Talk:Istanbul/Archive 9

Urban Agglomeration
I know that for administrative purposes, Istanbul is coterminous with its province. But, does the Turkish government have a measurement of both the size and area of the contiguous urbanized area within the province to give a better idea of the size? Most city pages where you have a metropolitan city that includes a lot of undeveloped area also have a category in the infobox showing the size of the actual urbanized area. I was wondering if this is something that could be done with Turkey. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That Istanbul is the second-largest city in the world by population within city limits according to the article List of cities proper by population, is problematic, because the Turkish government does not make a clear distinction between the city and province in regard to population. (For instance the criteria given in the article states: "This is a list of the most populous cities in the world defined according to a concept of city proper (an urban locality without its suburbs).") However the area 5,343 km² is given which corresponds to the entire area of the Province of Istanbul, and not to defined city limits. In the articles World's largest municipalities by population, List of urban areas by population, List of metropolitan areas by population, List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations) Istanbul does not appear as the second largest city in the lists. And in the article World's largest cities, the different ranks in population for comparison are shown in the list, which makes it even more confusing. What criterias should be used to make it clear and simple? Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.53.26 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Site infobox image
I don't know what's going on with the mini-edit war over the image in the UNESCO World Heritage site box. There is reference to a discussion about that image, but has there really been one? Are you talking about this brief discussion from February 2013? There doesn't appear to be consensus over anything there, and someone raised a point I agree with: the silhouette image is, aside from not illustrating anything, a bit of an orientalist depiction of the city: shadowy, exotic, mysterious, more befitting of an Agatha Christie novel cover than for depicting the city's World Heritage Site. I admit there is something artistic to the image, so I'm not super adamant about switching that image out, but I do believe the new image is superior. --  tariq abjotu  16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. I agree there's very little detail in the "old" image. If folks were interested, however, the UNESCO site is actually in four "zones" according to the website: the tip of the peninsula; the Süleymaniye quarter; the Zeyrek quarter; and the "zone of the ramparts." So (gasp! I hate to suggest) would a collage be better?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, the new image looks fine. Cavann (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is fine for me too. Alex2006 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposed photo is really nice and high quality for me, but I don't think that's enough to box. Topkapi Palace in the background and it's not alone structure in the historical peninsula. Please take a look at the web page of UNESCO. 16 photo of Hagia Sophia, 10 photo of Sultan Ahmed Mosque and one picture of Topkapı Palace. It emphasizes the importance of World Heritage list in Istanbul. As a third option, I would suggested this photograph. An image that is a combination of all three. Maurice (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Conditional TFA request for September 8
I have requested that Istanbul conditionally run as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page on September 8. See Today's featured article/requests. --  tariq abjotu  17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Alex2006 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A nice gesture. It's an honour for Istanbul. Thank you Tarıq Maurice07 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues with the lead and Toponomy needs to be fixed first. Cavann (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, no. --  tariq abjotu  20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this is nominated conditional on Istanbul earning the chance to host the 2020 Olympics. --  tariq abjotu  20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Toponymy and Lead
Cavann has started another round of edit-warring adding settlements in the toponymy and trying once again to deprecate the fact that Byzantium is the first attested name for the city. This being an FA article, this drastic change needs discussion. Cavann's tactics include insulting edit summaries linking to Golden Dawn. That is a gross personal attack and should not be repeated. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, concur. --  tariq abjotu  06:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "first attested name for the city." All sources say this (remember WP:NPOV)? This invented excuse is nonsensical.


 * This sentence in the lead, "Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium, the city now known as Istanbul developed," and deleting the info in Toponomy section does not comply with WP:NPOV, as it ignores various reliable sources. Some sources (the text is not perfect, as I used a computer application to convert images to text):


 * "confirmed that the city was inhabited during die Neolithic Age'''"
 * "The emergence of the land that straddles the strategic Bosphorus Strait is the stuff of legends. But a chance discovery of four human skeletons some four miles beneath Yenikapi in rnid2008 confirmed that the city was inhabited during die Neolithic Age. an estimated 8,000 years ago. Up until that point, the Thracians were thought to have settled the Scraglio—the tip vi the Sulta na h met peninsula—at Lygos between the 13th and 11th centuries B.c. Winding for ward four centuries, King Byzas was actually the first to colonize it. He was the ruler of the Greek town of Megara who, after consulting with the Oracle at Delphi as ro where ro found a new city. was told ro look 4’oppositc the blind.” Byzas reached the settlement of Chalcedon—today’s Kad iköy—a nd thought chat Chalcedonians must have been “blind” for not realizing the much fluer land that lay just across the Bosphorus Strait. Byzas setdcd the territory in the 7th century B.C. and called it Byzantion after lsimsclf Later the colony took on a Latin name: Byzantium. It became a part of the Roman Empire in the 1st century E.C., and by A.D. 306 ii was assigned the status of capi(al by Emperor Constantine, who thought it wise to redub the city Constantinople."


 * Lonely Planet Guide:
 * "Semistra, the earliest-known settlement on the site of Istanbul, was probably founded around 1000 BC, a few hundred years alÏer the Trojan War and in the same period that kings David and Solomon ruled in Jerusalem. Semistra was followed by a fishing village named L.ygos, whidi occupied Seraglio Point (Sarayhurnu) where Topkapi Palace (Topkapi Sarayi) stands today. Around 700 BC, colonists from Megara (near Corinth) in Greece tounded the city of Chakedon (now Kadiköy) on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus. Chalcedon became one of a dozen Greek fishing colonies along the shores of the Propontis (the ancient name br the Sea of Marmara). The historian Theopompus of Chios, cited in John Freely’s bianbul: The Imperial City, wrote in the latter hail of’ the 4th century that its inhabitants ‘devoted themselves unceasingly to the belier PLirsuits ol’ life’. Their way of life was apparently in stark contrast to that ot’the dissolute Byzantines, who bounded their settlement across the Bosphorus at Seraglio Point in 657 BC."


 * "However, the fact that the city is both now so extensive and its core has remained continuously inhabited since the seventh century BC means that our knowledge from archaeology cornes primarily from rescue digs"
 * "The archaeological records suggest that there was human habitation in the area as far back as 5000 BC, at a time when the Bosphorus was a valley with a series of freshwater lakes connecting the saline Sea of Marmara to the freshwater Black Sea. However, the fact that the city is both now so extensive and its core has remained continuously inhabited since the seventh century BC means that our knowledge from archaeology cornes primarily from rescue digs. It does appear that early Greek colonists from Megara arrived at the mouth of the Bosphorus around the beginning of the seventh century and initially established a site called Chalcedon on the Asian side. Seventeen ;rars later, according to Herodotus, another set of Megarian colonists, led by Byzas, established themselves on the European side of the entrance on the promontory on the peninsula. Byzantium, named after their leader, was a much more defensive and strategic site. The Byzantium foundation myths talk about dolphins (symbols of Apollo) marking the site and of the orade at Delphi suggesting the colonists found the new city across from the land of the blind:’ nicely inter preted as the “blindness” of the Chalcedons in niissing the better site across the strait. From the very beginning, the two colonies worked in tandem to control trade and shipping between the Greek colonies further up the Bosphorus or along the Pontos and Black Sea coast and the Aegean, althoui what became ltvzantium was by far the more significant and strategically protected in its isolation. Excavations have revealed some pottery from as early as 500 BC, and the first walls surrounded the acropolis hill. l)uring its first 400 years, the town gained a reputation for hard trading and heavy drinking; the female poet Moero (Myro) of Byzantium (ca. 300 BC), with her poems about love and wine, was representative of the literary references to the city. Xenophon (ca. fourth cenwry) suggested that Byzantium was the last truly “Greek” city before reaching the colonies to its north."


