Talk:Istanbul/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

File:Waterfront houses on the Bosphorus.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Waterfront houses on the Bosphorus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Istanbul Park Turkish GP Circuit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istanbul Park Turkish GP Circuit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Istanbul Park Turkish Grand Prix Circuit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istanbul Park Turkish Grand Prix Circuit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource, regarding Bathonea

• After Being Stricken by Drought, Istanbul Yields Ancient Treasure by Jennifer Pinkowski, published January 23, 2012; excerpt ...

  For 1,600 years, this city — Turkey’s largest — has been built and destroyed, erected and erased, as layer upon layer of life has thrived on its seven hills. Today, Istanbul is a city of 13 million, spread far beyond those hills. And on a long-farmed peninsula jutting into Lake Küçükçekmece, 13 miles west of the city center, archaeologists have made an extraordinary find.

99.181.134.88 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Extraordinary findings" in Küçükçekmece have been described at length in a beautiful guide of Ernest Mamboury printed in the fifties of last century, "Istanbul touristique". :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Skyline of Maslak in Istanbul on June 23 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Skyline of Maslak in Istanbul on June 23 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Golden Horn Panorama Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golden Horn Panorama Istanbul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Levent metro station Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Levent metro station Istanbul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Levent metro station Istanbul.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Istanbul Montage Wikipedia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istanbul Montage Wikipedia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Istanbul Montage Wikipedia.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Image in Climate section

Every time I decide to return to this article, I see that the image in the Climate has been changed. This is what I keep changing it to:

Levant under fog

And here's the image it keeps getting changed back to:

File:Levent financial district in Istanbul on 8 February 2005.jpg

Levent business district in winter.

Most of the time when I dig through the history to figure out why the image was changed, I find bullshit reasons like "there isn't fog in Istanbul", despite the fact that (a) that is not a Photoshopped image and (b) the body of the article (sourced, mind you) disputes that claim. So even if your neighborhood doesn't see a lot of fog, the source backs up the sentiment that Istanbul receives an unusually high amount of fog. As for snow, well, that hardly gets a mention in the article, because there is nothing unusual about snow for a city at Istanbul's latitude that doesn't have a Mediterranean climate. And, aside from being more relevant, the first image is clearly aesthetically superior.

But, other times, like the last time it was removed, no reason is provided at all.

This is truly infuriating. I don't expect you all to agree with everything I do, but I try to explain my edits and not to immediately revert other people's extensive edits, especially without explanation. I know someone has been long trolled this article's Climate section (for what reason, I don't know), but it's time you cut it out. I'm going give whoever is responsible for repeatedly swapping out the image an opportunity to provide some sort of rationale. I'm also going to give whoever follows this article the chance to provide some opinions about which image is preferred. Barring either of these being fulfilled, after I work on some other parts of the article, I'm going to return the superior image (the first one) to its rightful place, hopefully for the last time, and I will revert and unexplained removals on sight. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Demographics section

Long story short: Namuslu does not like me making any major changes to sections without his permission. Generally people only take small points of disagreement to the talk page, but because Namuslu won't say what he disagrees with and simply reverts any major change I make to that section, I have to, unfortunately, use a huge portion of the talk page to compare his version with the one I have added.

Text marked in green in the second option was added, while text marked in red in the first option was removed. Text marked in gray in both options was just (noticeably) moved. Everything else (the content in normal black text) remains in the section version, albeit sometimes reworded or reordered.

Here is how the demographics section stood prior to about March 26:

Demographics

The Turkish Statistic Institute estimates that the population of Istanbul was 13,255,685 on 31 December 2010, making it the largest city in Turkey, with eighteen percent of the country's population. Because of its vast land area, Istanbul is among the five largest cities proper in the world, even though its metropolitan area, roughly equivalent to the city proper's population, ranks below twentieth.

Istanbul experienced explosive growth in the second half of the 20th century, with its population increasing tenfold between 1950 and 2000. This growth in population comes, in part, from an expansion of city limits—particularly between 1980 and 1985, when the number of Istanbulites nearly doubled. However, the remarkable growth was, and still is, largely fueled by migrants from eastern Anatolia seeking employment and improved living conditions. This has often resulted in new gecekondus (shanty towns) appearing on the outskirts of the city, although they are gradually being replaced with more modern housing complexes. Present population growth, at the beginning of the 21st century, is placed at an average of 3.45% annually, due to the influx of people from the surrounding rural areas. Istanbul's population density of 1,700 people per square kilometer (2,700/mi²) far exceeds Turkey's 81 people per square kilometer (130/mi²).

Throughout most of its history, Istanbul has been among the largest cities in the world. Its geographically strategic location, at the intersection of Europe and the Middle East, combined with its Byzantine and Ottoman political and cultural significance, quickly fostered a large, diverse population. By 500 AD, less than two centuries after Constantine the Great made the city his empire's capital, Constantinople had somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 people, edging out its predecessor Rome for world's largest city. By some accounts, it had even achieved that title by 360 AD. Prior to the Fourth Crusade and the arrival of the Latin Empire in the 13th century, Constantinople jostled with other major historical cities, such as Baghdad and Chang'an, for the position of world's most populous city. Following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Istanbul quickly regained—and arguably exceeded—its previous prosperity and diversity. While it never returned to being the world's largest, it remained Europe's largest city until the start of the 19th century. Today, it is Europe's second-largest city, after Moscow.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Istanbul was a very multicultural city, with over 100,000 Greeks living in the city, and over 1.5 million in Anatolia as a whole. Due to their role in the Turkish economy, the ethnic Greeks of Istanbul living in the city before 30 October 1918 (the etabli) were excluded from the 1923 population exchange. However, because of the 1942 wealth tax, the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom, the 1964 expulsions and the 1974 Cyprus crisis, the number of Greeks in Istanbul diminished enormously, and is today estimated to comprise around 2,000, mostly elderly, citizens.

Religion

Main article: Religion in Istanbul

The Muslims are by far the largest religious group in Istanbul. Among them, the Sunnis form the most populous sect, while a number of the local Muslims are Alevis. In 2007 there were 2,944 active mosques in Istanbul.

Religious minorities include: Greek Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians, Syriac Oriental Orthodox Christians, Catholic Levantines and Sephardic Jews. According to the 2000 census, there were 2,691 active mosques, 123 active churches and 26 active synagogues in Istanbul; as well as 109 Muslim cemeteries and 57 non-Muslim cemeteries. Some districts used to have sizeable populations of these ethnic groups, such as the Kumkapı district, which had a sizeable Armenian population; the Balat district, which had a sizeable Jewish population; the Fener and Samatya districts, which had a sizeable Greek population; and some neighbourhoods in the Nişantaşı and Beyoğlu districts that had sizeable Levantine populations. Very few remain in these districts, as they either emigrated or moved to other districts. In some quarters, such as Kuzguncuk, an Armenian church sits next to a synagogue, and on the other side of the road a Greek Orthodox church is found beside a mosque.

The seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, patriarch of the autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church, is located in the Fener (Phanar) quarter. Also based in Istanbul are the archbishop of the Turkish Orthodox Church, an Armenian archbishop, and the Turkish Grand-Rabbi. A number of places reflect past movements of different communities into Istanbul, most notably Arnavutköy (Albanian village), Polonezköy (Polish village) and Yenibosna (New Bosnia).

Istanbul was the final seat of the Islamic Caliphate, between 1517 and 1924, when the Caliphate was dissolved and its powers were handed over to the Turkish Parliament. On 2 September 1925, the tekkes and tarikats were banned, as their activities were deemed incompatible with the characteristics of the secular democratic Republic of Turkey; particularly with the secular education system and the laicist state's control over religious affairs through the Religious Affairs Directorate. Most followers of Sufism and other forms of Islamic mysticism practiced clandestinely afterwards, and some of these sects still boast numerous followers. To avoid the still active prohibition, these organisations represent themselves as "cultural associations."

The city has been the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople since the 4th century AD. The city is also seat of the Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate. The city was formerly also the seat of the reduced Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchate, before its autocephaly was recognised for a second time by other bodies of the Orthodox Church.

