: "The area inside the walls of Constantinople" and "the area inside the medieval citadel of Galata/Pera" to the north of the Golden Horn. This image is the best one available in Wikimedia Commons which shows both Old Istanbul (Constantinople) and Galata/Pera inside a single frame, perfectly fitting the definition by UNESCO.

It is actually a very rare image, taken from a helicopter and including the Galata Tower (most similar images are taken from the balcony of Galata Tower and therefore do not include the tower.)

The only other way (apart from a helicopter) to take a picture of these two areas (including Galata Tower) within a single frame is to take a "panorama picture" from the Salacak neighbourhood of the Üsküdar district, on the Asian side of the Bosphorus.

I know that a section of the image is used in the collage, but it is cut in half, with lower resolution quality. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong: the historic areas are so defined by UNESCO:


 * the Archaeological Park at the tip of the peninsula;
 * the Süleymaniye quarter;
 * the Zeyrek quarter;
 * the zone of the ramparts;


 * please read Historic Areas of Istanbul or the UNESCO definition. Alex2006 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)



This silhouette image including the Maiden's Tower (Leander's Tower) looks well inside the UNESCO infobox. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, I don't agree with you on this issue. Because,your feedback contains many contradictions. You are talking about historic areas declared by UNESCO in Istanbul.After than you use Maiden's Tower photo this infobox? As far as I know, Maiden's Tower is not in this list! Unfortunately, Maiden's Tower in foreground. Aerial photo is so poor quality and at present, used in the article. Hagia Sophia and Sultan Ahmed Mosque are the most important in this historic region. I think silhouette photo more appropriate than others. As a result, it's an info box picture and previously,there wasn't a picture!! Maurice (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mauric,e . Alex2006 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe Vecihi has a point, silhoutte image that you insistently want to put in the article is in line with orientalist depictions of the city so it would be better to replace it. I really don't understand this ongoing fascination with dark, shadowy, exoticized imagery of Istanbul and I believe most Istanbulites would not really be happy with the representation of their city through such exoticized, darkened images that do not pay respect to the liveliness of the city. It shouldnt be that difficult to find another picture with Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque in it.

The name
"I stan Bul" means : stan - turkish word for city of Bul (Bulgarians) or "Many" (in turkish - Bol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

NAME
Istanbul is actually a greek phrase " εις την πόλη" that Turks made a turkish word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.196.183 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013
Ahmet Gürsakal (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. You're apparently proposing (using hidden text) that the infobox's skyline image be changed to this one. If so, please explain why you think this would be an improvement. Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013


from top to bottom and from left to right: Bosphorus Bridge; Maiden Tower; Sultan Ahmed Mosque; Valens Aqueduct; Rumelihisarı; Levent;Maslak;Haydarpaşa Terminal ; Bosphorus ; Ortaköy Mosque ; Bosphorus Bridge ; Türk Telekom Arena

Ahmet Gürsakal (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a request to change the infobox image. If that is indeed the case then a discussion above indicates that modifying the infobox image might be controversial, so it should not be changed without first establishing consensus. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * image          = İstanbul city-5.jpg
 * image_size     = 300px|


 * Oppose to the change. First, in this collage there too many pictures. in the previous RFC there was consensus that this collage should contain at most 5-6 pictures (here we have ten). moreover, I think that some of these pictures are insignificant, while important places in the city (like Beyoglu) are missing. Alex2006 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)



New Collage and Cityscape picture


1) Cityscape section needs a wide picture 2) Newer collage is required. Showing a tram is a bad choice when there are so many other attractive pictures. Cavann (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I like the cityscape picture that you inserted.
 * 2) Some months ago we had a lengthy discussion about the collage, which I advise you to read. The existing collage is the one which got the consensus of most users. Alex2006 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By "some months ago", you mean almost a year ago. Is this consensus eternal? Cavann (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost seven months ago. Of course consensus is not eternal, but you should get a similar consensus if you want to change the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will wait for the input. Cavann (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion about the collage in September 2012 and an RfC in November 2012. This is not a crucial part of the article, and you need to give it some time rather insisting we change the image on a whim.
 * The panoramic image is probably fine, although I should caution you that one concern about having a panorama (although this was primarily in reference to the infobox) is that it's hard to get an image that adequately captures the skyline given the city's vast area. We do not want to end up with the mess that's in the Houston article where multiple panoramas are used to capture the entire skyline. Your image, obviously, is just one panorama, but a question to consider is whether that adequately depicts Istanbul's skyline (whatever its "skyline" is perceived to be). No comment on that. --  tariq abjotu  20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple pictures are needed to capture the skyline in a meaningful manner, since there are multiple "downtowns." Cavann (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, then if you admit that, why are you attempting to put a panorama in that won't capture the skyline in a meaningful manner? One is fine, but multiple is highly discouraged and unlikely to achieve consensus. --  tariq abjotu  20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Observe articles like Paris, New York City, where they have several wide images. My point was that there is no continuous one skyline. Cavann (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that, and they look terrible. No way the article would pass FAC like that. Those panoramas amount to just decoration, which is not the purpose of images in articles. --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know see those articles are not FA. However, the panorama image I suggested shows the historic peninsula, Bosphorus, Dolmabahce, in addition to parts of modern skyline; it'd make a nice addition. Cavann (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

City's foundation in infobox and wording in history section are incorrect
City's history goes back to Neolitic "It all shows there was a Neolithic settlement here in the historic peninsula of Istanbul where people lived, farmed and fished," he adds. There are also Semistra and Lygos

Now, currently, the line in history section, "However, the history of Istanbul generally begins around 660 BC," and the "established" part in infobox use note a as a source. All the sources in note a are seriously dated. One is a translation of Herodotus which is thousands of years old. The others are the following: Isaac 1986, Roebuck 1959, Lister 1979, and Freely 1996. All these sources predate Neolithic discoveries and, hence, are no longer valid. Finally, most importantly, note a refers to foundation of Byzantium and completely ignores the issue of earlier settlements.

As such information in infobox, and the particular line in history section needs to be changed. Cavann (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In the context of ancient Greek poleis, a city's foundation is when it is founded as a city, which implies a certain political organisation, legal constitution, name and so on. Earlier informal settlements on the same site just don't count. Whatever was there before Byzantium may have been some fishermen's villages, but it wasn't Byzantium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about Istanbul, the current city. Hence its history encompasses all of its history, not just since Byzantium. That was my point. Cavann (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fut.Perf. is right. This article is about the city, not the site where the city lies. I think that you do not understand (yet) the difference between these two concepts. If you know Italian, you can usefully read the first volume of the "Storia di Roma" edited by Einaudi, where this difference is fully explained in the context of the foundation of Rome. Palatine hill was inhabited at least 13,000 years before the establishment of the city, but none thinks to link directly these settlements to the future city. This of course does not mean that the info about Istanbul's site during Neolithic should be censored or removed, but it should be clear that we are talking about another thing. Alex2006 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Alessandro57, learn to read. The first settlements in Istanbul was in 6400 BC. That's what the infobox states. Your subjective understanding of what a city is irrelevant. What matters are the sources. Byzantium would not be considered a city in today's standards as well, certainly not compared to 13 million Istanbul. Cavann (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo Cavann, there is a discussion ongoing, and 2 people (me and Fut.Perf.) have another opinion. Please leave the original version until the discussion is over, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete referenced information and do not WP:OWN the article. You are acting in an irrational manner. Cavann (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, I don't know since when you are active in Wikipedia, but if you change something, and this info is contested, a thread will be opened on the talk page, and the original version is kept until consensus on the change has been reached: this procedure is called Edit-Revert-Discuss. I have been still reverted a lot of times, and this is for me only the sign that a discussion must take place. I am against Edit wars, but this means that next time that you revert the article without waiting for the end of discussion I will contact an administrator. Coming back to what you say, this is not "subjective understanding", but is a standard notion in historic research. Alex2006 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which you have not referenced with respect to Istanbul. Until then, you cannot revert reliably sourced material just because you feel like it. Please read Neutral point of view, which is a core policy in Wikipedia. Cavann (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Archaeology is not done by the BBC per WP:NOTNEWS. Wait for the archaeologist to publish his paper before you change longstanding information. Also at Talk:Turkey you said to Athenean:
 * Now on this talkpage you said to Alessandro57:
 * I think it is high time you learned WP:NPA. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote from the BBC:
 * Conclusion: Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. So, in all of previous recorded history, Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. But, wait, "Breaking News"!!! "Not True"! A BBC reporter has just now reported the earth-shaking news that what historians believed up to now is wrong. This, without waiting for the discovering archaeologist to publish his findings in a reputable journal and without waiting for them to be peer-reviewed and for historians to critique the paper, accept it or reject it. Archaeology is not done by BBC news or any other news, especially if it is an extraordinary claim such as this. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is high time you learned WP:NPA. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote from the BBC:
 * Conclusion: Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. So, in all of previous recorded history, Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. But, wait, "Breaking News"!!! "Not True"! A BBC reporter has just now reported the earth-shaking news that what historians believed up to now is wrong. This, without waiting for the discovering archaeologist to publish his findings in a reputable journal and without waiting for them to be peer-reviewed and for historians to critique the paper, accept it or reject it. Archaeology is not done by BBC news or any other news, especially if it is an extraordinary claim such as this. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. So, in all of previous recorded history, Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. But, wait, "Breaking News"!!! "Not True"! A BBC reporter has just now reported the earth-shaking news that what historians believed up to now is wrong. This, without waiting for the discovering archaeologist to publish his findings in a reputable journal and without waiting for them to be peer-reviewed and for historians to critique the paper, accept it or reject it. Archaeology is not done by BBC news or any other news, especially if it is an extraordinary claim such as this. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There you go. Abstract:

