Talk:Istanbul/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Byzantium?

During the Byzantine period it was also known as Byzantium.

Byzantium is also more properly the name of a town, which was refounded by Constantine as Nova Roma or Constantinopolis. I'm not sure how or if this should be worked in.

City Name

I've just deleted other names than Istanbul. Other names should belong to an independent article.Mmorgil 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't, they belong here. See the rest of the talk page and articles such as Delhi and Tashkent. --AW 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful Pictures are gone to where?

I believe some jealous person deleted the gorgeous pictures of Istanbul Skyline which were mostly from wowturkey.com....I am talking about the Maslak and Levent pictures..I demand them back.... They are so important for my architecture classes here in George Mason University. Please put them back on..Thank you

P.S: I also included some more movies and games that included Istanbul

Visual

There is a big empty space next to the population growth table under "Demographics - Population growth", which doesn't look aesthetical. I suggest the image with the caption "View of Bosphorus Bridge across the Bosphorus from Bebek District of Istanbul" under the same topic be moved up under "Overview" subtopic, and the table relocated to the place of this image's current position. In addition, the image gallery and the list of places under "Places of Interest" topic gives the reader the feeling that it's the end of the article, and again does not look good. Is it possible to at least move the image gallery to the end of the article. Maybe a couple of sentences can be added to the beginning of "Museums, Monuments and Other Buildings" and "Markets, neighborhoods and places", or a single image under each topic to fill the empty spaces to the right of the lists would help keep the reader's interest. Cheers! DeliDumrul 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! I tried to do it myself but i couldnt position the table. DeliDumrul 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is high traffic of changes in the main article bur nobody cares to use the discussion page and found a census before making changes. Apart from that, I can't see how the three 1908 images are related to 450 years of Ottoman Istanbul? That part of the article does not mention anything about ethnic groups. Including three of such photos without any other photos of Ottoman Istanbul is a little overkill, isn't it? DeliDumrul 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[No title]

It seems to me like it would make sense to consolidate the pages for Constantinople, Byzantium, and Istanbul, which somewhat randomly overlap. Any votes for which one we should choose as the master page? Should the other two be redirects or stubs? -- Alan Millar

Don't each name concern a different time period? There's a lot of history to be covered for this town, eventually, so I think it'll probably help organization to have it split (even if it means that a few sentences will be duplicated). --Pinkunicorn

Istanbul is not the only city in the world, and not even the only major city, to have had more than one historically significant name during its history. We put Danzig/Gdansk on one page and we put St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad on one page, so I would say these articles should be combined and listed under Istanbul, with a redirect from the other two. -- John

In my opinion, if you really want to consolidate these names, then it should be under the name of "Istanbul" because its current name is that and it has been using since 15th century, even though in some Greek maps it is still shown as "Constantinople". Other than "Istanbul", all are historical names of the city and has to be mentioned under the title of "Istanbul". an istanbuliot --Huger

I'm with Pinkunicorn. To merge Istanbul and Byzantium would seem blasphemous for all concerned. We're dealing with an ancient city, which served as the capital of two distinct great empires. As such, and lest confusion arises, it is probably best to leave the two unmerge. Constantinople and Byzantium, on the other hand, should be merged, being - leaving pedantry aside for the moment - two different names for very much the same thing.

--Itai 01:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Itai and Pinkunicorn, Constantinople and Istanbul should go under separate articles, even though Istanbul is simply the Turkish version of Constantinople and because of that they should really go into the same article. But if you search for Constantinople you would probably be interested in the older history of the city and if you search for Istanbul you would probably be more interested in the moder</math>n city and recent history etc. If we were to be completely correct, all historical events that happened before 1930 should go under the Constantinople article. --The Phoenix 16:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Surely the point about 1930 just proves the point that there is no sense in having two separate articles. The two names seem to have been used in parallel for centuries (not just by Greeks and Turks separately).

1930???? come on folks, surely yoou need to read up on this. The city has been Istanbul for 500 years not since 1930. I sense prejudice against Islam. I doubt that the authors here would aspire to live under Byzantium rule since their lives would be in danger for being soo literate.

This has nothing to do with prejudice against Islam - stop imagining things. The west got over Constantinople a long time ago. This is about trying to make the clearest most comprehensive page possible.

