Talk:Hisarlik

Sources

Hi all,

I didn't check my sources like I should have, and so I've started a new article about this important location at Hisarlik/Temp. I'll be more careful this time.

Thanks, --GilHamilton 04:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering...Isn't there still debate over whether or not Hisarlik is the genuine location of Ancient Troy? The last sentence seems to present this as fact. Ridan 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not done - no consensus to move the article from Hisarlik to Hisarlık. Neil ☎ 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

At the moment, the page "Hisarlık" (the currect Turkish spelling of the name) is a redirect to "Troy", while this page is stuck at the transliterated spelling, "Hisarlik". Administrator assistance is required to change this. I propose that this page be moved to "Hisarlık", with "Hisarlik" redirecting to the new name. SeL (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the lead makes it quite clear that "Hisarlık" is the correct name (which should probably redirect here, rather than Troy) but the "ı" is a special character which is usually avoided in article titles because it makes it difficult to type for the general English-speaking audience (who would be using this EN Wikipedia). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support most accurate spelling carries "ı". Represents no problem whatsoever for users typing "Hisarlik" because we have redirects. Hús ö nd 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Change the redirect by all means (in fact, I'll do that now). On the other hand, I wouldn't know what sound the proposed special character is meant to represent, and it seems to me that changing it would make the article illegible to the general readership. This is not a problem of diacritics, where less well-informed readers can simply ignore the extra strokes. Dekimasuよ! 10:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dekimasu, such a non educational approach! This article right here on Wikipedia provides all information on how to read this letter, therefore granting the accurate English speaker knowledge on how to pronounce this Turkish name (among many others) correctly. "ı" is a valid letter of an extended Latin alphabet, thus perfectly acceptable in English. No difference between this and e.g. "Å" in "Åland". Hús ö nd 13:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is one major difference: Åland is the customary English spelling. We are not here to ladle educational squiggles down our readers' throats; we are here to communicate with them. (One of the things to be communicated is that Turkish spelling differs.) For some readers, the proposed spelling will fail twice, since Hisarlık will contain a little square box as the penultimate letter. When (and if) English adopts it, we shall follow suit; and one sign that English has adopted it is that this move will be uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:UE. Google Books searches of "Hisarlık" don't seem to be returning English language results. Similar searches of "Hisarlik" do, hence the current title seems a very adequate transliteration. If Britannica uses Hisarlik, I see no reason why we can't. --DeLarge (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:UE: use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. I think Hisarlik is the most commonly used English version, not Hisarlık, per evidence above, reinforced through crude google search:
- Hisarlik 15,700
- Hisarlık 832