An extensive rescue excavation has been conducted in the ancient harbor of İstanbul (Yenikapı) by the Sea of Marmara, revealing a depositional sequence displaying clear evidence of transgression and coastal progradation during the Holocene. The basal layer of this sequence lies at 6 m below the present sea level and contains remains of a Neolithic settlement known to have been present in the area, indicating that the sea level at ~ 8–9 cal ka BP was lower than 6 m below present. Sea level advanced to its maximum at ~ 6.8–7 cal ka BP, drowning Lykos Stream and forming an inlet at its mouth. After ~ 3 cal ka BP, coastal progradation became evident. Subsequent construction of the Byzantine Harbor (Theodosius; 4th century AD) created a restricted small basin and accumulation of fine-grained sediments. The sedimentation rate was increased due to coastal progradation and anthropogenic factors during the deposition of coarse-grained sediments at the upper parts of the sequence (7th–9th centuries AD). The harbor was probably abandoned after the 11th century AD by filling up with Lykos Stream detritus and continued seaward migration of the coastline
 * Quotes:

There are as yet no absolute dates available from the prehistoric layers; however, large amounts of diagnostic pottery sherds have been recovered which display the distinct features of various cultural assemblages previously recorded and dated from other excavations in northwestern Turkey.....On the other hand, the material found in this horizon was mostly of Archaic Fikirtepe, Classical Fikirtepe, Yarımburgaz 4 and 3/2 horizons, covering the time range between 6600 and 5530 BC. There were also a few, but rather dubious, sherds that might be of an earlier age....The location of the Neolithic settlement at Yenikapı is similar to other contemporary sites, being located within easy reach of the sea coast
 * Source: Oya Algan, M. Namık Yalçın, Mehmet Özdoğan, Yücel Yılmaz, Erol Sarı, Elmas Kırcı-Elmas, İsak Yılmaz, Özlem Bulkan, Demet Ongan, Cem Gazioğlu, Atike Nazik, Mehmet Ali Polat, Engin Meriç, Holocene coastal change in the ancient harbor of Yenikapı–İstanbul and its impact on cultural history, Quaternary Research, Volume 76, Issue 1, July 2011, Pages 30-45, ISSN 0033-5894, 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.04.002. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411000457) Cavann (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar results for this paper: Cited by two. It is far from being accepted widely by historians and I don't see anyone rushing to update the prevailing 700 BC. estimate of the settlement of Istanbul based on that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is "accepted widely by historians"? Source?
 * We already knew there were settlements prior to Byzantine, and that's already in the article (and sourced), but not reflected in the infobox. Did you read the history section of the article?
 * Also look at Reliable sources. Your google scholar argument is a stupid one, especially considering it's a 2011 paper. In any case Wikipedia is neutral and it is not appropriate for you to try to push an agenda here, while ignoring reliable sources (i.e., journal articles). Cavann (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you admit yourself that the paper is new, so it is obviously not very well known, therefore not accepted by historians. If it were accepted by historians then the historians who accepted it they would have made their acceptance known. If it is not known and Google Scholar does not pick it up then it is not mature enough to be included in an encyclopaedia such as this one. As far as your aggressive statements, your links to WP:NOT, and your allegations about my agenda as well as your vulgar and meritless statements about my use of Google Scholar, I can only say that you look completely over the top and out of control. Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This ridiculous answer made me laugh. First, you asked for the paper. Now you are saying we should wait till the historians make "their acceptance known." Do you expect a worldwide declaration? LOL. Meanwhile, as I said, your original implication about Byzantine being the first settlement is incorrect anyway. Cavann (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous answer according to your own doubtful standards. Do you expect a worldwide declaration? No. But I expect citations in other scholarly works making mention of this paper and then revising the date of establishment of Istanbul. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is "the date of establishment of Istanbul"? Cite the reference.
 * Meanwhile, history of Istanbul goes way back, according to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality . Cavann (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How about:

Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with FP, Alex, and Dr. K. What matters is when the first city was founded, not a collection of Neolithic fishing huts (which, by the way, is already included). The period before 660 BC is prehistory, so there is nothing wrong with the statement "The history of Istanbul generally begins...". As for the infobox, the key dates for this city are 660 BC, 330 AD, 1453, and perhaps 1930. Not some vague prehistoric date that is the product of speculation based on pot shards. Athenean (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Byzantium is not a city compared to today's Istanbul either, and is as insignificant as Neolithic settlements may be relative to itself, if not more. The space in infobox (now deleted) informed the reader about when Istanbul was "first settled." That info needs to be correct. "generally begins" is an unsourced weasel statement and against WP:NPOV. Cavann (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand (or don't want to understand) the concept of "city", which has nothing to do with its dimensions: Read this statement:


 * and also:


 * Of course this is a general concept that can be applied to any ancient city, not (as you wrote) just to Rome. As Athenean writes, a collections of huts (also of 1,000,000 huts) still does not make a city: the difference between a settlement and a city is qualitative, not quantitative, and - as Rousseau writes - lies at the end in his inhabitants. Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Bloom et al. are quite clear:
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree absolutely. What I wanted to remark is that the problem is general, and is a cultural one. Instead, one could ask him/herself why this kind of discussions always keeps exploding here, and not at the Rome, Paris, London Talk pages, although each European city, (from Istanbul to Rome, from Paris to London) has been built over (more) ancient settlements. But this is another question :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. As to motives one can only hope. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  06:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally coming up with some sources. Note that all those sources predate newer research. Also note that some sources do not necessarily say Istanbul's establishment is Byzantine establishment. They just say things like "Byzantine, now Istanbul". The most clear source is an encyclopedia: "Whatever the prehistoric antecedents of Istanbul, the continuous historical development of the site began with the foundation of a Greek colony from Megara in the mid-7th century bce." But again, this source is not up to date and  tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are not preferable. In any case, I created a RFC. Cavann (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You said:
 * Wrong. The source has a built-in clause which automatically nullifies any prehistoric connection to the establishment of the city as a historical entity, so it automatically excludes any papers relating to times prior to the establishment of Byzantium. Here it is again:
 * Your paper deals with prehistoric settlements. This is exactly the type of paper this reference explicitly nullifies.
 * Even a book published by a Turkish publisher mentions:
 * This is beating a dead carcass way past its decomposition state well into WP:IDHT territory. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, beating a dead carcass seems like ignoring WP:NPOV. There can be no "built-in clause" from an out-of-date source, if the prehistoric settelement is discovered in the very heart of old Istanbul in 2010.
 * WP:IDHT is also refusal/inability to get the point that we are talking about "first settlement" in the infobox, not "establishment of the city." Establishment of city could also be establishment of metropolitan municipality. Cavann (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is beating a dead carcass way past its decomposition state well into WP:IDHT territory. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, beating a dead carcass seems like ignoring WP:NPOV. There can be no "built-in clause" from an out-of-date source, if the prehistoric settelement is discovered in the very heart of old Istanbul in 2010.
 * WP:IDHT is also refusal/inability to get the point that we are talking about "first settlement" in the infobox, not "establishment of the city." Establishment of city could also be establishment of metropolitan municipality. Cavann (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Should Istanbul's pre-Byzantine history be mentioned in the city's infobox? Newer research shows that Istanbul's historic peninsula had been inhabited longer than previously thought (newspaper article: ; abstract of the journal article ). Government of Istanbul also says the city is older than what the current infobox states. Basically, should this change be made in the article ? Some editors are opposing this change, based on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which predate newer research. Note that no one is suggesting removing anything from the current infobox, just adding more information for a more complete portrayal of city's history. Cavann (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what makes you think that whatever recent archaeological findings you read about somehow invalidate the common historiographical definition that a city's "history" begins when continuous, well-documented, organised city-like settlement begins. It has always been known that there were other settlements there on that site before Byzantium proper. That's old news. Whether we are just talking about an Illyrian "Lygos" of a couple centuries older, or about something neolithic of several millenia older, really makes no difference in principle. Because either way, these settlements were just that: other settlements, not the same city. No continuity between them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "No continuity between them"? An up to date source? The new discovery at Yenikapi is in Istanbul's historic peninsula. The current infoxbox is against WP:NPOV as it ignores other sources including Government of Istanbul website. Cavann (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, your "new" discovery is actually four years old and has been in the article for the past three years. --  tariq abjotu  22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know. My issue is that it is not represented in the infobox. This is my proposed change . I said new because it is newer than the tertiary sources presented above. Cavann (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No This RfC is completely unnecessary, a reactionary response to an issue with which Cavaan is clearly in the wrong. Cavaan's "new" information is not actually "new" to this article; as shown in Cavaan's own diff, there is already a paragraph at the start of the History section that mentions how long human beings have resided within the present-day city limits of Istanbul. But their residence is not a city. Choosing to take up residence on a deserted island does not constitute the establishment of a city, and so, as far as an article on a modern-day city is concerned, what pre-historic peoples of the region did are of little consequence. In concert with every other city article on Wikipedia, the infobox ought to display the establishment of the city apparatus, which historians still, now, even today, believe occurred in the 7th century BCE with the foundation of Byzantium. --  tariq abjotu  22:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality:
 * So, the infobox needs to represent a comprehensive picture. Cavann (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, which is it, 7.000 BC or 7th century BC? That source (not a reliable one anyway) is evidently confused. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The journal article is reliable. And the answer is there is no one correct answer. Hence, the infobox needs to be comprehensive and cover all viewpoints (ie: WP:NPOV). I am not sure why adding "first settled" into the infobox, without deleting anything, is so controversial. Cavann (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And from what I can see, the journal article says nothing about those neolithic settlements being part of the history of Istanbul as a city. It simply says that some neolithic settlement existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does:
 * Cavann (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As FPaS said, the source just says that some neolithic settlements existed. --  tariq abjotu  23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence, the addition of "first settled" into the infobox. Duh! Cavann (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...under a field entitled "Established". Believe it or not, that field is meant to be used to denote when a city was established, not when the area encompassing the city was "first settled". --  tariq abjotu  23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NOT under a field entitled "Established". Jeez! As I said several times before, it would look like this: User:Cavann/sandbox.Cavann (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. And that would be accomplished, according to your own proposed diff, by putting that information under fields entitled established_title and established_date. --  tariq abjotu  23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a template and that field can read "First settled". Jeez. Template:Infobox_settlement Cavann (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's "First settled" as an "Established city" not as a neolithic settlement. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Dr. K's point is demonstrated by the examples in New York City and Chicago. Those articles note that they were "settled" in 1624 and the 1770s, respectively. However, there is ample evidence that there were people in both locations well before Europeans arrived on the American continent, before the 15th century. However, those pre-European settlements were merely geographic coincidences and have nothing to do with the creation and development of the modern cities. We have the same here; the beginning of Byzantium marked the settlement of what would ultimately become the city of Istanbul. The neolithic settlements were just groups of people that happened to be located on the same site.
 * That being said, why I'm arguing with someone who has an answer and an attitude for everything is beyond me. --  tariq abjotu  00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Dr. K's point is demonstrated by the examples in New York City and Chicago. Those articles note that they were "settled" in 1624 and the 1770s, respectively. However, there is ample evidence that there were people in both locations well before Europeans arrived on the American continent, before the 15th century. However, those pre-European settlements were merely geographic coincidences and have nothing to do with the creation and development of the modern cities. We have the same here; the beginning of Byzantium marked the settlement of what would ultimately become the city of Istanbul. The neolithic settlements were just groups of people that happened to be located on the same site.
 * That being said, why I'm arguing with someone who has an answer and an attitude for everything is beyond me. --  tariq abjotu  00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. This article is about the historic origins of the historical city. It is not about its prehistoric antecendents, or any prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlers of the area of the historic city. We even have a reference which states exactly that and we have many more which imply that. Hunter gatherers don't "establish" cities. Case closed. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concept of city goes back to Neolithic . And neolithic is not "hunter gatherers." Cavann (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yesterday it was "Byzantium is not a city", today it's "concept of city goes back to Neolithic". You're clutching at straws here, and have begun contradicting yourself.  Athenean (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Byzantium is not a city compared to today's Istanbul either" does not mean Byzantium wasn't a city at the time Cavann (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Byzantium is not a city compared to today's Istanbul either Citation needed. Now you are clutching at straws. You conveniently ignore the totality of reliable sources all of which recognise Byzantium as a  historically significant city. So your original research-based comparisons and conclusions are useless.  Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   11:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Frivolous RFC. Obvious case of WP:IDHT. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT is also refusal/inability to get the point that we are talking about "first settlement" in the infobox, not "establishment of the city." Establishment of city could also be establishment of metropolitan municipality. Cavann (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the only one arguing about these points over and over again. The only one. And none is agreeing with you. This should tell you something but it doesn't. This is the very definition of WP:IDHT. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a simple majority democracy. Yet again, you are ignoring WP:NPOV. But you are right, this discussion is going nowhere. Cavann (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there is something called consensus. And when we have five experienced editors, some of whom are experts in this area, agreeing with each other and vehemently disagreeing with a lone, not-so-experienced editor, that's consensus. There is a reason no one has come to your aid, and no one will.  This is the same exact situation as the recent ruckus over at Turkey with your attempts to insert off-topic info about the genetic continuity of the Turkish people in the lede of that article .  As you misunderstood the purpose of an article's lede there, you are now misunderstanding the purpose of infoboxes.  Infoboxes are for showing important, well-established facts at a glance, not for including the latest cutting edge research in a field or pet theories.  Your inexperience coupled with your incredible tenacity is rapidly becoming disruptive, and yes, you are deep into WP:IDHT territory by now, not to mention WP:NPA. Athenean (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider this also:
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cavann (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They provided important evidences about the cultural, artistic and geological changes underwent by our city in a period of 8500 years,... Emphasis on "changes". Translation: "Look how far we have come having started from a bunch of fishermen's huts back in the neolithic...". Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  11:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cavann (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They provided important evidences about the cultural, artistic and geological changes underwent by our city in a period of 8500 years,... Emphasis on "changes". Translation: "Look how far we have come having started from a bunch of fishermen's huts back in the neolithic...". Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  11:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See Thread above. Alex2006 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good grief, give it a rest. Maybe we're all wrong and you're right, but you haven't persuaded anyone and I don't think you're about to. Rivertorch (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I would not mind an addition to the infobox re "Early settlement," -- "first" is rather poor because I am sure no-one doubts that as soon as homo sapiens (or even other hominini) arrived in the area some settled there for a time or intermittently. But it is hardly a necessity and it is very different information from the founding of an urban center.  However, the current infobox also appears, NPOV and verified so the claims made above by the OP seem like a clear case of overreaching to get the edit that User desires, and there is merit in the argument that the current way of treating the information in the text (not the infobox) is appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the lead is currently devoted to history, but it completely ignores pre-Byzantine history despite the notability. That is against WP:NPOV. Cavann (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about the infobox, not the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Words. There are none. --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the issue is related. Violation of NPOV (ignoring sources that are more inclusive about the history). Should I start another RFC for the lead? As for the infobox, "Early settlement" sounds good. The overall point is that early settlements are notable and should not be ignored in the infobox or the lead.
 * Cavann (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. As I wrote before, a settlement is not a city. Moreover, as Fut.Perf. wrote above, there is no continuity between the settlement of Yenikapi and the future city. This settlement now lies 6.5 m to 9.5 m under the sea level, because it was flooded by the rising level of the lake of Marmara. The transformation of the lake into a sea, the formation of Bosporus and other catastrophic events provoked the destruction of all the settlements in today's urban area, and this is the reason why there are almost no trace of settlements during Chalcolithic Age in Istanbul. In that period I don't think that was a very smart idea to live near Istanbul peninsula. :-) Also, bronze age findings inside the peninsula are missing, while at the time there were flourishing towns like Selimpasa in the Marmara region. So, time continuity is totally missing here. A last observation: Yarimburgaz is also inside today's city limits (Kücüc Cekmece), so maybe one should write in the inbox that the first settlement in Istanbul dates from 800,000 ago (Yarimburgaz 1). :-) About presence of this info in the lead: almost each large European city has been preceded by prehistoric settlements (Istanbul is no special case), but I don't see trace of them in any article lead, in wikipedia or other encyclopedias, and I don't see why we should make an exception here.  Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Article says settlement was moved after rising sea. Cavann (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. As I wrote before, a settlement is not a city. Moreover, as Fut.Perf. wrote above, there is no continuity between the settlement of Yenikapi and the future city. This settlement now lies 6.5 m to 9.5 m under the sea level, because it was flooded by the rising level of the lake of Marmara. The transformation of the lake into a sea, the formation of Bosporus and other catastrophic events provoked the destruction of all the settlements in today's urban area, and this is the reason why there are almost no trace of settlements during Chalcolithic Age in Istanbul. In that period I don't think that was a very smart idea to live near Istanbul peninsula. :-) Also, bronze age findings inside the peninsula are missing, while at the time there were flourishing towns like Selimpasa in the Marmara region. So, time continuity is totally missing here. A last observation: Yarimburgaz is also inside today's city limits (Kücüc Cekmece), so maybe one should write in the inbox that the first settlement in Istanbul dates from 800,000 ago (Yarimburgaz 1). :-) About presence of this info in the lead: almost each large European city has been preceded by prehistoric settlements (Istanbul is no special case), but I don't see trace of them in any article lead, in wikipedia or other encyclopedias, and I don't see why we should make an exception here.  Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Article says settlement was moved after rising sea. Cavann (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Excessive images
I don't know why this is a recurring on this article, but I request that those interested in adding more images to the article please read Picture tutorial. In particular, consider Picture tutorial. There are already many images of Istanbul in this article, and while there are no doubt many more beautiful images available on the Internet, they cannot all fit in this article (to avoid stack-ups and sandwiching text). The currently is near or at capacity in this regard. If you believe you have found an image better than one of the current images (in terms of aesthetics or in terms of informativeness), then by all means, replace the former image with a new one. But the article does not have room for more.