Istanbul as a city incorporates Byzantium & Constantinople, and it would therefore seem much more appropriate to keep 'everything' under Istanbul, with specific minutae related solely to Byzantium/Constantinople under separate entries. 'Byzantium ruins' would be found under Istanbul, Byzantium house styles would be under the separate entry (for example) --StuartJames 03 Feb 2006

[No title]

According to a greek friend of mine, Instanbul name is really derived from is stin Poli (the abreviation of Constantinople), which means that its not a myth. Anybody has a reference for the turkish version? Muriel Gottrop

I really do not know how it is a historical myth. As far as I know, "stin poli" is the real reason. There are parallels:

stin poli (accusative of polis) --> i-stambol

se nikya --> i-znik

zmyrni --> i-zmir

se nikomedya --> i-znikmit --> izmit

the first "i" is there because of the two consonants beginning a word, hence in old turkish we used to say ispor for sport, and we still say istavroz for stauros, the cross. and the "turkish artikel" does not make sense either. to the best of my knowledge there is not article in the Altaic languages like Turkish, but there is a suffix -i (which can also be -u) in order to indicate the direct object which in most of the cases is translated with "the" into English.

--Kutlu Akalin, kutluakalin@yahoo.com

Actually the first 'i' is there because of the dialect difficulties with a double-consonant at the start of a word (as with Arabic - which is one of the major contributors to the Turkish language. StuartJames 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Against the "stin poli" ipothesis there is the fact that in many languages Istanbul is still called with some derivative of Polis nowadays. Just as reference, in Laz language that is Mpolis. Apart from other fantasious ethimologies, "eis tin polis" is still good as "stin poli", so I'll slighty modify the page.--Alessandro Riolo 12:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a folk etymology - that is, it has no linguistic background. I'm not going to change the article, in case someone really wants to disagree with me. But 'constantinopolis'->'stanopolis'->'stambol'->'istanbul' is just as easy to believe, if not moreso.

I have moved this objection of the name etymology here from the article since it was an objection, not an encyclopedic content:

Etymological and historical objection to the above definition:

Istanbul is simply a Hellenic word: Eistenpoli, meaning "to the city". It has been the vulgar name of the town since her foundation by Constantinus I. It's not a result of a renaming, therefore.

Compare with "İslâm bol", invented around the 17th century as an assonance to the original name.

–The Phoenix 07:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably part of the confusion arises because the Greek language has changed since Byzantine times. The Ancient Greek "Eis ten polin" has become "Stin poli" (pronounced Stimboli) in Modern Greek. Maybe Istanbul reflects the earlier Greek version (and might have been preserved because of the Turkish preference for avoiding double consonants at the start of a word) and Stamboul (which still appears to be the form in use in Russian) reflects the later Greek version. rossb 10:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Istanbul or Constantinople ?

Constantinople is the area between the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmara of today's Istanbul - it is just a relatively small part. The Ottomans settled in Istanbul - around the Bosphorus - well before 1453 AD, the year Constantinople fell.

No - Constantinople was the official name of the whole of the city until 1930. It's true that the original ancient city was only a small part of the modern city, and it has subsequently absorbed other settlements, but the same is true of any ancient town that has become a major city in modern times. rossb 09:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No - That is incorrect. Constantinople was the official name until 1453, when the city was conquered by Turks and remained a Turkish land ever since. Before that, it was called Konstantiniye, which is would be the Turkish version of Constantinople. After it was conquered, it was renamed to Islambol. (plenty of Islam) It became Istanbul in modern times. During the empire time, it was commonly referred to as "Dar-us Saadet" which means home of happiness. -ColdHeat (adokuyucu@hotmail.com)

Islambol is just a myth about where the name came from but researches show that "including the professors in my school" say that name of istanbul came from Eis tin poli,which means to the city in greek.the galata quarter,which is right at the north of the historic peninsula has always been the largest residential area specially for the greek inhabitants of the city because the historic peninsula was reserved for the sultan. Thats why the old istanbul was a passage way "to the city" which turned into istanbul in hundreds of years.Also there is no documents about the city being called islambol throughout the history. -metb82

Books I've read on the Ottoman Empire say that the name remained Constantinople until the Republic under Ataturk. The name was not officially made Istanbul in 1453 after the conquest. Who else has information about this? Interlingua ^{talk email} 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Placing information within the context

What is the point of mentioning Constantinople in Greek alphabet on the first line of the name of the city? Have you ever seen New York article with New Amsterdam? No, because it is hitorical and must be mentioned within its context: history. I especially I do not unerstand mentioning the name in Greek alphabet. Should we also write it in the first line of the text in Arabic alphabet? No. Regards. Ormands 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Prince's" Islands?