 * I have been sidetracked, but I have not forgotten about this issue. Since the last RFC failed, I will swiftly go through other steps in dispute resolution if this attempt also fails. Cavann (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not doing this again. Manipulating the TFA/R process to get what you want is not acceptable. Nor is seeking to waste more of the community's time with additional dispute resolution processes. We had an RfC on this, at your request, and your proposal was soundly defeated. It's time for you to drop this. --  tariq abjotu  20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. The RFC (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8) did not attract any attention from uninvolved editors. So, "soundly defeated" must be your imagination. Your threats, like the previous ones, are getting annoying. And you seem to be the one abusing the Wikipedia processes, given your unilateral closures of RFC's  , which was rebuked  , and your obsessive habit of discouraging discussion of this issue. Cavann (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your continuing personal attacks against editors you disagree with notwithstanding, although I do advise you to drop it, I support Tariq's position. We have been there done that with your proposals. Time to move on. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As a hopefully uninvolved editor, I have read back over the April 2013 discussions linked above, and agree with the clear consensus there - the current version of the article, without undue emphasis on the Neolithic settlement in the area, is more appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You think adding a sentence into Toponomy section is also UNDUE? Cavann (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

4 empires is wrong
4 Empires, meaning the Roman, the Byzantine, the Latin and the Ottoman? That's 2 Empires, not 4. The Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire, as is, of course, the "Latin" Empire, never anything other than a period when a few Crusaders took over the Roman Empire from the Greeks.

That part of the article must be changed. CHTZ (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate data should be from the TSMS not WMO
The climate data has recently been changed to the data shown by WMO.It should be one based on the Turkish State Meteorological Service because

1) It is better to keep all parts of the data consistent not like where the temperature is from 1929−2000 and sunshine is only from 1960−2012 since it is more accurate, consistent and not outdated.

2) It does not matter about the time period (many major city articles use data from their national meteorological service, some with a time period from 1800's to now, some from 1981−2010, etc). The climate data from WMO is used only if the data for that particular place cannot be easily obtained from the country's respective national meteorological service (here it is easily accessible). There is nothing wrong about the time period from 1960−2012 and is perfectly fine as 30 years is long enough to eliminate any variability in the data according to WMO.

3) I am sure the snowfall data is not given in the citation. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

When was the name officially changed to Istanbul?
The article has a source for 1930 as when the name officially changed. However, an article in The Times (London) Nov 25, 1929, p12 states that the Turkish Post Office had issued a notice that all mail should henceforth be addressed as Istanbul rather than Constantinople. Since I don't think the Post Office would take it upon itself to change the name, this suggests that the official change was made in 1929 rather than in 1930. Better evidence is required; there should have been an official announcement that is reported somewhere with a date. Zerotalk 23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have other 1929 newspaper sources too, but I'm out of time. More later. Zerotalk 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read first the article Names of Istanbul. Alex2006 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole thing about that name "change" appears to be a canard that has been transmitted through all sorts of sources, unfortunately some formally "reliable" ones among them, so we can't quite ignore it. From all I've seen, the only thing that seems decently plausible (though still not supported with really good explicit sources so far) is the thing about the postal policy, which meant that the Turkish state attempted to force the native Turkish name on foreign users in other languages, not of course that the name was changed in Turkish itself. (By the same token, they enforced "Ankara" in lieu of "Angora" etc., which was of course nor more of an actual renaming.) Still, we have so far never been able to pin down how and when that rule was actually pronounced, so maybe that old Times article might be some help here. The other thing that appears to floating around is that at some point Turkish authorities stopped using the alternate name Kostantiniyye, but here we've never found anything concrete at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

about picture.
Im going to change the main picture on the page(File:Istanbul collage 5j.jpg) to File:Istanbul collage 5f.jpg, cause Haydarpaşa Terminal is more famous than Kuleli Military School.KazekageTR (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, but there is no consensus about this change. This collage has been discussed at length some months ago, and HaydarPasa has been excluded. Alex2006 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Climate data, which geographic reference point?
I'm sure we're all sick and tired of sockpuppets edit-warring over the climate section, but there is one point that needs clarification. The table we show now, with its relatively low precipitation figures (e.g. January precipitation of 83.4, adding up to a yearly total precipitation of around 640) is based on this source page, which is said to be based on measurements for Kartal, a place far outside the city, on the Asian coast of the Sea of Marmara. The much higher precipitation figures the Saguamundi socks have been trying to push in (January precipitation of 100.9, adding up to a yearly total of around 850) are not verified in this form in either of the two source pages we are currently using, but are at least roughly compatible with the total figures shown in the second of our two source references. The reason for this extreme divergence can't be just a difference over which years were used to calculate the average (the fluctuations between a few years could never lead to a difference in averages that big); it can only be a different point of geographic reference. Unfortunately, the second source page doesn't say which exact point was measured, and doesn't have the details per month, but in the absence of some other specification it is likely that it is in fact meant to represent the city of Istanbul proper, as opposed to the first source, where the Kartal data is apparently meant to stand as representative of the whole province. If I understand our text correctly, it is plausible that the city centre should have significantly higher precipitation than some point to the south-east of it.

