Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Flag of the Ottoman Empire

There were only three flags used during the span of the Ottoman dynastic Empire that can be considered official "national flags" and the one used on Wikipedia is incorrect. There was no star - this was added in 1793 - with intially more than five points and military flags were often used I think - but at any rate this would be a more appropriate flag [1] if you wanted to use a "national flag". However, in my view it is incorrect as this flag was adopted to show the passing of power from the Ottoman Sultans to government (indeed in the 1800's this flag was amast ships when government notables were on board) when such flags were begun to be used - and so the flag does not really depict the Ottoman Empire per se. The was no modern notion of nationalism and the most —correct flag really would be the tughra[2] as the "real" Ottoman flag [3] because this was the flag of the Ottoman sultans.

Another link also seems to dispute many of the things said by the Greek particpants further below in regard to the naming of Istanbul [4], I know what Western books say, but these need collaboration. There are also depictions in Greek Churches where Mehmed the Conqueror names Istanbul after taking the place over and vowing to protect the inhabitants he adopted [5].

The information should also be synchronised with the Istanbul article - arguably.

The recent exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts: Turks - A Journey of a Thousand Years seems to back up these notions.

Reschid Pasha

Picked up a reference to Reschid Pasha in David Urquhart article. Would be good to have an article, or at least an agreed Wiki-spelling. Cutler 13:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

About the name

ashley was here 4-ever and ever and ever. The name of this empire in Turkish; Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, contains the word İmparatorluğu. Is it a loan from Latin? Meursault2004 14:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it is. just like in english emperor. But I think it came to Turkish language via the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which actually spoke greek  :-)

İmparator is based on the Latin word, the -luğu suffix adds the "place" meaning okay. Basically it translates to Empire. The word itself is Turkish okay, it came to Turkish from Latin. MonsterOfTheLake 02:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My God! Of course it was not officialy "Osmanlı imparatorluğu" but it was "Devlet-i Aliye-yi Osmaniye" literally "The sublime state of Ottomans". Why should they call themselves an "Empire"? It can be discussed through hours maybe days if it was an Empire in the sense of Roman Empire or British Empire. Because they never forced the subjects to learn or speak Turkish. When they retreated from the north Africa, none of the people there spoke any Turkish, on the contray Turkish language became largely involved with Arabic. Ottomans did not change their culture but they adopted their customs. For example they adopted "Fez" which was north african dress. So because Ottoman state included many sub-states it was called "an empire" by the westerners. This was, as many others, a description with western understanding and not indigenous.

Is it spelled "Aliye-yi"? Sounds like Turkish to put in an extra consonant between vowels. If it spelled with a 'y' it should be added. /The Phoenix 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If "Ottoman Empire" is not the official name, shouldn't the article be moved to "Ottoman State"? --Yodakii 06:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It is known as the Ottoman Empire in English. Just as in English we say Byzantine Empire, while the inhabitants of what we call the Byzantine Empire would have said Roman Empire (translated to English that is of course). /The Phoenix 07:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Ottoman State" is also used in English, and there is no ambiguity to what it refers (as there would be in the Byzantine's case). --Yodakii 08:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire is by far the most common name in English. The Ottoman State would refer to the government of the Empire and not the Empire as a geographical entity, I think. /The Phoenix 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think both "empire" and "state" can refer to the country and its government. The issue here is a common translated official name and the more commonly used name. Without an official naming convention, I think, "state" is more appropriate as it is both correct and neutral. --Yodakii 09:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire is the term used by as good as all authoritative English-speaking experts on this matter and it is the, by far, most common name used in the English language, as well as in Turkish, where imparatorluğu translates into empire. Therefore, even though "state" is the correct translation into English from old Ottoman Turkish, "Ottoman State" is not the correct English name. /The Phoenix 10:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The majority is not all. "Ottoman State" is also used by English-speaking experts. (searching an online bookstore like amazon brings up many results) --Yodakii 10:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term "Ottoman State," for whatever that is worth. Cameron Nedland 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish wikipedia article uses "Osmanlı Devleti" as the official name, not "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu". I think this policy is correct and should be applied here as well. --Yodakii 14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So this article should have two perspectives: According to Europeans (Empire), and according to Turks (State)? --Yolcu 11:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye

And what is Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye? Is it Turkish or Ottoman Turkish?

I think that is osmanli turkcesi, or ottoman turkish. modern turkish would have stated "buyuk osmanli devleti" or "yuce osmanli devleti" , in english the great ottoman state--Kahraman 12:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK the Arabic script was used in the Empire, so it wouldn't be wrong to write its Ottoman Turkish name in that script as well. If anyone can write it, please add it.

Done! Vpendse 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the arabic script, but it would be preferable if we use the latin words at the top, as the idea behind aphabet is communicatation and most of the english/turkish readers are not custome to latin words.

I couldn't find any source for the Ottoman Turkish name, but I know the Modern Arabic name, which may possibly be written the same way. I've added that for now as a temporary substitute. --Yodakii 14:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire did not use the full Arabic alphabet (or script), rather they chose to merge persian and arabic alphabets. therefore usage of any arabic script as its actual alphabet would be misleading.

Yes, their script was a merger of the Arabic and Persian. It was, however, the script that they used, and as such, its inclusion here (in certain places at least: we don't need to add it for every name, etc.) is appropriate. All of the "Arabic" script used here is actually the Ottoman variety of that script ("Arabic script" is really just a blanket term for "the Arabic script and those scripts directly derived from it"), and, so far, is accurate (to the best of my knowledge, at least). —Saposcat 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

12 million sq. km.?

The value for the area of the empire is wrong. Te table says 12 million (bigger than canada), looking at the map it's probably 1,955,000, maybe something more.

Snowdog 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are 3 problems with the area of the Ottoman Empire: 

1. Half of the maps in the world has a distorting image. (ie Marcator projection, search this)That's why Canada looks bigger on the map than it actually is. -Marcator projection has been one of the propaganda methods for norhern countries to seem bigger and more powerfull. Homework: Compare the size of Britain with Turkey-republic. They look about the same on marcator projection map which is the most used map projection in the world. However Turkey covers 3 times larger area than Britain

2. Some of the sub-states or sattelite states are not included to the mainland by some writers.

3. Every country, not only Ottman Empire has 2 different figures as area, if not more. This arouses from the method of measurement. Should we include the areas of the non-planar geographical formations; hills, mountains etc or should we take only their base areas?? This leads to two different numbers as area of countries... Therefore 12 million sq km is most probably the maximum possible area. But the error value cannot be more that 10%. So what would change for you if it was 11 million sq km?

It's fairly straightforward to add up in Europe and Asia Minor. But where in the Arabian or Sahara deserts is the border? It was probably never well-defined, and that can make a difference of 2-4m km². Still not 12m total, though. Any good sources out there? --Macrakis 23:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

considering varaway places like atjeh in indonesia and kenya in africa considered themselves part of the ottoman empire, I think the figure, which excludes these countries, is actually a bit conservative.--Kahraman 10:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kenya and Aceh were never part of the Ottoman Empire, even if they were/are part of the Dar-ul-Islam. It's not the same thing. Did the Ottomans collect taxes from Aceh? --Macrakis 12:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They sent contingents there, they built castles, which are still present today. their descendants still have Turkish names.

check out the atjeh flag, it' s the exact same flag as the turkish flag. in atjeh in some mosques on friday prayers they still claim allegiance to sultan selim II, the one who rescued them from portuguese invasion. funny how history works. in history books i have read selim the second was considered thw worst ottoman rules, who brought the downfall of the empire. it seems he also conquered one of the main islands of indonesia in between his many parties and hunting trips. ps. the ottomans rarely collected taxes from any of the countries they possessed. especially if it was faraway. that was up to the local government/prince/sultan/ king or whatever. only exception: anodolu and rumeli provinces, these the ottomans governed themselves --Kahraman 22:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is interesting history here, but I don't think it justifies calling these areas part of the Ottoman Empire. Can you cite accepted reference sources which would support your figure of 12m km^2? --Macrakis 14:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if you want to learn more just google it. (in turkish prefereably) eg http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:X-D_8W-HFGAJ:www.sabah.com.tr/2004/12/31/gnd104.html+aceh+osmanli&hl=en--Kahraman 18:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a magazine article about Aceh and the connections to the Ottoman empire. I don't see anything about the area of the Ottoman empire. --Macrakis 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

