This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
No notice given, and it was 10 days ago - unprotecting, regardless of actual reason. -- Golbez 04:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
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)
You should also add the ex-capitals. They had other capitals before they captured Constantinople.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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?
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)
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)
The english in this article leaves much to be desired.
Division of Ottoman History into Eras in this article does not comply with the Turkish Historiography. which uses the following convention:
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)
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 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.
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]
Agreed, that map is ridiculous. An Siarach
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's your point? -- Latinus 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
-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)
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)
FIX THE MAPS!!!-- Kagan the Barbarian 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Concerning the following paragraph, the third of the four introductory paragraphs:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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 citation needed, 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)
This article has been listed for request for comment. 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
No notice given, and it was 10 days ago - unprotecting, regardless of actual reason. -- Golbez 04:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
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)
You should also add the ex-capitals. They had other capitals before they captured Constantinople.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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?
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)
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)
The english in this article leaves much to be desired.
Division of Ottoman History into Eras in this article does not comply with the Turkish Historiography. which uses the following convention:
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)
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 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.
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]
Agreed, that map is ridiculous. An Siarach
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's your point? -- Latinus 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
-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)
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)
FIX THE MAPS!!!-- Kagan the Barbarian 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Concerning the following paragraph, the third of the four introductory paragraphs:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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 citation needed, 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)
This article has been listed for request for comment. 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)