Surely, a data set representing the actual city centre rather than some outside point would be preferable for our purposes, wouldn't it? (After all, the article is primarily about the city, not about the province, even though administratively the two may be coterminous.) But does anybody know of a reliable published data set? Would this be acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made an extensive research and edit on the subject, adding data and various sources for all three climate subtypes referencing on three different locations. Now, hopefully, it is clear. Berkserker (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's some interesting data, and the sourcing appears pretty watertight. One might still discuss whether we want to use this much space for this much data, but since the differences between the three places are really dramatic, I guess there's something to be said for having it. Hope this will at last put the socking to rest too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, only when a location has such diverse climatic conditions, should the differences be included. And in this case the microclimates of Istanbul are the focal point of its climatic condition. There are few cities in the world with such diversity, (ex. San Francisco). I think its precious information. I live in Istanbul and seeing the temperature drop from 24 to 8 C within a few kilometers is an exciting thing :) Berkserker (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe devoting so much space to climate boxes is excessive. Using the example provided, the San Francisco article (another featured article) does not have several climate boxes for different parts of the city. Granted, Istanbul covers a much, much larger area than San Francisco, but the point still remains -- it's a lot of space for a few tables. I would suggest just picking a point that's close to the population center of the city (I don't think Belgrad Forest is a good choice) and leave that table in; the image showing the distribution of precipitation across the city makes the point. At the very least, the climate boxes should be collapsed by default. --  tariq abjotu  03:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason why San Francisco doesn't have multiple boxes is because of the U.S. administration system. Each little "town" is a city on its own and the location specified as San Francisco has no microclimates since it is defined as a very small area, it is literally a point on the map. Due to this system, there are many cities in the bay area and each has its own article. However most countries do not use this administrative system, therefore in most European city pages you'll see multiple weather boxes, even when there is little difference. (ex. Rome, Moscow). If Istanbul had a U.S. administrative system there would be more than 30 weather boxes for Istanbul, therefore 3 is not excessive nor inadequate. Berkserker (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As editors of Wikipedia, we don't deserve the right to choose one information or reference point over another (such as deciding which district is the population center), in other words to use subjective information. but instead our edits should reflect what official or scientific sources provide. Where the city center of Istanbul lies opens a whole new ground for debate. Whether we take the historic peninsula, Asian Marmara coast, European Marmara coast, or the "downtown" Maslak-Levent region (business center) where most of the skyscrapers are (since you made a comparison to the U.S. system), is a whole new area open to debate. All of these regions I just listed, have different climates, as Istanbul (city not just the province) is in a transitional climatic zone. If the downtown is chosen for example, the entire article has to be changed disregarding all meteorological data, since it has a humid subtropical climate (not a Mediterranean climate). For example the main box used (Kartal) is not the city center at all, but as the Turkish State Meteorological Service uses that station, we can't decide not to use it just because its not near the city center in our opinion. Therefore as wikipedia editors we must try to reflect already existing/sourced information as transparently as possible. Btw, Belgrad forest is not outside the city, it is adjacent to the "Downtown", just like Central Park is to Manhattan. Berkserker (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Climate Data - Incorrect Conversion
The conversion from a range in degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit is incorrect in the climate section. It incorrectly converts 12-15 degrees Celsius to the Farenheit equivalent temperature instead of range by faliling to adjust the datum. I'm not sure how to code this properly, I'm on mobile right now, and I'm new to wiki editing, but I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean. What I see in the code is " 12 - 15 C ", and it renders for me as "12–15 °C (54–59 °F)", which seems correct, or is it not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Üsküdar isn't the most populous Asian district anymore
It's Ümraniye (660.125), Üsküdar has 534.636. Üsküdar "lost" its 3 of its neighborhoods to newly-created district "Ataşehir"

Official source http://rapor.tuik.gov.tr/reports/rwservlet?adnksdb2&ENVID=adnksdb2Env&report=wa_turkiye_ilce_koy_sehir.RDF&p_il1=34&p_kod=1&p_yil=2013&p_dil=1&desformat=html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.157.30 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms/logo of Istanbul?
Ain't there something like a CoA or logo of Istanbul that could be added to this article? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkish cities (or any other type of settlements, administrative units) don't have coat of arms or flags

Metropolitan municipality has a logo http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/PublishingImages/basinMateryalleri/ibblogo.jpg

And this is logo of Governorate of İstanbul - but Governor is actually head of the "Province" of İstanbul, not just the "City" http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Modules/Basin2/Files/resimler/KategoriResimleri/diger450x225.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.157.30 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ISTANBUL AREA
How it looks city, which has over 5 300 km2 ?? It's larger than half of Cyprus.

Well, if Istanbul has city walls, it would be longer than Great Wall of China!

From Google Maps, you can see and compare that real Istanbul metropolitan and urban area (which includes other smaller towns) is not bigger than 600 - 800 km2.

SO, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS REAL AREA AND POPULATION OF ISTANBUL CITY, HISTORICAL TOWN?? AND WHAT IS REAL URBAN (OR METROPOLITAN) AREA AND POPULATION OF ISTANBUL (How I mentioned, this area should be around 600 - 800 km2).

What is quoted here is some region Istanbul, but NOT CITY.

Thanks you'll tell me and fulfill to Wiki.

--Pimlico27 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Third largest city proper?
This article (first paragraph) says it is the third largest "city proper", yet Wikipedia itself disagrees, saying it is fourth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

Proper sourcing required please. 92.234.27.127 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well as you know other wiki pages can't be shown as sources though. And see the history tab for that article. It changes per daily basis. Which is not suitable as a supportive source for even a conversation/argument. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 21:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

One or other must be wrong though? I know so little about it I can't say which is right. 92.234.27.127 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Me neither but for a long time Istanbul was the 3rd one. We can accept the longest-accepted though. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 11:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014kkuçalı köyüKuşçalı KöyüÇorum
78.185.106.240 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014
5.54.84.205 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit request empty; please give a specific edit request with sourcing. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014
In the first paragraph you have written, "...second largest in the Middle East..." about Istanbul's population. Neither Istanbul nor anywhere in the West side of Turkey is considered Middle East other than those who would like to see every Muslim-majority country in the Middle East. It's arguable if anywhere in Turkey can be considered in the Middle East. When there is the argument I can understand if you list the South(eastern) side of Turkey within Middle East. However Istanbul, a city within European borders, cannot be called Middle Eastern and to say "X largest in Europe, Z largest in Asia, second largest in the Middle East," sounds absolutely ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? I would delete the "second largest in the Middle East" part.

Elfistanbul (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

❌ Please see this definition of the Middle East - Arjayay (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I think Elfistanbul has a valid point. Istanbul is, by convention, a European city, and it does not seem correct to describe a European city as being in the Middle East. Formerip (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Images under Ottoman and Turkish era
For the last week there seems to have been a back and forth about the images in the Ottoman and Turkish era section, among a few other tweaks. The talk page here is where discussion should occur, rather than in edit summaries, which should not be used for personal attacks. Before this goes any further, I was hoping that User:Elmasmelih and User:Mehmed the Conqueror could explain what is going on, and how we can best remedy the situation. Each has accused the other of "ownership" in a way that really doesn't seem to be constructive. My only concerns are that sandwiching images on either side of text is recommended against in the Manual of Style, and that is an issue for a Featured Article like this one. Additionally upright images, those that are taller than they are wide, should be tagged as such for the thumbnail setting to work as intended. This article has had a persistent issue with having too many images given the summary style of many sections, so I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus about which are most important for this section. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the participants in the edit-war was almost certainly a sock of a banned user, who unfortunately has a history of engaging in exactly this kind of warring over images (and who, unfortunately, would have the potential of being a pretty decent knowledgeable contributor if it wasn't for this habit, time and time again). If such episodes happen again, my recommendation is to not hesitate to ask for admin assistance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Patrick: I believe there are enough pictures already, just like you said this article has/had a persistent issue with having too many images. I was just removing that image in order to reduce images. But he dussenly says that 'I dont own the article'. Well, mate, everybody knows that. Oh and i was reverting his edit not yours. My revert was delayed and your edit got into middle of them.

