Talk:Hippodrome of Constantinople

message: Regarding the four bronze horses of the Hippodrome of Konstantinople, the story goes back to 396 BC when the Spartan princess Kyniska, daughter of King Archidamos 2nd and also sister of the later Spartan King Agisilaos 2nd , participated at the Olympic races competition with a "tethrippon arma" (four-horses chariot) which she prepared,trained and became the first female Olympic winner (according to the Olympic rules there was a prohibition for a female participation during the competitions in Olympia, but for the chariot races as an Olympic winner was considered and awarded the owner of the horses and not the charioteer).
Kyniska participated and became an Olympic winner again in the chariot race of the next Olympiade in 392 BC.
In order to express her gratitude to the God for these wins, she ordered the construction of the statues of her horses in bronze and devoted them to the Temple of Zeus in Olympia. These masterpieces remained there for many centuries until after the ban of the Olympics,as a consequence of the expansion of the new religion in the East Roman Empire, they were transported to decorate the Hippodrome of Konstantinople.Later on they were looted and sent to Venice (1204). User:62.103.70.142
I suggest this be turned into a separate article if someone has a photo that can be used. Adam 00:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have Cynisca already, and we have :Image:ByzantineChariotBig.jpg for the horses, which is already on various other articles. Adam Bishop 05:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Ghepeu, just to explain my edits regarding which empire this belongs to ...
Obviously all articles should attempt to be as accessible as possible to the novice reader. The fact is that this structure was built during the "Roman" period, not the "Byzantine" period. So if your argument is that only one of these historiograpical names should be used it is most proper to refer to the Roman period since that will be clearest to the novice and is most consistent with historiographical terminology (and is not incorrect since, obviously, the "Byzantine" Empire was just a later stage of the "Roman" Empire). Personally I would still prefer to mention both the way I edited it the first time since I think it is clearer but leaving out "Roman" is certainly wrong.
--Mcorazao 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman/Byzantine

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Hippodrome of Constantinople → Sultanahmet square — Current name of the square had been changed for quite sometime. It was not used as a Hippodrome for forever as the article explains. Perhaps two separate articles one for the square and one for the historic hippodrome may be written. — Cat chi? 07:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hippodrome of Constantinople and the Sultanahmet Square are not the same thing. Sultanahmet Square indeed encompasses the area on which the Hippodrome once stood, but it also encompasses other historic structures, such as the Blue Mosque, the Hagia Sophia and the Ibrahim Pasha Palace, as well as the Governorship of Istanbul building. The Hippodrome deserves its specific (and separate) article, just like the other buildings on this public square. Flavius Belisarius 20:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose This is mostly a historical article dealing with the hippodrome.--Aldux 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose This is mostly a historical article dealing with the hippodrome.--Aldux 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I just saw the obelisk last month. It was in mint condition after 3,500 years. I just assumed that the government had copied it and put up a restored version. Wrong! The article remarks on this. Does anyone have any idea why in the world an obelisk that old is in such good shape? I realize that they don't get a whole lot of rain in the area, but it does rain. And after that length of time....It is one of the oldest man-made objects I have seen! Student7 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The government has been investing a lot into the upkeep lately, see images on the Commons of the Serpent Column before and after restoration, you'd barely recognise it again. Gryffindor 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obelisk condition

message: some joker has put many penis related terms into the article like "penis-racing track" and "penis racing and testicle racing"
these are sometimes confusing when trying use this for school and they are always offensive
Thanks
:I fixed it as you were posting this. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "but they were sacked by Latin troops in the Fourth Crusade" - the term 'Latin troops' is too vague here, and needs further explanation Bandekafsh (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walled Obelisk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hippodrome of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFIaQq0J?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcmb.gov.tr%2Fyeni%2Feng%2F to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/eng/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hippodrome of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/eng/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094925/http://www.e-turkey.net/v/istanbul_sultanahmet_hippodrome_constantinople/ to http://www.e-turkey.net/v/istanbul_sultanahmet_hippodrome_constantinople/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Hippodrome of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/eng/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204092416/http://tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/182.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/182.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204092417/http://tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/184.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/184.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204092422/http://tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/186.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/186.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204092430/http://tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/188.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E5/188.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All the maps of Old Istanbul distinguish 'hipodrom' and 'Sultanamet meydan'. It is not correct to name the Hippodrome area Sultanamet square. Each of them have different historical monuments. Please modify this, no consensus as mentioned is not a correct reason.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nura 25 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sultanamet square and Hippodrome 

message: The article talks about the ‘Latins’ stripping one of the columns in the Hippodrome during the crusades. I’m assuming it’s referring to Catholic crusaders (drawn from all across Western Europe) rather than people who actually speak Latin, ancient Romans or Italians? Cunobeline (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ‘Latins’ 

message: Per the old WP:RM above (see "Request move" from 2007) and another comment by an IP above (see "Sultanamet square and Hippodrome" section), the name "Sultanahamet Square" is by no means clearly appropriate here and this move in 2021 should have gone through a fresh WP:RM instead. I have bold-moved it back to the original title, but given the length of time that has elapsed this could of course be a WP:RM of its own. Just to further explain the problem:
* Sultanahmet Square does not refer exclusively to the former site of the Hippodrome: there are plenty of guidebooks and other sources (e.g. , ) that identify the nearby public square between Hagia Sophia and the Sultanahmet Mosque, which is not part of the Hippdrome, as Sultanahmet Square. So this direct equivalence between modern Sultanahmet Square and the historic Hippodrome isn't even supported by WP:RS either in the article or outside it.
* The location's significance from a global perspective is as the site of the former Hippodrome; you can find many WP:RS in English that discuss the Hippodrome at length, whereas the same is not true of "Sultanahmet Square".
* The article, as is, is clearly about the historic Hippodrome. I see no problem, in principle, in extending its content to also talk about the modern square; in fact, I encourage it, as the site has been in continuous use even if its function has changed. But that does not justify moving the name first while leaving the content unchanged.
**PS: Similarly, I don't think the "of Constantinople" part of the name is necessarily required in the long-term; it could easily be "Hippodrome, Istanbul" or something like that if the article were to cover more of the Ottoman and modern era.
This is just a longer explanation of my edit summary here. Again, it does not preclude deciding this through a WP:RM instead. R Prazeres (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name (and scope) of the article