Also, there was an RfC on the infobox collage in November, so please don't change it without talk page consensus. --  tariq abjotu  19:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The cityscape section needs a wide panorama image. Please see other articles. I am not sure if your objections are well-intentioned, or if it is a simple case of WP:OWN, since you seem to be reverting everything. Cavann (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are one to speak. And I need not dignify your baseless insinuation with any meaningful response. --  tariq abjotu  20:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First, Tariq, do try to keep comments on the topic of the article. But I do agree with your effort to limit the image stackups, and to address the issue of the panorama, I have to disagree that cityscape "needs" a panorama. The cityscape section is about the various different districts in the city, only or or two of which are visible in that panorama. Much better to have an example of an interesting area, like the yalı, than a generic skyline.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One important point is that a lot of the current images are poor choices. This is in contrast to other major cities' articles, where good and quality images have been selected.
 * Also, the panorama image was not a generic skyline image, as it included Hagia Sophia and Dolmabahce Palace. Cavann (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Did you read the comment I was responding to? It was the farthest thing from a comment on the topic on the article. It was pretty much just an attack, and I am well within my bounds, as any normal person would do, to point out that it was baseless. And considering the complaint's reaction to being told ten ways until Sunday that he was wrong about an issue (see the preceding two sections), yes, he is one to speak.
 * Oh, but I'm the one who needs to be reminded to comment on content. Ridiculous, and you'll be certain I ignore any further advice you dole out in my direction. --  tariq abjotu  21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I'm the one who needs to be reminded to comment on content. Ridiculous, and you'll be certain I ignore any further advice you dole out in my direction. --  tariq abjotu  21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic predictions
Last time I checked, we don't include predictions about economic performance in articles, particularly in the lead. I checked the other FA city articles, I don't see preditictions of the type "By year X, city X will have the Z economy in the world". And for good, reason, a lot can happen between now and, say, 2025. Same goes for country articles by the way. Athenean (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems acceptable for the Economy section, but, yes, for the lead it's out of place. --  tariq abjotu  17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is covered under WP:CRYSTAL. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is notable that it is one of the fastest growing. I changed the source which reflects past performance rather than future projections, tho. Cavann (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo Cavann, this is exactly the meaning of these "projections". The information that they give is about past, not future. There are so many things that can happen in the next 15 years in Istanbul (just to mention one, the large quake which should hit the city in the next future according to many scientists) that writing something like that is meaningless. On the other side, giving info about the past economics performance of the city is absolutely OK. Alex2006 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Byzantine history in the lead
There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored despite the notability.

A sentence, emphasizing Istanbul location and previous settlements, would improve the lead.Cavann (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think the prehistoric information is sufficiently notable to be included in the lead. Same arguments as to why this information is not sufficiently notable to be included in the infobox (explained to you in the two sections above  ) apply here.  Re-cycling the same technical publication over and over until you get the result you want isn't going to work. Athenean (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You understand the difference between infobox and the lead, right? Cavann (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this line of questioning a recycled form of the "Learn to read"TM campaign? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cavann: Insults and mockery will get you absolutely nowhere. Athenean (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Through edit-warring, and in an underhanded reversal of the stable lead, the phrase: Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium, the city... has been changed to Byzantium was founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC... thereby imposing the POV that Byzantium is not the founding city of Istanbul as established by reliable sources and by consensus. This is unacceptable. There is also  no consensus for the neolithic information to be at the lead. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   00:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The changes I made sidesteps the entire issue of "establishment of city." It just provides a better overview of the article. Pre-Byzantine history is already in the article, but was ignored in the lead. Cavann (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your rewrite, irrespectively of the inclusion of the neolithic information against consensus, has removed the phrase Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium, the city... which explicitly connects the founding of the city to Byzantium. This is not what the reliable sources say and you cannot gloss over this important point of the historical founding of the city. Your changes are unacceptable, against consensus and imposed by edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We can say: "The first city, Byzantium, was founded..." How does that sound? Cavann (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, definitely we cannot. The reliable sources are clear that Byzantium was the founding city of Istanbul. I don't know why I have to remind you because you full well know where they are, but for a sample see the collapsed section above. This has been the stable and consensus version for a long time. Once more, here is a sample from the reliable sources: Under the name of Byzantium, it was founded as a colony of the Greek city of Megara about 650 BC and grew rich ... You cannot suppress this simple fact by edit-warring and by the false pretense of misleading edit summaries: added a sentence to the lead, re-worded a bit . Please revert yourself. Your edit is disruptive and unsustainable. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  01:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why a Neolithic fishing village that just happens to be located within city limits is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the lead. Athenean (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't only that. It is also the suppression of Byzantium as the founding city of Istanbul despite consensus, all the reliable sources and discussions. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have on my desk the (beautiful) catalog of the exhibition held 3 years ago in Sabanci Museum "From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 years of a capital". Given the title (a little contradictory :-)), I thought that this could give good arguments for the insertion on the lead of something about "prehistoric Istanbul". Unfortunately it is not so:
 * in the (lengthy) introduction of Dogan Kuban there is not a single word about prehistoric settlements, but he begins with the foundation of Byzantion;
 * in the catalog itself, the first part is called "Prehistory (devoted to the settlements) and the birth of a city". The first part is divided into two phases: "Early Traces" and "City in the classical period" which are clearly divided;
 * to all the prehistoric settlements (not just Yenikapi) are devoted 18 pages, out of 512.