Having the page at Hisarlik does not stop any user from educating themselves with our wonderful article on ı if they so desire. Having the English spelling for our article in English is more accurate than having a Turkish spelling.Erudy (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the correct English spelling; it was established in English before the present Turkish alphabet was adopted, probably before it existed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I suppose I should have found WP:UE before making my proposal, sorry if this was a waste of Wikipedians' time. My gut feeling would have been to have it the other way, but I can understand the majority position, and having Hisarlık redirect here is acceptable to me too. I don't know what to do now, shall I withdraw my request or just let the debate run its course? SeL 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should add that when I found this article, it didn't mention the Turkish spelling anywhere at all, so before making my move request I made this change as well (just to explain, in response to the first opposing comment, why I thought the change was called for). And I still wonder if the article shouldn't use the Turkish spelling more often, or even all the time, regardless of the spelling used in the title. SeL 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't know why User:SeL is self-flagellating over this one. The first sentence of the article reads: "Hisarlık ... is the modern Turkish name for the ancient site of Troy." "Hisarlik" is not the modern Turkish name. No evidence has been given that the usage of "Hisarlik" is anything but an inability or unwillingness of other sources to use the "ı." Since Wikipedia can and does use Turkish letters (e.g., İzmir, not Izmir) why is there an exception here? I strongly support WP:UE and if "Hisarlik" is really English (like Istanbul seems to be considered), please establish this and I will follow the crowd. — AjaxSmack 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am wondering if you considered the evidence given above insufficient or if you simply didn't notice it? The Google Books comparison of "Hisarlık" and "Hisarlik" posted by DeLarge seems convincing to me: a wide swath of all sorts of English language books, from scholarly works to AP prep to travel guides to Britannica, using Hisarlik, with no English sources using Hisarlık (a number of books are shown, but they're all Turkish). I myself posted a more crude analysis of Google hits on the internet at large, showing a vast majority for Hisarlik rather than Hisarlık. It seems to me that the burden of proof should rest on those trying to show that Hisarlık is common usage in English, rather than the other way round, as you seem to suggest.Erudy (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did consider that evidence but I repeat that no evidence has been given that the usage of "Hisarlik" is anything but an inability or unwillingness of other sources to use the "ı," i.e., that it is truly an English toponym and not merely sloppy transliteration or a victim of typset limitations. Such evidence might hypothetically be a citation such as "Hisarlik, called Hisarlık in Turkish, is the modern name for the site of ancient Troy" clearly setting the English name apart from the Turkish. The web and literature abound with spellings such as Milosevic, Izmir, and Hue, but that's not where the articles are located because Wikipedia doesn't suffer the limitations of many other sources. There's no reason this article should do so when others such as Elazığ, Iğdır, or Kırıkkale do not. — AjaxSmack 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hisarlik is not a misspelling of the Turkish; as this usage, from Sir Richard Francis Burton, and therefore dating from when Turkish still used the Arabic alphabet, should make clear. English still uses Hisarlik, as it uses Istanbul, as our data shows. We probably should use Milosevic; we should certainly use Halys; failures to do so are improper concessions to nationalist POVs. I don't think any other Wikipedia has any problem ignoring English spellings of English names in favor of their own; this WP should do the converse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the most valid argument yet but minor "English" toponyms used prior to the early to mid 20th century have largely been jettisoned for native spellings or closer transliterations (e.g. Kossovo, Nish, Galatz). You're right that the modern Turkish alphabet did not exist in Burton's time but it has since 1928 and nearly all toponyms but Istanbul are at their Turkish names and we've seen the end of Smyrna, Trebizond, Angora, etc. Why is Hisarlık any different? I realize the issue here is clouded by the two spellings differing only by an "ı" but it brings me back to my original point that no evidence has been given that the usage of "Hisarlik" (since 1928) is anything but an inability or unwillingness of other sources to use the "ı," — AjaxSmack 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Crude Google searches are admittedly crude; but this is 50-1. What evidence would you accept? What evidence do you have that English has changed? (And if the problem is typographical, so what? If it is still what English readers are used to, will be least surprised by, and will use as a search term, it is policy to use it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The consensus at Wikipedia seems to be that minor toponyms (i.e., those without a clear exonym) in countries using the Latin alphabet be titled with their non-English diacritics. This is the case with all other Turkish places that I can find so why not here? I admit I don't have evidence of an English change for reasons given above -- it's more a case of the dog that didn't bark (no source contrasts "Hisarlık" and "Hisarlik" leading me to the conclusion of sloppy transliteration or a victim of typset limitations) -- but this is true for most other Turkish toponyms as well. — AjaxSmack 04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As below, what matters is not obscurity, but English usage (except for places so utterly obscure, like the hamlets of the South Tyrol, that there is no usage in English to check). But I am a classicist, and do not think Hisarlik obscure; will you next object that Troy is too obscure for us to use its exonym? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I guess I find it frustrating that "Hisarlık" is called more correct in English than "Hisarlik", even in the face of evidence presented. Ajaxsmack says that "English" toponymns have been jettisoned in favor of native spellings, but presents no evidence that "Hisarlik" has been so jettisoned in favor of "Hisarlık". Perhaps that is why Hisarlik "is different". The fact is "ı" is not an English letter, and the English speaking community is entirely within their rights to "domesticate" Hisarlık into Hisarlik to make it more readily understandable. The Turkish speaking community is likewise well within their rights to call Washington DC Vaşington DC, London Londra, Texas Teksas etc. etc. etc. Are there Turks who feel a pressing need to move these to their more "correct" or "accurate" titles? Are their English speakers who are "offended" that these titles have been misspelled, or are disgusted at Turkish sloppyness or carelessness at so misspelling them? I doubt it. I don't think we need to be to worried about following general English usage and our own guidlines for using "common names", and keeping this at Hisarlik.Erudy (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The reason for the difference is clear: Hisarlik is most widely discussed in contexts which do not refer to modern Turkey at all; therefore English has not adopted the modern Turkish spelling, any more than English uses Bozcaada for Tenedos. Neither, after all, is a modern city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the first sentence of the article reads "Hisarlık ('Place of Fortresses'), spelled Hisarlik or Hissarlik in many other languages, is the modern Turkish name for the ancient site of Troy..." (my emphasis). I did not write that and it has read roughly that way for over a year. I'm not arguing that either "Hisarlık" or "Hisarlik" is English. The place (in this context) is too minor to have a true English exonym and should therefore be treated as any other Turkish place would be. This is not in the same league as Washington, London, or Istanbul. Many non-English letters are used for Wikipedia article titles for almost all toponyms in Turkey, Poland, Serbia, and Hungary to name a few. I'm just wondering why an exception is being made here. — AjaxSmack 04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a source for this alleged consensus. In all countries, there are a handful of editwarring nationalists who will not acknowledge that English gives its own names to foreign places. I cannot think of any foreign language, or any foreign WP, which spells all English names (or even all of London, Britain, New York, and California) as English does; but a few editors insist that this should only work one way. Consensus and practice, per WP:NCGN, is to spell as English does; often (as with Besançon) English spelling includes diacritics. It is a question of fact in each case; to be determined by evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence for such a consensus is the overwhelming majority of Turkish, Serbian, Polish, &c. toponyms with a few notable exceptions that are clear English exonyms. If there is a true English exonym in current use, I almost always support it (please see my move requests of Ivory Coast, Celebes, Podolia, Polesia, Moravian Slovakia, and Budjak among others) but I question the evidence in this case and am still not convinced as none has been given. — AjaxSmack 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have such names for two reasons: Once, English does often use the local spelling. The other is the extent of Turkish, Polish, and Serb nationalism; we have such names (including places actually in, say, Lithuania or the Republic of Macedonia) because editors have insisted on them, and outnumbered the (often equally nationalist) opposition. Thus, for example, we use Kraków, instead of English Cracow, because of lobbying by Poles; I await the adoption of Warsawa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data

