Talk:Constantinople/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

In regards to point of view on Ottoman era

The phrasing on how Mehmed II and his troops were described while entering Constantinople in 1453 felt way too provocative or unflattering in manner compared to how I as a Muslim learned about Fatih and his conquest (where civilians were told to have been untouched and unharmed by Fetih's army, IIRC), I fear it might rub the wrong way considering the figure and setting is of importance in Islamic history as well. Perhaps we should add perspectives from modern Muslim historians on how they see the events just to avoid any contentions due to the levelling of the POV presented from both Christian and Muslim sides? - Anumengelamun (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree that the section on the Ottoman era seems very off. Half of the section deals with the fate of people sheltering in a single building in the immediate aftermath of the city's fall. The other deals with resettlement plans in the following decade. This seems very unbalanced for a section which purportedly is about 500 years of the city's history. Jeff8765 (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, as @Jeff8765 has stated, it's not so much that the information there is wrong, it's that it's incomplete. Byzantine Constantinople gets 10 sections, while the Ottomans get only one, which only describes the plunder (consensus exists that it did happen, whether or not Muslim POV sources accept it or not) right after the fall, but not the 400 years of relative coexistence afterwards. Definitely WP:UNDUE, and might just be POV. Uness232 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

See the History of Istanbul article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That does not mean much in this case, as this page purports to explain both the Byzantine and Ottoman city, and yet doesn't. The fact that there is a separate page for something does not mean that necessary info can be left out. Uness232 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The capital of Ottoman Empire was not moved to Ankara

Istanbul remained the capital city of the Ottomans. Ankara was the capital city of Ankara government. These two coexisted for a while until the Government of National Assembly in Ankara abolished the monarchy and caliphate in Istanbul, thus ending the Ottomans. 176.54.229.29 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Byzantium (Not Byzantion)

I vote to replace instances of "Byzantion" with Byzantium, to make it consistent with the Wikipedia page for Byzantium. 24.57.160.154 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Separate article for the Ottoman era?

I believe a separate article for Constantinople under Ottoman rule is needed so that this article is only about the Roman period. This allows for more expansion in both cases. The name of the article could be Konstantiniyye or something in line with this article. Appreciate any other opinions. Aintabli (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, per WP:COMMONNAME, we call the city Constantinople during the Ottoman era on Wikipedia, so the content should ideally be here. A separate article can be made specifically for it, but that section should stay here, and needs urgent expansion. Uness232 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232 That's a good point. I would rather wholly divide the article and not include anything about the Ottoman city here. But maybe, we could crop much of the already-lacking content about the Ottoman period and just leave the part about the Ottoman conquest as well as a general account of the city's evolution in the following five centuries in the history section, linking the new page. This article already seems to be limited to the Roman/Byzantine period, so it wouldn't be substantially different from the current state. The name could be "Ottoman Constantinople". What do you think? Aintabli (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That's possible. The issue is that the topic in question here is 'Constantinople', not 'Constantinople under the Eastern Romans'. If really necessary, we can make a summary section in Istanbul, with different articles leading to different places. But for that, this article has to change name too. Uness232 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If we just summarize and refrain from including details about the Ottoman period, which is currently the case, and link the article that discusses that period in depth, I don't think it would be a problem, because this article would technically encompass both periods, one of which would happen to have its own page. Does that sound good? Aintabli (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Articles should cover the semantic content they're named after. We call Ottoman Konstantiniyye 'Constantinople' in this encyclopedia. The page needs to reflect that, and give that the needed weight. If a separate article is made for the Ottoman city, we can turn this into summary style a little more, but it still has to be balanced, not just 1450s. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232 You seem to be the one not understanding. Nowhere did I say we should limit this article to the 1450s for the Ottoman period. Aintabli (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232 On a different note, I thought that this article also incorporated the period between 1453 and 1922, but according to the disambiguation note on Byzantium, Istanbul was intended to be the article for that period. Aintabli (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it used to be that way, but that isn't good guideline-wise, beyond making no sense. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't get why Istanbul and Constantinople is separated. Constantinople should be redirected to Istanbul and all those content to History of Istanbul or something.

I'd personally be okay with that too, but I imagine that would create some controversy. An RfC, perhaps? Uness232 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the exact reason for that, but as I said, having a separate article for each period allows for more content, which is actually necessary for such an important city. Constantinople changed a lot throughout its history, and there is simply so much to talk about for every period. The boundaries of the city, culture, demographics, landmarks, etc. will easily not fit a history section or the article on its history. There is also Byzantium, which is for the early and pre-Roman periods. If we were to merge this page with Istanbul, Byzantium would also require consideration, and there is too much content even in their lacking state. Aintabli (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we use that name in articles. We generally use Constantinople for the Ottoman city, not Konstantiniyye. We would have to revisit and pipe every link, and we'd have an article with a non-English name. That's definitely not a good solution. Uness232 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting again, more organized this time.

@Aintabli, @Beshogur: Since the last one got very messy; let’s start witg a clean slate. It seems these are the options that we have put forward:

1) Keep the article scopes as they are with no new articles, expand the Ottoman section here.

2A) Make a separate Ottoman Constantinople page and summarize and link to it here?

2B) Like 2A, but rename this article, without summarizing the Ottoman section, and disambiguate all the articles in another page?

3) Merge all the City articles.

I am personally okay 1, 2B and 3, although I’d prefer 1. If there’s anything I’m missing, or did wrong, I can redo the list. Uness232 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer 2B. This way, there won't be any confusion on the scope. This article will be on the Roman city. The new article will be on the Ottoman city. All can be summarized in Istanbul. There's the question where "Constantinople" will redirect to, which is why I initially emphasized on option 2A. But I don't think it would be problematic if it just redirects to Istanbul. Aintabli (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. We should find a new name for this article then. Uness232 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It could be "Roman Constantinople", given the article about the Ottoman city is "Ottoman Constantinople". It could also be more specific like "Constantinople during the Roman era" or something similar, but I would prefer a shorter name. The views of additional editors would be valuable here. Aintabli (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think both are fine, one could also redirect to another. I suppose one big hurdle that we must overcome is whether to split Roman and Byzantine in the article name. So "Roman Constantinople" or "Roman and Byzantine Constantinople". They'll stay in the same article for sure, but I suppose there's going to be someone upset whatever option we choose. Uness232 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Roman and Byzantine Constantinople" is just not compact. "The Byzantine Empire" is a relatively recent term as far as I know, so "Roman Constantinople" would not be historically inaccurate. Though "Byzantine Constantinople" is more common but still wouldn't encompass the earlier times. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the foundation of the city in 330 is one of the common starting dates for the Byzantine Empire, Byzantine Constantinople is just fine. Constantine ✍ 17:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, it can be "Byzantine Constantinople". Aintabli (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I am also in favour of 2B. IMO there is the need for a separate article to cover the Ottoman period specifically. 1453 was a rupture in the city's history, but the end of its status as capital of a large, multinational and multi-confessional empire was definitely another (albeit less extreme than 1453 in manner and effects). Constantine ✍ 19:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to move this article to "Byzantine Constantinople" if there aren't any disagreeing editors. Aintabli (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: I would recommend going through WP:RM and notifying at least related wikiprojects. This is a highly visible page, and we should have firm consensus. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)