The article Burgazada just popped up, and while cleaning it up I came across some confusion. Is it "Prince's Islands", "Princess Islands", "Princes' Islands", or something else entirely? Google test leads me to believe it's "Princess Islands". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Steven Runciman's The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign, they are called "The Princes' Islands". I don't have the book in front of me, but I think Isaac Deutscher, in his biography of Leo Trotskij (who was banished to this location in the early 20th century) called them either the "Prince's Islands" or "Princes' Islands". The later form makes best sense because it was where troublesome members of the Byzantine Imperial family (usually male) were placed. -- llywrch 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is most unlikely to be Princess' Islands as the name originates from the Byzantine practice of sending old emperors and rival claimants to the islands as some sort of a prison after making sure that they are no longer physically capable of contesting for the throne, to the best of my knowledge there weren't many female claimants. The Turkish version of the name, "Prens Adalari" translates as "Prince Islands".

The islands are known generally in Istanbul (in both English & Turkish) as just 'the islands' however the literal translation of the Turkish is indeed 'Prince Islands'. Despite this the colloquial English name used in Istanbul to refer to these islands is "Princes Islands", although where the apostrophe goes (or indeed if there is one) is a matter for debate. Turkish doesn't always distinguish between singular and plural forms and thus it would not be wrong to use 'Princes Islands' - use of an apostrophe would suggest 'Islands of the Prince(s)' which they most certainly were not!! StuartJames 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is Princes' Islands, and Turkish would be Prens Adalari. A literal translation would be Prenslerin Adalari, however, in Turkish usually when two plural words come together, one of them is used in singular form. In Turkey, these islands are simply known as "The Islands" and the term Prince is not used at all. bahar 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is Princes' Islands, which actually even figures in the Redhouse English - Turkish dictionary and is translated as: Adalar, Prens Adaları, Kızıl Adalar. BTW, not a bad place to be banished to :-) Bertilvidet 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

I'm concerned about a lot of material added in early December by Erginer. There's a lot of flowery and inappropriate language, for instance "It is not yet in the power of our science to know the origins of Istanbul. By what miracle it emerged from the depths of the sea like a pearl from its shell ..." and I suspect that it may be a copyright violation - indeed at one point it refers to "as I explain in the few pages of this book". Should we just delete all of this material? rossb 07:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's all from a book that's referenced in an early section. It is dense, unencyclopedic, probably non-neutral, and just looks bad, and so, based on Wikipedia:Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources and other policies, I'm going to revert it. Blacklite 07:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you should do this selectively - there have been a number of edits since Erginer's additions, which may be worth keeping. rossb 07:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) I should have noticed you had already done this. rossb 09:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

An anonymous user has posted an update to the effect that the (eis tin Poli) εις τήν Πόλι(ν) explanation [is] thought to be a folk etymology. Can he/she or anyone provide a reference for this statement? Otherwise I'm inclined to revert it. rossb 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I’m sorry for reverting the "folk etymology" statement made by anon but I’ve just saw your reference request. Of hand, I can only provide an online resource (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Istanbul) which describes the "Islam bol - plenty of Islam" version as the folk etymology, and not the other way around. From my part I would also love to see some academic citations of any other approaches to this case --Ninio 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why was this reverted?

"The name Istanbul comes from the late Greek words stin Poli (ςτήν Πόλι), from Classical Greek eis tên Polin (εις τήν Πόλι(ν)) meaning "to/at the City" (the City/Polis being Constantinoupolis). The intermediate form Stamboul was commonly used in the 19th century. Because of the custom of affixing an i before certain words that start with two consonants (as in "Izmir" from Smyrna: in a coincidence of s + m, the s turns to z in pronunciation as has been attested since early Byzantine times and in modern Greek usage), it was pronounced in Turkish Istambul."

This is basically correct (although "Stamboul" looks like a re-Hellenization of the alternative Turkish form Sıtambul). The current version now leaves out the intermediate stage ςτήν Πόλι, and so is less accurate.

