Talk:Istanbul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Istanbul was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-02-11

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Istanbul article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Istanbul: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Istanbul is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Guidelines for editing the istanbul article
  • Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Istanbulas a whole, or official government of Istanbul links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 05:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Is Constantinople the original name of Istanbul?

Contents

[edit] Name

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the reality is far less complicated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite, there are many sources confirming the εις την πόλιν position. You can find many by non-Greek authors on Google Books for example. I have never seen one claiming otherwise.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we've all discussed this a lot, many times.
  1. Whether you personally find the derivation plausible is of absolutely no importance (WP:V, WP:OR).
  2. The derivation from "is tin polin" is linguistically much easier than that from "Konstantinoupoli"
  3. Nobody has claimed the name was invented in 1453, and certainly not by finger-pointing Greeks guiding the invading army. The Turks and Arabs had this name for the city centuries before that.
  4. "(I)stanbul" is attested in writing since the 10th century, side by side with "Kostantiniyye", and was used without interruption in Ottoman Turkish of all ages.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the name Istanbul was used by Turks long before the twentieth century. What DragutBarbarossa must be referring to was the official renaming of the city.--Noli turbare circulos meos 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock the Article

We must protect the article because there is an unsigned vandal editing stupid things. Deliogul 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the guy stopped. Deliogul 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, doesn't this article deserves to be a featured article? I think it is even better than the articles of some nations. Deliogul 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you must wait until 20 January. I have some important final exams :) I will start to work after the end of the finel week. Deal? Deliogul 21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You might need to visit a library and get some real data; the text is full of &*^%$ I'm not a citizen of Istanbul, just familiarity, so I did not feel like correcting. --OttomanReference 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
University's library will be a good choice. After finals, I will scan the article to find the weak points so I can borrow books from library according to my findings. See you, Deliogul 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know where to put this, but the weather chart is inaccurate and awful. For example, in April the Highest Recorded, 8, is lower than the average high, 12. Same/reverse problem for the lows. And if you click on the Weatherbase link, it provides only average temps and precip., not highest/lowest recorded. (For comparison, April is 11-20 degrees C). 204.130.0.8 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)CMS 3/7/07

~~

[edit] Edits of Ottomanreference

I think we need to revert ottomanreference's edits before its too late because

  • 1.the images cannot be used as illustrative purposes anymore.
  • 2.most descriptive sections are deleted (like administration,airpors,railroads,etc..),, and really unnecessary and confusing ones were created like urban design section is mixed with city arrangement and population growth which is not its place.Things like utilities can be mentioned in broader groups too.
  • 3.some useless charts were created like in population growth while it is important to see exact dates like 1453 which is not obvious in the charts.
  • 4.some things are listed although they mustnt have been.

although it doesnt look too bad overall, i think someone has to add what ottomanreference has been doing well to the previous version because now the main structure of the article is broken and will be too difficult to fix soon. 85.97.42.216 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is in improvement drive; the structure of the article should be same as other featured cities. (a) no content is removed. All the previous content is there. (b) The extensive number of pictures are under the lists related to Istanbul; see the relevant "lists sectio." (c) this is more than a month long improvement drive, the pics to the article will be organized afther the work on the text will be finished. Not this is an encyclopedia not a catalog, it has to include significant amount of information not significant amount of pics.OttomanReference 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish the users who adds these images (tons of it) would be interested in the improvement of the lists. The lists are presented as main pages for the relevant sections in the article. OttomanReference 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For the relevant parts: OttomanReference 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol of Istanbul Municipality

I think the symbol is relevant and deserves inclusion in the infobox, but in a better, clearer form. Certainly this exists on the internet: [1] or [2]. Can such a logo be appropriated under fair use? Otherwise, there is that on the commons, though it also took lacks a certain quality the page deserves.--Patrickneil 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you help us with the blue version of this logo. + is it possible to have it named as Logo? Even if it may be used as a flag, Turkish constitution do not enable it to be named as "flag". The administrative divisions (including municipals) do not have official flags in Turkey. Thanks --OttomanReference 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are logos in various formats in this official address. I think they can be used under fair use, since this page is titled "press materials", it is as if they are for use in media. The example above is not good, this logo is not usually on a red background. It is not a flag for sure, but apart from being the logo of the municipality, it is a kind of symbol for the city as well. Filanca 12:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think it is a shame that while there is so much information about the history of Constantinople, yet, so little about history of Ottoman and Turkish Istanbul in this encyclopedia. Filanca 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