Fut.Perf.: Am I the one? And if this thing goes on unsolved, we could use admin on this situation by the way. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 17:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe Fut.Perf. was being polite there, but Mehmed the Conqueror is now banned for sockpuppetry. Back to the topic, I think we agree that File:20101213 Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul inside vertical Panorama.jpg is excessive for the section, but did other editors have opinions?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Fringe claims about etymology
I have twice reverted an edit by User:Bbaskbas that inserted a claim sourced to a person called Haluk Tarcan (incidentally misquoted as "Tarcan Haluk"), about an alleged original Turkish etymology of Istanbul as "Astanbolıq". Tarcan (personal website here: www.haluktarcan.com) is a person who promotes pseudo-scientific fringe views about Turks having been at the root of all great historic civilizations (quote from his site: "Türk kimdir? Türk, Evrensel Uygarlıkların kökenini oluşturan kişidir" – "Who are the Turks? The Turks are the people who created the foundations of global civilization"). This is evident WP:FRINGE stuff and as such an object of WP:UNDUE weight. Especially, of course, when presented the way Bbaskbas tried to do, with his claim given not just equal but predominant weight as opposed to the established mainstream view, which he tried to relegate to a past and obsolete view. Edits like this are unacceptable tendentious editing and won't be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not fair to take a sentence from the website and make a decision about all of his works. Etymology is not a hard science so every single work providing a source can appear in this part of the article. User Bbaskbas 13:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbaskbas, why did you try to remove the auto-signature of the IP above ? If the above posting was really by you, please feel free to re-sign it with your own username, but don't just let it sit around without any signature at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's perfectly fair, if that sentence is representative of the overall nature of the site and its author's claims, which it is. Just read it: the sentence I picked out is still one of the saner ones on that site; it goes downhill from there. And, if by "not a hard science" you mean etymology is a field where everybody is free to just make up stuff as they go along, then, well, that's not in fact what etymology is. It does have standards of responsible scholarship and scientific evidence, and since that is the case, we at Wikipedia do routinely filter out mainstream scholarship from amateur speculation or the lunatic fringe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, what kind of reference is "'İstanbul'un Kökü Tartışması', Aydınlık:62,63. ISSN 1301-6679". Is this from the Aydınlık newspaper? A find standard of reliable journalism indeed. (Not.) Year, date, details? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not fair because while the hypothesis of alternate derivation directly from Constantinople, which is regarded as obsolete today by "scientists", is in the page. And also the mainstream view of so-called hypothesis "istimbolin" is lying there without any reference. I didn't try to delete them but I just added a referenced work. I have no idea why you overreacted. Please be cool and let readers make a decision about it.
 * You haven't responded to the issue. I don't care how well sourced or not so well sourced the existing views in the article are (they are more fully sourced in Names of Istanbul. What I challenged you over is this: what makes you think a person who peddles wild ideas about the Turks being the root of all human civilization is a reliable source about anything? We do have standards about how to deal with fringe views; I linked you to them: read them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Existing views on "istimbolin" in the article is neither sourced in Names of Istanbul nor in İstanbul there's a source about the alternative one and I think you should see what it says "An alternative derivation, directly from Constantinople, was entertained as an hypothesis by some researchers in the 19th century but is today regarded as obsolete.". So it's not sourced affirmatively but adversely. Now, do you think these hypothesis are frindge views ? According to standarts, yes, they are. When it comes to Halûk Tarcan, he's not a ultranationalist and not claiming that Turkish people are the root of all human civilization but he's trying to state that Turkish culture has significant positive effects on civilizations. He also has many researches on Eastern Roman and Renaissance Arts. Please get rid of nationalistic passions and let this view stay in this page.
 * The source cited for the "alternative derivation" is used as a valid source discussing both the derivations we discuss in that article, so both of them are in fact reliably sourced. The second of them is presented, in line with the references we use, as an obsolete view – one that was reasonably promoted by respectable scholars in the past, but is now commonly held to have been wrong. As such it is not "fringe" – it is a serious part of the history of the issue and as such notable. As for Haluk Tarcan, yes, he does claim that Turkish people are the root of all human civilization. That's precisely what he says, repeatedly, emphatically, over and over again, on his website. Just read it, will you? This is lunatic fringe; nobody in the actual academic literature takes this kind of stuff seriously; nobody cites him; people don't even bother to refute it in actual academic works because it's just so far below any reasonable intellectual standard. I'm now going to remove this thing from the article once more. If you persist in reincluding it, the matter will escalate until you will be, inevitably, blocked from editing; I recommend not letting it get that far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is wrong it has to be written as a part of article not only as a reference. And there's no source for "istimbolin" hypothesis in any page of the wikipedia. So it has to be removed. At least there's a reference about the view of Tarcan. But I think both views should stay and let people see different views on this matter. Your blames about Tarcan is not valid because he has many contributions to various European Universities, e.g. Sorbonne (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). And he's not claiming those things you've attributed. Don't be biased, you're just being segregationist with this approach.Bbaskbas 16:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just told you there is a source; it's in the Names of Istanbul article, footnote [10], referencing Necdet Sakaoğlu (1993/94a): "İstanbul'un adları" ["The names of Istanbul"]. In: Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi, ed. Türkiye Kültür Bakanlığı, Istanbul. (The footnote also talks about that other hypothesis, but the book reference covers both). I've now added it to this article too, don't know why it wasn't there all along. And if you have any evidence that Tarcan has ever been taken seriously in the international academic world as a researcher in a field relevant to linguistic etymologies, by all means bring it forward, but I won't hold my breath. I've seen enough of his work to know it's utterly, irredeemably, fringe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you did it now, you reinserted your Tarcan stuff four times within the last few hour, breaking the three-reverts rule. I have no time to report you for this right now (gotta go), but that gives you a final opportunity to avoid a block, by reverting yourself. If you don't, and I see your addition still in the article when I come back in a few hours, the noticeboard for such cases is waiting, and you can be pretty certain a block will be coming your way soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015
The following statement, found near near the end of the first paragraph in the climate section for Istanbul, confuses a difference of temperature values with temperatures.