according to http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm , the maximum size of the empire was over 19 million km² --Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm yes, I have never heard this before. This seems rather far fetched to me. I suspect this is somthing of a Turkih nationalistic sentiment. It reminds me of the claims made by some Indian authors that regions of Indonesia was part of India. Some even claims that Singapore was an Indian outpost as it still bears a Sanskrit name. The truth is, Singapore was founded by a Malay King (King Parameswara) as he thought he saw a lion (singha) in this town which was called "Tumasik" at that time. Meursault2004 14:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nationalistic? the Turkish nationalists hate the ottoman empire, because it was degrading to the turks, ottomans themselves of mixed ethnicity, and giving many powers to the arabs, greek and the armenians etc. Turkish nationalists are different. Ataturk was a nationalist, and he abolished the ottoman empire. this is also why many Turks have no idea to how far the ottoman empire reached, they do not want to have anything to do with it. only recently with the the diminishing forces of nationalism after the Turkish earthquake of 1999, economic collaps of 2001, and with the advent of the EU membership people started to get more interested in the ottomans, the eu being an ottoman-like federation.--Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it is certainly not Turkish Republican nationalist sentiment. Maybe nostalgia for the sultanate? Whatever it is, both 12m and 19m km^2 are implausible, and the enfal.de site is hardly a recognized reference source. It seems to me that there is overwhelming agreement on this Talk page that 2m km^2 is a more reasonable figure, and I think that's what we should use until someone comes up with some solid evidence for a larger figure. --Macrakis 23:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it could be nostalgia, but I do not think you can nostalgia from 2 million to 19 million without at least some evidence. In all the sources I can find on the net the figure of 19.9 million km 2 at a maximum keeps getting up. It might include the Polish protectorate and the the territories of the crimean khanate as well as the short term rule of most of present Iran, but I am alas no historian, so I do not know for sure. Do you have any sources to back your claims mackrakis? --Kahraman 00:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that this is just some kind of a typo? There might be too much zero in the 19 million figures. If this is the case, then I would consider the problem as being solved. Meursault2004 09:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not been able to find good figures for the area of the empire at its greatest extent. In La Grande Encyclopedie (Berthelot, 1902), the direct possessions are listed as 2.8m, and the vassal states (including "Arabie--regions non directement soumises", 2.3m) as 3.5m, giving 6.3m . To get to the largest extent, we need to add areas in Europe and the Caucasus which the empire had lost, namely Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Crimea, etc. My best estimate is that that gives 8m or so km^2. Still not 12m, but much closer than I'd thought. Those 8m km^2 include vast areas of uninhabited desert in Africa and Arabia, much of which was not effectively governed by the empire, but then we attribute vast areas of the uninhabited frozen Arctic to Canada and Russia.... I am open to evidence for better numbers, but in the meantime I will update the article. --Macrakis 16:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the 19th century area. However, about max extent I disagree. I would take the numbers provided by the Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history (1) over your best estimate by any day of the week, since those guys are scolars and actually have a degree in this stuff, while we here are amateurs. So I added the 19 + km² to the article. ref 1. Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history , mirror http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm http://www.osmanli.org.tr/osmanlisultanlari2.php?bolum=5&id=221 --Kahraman 21:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think that 19m km² can be the correct figure. Consider that India (which is about equally close to the equator as the Empire) has an area of mere 3m km². Of course, putting an area for the Ottoman Empire is hard. Knowing which of the vast areas that swore only loose alligience to the sultan and wasn't really part of any Ottoman state to include is not easy (for example, the Circassians of modern Geogria aren't even marked on the map; at some point of time (though I am not certain about this, I'll have to check it up) the Nubians were Ottoman subjects too).

Furthermore, the Ottomans weren't very good at putting out exact borders. Since there were no state controlling the Saharan or Arabian deserts, one could assume that the Ottomans might consider having no border at all towards the south (the early sultans didn't have access to modern-day geography so they couldn't know where the Saharan desert ended), thus controlling all of Sahara (and, at the extreme, all of Africa, but I suppose they could just claim the land not controlled by any other state, and since the desert was almost completely unpopulated that would mea at least all of Sahara). Putting Sahara as a part of the empire would bring approximately 9,000,000 km² to its area. From the Ottoman point of view, it is very probable they would consider any land not claimed by any other state as their own (at least symbolically). However, this is just a theory. —The Phoenix 07:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this one. Cartography was an ottoman hobby, and many sultans were avid cartographers. for instance the piri reis map (1513) http://www.google.com/search?q=the+piri+reis+map , one of the earlist maps showing the americas, was made for an ottoman sultan. Also many italian and spanish cartographers sold their research to the ottoman sultans, main source on this one is the tv program by prof.ilber Ortayli on TRT

Yes, I know of the Piri Reis map but I still think Sahara and what lay beyond it was terra incognita to the Ottomans. Anyway, I think it is probable that the Ottomans did not specify their borders very precise. Well, I am only speculating, trying to find out how 19.9m km² can possibly be correct. It sounds very unlikely. /The Phoenix 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Australia is 7.6 million km2. The (official) Ottoman empire is smaller than that area. I took the figure 5.6 million km 2 from to *To Rule the Earth...: List of Great Empires. To put things in perspective: South America is 17.8 million km2 - even if the Ottomans claimed a fair swath of the Sahara desert areas adjoining their North African territories it would still not come anywhere near that area, let alone 19.6 million km2. If we accept that Ottoman suzereignity was accepted for some hundreds of kilometers into the Sahara and in much of the Arabian peninsula this will still not come anywhere near such a figure. Anyway it was very powerful, lasted a very long time and plenty big enough! Why grossly exaggerate? 3-Feb-06

Needs more

This article needs much more contribution and info, especially its history which if i have time i'll try to add to (theres 700 years of history in 3 paragraphs at the moment!). --E.A 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absence of discussion of internal disintegration

I think the biggest shortcoming of this article is that there is no discussion of the increasing internal weakness of the Ottoman Empire. By the later centuries of of their reign, the Ottomans no longer exerted more than titular sovereignity over much of their territory, which was in fact often in a state of anarchy or under the control of local strongmen who paid little more than lip-service to the authority of the Sultan. Rectifying this omission would help to explain the Ottomans' decline from greatest power in Western Europe and Asia (circa 1550) to pawn of the various European powers (circa 1850).

I would also reiterate a point made by others -- to wit, that the Ottoman Empire was not really a Turkish empire so much as an empire ruled by a dynasty that happened to be Turkish. The Turks did not really particularly benefit from the empire -- if anything, its functionaries, officials, and so on tended to be Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, while of course its elite troops were involuntarily converted converted Balkan Christians. Indeed, the rise of Turkish nationalism was one of the forces that helped speed the collapse of the empire, since an empire that was explicitly Turkish necessarily excluded members of other races.

Europe's development in one sentence???

While the Ottomans were stagnating in a stalemate with their European and Asian neighbor countries, the European development went into overdrive, buoyed by the economic advantages of large scale colonialism and slave trade.

It seems to me chucpe to abbreviate development of Europe into one (and IMHO biased) sentence. Especially connecting success of the Europe in XVIIth century to slavery is "novel" idea, which would surprise economic historians. I have at least removed mentioning of slavery.

both the succes and the decline of the European countries went side by side with colonialism and slave trade. This assocation cannot be disputed, it is a historical fact. I think you want to dispute the causality, eg first slaves- then economic development or first economic development- then slaves. Anyway , it is not the main focus of this article. The main focus of the article is the stagnation of the Ottoman state, and the reasons for this stagnation. The ottoman state did not change its practices/laws/technology from the 16th to the 18th centuries, and that led to its eventual downfall. To focus on the historical decline of one massively large state, especially one which has declined over 3 centuries before its final dissolutiuon, you have to shorten some of the developments in the rest of the world into small sentences. Btw., please sign your commentsd, otherwise nobody will know who you are. --Kahraman 30 June 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Unprotected

No notice given, and it was 10 days ago - unprotecting, regardless of actual reason. --Golbez 04:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Considering capital, anthem and motto

Both the anthem and the motto listed in the table are only the personal anthem and motto of specific sultans and not truly imperial. I suggest deleting both the anthem and the motto from the table (rather than leaving them empty) until we have found the imperial anthem and motto for the Empire (personally, I know of no such thing). Further, as capital I suggest we write simply Constantinople with Istanbul in paranthesis; it was officially known as Constantinople and Konstantiniyye is just the transcription of the Ottoman Turkish spelling of the word. (What is Asitane really? I think I've never heard of it before.) Is there anyone who disagrees with me? Please tell! Otherwise I'm gonna make the changes. —The Phoenix 09:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the Ottoman empire. it says so Talk:Ottoman Empire (section).

to stay as authentical as possible it should state Konstantiniyye as capital, since this is what is

written on paper money and deeds and such. instead of the anglicized constantinople,or greek/roman konstantinopolis.

Asitane and dersaadet are two other names commonly used referring to the ottoman capital of modern istanbul

--Kahraman 21:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You should also add the ex-capitals. They had other capitals before they captured Constantinople.

Personally, I think "Constantinople (İstanbul)" will do just fine. The Phoenix 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

MOTTO

the motto of the empire was 'devlet-i ebed-müddet' (civitas eterna in Latin) which means the eternal state. --Msu512 06:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll add it. The English translation would be 'the Eternal State', or? /The Phoenix 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. The Eternal State is the best translation i can do. I can give the meanings of each word for a better translation.

devlet: state, government ; ebed, ebedî: forever, eternal ;

müddet: time, period, duration--Msu512 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman Empire and Ottomans

There is a subject which definitely should be in the article. In many ways the Ottoman empire was the successor of the Roman empire. One of the many titles of the Sultans (especially used after Mehmet II) was kayser-i rum. Kayser (read as Keyser in Keyser Soze) meant Ceasar. What Rum means is not always clear. It can mean Rome, Greek or the places that the Roman Empire used to govern (e.g. Anatolia, Balkans). Some famous historians refer to Ottoman State as the third Rome. They took over the way Romans used to govern the area and during the 17th century they even had a court which resembles the trial of Jesus when Sabetay Sevi claimed to be messiah. --Msu512 07:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Russia was the third Roman Empire. Czar or Tsar or however you spell it is Russian for Ceasar. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which was centered in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istambul moved to Kiev, part of the Russian Empire at the time.Cameron Nedland 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cameron, I think you are a little confused about this. The Eastern Orthodox Church is made up of several independent Orthodox churches(Greek, Russian, Syrian, etc.). The Greek Patriarch resides in Constantinopole. The Russian Orthodox church might have had its patriarch in Kiev, but the seat of the Greek Patriarch would not have moved there.

