| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dardanelles 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  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ancient Greeks suggested an mythological etymology relative with Helle )(or preciously, Hellê), sister of Phrixus.
But, I suppose that the word "Helles-pontus" is derivated by the name of Ilians (or else, the known Trojans), the people of Ilion or Troy which was a strong naval power in 2nd millennium B.C.
The word "pontus" means "sea", in ancient Greek [compare pond = small lake, in English].
So, Hellespont means "the sea of Ilians".
-IonnKorr 20:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could come from the word for 'Greece' which in ancient Greek was 'Hellas', therefore making the Hellespont the 'sea of Greece'
Compare etymology of Bosporus, in discussion window.
says
Water flows north along the strait, from the Sea of Marmara to the Aegean...
Isn't that south?
I think the latter is more common, especially in academic circles. Should there be a section on the (non-)use of the article the? I note that this article switches from one usage to the other. Interlingua 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rairden 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...but after the sea was punished by receiving 300 lashes and a pair of fetters thrown into it, engineers finished them"
How exactly does one "punish" the sea? I really can't even fathom what this means, but it doesn't look like a typo/grammatical error. Ghostalker
It isn't. This is an actual punishment of the sea for displeasing the Great King. Famous anecdote. User:Dimadick
I'm removing the two question marks in this sentence. "Turkey declared war on Germany in February 1945(??), but it did not employ any offensive forces in that war."
It should have been citation needed if anything, not question marks. I don't see a citation as necessary, but if someone would like to add a citation of the symbolic declaration of war on February 23, 1945, it couldn't hurt either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what is the sentence "(the Entente lost the battle on March 18, 1915)" supposed to mean? It appears to be talking about Winston Churchill, but doesn't make sense.
Needs a reference to Richard Halliburton swimming across it in 1926 in imitation of Lord Byron.
The 'triple entente' was the alliance between Britain , France and Russia in WW1, it could mean that they lost they battle
Does anyone have figures regarding the minimum depth of the strait, and maximum capacity a ship may have that can safely make passage?
There is no reason to mention, historically or otherwise, the dimentions of the strait in feet. Policy states that unless there are such grounds to note it, it should be left out. I'm not going to edit it out, since I haven't had anything to do with this page up untill now, but some one should. Madskile 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dardanelles should redirect here and the title should be "Çanakkale Boğazı". Because strait has been called『Çanakkale Boğazı』for 700 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.55.57 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dardanelles and hellespont are two names for the same place. I suggested to merge them to have a continuous historic timeline in one article. Inwind (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am not aware of any other case in Wikipedia where we have different names for the classical and modern names for a natural geographical feature. (This might be OK for a city.) PatGallacher (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - it makes no sense to me to have two separate articles for the same geographic feature just because there are two names for it, one current and the other historic. Diegodad (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this as well, I don't know how to do it but it seems there's no one opposed since proposed in September, anyone up to edit Hellespont to redirect?KVND 02:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose! All those who have studied Ancient Greek History know the channel as "Hellespont". That includes university students of history as well as countless secondary school pupils.
Why then should the article be merged under the name of Dardanelles, the site of a Word War I naval battle (Gallipoli) that happened to take place here as well?
And by no means should the article be merged with one named Çanakkale Boğazı. No one - I repeat: no one in the Western world knows enough Turkish to identify this name as being identical to Dardannelles and Hellespont. It just would not help all those looking for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpermant (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum depth is 82 m = 300 ft ?!? Maybe 91 m = 300 ft or 82 m = 269 ft. Zaldo --80.104.12.192 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article states "... a massive invasion force of British, Indian, Australian, and New Zealander troops...". I believe it should say "New Zealand".
The demonym for New Zealand (i.e. a person from New Zealand) is New Zealander (or Kiwi, informally). The attributive adjective for New Zealand (i.e. describing New Zealand; troops in this case) is New Zealand (or Kiwi, informally!). Thus "the New Zealand kiwi is a flightless bird", or "New Zealand troops".
The confusion in the article probably stems from the fact that the demonyms and attributive adjectives for most countries (including Britain, India, and Australia), are the same word, but for New Zealand they are not. Cwelgo (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. I agree. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]From what I understand in the merge section above, the Dardanelles has been known under different names for centuries. What I want to know is when its modern name became officially recognized. Alphapeta (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentence: Herodotus tells us that c. 482 BC Xerxes I (the son of Darius) had two bridges built across the width of the Hellespont at Abydos in order that his huge army, ostensibly made of 5 million men (most historians[who?] put the actual number of this army at closer to 250,000 men, though a second school of thought lends the accounts of Herodotus more credence, bringing the number closer to 400,000)[citation needed], could cross from Persia into Greece.
The whole part about the size of his army detracts from the flow of the text. I had to stop and re-read it to understand it. I don't want to change it myself, but may I suggest: Herodotus tells us that c. 482 BC Xerxes I (the son of Darius) had two bridges built across the width of the Hellespont at Abydos in order that his huge army could cross from Persia into Greece. Van Vidrine (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible for "a narrow strait" to have an economy? I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove this section:
I recently added a citation for the Allied casualties of the Dardanelles campaign, however I can't seem to get quite the right look in the references section as the rest of it. It is complete and I have added an inline reference to the information in question in the article. As my wikipedia markdown skills are limited, I am hoping someone else could fix it. Thank you.
Dsobol0513 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Washington Fight Song "Bow Down to Washington" makes reference to the Dardanelles. 199.191.127.241 (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
