Talk:Andrew Mango
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Andrew Mango: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] Comments
He was born in 1928 , back then the city that is now called Istambul was called Constantinople.AdrianCo (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Since Mustafa Kemal changed the name to Istanbul in 1930 it is quite imposible to have the official name of Istabul before 1930, as for Ottoman Records, well... even if that is true the name of the city in diplomatic/official situations was Constantinople. Now, let us not forget that your exemple is about Ottoman Records only, but all of Europe called it Constantinople...including the Ottoman Empire in Official Decrees/Diplomaic arangements etc, now Istabul back then was not consecrated as a "popular name" as it was probably as much called Istanbul as Constantinople or Targrad(although I think that the second is the most common). Anyhow, the Ottoman autorities called it Constantinople just as the rest of the world(at least in diplomatic documents) so go figure... AdrianCo (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Dear AdrianCo:
I know Istanbul was called Constantinapole, by some westerners, even until 1960's. This was a major problem for a long time. Many western countries simply did not accept the name of the city was Istanbul. This does not mean Constantinople was the correct name. The people in the city were calling it Istanbul. Dr. Mango's family was calling it Istanbul. If you ask Dr. Mango about where he was born he will certainly say, with his perfect Turkish accent, he was born in Istanbul. Everywhere else on the web it says Dr. Mango was born Istanbul.
The world is not only the West. The only authority in the world is not only the West. Let me tell you another problem Turks faced. In the early stages of the Turkish Republic the West did not recognize Ankara as the capital of the new republic. Diplomats of the western countries refused to move their embassies to Ankara for so many years; maybe because they had doubts about the survival of the new republic. This did not mean that Ankara was not made the capital city in 1923. Just because the British and others did not accept the fact at the time, historians cannot change the date.
Similarly, with the Turkish Postal Service Law of March 28, 1930, the Turkish authorities officially requested all foreigners to adopt Istanbul as the sole name also in their own languages; because the problem had lasted far too long. It is commonly accepted that the city assumed its name "Istanbul" when the Turkish Republic was founded in 1923. Hence Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did not change the name to Istanbul in 1930; the final and conclusive request to the western countries to adopt the name Istanbul in order to get rid of the deliberate confusion was made in 1930. And they did, because they had to. Well Greece is still using the name Konstantinapolis. Don't get me wrong; I don't have any problem with Greeks and I have Greek friends. And in a way I understand why some Greeks are insisting on using the name Konstantinapolis; even though I think it is wrong.
Lastly I would like to remind you that Wikipedia's mission is informing people. Istanbul is the city's modern name. And just for informative reasons alone --let alone the historical reasons-- Dr. Mango's birthplace should be written as Istanbul in Wikipedia.
I hope you understand. Buyukresim (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, for now I will stop undoing until we reach a consenus. You see my argument isn`t based on Western naming, but on the use of the name in The Republic of Turkey, here in Romania we have a document that can somewhat be translated as "birth id/certificate"("certificat de naṣtere" in romanian) in there we have our birth places inscribed(Bucharest in my case,well not in english but you get it), so , the questions are(as I am sure that in Turkey there were birth id-s back then) :
- a)You said that since 1730 the name of the city in Ottoman/Turkish documents was Istanbul,well how about this document.On Mango`s birth id what was writen "Constantinople" or "Istanbul"(both in turkish of course)?
- b)What is the official date of the renaming of Constantinople to Istanbul and ,as there has to be someone, either Ataturk either a postal service either a government external/internal minister either anyone important making an edict/law/proclamation/solemn decision/declaration/etc to officialy rename a city... and before 1930 i do not have knowledge of any of these!(every single act(as oposed to proces) has to have a clear date! including the naming/renaming of a city)?
- If you have any proof on a) or b) (not necesarly both, one is sufice) that I am wrong than i will immediatly appologise and stop reverting. AdrianCo (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Oh, one more small , separate thing, if someone in Greece whants to send a package to someone in Istanbul,Turkey and writes "Constantinople/Konstantinapolis" than the one in Turkey recives the package or not? (it`s separate from the discussion, i am just very curious). AdrianCo (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Dear AdrianCo:
I have been busy during the week. Today is Saturday so I can write. Also there is no apology needed from anybody. We are merely after the historical knowledge, which is fun for me.