OK, I didn't know that about the Orthodox Church, and also I forgot that the Holy Roman Empire is probably considered the Third Roman Empire. PS Don't talk to me like a child, I'm 16

Cameron Nedland 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The status of a 'third rome' is usually self acclaimed and of little merit. There were, at most, two Romes - Rome and Constantinople. The Roman state was contiguous from its Roman republican origins to its demise as the Byzantine 'Empire' with the fall of Constantinople. Anything which follows and claims to be the successor to Rome in any way does so without merit. Neither Russia or Turkey ( or the Holy Roman Empire or any other post 1453 state while we're at it) has a legitimate claim to being 'Rome', the successor to Rome or whatever. An Siarach

Wouldn't the Holy Roman Empire have validity as the were crowned by the Pope and all that?Cameron Nedland 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There where at least five states claiming to be heir of the Roman Empire: 1) the Holy Roman Empire (indeed deriving its legitimacy from the Pope) 2) Bulgaria 3) Serbia 4) Russia and 5) the Osman Empire (the latters claiming to succeed [or equal] Byzance; without Nikaia, Trabzon etc. of 1204ff.). Afaik the Ottomans never paid much attention to this title. However, they also used the eagle as imperial symbol and their rulers were adressed as "Emperor of the Three Cities of Constantinople, Adrianople and Bursa". Waifar 84.178.124.91 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kahraman's edits (11:15, 28 July 2005)

Ottoman empire was a multi-religion and multicultural state. There were nearly 2.5 million Christian Armenians living in north east of the empire(historic Armenia) In any article of the ottoman empire no trace of Armenians. Why? Because somebody could ask what had happened to those Armenians. Before the fall of the ottoman empire, during the WW1 more than 1.5 mil Armenians were killed as a result of systematic ethnic cleansing=Genocide. Nowadays Turkey pretends that nothing terrible happened "that was just a result of WW1".Turkey wants to join EU?... First look inside of Turkey with political prisoners, discrimination, violations of human rights..................................................................................... Thank you I reverted "The subsequent persecution of the Armenians is today viewed as genocide by the states of Armenia and France" to "...by most non-Turkish historians" as i.e. wikipedia's Armenian_genocide#Official_recognition gives account on that subject.

Besides, item 39 of the "European Parliament resolution on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession", states:

"...the European Parliament...calls on Turkey to promote the process of reconciliation with the Armenian people by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians..."

At the moment this parliament represents 25 countries; it's resolutions represent their people, diverse declarations of national parliaments specify the issue - affirmatively without exception. I acknowledge that this is contrary to the official Turkish position, however, denying this point won't support this very stand at all. --Tickle_me 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. You have made a special topic with my nick in it. Thanks for your attention :-). Before I reply to your comments, I have to state the following. The european parlement does not represent me at all, and I am a European citizen since 1977. The constituion has not been ratified by referandum. This refereandum was the first time actually the people of Europe were consulted on the EU. Considering the big NO which came out of this refereandum, you can onlyc clonlcude that what the EU parlement says and what the countries indiviully think are 2 different things. Secondly, the EUP is trying to find historical conflicts they can use as bargaing tools, with which they can pressure the Ottoman successor state of modern Turkey into giving up trying to become a part of the EU. Secondly, additional concessions are being demanded by Ottoman successor states such as Greece and Greek cyprus, which are already in the EU, but which have long standing conflicts arising from nationalism and border and maritime conflicts, which are so complicated the UN could not even solve them. The Armenian struggle for recognition of genocide is the main source of unity for the Armenian diaspora. It wont go away as long as the armenian diaspora has not been assimilated into the general populations of the USA, France, Britain, etc. To this day this struggle is claiming innocent lives in Turkey. Exclusively Armenian terrorist organisations such as the ASALA have killed hundreds of people in the past. Currently, Armenian terrorists work under the umbrella of the Kurdish PKK , and continue their blood fued. Europeans, including myself, have trouble understanding issues such as blood fueds and honor killings, but these are issues of great importance for tribal cultures such as the peoples of Eastern Turkey. Treating the conflicts in Eastern Turkey as a historic genocide committed by Turks on innocent Armenians in 1915 just simply will not be accepted, especially seeing as the armenians continue their belligerent expansionism in Azerbaycan and Eastern Turkey. A big reconcilitiation is needed between armenians and their muslim neighbours, but I do not think the current geopolitical environment will allow this to take place. --Kahraman 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why in every Turks related topic, Armenians have to be mentioned as well. I am not kidding, go through discussions on Turks related Wikipedia articles and 1 in every 2 you'll come across the word "Armenian". Talk about "obsessed".--Kagan the Barbarian 09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Turks are neighbours of the Armenians...that's a pretty good reason. --Khoikhoi 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah neighbours and we have 7 more, why is it always Armenians I see? --Kagan the Barbarian 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You have 7 more of what? --Khoikhoi 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a wild guess.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Horses? --Khoikhoi 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Close... Neighbours, Khoi, 7 more neighbours we have but only Armenians I see everywhere. That actually rhymed.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you are wondering why should 1 of the neighbours of the Turks have to be mentioned when there are 7 in total. Give me an example of a such a page about Turkey that mentions the Armenians and I'll check it out. --Khoikhoi 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am not wondering, I know why. I went through discussion pages of Talk:Kemal Atatürk, Talk:Adana, Talk:Alp Arslan and Talk:Turkey, some users apperantly believe Armenians who died by Turkish sword have to be mentioned in every opportunity.

I went through those pages, and have to say that these do not look like Armenian nationalists trying to mess up Turkey-related pages. Take for example, on the Alp Arslan, this is necessary because he went there, and it's in the history section! It says that he was at Lake Van, but it obviously wasn't part of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire back then because they didn't exist. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, I don't mean to be rude, but what exactly do you have against Armenians? --Khoikhoi 07:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me it is a coincidence that they are everywhere? I've been around Armenians enough to know what they do, how they do it and why they do it. Never have more good faith than those around you, my motto in life.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your motto. :) But look at this: Armenian-related articles have mention of the Turks in it - Armenia, Armenians, Armenian Genocide, First Republic of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Music of Armenia, Armenian language. --Khoikhoi 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag Information is WRONG

Current flag information is wrong. That flag (white crescent and star on red background) represents Reepublic of Turkey since 1936. A lot of different versions of this flag was used by Ottoman Empire. One can check [6] to figure out how many different flags were adopted. The issue is: The current flag in the article is exactly same flag with the official flag of Republic of Turkey. Ottoman Empire never adopted the same flag (even if the looks were similar, the sizes of the crescent and the star were always significantly different as well as the shapes). Generally, the flags of the Ottoman Empire had the special signatures of the sultans (tuğra-each sultan had his own, an example: [7]) at one corner of the flag. In addition to this, specific colors were added on to the flags depending on in which part of the empire those flags were used. For example the flag in the Tunisia region was different than the flag in the Serbia region. Starting from 1861 till the end of the empire in 1922, the flag consisted of only the special sultan signature(tuğra) at the center of a purple brown flag. Summary of all, according to my opinion, there shouldn't be a flag section there. In Turkish Wikipedia we don't specifiy the flag information for Ottoman Empire. Instead there can be a separate section explaining the flag issue in Ottoman Empire. Cansın 8.41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Country????

Why has the table been replaced with Infobox Country (a template used for data about modern countries)? What is the reason? I see none to support it. Rather, it: 1) is unnecessary; 2) includes data about Internet TLD, etc, and that is completely horrible. Why have the table changed to Infobox Country? /The Phoenix 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess constantly I am stepping on your shoes. I just wanted to improve your data by using a better framework. Infobox gave a place to hold a flag and so many other comman ifo. I'm reading financial structure at the last years of the empire. There weree economical values that can be used within that frameork, given most of the dept transfered to Turkey!!! When it comes to TLD if you give no response, it should not print those boxes. I happy that you are very detailed oriented and can catch these mistakes. By the way "that is completely horrible" is a litle bit over reaction, hope you can see that too. The last time it checked we were working on a country, even if it was dissolved right???? --tommiks 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was a country, but I don't understand why there should be a template instead of a table including all the data neccessary and excluding all the uneccessary data. I propose a switch from template to table. If we do, we can include whatever we want, but we don't have to include things that doesn't belong there, such as Internet TLD. And if the position of the flag is better (which I agree to) using the layout provided by the infobox, we take that and all the positive things about it and put it into an ordinary table. Thus, we'll have all the benefits and none of the negative sides. /The Phoenix 17:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Facts in chapter "Decline (1828-1908)"?

It said: Sultan Abdülaziz had to be called back under the promise that he would ease the way to a constitutional monarch. Sultan Abdülaziz changed the centuries old state structure at November 23, 1876. He declared the name of the new constitution as Kanun-i Esasi. It lasted until the Crimean War.

Since the Crimean War was already over for 20years when the Sultan allegedly reformed the state structure I erased the last sentence from the text. However, I haven't the foggiest when these reforms actually took place. Could be prior to the Crimean War for all I know. Could someone please check this? --Istabraq 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The whole article is in bad shape. The "State" section is especially bad. Poor English, and biased, it looks like its describing the states relationship with Jews and the Orthodox church, than outling the state's structure, which is what I'm guessing the "State" section is supposed to be about. Its full of references too vague to make sense. Until this section is rewritten and moved, I think the article is better without it. "Law", "Culture", and "Religion" also need rewriting.--Yodakii 12:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the Ottoman Empire, page.--tommiks 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do understand from your {cleanup} tag, that you are highly involved into this topic, but please remember that there is a size limit on the pages, and the short paragraphs that you think very unsatisfactory are there for the shake of helping the other people to guide to the sub-pages. 600 years needs more than one paragraph right --tommiks 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure, you will be working on the sub-pages. Such as the one you mentioned, the structure of state that is not being satisfactory. If you do not have any objection, I will delete the {cleanup} tag, as if this form of short summary is satisfactory as long as the sub-pages (such as state) is developed more. We will change these short paragraphs to reflect the sub-page that you will develop. HOW about that --tommiks 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the paragraphs being short. I placed the cleanup tag mostly because the style and grammar needs to be improved in many sections. I tried to explain on the talk page. I started some editing but found the task overwhelming with the small amount of time I have. --Yodakii 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that you would add more into the topic, but even if you can spare a small time to fix couple problems, that would be nice. Most of the people who show real interest into these pages are turkish native speakers. Just being realistic, without an good details page these paragrafs are doomed to change. Also even though the empire dissolved nearly a century ago, you would be surprized how much hatered people have for it. That would be another reason your changes would not last long as without more detailed backing to those paragraphs there is no way to keep them as they are.--tommiks 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Detail is certainly important, but so is style and grammar. I think a short well-written article is still better than a long, hard to understand one. In any case, I'll try to fix what I can. --Yodakii 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Daulat-i Abbat Muddat

I believe we should represent this phrase in the Ottoman script. I believe it would be

!Vpendse 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC) دولتِ اباد مدت

History

The article is getting quite large and I think there it may be better to have a seperate article for the history of the Ottoman state. --Yodakii 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think it is a problem as it is. It is broken down well. I think Tommiks did a good job. --A.Garnet 18:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Garden of Eden???

