Talk:Ankara

Use of Constantinople

@Bogazicili:

Hi! About this edit here, please see Talk:History_of_Istanbul#Should_the_name_"Istanbul"_be_used_for_the_Ottoman_city_instead_of_"Constantinople"?

I am aware "Istanbul" was used in Ottoman Turkish, but the consensus on the page was in consideration of the usage of Constantinople in French, English, and ethnic minority languages at the time. Official French-language Ottoman documents such as the French version of the constitution used Constantinople. Based on the talk page discussion, Constantinople should be used for the Ottoman era city on the English Wikipedia (as well as in the early Republic until 1930, when the US State Department began using Istanbul) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe!

1) I see limited participation in that RFC and it has a non-admin closure. Also, the non-admin closure states "strong consensus", but I do not see that in the responses. Several editors suggested both uses. Do you really believe the RFC you linked is enough to establish a Wikipedia-wide policy?

2) The part you edited does not have a source. It seems architecture related, and I had also edited Ottoman architecture. I remember some sources there using Istanbul. Eg: Freely, John (2011). A History of Ottoman Architecture. Can you find a source for your edit? If other sources use different terminology, how are you planning to address that? Do you believe the RFC you linked "trumps" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

3) In your original RFC comments, you referenced to US State Dept decision back in 1930. Do you think that's an appropriate benchmark for English Wikipedia, given Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias?

4) Also, in your original RFC, I'm surprised you did not seek input from relevant WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities Bogazicili (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bogazicili,

1. I had used the official RFC processes and notified multiple country/territory specific noticeboards, so I feel I had given adequate notice. I ensured the Turkey project was contacted.

2. The RFC had already considered Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in terms of academic/governmental considerations. While Ottomanist sources do use "Istanbul", there's consideration that there's Turkish government pressure on them.

3. Yes because this is language-based (on English usage), and the change in the US State Department and British sources (see articles from The Times/Manchester Guardian) in regards to the name in English is relevant here. As the Ottoman Empire was multiethnic, not only Turkish but also Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Ladino, etc. uses would need to be considered if you feel the "original" languages would need to be considered.

4. That was an oversight, though remember the Istanbul/Constantinople concern is more of an area studies issue anyway.

You are welcome to start a new RFC. Just make sure all previous participants are notified!

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe:

1) I would have still preferred an admin closure for above reasons.

2) I disagree with this after reviewing the RFC. There is also a massive logical error with your RFC. It doesn't matter what the sources at the time call Istanbul. What matters is that what sources now call Istanbul to refer to that period. For example, Byzantine is a term that was developed after Byzantine Empire (see: Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature). If we followed your logic of considering only sources at the time, we would have to rename that article and change all Byzantine references.

3) Yes this is English Wikipedia, but I think how you consider US State Dept to be the most important source is inappropriate. Should we also consider that the most important source for Iraq war for example, just because this is English Wikipedia?

As for another RFC, I was also going to say the same thing. You seem very passionate about this issue, so feel free to start a new one. For this article though, I don't think the RFC you linked provides consensus for the change you wanted to make. Alternatively, we can proceed to dispute resolution. Going forward, can you also not use <!-- --> instructions in the article without gaining consensus, like you did here: [1]? Given your status as an administrator, this could be intimidating or confusing to new editors. Bogazicili (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bogazicili,

1. I went back and checked the guidelines for RFC and I didn't see a differentiation between admin or non-admin closures. Anyhow for the second one I will state there will be a preference for an admin closure.

2. I had stated at the beginning of the first RFC that it that common for modern works to use Istanbul over Constantinople. Another use brought up the Byzantine Empire, though.

3. I chose the US State Department not to state that the American POV is what we should do, but because it reflects a delineation: when English language sources switched to using Istanbul. I reviewed some French-language sources (published in Turkey) at Salt Research and it seems they too switched to Istanbul around then.

• For example the Turkish Journal of Anthropology (Turkish: Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası, French: Revue Turquie d’Anthropologie) used Constantinople in 1926 (see page), but Istanbul in 1931 (see page), in its French language section
• Additionally in 1929 The New York Times wrote: "POVERTY INCREASED IN CONSTANTINOPLE; Angora Government, Alarmed at Conditions, Frantically Seeks a Remedy. VARIOUS CAUSES ASSIGNED Administration Papers Say Bad Crops, Opposition and Foreign Excessive Taxation of City. "

4. For a second RFC, should the scope be for just this article and/or articles principally about modern Turkish subjects? Or should this RFC cover historical Ottoman subjects and/or articles about ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire? (another RFC user argued that usage could/should differ between say a ethnic Turkish pasha or an Armenian Ottoman). Should the RFC have the same scope as the previous one (assumed to be Wikipedia-wide)? That way I can craft RFC #2 appropriately.

5. As for internal comments I agree not to do such unless a second RFC has a clear consensus.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Presidential Complex (Turkey).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

image changes

i think somebody should add ankara castle and roman baths instead of the presidential palace and sogutozu district to represent the historic fabric. 46.196.85.168 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)