Crime is an integral part of city information. Represented under demographics; some examples from featured cities:--OttomanReference 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Kolkata:Kolkata reported 67.6% of total Special and Local Laws (SLL) crimes registered in 35 Indian mega cities.[43] Kolkata police district registered 10,757 IPC cases in 2004, which was 10th highest in the country.[44] The crime rate in the city was 81.4 per 100,000 against the national rate of 168.8 in 2004.[45] Kolkata's Sonagachi area, with more than 10,000 sex workers,[46] is one of India's largest red-light districts.
  • Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor's crime rate is below the national average. Compared with that average, the violent crime rate is much lower than the property crime rate: 50% and 26% less than the national average, respectively.
  • Boston : Boston's low crime rate in the last years of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st has been credited to its police department's collaboration with neighborhood groups and church parishes to prevent youths from joining gangs, as well as involvement from the United States Attorney and District Attorney's offices. This helped lead in part to what has been touted as the "Boston Miracle." Murders in the city dropped from 152 in 1990 (for a murder rate of 26.5 per 100,000 people) to just 31—not one of them a juvenile—in 1999 (for a murder rate of 5.26 per 100,000). In more recent years, however, the annual murder count has fluctuated by as much as 50% compared to the year before, with 60 murders in 2002, followed by just 39 in 2003, 64 in 2004, and 75 in 2005. Though the figures are nowhere near the high-water mark set in 1990, the aberrations in the murder rate have been unsettling for many Bostonians and have prompted discussion over whether the Boston Police Department should reevaluate its approach to fighting crime.[8][9][10] The city's Election Department has made mistakes for years, and in 2005 agreed to oversight by the federal government after the Justice Department filed a lawsuit alleging coercion and other problems involving services for voters who do not speak English. Following the 2006 election, the Election Department is also under investigation by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office. It is reported that the department's policy has been to distribute to the polling places only enough ballots for half the registered voters, despite a state law requiring each polling place to have enough ballots for all voters. The Secretary of the Commonwealth has announced an intention to take control of the Elections Department.[11]
  • Dawson Creek:
    Image:DawsonCreek BC crime.png
    Crime rate in Dawson Creek, 1993–2005.[1]
    In 2005, the twenty-two officer Dawson Creek Royal Canadian Mounted Police municipal detachment reported 2,561 Criminal Code of Canada offenses. This translated into a crime rate of 225 Criminal Code offenses per 1,000 people, down from the previous year's rate of 231, but still much higher than the provincial average rate of 125. In 2004, on the per 1,000 people basis, the city had higher crime rates compared to the provincial averages on all criminal code offenses except theft from motor vehicles (19.8 city, 20.2 provincially), heroin-related (0 city, 0.13 provincially), and murder (0 city, 0.03 provincially). The city had slightly higher but comparable levels of offensive weapons charges, cannabis-related, robbery, and motor vehicle thefts. However, on that same per 1,000 people basis, the city had much higher levels of shoplifting (13.8 city, 4.2 provincially), cocaine-related (7.8 city, 1.4 provincially), commercial break-and-enters (11.2 city, 4.2 provincially), residential break-and-enters (13.9 city, 6.0 provincially), and non-sexual assaults (26.2 city, 9.9 provincially).[1]

[edit] User:Shuppiluliuma and crime section

User User:Shuppiluliuma, this is a city article. Two days ago you were deleting this section. Today, most of the information you are adding belongs to demographics of Turkey. Please, do not include information which has factual problems, such as Ugur Mumcu did not killed in Istanbul. Or your extensive definition of what a petty crime should be located in its own page. Thanks for your efforts. --OttomanReference 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tag