The everyday life of the Christians, particularly the Greeks and Armenians living in Istanbul changed significantly following the bitter conflicts between these ethnic groups and the Turks during the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which began in the 1820s and continued for a century. The conflicts reached their culmination in the decade between 1912 and 1922; during the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the Turkish War of Independence. The Christian population declined from 450,000 to 240,000 between 1914 and 1927. Today, most of Turkey's remaining Greek and Armenian minorities live in or near Istanbul. The number of the local Turkish Armenians in Istanbul today amount to approximately 45,000 (not including the nearly 40,000 Armenian workers in Turkey who came from Armenia after 1991 and mostly live and work in Istanbul); while the Greek community, which amounted to 150,000 citizens in 1924, currently amounts to approximately 2,000–4,000 citizens. There are also 60,000 Istanbul Greeks who currently live in Greece but continue to retain their Turkish citizenship.

Sephardic red have lived in the city for over 500 years, after fleeing the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, when they were forced to convert to Christianity after the fall of the Moorish Kingdom of Andalucia. The Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (1481–1512) sent a sizable fleet to Spain under the command of Kemal Reis to save the Sephardic Jews. More than 200,000 Jews fled first to Tangier, Algiers, Genova, and Marseille, later to Salonica, and finally to Istanbul. The Sultan granted over 93,000 of these Spanish Jews to take refuge in the Ottoman Empire. Another large group of Sephardic Jews came from southern Italy, which was under Spanish control. The İtalyan Sinagogu (Italian Synagogue) in Galata is mostly frequented by the descendants of these Italian Jews in Istanbul.

Today, according to the World Jewish Congress, 23,000 Jews remain in Turkey, the vast majority being located in Istanbul. There are about 20 synagogues, the most important of them being the Neve Shalom Synagogue inaugurated in 1951, in the Beyoğlu district.

And here is what I (so far) changed it to:

Demographics

See also: Demographics of Turkey

The Turkish Statistic Institute estimates that the population of Istanbul was 13,255,685 on 31 December 2010, making it the largest city in Turkey, with eighteen percent of the country's population. Because of its vast land area, Istanbul is among the five largest cities proper in the world, even though its metropolitan area, roughly equivalent to the city proper's population, ranks below twentieth.

Istanbul experienced explosive growth in the second half of the 20th century, with its population increasing tenfold between 1950 and 2000. This growth in population comes, in part, from an expansion of city limits—particularly between 1980 and 1985, when the number of Istanbulites nearly doubled. However, the remarkable growth was, and still is, largely fueled by migrants from eastern Anatolia seeking employment and improved living conditions. The number of residents of Istanbul originating from seven northern and eastern provinces is greater than the populations of their entire respective provinces; notably, Sivas and Kastamonu each account for more than half a million residents of Istanbul. By comparison, the city's small expatriate population amounts to only 42,000 residents, based on 2007 estimates.

Present population growth is placed at an average of 3.45% annually, due to the influx of people from the surrounding rural areas. During the first seven years of the 21st century, the city's population grew by 2.5 million. Istanbul's population density of 1,700 people per square kilometer (2,700/mi²) far exceeds Turkey's 81 people per square kilometer (130/mi²). The most densely populated areas tend to lie to the northwest, west, or southwest of the city center, on the European side. The most densely populated district on the Asian side is Üsküdar.

Throughout most of its history, Istanbul has been among the largest cities in the world. Its geographically strategic location, at the intersection of Europe and the Middle East, combined with its Byzantine and Ottoman political and cultural significance, quickly fostered a large, diverse population. By 500 AD, less than two centuries after Constantine the Great made the city his empire's capital, Constantinople had somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 people, edging out its predecessor Rome for world's largest city. By some accounts, it had even achieved that title by 360 AD. Prior to the Fourth Crusade and the arrival of the Latin Empire in the 13th century, Constantinople jostled with other major historical cities, such as Baghdad and Chang'an, for the position of world's most populous city. Following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Istanbul quickly regained—and arguably exceeded—its previous prosperity and diversity. While it never returned to being the world's largest, it remained Europe's largest city until the start of the 19th century. Today, it is Europe's second-largest city, after Moscow.

Religious and ethnic groups

Main article: Religion in Istanbul

Further information: Religion in Turkey, Armenians in Turkey, and Greeks in Turkey

Istanbul has been a cosmopolitan city throughout much of its history, being at the crossroads of two continents and having been the heart of two world religions. Most of the religious and ethnic minorities that exist in Turkey are concentrated in Istanbul.

The vast majority of people across Turkey, and in Istanbul, consider themselves Muslim, and more specifically members of the Sunni branch of Islam. Of the Sunnis, most follow the Hanafi school of Islamic thought, although approximately ten percent of Sunni Muslims follow the Shafi'i school. The largest non-Sunni Muslim sect is the Alevis. Today, there are around three thousand active mosques across Istanbul.

For four centuries beginning in 1517, Istanbul served as the seat of what would be the final Islamic Caliphate. In 1924, the Caliphate was dissolved and its powers were handed over to the Turkish Parliament. In September 1925, the tekkes (Sufi gathering places) and tarikat (Sufi religious orders) were banned, as their activities were deemed incompatible with the characteristics of the new, secular republic. Most followers of Sufism and other forms of Islamic mysticism practiced clandestinely afterward, and some of these sects still boast numerous followers.

The Patriarch of Constantinople has been designated Ecumenical Patriarch since the 5th century. The Ecumenical Patriarch is widely regarded as the leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians (although this role has been disputed by the Moscow Patriarchate). Since 1600, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been based in Istanbul's Church of St. George. Most of Istanbul's Orthodox Christians and churches, including the Church of St. George, follow the Greek Orthodox Church, although a significant number of Christians follow the Turkish Orthodox Church or Armenian Apostolic Church, which have their own patriarchs (the Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate and Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople) in the city.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were over 100,000 Greeks living in Istanbul, and over 1.5 million living in Anatolia as a whole. Due to their role in the Turkish economy, the ethnic Greeks of Istanbul living in the city before 30 October 1918 (the etablis) were excluded from the 1923 population exchange. However, because of the 1942 wealth tax, the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom, the 1964 expulsions and the 1974 Cyprus crisis, the number of Greeks in Istanbul diminished enormously, and is today estimated to comprise between 2,000 and 4,000, mostly elderly, citizens.

Istanbul used to have a sizable Armenian population, especially in the Kumkapı district, dating back to Byzantine times. Only during the 20th century did the population begin to decline, although immigrants from Armenia have recently caused it to rebound. In 2008, Istanbul's Armenian minority was numbered at 85,000, comprising 45,000 Armenian citizens of Turkey and 40,000 Armenian citizens who have immigrated to the city since 1991. What is now the Beyoğlu district used to be home to Italians and Franco-Levantines, although these minority groups have virtually disappeared, having emigrated or moved to other districts.

Sephardi Jews have lived in the city for over five hundred years, after fleeing the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition. More than 200,000 Jews fled first to North Africa and Italy before arriving in Istanbul, while an additional 93,000 were rescued at the behest of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481–1912). Another large group of Sephardic Jews came from southern Italy, which was under Spanish control. The vast majority of the 23,000 Jews that remain in Turkey reside in Istanbul. There are about twenty synagogues, the largest and most important of them being the Neve Shalom Synagogue (built in 1951) in the Beyoğlu district.

Now, let me (sigh) go through my rationale behind every deletion.

1. The point about gecekondus, with these exact words, has already been mentioned in the Cityscape section. It has nothing to do with demographics.
2. The number of Muslim and non-Muslim cemetaries does not shed any light on ethnic groups in the city. The number of active churches is somewhat useful, but this is a minor point that could easily be added somewhere if you find this so crucial.
3. The point about the Jewish and Greek neighborhoods can easily be tacked onto their respective paragraphs. I don’t care about this.
4. The point about Armenian churches next to synagogues... what is that supposed to be saying?
5. Regarding the Albanian and Polish neighborhoods... I think we dwell enough on the past already. But, again, this could easily be re-added if you think this is important.
6. The details of the objections to Sufism are tangential. Not important for a summary section. Same goes for what these organizations call themselves, but that could easily be concatenated somewhere in the Sufi paragraph.
7. The historical details about these “bitter conflicts” are misplaced. The only thing that’s important is that there was a drop in Christian population. This can be re-added.
8. The number of people from Istanbul living in Greece or anywhere else abroad is irrelevant to the Istanbul article.
9. Details about the Spanish Inquisition should be left for the Spanish Inquisition article.
10. The Italian Synagogue is certainly a minor place of worship if Neve Shalom Synagogue is.

So, based on the above points, here’s what I suggest as a final product. In purple are things changed in accordance with these above points.