I always heard the εἰς τὴν πόλιν etymology during my studies of ancient Greek. And insofar as I can read the Greek & Turkish Wikipedia entries (not very much), both mention this derivation. So the first sentence of the English article still needs correcting. Someone who's comfortable with Unicode issues should go ahead & do it. --Adamgarrigus 15:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Is there any documentation anywhere of the city in question actually being called Eis tēn polin in Greek? Because both that and Islam bol sound like folk etymologies to me; the most likely etymology is aphaeresis and syncope of Constantinoupolis to *Stanpolis, which would then be turkicized to İstanbul. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "To the City" business is a myth, and that, indeed, the name is merely a Turkicization of "Constantinople." john k 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There must be an element Is which appears in Turcization of Greek names; compare Iznik. If this is not the Greek εις, what is it? The usage of eis is clearly post-classical, but I'll check a Byzantine dictionary when I get a chance. Septentrionalis 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The "to the city" thing is a folk etymology, a common thing in the Greek Language. I removed it. --NG

"To the City" is the correct etymology! It is in every respectable history/geography book. Turcization of Constantinople can never be Istanbul as it does not resemble any other turkish word, as there is no recorded turcization of a word in which the sound "K" is dropped, and as the double consonant "nb" is not stable in Turkish; many people prounounces the word "Istambul". For whatever reason I don't know, you are just making something up and insisting on it, contradicting every known source and nature of the Turkish language. And actually there is a turcization of the name "Constantinople", which is "Konstantiniyye" (Constantine's Land) which was used for a while around the time the city was conquered.

I saw this discussion here and needed to paste again.Note that me and my professors are Turkish so i think im being pretty objective here."Islambol is just a myth about where the name came from but researches show that "including the professors in my school" say that name of istanbul came from Eis tin poli,which means to the city in greek.the galata quarter,which is right at the north of the historic peninsula has always been the largest residential area specially for the greek inhabitants of the city because the historic peninsula was reserved for the sultan. Thats why the old istanbul was a passage way "to the city" which turned into istanbul in hundreds of years.Also there is no documents about the city being called islambol throughout the history." -metb82

Um met, I suggest you do a bit more reading,

It was called by various people's

Istanbul, Islambol, Kushta, Gosdantnubolis, Tsarigrad, Rumiyya al-kubra, New Rome, New Jerusalem, the eye of the world, the Refuge of the Universe, the Gate of Hapiness, Pay-i-Taht...

City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Phillip Mansel Introduction

Johnstevens5

Boundaries

When was the Asian shore of the Bosphorus included in the city? 1930? In any case the article should say. Septentrionalis 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Whence came the "İ?"

Why not a regular "I?" Does "İ" change the pronunciation? Why, if it's usually written in Arabic letters, is it written in an altered form of Roman letters? Citizen Premier 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In the Turkish alphabet, the "İ" (or "i") makes an "ee" sound (as in the word "see), whereas the "I" (or "ı") makes an "ih" sound (as in the word "it"). Turkey uses a modified Roman alphabet. Most Turks can't read or speak Arabic anymore. - Cybjorg 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Most Turks" is a wrong say. Should be "Any Turk". No one in Turkey don't use/know Arabic. Ottomans used to Speak Turkish but used Arabic-like alphabet.

Well then, that would mean that people in Turkey say "Eestanbul." I suppose we need a pronunciation note at the beginning of the article. Citizen Premier 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what they say, alright, but it's more of a slur between "ee" and "i." - Cybjorg 11:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC says Istanbul without an I-dot, so does the New York Times, The Guardian and virtually all the English language-media, so there's no question about it. NPOW 00:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, English isn't the only language on earth. Would you be so kind to allow our neighbours choose their own alphabet and pronounciation?

It's the same as Quebec, our articles uses the name without diacriticals. NPOW 09:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, pronounce of the letter I ı in Turkish is same with the letter õ in Estonian or (bli) letter in Russian.

