''During the Byzantine period it was also known as Byzantium.''
Byzantium is also more properly the name of a town, which was ''re''founded by Constantine as Nova Roma or Constantinopolis. I'm not sure how or if this should be worked in.
-----
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?
-- User: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). --User: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. -- user:Jsc1973
:::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 --User: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.
::--User: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 modern 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. --User: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).
----
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
::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.--User:Aledeniz 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.
–User: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. User:Ross Burgess 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. User:Ross Burgess 09:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1930??? Where did you get that idea from? The Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923, believe me, they wouldn't have left the name as Constantinople. Istanbul is Istanbul since 1453.
== "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". -- User:Cyrius|User talk: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 Trotsky (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. -- User:Llywrch 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (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? User:Ross Burgess 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. User: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. User:Ross Burgess 07:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) I should have noticed you had already done this. User:Ross Burgess 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. User:Ross Burgess 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 --User: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 [http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%89%CE%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%B7 Greek] & [http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stanbul 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. --User:Adamgarrigus 15:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)