Tag is in relation to the statement

Istanbul is also the only city in history which served as the capital of three different empires: the Roman Empire (330-395), Byzantine Empire (395-1453) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922)

This statement is not only childish in understanding, but false in content. A western scholar invented the term "Byzantine" because some Westerners then were under the delusion that the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century, and that the poor, backward and peripheral western provinces still constituted the Empire's core in the 5th century, which of course was the opposite of the truth. But let's ignore this and pretend that the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire were two different empire; well, Beijing was capital of at least 7 different Empires, including the State of Yan, Later Jin Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty and Mongol Empire, became capital of the Ming Dynasty, and the Qing Dynasty, . Xi'an (Chang'an) of ten. Babylon was capital of the Babylonian Empire, the neo-Babylonian Empire and became capital of the Persian Empire; as Ctesiphon-Seleucia was capital of the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, and as Baghdad capital of the Abbasid Empire. For this reason and others, claims about being only city to be capital of three Empires is false, both because it was only capital of two AND because other cities have like or greater honours. I tried many different ways to accomodate Shuppiluliuma (talk • contribs), but he reverted every one for this. I've got no option now but to tag the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there needs to be some discussion of what constitutes an empire. Certainly the state of Yan during the Warring States Period of China, for instance, wasn't an empire--nor were the later Chinese dynasties mentioned for that matter. I also think that there is an argument for differentiating between the combined Latin-speaking Roman empire and the later Greek-speaking (Byzantine) Roman empire. For instance see the following from the wikipedia article on Roman Empire: "Of the many accepted dates for the end of the Roman state, the latest is 610. This is when the Emperor Heraclius made sweeping reforms, forever changing the face of the empire. Greek was readopted as the language of government and Latin influence waned. By 610, the eastern part of the Roman Empire had gone under Greek influence and evolved into what modern historians now call the Middle Age Byzantine Empire, although the Empire was never called that way by its contemporaries (rather it was called Romania, Basileia Romaion or Pragmata Romaion). The Byzantines continued to call themselves Romans until their fall to Ottoman Turks in 1453. That year the eastern part of the Roman Empire was ultimately ended by the Fall of Constantinople. Constantine XI, emperor of the Byzantine Empire during 1453 is considered the last Roman emperor. The Greek ethnic self-descriptive name "Romans" survives to this day." I am not suggesting re-adding the statement, as an arguable claim like this probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. However, I personally think that, depending on the definition of the terms, the claim could be considered true. 85.109.6.201 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)veryshuai

[edit] Capital contradiction

In Ottoman Empire, Istanbul is listed as the fourth capital. Here, "Istanbul became the third capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453." Clearly the same convention should be used on both of these articles. Calbaer 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is about the way you look. Ottomans were a little Beylik at first and their lands were named Söğüt and Domaniç. Some sources count Söğüt of the early stages as a capital and other sources prefer to count Bursa, Edirne and Constantinople as the capitals of the Ottoman State. Deliogul 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different "dynasties" don't make different "empires". The Byzantine Empire had 16 different dynasties

Calgacus, different "dynasties" don't make different "empires".

If we "unzip" the Byzantine Empire into its different dynasties (the same way in which the Chinese Empire is "unzipped" into different dynasties) we'll see that there were 16 different Byzantine dynasties, with no bloodline connection at all.

See List of Byzantine emperors (dynasties)

In that case, we would have 16 different Roman/Byzantine Empires, plus the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922) which makes a grand total (between 330 and 1922) of 18 different dynasties (empires with your logic) in which Istanbul still outperforms Beijing or Babylon or any other example you can come up with.

Officially, though, Constantinople has been the capital city of the Roman Empire (330-395), the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire (395-1204 and 1261-1453), the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922), which makes 4 empires.

These are "facts", not mere "opinions".

Also, the first settlement in Istanbul is not Byzantion. Byzantion was built on the site of Lygos, an ancient fishing settlement established by Thracian tribes between the 13th and 11th centuries BC, along with the neighbouring Semistra.