I think that these considerations, together with what I wrote 10 days ago (the singularity in space and time of this settlement, washed out by the rising of the lake after some years) closes in a negative sense the debate about its notability for the lead: the info about the settlements is important enough to be cited in the article (as it was) but not in the lead.

And now, a service consideration :-) : why this debate is still going on? I think that it was closed 10 days ago, after my last considerations. I don`t think that is a good strategy to reopen a debate hoping that the contributor to whom one was not able to reply, is now taking a leave from Wikipedia... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the 64,000 Dollar Question. :) It has happened also for the collage at the infobox and in the same manner. Can anyone discern a pattern emerging? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  12:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox map
The map in the infobox shows Istanbul near the Dardanelles, in the wrong place. Other maps agree Istanbul is on the Bosphorus. The coordinates look OK, so something more complicated is to blame. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks perfectly fine to me. I suggest you take a screenshot and upload it to a photo-sharing site like Imgur (since you don't have the appropriate permissions to upload onto Wikipedia) to illustrate what you're seeing. --  tariq abjotu  20:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is my (first ever) screenshot. It isn't as clear as it is on my computer, but it's good enough to show Istanbul on the wrong side of the Sea of Marmara. Windows 8, Firefox 19.0.2 67.160.69.105 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... that's very odd. Let me see if I can perhaps find an answer to this conundrum. --  tariq abjotu  18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Today (which is months later) I looked back here and found that for me, Istanbul is now in the correct location. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC
There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive historical focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored in the lead even though it is notable enough. Should a sentence mentioning this time period be added into the lead? This would provide a better overview of the article, given that pre-Byzantine history is already in the article. Cavann (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the sentence I suggested:


 * And here are some sources why it is notable enough:


 * Cavann (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering how long it would be before this user filed an RfC. What's this one, number 7 is less than two weeks?  In the section above and two other talkpage sections   there is a clear consensus that a neolithic fishing village that has no continuity with the historic city is not worthy of mention in neither the infobox nor the lead.  However, Cavann simply refuses to listen and keeps filing RfC after RfC until he gets the result he wants. Athenean (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * He cites the same paper in the section above . Just one paper, over and over and over, in an increasingly desperate attempt to have his way. Athenean (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See here and here  for counterarguments as to why this neolithic fishing village is NOT notable, and how this user simply refuses to listen. Athenean (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about the lead, not the infobox. This is the first RFC about the lead. Cavann (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the 7th one you've filed in what, 10 days? It's not any more lead worthy than it is infobox worthy.  The reasons were explained to you above, but apparently it didn't register. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 2nd one including other articles in the past 10 days. Counting to 2 shouldn't be such a challenge. Cavann (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you've filed so many in the last month or so that I lost count. And you were told this was disruptive, but again that didn't register.  Seems like nothing does. Athenean (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether it's inserting Neolithic foundation dates in the infobox or fanciful prediction of where Turkey's economy will be in 2060, everyone has disagreed with you. That should tell you something. I think Alessandro said it best above . Athenean (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please comment on content, not the contributor, Athenean. If you have issues with user conduct, address it at the appropriate places. Thanks. Cavann (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're one to talk about commenting on content, not the contributor, what with your "learn to read" campaign, and your sarcastic comments about "counting to 2". If you want respect, you need to respect others. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet, even in these lean times, there is no moratoria or limitation to the number of RfC's an editor can request (AND PRAISE BE FOR IT). It should be noted that the lede should summarise the body- and therefore not mention anything not expanded upon later. Know wot I mean? Basket Feudalist 10:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well in the entire history section there are only 2-3 sentences devoted to the Neolithic, therefore adding it to the lead seems excessive. The Neolithic settlement Cavann wants to add was anyway abandoned after flooding, so there is no continuity with that settlement and the current city. It's just an abandoned Neolithic fishing village that just happens to be located somewhere within city limits, as is actually the case with most cities in this part of the world. Athenean (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Athenean, please do not misrepresent sources. This does not improve Wikipedia. It was not only a fishing village. And it was not necessarily completely abandoned to outside today's Istanbul. You have been told this before. Thanks..
 * Cavann (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it was an entire paragraph about pre-Byzantine history including Thracian settlements, not just 2 sentences. However, you are right; I added more information. Cavann (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is possible" means that the authors have no clue, and this is understandable, because what they write are the result of a rescue excavation in situ. Maybe they moved inland, maybe they resettled on the new coast x km west, maybe they just escaped, and so on. So, there is no demonstrated space and time continuity in the settlement, as Athenean says. What Basket Feudalist wrote, is simply that writing something in the article is a necessary condition to have it in the lead, but not sufficient. Moreover, expanding too much an argument, let you easily fall in WP:UNDUE. In other words, you cannot give to a prehistoric settlement the same space as, let`s say, Constantine`s Age. Alex2006 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you just wrote is irrelevant to what I said, "it was not necessarily completely abandoned to outside today's Istanbul," or the suggested addition into the lead, "Early settlements in the area date back to Neolithic, including ancient Thracian settlements." Cavann (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It was not necessarily completely abandoned to outside today's Istanbul" is clutching at straws. This is an encyclopedia article, and we are not going to engage in speculation.  Point is, there is no continuity between this collection of fishing huts and Byzantium, from which the current city derives.  As such, it is not sufficiently notable to go into the lead, period.  I don't care if you copy-paste the entire 2011 paper into the history section, it won't change that. Athenean (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There were settlements before Byzantium until and after Byzantium was established. The suggested sentence is not solely about Yenikapi site. Cavann (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your analysis of the expression "it is possible". In fact "it is possible" is a catch-all phrase which can mean that an event could happen even if the likelihood of the event happening may be extremely remote, as in "it is possible that tomorrow the earth may be hit by giant meteorite". In this case it is used as an attempt to lend some credence to pure speculation. But what is new? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  07:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your analysis of the expression "it is possible". In fact "it is possible" is a catch-all phrase which can mean that an event could happen even if the likelihood of the event happening may be extremely remote, as in "it is possible that tomorrow the earth may be hit by giant meteorite". In this case it is used as an attempt to lend some credence to pure speculation. But what is new? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  07:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What's new is the inflation of the prehistory section in an attempt to sway this RfC. It is now bigger than the Byzantium and Constantinople sections! This is ridiculous.  This article is meant to present a brief overview of Istanbul's history, not go into details about Neolithic artifacts. That information would be welcome in History of Istanbul, but it is clearly WP:UNDUE here. Athenean (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Istanbul's prehistory is older than Byzantium and Constantinople combined. Constantinople has its entire section Cavann (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So what? It's a question of weight.  You can't possibly give as much weight to a Neolithic village as you do to Byzantium.  That's what this is about.  I think we have a case here of Main article fixation.  The way you had expanded the prehistory, there was more info about the neolithic than there was about Byzantium.  No way.  This is an overview article, not an archeology article.  The history section and lede have to be brief in accordance to WP:SS. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We also have an entire Constantinople section. That needs to be trimmed and joined with history overview section then.
 * Also, do you see the part about 'on the site of the early Thracian settlements'? That is why we need a sentence about pre-Byzantine history in the lead. Cavann (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Constantinople is extremely important historically, and it merits its own section. Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. I don't see why we need a sentence about insignificant prehistoric settlements in the lead. Did you read WP:SS?  What does it say about the lead? Athenean (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neolithic revolution is way more important than Constantinople and Byzantium combined. The sentences you deleted are relevant to that. Cavann (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And adding a sentence to 2 paragraph historic overview in the lead is certainly not UNDUE. Cavann (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) You are entitled to your opinion. However, that is does not appear the rest of the wikipedia community shares your opinion.  In fact the opposite.  By the way, this article is about Istanbul, not the Neolithic Revolution.  Constantinople and Byzantium are more important to Istanbul than the Neolithic revolution is to Istanbul, which occurred over a wide area, and last time I checked did not originate in Istanbul.  You are welcome to create and contribute to Neolithic Istanbul, but please stop disrupting this article. Athenean (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you even read what you are deleting or are you disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Istanbul is critical in understanding spread of Neolithic revolution. I did not say it originated there. Cavann (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can read very well, and the next time you make a statement like that, I will report you. I recall deleting some trivia about Neolithic artifacts that are WP:UNDUE for this article.  I don't recall deleting the statement that Istanbul is important to the Neolithic Revolution.  Can you point to where I do that? This article is not about the Neolithic revolution, and the claim that "Istanbul is very important for the Neolithic revolution" is actually quite inane, as there was no "Istanbul" back then. The Bosporus area was probably important in the spread of the Neolithic.  But Istanbul is not synonymous with the Bosporus. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since it's quite clear you didn't read WP:SS, let me quote it for you: The lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. No, a Neolithic fishing village that shows no continuity with the historic city is not one of the article's most important points, no matter how important you think it is.  Virtually ever city in the region has Neolithic remnants within city limits.  It's not particularly unique or surprising that Istanbul does too. Athenean (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So we should delete parts about Byzantium from the lead because it does not have its own section? And do you comprehend that one sentence I suggested to be added into the lead is not just about one neolithic site, but multiple, and about Thracian settlements? Cavann (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing how the city was founded as Byzantium, that is one of the article's most important points. Abandoned Neolithic villages and "settlements" that have no continuity with Byzantium are not.  Adding a sentence to the lead about the Neolithic settlements would give them equal weight to Byzantium, and that is just not going to fly.  It seems that for whatever reason you attach extreme importance to prehistory.  Please understand that others do not share this view.  In fact everyone who has commented here so far disagrees with this view (myself, Dr.K., Alessandro, tariqabjotu, Future Perfect at Sunrise).  You are entitled to your opinion - you are not entitled to impose it on wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do no invent fake consensus. Only Alessandro and Dr.K. commented here. Cavann (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It may be so but again no one agrees with you. You should take this into consideration should you wish to impose your view by edit-warring. Edit-warring is not the answer. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Future Perfect and tariq also commented that they didn't think the Neolithic stuff particularly notable because there is no continuity between those settlements and the city. The argument is valid whether we are talking about the lead or the infobox.  If anything, the bar for inclusion in the lead is even higher than the infobox. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this debate from the sidelines. I can safely say that it is best to remove it from the lead. However, I do not mind it being anywhere else in the article. Above all, I believe it is impossible to assert that a neolithic settlement is the origins of the modern city of Istanbul. A settlement does not have an intention of becoming a future city, nor does it fit into the criteria of what a modern definition of a city should be. A settlement is merely an act or state of settling a given population or the state of having this population settled. Settlements are almost always set up by hunter and gatherers. The intention and definitive understanding of a settlement is far from the definitive characteristics of a city. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, given the systematically converging positions of you, Dr.K., and Proudbolsahye in Turkey-related articles, I need uninvolved editors to establish consensus. Cavann (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But we also have Alessandro, Tariq and Future. However much you try to isolate us we are not the only ones disagreeing with you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Istanbul is a very visible article, lots of people keep it watchlisted. Yet in all these debates, not one person has agreed with you.  Not one.  And don't try to invalidate other people's views just because you don't like them. There is consensus, and it's against you.  Denying that is not going to change anything. Athenean (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I find including so much info on a simple ancient village simply absurd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.115.164.61 (talk • contribs)
 * Exactly. The point is that in the discovery of this settlement there is absolutely nothing special. Special is only that Istanbul is the only large city in Europe where until now practically nothing was known about the prehistory of its site. Only to cite an example, analogue excavations in Forum Romanum were accomplished by Giacomo Boni more that 100 years ago, but none - not even Mussolini - thought to anticipate the begin of the roman history because of them. But then, why the exaggeration of the importance (also by the Turkish media) given to these findings? There are at least 3 reasons: first, because of them, the works of Marmaray have been blocked several years, with the loss of a lot of money by the investors. It is then clear that the archeologists have been forced to justify this loss telling that what they found was "exceptional", etc. . Second, in Turkey the media are generally based on sensationalism, as everyone who lives here can see each day. Last, but not least, the desire to put a shadow on the Greek and byzantine past of the city. In the same years of Yenikapi excavations, Istanbul`s Greek and byzantine (casual) findings  have been systematically destroyed and obliterated, this time in the general indifference of the media and the population. About that, one can read the courageous article of Mehmet Tunay: "Byzantine Archeological Findings in Istanbul" in Necipoğlu, Nevra. Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and everyday Life.  Alex2006 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You hit it right on the spot Alex with your comments about the attempted damnatio memoriae of the Byzantine people and civilisation. This POV-push is becoming clearer by the minute. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? After a couple days without looking at this article, suddenly I see a slew of changes predicated on this discredited notion that these Neolithic villages are significant to the development of the modern city of Istanbul. Cavann, what don't you understand? You withdrew your RfC asking for this point to be acknowledged in the infobox, realizing that that idea wasn't gaining steam. Then, you asked for that to be acknowledged in the lead, feigning ignorance that your rewording doesn't do just that. Because you seem to think that the two questions are completely independent (they're not), let me reiterate my opposition to the inclusion of pre-Byzantium settlements in the lead. Unfazed by the objections to that, you then proceed to introduce this information -- rejected for every other part of the article -- to other sections in the body. What makes you think that proposal will be accepted, when similar proposals were not? What don't you understand? From this standpoint, it looks like the next RfC will be about your actions on this article. --  tariq abjotu  07:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent job condensing the material on prehistory. I fully endorse your changes.  Athenean (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't that difficult; that's almost what was there before. --  tariq abjotu  07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Tariq I agree. This has crossed over to wp:de. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What don't you understand about how you are ignoring part of the history of the city?