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908:
[... Thus was granted the sacrilegious prayer of so many Greeks, blinded by unreasoning hate, that henceforth, not the tiara, but the turban should rule in the city of Constantine. Even the name of the city was changed. The Turks call it officially (in Arabic) Der-es-Saadet, Door of Happiness, or (chiefly on coins) Kostantinieh. Their usual name for it is Stamboul, or rather Istamboul, a corruption of the Greek expression eis ten polin (pronounced stimboli), perhaps under the influence of a form, Islamboul, which could pass for 'the city of Islam'.]
Again, note the source. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia was not insisting on "Constantinople," back in 1908. If they are saying the name was changed well before 1930, then what could have been the reason for the Turkish announcement in 1930... other than to remind the world to please be courteous, and to recognize the reality of the situation. Dersaadet (Gate to Happines) was popular in the official documents because this name also praises the city. But Dersaadet never became popular among the people on the street, for them the city's name was Istanbul.
The Ottomans often retained foreign name of places they had captured. In case the name was long, they dropped the first syllable, and contracted or abridged the last syllables, thus Thessalonica became Selanik. Smyrna became Izmir because they wanted to add a vowel to make it easier in Turkish.
Another source: From the book "CONSTANTINOPLE : City of the World's Desire 1453-1924" Philip Mansel, New York, 1996; Chapter I. Excerpts:
[...[The city's] name, in everyday spoken Turkish, even before the conquest, was a corruption of the Greek phrase for `into the city', eis teen polin: Istanbul.]
This common usage of is what persuaded western travelers to call the city "Stamboul" in their writings.
Until 1760 "Kostantiniyye or Kustaniniyye or Kostantinieh" was used only on coins by Turks. Kustaniniyye was what Arabs have been calling the city. However the name Constantinople was NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, used in the official documents in the city under the Turkish rule. Mustafa III, the sultan during 1757-1773, prohibited the name 'Kostantinieh' on coins in 1760. From 1760 on, in official documents (including birth certificates), Dersaadet and Istanbul were interchangeably used. And on the street, by ordinary people, only Istanbul was used.
Another source: The following is from an article named "ISTANBUL: AN ISLAMIC CITY" by the noted Turkish historian, Halil Inalcik.
[...As the Sephardic Studies page on the subject claims, "Recent research has shown that the name 'Istanbul' was used if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the 11th century and that the Turks knew the city by this name." The name of Istanbul existed for the Turks centuries before the city's conquest...]
The sultan was turning churches into mosques and paying tribute to the spirituality of the affair, and he was going to keep the Christian name, "Constantinople"? Does that make any sense?
The name "Istanbul" was also used in official documents between 1920 (the year the Turkish national parliament came together in Ankara) and 1930. The law in 1930, which you refer, was merely a final reminder to the international community. To say the least if you look at the Republic Archives (i.e. Cumhuriyet Arsivleri in Turkish) one can easily see that the name "Istanbul" was used in official documents between 1920 and 1930. The name "Dersaadet" was rarely used after 1923.
As I mentioned before the international community (primarily the British) at the time (after the World War I), insisted on using Constantinople for some time and created a deliberate confusion because of political reasons.
As for your question on using the Greek name Konstantinapolis for postal purposes; I am pretty sure the mail would be returned to sender.
Best,
Buyukresim (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Catholic Encyclopedia and other western sources, are , according to both of us not necesarly true....so let`s not put our bases on these. As for that turkish historian(any involvin party, either turk or greek can be biased to a nationalisic point of view...). The national archives....well, that`s a good source! Ok, i will stop reverting entierly, but I wonder ... the Treaty of San Stefano mentioned Istanbul/Dersaadet, I am also curious what historians from adiacent countries might think about the issue(i.e. Iran/Armenian , countries that have many frowns towards Turkey, Bulgaria, a country that does has a certain level of antipathy to Greece, or Albania, that can`t stand neither!.....if a consensus between these countries historians then we might know for sure in many other issues of Greek/Turkish relations...another method would be to search in Georgian/Iraqi/Syrian sources for probable more balances point of views...) or probably try to analyse both Greek and Turkish sources...a painstaking initiative that might couse a man to have a mental breakdown :). But we are both humans, and i don`t think that any of us two has the time/money/will to search up so many historians or archives in such a great area(South Eastern Europe/Central Europe/The Middle and Near East/Orient...). In conclusion, nice talk, and in absence of further proof from my part, and those you have put forword i will not revert again...at least not if I don`t have a spining-around-source at hand :) ! AdrianCo (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
-
- Just for the record, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05136b.htm mentiones 'Constantinople' ("plateau,about 400 km from Constantinople..."). AdrianCo (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
- And http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04301a.htm .AdrianCo (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
