This is an archive of past discussions about Constantinople. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Constantinople → Byzantine Constantinople – As discussed above, a separate article for the "Ottoman Constantinople" may be created due to the large amount of content and potential expansion. This article thus needs to be renamed to distinguish it from that period. Aintabli (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Support, as per my position in the discussion above. Wikipedia uses Constantinople for the Ottoman period, and the current state of this article seems to not understand that. Expansion is an option, but it seems there is more willingness for a split, which is also fine by me. Making Istanbul the summary article for both (Byzantine and Ottoman Constantinople), is also a good idea. Uness232 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Also to clarify, this was our starting point. It was to create a new article for the Ottoman period and revise this article so that it is only on the Byzantine period, its original scope, which hereby, the name would clearly reflect that. Then, all would be summarized in Istanbul and History of Istanbul. I think this would be quite valuable, as anyone specifically fascinated by the Byzantine history would not have to worry about skipping parts on later periods while reading this article. Aintabli (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose A long and storied history is no reason to downgrade a recognizable common name like Constantinople in favor of Wikipedia inventions like Byzantine Constantinople. Even if there's a consensus for this, I'd suggest alternatives likes Constantinople under/during the Byzantine Empire. --Killuminator (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
By the way, isn't the alternative you proposed the same as moving the article after all? Constantinople is Istanbul, and moving this article wouldn't be downgrading a recognizable name. Constantinople could redirect to Istanbul. It is very clear that since Constantinople as a name was also used for the Ottoman city, this has caused a lot of confusion regarding the original scope of this article. Aintabli (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The alternative is merely what I think to be a better name if there's consensus to move, not an endorsement of moving the page. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the predicament we're in. If an Ottoman Constantinople page is created without moving, we'd have a Constantinople article with a bafflingly severe lack of coverage for 1/3 of its history, and a separate Constantinople page for the Ottoman Empire, even though Wikipedia refers to the Ottoman city as just Constantinople. We'd have to pipe every link, or rewrite this page. Uness232 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. There is only one "Constantinople" article. And links to "Constantinople" will continue to redirect here. It seems unnecessary. This article covers the Ottoman period, if briefly. If you want to expand the Ottoman section, go ahead. But until there is a separate article, this should be the name for this one. Walrasiad (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't even planned to cover the Ottoman period. As noted on Byzantium, Istanbul was intended to be the article for the Ottoman period. This was later and even just now forgotten and misinterpreted based on the name of this article. Aintabli (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Walrasiaduntil there is a separate article There will be a new article if this move happens. I'm currently not in the position to write such a major article, but I was going to start working on it just next Monday. Aintabli (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
To clarify my point... If it isn't an article, 'Constantinople' will be either a dab page (terrible idea) or a primary redirect (almost as bad). I understand the motivation to treat it as a synonym of 'Istanbul', but in practice usage is basically non-overlapping. There is precedent for the current situation at Königsberg, Edo and Tenochtitlan. I'll also point out that the city wasn't Byzantine for the entire period 330–1453. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Well in this case Adrianople redirects to Edirne, however we have examples as Nicaea and İznik as well. However those examples you showed (like Nicaea) are abandoned settlements, while old Constantinople is still inhabited by people. Thoughts on that? Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Expansion of Ottoman section
Since the page has not been moved, we now need an expansion of the Ottoman section. I'm not in a place to do this alone, especially since most of the article needs additions, but with a few helping hands it should be possible. I would not want to ping anyone, but I suppose for a highly visible page the sooner the better. Uness232 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Legend to the map of the Byzantium is wrong
It states that the map [Byzantine Constantinople-en.png] corresponds to the modern Day "Fatih" district - this is wrong Fatih is around hill 4 on the Map, BUT there are many other modern day districts also within the area described. Best to remove the legend altogether and just say the area within the theodosian walls. Zekimurad (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