There is no consensus on the location of the Garden of Eden or if it even physically existed at all. How can the article claim that it was once in the Ottoman Empire?

I would appreciate Tommy explaining this deletion

[8]

Also, when Allied forces including the Arabs and Armenians eventually defeated Ottoman forces in the Middle East. I don't know of any work that includes the Armenians in the defeat in the Middle East. W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff in "Caucasian Battlefields : A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border, 1828-1921" don't even report in the zone of the third army, now one would have hard time imagining for the Middle East proper. I'd like this to be sourced. Fadix 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an explaination soon. Thanks Fadix 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Map is wrong

Ottomans were having the whole Arabian peninsula. Especially Holy places for Muslims like Mecca and Medina. But your map is wrong. Please have a search on that event. Thank you.

They also loosly controlled Sudan. Cameron Nedland 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

The english in this article leaves much to be desired.

Division of Ottoman History into Eras

Division of Ottoman History into Eras in this article does not comply with the Turkish Historiography. which uses the following convention:

1. Independence(1299) to fall of constantinople 1453 : Foundation Phase
2. thence till death of grand vizier Sokolovitz : Rise
3. thence till 2nd Siege of Vienna(1683) : Stagnation
4. thence till Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca(1774) : Decline
5. thence till Abolishment of Monarchy(1922) after the Great War : Dissolution

What is the source of the convention used in this article? and should we or should we not change it? --Calm 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A Section about Naming Convention ?

If names are too many to be listed in the first sentence... Since some names have been commented out. Also there is another common name Devlet-i Âl-i Osman (as in the arabic name, which is commented out). Which means State of the Sons of Osman. --Calm 19:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The flag of the Ottoman Empire

The flag used by the Ottoman Empire was very similar to the one used by the Republic of Turkey. Some claim that the country had lots of different flags, but every country has different flags (Naval Jacks, Civil Ensigns, Presidential Ensigns, Ministers Flags, Merchant Flags, Civil Flags and State Flags to mention some). The State Flag of the Ottoman Empire looked like the Turkish one, since there are several photographs from late XIX century and early XX century displaying various official state events like diplomatic conferences/mettings and others (like the picture displaying the declaration of the Holy War against the Entente in 1914) which clearly show the flag they used.

-- The flag used by the Ottoman Empire has changed over time significantly and it is uncertain which one should be put on the article. However, what is certain is, that the current flag on the article is the flag of the Republic of Turkey exactly and it is not of the Ottoman Empire despite any similarities.

I think the preceding comments may be correct- I've done a little Googling and all the flags (ex http://www.fotw.net/flags/eg-ott.html, )http://i-cias.com/e.o/ottomans.htm) appear to be a single crescent moon and white star, not three moons and no star. In addition, helpdesk received a complaint to the effect that: "http://www.halukakcam.com/Bayraklar/Bayrak3.htm The flag that is currently on the page for the "ottoman empire " is the flag of republic of Turkey. The above ling has the correct flag. The crescent shape and the star shape are different. thank you for the correction"

This is a pretty major error if true; please find out the truth of this matter. If I can find a replacement flag, I will. --maru (talk) contribs 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops... nm. I should've seen it was just a vandal... --maru (talk) contribs 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I can assure you, that the latest flag the Ottoman Empire used is identical to the flag of the modern Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire had that flag from 1844 until its dissolution in 1922. The Republic of Turkey which was subsequently founded, used the same flag. Latinus 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire Map is Unrealistically Overexagurated

The Map shown [9] of the Ottoman Empire at its height is greatly overexadurated and historically incorrect, it shows areas that the Ottomans never controlled, the map needs to be replaced with a more accurate map ASAP, A more precise map would look like this [10][11] [12]

Someone changed the map just recently. Meursault2004 11:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that map is ridiculous. An Siarach

Yes the map that shows the entire Arabian peninsula et al is not correct, As for the flag, I'm not entirely sure. I have seen the triple-crescent flag before. I believe that Egypt used to have a green and white version of that flag. Refer to this site for further insights. //Big Adamsky 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire at its height did not extend to the Volga and Astrakhan which were held by Tatars, nor did it conquer Circassia or most of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. For example, even its holdings in North Africa were relegated to the coast as the Berbers of the Interior were never conquered and nor did the Ottomans particularly try to. Numerous websites including at various universities can be googled and the information found. Tombseye 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The map needs to be replaced. Moldavia and Wallachia were not a part of the Ottoman Empire (apart from the kazas) - they were vassal states. --Candide, or Optimism 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it but that user uploaded it again. Apparently they believe Eritrea was part of the Ottoman Empire. --Khoikhoi 19:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

so i get in this cab in philadelphia, the guy asks where i am from, i tell him i'm turkish. then he gives me this killer look.. he says he's from burundi, that the ottomans colonized them back in the day, and asks me about a couple of turkish words that he learned back in burundi. I had no idea the ottomans had been there! the catch is: the problem with these maps, or any map of any then-contemporary empire is the mapper's personal judgement over area of control. Some include total state rule only, some include vassals, some even include trade colonies or such freer-than-vassal states in the maps. I don't believe it's a big problem, just place the smallest one and we'll be fine..

Use of Constantinople vs. Istanbul

Latinus's recent edit comment is "that's an anachronism - at the time, the city was called Constantinople and was subsequently renamed Istanbul - you cannot say that Mehmed conquered Istanbul". Agreed entirely. What's more, the Ottoman name of the city was in fact Konstantiniyyeh, not Istanb--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)ul! --Macrakis 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It had been called Konstantiniyyeh just for awhile. If you have a chance to take a close look to Ottoman archieves, the city has been called ' Istanbul '. Why don't you open a parenthesis like ' the name of the city was changed as 'Istanbul' ' ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - I have reworded it a bit though. Latinus 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't have a problem, however someone has one. Interestingly, it is called ' Wikipedia ', not 'Latinupedia'.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The name "Istanbul" was certainly used informally in Ottoman times, but the official name remained Konstantiniyye (قسطنطنيه):

"...the Ottoman rulers, having conquered the second Rome, for the next four hundred-plus years honored its Roman founder in the name of the capital city. Until the end of the empire, the city's name — the city of Constantine — Konstantiniyye/Constantinople — remained in the Ottomans' official correspondence, their coins, and on their postage stamps, after these came into use in the nineteenth century." — The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Donald Quataert, 2000, p. 4.

"Under the Ottomans the city remained Konstantiniyye on coins and documents." — Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire, Jason Goodwin, 1998, p. 55.

--Macrakis 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that 'Konstantiniyyeh' was officially renamed 'İstanbul' on 28 March 1930, I have readded this info. TuzsuzDeliBekir deleted it earlier for some reason. Latinus 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is documented in the Istanbul article. I don't see why it is relevant to the Ottoman Empire article. The Ottoman Empire was defunct by 1930. It might be useful, though, to mention the name Istanbul for identification. --Macrakis 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted it out a bit, so it now reads:

In 1453, following its capture from the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople became the new capital of the Ottoman Empire under the name 'Konstantiniyyeh', and was officially renamed 'İstanbul' on 28 March 1930, although, the Ottoman Turks unofficially referred to the city as 'İstanbul' much earlier.

I think this'll do. Latinus 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I should have answered here rather than editing your edit. Sorry. Although everything your proposed text says is true, I don't think it's relevant to this article. This is an article about the Ottoman Empire, not about the city of Constantinople/Konstantiniyye/Istanbul, certainly not about the name of the city, especially not the name of the city after the Ottoman empire was defunct! --Macrakis 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine now, IMO. Latinus 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Referring all Constantinoples İstanbul is meaningless. But it can be explaine one time as Latinus's proposal.--Ugur Basak 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

discussion about the name of the city, also it has more info. about Ottoman Coins. If you click on the the link, you will find some precious info. Additionally, Ottoman coins were drew by the sign of Ottoman dynasty. Lastly, if someone sends a letter to Costantinople, the letter definetely cannot reach to its target. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? --Latinus 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cotantinople creates such confusion. There is no city which is called Costatinople. That's why, the latters ant another stuff will be sent back. Also, I didn't delete anything, before replying please give a second for history section.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK - why don't you edit the page, so that we can all have some idea of how you would like it. Just remember that Istanbul was never this city's official name. Latinus 22:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

'Konstantiniye' was prohibited at one time during the Ottoman period by Sultan Mustafa III. Mustafa III (1757–1774), so if you make a calculation, Istanbul has been officially used for 300 years. Probably, you didn't use it officially. Unfortunately, Istanbul has lived since 11. century unoffially, at some part officially, and it has lived for 300 year officially. Before replying, think not to open a second debate.

And I am about to forget :) The actual usage was Kostantiniye.