"At times there can be as much as 12–15 °C (54–59 °F) difference of temperature at a given time between locations,"

When two temperatures are different by 15 °C, then the temperatures are different by 27 °F, the difference is not 59 °F. This should be obvious, but I will add an example. If the temperature at location 1 in Istanbul is 20 °C, and the temperature at location 2 in Istanbul is 35 °C, then the difference in temperatures between the locations is 35 - 20 = 15 °C. the temperature 20 °C converted to Fahrenheit = 32 + 1.8*20 = 68 °F. The temperature 35 °C converted to Fahrenheit = 32 + 1.8*35 = 95 °F. The temperature difference between 95 °F and 68 °F = 95 - 68 = 27 °F. So you see a temperature difference of 15 °C is the same as a temperature difference of 27 °F. This statement is about differences in temperature; it is not about a single measured temperature. This statement is not stating that the temperature is 12-15 °C; it is stating that the range of temperatures is 12-15 °C. The statement should be changed as follows:

"At times there can be as much as 12–15 °C (22–27 °F) difference of temperature at a given time between locations,"

Thank you

76.186.216.57 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Lets do the math here... °C to °F conversion is ( ( °C * 9 / 5 ) + 32) = °F so 12 °C is  °F and 15 °C is  °F  If we round those values, 54-59 °F seems legit. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Alakzi (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015
Psomerville1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Please unprotect Istanbul so that I can remove or correct one nonsense statement.

Psomerville1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015
Psomerville1 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Please remove the following sentence: 'Between 1914 and 1927 the number of Christians declined from 450,000 to 240,000.[67'. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist at the end of World War 1 in 1918. Also, the total population of Istanbul is estimated at half a million in the mid-19th centure so there could not possibly have been as many as 450,000 Christians there in 1914. so this statement must be incorrect. It does not fit with the narrative at all.

Psomerville1 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: I don't think your request is fully warranted. The source cited for the Christians declined from 450,000 to 240,000 seems reliable and well researched.  That fact is explicit in the source and it too is cited to a reliable source. If you feel strongly about this I'd suggest you do some research to uncover sources that explicitly refute this bit of content.  Suggest wording changes here along with sources and the change may still be made.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015
Can you please add pronunciation of Istanbul? ;

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinarden (talk • contribs) 05:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Alakzi (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul World Heritage Sites
I find the recent categorisation of single landmarks belonging to World heritage sites of Istanbul problematic. The UNESCO definition is quite clear about that. They defined four areas of the city as WHS


 * the Archaeological Park, which in 1953 and 1956 was defined at the tip of the peninsula;
 * the Süleymaniye quarter, protected in 1980 and 1981;


 * the Zeyrek quarter, protected in 1979;
 * the zone of the ramparts, protected in 1981.

And not the landmarks as such. This is particularly true for Zeyrek, where the protection has been caused by its timber houses, and not by the church complex as such. Incidentally, UNESCO did the same with Rome, where they protected its historic center as a whole. But we don`t insert for that the UNESCO WHS category on each of the more thousands churches, palaces, fountains, etc. inside it, also for such having great artistic and historic significance as the Basilica of Saint John Lateran. The UNESCO WHS of Rome stays only in one place on Wikipedia, that is the Rome article. I think that the same should apply for Istanbul, except of course if we have specialised articles about each area which was explicitly mentioned by UNESCO. In that case, as for the walls and the Zeyrek quarter, I think that it is appropriate to insert WHS category and template there. Alex2006 (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallo, since in the last week none joined the thread here, I removed the WHS template info from all the Istanbul landmarks article except the walls, which are explicitly designed by UNESCO. Feel free to write your comments here. Alex2006 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good call, Alex. I think the template should be reserved for monuments that are explicitly designated by UNESCO, either individually, or as named elements of a group (see for example Ħaġar Qim, named as part of the Megalithic temples of Malta group). On the other hand, it seems to me that any monument specifically designated by UNESCO should have an article here – isn't that designation a sort of incontrovertible proof of notability? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Istanbul
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Population
Here I am listing why I am going to change the used 13 million population from proper to urban. First the provided source from the Statistical Institute itself shows 13.120.596 as population of the city along with other suburb cities (İl/ilçe merkezleri): and as metropolitan (Büyükşehir):, which is not population proper. I tried to found the proper population of the city, but in the Statistical institute I found only urban. Pensionero (talk) (UTC)

Spelling of the Thracian Settlement
The correct spelling of the Thracian settlement is "Lygos", not "Ligos". I understand that in Turkey the preferred spelling is that with "i" (Istanbul is filled with "Ligos" kebab places), but we must stick to the sources. And here, the only source is Pliny the Elder, the only ancient author to cite this name in his Naturalis Historia. Consequently, "Lygos" is also the spelling used by serious academic scholars, like Raymond Janin. Alex2006 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I looked at this in the brief time it was listed as TFA before it was withdrawn as not being of FA quality. I tried my best to fix the problems with the writing, which was all over the place; even the spelling wasn't consistent between US and UK.

Outstanding problems:


 * 1) Some sources need updated; the content that goes with the sources too obviously
 * 2) Why use BC/AD in an article about a city in a predominantly Muslim country? Surely this is a classic case where BCE/CE would be more appropriate?

There may be others. Long term if these problems were to persist we would probably need to consider delisting it, but I am sure it can be saved. --John (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article was originally set up with BC/AD, we stick with that per the rules - it has nothing to do with religion. This is also the ENGLISH Wiki, and that is to be expected. 68.19.0.57 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing updates
If this cannot be done in a requisite timescale the article may have to be delisted. I would be very sad to see this. Does anyone have access to the original sources and/or the time and inclination to find more?--John (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Date formats
Can I take the lack of opposition to my proposal as assent to making the change I suggest? I know this can be a contentious area and I would welcome some more comment before just changing it. --John (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and enacted this change. I would welcome further discussion here if anyone feels it is a retrograde step. --John (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * as the IP just rightly said in the section above, WP:ERA suggests we should keep with any one consistent system once it's established. Indeed, this article has apparently followed the BC/AD convention ever since it first got a history section back in 2004 . Sorry John, I totally missed your proposal here the other day, over all the simultaneous fuss over that "Lygos" nonsense, otherwise I'd have raised this objection before you made the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

History of names
I see the following passage has been reinstated.

"Although Semistra predates Ligos by date of foundation, Semistra had not been on the appropriate location to give rise to modern Istanbul because the later Byzantium was located on the site of Ligos, thus it is accepted that Istanbul was founded about 3 millennia ago under the name Ligos."

1) What does it mean?

2) Is it possible to rewrite it in a way that looks like English?

3) What makes The Black Sea Encyclopedia a good source?

4) Does it add anything to the article?