'İ' is a letter of the Turkish alphabet letter, and I think the English Wikipedia should use 'I' for Istanbul. Bahar 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the official name of the article, in English, should use the English alphabet and therefore out to be Istanbul, not İstanbul. However, I think that in the first sentence the Turkish names İstanbul should be given. Why? First, for consistency. In the article on Brazil, the Portuguese name of Brasil is also given. Second, for those familiar with the Turkish alphabet, the Turkish word gives an idea on the pronunciation.Interlingua ^{talk email} 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The English alphabet actually uses both. The turkish i for our lowercase and the turkish I for our uppercase. I guess we're keeping it the way it is, but it's really wrong in any language. cathenryinc

Seismic data

Question: why do the old mosque minarates in Istanbul survive each earthquake while modern buildings turn into mush? Is there an old Greek myth that explains this? Does it signify anything? Do Greek myths ever explain anything? Have we gone to the moon yet? why is the sky blue? what is on your mind?

in answer to ur question, it is because those buildings were made with the utmost care, whereas most modern residential buildings were made by corrupt wankers who dont give a damn about the thousands of people residing in buildings that are certain to collapse as soon as any tremor occurs. hope that helps.

Sister Cities: List or Paragraph...???

User:Derek.cashman wants to change, and thinks, that all “Sister cities” lists in articles should be converted/changed to “paragraph” form. I don’t want to. Can you imagine a lists of 26 sister cities, like for Istanbul, and trying to read it in paragraph form? Please read my opinion and vote. WikiDon 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Information from anonymous contributor on "Islamabol" name (from Wikipedia:Articles for creation)

Someone suggested the following information on Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It may be useful in this article:

Islambol

The name of the capital of Turkey named by the Ottoman Turks from 1453 right upto the beginning of the twentieth century. Islambol means (Islam Bound). Bol in Turkish means "a lot of" so Islambol meant "the city with a lot of Islam".

Currently now known to europeans as Istanbul, this is its former historical name.

-- Creidieki 00:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another sister city

I think Istanbul is also a sister city with Isfahan (city). You might wanna add that.--Zereshk 00:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

oops

can someone move the page back to İstanbul? sorry about that. it was a mistake. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move

Istanbul → İstanbul – Most Wikipedia articles about Turkish cities use proper accent marks (such as İzmir, Ağrı, Çanakkale, and İstanbul Province). This move is to remain consistent. Besdies, this page was already at İstanbul until it was moved on the 9th. --Khoikhoi 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. For consistency and for respecting other linguistic traditions. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Page moved. Vote closed. --Khoikhoi 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The move discussion appears to be defunct; the article has been moved. Thus I am too late — but I'll leave a comment anyway: in cases where a standard English form exists, the Wikipedia uses it; hence for example Cologne not Köln; Munich not München. It could be argued that Istanbul (no diacritical mark) is a "standard English form." (It could contrarily be argued that it's not a separate form and that the only reason the diacritical mark is so commonly left off is technical limitations.) Of course many more obscure places *don't* have a standard English form; this does set up an interesting inconsistency — but I think it's one we can live with. Doops | talk 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty quick. --Khoikhoi 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Far, far, too quick. Closing a page move discussion after one day? I object, not just because of that, but because the new character displays oddly on my system and it is not the most common spelling in English. Also, it looks like the page move was not done completely: some of the redirects were not changed. Jonathunder 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I object too. I completely missed this vote. It should have been open for at least a week or so, and accumulated at least three votes. I question the validity of the vote that happened as well as the move that followed because of it. - Gilgamesh 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

History already presented in the Constantinople article

The history of Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium appears twice and is not identical. This duplication should be prevented. Andreas 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What about this idea: (A) Have one article with a name like "History of Byzantium-Constantinople-Istanbul" giving a diachronic overview, from the founding of Byzantium till now, and referring back for more detail to (the history sections of) the separate pages for the three subsequent incarnations of this persistent city. (B) Then prune (the history parts of) the separate pages for B, C & I so as to focus for each on that specific period, referring to the consolidated "History of B-C-I" page for more. If this idea meets with universal acclaim, I might some day (but not any time soon) execute it. Lambiam 09:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Andreas 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[No Title]

This is a trivial point in all the discussion of Greek spelling, but They Might Be Giants did not write "Istanbul Not Constantinople" -- It was written by an Irish fellow named Jimmy Kennedy and Nat Simon and first recorded by the Four Lads in 1953.