Do you have sources for this prohibition? Sources Quataert and Goodwin (quoted above) claim that Kostantiniye was always the official name. There is no question that the informal name has long been (probably from pre-Ottoman times) Stamboul/Istanbul, and there is no question that the modern name is İstanbul. The only open question here is what the official name was from 1453-1930. --Macrakis 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have sources of this prohibition. Ottoman archieves. However, it is in Ottoman language. Before [[[Mustafa III]], Kostantiniye was the official name of the city. He prhobited the usage of Kostantiniye.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is something you have recently discovered while working in the Ottoman archives yourself, you should definitely publish it in a historical journal! If you have not been working in the archives yourself, you learned it somewhere, hopefully a reputable source which you can cite. The sources I cite are reputable: Quataert is a professional historian of the Ottoman Empire, and his book has even been published in Turkish. Goodwin is less authoritative -- he is not a professional historial, but a writer. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. --Macrakis 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the name used for Istanbul so important to Greeks here? It is a Turkish city since 1453. Does calling it Constantinople make you feel better or will change anything? I am against the usage of Constantinople for the Ottoman capital. Why? Because it is not Turkish nor English, it is bloody Greek. Using either Konstantiniye or Istanbul, will point out the change of rule in the city, from Greek to Turkish. Besides we can definitely be sure Ottomans didn't use Constantinople for the city since it is not Turkish dialect.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I would prefer at least Konstantiniyye, though more probably Constantinople; the problem lies in that "Konstantiniyye" is simply an Arabic/Ottoman rendering of the established English word "Constantinople" (i.e. "City of Constantine"). But before you talk about "Constantinople" being "bloody Greek", remember that the word "İstanbul" is exactly the same (εις την Πόλη – eis tēn Pólē; "in/to the city"). —Saposcat 07:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We can't be sure about the origins of "Istanbul". Greeks credit any word in any language as originating from Greek, so "eis ten Pole" makes as much sense as Turkish "Islam bol". And I am pretty sure Turks never used the word "Constantinople" for the city, it is Westerners who kept using it and yes it is a Greek word. A name change is signifcant in pointing out the change of rule in the city, especially for such a major city and the capital of the empire for the longest period.

Thank you for improving the article by the way, you are doing a good job.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Was reading about Ottoman conquests and find that both maps are off

The competing maps are both off somewhat. The Ottoman conquests extended a little more south in North Africa, as with Libya and Tunisia in particular. [13] Also, the Ottomans basically controlled most of Egypt and extended with a contigous range into a small part of northern Sudan. In addition, they controlled all of western Arabia, the Hijaz. They did not however, conquer Circassia or extend past Dagestan. Probably should adjust the map to reflect this. Tombseye 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice map of the Ottomans' conquests -- though http://www.theottomans.org/english/images/history/buyuk/09.gif, from the same site, might be more relevant (shows the maximum extent, taking into account both conquests and defeats), and is also attributed (Encyc. Britannica) to a reputable source. As I've said earlier on this Talk page, the main problem here is that many of the borders are not terribly meaningful -- where exactly in the middle of the Sahara or the Arabian desert do we draw borders? Nowadays, of course, it is easy with GPS and satellite photography and air power to define such borders, though even today, no one is going to set up a border post in the middle of the desert. --Macrakis 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The map which I have seen in the link is much more better. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to the flag page

Whether or not the flag is displayed in the article, it would be helpful if it linked to the Flag of the Ottoman Empire page somewhere... --ThrashedParanoid 23:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Crown of Histories

Does anyone know where I can find Crown of Histories (Tadj ut-Tewarikh) by Sadeddin in English? Thanks. --Candide, or Optimism 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate image…

I suggest removing the image of Le Bain turc (in the Culture section), because it neither represents the culture/reality of the Ottoman society nor is it an example of the art of that society.

Ingres, a Frenchman, did not even visit the Ottoman domains; his painting was "inspired" by the writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu:

..in Ingres’s Le bain turc, a painting from a century later supposed to have been inspired by Montagu’s account, but one which foregrounds lounging and fondling, rather than the conversation and beautification activity Lady Mary describes.[14]

Such an image should be included in an article about the Western misrepresentation of the Ottoman Empire and not one about the actual empire. --DelftUser 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Name in infobox

A recent edit changed "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu" to "Osmanlı Devleti" in the infobox, with the comment "it is most commonly termed 'state' (devlet) in modern Turkish)". This is no doubt true, but I don't think the either modern Turkish name is what belongs in the infobox -- it is the contemporary name which belongs there; I believe it is already correctly indicated (in both Ottoman Turkish and in Latin scripts) as "Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye". Comments? --Macrakis 15:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - دولتِ عَليه عُثمانيه transliterates as dvlt-i 'aliyh 'usmanyh - so the "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu"/"Osmanlı Devleti" is not in the Ottoman Turkish text. In Roman Republic, it has the Latin name and then the English name, whereas Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth omits it. I guess it's up to the editors. I think that the modern Turkish text is misleading and only the Ottoman Turkish text should be left (along perhaps with a direct English translation). --Latinus 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the removal of the modern Turkish entirely (I was not, however, bold enough to remove it entirely—I've always been a bit too mousey for the Wikipedia:Be Bold editing guideline). Anyhow, my own change to Osmanlı Devleti was a bit rash: the period before Sultan Mehmet II's conquering of Constantinople in 1453 is termed devlet (as a subsequent check revealed), while afterwards it was, in fact, known as imparatorluğu. Regardless, I'm going to go be bold now and remove the modern Turkish entirely. —Saposcat 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recently Added References

Whoever replaced the "Citation needed" notes with references to books (Sir Edward Shepherd, et al.) needs to give (at least) page number references and (preferably) supportive quotes within the books mentioned; otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to have the books listed as references, as the "Citation needed" notes were attached to specific claims that had no support.

By the way, the "Citation needed" note attached to the sentence "He (Osman I) published the first coin under his name, demonstrating the trust he built" referred more to the aspect of "trust" (an unverifiable opinion in almost any circumstance: who, for instance, can say that it was not power rather than trust?) than to the minting of the first coin (about which there is little doubt); the "trust" aspect of the sentence—not the "coin"—must be either supported or deleted, in my view. —Saposcat 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Empire

I've just added that the Ottoman Empire in its days was commonly known as the Turkish Empire. This otherwise splendid article has in a zeal of political correctness managed to make the Ottoman Empire see to have nothing to do with Turkey, because that's the way modern Turkey prefers to see it. However, the empire was commonly known as just as Turkey or the Turkish Empire for hundreds of years before the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, and its core population was referred to as Turks, not "Ottomans". A good example is the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, where its more than 40 pages about the empire is found under the heading "Turkey", while the only entry between "Otto of Nordheim" and "Ottumwa" is "OTTOMAN, a form of couch which usually has a head but no back, though sometimes it has neither. [...] It belongs to the same order of ideas as the divan (q.v.); its name indeed betokens its Oriental origin...." Britannica also defines Turkey as consisting of "Turkey in Europe" and "Turkey in Asia", describing those areas to largely be what Turkey is today, while it states that the empire also covers "the vilayets of Tripoli and Barca, or Bengazi, in North Africa: and in addition to those provinces under immediate Turkish rule; it embraces also certain tributary states and certain others under foreign administration."
Also, Turkish Empire and Turkish empire has redirected to Ottoman Empire since 2003, without any explanation for those searching that expression why they end up here. Thomas Blomberg 13:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you if we look at the western sources all the central Asian history is referred as "history of china". If you talk to a Chinese they would find putting all their history under single name is nothing but just being ignorant. The sources that talk about Ottomans, and classify them under single name would not be less ignorant. Yes, they are Turks. But as you learn about them, increase your knowledge about them; you will begin to name the empire as Ottoman Empire. That is its real name. It is very unique, among many other Turkish Empires. Thinking these distinctions are coming from a political goal, may be related with your own issues more than "have nothing to do with Turkey". By the way "Republic of Turkey" is not empire. The last Turkish Empire is "Ottoman Empire". Please help the community and revert all the things you have done to fit your misconception.--Karabekir 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The people who established modern Turkey (young Turks under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk), were the enemies of the Ottoman state and the sultan viewed them only as revolutionaries. Turkey is a successor state of the Ottoman Empire, but it's by no means the same state nor civilisation. Miskin 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Turkey was found by Ottoman Turkish pashas, intellectuals and politicians. They refused the monarchy because it lost its function long time ago and was doing the nation more bad than good, that's why the events in that period are also regarded as Turkish Revolution. You can't seperate Turks of Turkey from their roots, you have to do a lot more than editing Wikipedia articles. + This is funny coming from a person who traces the roots of his/her civilization to pre-historic ages. Anyway, my pillow is calling me.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Karabekir, I'm sorry if I'm a bit confused by your comment. You say that the Ottoman Empire "is very unique, among many other Turkish Empires." As I've never heard of any other Turkish empires than the Ottoman, perhaps you could enlighten me and other ignorants about the "many other" Turkish empires? Especially as you stress that the Republic of Turkey isn't an empire, which I totally agree about. You also talk about my "misconception" and seem to suspect that I have "issues". No, I have no issues regarding Turkey, except that I sometimes find it a bit too nationalistic for my taste (I dislike nationalism wherever its ugly head sticks up). I think the Ottoman Empire has been very overlooked in modern history books, considering its enormous historical importance and widespread cultural influence (what would the Greeks and the Lebanese eat if the Turks hadn't showed them what good food means?). Ask any Westerner to list Roman emperors, and most will be able to come up with at least Julius Caesar and perhaps also Caligula, Nero and Augustus; ask them about Russian tsars, and they may be able to name Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great; ask them about British, French and German rulers, and they will also be able to come up with names like Victoria, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Napoleon, Charlemagne and Fredrick the Great; but ask them to list Ottoman sultans, and they'll say "Ottoman, isn't that a kind of sofa?"