When the Greek colonists from Megara came, they actually first established Chalcedon (present Kadıköy) on Cape Moda at the Asian side in 685 BC. They later established Byzantion, in 667 BC, at the Seraglio Point, where Lygos used to stand. Several walls and substructures dating from Lygos are still found in this area. Also, the Phoenicians had established another settlement near Kadiköy-Üsküdar, on the Asian side, not to mention the settlement in Fikirtepe dating from 5500 BC. So Istanbul is actually much older than Byzantion.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmSYv8tFcEgAvSlXNyoA?p=lygos+semistra+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkj6fv8tFDSMBKzNXNyoA?p=lygos+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkibWv8tFjmQAIyVXNyoA?p=semistra+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkk7tv8tFFAYBc5lXNyoA?p=istanbul+fikirtepe+bc&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

These findings are recent enough, that's why you have to check the latest editions of Encyclopedia Britannica to see them (or Ana Britannica which is the Turkish edition).

I will add these details one by one.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No, excessive use of subsections and incomplete paragraphs.
2. Factually accurate?: Not quite, claims of leadership in many areas not supported by references. One ref is a yahoo search?
3. Broad in coverage?: Short sections, but covers a broad range of topics.
4. Neutral point of view?: Not quite.
5. Article stability? No, atleast 5 reverts this month alone.
6. Images?: Copyright issues exist. (Eg. Image:Istanbul_from_above.jpg)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Alan.ca 09:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Istanbul

Following complaints from OttomanReference, I removed the images that I added to Istanbul from WowTurkey.Com, our web site. Feel free to upload your own images. I apologize for ruining everything. Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Istanbul's "controversial" status as an imperial capital city in its past, which sounds "racist" according to OttomanReference (maybe he meant "chauvinistic", I can't see the "racism" here) Shuppiluliuma 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate hyperlink under the Haydarpasa Station photo in the last edit by OttomanReference

I was determined not to "help", but I couldn't "help it" :D

Haydarpasa Terminal is NOT the terminus of the Orient Express (that's the Sirkeci Terminal on the European side)

Haydarpasa Terminal was opened in 1908 as the terminus of the Baghdad Railway (Istanbul-Baghdad Railway) and the Hijaz railway (which can be called the "Istanbul-Medina Railway" because it extended the previous line between Istanbul and Damascus all the way to Medina, thus connecting Istanbul and Medina)

Hopefully someone who knows Istanbul good enough will correct it.

Regards.

PS With the good article review advised to remove the pictures that has controversial copyright issues. The rest of the pictures are distributed to corresponding sections. I just moved that picture, after checking the copyright status, from the gallery to the beginning of the section. The text under the picture is written by someone else. Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image with the controversial copyright

The only image with the controversial copyright is "Istanbul_from_above.jpg" (the top image) which I scanned from the poster of the Bosphorus Marathon of several years ago.

Other images are from WowTurkey and have no copyright problems.

The WowTurkey images can be re-added, but unfortunately I don't have the capability of doing it myself. Eventually, as new (more recent) images arrive from Wikipedians living in Istanbul, they can/will replace the WowTurkey images within time (updating the city's street level view and skyline), of course. DragutBarbarossa 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos needed

I urge wikipedians residing in İstanbul to go out, take photos of modern İstanbul (north of Beşiktaş), and upload them with proper free licenses to Wikimedia Commons. There are enough free licensed photos for the old city but almost none for the actual city center. And I mean no offense for the other fine districts. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sister cities Istanbul

Rio de JAneiro is not a sister city of Istanbul! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.181.232.140 (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Then cite your source. We love Brazilians haha :) Deliogul 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haydarpaşa Terminal ( once again :) )

Haydarpaşa Terminal on the Anatolian side was opened in 1908, not 1890 as written under its picture.

Sirkeci Terminal on the European side was opened in 1890.

Hence the confusion.

