Talk:Hisarlik

message: Hi all,
I didn't check my sources like I should have, and so I've started a new article about this important location at Hisarlik/Temp. I'll be more careful this time.
Thanks,
--GilHamilton 04:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering...Isn't there still debate over whether or not Hisarlik is the genuine location of Ancient Troy? The last sentence seems to present this as fact. Ridan 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: At the moment, the page "Hisarlık" (the currect Turkish spelling of the name) is a redirect to "Troy", while this page is stuck at the transliterated spelling, "Hisarlik". Administrator assistance is required to change this. I propose that this page be moved to "Hisarlık", with "Hisarlik" redirecting to the new name. SeL (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should add that when I found this article, it didn't mention the Turkish spelling anywhere at all, so before making my move request I made this change as well (just to explain, in response to the first opposing comment, why I thought the change was called for). And I still wonder if the article shouldn't use the Turkish spelling more often, or even all the time, regardless of the spelling used in the title. SeL 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely. The reason for the difference is clear: Hisarlik is most widely discussed in contexts which do not refer to modern Turkey at all; therefore English has not adopted the modern Turkish spelling, any more than English uses Bozcaada for Tenedos. Neither, after all, is a modern city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the first sentence of the article reads "Hisarlık ('Place of Fortresses'), spelled Hisarlik or Hissarlik in many other languages, is the modern Turkish name for the ancient site of Troy..." (my emphasis).  I did not write that and it has read roughly that way for over a year.  I'm not arguing that either "Hisarlık" or "Hisarlik" is English.  The place (in this context) is too minor to have a true English exonym and should therefore be treated as any other Turkish place would be.  This is not in the same league as Washington, London, or Istanbul.  Many non-English letters are used for Wikipedia article titles for almost all toponyms in Turkey, Poland, Serbia, and Hungary to name a few.  I'm just wondering why an exception is being made here. —  AjaxSmack   04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please supply a source for this alleged consensus. In all countries, there are a handful of editwarring nationalists who will not acknowledge that English gives its own names to foreign places. I cannot think of any foreign language, or any foreign WP, which spells all English names (or even all of London, Britain, New York, and California) as English does; but a few editors insist that this should only work one way. Consensus and practice, per WP:NCGN, is to spell as English does; often (as with Besançon) English spelling includes diacritics. It is a question of fact in each case; to be determined by evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My evidence for such a consensus is the overwhelming majority of Turkish, Serbian, Polish, &c. toponyms with a few notable exceptions that are clear English exonyms.  If there is a true English exonym in current use, I almost always support it (please see my move requests of Ivory Coast, Celebes, Podolia, Polesia, Moravian Slovakia, and Budjak among others) but I question the evidence in this case and am still not convinced as none has been given.  —  AjaxSmack    04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have such names for two reasons: Once, English does often use the local spelling. The other is the extent of Turkish, Polish, and Serb nationalism; we have such names (including places actually in, say, Lithuania or the Republic of Macedonia) because editors have insisted on them, and outnumbered the (often equally nationalist) opposition. Thus, for example, we use Kraków, instead of English Cracow, because of lobbying by Poles; I await the adoption of Warsawa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I guess I find it frustrating that "Hisarlık" is called more correct in English than "Hisarlik", even in the face of evidence presented.  Ajaxsmack says that "English" toponymns have been jettisoned in favor of native spellings, but presents no evidence that "Hisarlik" has been so jettisoned in favor of "Hisarlık".  Perhaps that is why Hisarlik "is different".  The fact is "ı" is not an English letter, and the English speaking community is entirely within their rights to "domesticate" Hisarlık into Hisarlik to make it more readily understandable.  The Turkish speaking community is likewise well within their rights to call Washington DC Vaşington DC, London Londra, Texas Teksas etc. etc. etc.  Are there Turks who feel a pressing need to move these to their more "correct" or "accurate" titles? Are their English speakers who are "offended" that these titles have been misspelled, or are disgusted at Turkish sloppyness or carelessness at so misspelling them?  I doubt it.  I don't think we need to be to worried about following general English usage and our own guidlines for using "common names", and keeping this at Hisarlik.Erudy (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. The reason for the difference is clear: Hisarlik is most widely discussed in contexts which do not refer to modern Turkey at all; therefore English has not adopted the modern Turkish spelling, any more than English uses Bozcaada for Tenedos. Neither, after all, is a modern city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the first sentence of the article reads "Hisarlık ('Place of Fortresses'), spelled Hisarlik or Hissarlik in many other languages, is the modern Turkish name for the ancient site of Troy..." (my emphasis).  I did not write that and it has read roughly that way for over a year.  I'm not arguing that either "Hisarlık" or "Hisarlik" is English.  The place (in this context) is too minor to have a true English exonym and should therefore be treated as any other Turkish place would be.  This is not in the same league as Washington, London, or Istanbul.  Many non-English letters are used for Wikipedia article titles for almost all toponyms in Turkey, Poland, Serbia, and Hungary to name a few.  I'm just wondering why an exception is being made here. —  AjaxSmack   04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please supply a source for this alleged consensus. In all countries, there are a handful of editwarring nationalists who will not acknowledge that English gives its own names to foreign places. I cannot think of any foreign language, or any foreign WP, which spells all English names (or even all of London, Britain, New York, and California) as English does; but a few editors insist that this should only work one way. Consensus and practice, per WP:NCGN, is to spell as English does; often (as with Besançon) English spelling includes diacritics. It is a question of fact in each case; to be determined by evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My evidence for such a consensus is the overwhelming majority of Turkish, Serbian, Polish, &c. toponyms with a few notable exceptions that are clear English exonyms.  If there is a true English exonym in current use, I almost always support it (please see my move requests of Ivory Coast, Celebes, Podolia, Polesia, Moravian Slovakia, and Budjak among others) but I question the evidence in this case and am still not convinced as none has been given.  —  AjaxSmack    04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have such names for two reasons: Once, English does often use the local spelling. The other is the extent of Turkish, Polish, and Serb nationalism; we have such names (including places actually in, say, Lithuania or the Republic of Macedonia) because editors have insisted on them, and outnumbered the (often equally nationalist) opposition. Thus, for example, we use Kraków, instead of English Cracow, because of lobbying by Poles; I await the adoption of Warsawa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

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

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

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