 * Cavann (talk)


 * 8,000 years as a capital? Really? Did the neolithic settlement have a parliament as well? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's clear my views, reliable sources, and NPOV is completely ignored, so I requested informal mediation. Maybe that'll help. Cavann (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This stuff

is pure marketing hype for tourists. So much, it actually approaches spam. That much is apparent. It has no academic weight. I think they throw in the neolithic bait just to hide the Byzantine Elephant in the room from the gullible tourists for purely ideological reasons. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What I really find astonishing about this guy is his brazen capacity to ignore my comments and then to use them as a starting point to support his views. :-) In this case, the RS for the exhibition is the catalog, (written by specialists, not PR people), which does not mention at all what the promo says.  Alex2006 (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If one starts spamming the talkpage with advertising tripe you know that the real discussion has ended a long time ago. Aside from the spam, the propaganda is transparently clear: The exhibition traces the history of the cultural capital of Turkey from Neolithic times (check out the terra-cotta fertility goddess figurine) to the creation of the mega-city that today pulses with an almost overwhelming energy.. Look how history has been compressed from the neolithic times to modern, with no mention of the Byzantine Elephant in the room. I also liked the emphasis on the single terra-cotta fertility goddess figurine and its juxtaposition to Istanbul as a mega-city that today pulses with an almost overwhelming energy.., making modern Istanbul look like a UFO from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I don't know how people can still live there day to day when their city pulses with an almost overwhelming energy but I wish them the best and hope the UFO stays firmly on mother Earth. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I spend here since one decade part of the year, and I must tell you that sadly life - at least for the ones not belonging to the happy few, that is more than 90% of the population - is not pulsating at all, and is getting worse each year: pollution (two days ago from Sarayburnu was almost impossible to see the Asian side), overpopulation, traffic paralysis, absence of law, and gigantic speculation buildings (like the infamous Zeytinburnu towers) which are destroying the byzantine and ottoman heritage among the almost general indifference. Alex2006 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alex. Your description brings a badly needed, although sad, sense of reality to this wild speculation by overly enthusiastic PR people. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul Infobox Image
Should the current infobox image be changed with ? There are several issues with the current infobox image: (1) It shows non-notable pictures such as a picture of a tram and a picture of a few regular buildings in Maslak, whereas there are many better alternatives; (2) Infobox pictures showing larger areas and cityscapes seem better compared to pictures showing a limited area or a single building (unless iconic) (eg: New York City infobox collage, which includes several pictures that show the cityscape). Suggested newer collage adds another cityscape picture, and also adds Maiden's tower, which is one of the symbols of the city. Cavann (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the RfC tag. There was an RfC on this matter just five months ago, and now you're just abusing the RfC process. RfC is not meant to be used to push through agendas that have already been shot down or have barely seen any discussion. Sorry, no. --  tariq abjotu  20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The previous RFC about infobox image was in September 2012. Cavann (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting the RfC template again. No, it was launched on November 11 and closed on December 20. --  tariq abjotu  20:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in it, so it is not an abuse of RFC process. 5 month RFC cannot shut all the current and future discussion. Anyway, this issue is now in dispute resolution. Cavann (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The current image had broad consensus just a few months back, and shows a variety of locations in the city. The infobox shouldn't just show the downtown or tourist areas, and even New York City features the Unisphere in Flushing Meddows. What I would suggest, if folks do wish to include File:Istanbul panorama and skyline.jpg, is that it could replace the panorama currently in the top spot in the collage, since the both feature Sultanahmet.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually built upon the previous infobox. 2 images from the previous collage are maintained. 2 panaromas are somewhat different though. One shows the Golden Horn, the other is entrance to Bosphorus, so I think both should be there. Cavann (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tariq. The RFC process cannot be misused. Moreover, this article reached with the removed collage FA status. I think that before starting a new discussion, the article should be displayed on the main page. Alex2006 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, uninvolved editor here. I think removing the RfC was inapropriate regardless of the feelings of those involved. The rules for ending an RfC are listed as: the question may be withdrawn by the poster, the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum - If you disagree with the RfC you should oppose it or ask an uninvolved admin to close it but you should not simply remove it yourself. I would support the original proposer adding it back in but I have no opinion on the content of the RfC itself. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems dead. Note that I intend to restart the RFC if we cannot reach a consensus. The current infobox image is unacceptable, because it does not include one of city's symbols (Maiden's Tower), and it includes a picture of a partially burned down building. If Haydarpaşa Terminal is gonna be included, this should be done after that building is fully restored (see older version of the building before fire with the roof fully intact). I cannot understand how a burnt down bulding was included in the collage. Cavann (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion are below:


 * Cavann (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No idea what happened to the comment I wrote yesterday, but apparently it didn't get saved.


 * Anyway, the gist of it is that there was a lot of gusto toward including the Haydarapasha Terminal because it's on the Asian side of the city. In the months since the August/September 2012 discussion, that enthusiasm has waned as a few editors (two of whom are blocked, I might add) have remembered that the terminal is damaged. But we have yet to find a suitable replacement. Without the image, we have no representation of the Asian side of the city. Maiden's Tower was considered during the aforementioned discussion, but it was ultimately excluded because the tower serves no functional purpose in the city. As for the panoramas... we already have one, and it's useful at the size it needs to be in the infobox. There's no need for a second one. And the second panorama does not work will at the 300-pixel width it'll need to be in the infobox. If you want to include it, it should be down in the Cityscape section (where it currently is now). --  tariq abjotu  03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the 2nd collage? Some points:
 * 1) Instead of unremarkable office towers, a bridge should show the modern side (and it includes Rumelihisari and Bosphorus and Asian side)
 * 2) For the Asian side, instead of Haydarpasa, we can use Kuleli Military High School.
 * 3) We can either use Maiden's Tower or Dolmabahce Palace. Maiden's Tower is one of the symbols of the city, so I still think it should be included. Cavann (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Unremarkable office towers? Um, ok. But I would think the city's financial district is somewhat important. I'd hardly call the inclusion of the bridge (hardly visible I might add) a testament to modern Istanbul. (2) Is that high school really that significant? Serious question. (3) Er, ok. I also want to point out your proposal has a lot of water. Even the Venice collage has more pictures without water visible. --  tariq abjotu  02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Maslak is not even the main financial district. That would be Levent. There is another one under construction in Atasehir. Until there is a quality picture, a bridge is better. Plus it shows Bosphorus and Rumelihisari, as I said.
 * 2) Yes (eg: _
 * 3) We can crop some of the water when we agree to the images.Cavann (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your obsession with Rumelihisari? You seem to like shots that incidentally show it, like the image of just water the ship with it apparently shown in the background that you put in the Economy section. There are several areas of skyscrapers or significant modern buildings in the city. I see no reason why we can't use one of those areas. The Bosphorus Bridges are not exactly appealing landmarks, and they are (the Second Bosphorus Bridge specifically, in fact) already depicted elsewhere twice (thanks to your new image). The objection to the image of Maslak just doesn't make sense to me. The city is more than old buildings and water and your collage suggestions don't show that. --  tariq abjotu  07:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What is your obsession with nondescript office towers that can be anywhere on Earth from Latin America to China? A Bosphorus bridge and Rumelihisari are quintessentially Istanbul, whereas office towers are not. What is your obsession with partially burned down building when there are alternatives on the Asian side? Cavann (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq. Anyway, if in order to take a new shot we wait for the restoration of Haydarapasha, we can wait a long time (and actually, knowing how things are proceeding here, one can rather bet on a second, more definitive "accidental" fire :-)), so why don`t we use the first picture? Anyway, personally I am not disturbed about the burnt roof, since burned buildings (as many writers like de Amicis and Pamuk remember) definitively belong to the real image of this city as much as gecekondu and skyscrapers. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Italian cities have plenty of run down neighborhoods too, I don't see them in any infobox's. I also note that de Amicis is so very old. Please update yourself, this is 2013. Cavann (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hallo Cavann, sorry, but here you missed totally the point: if you want to add some pictures of run down or illegal Italian buildings, you have my 100% wholehearted support. What I don't like about this article (and, in general, about all wikipedia articles about cities) is this "schönwetter" image that it give, and that is partial (for Istanbul as well as for Rome, my birth city). Istanbul has giant problems (since is a giant city), and I think that this article should also describe them, not only Ayasofya and Dolmabahce. The same is valid for Rome, whose problems are smaller only because the city is smaller. About burnt buildings, which are a constant of the city, since wood was the preferred building material, you could go to Ortaköy, and see the ruins of the school, once one of the most beautiful edifices of the city, burnt only 10 years ago by the Kurdish mafia, because the director refused to allow them to park illegally the cars in the schoolyard. As you can see, the story told by de Amicis is still going on :-) Bye Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Then go edit those articles, Alessandro57. Don't share your wisdom in just Turkey-related content. Also this is not the place for general rants about Wikipedia. Remember, talk pages are not a forum. Cavann (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's my modified suggestion. I think I've addressed the concerns of Tariqabjotu. I took out the Bosphorus bridge picture, and put a pic showing Istanbul's current main business district, and its tallest building. I also put a picture of Kuleli Military High School, on the Asian side, to represent that side. Dolmabahce Palace is still there, since it is the most significant historic building outside the historic peninsula, since it was the residence of Sultans after they moved out of Topkapi Palace, and was the site of Ottoman parliament. However, we can also put the pic of the tram back there (or this pic for tram). Cavann (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Other than the diffuse answer above, I got no replies; I'm going ahead with the change. Cavann (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was told to "participate in the discussion". I take it this is the discussion, where only Cavaan has agreed to the infobox image that Cavaan has proposed. Since the reference to the previous discussions wasn't enough, let me be more explicit with further problems: (a) the picture of the skyline at night makes it hard to see, (b) there was no reason for you to move the panorama to the middle line, (c) the thick borders between images looks better than having the images directly abut each other, particularly when they're so similar. Honestly, I don't know what the problem was with the original image. Based on your rationale above, the most I would have expected you to do is replace the Hyderapasha image with an image of something else on the Asian side and replace the "picture of a tram" (seriously?) with another picture of Istiklal Avenue -- and leave everything else alone.
 * But, no, really, this was just an excuse to create a new image and claim consensus when no one seemed to expend more energy rejecting it. You call the original image of Maslak "unremarkable office towers", but then prefer a very dark image of high-rises in the city. You complain about one of Istanbul's most important landmarks missing, and yet you felt the need to remove an image of Istiklal Avenue and its tram. In your edit summary, you complained that the images in the previous collage were low-quality; not that quality matters when the aim is just to show it in the infobox, but have you compared your collage to the previous one at full size? You've actually introduced noise into some of the images that you didn't even swap out.
 * If you want to make the two changes you've substantiated -- using a different image from the Asian side of the city and using another shot of Istiklal Avenue (there are countless options for the latter on Wikimedia Commons), I wouldn't object. But, at present, you've just made arbitrary changes and demanded that everyone accept them. --  tariq abjotu  02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. At least we agreed on "using a different image from the Asian side of the city and using another shot of Istiklal Avenue." Noise and other technical issues in the picture can be fixed. I don't care if the panorama pic is in the middle; it's just more symmetrical that way and similar to Washington, D.C., another FA.