My main problem with this otherwise very good Ottoman Empire article has been its lack of references to Turkey and Turks. I suspect this this partly due to the fact that until very recently the Republic of Turkey unfortunately has been trying to deny its roots, and some Wikipedia contributors may have, for Turkish nationalistic reasons, tried to reflect this view when working with the article. However, it is an historic fact that the Ottoman Empire was usually known as the Turkish Empire, and as anyone searching "Turkish Empire" was already being redirected to "Ottoman Empire" I thought it was proper to add a short explanation why they ended up in an article with a totally different name. It is also common Wikipedia practice that variant names and variant expressions are added in bold at the beginning of the article. Miskin has now changed my addition so it reads "Despite its extremely multi-ethnic character, the Ottoman state was commonly known in its days as the Turkish Empire." I have no problem with that, even if I think the "multi-ethnic" addition is unnecessary and sounds as an attempt to say that our forefathers were totally wrong in calling it the Turkish Empire. Sure, there were lots of nationalities within the Ottoman Empire, and they were largely allowed to live the way they were used to, as the Turks who ruled the Ottoman Empire were much more tolerant towards ethnic minorities than the very nationalistic Young Turks and the republic they founded. There were also several Greeks, Arabs, Jews and Armenians who served the sultan in high positions. The same was true of the French Empire and the British Empire (and to a lesser degree also the Russian Empire). However, at the same time it definitely was a Turkish empire, controlled from Constantinople, and with most, if not all, of the provincial governors and army officers (as well as most soldiers) being Turks - just as the British empire was controlled by Brits and the French was controlled by the French. Recently, however, the Turkish attitude towards the Ottoman Empire has started to change, marked by the fact that Turkey is using the 700 year Ottoman jubilee as a PR thing. So, who knows, some Turkish nationalists may soon start rewriting the article and move it to "Turkish Empire", making "Ottoman Empire" redirecting there. If so, I hope someone will have the decency of inserting the line "sometimes also known as the Ottoman Empire". Thomas Blomberg 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Turk, I am not happy with Karabekir's edits as well, Thomas. He changed all History of Turkey templates to History of Turks. I wouldn't want this article be sacrificed for Turkish jingoism. Thank you for helping improve this article, also keep in mind Ottomans consisted of many nations and as well as Turks we'll always have Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Slav, Bulgarian POV pushers here. Regards. --Kagan the Barbarian 09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What the Turkish national and diaspora crowd needs to comprehend is that the Ottoman Empire did not recognise a thing called "ethnicity" or "nationality". The Ottomans recognised one thing: Religion. The Turks forced themselves westwards via jihad, not via french imperialism. Anyone who adopted Islam in the Ottoman Empire, became a Turk. This was one of the policies which made the Ottomans such successful conquerors. All the Islamic populations from the middle-east were more than willing to serve in the Ottoman army and fulfil the dream of a revived Islamic empire (not considering the people who converted). It's extremely naive to think of the Empire as an ethnic Turkish state, and references on Turks would be anachronistic. Furthermore, the population of the Turkish-speaking people within the empire during the early 20th century was only some 50% of the total. The largest part of the Ottoman fleet was owned and run by Greeks, and great part of the infantry comprised Albanians. The vast majority of the trade and businesses were in Greek, Armenian, and Jewish hands, and external affairs were at some point handled explicitely by Phanariot Greeks. The article should be subject to a large rewrite. Its current state lacks all crucial information on the Ottoman administration, and it hardly mentions the millet system. Miskin 03:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to edit it (at least, not yet) for fear of getting involved in some pointless revert war, but just look at this opening sentence:

The Ottoman Empire (Ottoman Turkish: دولتِ عَليه عُثمانيه, Devlet-i Âliye-i Osmaniye literally "Ottoman Sublime State) also besides its official name referred as Turkish:Osmanlı Devleti or Osmanlı İmparatorlugu; Arabic: الدولة العثمانية, Al-Dawla Al-ʿUthmaniyya or English:Turkish Empire.

This is an absolute mess, so much so that I would hardly be surprised if someone coming to the article with some interest were immediately turned away from it. I (know I am fighting a losing battle but I) think that everything from "also besides" to "Turkish Empire" should be expunged. (A) Yes, it has a name in modern Turkish; (B) yes, it has a name in Arabic; (C) yes, it is sometimes referred to as the "Turkish Empire" in English.

But: (A) the modern Turkish name, sorry, is no more relevant to the Ottoman Empire than an Italian name would be for the Roman Empire; (B) it also has a Persian and a French and a Japanese name, etc.; (C) Google the references to Turkish Empire and then look at what the sources are (i.e., the reputable and accepted name now is Ottoman Empire; furthermore, there are over 20 references within the article to the Turkish people, thus negating Thomas Blomberg's original reason for adding "Turkish Empire" in the first place).

In short, someone needs to change this awful opening. —Saposcat 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, first sentence is ridicilous. Who cares what Arabs or Turks called it? Other than Turkish Empire, all others need to be deleted. It should start "Ottoman Empire, known also as the Turkish Empire,...". Turkish Empire needs to be mentioned because Turkish Empire redirects here. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman devshirme-janissary system ???

The Ottoman state never officially enforced religious conformity, nor did it harshly pursue a policy of individual conversion.

That is a joke, and a quite frightening one to be written in a suposedly non-bias international educational article. I understand the modern Turks have problems admitting the wholesale genocide of Armenians as it is obvious a recent moral nightmare of their own making they don't wish to aknowledge, but why hide one of the most unpopular and well documented systems of the Empire? Why has the quite brutal Ottoman devshirme-janissary system been totally erased from history in this article and a lie inserted in its place?

Christians and Jews were viewed as "people of the book" and conversion was officially optional. The janissary system was a special case scenario. Of course that doesn't mean that no other mass-Islamisation ever took place. You're right about one thing, this article lacks important informartion and should be subject to a large rewrite. Miskin 03:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It requires a rewrite based on NPOV. Not edits such as "They called it Turkish Empire but it was actually multi-ethnic". This is like saying "They called it a Mustang but it was actually a car".

Anyway, as for forced conversion. It took place, there is even a particular case with Sabbatai Zevi. But this was done to secure central control and influence, it should be mentioned. Also, in later periods conversion to Islam was encouraged, they were tax free, and could occupy high posts etc.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• every recognised empire in history is multi-ethnic, so i think thats useless info and shouldnt be there. tembelejderha 10:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

-MANY accounts of the ottoman devshirme system state that it was one of the most modern systems of the time. and it's not the turks who are saying this, just check out "crescent and star" by stephan kinzer, "the decline and fall of the ottoman empire" by Alan Palmer, and most importantly, "the history of the present state of the ottoman empire.." by Paul Ricaut (secretary of the british ambassador to the sublime porte) written in 1682. (original copy present in the rare books library of the university of pennsylvania, philadelphia PA, USA.) I do agree that modern view of such a system is horrible (how would you feel if the empire came and took one of your three sons?), however back in the day, apparently, families WANTED to give their kids to the empire, as the education and lifestyle of those raised there exceeded those of anybody else in the world. a quick note on the devshirme system: 1- the empire takes a son from you if and only if you have more than 2 sons. 2- the empire sends them to a school in edirne, converts them into islam, and applies aptitudal examination (SAT of 1300s?). those who pass go to the seraglio school in constantinople, where they are educated to become government bureaucrats, viziers, and grand viziers. 3- those who do not turn out to be so smart are sent to the janissary schools to become the elite core of the army. 4- it's a harsh life for both: neither janissaries nor bureaucratic trainees can ever get married (until 17th century), nor have any connection outside of the government. they cannot own property until a certain age, they cannot drink.. however, the return is, they get paid very well, great healthcare, best education available, and they get to rule the world's most powerful nation. 5- hence these people were raised from childhood to be great men, who are devoted to the ottoman state.

what are my other options as the child's family?

a- the kid dies of cholera at the age of 2. b- the kid dies of plague at the age of 4. c- the kid gets syphilis at the age of 16, dies. d- the kid starves to death because our land is not large enough to feed 3 children. e- the kid becomes a farmer like me, serves the empire. f- we immigrate to england, where my wife gets raped by the lord, and the kid is killed in a war against the french.

i would definitely give the kid to the empire. that was the best that could happen to any person in that era. with regards,68.174.95.182 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps are conflicting with eachother

I don't know if this was brought up before but we have 2 different Ottoman maps with different borders showing the empire at the height of its power:

The one on the left should be correct, Ottoman borders never reached Caspian Sea and they did control whole western coast of Saudi Arabia and the whole state of Egypt.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The map on the left is the one I'm familiar with. Miskin 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The early ottomans never had borders in the modern sense. Their borders were as far as their soldiers and Sultan had influence. the later Ottomans in the 19th century did have modern borders at the western part of the empire.. But in Africa and Asia their borders were still old school..--Kahraman 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the contradiction between 2 maps, it doesn't look god. And we at least know Ottoman Empire never reached the Caspian Sea, right?