--John (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sense is clear. However, I have the same doubts about you. I don't think that The Black Sea Encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source (look at the pages accessible on the internet: there are no references for the single voices). What is sure, is that Pliny the Elder writes that before the Greek foundation of Byzantion, the city was already there and was named Lygos. This is reported by serious scholars, but I could not find any evidence until now that archeological findings had confirmed what Pliny says, stating that Lygos was a "city", and not just one of the many fisher settlements which happened to be in the place chosen by the Greeks to found Byzantion. I put a "citation needed" template on the Lygos article hoping that someone bring some solid evidence. Until then, all this information, which had been inserted a couple of months ago in the article, should be taken "cum grano salis" and eventually rewritten, since without solid sources (and Lonely planet cannot be considered a source in this respect) this would be undue weight. Alex2006 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Some of this article has been butchered beyond recognition since it passed FA. This needs to be fixed before it goes on the mainpage in a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not going on the mainpage. It has been pulled. What this article needs is a FA reassessment. There's no other way to bring the community together to help salvage this mess. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the article disappeared from my watchlist some months ago, and when I realized it was too late... :-( Alex2006 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the offending material pending proper sourcing and better wording being agreed. There are quite a few other problems with the article but this is one we do not need. --John (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, sorry for reverting you. Semistra along with Lygos were mentioned by Pliny the Elder. . At the same place where Semistra and Lygos were located, at Sarayburnu, the earliest settlement was build during the Neolithic in the 6000s BC So do these two settlements deserve to be included in the intro?--Sevt V (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs in the lead of a featured article. As presented it is poorly written and poorly sourced. If more scholarly sources can be found, a reworded version could be placed in the History section, in my opinion. --John (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Semistra, which I included, I don't think that this belongs to the intro too, as well as Ligos and Byzantium as they are mentioned already in the infobox and in the first section, on top hat-rick for each name. By the way the infobox may be corrected because scholarly sources say that the foundation of Ligos was in 900 BC. In my opinion, if we want a brief intro, only Constantinople should remain as a capital of three empires and the largest city in the world. Instead of Byzantium, Ligos and the Thracian settling, the first human settlement founded by them in 5800 - 6400 BCE may be mentioned in my opinion. See Athens for example, it is stated that the earliest human presence was around the 11th–7th millennium BC.--Sevt V (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an old story, which can be found in the archives of this article. All the major sources (Mamboury, Müller-Wiener, Janin) mentions a human presence in the place of the future Istanbul: anyway, neither Lygos (with "y", not "i") nor Semistra were cities or towns, but only small fishermen villages. The first city here was Byzantion, founded by the Greeks. So it is OK to cite Lygos and Semistra in the history section, but we cannot write that Istanbul was founded as Lygos, since this is not supported by the mainstream academic sources (and does not correspond to the concept of ancient city, as defined by historians and archeologists). Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. What was the name of the user who insisted on the very same points? I think it was . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was Cavann, you have a good memory. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alex, but it is hard to forget someone who caused so much disruption. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to exclude Ligos and Semistra from the intro, but not the first human settlement and 6000 years of the city's history, this is more than the two thousand years since Bizantium was founded. Byzantium had also been a fishing village until Constantine selected it. The same names are mentioned in four places - in the intro, in history, in names and in the infobox. The intro at least may be abbreviated.--Sevt V (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sevt V: you need to provide reliable sources (the "Lonely Planet" isn't one, neither is the "Black Sea Encyclopedia"). We need reliable sources from modern academic publications for all of the following: (a) that there is a consensus in modern scholarship that "Lygos" (a name mentioned only a single time by a single Greek author) really was the name of a real settlement, and that it can be equated with whatever pre-Greek archaeological remains have been found in the area; (b) that there was a continuity of settlement between that hypothetical "Lygos" and Byzantium, such that they could be legitimately called the "same" town (as far as I know, that is certainly not the consensus view in scholarship); (c) anything about the age of that previous settlement and its original foundation (the sources you provided are completely inadequate for that.) As for "Semistra", I have to say I cannot find anything about it at all – the only references I've been able to find about such a name say that there is a promontory in the Golden Horn that was called like that, or that there was a myth about a nymph of that name, but nothing about a settlement. The only texts that claim there was a settlement called "Semistra" and that Pliny referred to it appear to be the Lonely Planet guides and other sites that copied from there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. moreover, we need also reliable sources which state that Byzantion was nothing more than a fishermen village. Alex2006 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The more I look into this, the more it all appears a mess. There is absolutely nothing at all I can find about that settlement called "Semistra" – no reference to it in any Latin or Greek work searchable online; certainly not in Pliny (websites that make this claim don't even agree on whether it's supposed to be Pliny the Elder or the Younger…) The only places this story about "Semistra" seems to have been circulated is travel guides (the oldest ones I could find from the 1960s), and then of course scores of websites copying either from that Lonely Planet text or from Wikipedia. That place is a phantom. Also, the reference in our article to "Thracians" inhabiting the place since the "6th millennium BC" seems bogus too – Thracians weren't around yet at that time; the 6th millennium BC is well before even the split-up of Proto-Indo-European into daughter languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user is now edit-warring on Constantinople and Names of Istanbul adding the exact same stuff that was removed here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Lygos and Byzantium are both mentioned names of a settlement on the Sarayburnu, villages or not. Definitions vary, sometimes Byzantium is said to be a village, sometimes Lygos is regarded as a city . Sometimes it is said Istanbul was founded under the name Byzantium, but the Black Sea Encyclopedia and Pliny probably claim that the foundation was Ligos. Also how exactly Pliny define Lygos, I haven't read the orginal, does he mention a town or a village?

I doubt that all academic sources support the colonization of the settlers from Megara as the foundation date, in fact many say that 667 BC was just a colonization, for example this source says that no one knows when exactly Istanbul was founded but mentions that the first settlement was the city of Lygos according to Pliny. , while this source claims that Ligos was a town. And that's right there is a controversy, not consensus among scholars. Actually if Lygos was a village, Byzantium was the town not the city and Constantinople was the city proper To me it is pointless to argue which of the two, Ligos or Byzantium is the foundation, both settlements existed, and in my opinion both may be excluded from the intro since the first human settlement on Sarayburnu predates both with 5000 years. And of course this Neolithic settlement was not Thracian, does the original really claims so, I haven't read it? This was a nonsense. I don't think the settlement and the time of contionous habitation have to be excluded from the intro because of the nonsense about the Thracians. Even if only Byzantium was the city, there is no chronicles when the transition from village to town(exact year) happened, it was certainly gradually, not immediately in 660 BC.--Sevt V (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am really fed up to repeat what we wrote "ad nauseam" not long time ago, but I will repeat one last time: here we are talking about a city, not a settlement. None contest that there were settlements on the place of the future Istanbul, but a fishermen village cannot be considered a city. There are tons of books about the definition of the "ancient city", and if one reads them one can understand the reason why these settlements cannot be considered as "cities". Exactly as in the case of Rome, whose birth is set around the middle of the eight century b.c., and not in the middle bronze age, although then there were already villages on the Palatine, we should consider the city on the Sarayburnu as born only at the moment when the archaeological proofs show that this social organism starts to behave in an "urban" way. Now, where are the archaeological proofs that this happened for the settlement known as Lygos? Kuban & co. just assert what Pliny the Elder wrote, and this is not enough. Alex2006 (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Byzantium was as much as town as Lygos at the begging, when it was founded in 660 BC, possibly both were villages. There is a controversy about the foundation date of Istanbul, we should state that, given the views of Pliny and the Black Sea Encyclopedia. If these two are not academic scholarship sources, then what is regarded as such sources? In my opinion we should summarize the controversy similiarily to this source, "no one knows when exactly Istanbul was founded". The source mentions that the first mentioned settlement was the settlement Lygos however, so this is the second academic source I found that rejects the foundation of Istanbul as Byzantium and there are more to be found for sure. There are many academic sources that do not support this view, so I don't get it for what academic consensus that the city was founded as Byzantium you are talking about. It would be more correct if we describe that this is the foundation according to Greek mythology.