From the tests in WP:NCGN:

Google Books.
- Hisarlık: 88, and just looking at the results shows how many are in Turkish.
- Hisarlik: 634.

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.

Another nomenclature question

Should it be "Hisarlik" or "Hissarlik"? http://books.google.com/books?q=Hissarlik&btnG=Search+Books gives more than twice as many hits... DS (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic request: map

Is there anyone familiar with the making of those nifty maps showing contextual position, which most geographical articles have? I think the article could be much improved with a picture showing where Hisarlik is located within the rest of modern Turkey, and especially with respect to Istanbul. Robert K S (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used Template:Infobox ancient site to provide this automatically in change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisarlik&oldid=454739601 RPTB1 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pretty selective, probably biased by nationalism etc, definitely not comprehensive

I'm sure that there's been lots of people from many countries who looked for troy before Schliemann. But this article is trying to give the major share of the credit to calvert. It embarrasses me since i'm of english heritage to see this nationalistic agenda(or is it something to do also with Calvert family pride?). shliemann's the one who found it for better or worse.Mention Pedro, calvert and a few others briefly, tell mre about Schiemann and then the bulk of the article should be about Hisarlik itself.199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern sources give Calvert credit - without Calvert, Schliemann might well not have searched there. Calvert is only mentioned once in any case, that couldn't be briefer. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schliemann did not find it. It was journalist Charles Maclaren from Scotland who first suggested the site as a possible location of Iliou (the real name of the city). The first excavator was John Brunton, English civil engineer, followed by Calvert.