FIX THE MAPS!!!--Kagan the Barbarian 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

ozdemiroglu osman pasha conquered most of tha caucasus and azerbaycan didn't he?--Kahraman 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

the maps linked to above show the ottoman empire at the caspian sea [15], [16] --Astrokey44 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Decline or reorganization

The text says : 'The decline period of the Ottoman Empire was characterized by the reorganization and transformation of most of the empire's structures' that means it was a period of reorganisation and transformation, which implies modernisation and growth.. to call this period decline is not logical imho..--Kahraman 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I read this article the more I find how biased it is. It's not biased in terms that it provides false information, it's biased because it hides information. For examples the reference on the Janissaries doesn't even mention that they were forcibly Islamicised Christian children. Secondly, The structure of the entire Ottoman Empire series makes it too hard to edit. Every sub-article has already empty sections with the names of the Sultans. Each Sultan must have his separate article, and most of the sub-articles should exist anyway. Best thing is to start editing the main article and provide sub-articles when it becomes necessary. Miskin 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Janissaries were not forcible islamicized. I think you are referring to the devsirme method, which the ottomans copied from the Byzantines and used up to the 16th century. Devsirme were young impressionable children maybe 4 to 5 years old, collected from poor christian parents and schooled islamic method. That poverty was reduced and a loyal military force was gained, in addition to the mounted cavallery they collected as tax from their muslim subjects. Many times the children grew up and sent money to their christian parents and family, and many of them returned to their homelands after they had retired from military service. In the 16th century the devsirme system was abolished, janissaries were recruited from exclusively muslims. The Janissaries existed for 4 more centuries, and abolished in the 19th century, and replaced with the draft, which meant that all young christians amnd muslims had to join the army--Kahraman 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "The Ottoman Recipe of Success"

There is reason to suspect that the new section entitled "The Ottoman recipe of success" constitutes a copyright violation of the Donald Quataert book The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 (New Approaches to European History). The text of the opening pages of the book should be compared with the version presented here in the article and appropriate adjustments made to the text so as to conform to Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. —Saposcat 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The only copy-edit was the 5 lines from the end. This was done in order to preserve the author's exact words (which many people have previously doubted). Yet, citation was provided right next to it, so that wouldn't make it a copyright violation. I added some quotes anyway. Miskin 12:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The problem, though, was that the source is visible in the edit page, but not directly cited in the text of the article itself. Anyhow, I'm going to go about editing the section: a big block of undivided text like that simply doesn't look good. Thanks for the quick response. —Saposcat 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true but the reference was already visible at the bottom of the article. Anyway it probably needs some editing. Miskin 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, including proper citation. I removed some things that I didn't think contributed well to the section's emphasis on the empire's successes. Let me know if you find the deletions to be inappropriate, but please explain why you think they do fit into such an emphasis, and I can reinsert/rewrite them accordingly. —Saposcat 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. What concerns me more is the overall structure of the article, including its sub-articles. It makes it too difficult to edit and navigate, plus some things will inevitably be repetitive. The sub-articles are organized in sections with the names of the sultans, which imo is not very efficient. Sultans should have their articles of their own, and some of those sub-articles could easily fit into the main one. Miskin 14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more: the article really is something of a mess (especially, if I may say so, for such an important subject as this one). However, it has been improving somewhat—if only very slightly and bit by bit—lately, and I think that with time and conscientious and careful editors, it should get worked into a decent shape. I might well be doing some work on it in the future myself, although for the time being I'm tending to focus more on Ottoman literature than on Ottoman history. —Saposcat 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the biggest problem with the article is its writing style, in some cases it is just too vague. e.g:

"The rise of the empire defined the characteristics and nature of the state. The Ottomans definitively carved out their own preserve in history under the rule of Mehmed II.

In this period, many discussions occurred among the Ottoman élite on how to organize a new state from the many different cultures of the empire. Given the historical facts of other great empires, the Ottoman élite believed that the power of the sword was not enough to build and maintain a powerful state[citation needed]. It was important to find strong and capable men and bind them together in willing cooperation to conquer large sections of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It was also important to organize and govern their conquests. The Ottoman élite gave precedence to the political ideas that constituted the life of the empire, which became their ruling institution[citation needed]."''

Things like this need rewriting so they are concise and straight to the point. --A.Garnet 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire vs Turkish Empire

Let's make it clear that Ottoman/Osman is the name of the founder of the Anatolian Turkish beylik Osmanoğulları, Osman Bey. The empire was named after its founder in the tradition of Seljuks. Some people here are taking advantage of this name for their racist deeds. The empire was not named Ottoman because it consisted of various ethnic groups but as I said because of tradition. Turks could very well use Turkish Empire like Westerners did and it would be the only name being used today for the empire.

How ridicilious is it to say Ottomans had little to do with Turks? Are you suggesting the empire was a confederation? Where dozens of nations combined their powers with their own freewill to form an empire? It was enforced by Turkic tribes in Asia Minor so that makes it a Turkish Empire. Services of various ethnic groups is of course enormous but this doesn't make the empire a confederation. When Mongols conquered Eurasia, they considered every person who fought under their flag as Mongolian and it was the same with Turks. It was a Turkish empire, there is no such race as Ottomans, and "Turkish" does not equal to any particular racial group.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of the section is to emphasize the political unity of a multi-ethnic environment. What you're questioning and call "ridicilious" (which I assume means 'ridiculous') are the views of the experts. Why don't you reconsider your POV according to them? It could lead to a much more constructive editing behaviour. Miskin 17:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the author of the paragraph is actually praising the Ottomans on the achievement which you're trying to hide and refute. And so does the average reader of the paragraph. I don't understand what you find ridiculous and insulting about it, but I can tell it's based on a POV interpretation of history. Miskin 17:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that means ridiculous, I am impressed how you decoded it. Anyway, that paragraph has no place in that section, you are implanting it there to heal your complex. All previous paragraphs point out the empire benefited greatly from its various subjects, last paragraph is there only to influence the opinion of the reader. As I said above, any statement that says it is wrong to call it Turkish Empire is bullshit. Every empire is named after the founding nation, later ethnic structure does not matter, the case with Ottoman name is what I wrote above. I dare you to show me a single edit where I acted chauvinist. On the contrary I am trying to rid this article of your biased Greek chauvinism. Why don't you hunt for POV pushers in Greek related articles? We have plenty of watchdogs here, trust me, we need a lot more on Greek related articles.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What I hunt for is POV. I make edits based on credible sources and I'm reverting unsourced information (pretty much the opposite of what you do). You say that I'm a biased POV-pusher. Very well, I'll have a mediator check on our edit histories and decide who's contributing and who's trolling. Unless you're willing to go as further as ArbCom, I would advise you to stop the edit-wars and conspiracies while you still can. I think arguments such as "it's bull**** 'cause I don't like it" won't be taken too kindly by the wikipedia community. See you later. Miskin 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe your Greek chauvinism is what directs you. You are mostly deleting stuff you don't like or adding stuff you like; of course you need excuses to delete stuff, if it is unsourced that only puts butter on your bread; if you like what it is saying, you don't care if it is sourced or not. You ask other users to discuss with you before adding or deleting stuff yet you make your edits without any etc. etc. etc. Anyway, my interest in all this is fading. Hopefully you'll consider what I am saying as my observations rather than insults.

PS Wikipedia allows me to say "bullshit", I don't care what other users think of me if they judge me by the words I use rather than what I am saying.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I make and remove edits according to this: WP:REF. Can you cite one example where I've removed sourced content and added unsourced in its place as you're doing now? Civility in wikipedia is not an option it's a must. But it's obvious that wikipedia policies mean nothing to you. Of course, to every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Miskin 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add back a modified version of the "offending" quote from Quataert. Miskin's edits, as far as I can see, were undertaken in good faith—however, I can also see how the first two sentences from Quataert touch upon a sensitive issue. Of course, we should not wholly avoid sensitive issues, but at the same time, I think that Quataert's first two sentences are not necessary to the point that is trying to be made (i.e., that the Ottoman Empire's ethnic diversity was among its greatest strengths). So, I am going to remove the first two sentences and keep the rest of the quote, as well as rewrite the short paragraph introductory to the quote. —Saposcat 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The part you deleted was POV, it doesn't matter if it is "offending" or not. Miskin added that because that POV also supports his POV that it is misleading to call it Turkish Empire. Just look at the Greeks article, they are adding POV sentences like "Modern Greeks are the inheritors of ancient Greeks" etc And there are hardly any neutral users there, I counted 5 Greeks there myself. Even the reason Miskin came here was because I went there and criticized the article. Assume good faith? Heh ok.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert but I don't understand your logic. The man had a source, and the paragraph looks important enough. Calling a quoted citation a POV is an oxymoron. Your personal disputes with the editors is none of our business and no-one has to listen to this. What I see here is an editor who spend some part of his time to make contributions, and an editor who does nothing but call other people's references 'bullshit POV'. This is not how wikipedia works. To think that this article is marked under improvement... Take the tag off man. People will be laughing. Hakkinen 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And just from curiosity I just had a look at 'Greeks'. The edits in doubt have been provided with a reference. It was britanica I think. What you gotta do is look for those references to see if they really say that. If they don't, then you delete it. If they do and you still don't agree, you find another reference that says the opposite, and it becomes complicated. So far you haven't done nothing so you can't doubt nothing. You could be right and he could be wrong but as long as he has a source and you don't, he wins and you lose. That's how wikipedia works, it's not perfect, but it's the best we got. Hakkinen 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So if it is my POV, adding it is against rules but if I find some quote supporting my POV and add it then it is not? Haha, lovely. Do you know my background with Miskin? If I am accusing him of not having good faith, don't you think I just might happen to have a good reason for that? If you play nice and by the book you can push any agenda on Wikipedia but if you speak your heart like me, you get the blames and notices. As for the Greeks article, even the first sentence is fault and extremely POV: "Modern Greeks are the inheritors of ancient Greece". What kind of encyclopedia has such "to the point" sentence? Anyway this is all stupid. Wikipedia is a great project but unfortunately since it uses common people as the source of information it bears all the stupidity common people do. Unless these articles are written by scholars who have proven themselves in academic platforms, Wikipedia is destined to be a joke. And the day unsuspecting people use these current articles as a source of information, that will be a very sad day. Anyway, I bid you all farewell, have fun in this hell hole. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re your statement: "So if it is my POV, adding it is against rules but if I find some quote supporting my POV and add it then it is not?"