Demographics

See also: Demographics of Turkey

The Turkish Statistic Institute estimates that the population of Istanbul was 13,255,685 on 31 December 2010, making it the largest city in Turkey, with eighteen percent of the country's population. Because of its vast land area, Istanbul is among the five largest cities proper in the world, even though its metropolitan area, roughly equivalent to the city proper's population, ranks below twentieth.

Istanbul experienced explosive growth in the second half of the 20th century, with its population increasing tenfold between 1950 and 2000. This growth in population comes, in part, from an expansion of city limits—particularly between 1980 and 1985, when the number of Istanbulites nearly doubled. However, the remarkable growth was, and still is, largely fueled by migrants from eastern Anatolia seeking employment and improved living conditions. The number of residents of Istanbul originating from seven northern and eastern provinces is greater than the populations of their entire respective provinces; notably, Sivas and Kastamonu each account for more than half a million residents of Istanbul. By comparison, the city's small expatriate population amounts to only 42,000 residents, based on 2007 estimates.

Present population growth is placed at an average of 3.45% annually, due to the influx of people from the surrounding rural areas. During the first seven years of the 21st century, the city's population grew by 2.5 million. Istanbul's population density of 1,700 people per square kilometer (2,700/mi²) far exceeds Turkey's 81 people per square kilometer (130/mi²). The most densely populated areas tend to lie to the northwest, west, or southwest of the city center, on the European side. The most densely populated district on the Asian side is Üsküdar.

Throughout most of its history, Istanbul has been among the largest cities in the world. Its geographically strategic location, at the intersection of Europe and the Middle East, combined with its Byzantine and Ottoman political and cultural significance, quickly fostered a large, diverse population. By 500 AD, less than two centuries after Constantine the Great made the city his empire's capital, Constantinople had somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 people, edging out its predecessor Rome for world's largest city. By some accounts, it had even achieved that title by 360 AD. Prior to the Fourth Crusade and the arrival of the Latin Empire in the 13th century, Constantinople jostled with other major historical cities, such as Baghdad and Chang'an, for the position of world's most populous city. Following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Istanbul quickly regained—and arguably exceeded—its previous prosperity and diversity. While it never returned to being the world's largest, it remained Europe's largest city until the start of the 19th century. Today, it is Europe's second-largest city, after Moscow.

Religious and ethnic groups

Main article: Religion in Istanbul

Further information: Religion in Turkey, Armenians in Turkey, and Greeks in Turkey

Istanbul has been a cosmopolitan city throughout much of its history, being at the crossroads of two continents and having been the heart of two world religions. Most of the religious and ethnic minorities that exist in Turkey are concentrated in Istanbul.

The vast majority of people across Turkey, and in Istanbul, consider themselves Muslim, and more specifically members of the Sunni branch of Islam. Of the Sunnis, most follow the Hanafi school of Islamic thought, although approximately ten percent of Sunni Muslims follow the Shafi'i school. The largest non-Sunni Muslim sect is the Alevis. Today, there are around three thousand active mosques across Istanbul.

For four centuries beginning in 1517, Istanbul served as the seat of what would be the final Islamic Caliphate. In 1924, the Caliphate was dissolved and its powers were handed over to the Turkish Parliament. In September 1925, the tekkes (Sufi gathering places) and tarikat (Sufi religious orders) were banned, as their activities were deemed incompatible with the characteristics of the new, secular republic. Most followers of Sufism and other forms of Islamic mysticism practiced clandestinely (as "cultural associations") afterward, and some of these sects still boast numerous followers.

The Patriarch of Constantinople has been designated Ecumenical Patriarch since the 5th century. The Ecumenical Patriarch is widely regarded as the leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians (although this role has been disputed by the Moscow Patriarchate). Since 1600, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been based in Istanbul's Church of St. George. Most of Istanbul's Orthodox Christians and churches, including the Church of St. George, follow the Greek Orthodox Church, although a significant number of Christians follow the Turkish Orthodox Church or Armenian Apostolic Church, which have their own patriarchs (the Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate and Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople) in the city. However, the Christian population today is much lower than it used to be, having dropped from 450,000 to 240,000 between 1914 and 1927, as a series of wars plagued the outgoing empire and the new republic.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were over 100,000 Greeks living in Istanbul, especially in the Fener and Samatya quarters, and over 1.5 million living in Anatolia as a whole. Due to their role in the Turkish economy, the ethnic Greeks of Istanbul living in the city before 30 October 1918 (the etablis) were excluded from the 1923 population exchange. However, because of the 1942 wealth tax, the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom, the 1964 expulsions and the 1974 Cyprus crisis, the number of Greeks in Istanbul diminished enormously, and is today estimated to comprise between 2,000 and 4,000, mostly elderly, citizens.

Istanbul used to have a sizable Armenian population, especially in the Kumkapı district, dating back to Byzantine times. Only during the 20th century did the population begin to decline, although immigrants from Armenia have recently caused it to rebound. In 2008, Istanbul's Armenian minority was numbered at 85,000, comprising 45,000 Armenian citizens of Turkey and 40,000 Armenian citizens who have immigrated to the city since 1991. A number of places reflect past immigration of different communities into Istanbul; most notable among them are Arnavutköy (Albanian village), Polonezköy (Polish village), and Yenibosna (New Bosnia). What is now the Beyoğlu district also used to be home to Italians and Franco-Levantines, but these minority groups have virtually disappeared, having emigrated or moved to other districts.

Sephardi Jews have lived in the city, especially in the Balat district, for over five hundred years, after fleeing the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition. More than 200,000 Jews fled first to North Africa and Italy before arriving in Istanbul, while an additional 93,000 were rescued at the behest of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481–1912). Another large group of Sephardic Jews came from southern Italy, which was under Spanish control. The vast majority of the 23,000 Jews that remain in Turkey reside in Istanbul. There are about twenty synagogues, the largest and most important of them being the Neve Shalom Synagogue (built in 1951) in the Beyoğlu district.

I also think a bit can be said about the Kurdish minority, and that a few of those specific details about the causes of Greek decline could be removed, but I'm not going to expend huge amounts of energy to change the information only to have it blanket reverted again. -- tariqabjotu 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall an improvement, though I would like to make a few points. I prefer the second version (22.3). One, the causes of the decline of the Christian population, and the size of that decline, should be mentioned, if only briefly. The specific reasons for the decrease in the Greek population should also remain (e.g. 1923, 1955 pogrom, etc..). Two, the sentence Most of Istanbul's Orthodox Christians and churches, including the Church of St. George, follow the Greek Orthodox Church, although a significant number of Christians follow the Turkish Orthodox Church or Armenian Apostolic Church, which have their own patriarchs (the Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate and Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople) in the city. is problematic. The Turkish Orthodox Church is something of a running joke, it only has somewhere around 50 "adherents", mostly relatives of the crank who started it. The Armenian Apostolic Church is completely separate from the Orthodox Church. Though it is frequently lumped together with the Orthodox Church, it has nothing to do with it. Thus, the overwhelming majority of the remaining Orthodox Christians are Greek Orthodox. Third, Istanbul has a large Kurdish community and they should be mentioned, and there are other ethnicities as well (Roma, Circassians, Albanians...). Lastly, I would also like to see a mention that Greeks have been continuously living in the city since the latter's founding. Other than that, I have no problem with the proposed changes. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I don't have a problem with your modifications, and most modifications in general. I just have a problem with someone saying I don't like a couple of your changes, so I'm reverting all of them or You don't live in Istanbul, so you can't write about it. Feel free to go ahead and make the changes you want. -- tariqabjotu 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. Athenean (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. I think that the Kurdish minority should be more than just mentioned, since we are talking about a couple of millions people...Istanbul is the largest Kurdish city in the world. The Greek minority is today numerically irrelevant, but for Istanbul culturally and historically is extremely important. Thanks for improving the article, although you are not an Istanbullu (but - if I can ask - where do you live? :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to add some information about the Kurds. Feel free to add more; I'm not sure what else should be said. As for where I'm from: I'm American and live near San Francisco. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since also S.F. lies on the sea, I think that you can be exceptionally allowed to edit the article... :-) Jokes aside, I think that what is really missing in this article (and not only here...) is a section about the (lack of) city planning. As you maybe know, Istanbul as no city plan, and development is totally out of control, exacerbating many problems of the city. But until now I found very few reliable sources on this subject. Alex2006 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Galatasaray Lisesi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aerial view of Galatasaray Lisesi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Aerial view of Galatasaray Lisesi.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Transportation section

Hallo

I think that the transportation section is becoming fully disproportionate and is too large with respect to the article. A lot of information could be moved to the related article. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Becoming disproportionate? The section was far longer before; how could it be becoming disproportionate? That being said, over the course of shortening the section, I found that cutting some information was very difficult. Istanbul, as I'm sure you're aware, has a very complex transportation system composed of so many modes of transportation, some with historical significance. Also, the construction of the Marmaray tunnel bears repeating since it will radically transform the city's transportation infrastructure. I've done my best to further cut down on the length of the section, but I think it's reasonable given all that should be covered in some way. If you have some ideas for cutting it down (or think some forms of transportation are insignificant), feel free to make your own attempt at shortening the section. -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made more efforts to shorten the section. Eventually, when I get the chance, I'll copy the (well-sourced) information that I deleted into the Public transport in Istanbul article. However, I would like to tackle the Culture and Sports sections in the meantime. Feel free to further decrease the size of the Transportation section, if you'd like, but I think the length is reasonable now. It could, maybe, be a bit shorter, but I think it's good enough as is. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul LRT source?

