Skip to main content

Talk:Fall of Constantinople

Talk:Fall of Constantinople

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeFall of Constantinople was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Incorrect Citation[edit]

Reference 10 in the paragraph headed "State of the Byzantine Empire," located in the second paragraph is citing the claim "The plague killed half of the population of Constantinople." However, going to that source makes no mention of this statistic, it instead says that the Plague killed half of the Britons. The source only mentions that the plague killed thousands of Constantinople, not "half of Constantinople." 199.8.23.104 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2019[edit]

Fall of Constantinople → Conquest of Constantinople – The city was conquered by Muslim Turks in this battle and remains in Muslim Turkish hands ever since. The name Fall gives a negative notion about the conquest. Picks a side, and violates WP:NPOV. What is the reason that this name "Fall" has been picked in the first place? KasimMejia (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore I'd like to state that the word "fall" is WP:EUPHEMISM and is not used in any other article/battle let alone in an article/battle title. KasimMejia (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because the city (Istanbul) remains in the hands of the Turks after the conquest and is now the largest city of Turkey. Khestwol (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I do not understand the arguments about the fact that the city "remains in Muslim Turkish hands" And what from this? The argument that "the word "fall" is not used in any other article/battle" is erroneous: see Fall of Saigon, Fall of Berlin (1806). And I don't see why the word "fall" "Picks a side, and violates WP:NPOV." See The Fall of Berlin (film) or Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy. In any case, the "Conquest of Constantinople" is no more neutral. If you need a completely neutral word - then "battle", but such a name is less recognizable (WP:COMMONNAME).--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The difference between this and the two "falls" you've linked is that this was a battle +500 years ago. That resulted in the city changing hands/language/culture/ethnicity/religion permanently, therefore the word conquest fits it better, similar to Early Muslim conquests. We are not calling the Muslim conquest of Syria or Iraq or Iran, "Fall of Syria" "Fall of Iraq" "Fall of Iran" are we? This should be the same with this. I know you're gonna say, well Fall of Berlin is +200 years ago. This would be true but Berlin Fell, and was captured back after about 8 years afterwards and never fell again. Thus when it comes to the "Fall of Constantinople", "Conquest of Constantinople" is a better defining term considering the changes regarding language/culture/ethnicity/religion. KasimMejia (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The difference between this and the two "falls" you've linked is that this was a battle +500 years ago. -- Well, and what about Fall of Tenochtitlan?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd say the reason that was called Fall instead of a Conquest is because 100.000 to 240.000 natives were killed in the battle. There seems to be a genocidal touch at that fall/conquest. Furthermore, the natives compared to the Romans did not survive one bit. There was never a standing native empire in the Americas after the European conquest. Though when Constantinople was conquered, Europeans/Christians did not vanish like the natives. Rome never fell and neither did Western Europe. KasimMejia (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I cannot agree that "Rome never fell." (Fall of the Western Roman Empire). In the same way, Orthodox Constantinople fell and Muslim Istanbul appeared in its place.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Rome was not genocided like the native Americans were. +98% natives killed after European conquest. KasimMejia (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whether you call it a "fall" or a "conquest", either way presents the same event from one point of view. NPOV requires that we present articles "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", not that we eliminate all wording that somebody objects to based on their own point of view. With respect to article titles, the policy explains, "[w]hile neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It's a cliché that "history is written by the victors". Sometimes it's not, particularly when, as here, the topic concerns Greek and Roman history. The fall of Constantinople is a turning point in the history of western civilization; a sharp dividing line between the last remnant of the classical world and everything since. The current title follows the majority of scholarly and historical sources, and the overwhelming majority of English-language sources. It's by far the more recognizable of the alternatives. All I have to say about the argument that "fall" is a euphemism is that it's been standard English for centuries, is used in scholarly literature, and the claim seems to be little more than a distraction. P Aculeius (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Commonest term in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose. The sources often use that form. I may accept siege of Constantinople (1453) though, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. T8612 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Siege of Constantinople (1453) This is much better than the current name because it's neutral and inline with every other siege. The name "Fall" has not been used in every other 20+ sieges. KasimMejia (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The word Fall is just POV, it implies that the city "fell" as in it was devastated or plundered. Meanwhile it became the capital of a much stronger empire, it was not destroyed one bit. The Church Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque and the paintings in it kept. KasimMejia (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The word Fall is just POV, it implies that the city "fell" as in it was devastated or plundered -- This is an erroneous statement. The term "fall" is completely neutral. When they want to focus on plunder, an article is called, for example Sack of Constantinople.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Fall is not neutral. Do you for example call Battle of Raqqa (2017) "Fall of Raqqa". No, because that would favor ISIS. Similar to how the current title is favoring Byzantine. KasimMejia (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
While this proposal seems to proceed from the notion that "Fall of Constantinople" implies a negative point of view toward what the Turkish forces would have regarded as a glorious victory, the Turks themselves would have viewed it positively using the same words: just as the Allies in World War II cheered the Fall of Berlin—to the Germans it was a defeat, to the Allied forces a victory, but in both cases a "fall". And yes, I think the same would apply to Raqqa. If you're anti-ISIS, it's a good thing that it "fell" before your forces. The word can be viewed either positively or negatively depending on which side you're on, and in assuming that it must be negative, you're actually choosing to view it from the side of the defeated Byzantines, which is ironic since the proposal seeks to do the opposite by changing the language. Reviewing this talk page's archives, I note that the same or similar proposals have been made repeatedly and defeated each time, and that the reasoning there was clearer—hence my point. A "fall" can be positive as well as negative, and which it is depends largely on the reader. As such, it clearly comports with NPOV. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In Turkey the battle is never referred to as Fall of Constantinople, its always referred as the Conquest of Constantinople, which is logical considering the city became Turkish and we still live there. It changed religiously and culturally maybe ethnically too. Calling it a Fall is lacking information wise. The word conquest covers that the city changed significantly due to being conquered. Similar to Early Muslim conquests. Fall gives the notion that the city Fell, but not much changed aside from being captured. See my point more now? This is probably why the requesters below insisted on it too. KasimMejia (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I also don't think this battle is remembered in any country in the world as much as it is in Turkey so its not a POV to call it by the Turkish called name WP:COMMONNAME. KasimMejia (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes it most certainly is. Reams have been written about it in English and other European languages. It was one of the seminal moments in European history. And in English it is overwhelmingly called the Fall of Constantinople. And this is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This being English Wikipedia does not mean this is to be written from English point of view. See WP:NPOVTITLE. KasimMejia (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it is written from an English-language point of view. And in English-language sources it is most commonly called the Fall of Constantinople. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a language point of view, it may well be commonly called by its POV name towards Byzantine by historians. That doesn't mean the title gets to violate WP:NPOVTITLE. KasimMejia (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is. And it doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no POV in the accepted scholarship of the English language. Such arguments are in themselves POV. Dr. K. 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The move request is just WP:JDL by a Turkish nationalist. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
You should see WP:GF I am not a Turkish Nationalist, and you are not allowed smear random words (WP:ADHOMINEM) at people, whoever you wish. You will be banned if you continue this type of behavior and should take this as a friendly warning by a non admin user. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Seraphim, it's been a while. Not to worry, SPI coming soon. Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw the request due to overwhelming opposition. KasimMejia (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of Constantinople[edit]