Exactly. It may indeed be a "haha" laughable premise, but fortunately or unfortunately (I would generally opt for the former) it is the basis of encyclopedic-style research (and to a somewhat lesser extent, all research), as per this policy and in fact all rigorous modern encyclopedic standards (which is what makes the 1911 Britannica—written in the days when it was still possible to encyclopedically praise the empire on which the sun never set, et cetera ad nauseam—such delightful reading).

Anyhow, I guess you won't be reading this. Fare thee well. —Saposcat 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Hakkinen, I'm glad to see there's still some people who care about WP Policies. Kagan as Hakkinen said, as long as your only argumentation is based on bad-boy attitude and childish insults, I'm not willing to give up on my edits. Until you bring some sources I'm not even willing to negotiate. You go around telling lies about me, how I supposedly have done terrible things in other articles, while all I did was to either ask or present sources before I made or removed edits. You made a whole deal out of Manzikert because I once reverted cretanlover's extremely bad-written, unsourced edits, you present it as if I lynched him or something. Once his edits were sourced and reviewed, nobody removed them. I didn't even question their importance like you're doing now, I just let them be. If I ever catch you telling such lies about me again as you do now, I'll report you under WP: "no personal attacks", and after seeing that you have a warning already, you wouldn't want it to happen. Enough is enough, I offered you my friendship, I even asked you to email me to discuss my content dispute and you turned it all down in the meanest way. From now on you'll be dealing with the side you've chosen. And by the way, so that you and all the Turkish editors know, before I met you I had never edited a Turkish article in my life, you can check my edit history from the beginning till the end. But when witnessed your editing behaviour and uncivility at Manzikert, I went through your contributions list and found out that you were a public menace to NPOV. But even then I didn't start mingling with Turkish articles as you keep propagating. The Ottoman Empire article has nothing to do with this however, I've been long planning to compile such a section. I once told you that civility is a POLICY, not an option, but you didn't believe me. I suppose you do believe it now, no wonder why you don't look so tough anymore. So, I'll summarise: You make one more personal attack about me (includes talking behind my back) and you're reported. You make one more ethnic personal attack of the type "Greeks did this and that" and you're reported. You make any out-of-context comment or petty insult (which you interpret as a joke) and you're reported. You continue making edits by ignoring the sources (whether adding or removing content), and you're reported (after a point it becomes vandalism). You start an edit-war again and you're reported. And when I say "you're reported" I mean altogether, with all the personal attacks, all edit-wars, all trouble-making, with all the diffs and everything. In fact you have to work really hard in order to stay unreported, and if I were you I'd get to work a.s.a.p. Miskin 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's for sure that Ottoman empire was a pure Turkish empire. Firstly, its history is solid and there is very little cultural fragments left from ottoman empire in Europe soil. Turks came, conquered, ruled, got defeated and left without leaving anything behind, that's all. If this empire had nothing to do with Turks, why all balkans and middle-east hate today's Turkey? It's obvious that antient egyptians, franks, greeks are not same with todays but today's Turkish is same with the Ottomans; at least there's not a millenium between its foundation and collapse --JohnEmerald 10:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re your statement: "It's for sure that Ottoman empire was a pure Turkish empire." What on earth can a phrase such as "pure Turkish" possibly mean? I would agree that it was, to a great extent, a Turkish empire, but adjectives like "pure" are notoriously slippy (and hard to match up with anything approaching reality).

As for the statement that "today's Turkish is same with the Ottomans", if you're talking about the makeup of the nation's population as a whole, then—so far as I know, anyhow—that couldn't be much further than the truth, for a whole slew of reasons. —Saposcat 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

this is so wrong on so many levels.. The current state of Turkey is in theory 99% muslim. The historical Ottoman state was 30-50% muslim. Without the orthodox Serbs, Albanians and Greeks, there is no Ottoman state.--Kahraman 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"tr:beylik" ?

Th article says: "The Kinsik was one of the main tribes "tr:beylik" taking part in this migration."

Is "tr:beylik" a typo? Maurreen 20:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a sort of typo; it was meant to give the Turkish word for "tribe"—not exactly a correct translation, incidentally (it should be aşiret or kabile), but in context it's accurate enough and provides a good lead-in to the important concept of beyliks that is introduced later in the article. —Saposcat 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Opening paragraphs

Concerning the following paragraph, the third of the four introductory paragraphs:

At its highest point, the Ottoman Empire contained many important places of classical antiquity, including Homer's Troy and Achaea, Zeus' Europa, Io's Bosphorus, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus together with all the Seven Wonders of the World, the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great, Abraham's oasis and wells, the Nile River, the Mount of the Sermon, and the Hill of Golgotha.

I wonder if this paragraph actually adds much of anything worthwhile to the introduction. Should it, perhaps, be removed? Any thoughts? —Saposcat 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an exciting point that they ruled over so many culturally significant and strategical sites, but simply listing a bunch of wikilinks does not convey meaningful information. A section on the expansion into the ancient Greek and christian sites would be interesting, though. As for the seven classical wonders, some of them were not even standing at the time of Ottoman reign, the same goes for Troy, and it gets confusing reading about the "property" of the gods (Zeus'...). I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph. Poulsen 09:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking it was a largely pointless paragraph of clutter to have there in the introduction. Any new section about such expansion might, indeed, be interesting—but it certainly shouldn't go into the introductory section. Good removal. —Saposcat 09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Although this doesn't really belong in the intro, I agree with Poulsen that this is very interesting information. Perhaps someone (with more knowledge than I) could add a section for "Ottoman Empire in classical culture" or something similar? --Laura S 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

As it has several cleanup tags and is under the article improvement drive, I don't think it is currently stable enough to be a good article. Poulsen 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right: it is by no means a good article (yet—it is getting there slowly, though). Good decision. —Saposcat 09:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Format of references

Is there any reason to list every reference twice? It makes for overtly long lists. I can understand that for books which need to be cited again and again for each specific page used as source, it is useful to only list the biographical informations once. But as long as the reference is a single website the same note might be used several times and there's nothing to confuse, and they might as well only be listed where they are used. Case in point: Regnal Chronologies is generally not about the Ottoman Empire and is used only for a single fact - it seems superfluous to list it twice. Poulsen 09:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to follow fairly strict guidelines regarding references, footnotes, and their ilk; that's why I (re-)shaped the References/Footnotes section the way I did. If you think it needs cleaning up or streamlining, then by all means go ahead and do so. —Saposcat 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought to rewrite the paragraph in my own words so that everyone would be happy about it. Every single sentence was a rewrite of the original citation, it did not have any personal point of view or conclusion. Miskin 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

True; however, there really is no reason to rewrite, I think. The quote has gone through the fire already, and was settled and stable for quite some time before another knee-jerk reaction tried to knock it off. I think, also, that it is better to give a direct quote than to simply paraphrase one: that way, any POV there may (or may not) be is ascribed to a source, and can be more easily accepted or rejected as such (i.e. "Quataert is a genius so he must be right" vs. "Quataert is a madman so I'll discount his words"). Anyway, that's my line of reasoning. Thanks for responding on the talk page. —Saposcat 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had in mind was the stubborness of a nationalist editor. There's now some anon. who (by mere coincidence?) is edit-warring in the same article that Kagan had been edit-warring, and is eager to bring modern nationalism into the debate. The citation doesn't imply that the modern Turks are not the ancestors of the Ottomans, nor that it's wrong to call the Ottomans "Turks". It merely points out that a Turkic people created a vast multi-ethnic Islamic empire which finally ended up as an ethnic Turkish state. I don't understand what's offensive in that, what difference does it make if the Ottoman nobility was of mixed ethnic origin? On the contrary I find that modern nationalism drives some users to anachronistic and biased conclusions. The non-turkish population of the empire was in average something like 80% of the total Ottoman population, and it's absurd to imply that those people were ethnic minorities or simply slaves (despite how some people would like to think of it). I still haven't heard an argument from the poeple who have been removing the citation, which I regard as a perfect conclusion to the section. Miskin 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning

I believe this article needs the attention of an expert, for cleaning and layout, therefore, I am submitting it to the Cleanup Force Sufitul 14 April 2006, 12:20 (UTC)

Ah, this just makes me wonder why people are spending so much effort verting and reverting and re-reverting one paragraph (plus perhaps a few other twitchy tweaks), and so little time actually cleaning up the many parts of the article that remain insufficient messes. The article seems to have reached a state of perennial semi-chaos. ! ياشاسك تنظيف عمال وکپديا —Saposcat 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate edit-warring, I do it because I can't stand the idea of editors not respecting WP:POLICY and acting as if they owned the articles. Some random anon (probably a sockpuppet) who refuses to register a name in order to avoid dispute-resolution methods and 3RR, should not be able to have his way with wikipedia. Apart from that I don't particularly care. I just don't understand why would some serious editor edit-war on the same articles, each day under a different internet number, and would not take 5 seconds to register. Miskin 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand (and, despite what my above statement might appear to say, agree) completely, and one of the unfortunate things about Wikipedia (which is also a fortunate thing, of course) is its openness to all and sundry.

I do respect your tenacity on this issue, Miskin. Keep it up. The sad thing about this article is that it's really only a few steps away from being really quite good, but has just kind of stalled. I'm just hoping that—once the Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce has assigned the article to one of its members—things will start moving on at a better and more productive/progressive pace. —Saposcat 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My edit

"The Kayı was one of the main tribes taking part in this migration. When they began to settle in Anatolia in the 12th century, they accepted the suzerainty of the Seljukid State of Anatolia, which was at first a puppet and vassal of the Il Khanate of the Mongol Empire."

I may have misunderstood the paragraph but apperantly it suggests the Sultanate of Rum was the vassal of the Mongol Empire from the start. If that's the case, that's wrong information, Sultanate of Rum later became vassals of the Mongols after years of resistance. Regards.--Phew 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC

This article has been listed for request for comment. 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)