In the process of updating the Transportation section to account for the city's new metro line, I've found myself unable to source the point about the Istanbul LRT. From what I can tell, although the M1 is noted as a light-rail line [in Turkish], all of the lines that start with M are considered part of the Metro (see the map). Further, no such "light rail" designation is made for the T4 line. Searching for "Istanbul LRT" or "Istanbul Hafif Metro" or something like that seems to draw up nothing, so my question is, is there a source that can confirm that the Istanbul LRT is a real thing? Otherwise, I'm just going to combine the information about the M1 with the metro information. -- tariqabjotu 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Tariq, I have no source, but I can tell you for sure (I used both, M1 at least 20 times, T4 only once) that M1 (Atatürk Airport - Aksaray) is a Metro line, not a light rail. On the other side, T4 is a light Rail (tramway). Alex2006 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the M1 as well, and it never would have crossed my mind that that was a light rail. That being said, it is called a "light rail" on its official website. I mean, we don't have to say that if we don't believe it; we can just refer to the metro system (lines beginning with M) and the trams (lines beginning with T), which is also supported by the same source. But on Wikipedia, there seems to be this distinction -- made in several locations -- referring to an Istanbul LRT and I can't find this distinction anywhere else. -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Completeness of transportation section

For a city located on the sea, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate that the transportation section didn't contain anything on shipping. I note that an excessively long text on ports was recently worked up and then deleted. I suggest a short text be distilled and included. I suggest:

Istanbul has three main seaports, each with a different function, as well a number of smaller seaports and oil terminals located in the Strait and on the coast of Marmara Sea. The Port of Istanbul is located between the Galata Bridge on the Golden Horn and Fındıklı within Karaköy neighbourhood. It can handle about 10,000 tourists an hour. The Port of Haydarpaşa is a general cargo seaport, operated by the Turkish State Railways. It is the biggest container port in the Marmara Region and, with an annual cargo volume exceeding six million metric tons, is Turkey's fourth biggest seaport after Mersin, Ambarlı and Izmir. From 2004 on, cargo traffic moved to Port of Ambarlı, a modern container terminal situated in the Ambarlı neigborhood of Avcılar.

I have retained wikilinking that was in the earlier text: I realise some of it probably isn't needed, but haven't gone through it in any detail; happy to see it trimmed. Any views? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that the section contains nothing on shipping; it always had the information on the Bosphorus and the Port of Haydarpaşa, some of which you've removed for your proposal.

I actually tried to re-add some of the information that CeeGee added regarding the Port of Istanbul, but I gave up because I couldn't find any evidence that the sources actually corroborated what was written. So, let's go through this sentence by sentence:

• Istanbul has three main seaports, each with a different function, as well a number of smaller seaports and oil terminals located in the Strait and on the coast of Marmara Sea.

  The source doesn't really support the statement that there are three main seaports. If this is just an introduction to the remainder of the paragraph, that's fine, but I don't think the source says that. It does support the statement that there are numerous ports around the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara, but this is already implied in the article since it mentions that the IDO calls at ports around the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus. Saying anything beyond that is unnecessary, as the Sea of Marmara is quite large. It's about 200 km to the other side, so why is that relevant to Istanbul?

The source is in English. The seaports of Istanbul are listed in the source. The text added mentions the ports in Istanbul's coast of Marmara Sea, not the ports at all on the Marmara Sea. Is it the better way to remove all instead of rewording or re-editing if something is incorrect? CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The source does list all the ports of Istanbul, but how would one decipher from that that there are only three main ports? The rest, as I said, is already implied, even if you limit the scope to just those ports in Istanbul. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Port of Istanbul is located between the Galata Bridge on the Golden Horn and Fındıklı within Karaköy neighbourhood. It can handle about 10,000 tourists an hour.

  This is the specific point I tried to re-add. But I couldn't see how the 10,000 figure is supported by the source, either in Turkish or in English. The port is probably worth a mention though since cruise ships use this terminal.

Please look at the source again. The figure 10,000 is impossible to overlook. You can try maybe with text editor's "find" tool. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The English version of the site, insofar as I can tell, does not contain this information. And I think I see why I had such trouble with that link. If you click on the Union Jack to look at the English version, going to the link you provided afterward displays a blank page. You have to then click on the Turkish flag and then go back to the link to get that information. Anyway, it's good this is actually there, because I couldn't find any other source that says the same (or a different figure, for that matter). -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Port of Haydarpaşa is a general cargo seaport, operated by the Turkish State Railways. It is the biggest container port in the Marmara Region and, with an annual cargo volume exceeding six million metric tons, is Turkey's fourth biggest seaport after Mersin, Ambarlı and Izmir.

  I struggle to see how this formulation is superior to the current sentence about this port. Operated by Turkish State Railways? Ho-hum. Largest container port in the Marmara Region? This is really not saying much. The rest of the sentence -- cargo volume exceeding six million tonnes and Turkey's fourth-largest port -- is not supported by the source at all. It wouldn't make sense either; Ambarlı is in Istanbul, so the statement that Haydarpaşa is the largest port in the Marmara Region (a point that is supported by the source) would be wrong (unless there's different metrics here, but that distinction is far from clear). On the other hand, we have a sourced sentence already in the article, that states it's Turkey's third largest, with a capacity of 5.9 million tonnes.

• From 2004 on, cargo traffic moved to Port of Ambarlı, a modern container terminal situated in the Ambarlı neigborhood of Avcılar.

  Not supported by the source at all. I found a source (ISBN 9789282102220) that shows a decrease in cargo at Haydarpaşa (despite no decrease in "containers"; the distinction is beyond me), but it doesn't mention where that cargo went, unfortunately. This may be a factual statement, but the source provided does not say this.

The comparison is made at Turkey level, not at regional (Narmara) level. Besides, the source in Turkish states explicitly that traffic at Port of Haydarpaşa is planned to be relocated to Ambarlı. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided (which is in English, by the way) does not say any of that. I'm not sure what comparison you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying more information can't be mentioned about seaports, but it is not correct to say that nothing is said about them already. The main omission I see is regarding the Port of Istanbul (although I am cautious about this, given this article was created less than 24 hours ago, by CeeGee). Should a referenced figure regarding this cruise port be available, I'd love to see it, and would be happy to see information about this port placed in the article. Other points could also be on the table if there were sources to support them. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I was just assuming the sources were sound, and was thinking about this as an editing / balance task. Based on your reading of the sources, it sounds like it could be good to add a point on Port of Istanbul, and a point on Port of Ambarlı, but that we don't have reliable sources to support those points at this stage. In which case, the text will have to stand as it is. Thank you for the thorough check on that. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Last but noy least. Tariq ignored my ask to check the article San Francisco, which has subsections in the Transportation section as I had edited here. I wanted to know why a featured article has such subsections and why a good article candidate may not have. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignored you? Need I remind you that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and, believe it or not, there are other things I wanted and needed to do, both on Wikipedia and off? I was actually constantly in the middle of responding to your message, but never finished. The gist of my response is that San Francisco was promoted to featured status six years ago and is an unreliable example of what a featured city article should look like. I'm struggling to find the manual of style page or guideline that sets how long subsections should be and recommends against cluttering tables of contents with over-sectioning, but common sense alone should be enough to conclude that four subsections is too many for a section of this length. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout gets close (I still don't think this is the one I was thinking of), saying Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I will risk adding my $.02 (two cents) and say that I don't think you need to add subsections if you don't want to but a couple of more sentences on the cargo handling port(s) might be in order if you can find sources. I would also suggest that you might consider discussing the cargo port(s) under economy rather than under transportation. In fact there are a few sentences under economy about how tourists enter the city that could be swapped into the transportation section in exchange for the text on cargo handling and port(s), which would fit better (I think) in the economy section and would seem less lost there than they do in the large transport section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Risk? Anyway, the sub-sectioning was an easy fix, but the amount added about ports was still excessive; after all, the Transportation section is already one of the article's longer sections. I think your suggestion is fine, and the source for the Port of Istanbul is there. I'm still not sure about the rest of the information. -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've made some changes. Feedback welcome. (Or just change it.) -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Sultanahmet mosque