Plus the whole mention of the song seems like trivia in the context of a serious discussion of the city's names. Vote to remove or at least move to a less important part of the page. --Myke Cuthbert 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I love the discussion so far about the orgins of the city's name-- that said, I agree that menting the song is really out of place and not appropraite for this article. 38.2.108.125 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

İstanbul naming

I think placing the article at İstanbul is a bit of a problem, since the article itself says the English form is Istanbul, with no dot, and this is how the city is mentioned throughout. I think it's safe to say that the English version of the name is Istanbul, without the dot. No-one in English ever writes the dot on, and that's because the city now has a well-established English name - Istanbul, just like Bucureşti has "Bucharest". The Turkish "İ" is pronounced like the English "i" in "sit" (Close front unrounded vowel). The I-with-no-dot is a close back unrounded vowel. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So do you think İzmir, Ağrı, Çanakkale, and İstanbul Province should be moved to? --Khoikhoi 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the point you're raising is a valid one. I think Izmir should be without the dot, so should Istanbul Province. The others don't have a well-established English name. In any case, Izmir is a more controversial borderline case. However, I don't really see the rationale for keeping Istanbul at İstanbul. I know Wikipedia has always been a publication that has respected local names more than other publications - and this is a good thing, I agree - but I have never seen "İstanbul" in an English-language publication. Ronline ✉ 11:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true, but when the English name is spelled with the same letters as the native name, English speakers often feel it to be more "correct" (in NPOV scare quotes) to spell it with the diacritics of the original, than without. This leads to no end of fights in articles like Zurich/Zürich, even though the English name is pronounced horribly differently from the German one, and the spelling helps reflect it. Even though WP:UE says that a majority (if not a consensus) of Wikipedia users preferred diacritics to no-diacritics in general, I agree İstanbul still looks strange, not least because in English, unlike Turkish, the capital form of dotted-i is undotted, so it feels more like a petty typographical issue than a meaty spelling one (even though in Turkish it isn't). —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all names should be written in its native (original) form. That's why we should protect I with a dot. In Turkish, Quebec is Quebec, for instance (I remind you that Turkish alphabet hasn't got Q and you spell it in Turkish as Kebek). --- Mustafa

And why isn't it Québec...? Anyway, my personal preference is that if the basic letter-sequence is the same, all native diacritics should be used. (And by the way, I am aware that in Turkish the letter İ is different from the letter I, and that the dot is not literally a diacritic.) For my own use, I honestly would prefer to see İstanbul and Běijīng. In fact, you can see evidence of this in my adding the (optional) stress marks to Ìmola and other Italian place names. However, there are good arguments that Wikipedia needs to be clear for people who do not know the language in question. --Macrakis 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, you (collectively, the authors) should be educating us the reader as to the correct spelling and pronunciation of these places, so it is good to have the above discussion, but more prominantly in the main article- by all means have both spellings, clarify to all of us how we should be saying the names of places- even if we never use it we will be wiser and more understanding to other peoples if we learn their language.

Practically every English-language map published since the 1960s (and many published since the administration of Atatürk) have spelled the name as "İstanbul" rather than "Istanbul". Additionally, I don't think English readers who know the name of the city are going to be "shocked" by the dot atop a capital "I" simply because most English readers have long since gotten over that surprise, mostly, in fact, because of the dotted capital I on İstanbul... Tomer^talk 03:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why most maps show the city as "İstanbul" is because maps generally use native names, so that they can be understood more broadly. Most Romanian atlas maps I have show cities like "London" and "Moscova" and "Atena" instead of the Romanian names "Londra", "Moscow" and "Athens". It's the same in English - maps would write "İstanbul" and "Bucureşti" and "Beograd" instead of "Instanbul", "Bucharest" and "Belgrade". Unlike, say, Zürich, which is sometimes written that way in English, I have never seen Istanbul written with the dotted i in an English publication before, which is why I think it shouldn't be included. I think most English users would be surprised to find the dotted i, and while Wikipedia's role is very much a didactic one, we should be explaining to our readers that "İstanbul" is the Turkish version, perhaps even in a separate "Name" section. Ronline ✉ 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the local names be Romanized as Moskva and Athena (maybe Athina). Moscova and Atena seem to me Romanian vernacular forms.

Although the wikipedia-wide discussion about the appropriate terminology for a placename should probably be discussed elsewhere, Istanbul (no i) is the general form in 'international' maps, although there is certainly a growing Turkish movement for 'non-anglification' of Turkish which greatly prefers it to be written with the dot over the capital as in 'İ' (and yes, I'm writing this on a Turkish keyboard). Izmir (no dot) is internationally recognized, however Çanakkale and Ağrı (Canakkale and Agri) are not. Perhaps placenames should include a section 'National Spelling and Pronounciation' ?? whilst leaving the title as the 'generally accepted' spelling? StuartJames 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)