151.38.182.238 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's not the Saint Esprit Cathedral, it's the Sant'Antonio di Padova on İstiklal Avenue

In one of the city photos, the caption gives the wrong information that the red bell tower belongs to the Saint Esprit Cathedral in Harbiye (the page about St. Esprit Cathedral also mistakenly showed an image of Sant'Antonio di Padova on İstiklal Avenue - but I corrected it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Downtown34.jpg

The photo in the link above shows the bell tower of St. Antoine Cathedral (Sant'Antonio di Padova) on İstiklal Avenue in Beyoğlu.

http://www.istanbulguide.net/istguide/im/pera/stantoine1.jpg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=st.+antoine+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

Saint Esprit Cathedral is way up north in Harbiye, is white, smaller, and can't bee seen from Galata Tower.

Below is a picture of the Saint Esprit Cathedral in Harbiye:

http://www.istanbulguide.net/istguide/im/sisli/cathedralestesprit01.jpg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=st.+esprit+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

It's the church which Pope Ratzinger visited a few months ago.

More images:

St. Antoine (Sant'Antonio di Padova) on İstiklal Avenue, Beyoğlu

Bell tower of St. Esprit on Cumhuriyet Avenue, Harbiye

151.42.178.208 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures

Article is suffering from too many pictures. I understand many of these are great photos, but do we really need eight photos of education establishments in Istanbul? Or seven in the transporation section? Or six in the economy section? This is going overboard imo. See other FA city articles such as Canberra, San Francisco, California, Vancouver or Detroit, Michigan to get an idea at the kind of article we should be aiming for. --A.Garnet 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They are informative pictures in my opinion.

And, forgive my honesty, but none of the cities you listed above have the history, heritage, buildings and memories of Istanbul (even combined), therefore it's very normal that Istanbul needs more images for a fair representation of its extremely rich and complex character which has evolved into something unique on planet Earth throughout centuries and centuries.

7th Son of a 7th Son 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course all of them are very good and informative pictures, but just for education section, 9 pictures are unnecessary. You can add these pictures to the original articles. Kaygtr 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand 7th, but 9 pictures is too much. Ideally i'd like 3 pictures of a bigger size, but this to me is a compromise. --A.Garnet 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A compromise for what?

What's wrong about showing the beautiful school buildings of Istanbul?

There are actually many many more, and some of them are former palaces, such as the Galatasaray University (aka Feriye Palace) on the Bosphorus which is not even shown.

Very few cities in the world have more beautiful and grand school buildings (and historic schools) than Istanbul, and as true Istanbulites we have the right to brag about it.

Those who are not true Istanbulites may not care, but I do. And I believe many others like me also do. 7th Son of a 7th Son 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck with it, because imo your turning this into an ugly article. --A.Garnet 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think that there's too much church image in the article. It must be more balanced.--BlueEyedCat 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Series of Istanbul articles and its template

Lets make a template for Istanbul, everything about it. The current article is big, and we can split it and make it into a series of articles related to Istanbul, just like the 'Kurdish history and Culture series' thing. Istanbul deserves it. Can we just do it, or do we need to make requests? deniz 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


any comments? And, thanks a lot everybody, especially Kerem and 7th Son of a 7th Son, for greatly improving the article lately ([3]). It looks beautiful with the images, but the images might be diverting readers' attention, which is not good. deniz 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weatherbox

The data in the weatherbox is inaccurate and links to the wrong page on weatherbase. See http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=6071&refer=&units=metric Can someone edit it, or explain to me how I can edit it? Gerry Lynch 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a template, Template:Istanbul weatherbox

Thanks in advance for your contributions deniz 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture in template

The Hagia Sophia is a far more notable landmark in Istanbul than Maiden's Tower. It would be better if the Hagia Sophia was the lead picture, or some other picture that is more representative of Istanbul.--Sefringle 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Picture in template

Hagia Sophia is not the only symbol of Istanbul.

The image with the Maiden's Tower contains:

  • Maiden's Tower (408 BC) in the foreground
  • Left to right: The Blue Mosque (1616), Hagia Sophia (537), Topkapi Palace (1478), Beyazit Tower (1828) and Suleymaniye Mosque (1557) in the background.

Maiden's Tower (408 BC) is the oldest structure in Istanbul which has continuously existed since 408 BC.