My favourites: The first photo here. --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Or the fourth pic in this link. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please, please, please use a beautiful Sultanahmet Camisi, or Blue Mosque if you wish, pic in this article -instead of that strange night photo- as it certainly is one of Istanbul's several symbols? Thanks... --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A beautiful one, an image on a sunny day, separately from collages, pleeeease... --E4024 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sultanahmet mosque photo in the collage, with the installation of which I do not agree at all, is not the Blue Mosque we all know but a strange yellow-orangeish Andalucian UFO. Please replace it with a picture of something else from Istanbul (the Haghia Sophia for example) and place a beautiful photo of Sultanahmet mosque separately. --E4024 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you say, in the above discussion on the collage, the following:

I agree it's a good idea to use Sultanahmet (Blue) Mosque image to have something very clear of the Ottoman heritage. (Indeed Ayasofya is quite present at the Kostantiniyye article.)

-- tariqabjotu 17:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I said several times that we should have a separate Sultanahmet/Blue Mosque pic. (Of course I was not referring to the ugly one in the collage.) Yes, as you reproduce above I reminded that we have Ayasofya/Hagia Sophia in the Konstantiniyye article; in other words that we could prescind of it in Istanbul. Again: There are many beautiful (daytime, from outside) pics of the Sultanahmet Mosque and we should use one of them in this article, not in a collage but separately. --E4024 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Image substitution

A recent edit replaced an image of Church of St. George, Istanbul with one of the Blue Mosque. I'm not sure why, particularly as the image was illustrating the text on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'll ping the editor in question for an explanation, but I would be inclined to stick to the image of St George. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO all these photo fights are due to the extraordinary natural beauty and the immense historical-cultural heritage of Istanbul. We should find space for pics of both temples; and certainly a better photo (see above) for Sultanahmet (the Blue Mosque). --E4024 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The reason why this picture has been put there is that in that paragraph it is described the Greek (orthodox) minority and the Rum Patriarchate is its spiritual center. The blue Mosque can be hosted also in the architecture section. On the other side, I understand that illustrating the religious and ethnic groups paragraph with a church can be considered a little bit strange in a city where 99 % of the population is Muslim. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I see now that on the history my revert cause has been marked as "vandalism". I just clicked "undo", and was not my intention to define this substitution as a Vandal act, sorry. Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I know. On the other hand, I appreciate your observation about your own revert and your apology; you are a real Cavaliero... --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although on Alzheimer's edge, as you can see (too many Baklavas? :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This change can not be seen as vandalism.The Greeks minority in Istanbul.İmage of Church of St. George can not put religion section on article because,the city, 99% Muslim.The real vandalism,Istanbul, shows as a Greek city !!! --Maurice (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact I already begged your pardon, above and on the talk page, for that improper label on my revert. I understand also your point of view. I think that the image of the church of St. George is there to emphasize the cultural diversity of the city. On the other side, I wonder what would happen when someone would replace the image of St. Peter with that of the Mosque of Portoghesi on the corresponding section of Rome article. Alex2006 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are supporting my point, why did you get my change back?Can you explain to me ? Show me please a city,inversely proportional to the common religion of the city, a picture.Only one picture ?115,000 Turks live in Berlin.At that time,we should put picture of Şehitlik Mosque, instead of Berlin Cathedral on Berlin article.Do you think it is accepted by the Germans ? --Maurice (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because if a change has been contested and a talk thread has been opened (as it was the case yesterday), as long as no decision has been taken by the community (us) the original version should remain: this is a Wikipedia rule, and has nothing to do with being for or against the change. Alex2006 (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See? All we really needed was explanations instead of unexplained reverting of images. So, if we can only fit in one image to illustrate the "religious and ethnic groups" (and it looks that way), I would favour one of the major mosques - such as the 'Blue Mosque' rather than the church of st george. I now would oppose reverting to st george. But why couldn't editors just talk here, instead of warring without commentary? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. There's already a mosque depicted in the History section (and secondarily in the Economy section) and there will likely be another depicted in the collage that is expected to replace the current image in the infobox. The Blue Mosque is not mentioned in the "Ethnic groups" section at all, and, although that can be changed, how do you expect to work that in? It'd be very challenging because at the end of the day, all you can say is that it's perhaps the city's most famous mosque. It might have impressive architectural features, but a centrality to religious groups in the city just isn't there, especially in comparison to the Church of St. George. The comparisons with Berlin and Rome are not apt; the Mosque of Portoghesi and Şehitlik Mosque have little historical and cultural significance, particularly in comparison to the churches mentioned. The Church of St. George, however, is a center of faith for millions of people (apparently up to 300 million). The fact that Istanbul's residents may be almost exclusively Muslim doesn't preclude the fact that one of the most significant religious buildings in the city is a church. Mentioned and discussed in that section, that is what should be pictured. -- tariqabjotu 12:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for a church image, we have much more beautiful ones in Istanbul: At least we have two "Aya Triada"s. The main problem here is making a right choice of "what", "where". On the other hand, an Istanbul article without the Sultanahmet Mosque pic is lame; so we should quickly find a more beautiful pic than the proposed one(s). --E4024 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What if we split the section in two sections, "Religion" and "Ethnic Groups" (as for example in Rome), and the former in "Muslim", "Christian" etc, subsections? A kind of Multiplication of Bread and fish :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you replying to? Please use standard indenting. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question succinctly, no. This is supposed to be a summary article; splitting and expanding sections for the sole purpose of fitting more images is plainly unacceptable. Please do not use Rome as an example of a featured-level article. Not only is it not featured, its B-class status is questionable: the excessive number of images and sections is not something we should be striving for. -- tariqabjotu 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You completely misunderstood my point. Images are more than just decoration; they are intended to illustrate content in the article. The Church of St. George is mentioned in the section, and probably the most significant subject discussed in that section. Regarding the Blue Mosque photo, I thought there was an understanding that that would go in the collage? Is that not enough? Alternatively, or in addition, we could find an image that shows both the Aya Sofia and the Blue Mosque together for the Architecture section. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot read the thoughts of others, but I don't think that the problem here was to show another mosque (which, BTW, personally I find the equivalent of Trevi Fountain in Istanbul :-))). The insertion of the blue mosque was an attempt to give the due weight to Islam in the Religion section. As you rightly point out, St. George is the most significant subject discussed there. This is hurting, at least for many Muslims. Why don't we mention in the section Eyüp which, I read, is the third most important pilgrimage place in Islam (and that, incidentally, would deserve a picture in the religion section much more than the kitsch :-) mosque)? Alex2006 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That works, although I'd exercise caution with the claim that it's the third most important pilgrimage place in Islam. -- tariqabjotu 13:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what they told me in Istanbul. Anyway, it is a matter of fact that the significance of the city for the Muslim world is enormous, and it is raising. BTW, an incidental question to all, without opening a new thread. Do you know this? What do you think if we add it to the external links section? I think that it is sensational (and one can see also Eyüp there :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@Alex: Everytime you go to Istanbul, I follow you there. Sometimes I see you eating kaymak... --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Alex strongly. That the problem here, not the Sultan Ahmed Mosque or Blue Mosque. That the issue here,population of a city which is 99% of the Muslim there is a church photo in religion section. Please show me an article with this case.Without the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, this article is lame. This file can use the collage.It's not problem. There is a lot of historical and great mosques in Istanbul. New Mosque, Ortaköy Mosque and Suleymaniye mosque. These are excuses used to impose their own ideas. Even though split,part of religion and ethnic groups,I still am opposed to the use of photograph of St. George Church . --Maurice (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can read. I was never under any impression that the issue was anything other than the fact that the proportion of Muslims is significantly greater than the proportions of other religious groups. You and Alex are disagreeing with a point never made. -- tariqabjotu 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you not repeat again your claim that the article is lame without a picture of the Blue Mosque. You may think it belongs in the article, but the hyperbole is disrespectful to the tremendous amount of work I, and others, have put into the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that we need a mosque pic at the relevant (religion) section. No objections to adding also church and synagogue photos to the section though; repeat: Sultanahmet is a must. (It makes one feel he is in Istanbul...) --E4024 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I give up. -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, E4024, although I would personally prefer Eyüp to the blue mosque in the Religion section. Alex2006 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this issue definitively closed here.Indeed,Sultan Ahmed Mosque is a requirement for this article and religion section.Even when used the Blue Mosque on collage,instead, there are many alternative as I just mentioned above. --Maurice (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked Istanbul at wiki:tr, and there they use two pictures in the religion section: (blue) mosque + St. George. Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Blue Mosque issue is closed.You are right,image of the St. George church is available on Turkish Wikipedia.Because,religion section, separated into three parts.Muslims, Christians and Jews. As usual,this photo has been used on the information in Christianity.Turkish Wikipedia should not compare with English Wikipedia. --Maurice (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This could be maybe an alternative: several subsections, each subsection with a picture. But I don't know what Tariq thinks about it...About the picture, would not be better one of Eyüp? This is the real center of Islam in Istanbul. Personally I see the blue mosque more as a place for tourists... Alex2006 (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this in the section above? And, I really don't think the Blue Mosque issue is closed just because the person who keep reverting the image of it back into the article says so. I happen to agree with Alex that Eyüp is a more significant mosque than the Blue Mosque. The Blue Mosque will be depicted in the collage. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alex (and others), the tourists visit the most famous, interesting and representative, everywhere. Not only the mosque but all Sultanahmet is the traditional "center" of Istanbul and the tourists, foreign or Turkish, rush there upon arrival in Istanbul. Governor's office nearby, Municipality nearby, traditional press quarter (Babiali) nearby, Justice House was there only until one or two years ago. The main markets are around there etc. (The modern city has split (multi) centers like Taksim, Kadıkoy, Karaköy etc.) I am speaking on collage and other pics: We need not only the Sultanahmet (Blue) Mosque but also the Süleymaniye Mosque. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