Good example with Rome. Not urban setllements do not deserve mentioning, but the time since the city has been continuously inhabited maybe does. It is said in the article "while Roman mythology dates the founding of Rome at only around 753 BC, the site has been inhabited for much longer, making it one of the oldest continuously occupied cities in Europe.", I think here could be said something like that mentioning the Neolithic era too. The continuous habitation is mentioned in the introduction of many cities, so I don't see why we should not mention it here.--Sevt V (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For heavens sake, get a grip. Your latest edit doesn't even make sense grammatically . And you really, really need to let go of all those cheap travel guide books as sources. The latest one you just linked to is just another example of why they are all unsuitable. It says: "The Roman historian Pliny [...] wrote that in the ninth century B.C. a small settlement named Lygos existed on what is now Sarayburnu". Now, that's just spectacularly wrong. Pliny wrote no such thing. These guidebook authors all keep copying this crap from one another without ever bothering to check their facts. Pliny wrote exactly three words about "Lygos": ...antea Lygos dictum. That's it. These three words are the absolute sum total of what anybody has ever known about "Lygos" or is ever going to know. Nothing about when this was, nothing about what it was then, nothing about where it was. And of course Pliny wrote these words a full 700 years after the supposed time that "Lygos" existed – he himself basically had no way of knowing anything about all this in the first place. All the rest is pure speculation, including the modern idea that this name "Lygos" might be connected to whatever pre-Greek archaeological remains have been found in the area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon, you are absolutely right, I haven't read the original, Pliny indeed states only these three words and the book I cited is a peace of crap. It seems that he have never mentioned the Seraglio point. But he means that this was the former name of Byzantium, so it seems Lygos may fit in the name section. No historian can tell for sure what was it, Pliny lived 700 years after Lygos ended, but modern historians live a lot later than all these settlements, so why modern historians' considerations can be something more than Pliny's historia? Few modern sources as the Black Sea encyclopedia provide an alternative view, that Istanbul was established as Lygos at some time, how good source this encyclopedia is? This may be not that crap as the last I linked, I don't know, somebody rate this? --Sevt V (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * About the Black Sea Encyclopedia: given the fact that their English is abysmal, it's pretty obvious it was published without any editorial quality control, which in itself points towards unreliability. The authors are political scientists and oceonographers, with no visible credentials in matters of ancient history. They even manage to spell the name Lygos wrong (with "i" instead of "y") but then in turn misspell polis with "y" instead of "i", which clearly indicates they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to antiquity. There are also tell-tale signs of poor academic management, for example the fact that they accidentally cite themselves in their bibliography (p.888). Given this and the lack of identifiable sourcing for the history parts of the article, and the publication date (2014), they may very easily have copied that history stuff over from Wikipedia, for all we know. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that they did just that: the sentence "Istanbul served as the capital of four empires: the Roman Empire (330–395), the Byzantine Empire (395–1204 and 1261–1453), the Latin Empire (1204–1261), and the Ottoman Empire (1435–1922)" is verbatim taken over from what we used to have in the article: "it served as the capital of four empires: the Roman Empire (330–395), the Byzantine Empire (395–1204 and 1261–1453), the Latin Empire (1204–1261), and the Ottoman Empire (1453–1922)" (and we had that sentence before their book was published ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Was the settlement turned into city by the settlers from Megara, or they established a completely new settlement, do any authors say something about that? I see that Janin, Raymond (1964) is cited in the history section about Lygos but there is not link to his statement. There was a Neolithic settlement at the Seraglio point which means that Byzantium was established on the site of another settlement and is not a new foundation by itself. So, maybe change the wording - not founded in 660 BC but founded according to Greek mythology and/or turned into city by settlers from Megara? What about the Neolithic settlement and the continuous habitation, does it deserve to be mentioned in the intro?--Sevt V (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When Greeks went to new places to found colonies, the main idea was to establish a new political entity, a polis, i.e. a society with its unique, specifically urban, institutions and social structures, which would be very different from any kind of settlement that might have existed in the area before. To what extent they might have incorporated any of the physical infrastructure of previous settlements in their new city is anybody's guess; I haven't seen any hints that they normally did that. The same is true for the question of how much of any previous population might have been incorporated into the new polis. We don't even know if the previous settlements were even temporarily continuous with Byzantium – a previously settled place might easily get temporarily abandoned and re-settled again later in the course of the centuries. As for Janin, he doesn't really say that much – he tentatively speaks of Lygos as a bourg and identifies it with archaeological finds "at the point of the peninsula" and "underneath the pavement of Hagia Irini", where "numerous shards of proto-corinthian pottery" (i.e. Greek pottery, but from a time before the foundation of Byzantium) were found. In your favour, he does end up saying that "Byzantium" appears to be etymologically of Thracian origin, and that this is an argument for some form of continuity of settlement ("[les Grecs], en s'installant dans la petite cité thrace, n'ont pu faire disparaître complètement l'ancien état des choses. Ils ont dû composer avec l'élément indigène"). This is, of course, just one author's speculation (though a reputable author, as far as I can tell). Whether it's consensus in scholarship, I can't tell. This standard reference work on Thrace and this  specialized study on Greek colonialization of Thrace have no mention of Lygos at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you long answers. The Atheneans from Megara were much more skilled city builders than the Thracians and I think it's clear to anybody that their settlement was much more devoloped at any level. The question is whether the settlement named Byzantium started with the settlers from Megara in 660 BC or it was an earlier Thracian settlement. If the name Byzantium may be Thracian etymologically, it is unlikely that the Megarans who did not speak Thracian, named their foundation with a Thracian name for no reason, if this etymology is true I conclude that Byzantium had been a Thracian settlement before it was colonized. There are such authors who say that the foundation of Byzantium was earlier not in 660 BC by Byzas as the myth claims, these are the possibilities that are not stated in the article. Anyway, may we include in the introduction a statement about the continuous habitation of Istanbul as the intro of Rome, or if we can't be sure about it because of possible gaps just to mention when the earliest human presence was(not setttlements) as the intro of Athens?--Sevt V (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:Lead fixation. I suggest you go and rid yourself of it. The info is already in the history section, where it belongs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it, let's forget about the Neolithic. Actually what is the difference between essays and guidelines? Your citation that Byzantium is etymologically Thracian, makes me suggest that the year 660 BC when settlers from Megara settled should be removed. And that Lygos was a bourg i.e. town has an urban meaning, not rural. These are only mine suggestive interpretations of your interesting quotes and I can't conclude anything, you seem to be better informed than me to conclude what the scholarship says. Is then 660 BC actually the certain foundation year of BYZANTIUM, not Istanbul? I mean what about if the etymology is Thracian, then is this year incorrect?--Sevt V (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I can get the point of anything else, but I don't understand why if all other cities mention their earliest human habitation Istanbul should not. Why the same rule does not apply to all articles? Thoughts? After all what is the consensus?--Sevt V (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New Collage for Istanbul
I was thinking of creating a new main collage for Istanbul as the current one, though very respectable and well made, seems a little old and it's time for something fresh. I hope you guys will like it and with your approval I will post it.