I would like to propose a change of name to the article from Fall to Conquest of Constantinople because the city did not fall it was conquered by Mehmed.

Thank you. Al14always (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the section just above: Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople#Requested_move_20_November_2019. Dr. K. 04:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, that was already discussed 2 months ago. Based on the fact that 30,000 civilians were enslaved or forcibly deported (the population before the siege was about 50,000), and that most of the city's women were raped and enslaved, maybe we should call it "Constantinopole Genocide."--N Jordan (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
And what source uses this term? Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
If you attack a city with a population of around 40,000, kill 4,000, rape most of the women and enslave 30,000 – that would be the closest description of that event. However, we don't use that term in English language, but we also don't use the term Conquest of Constantinople. I don't want to rename the article, I just want some people to stop repeating the same requests every 3 months. --N Jordan (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See also: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[edit]

This is a purely scholastic challenge and belongs to the Latin church philosophy of medieval universities (Scholasticism). It has nothing to do with Constantinople and the philosophy of the Greek church.N Jordan (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents[edit]

The list of belligerents is a little bit confusing. Technically, we should list only nations or entities that were in the status of war. Other than Ottomans and Byzantines, none of the listed nations should be qualified that way. 2,000 foreigners indeed defended the city but they were not on walls of Constantinople on behalf of their governments or rulers. For example, Giovanni Giustiniani was not there on behalf of the Republic of Genoa. Gabriele Trevisano was not there on behalf of the Republic of Venice but as a volunteer. Only Cardinal Isidore of Kiev came on behalf of Pope with 200 solders. Everybody else was there voluntarily or as a mercenary. On the Ottoman side, 1500 cavalrymen were requested from Serbian Despot for a war against the Karamanids, not for the siege of Constantinople. N Jordan (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople&oldid=941214736"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more