P.D. We also need one of the two squares with a Mosque, Synagogue and Church side by side; either Kuzguncuk or Ortaköy. That is Istanbul. (Alex, you do not realise yet with what a heritage you got married.) --E4024 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize, I realize...I wrote many of the articles about kilise-camiler here, and three months ago I read this book, so since then I became also a Kuzguncukologist... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Congrats. Now you must write your own book!.. :-) Frankly, "sözüm meclisten dışarı" (i.e. I am not referring to you) I see many people who visit Turkey several times and -possibly after a "blogging" period- begin to write their own book. Turkey seems to be a very attractive object of desire for self-declared writers. I think people should read -like you do- more than writing and neither they should ever forget that one has to read about a country all the major books written in the language of that country, to be able to claim some knowledge on it. Some of our best writers and academicians still wait for translation, however, even those who have also written in other languages have yet to be recognised and given their deserved place. BTW I take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions to the article on Semavi Eyice, one of the most eminent experts of Byzantian and Ottoman arts. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely, and I find frankly annoying that here on wiki:en a lot of articles about Istanbul (and Turkey) are written by people which have no knowledge of Turkish sources, and so get (and transmit) a partial and misleading picture on these subjects. That's why the support of Turkish wikipedians here is highly needed (although not always welcomed by all :-)). About Eyice, an article about him was due since a lot of time: his book about Istanbul is a standard reference about the city since 60 years now. Alex2006 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sunshine data added by Subtropical-man

Subtropical-man has been repeatedly reverting in information about sunshine hours in Istanbul. I don't think the sunshine hours are a useful statistic, as it considers two factors -- the amount of sunshine on a daily basis and the seasonal changes in daylight hours. Since it's determined by these two factors, rather than just one, and they're on a monthly basis, I think the data is useless. Besides, and perhaps more importantly, the source is very low quality. And to make matters worse, the source doesn't support the content that was added; the website gives daily sunshine hours, rounded to the nearest hour. Subtropical-man just decided to take that figure and multiply it by the number of days in the month, producing a figure that's up to 15 hours off the real value (assuming the figure provided in the source is some sort of median). Honestly, I think this (and the info about sea temperatures) should be removed. Any other thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Tariq,

I did a little sample check about www.weather2travel.com regarding the data about Rome in August. the reported 10 hours of daylight are impossible: considering that the average duration of the day in August in Rome is slightly longer than 13.5 hours, this would imply an overcast sky for one fourth of the time. Never ever. :-) I think that that source is unreliable (and also without checking, where they get the data from?). We should use serious sources, like mgm.gov.tr. Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that,climate data for Istanbul template is necessary for this article.(Except Average annual temperature of the sea.Because it's useless.) Eventually,These data can be hidden on article. Of course, this entails discussion and negotiation.Sunshine hours and the daily amount of precipitation may be important for some users.I still advocate that taking the reference of other cities like Saint Petersburg or Berlin.But,there is serious doubt about the source].Official meteorological agencies have true information on this subject.For instance,Istanbul Regional Directorate of Meteorology. Maurice (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alex, officially (from Servizio Meteorologico) data of sunshine for Rome in August is 9.6 hours (see source), data from weather2travel.com are reliable, shows data as full number without a comma (10) - calculations are rounded up to the nearest unit. The same automatically rounded exist in the Template:Climate chart on Wikipedia. Tariqabjotu, sunshine data and data about temperature of the sea are important and this is standard in Wikipedia (particularly sunshine data). I know, because I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers in the samples at {{climate chart}} are rounded to the nearest 1, not the nearest 15. The source you provide doesn't have precise figures, and we need that. Even ignoring that, weather2travel is not a reliable source on its own. We have no idea where the data comes from or who wrote it. If there's another -- e.g. official -- site that corroborates the information there, that site should be used instead. If there isn't such a site, the unreliably sourced data should be removed. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The weather2travel is one of the projects by Global Support Limited (Worldwide Weather, Climate & Geography Experts). Global Support Limited, based at Pinewood Studios in the UK, have combined their extensive knowledge of the world's climate and geography to create a number of unique online resources - including for the film, television, commercials industry, consumer websites for the travel and tourism industry the overseas property investment market and other. This is not "hobby" page or blog. The weather2travel.com are reliable source. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I am bothering to argue with you, or why I feel compelled to. You don't know what a reliable source is. This junk is clearly not a reliable source, no matter what they report themselves to be. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical, thanks for the info about Rome. The "Servizio Metereologico dell'Aeronautica" is surely reliable (altough I still don't understand how could they get such a number). Still, I share the doubts of Tariq about the reliability of this web site. I propose to ask an opinion to the reliable source Noticeboard. In the meantime, would not be possible to find similar data on the Turkish meteo web site? Alex2006 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've brought the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. They're usually quick to respond, so let's see what happens. -- tariqabjotu 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, you are quick [1], on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard exist the opinion of only one user (in the appendix as a red link, only 2 monthly contribution to Wikipedia and he can't sign under own response), and you reverted changes calling it as "consensus". Zero desire to respect opinion of others users, not even waiting for opinion of other users, pushing only your version according to your opinion. Congratulations. Subtropical-man (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If there was anyone not respecting the opinion of others, it was you. There is no reason your edit should take precedence; when you were reverted, you should have taken the matter to the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting what you wanted back in. I informed you earlier that I planned to revert you again after a third person concurred on the unreliability of the source, and that's what I did. So, it is you who must wait until consensus agrees with you, not me. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrong. It is you who must wait until consensus agrees with you, not me, because you delete text from article, not me. Second. Why you delete text from article during the discussion? Subtropical-man (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the sunshine data from the Turkish State Meteorological Service (Istanbul Climate Data). There is a huge difference in the amount of sunshine used in the weather2travel.com stats for the sunshine compared to the one used from this source. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Largest city in Europe

Once again, I am forced to bring to the talk page a matter that is probably elementary to everyone but the person insisting that it be in the article.

Thanks to Khestwol's tireless efforts, the second sentence of the article is currently as follows:

With a population of 13.5 million, Istanbul is the largest city in Europe, and among the world's largest cities by population within city limits.

I am not going to mince words. This is a terrible for sentence. For starters, the fourth source (supporting the largest city in Europe claim) -- provided as a bare link: [2] -- is horrendous. I'm not going to point to a policy. I'm not going to point to a guideline. Anyone who has any interest in writing anything anywhere should know that that site is unacceptable as a source.

