| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balyan family article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regarding the name of Istanbul and recent changes labeled "Not called istanbul before 1930":
In fact, the city was called Istanbul long before 1930. It even had the name Istanbul before 1453. One could quibble about whether it was generally called Istanbul in English before 1930, but to me that seems rather petty.
(See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul#.C4.B0stanbul)
DNYHCA (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its fact whether you like it or not.--English Bobby (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not a matter of my liking it. There is plenty of documentation for the various names by which the city was called at various times. If we want to be really accurate, we should probably refer to it as Kostantiniye when discussing Ottoman-era Istanbul. DNYHCA (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedians: Is there some precedent or accepted practice for referring to places whose names have changed over the years? The case of Istanbul is a little more complicated, however, than Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City, since the various names of Istanbul overlapped each other over centuries. There was never a clear break where the name changed from one to the other. DNYHCA (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its here
--English Bobby (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the citation. But it doesn't change my point, which is that the name Istanbul existed before 1930 and was an official name before 1930. In fact, the Finkel quote is merely stating in a different way that in 1930 the Turkish government abolished all other names for the city, official and unofficial. Istanbul and Kostantiniyye were both used officially by the Ottomans. The point here being that it is not anachronistic to call pre-1930 Istanbul, Istanbul. (For contrast, look at the example of Ho Chi Minh City. One would probably have to call the pre-1975 city Saigon.)
True, Constantinople was in general use in English before 1930 -- but not necessarily in exclusive use. For instance, see this list from Google Books: istanbul en 1500-1929
Maybe we should compromise and use the Armenian names of Bolis or Stambul. DNYHCA (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term Constantinople (in Turkish) was used by the Ottomans, it was part of the sultans full title. On wikipedia Constantinople is used to seperate the Imperial Greek and Ottoman period from the modern rebuplic period. I don't edit any vietnam related articles but your right, before 1975 Ho Chi Minh city should be refered to as Saigon as it was the legal name at the time as Constantinople was the legal name of Istanbul before 1930. Using Armenian names will simply confuse people who come to the page.
You could put the link under the word Constantinople to Istanbul. i.e Constantinople —Preceding unsigned comment added by English Bobby (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Legal name" is a pretty vague term. The Ottomans had many names they used officially. I've never come across anything about Konstantinopolis being one of them. Kostantiniye or Konstantiniyye (Arabized versions of Konstantinopolis), yes. Istanbul, yes. Bilade-i Selase (the "Three Cities"), yes.
There are probably more fruitful ways to approach this. DNYHCA (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i offered a compromise above, if your agaist it then fine but calling it Constantinople before 1930 is generally how its done on wikipedia. Also i never used Konstantinopolis or said the Turks used that. Only the cities then largly Greek inhabitants would have called it that. I used Constantinople the English term.--English Bobby (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This family can be an Ottoman family but it's impossible to be a Turkish family. Takabeg (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Takabeg (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