Schliemann was merely riding the wave. Why is he credited with anything other than destruction of the site is beyond me. 103.12.191.75 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Era Style

This is an article about a city which is currently in Turkey with a Muslim majority and its history is well before the Christian Era. Christian Era style should not be used for a non Christian history. BCE and CE are one of the accepted Wikipedia default styles. I therefore propose to change all the Era mentions. Hopeandreason (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need to exist?

Most of the information in this article duplicates what's already at Troy. And I'm not sure what I would want to add here that wouldn't fit better in the other article. Given that "Hisarlik" is really just the name of the site, would anybody object to redirecting this page to Troy? Any thoughts, Ploversegg? Furius? Doug Weller? Botterweg14 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be better for this to be a redirect. Furius (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a redirect would be in order with two caveats, 1) making sure that nothing (like the "Hisarlik from above" image) needs to be moved to the Troy article, which needs a bit of work itself but is too "public" for me to work on :-) and 2) we really do not KNOW Hisarlik was Troy, we just think it is. Probably is, maybe 80/20.Ploversegg (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that last point? I'm not an archaeologist, but the impression I had from the literature was that there's significant doubt about whether anything like a Trojan War actually happened, but that there isn't any doubt that Hisarlik is Classical Ilion. Am I missing something, or is this more a philosophical issue about what it would mean for Hisarlik to be Troy? Or perhaps more relevant, do you think treating them as a single topic is misleading for Wikipedia purposes? Botterweg14 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Troy article says "generally identified with the site of Hisarlik" which is what every scholarly source says something like that, "thought to be Troy" or "assumed to be Troy". They certainly have found no stone plaque saying "Welcome to Troy" or for that matter AFAIK ANY epigraphic finds from the site. And there are a number of unidentified mounds dotted around Anatolia, including this region. Still, for the sake of Wikipedia readers I suppose its ok to pretend its all good and say that Troy. As for whether there was an actual Trojan War, who cares at this remove. Clearly the Mycenae and their neighbors were bashing each over the head at that time and whoever live at the site would have been in that game. Clearly they believed in the myth up to Classical times anyway.Ploversegg (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS To give an example of contrarian views to the usual narrative (which I neither support or not support) one can look at [1]Corfù, Nicolas Assur. "Was Hisarlik an interregional city with important harbor in the late Bronze Age?." Orbis Terrarum 13 (2015): 71-82 Ploversegg (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basic equations of Hisarlik = Wilusa and Hisarlik = Ilion/Troia are certainly the communis opinio. The first equation was questioned during the Troy Controversy of the early 2000s (which should be discussed on Troy and have its own article), but that dispute was really about whether Bronze Age Troy was economically/politically "important" or not. Corfu's article very carefully avoids questioning whether Hisarlik was Wilusa, limiting itself solely to the question of how "important" the site really was. The equation is explicitly attested from Classical times onwards and there's plenty of epigraphy from Hellenistic and Roman times referring to the site as Troas or Ilion. Furius (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the Corfu link. I didn't realize that this issue was still unresolved! Do you know of any handbook articles or overviews that discuss recent developments in the debate? In my work on the Troy article, I was trying to rely on syntheses (like the Oxford Handbook articles) rather than stitching together claims from primary sources, but the ones I was using seemed to suggest that things were settled.

Regarding the WP articles, my inner pedantic philosopher would actually endorse a split between Troy (literary) vs Hisarlik (archaeological site) vs Ilion (classical city) vs Wilusa. But in practical terms, I would worry that this division would be confusing to most Wikipedia readers, and also wouldn't be forward-compatible. The separate articles would likely devolve into forks once the motivation for the split is forgotten. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was wrong. There was one (1) epigraphic find, a luwian seal. I added the proper ref to the Troy article (and fixed the entry) as atonement.Ploversegg (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]