Once we move beyond that, we get the claim itself: "largest city in Europe". This is extremely unclear. The largest city in Europe claim is, as far as I can tell (based on the crap source and based on Khestwol's edit summaries), supposed to be in regards to city proper. That's not stated. But the reader is not going to know that. Why? Because, unlike in Khestwol's scholarly opinion that "largest city" is more useful than the info about the metropolitan area, people don't measure cities according to city-propers. You ask anyone who knows anything about cities, "What's the largest city?", they will tell you Tokyo (which has the largest metropolitan area) rather than Shanghai (the largest city-proper).

That's because city limits are an entirely arbitrary designation, as Istanbul so well demonstrates. The city limits of Istanbul are much, much broader than most major cities. It includes areas that aren't urbanized, areas that would be considered outside the city proper in many countries' cities. Browsing List of cities proper by population, you see that of the 65 most populous cities-proper, Istanbul has the second-largest area. It has an area more than eight times that of Tokyo, which has a metropolitan area three times as populous as that constituting Istanbul. Because of this, "city proper" is a useless way to compare city size. The inclusion of the fact that it is one of the largest city propers in the world is more interesting than useful. Mentioning that it's the largest in Europe is neither, conveying nothing new to the reader. This is especially undesirable when you consider that it replaces the fact that it's the second-largest metropolitan area on the continent -- a much more useful, not to mention well-sourced, bit of information.

Rather than expending anymore of my energy reverting this low-quality content out of the article, I'd like to have a second or third opinion on the matter in the hopes that it'll convince Khestwol to let this matter go. -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The largest metropolitan area is Greater Tokyo Area, NOT Tokyo city. You write: "You ask anyone who knows anything about cities, "What's the largest city?", they will tell you Tokyo (which has the largest metropolitan area) rather than Shanghai (the largest city-proper)". Evidence?? Or otherwise, you're just making up things in your head. Khestwol (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic empirical evidence. Or take a look at this January 2012 article from the BBC, which includes quotes such as "Most experts will tell you that Tokyo is the world's largest metropolis, with a population of about 36 million people." and "Most experts rate Tokyo as the world's biggest city because of the size of the population in the larger urbanised area." And I explained, with examples, why this is the case; countries define cities differently and so it is useless to compare a city (like Tokyo) whose limits are well before the end of its urbanized area with another (like Istanbul) whose limits are in rural areas. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Will you really now change the article on Shanghai to make it a smaller city than Tokyo? Numerous sources say Shanghai is clearly the most populous city currently, while none says explicitly that Tokyo city is more populous, and on Wikipedia we can only rely on published sources. Anyone's personal experience and beliefs shouldn't matter on Wikipedia. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shanghai does not say it's the "largest city in the world"; it says it's the "largest city proper by population in the world". Similarly, the Tokyo article says it's the "the center of the Greater Tokyo Area, and the largest metropolitan area in the world". Both statements are true, and, as an encyclopedia, it is best (as those articles do) to specify by which metric a city is X-largest. That being said, as the BBC article I referenced states, sources that just plainly state "world's largest city" are more often referring to Tokyo than Shanghai. It should take you a brief Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar search to observe that (e.g. as published by the OECD). The implication is that metropolitan or urban area size is a more useful indicator of city size than city-proper size. -- tariqabjotu 17:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the technical arguments about "city proper" and "metropolitan area" etc, yes, the source is complete crap, and is based in turn on a source that does not demonstrate that it is, in turn, anything other than crap. On that grounds at least, I'm with tariqabjotu. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The link in the article cites the electronic world-gazetteer as its reference, check out their online list of largest cities and towns and statistics of their population. MANY other (relatively new) reliable sources corroborate that Istanbul is the most populous city in Europe. According to Deniz Göktürk's Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (this book is also cited in the Bibliography section of the article): "Istanbul is the largest city not only in Turkey but Europe". According to Thorpe Edgar's The Pearson General Knowledge Manual 2011, p A-40: Europe's largest city is Istanbul. According to Omer Tene's Privacy and Data Protection in Turkey: (Inching) Towards a European Framework, p 1: "Turkey harbors the largest city in Europe (Istanbul, with an estimated population of 15 million)". According to J Lovering's Bulldozer Neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The State-led Construction of Property Markets, and the Displacement of the Urban Poor: "Istanbul is the largest city in Europe". I think we may add other reliable sources which corroborate the statement about Istanbul being the largest city in Europe. Khestwol (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet you didn't source the statement with any of those sources; you sourced it with a junk website. Once again, it is unclear from several of these sources what is meant by "largest city", as they don't provide comparative numbers. Privacy and Data Protection in Turkey: (Inching) Towards a European Framework provides a number (15 million), but that's well above that provided by the census for the entire province. The World Gazetteer also provides numbers, and from them it's clear it's talking about city-proper. That leaves us with the issue of city-proper vs. metropolitan area again; as I said, it's useless to dwell on comparisons of city-proper populations. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

World-gazetteer.com is cited in more than 1000 other Wikipedia content pages, so I think it should stay for now, unless you can prove it to be a "junk website". Nevertheless, I'm adding another reliable source from the above ones, too.. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many pages cite it, I can see no evidence that it is a reliable source. Thank you for adding a reliable source. I am deleting the 'blatantworld' source: it really is no use at all, and will fall foul of source reviews at FAC.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The "junk website" I was talking about was blatantworld, something that should have been clear based on context and based on the comment you directly replied to. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When we have reliable sources, you don't need to ignore them and instead publish your original thought or your new analysis that serves to advance your biased position which is not clearly advanced by the sources themselves (see the project Wikipedia:No original research). Here, the above sources directly support that Istanbul is the "largest city" in Europe which resolves our issue, I guess. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Khestwol, I don't have a definite view on this matter, but Tariq has a point that isn't helped by your attack, and any claim about "bias" is ridiculous. There is a legitimate issue here. The UN source on which we rely for the population estimate in the demographics section tells us that Istanbul is smaller than Moscow. As the WP article says at that point, this makes it the second largest city in Europe. At best, we have a situation where there are contradictory reliable sources. In such a circumstance, I suggest we should initially favour those that provide detailed comparative figures and set out the bases for those figures. I certainly don't think we have clear evidence that allows the lead to contain a sentence that calls it Europe's largest city. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right, we have a contradictory source which contradicts the 4 sources I cited in this discussion. The UN estimates Istanbul was second-largest in 2011, then it gives an estimate for the near future and says Istanbul will be the largest urban agglomeration in 2015 -- but, it gives no estimate for 2012 which makes it ambiguous to use and it doesn't clarify when exactly does Istanbul become the largest. Khestwol (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I take your points. On your last remark - Istanbul becomes the largest once it actually is the largest, according to a reliable source that has access to headcounts in the cities in contention (in this case, Istanbul and Moscow). The lack of an estimate for 2012 is not relevant and i don't think makes it "ambiguous to use". Tariq is right about the Privacy and Data Protection source - the figure immediately calls its reliability into question. However, there remains the question of what to make of your other three reliable sources which apparently call Istanbul the largest city in Europe. FWIW there may be a definitional problem involved, separate to the one raised by tariq - do all sources consider Moscow to be a European city? One of the problems with some if not all of those three reliable sources (I don't have them, so can't be sure), is that they don't refer to comparitors. Which highlights the issue raised by tariq - we currently rely on a high-quality source that explicitly lists all candidates so there can be no doubt. I'm inclined to solve this in the usual messy way - by either explaining in the article that sources don't agree, or finessing it with a text that doesn't commit one way or the other (which would be more concise). In the demographics section the sentence therefore could read "Today, Moscow and Istanbul vie for the title of Europe's largest city" followed by all the reliable sources we have. The advantage of this text is that it accurately captures the population dynamics - as the UN source itself shows, both are changing and which city holds the honour is likely to change in the immediate future.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lack of an estimate for 2012 is relevant, because the population figure from 2011 implies it's outdated, and the variation in population figures assumes a constant increase in the population of Istanbul as compared to Moscow. It would be better if you came up with sources for the current population to corroborate yours and tariq's point of view. Khestwol (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton, you are misunderstanding the problem. We can theoretically have two sources agree on the population of every hectare of Europe and disagree on the largest city in the continent, as they may use different definitions of what a city is. That is likely the problem here. (I don't see why Moscow, a city entirely on the European continent [unlike Istanbul] and with serious European importance, would not be considered European.) As I mentioned, the sources presented by Khestwol so far generally don't provide comparative figures and don't say by which metric they're calling it Europe's largest city. The one that does, the World Gazetteer (a site I do actually consider reliable), explicitly says it's talking about cities-proper. So, unless we find a source (oh God, let's hope none exists) that claims Istanbul's metropolitan area is larger than Moscow's (or that Moscow's city-proper is larger than Istanbul's), we have two statements that, while seemingly contradictory, are not:

• Istanbul is the largest city in Europe, by population within city limits.
• Istanbul is the second-largest city in Europe, by population within metropolitan area.