It has witnessed the ancient Greek period, the Roman period, the Byzantine period, the Latin Crusader period, the Ottoman period and the Turkish Republican period. I can't think of an image which can symbolize Istanbul better than the Maiden's Tower in front and the entire peninsula of Constantinople in the background (which is a classic pose by the way - ask the "real Istanbulites" if you don't believe me)

Maiden's Tower & Istanbul = Statue of Liberty & New York

The image of Hagia Sophia, on the other hand, shows only the Hagia Sophia.

And it already existed below.

KeremTuncay

[edit] imo

But, they are not clear. If we have better pictures of Topkapi palace, or Blue Mosque, they would be better. Hagia Sofia should be near the history section. denizTC 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, the Maiden's Tower is definitely a better symbol of Istanbul than anything else. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't to me, because I never heard of it before reading this article. As for notability, Hagia Sophia seems to be far more notable Google gives about 400,000 links to Hagia Sophia [4], while Maiden's Tower only has about 20,000 links. [5] Not to mention it is historicly more famous as an architectural acheivement. As for the "other buildings," they are hard to see in the picture; if you weren't looking for them, you wouldn't see them.--Sefringle 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that simple google searches of "Hagia Sophia" and then "Maiden's Tower" simply can't measure the notability of these as a symbol of Istanbul, it will just give a clue on how many times these two names occur, on their own, in google's web database. And getting more hits for Hagia Sophia is no surprise. Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's no suprise becasue the general academic community has more to say about the Hagia Sophia, because it is a far more notable landmark. The Princeton American Society of Civil Engineers calls it the most famous landmark in Istanbul. [6]. PBS called it the finest example of Byzantime architecture [7]. There are just more academic sites for Hagia Sophia being more notable than there are for Maiden's Tower.--Sefringle 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of city articles are doing is putting a picture not of a particular landmark, but of the skyline. In that case, maybe this image or this image or this image or this image would be better.--Sefringle 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAO Kerem Tuncay

Kerem, I have not finalised the pictures, I am just proposing that this style is better suited to the article. If you feel there is a better picture then by all means replace, it but as a general rule of thumb no section should have more than 4 pictures absoloute maximum. The only exception I made was for religion which is signifcant for showing Istanbuls multicultural roots. Perhaps we should conduct a straw a poll between both versions and see what other editors think. --A.Garnet 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the latest edit summary, I have to say that I was not endorsing the images one way over another one, and I think that you are right for the example that you gave. However me and Garnet's point is about the structure and layout, it is not about the choice of images per se. There is a limit as to how many pictures there should be, otherwise it becomes distracting for the reader. So, fewer and bigger pictures is better. We should keep Garnet's layout but have a discussion on which pictures should be used if need be, and try to see which ones capture the spirit of the section comprehensively.. That's all.. Baristarim 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
These people come from wowturkey Baris, they are photographers, their prime concern is with showing images and lots of them, they seem to have no consdieration for the article itself. As I have said to Kerem above, I am not saying these images are final, only that this layout be used with maxium of 3/4 pics per section. --A.Garnet 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I know about wowturkey. Listen guys, we also would like this article to be the best possible and also appreciate your efforts. But please keep in mind that in Wikipedia there are rarely quality articles that include more than 3/4 images per section, because Wikipedia also is trying to transmit written information.. In that context, pictures are used to enhance the written content, not vice versa.. That's why I said fewer images that capture the spirit of the section would be better, otherwise I have no particular choice of one photo over the other.. Baristarim 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need to lock this page?

There's some kind of edit war going on --AW 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to semi-protect. This is all the work of a single user who's hell-bent to get as many photos from his website in as possible. He can't, because he doesn't own the copyrights, so now he's socking impersonating the photographers and uploading them as allegedly self-made. The tragic thing is, these are fine photos and I'd love to have them, and I'm even inclined to believe him when he says he knows the photographers personally and has their implicit permission - he just can't be persuaded to do the standard thing and document that permission properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/t/Talk%7EIstanbul_7855.html"