 * Now why do you want to keep using the crop of this 390 KB image (is the sky purple because of the low quality)? At least the image I used shows Istanbul Sapphire, the tallest building in the city. Are you very impressed by 10-story buildings and some glass? Are they supposed to represent modern Istanbul? Is the weird purple sky supposed to be the dystopian futuristic part? Are there no other alternatives? Is it really preferable to the image I used even tho that image is at night? Cavann (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this kind of response is just unacceptable. You are the one who wants a change. I'm not kowtowing to your wishes on the basis of sarcastic argument.
 * Your diatribe shows you know nothing about how images work. You keep harping on the file size of that image of Maslak. Do you know the file size of your collage? I'll give you a hint: it's less than half the size of the one you keep berating. The file size is completely irrelevant. We are not making a poster for public presentation; we are making a picture that should only be used at this particular size in an infobox on Wikipedia, and will be cropped down for use at that size. So, as long as the height of the image in the collage is not greater than the original height of the image, it doesn't matter. You are free to view the image of Maslak at its original color, as it's been placed in the history, but modifying the coloring of an image, while maintaining natural color is completely normal and accepted on Wikipedia. Note, for example, that the same thing was done in a panorama you were eager to put in the article and the infobox (compare to this). The image you want to put into the infobox is very difficult to see at this size. Note that in previous discussions about this collage, some even objected to the image of the Blue Mosque because it was too dark at dusk. So, an image in the dark of night would obviously, therefore, be out of the question.
 * As I have tried to tell you before, this collage has been discussed multiple times over the past year. There has been an increased desire to replace the Haydarpasha Terminal image with something else, and I doubt anyone would care if we used a different Istiklal Avenue image that showed a bit more of the street without eliminating the trolley entirely from view (e.g. this one), but beyond that, you're just on a one-man crusade. Why can you not make those changes and be done with it? Not sure, but your response to that question the first time suggests you're less interested in a serious discussion than in making sarcastic jabs. --  tariq abjotu  01:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are so adamant on that Maslak image, but I'm bored with the discussion. For those two changes (trolley and replacing Haydarpasa), I requested it at the Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.
 * Perhaps we can use this image somewhere else in the article; I think it's a nice image. Perhaps instead of Levent fog picture, to show the snow.Cavann (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you requested at Graphics Lab was not only to change the two bottom pics, but also to move the panorama to the middle, which you have had no support for in the discussion here. I do not have very strong feelings about it, but I prefer the version with the panorama at top. I will accept the panorama in the middle if that is what most peopla want, but as far as this only Cavann has supported it. Talking of bored, I am starting to get bored of discussions that pop up again every second month after consensus has been reached. Regards! T*U (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whose puppet are you then? Are you some banned user? Your first post in Talk:Istanbul was on 4 June 2013. I have no time for disruptive users using the revolving door. Cavann (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is completely off the mark and rather offensive. It would be better if you discussed the question, not the editors. Regards! T*U (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's snow in that picture? Yeah, not exactly a great photo for illustrating that. It seems better under the Economy section replacing the current image of the Levent... if the image is really needed.
 * Regarding the infobox image: again, I don't know why you requested that the panorama be shifted downward, despite there being no corroborating support for that. Either way, whatever new collage you create should not overwrite the current collage. That image is used on a number of articles on several different Wikipedias. Editors for each of those articles should be allowed to choose what they want to put in those respective articles and not be forced to discard this collage. So, please use a different file name (e.g. File:Istanbul collage 5g.jpg, as the number was supposed to indicate the number of images in the collage). --  tariq abjotu  19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The pictures in the infobox have been discussed at length before, and the current collage was broadly supported, so I feel we should leave it at it is or with minor changes. I agree that we could change the Istiklal tram to the other Tariq proposes. I would prefer to keep the Haydarpasha station, but could accept another Asian side picture if that is what is needed to avoid another discussion in three weeks time... But before we discard the Haydarpasha picture, I would like to see more than one person actually wanting to change it. As for the rest of the collage, let's leave it as it is. Regards! T*U (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tariq. Alex2006 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I think this version breaks the 1/3 rule. In the other collages the height of every row is one third of the total height. In this one the midle picture looks bloated compared to the top and bottom rows. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1/3 rule for every row? You just made that up. Eg: Canberra, Washington, D.C., etc Cavann (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh gee you caught me. Hold off the PAs please. I didn't say it was a Wikipedia rule. It just makes sense to have a symmetrical arrangement instead of a bloated centre picture looking like it has a big midsection. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It may break the 1/3 rule but follows precisely the 3-4-3 rule (the center row height is 4 units to the upper and lower unit of 3 units). It also follows the middle-heavy rule (the height of a middle row is slightly greater than the other two). And if anyone needs more rules, I'd be happy to supply them. That said, one suggestion might be to trim the height of the wide image slightly and put it at the top. The wide image would still be slightly taller than the others but it would exactly follow the top-heavy rule... – JBarta (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. I never knew so many rules existed. I like the "top-heavy rule" the best. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are rules enough to satisfy all. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that. I also liked the 3-4-3 rule. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think shortening the panorama a bit, although maybe not as short as it is currently, and returning it to the top (not to mention putting back the black borders) is the way to go. --  tariq abjotu  08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't understand why you keep sneaking in changes. The changes you've substantiated amount to the image created as 5h, with the panorama still at top. The rest is just a preference you keep asking for and hoping you'll get after repetition. Despite what's going on at Canberra or wherever, I believe having that single panoramic image in the center looks worse than having it at top, where it would "headline" the panorama and the infoboz (with the city name just above it). I'm not sure what additional information is conveyed by heightening that panorama by a few pixels, but if you're going to do that, at least do it in the 'top-heavy' configuration. I'd also like to note that I feel the black borders look better than the white borders, particularly with the darker, bolder colors in all the constituent images. --  tariq abjotu  07:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had widened the panorama to include the historic parts on the bottom of the original image, and the Princes Islands on the horizon on top left. Cavann (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tariq: Panorama on top, either "1/3" or "top-heavy", and black borders. T*U (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Tariq. Alex2006 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I find myself getting sucked into this collage accumulation going on over here. I made another with a slightly taller top image as suggested. It's shown above as "Istanbul collage 5j.jpg". And in case someone suggests it doesn't follow the appropriate rules, be assured it follows both the 5-4-4 rule and the top-heavy rule. – JBarta (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have to go by top-heavy or 5-4-4 (is there really such a thing?) then "Istanbul collage 5j.jpg" is a nice example. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still looks rather amateurish compared to montages of most top importance cities on Wikipedia because of the purple-sky Maslak image Tariqabjotu is insisting on, but it's definitely a huge improvement compared to the current one. Ideally, I would have suggested the pattern in Canberra's image with current panorama image in the middle, this wide one on top left, the mosque on top right and rest of the 3 images (including Maslak image if you like it so much) on the bottom. But, as I said, it's definitely a huge improvement compared to the current one. Thanks for the help JBarta! Cavann (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "A huge improvement"? Oh, please. About that Maslak image, I am not "insisting" on anything. You are not the first person to initiate a discussion about the collage. We are not going to make changes simply because you demand them. That image has been in nearly every collage proposed on this talk page during the discussions in the second half of 2012. Again, the image you keep pushing is obviously far too dark, a point even raised in earlier discussions in regards to the twilight Blue Mosque image. We had another, perhaps clearer, image of a financial district in the article, but you also objected to that on spurious grounds (to say nothing of your replacement of the other image in the Economy section with one that leaves the ship barely visible). I don't know why some editors have an insatiable desire to modify the collage, but at some point you need to recognize there are many ways to illustrate the city, even if they aren't your ideal. There's no need to emulate cherry-picked articles or deride other formulations as "amateurish". This is not a particularly crucial facet of the article. --  tariq abjotu  19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this new daytime panorama you're suggesting is already in the article (thanks to you) with a functionally identical shot. --  tariq abjotu  19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I called my own work amateurish, don't take straightforward criticism personally. I'll be on lookout for a new day-time image. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone's objecting to Istanbul collage 5j? Cavann (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with 5J there, especially if it will settle the debate. Kuleli is a fine replacement for Haydarpaşa as a representative of the Asian side.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)