So, let's just ignore the part about the quality of the source; that can be fixed, and it has been. We certainly should not plainly state that Istanbul is the largest city in Europe without qualification, as that depends on definition. But even that can easily be fixed with the inclusion of more words. The question is, which metric should be mentioned in the article. As I've said repeatedly, city-proper size is a useless way to compare city size as it's defined differently between different countries.

We saw an example of that during the last FAC, before which the article included a statement that said While officially part of Istanbul, much of the Asian side of the Bosphorus functions as a suburb. One reviewer -- oh wait, you -- said All cities have areas that are suburbs, and areas that people travel to work in. There is nothing unusual about this, it is how cities work. As I explained then, that's not always the case. Many cities -- I used American cities there, but it's certainly the case in some other countries as well -- have highly urbanized residential areas outside the city limits. In the case of Istanbul, there are vast swaths of sparsely urbanized outside the city center. That's why when comparing city size, it's far more useful to use some standard (metropolitan or urban area) rather than the whims of the city government (city-proper).

I don't know why this isn't so obvious for Istanbul, which embodies every problem with relying on city-proper size. In the mid-1980s, the city limits were drastically expanded. But it is not appropriate to just state, without explanation, that the population of the city nearly doubled during the decade -- because a change in city limits is more a change in jurisdiction and city government than a signal that more people actually moved (that did actually happen, but that's beside the point; a city, like Detroit, losing population could annex more land into the city-proper every year but it'd be unfair to say that its population is increasing). So, because of these expansions, we have a city whose limits extend over 5300 sq. km. This rural area is well within the city limits of Istanbul, but this urbanized area is outside the city limits of Moscow.

How is it possible or fair to compare such disparate definitions of a city? It's not, as the BBC article I provided states. Some countries -- like China and, apparently, Turkey -- use city definitions that are more appropriately termed as provinces. So, while it's an interesting tidbit to say Istanbul has one of the largest city-propers in the world in population (as well as in land area, actually!), it's adds nothing useful to also say it's the largest in Europe, especially to the exclusion of saying that it's at the center of the second-largest metropolitan area and urban area on the continent. Saying Istanbul and Moscow "vie for the title of Europe's largest city" is a serious disservice to our readers when we don't have sources contradicting each other. It's akin to saying Tokyo and Shanghai vie for the title of the world's largest city. They don't; they're both the largest, according to different definitions. Just provide the definition and you're fine. And, reiterating again, metropolitan area is a more important definition. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tariq: Firstly, hamilton's claim about Moscow metropolitan area being the most populous in Europe isn't confirmed (the UN's population figures are for 2011 when it's shown more populous, and for 2015 when it's LESS populous than Istanbul). Secondly, you didn't check out World Gazetteer's pages, which provides comparative numbers for BOTH cities proper and metropolitan areas (not only cities proper as you mistakenly wrote). The good thing is that their calculations are for the current year 2012. I suggest we may add this tertiary source and this one to the article, they show Istanbul is both the largest city proper by population in Europe and the largest metropolitan area in Europe, as of 2012. Agree? Khestwol (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This can also be rectified by saying "largest urban agglomeration", which, apparently, is even different from urban area and metropolitan area. Sorry for the confusion. It is not important that the UN figures come from 2011 (and were published in March 2012); you used a source from 2010 for the "largest European city" claim and you seemed to have no problem with that. 2012, 2011, 2010 are all current enough for our purposes.

That being said, I'd be perfectly happy saying largest metropolitan area if there is a source even better than World Gazetteer that says so. Although I think it's a reliable enough source, it's not the most high-quality and it probably wouldn't be accepted at the FAC [actually this just closed so it's kind of irrelevant], just as CityPopulation.de wasn't (by none other than Hamilton). So, we've got urban area, metropolitan area, urban agglomeration, and city proper. The first three are reasonable measures of city size; the last, as I said, is not. The UN's figures seems to be the most authoritative, but if you have a similarly high-quality source supporting either urban area or metropolitan area supporting a ranking, go for it -- and method which definition is uses. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

By out of date I don't mean the year the UN published the source; I meant the population calculations in the UN's source was for the last year so that calculation is out of date in the current year. We have a disagreement only because you use only UN's population calculations for last year, ignoring that for 2015, the same UN's source says Istanbul is a more populous urban agglomeration than Moscow. Too bad the UN is silent on 2012's population but the current population of Istanbul would be in the middle of the two calculations. This edit of you reflects your own biased point of view which is NOT backed by the source cited (see the UN's source).

Wikipedia's policy does allow to use tertiary sources because there is a lack of primary and secondary sources for 2012's city ranking. I guess, it would be the best to keep the present sources, but to also add tertiary sources like the World Gazetteer links for calculations for the current population. Later on, if someone can cite primary or secondary sources for current rankings, we can then replace the tertiary sources. Khestwol (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You completely missed what I said. Again. The UN's definition of an agglomeration is apparently different from a metropolitan area and an urban area, so we still don't have a contradiction of sources. What the UN estimates for 2015 is just an estimate. Figures from a year ago (and it may be as recent as nine months ago) are not out of date and do not warrant us saying "As of 2011". You have no problem using a source from 2010 in the lead and not saying "As of 2010", and yet you feel compelled to depict something from last year as out of date. You're doing it to make your source seem more legitimate and current. Stop. -- tariqabjotu 11:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the sources for city rankings are using different definitions for urban agglomeration, metropolitan area and city proper and there is no real contradiction between the different sources; I never missed it. Stop assuming things. You're right that the reference currently cited in the lead simply states Istanbul is the largest city in Europe without defining what meaning does it give to a "city", and also, its publication year is 2010 which is another problem. If you want to replace it with a better source, go ahead. And, the UN's source has its own issues as I elaborated in my last comment in this discussion. So we are left with the issue, that we found no primary or secondary sources for city rankings which are: 1. reliable, 2. have no definition problems and 3. which cover the current time.

So, I'm waiting whether editors can reach a consensus on using tertiary sources which at least have no definition issues and do cover the current time. Khestwol (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We are not going to find a source dated 20 September 2012. The UN source is dated March 2012 with figures from July 2011 (as early as 21 months ago, but as recently as 9 months ago 14 months ago). That is current, for our sake. Stop splitting hairs and setting the bar unusually high in an attempt to discredit a perfectly current and reasonable conclusion. And, frankly, give the crap source you initially used for your claim, I don't particularly care what you believe is an acceptable source or not. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to this tertiary source for current city rankings which you have admitted that it's from a site which you consider reliable. And, well, the year column in the UN's source suggests it's not really "perfectly current". As for this recent edit of yours: The current lead with the phrase "second-largest" in it doesn't look ok (assuming it's correct in the first place). Normally, articles about cities emphasize that aspect in the lead in which the city is the largest, see other major cities' articles. So for Istanbul, we can write it as "the largest city in Europe by population within city limits, and among the largest urban agglomerations in the world". We can swap the two phrases (from urban agglomeration to city by population within city limits, and from city by population within city limits to urban agglomeration), add another source (tertiary is acceptable) for support of the phrase largest city in Europe and shift the note about the UN from the middle to the end of sentence. Khestwol (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The part of this edit that affected the lead was a mistake due to an edit conflict (with myself, caused by making two near-simultaneous edits). It no longer says "second-largest" in the lead. I think we can both agree that Istanbul is one of the largest urban agglomerations in Europe (I still believe the UN data supports it being #2 until at least next year, but that's beside the point) and one of the largest city-propers in the world (probably #2). The statement that it's "among the largest urban agglomerations in the world" skirts around the fact that it's eighteenth. -- tariqabjotu 20:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Why not mention it as the largest city-proper in Europe even when you agree it's probably #2 in the world implying it's #1 in Europe?) Anyway, I'm leaving this issue for now. The current version of the lead is better than the one before your recent edit, thanks. Khestwol (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

References