What do you guys think?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would certainly object to the inclusion of the top panel, which is quite low quality (with those people at the left) and on which you can't even see anything about the city at this small infobox size. Seriously, I first thought it was a picture taken somewhere far outside Istanbul, until I zoomed it in and realized it's taken from Topkapi. (Incidentally, we have a better shot from that point at File:Bosporus-Panorama (CherryX).jpg). You also still need to add the actual sources to the image description page at Commons (i.e. links to each of the source files). And why is Dolmabahce Palais given so much more room than all the other sites? Also, quite generally speaking, with Wikipedia pictures there is no such thing as "a little old" and "time for something fresh". This is an encyclopedia, not a fashion magazine. Once we have some good choice of images, there is absolutely no need to rehash the same old fruitless and timewasting debates about yet other image selections every few months, just for the sake of satisfying some individual's thirst for "something fresh". Please find something more useful to do on Wikipedia than fiddling with images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but this is a solution without a problem. If I recall, it took several rounds of consensus making to pick the current option. I agree with what was said above.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 04:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Vote for a new Image
From Top to Bottom: Topkapı Palace • Hagia Sophia • Ortaköy Mosque • Istanbul University • Bosphorus Bridge • Istanbul nostalgic tramways • Haydarpaşa Terminal • Skyline of Istanbul

Hi there Wikipedia Community. I would like to first apologise for being a little bit of a nuisance here trying to update the Istanbul main image.

That being said, I have taken great, great effort in creating something which I really hope you will like, it took me all night. If you do not like it then that's ok, I just want to see if you would like this instead of the current one.

I highly recommend any possible edits to this to any of the images being replaced or moved around. Some seem to be a little out of place and the border gaps are a little off. This is for the community and I hope you like it and want to make edits to it.

I thank you very much for considering this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 October 2015‎

I understand these last collages are not to your liking, I would like to apologise to everyone as i understand that the current one is what you prefer, so i thought this update on it would be better. But i think Ortakoy is a bit out of place, and maybe the top image needs cropping like the original? What do you think:


 * image = Clockwise from top: View of Golden Horn between Galata and Seraglio Point including the historic areas; Maiden's Tower; a nostalgic tram on İstiklal Avenue; Levent business district with Dolmabahçe Palace; Ortaköy Mosque in front of the Bosphorus Bridge; and Hagia Sophia.

All edits are greatly welcomed and thanked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmiras (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph on April 24 1915
There was a discussion pertaining to this notable date quite a few years back. Indeed, April 24 1915 refers to the Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. This is a notable event not only for the history of the Armenian people, but for the history of Istanbul as well. added an entire paragraph that regarding the event that was unilaterally deleted by with an edit-summary that states "this paragraph is notably irrelevant and out of place, coming across as anti-Turkish commentary". Now it can be easily argued that this event is relevant to the history of a key minority in Istanbul, it can also be edited to avoid any sort of problems concerning POV wording and so forth (I personally don't see anything wrong with the current wording). So I will reinstate this paragraph if there are no objections. I'd really look forward to have a discussion beforehand. By the way, it doesn't have to be a paragraph. A simple sentence may be suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Remind
Just a remind. Some important naming conventions and manuals of style which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD and WP:LEAD): ''Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".''' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to see whether there are good reasons to exempt the city from the general manuals and conventions or not. It is interesting how according to Google Ngram Viewer Constatntinople is the most common name, so the title possibly needs to be changed here. However BGN and the World Factbook call the city only Istanbul. At least repeating Constantinople and Byzantium twice in the lead cannot excuse even any common sense.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think, that the alternative names are too many in the lead. I am unconvinced, that this article should be exempted from respecting the guideline above. We can start, I suggest, which nobody will object, with reducing the mention of alternative names from multiple times to one for each. Unofficial foreign inscriptions seem undue as well. Even all archaic English names should not be moved back to the first line if this rule is applied as these names are only relevant for a specific context(historical).Sevt V (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation of Istanbul can hardly be compared with most other cities – few cities look back on such a long history, and the situation of a city that has borne three totally different names in different periods, and was famous and important during each, is rather unique. The pattern described at WP:LEAD doesn't invalidate the fact that long and complex articles will always have duplication of information between the lead and later sections (after all, the lead is supposed to be a summary), so there is nothing wrong about mentioning the names several times. This is an exceptionally complex article in which naming issues play an exceptionally important role, so it's no surprise they will take up more space than in most other location articles. As for the lead sentence, the mentioning of "Constantinople" is absolutely necessary for readers who come to the article through one of the numerous links of the form Constantinople (numerous other articles refer to "Constantinople" in historical contexts, e.g. dealing with the Ottoman era, but can't link to the separate Constantinople article because that deals with the Byzantine period only). The reference to "Byzantium" at that point might be a bit more open to debate. In the further course of the lead section, the renamings obviously have to be mentioned again during the brief history sketch, because they are a crucial aspect of the subsequent foundational acts.
 * I'm going to revert this disruptive edit by User:Sevt V. (In addition to the fact that the foundations and refoundations of 660 BC and 330 AD can't be properly described without reference to the names, the edit is also wrong in its first part: "Constantinople" isn't "archaic" usage – that would imply it was only used in older English. It is a name used in reference to older periods of history, but this is still done in present-day English, so "historically known as..." fits much better.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Foundations and refoundations are in detail described in the infobox, including the infobox the alternative names were stated at three places at the lead, plus different inscriptions. WP:Use modern names says Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same...For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods I can't find any sources confirming the modern usage of Constantinople for the city. In addition to the policy above, others, such as Britannica claim that Constantinople is a former name "formerly known as Constantinople", Encyclopedia.com states "Istanbul (formerly known as Constantinople and before that as Byzantium) " and below describes these as nicknames. The World Factbook includes alternatives (Smyrna) of Izmir, but does not do so for Istanbul. I don't think, that mentioning three times alternate English names in the lead is reasonable, when it is recommended to leave them in the section. I can be fine with mentioning them once in the lead though.Sevt V (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Having Byzantium and Constaniople three times in the lead is a pretty high number even for such unique city.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)