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.
Recent edits: French and Persian in the lead section
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
Did Ottomans use these two names French: Empire ottoman[1] and Persian: امپراتوری عثمانی, Imperātori e Osmāni in their official documents? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Both "Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿOsmānīye" and "Devlet-i Ebed-müddet" (and similar terms like Devlet-i Ebed-Payvand, Devlet-i Bi-zeval, etc) are actually Persian names of the empire. The Iranian states of the Ottoman era like the Safavids and Qajars used the same terms (Dovlat-i ʿAlīye-i Iran, for example). Another Persian name of the empire, which was used by the Ottomans themselves, was Mamalek Mahroseh ʿOsmānīye. (The Guarded Domains of Ottomans) This name was used by the Iranian states too. امپراتوری عثمانی is the modern name, and the title of the Persian article. Aryzad (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Tbf the 'dowlat/dovlat' in Persian is from Arabic Dawla. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The term is Persian, the words are not really important. Alīye is an Arabic too. Those are loanwords and are no less "Persian" than Iranic words. Aryzad (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"امپراتوری عثمانی is the modern name, and the title of the Persian article.". Why the name of this empire in Persian (and Persian Wikipedia) should be mentioned in the lead? Did Ottomans used that name? Is that name mentioned in historical sources and Ottoman documents? Both French and Persian names should be removed from the lead if Ottomans never used them. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you are right about modern name. There is no need to citing that. However, the Ottomans used various names and this is not easy to pick one. "Velayat e Dar-al-Islam e Rum", the Islamic provinces of Rome, for example, was one of those. The most common historical term would be "mamâlek e mahrose ye osmanieh", the Guarded Domains of the Ottomans; it was used in both Ottoman Turkish and Persian, but the term is obviously a Persian term. The Islamic empires used it at least since the Seljuk era, to show their independence. Aryzad (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I am a historian of the Ottoman Empire as well as a scholar of Ottoman Turkish. There are a number of problems with this article to the extent that they would taint the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information. My main references / sources of reliable information in suggesting these edits are the following two books
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu by İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı (there are several editions printed by Tarihi Türk Tarih Kurumu) - the author is one of the most renowned historians of Turkey in 20th century.
1) The word "Persian" on the 1st line as well as the word "French" & the following "Empire Ottoman" on the 2nd line should be removed. As mentioned previously, there is no need to include the French phrase for "Ottoman Empire" at the beginning, because French was never an official language of this empire. In fact, the only official language they ever recognized and used was Ottoman Turkish (as is referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia). It is equally redundant to include the word "Persian" for the same reason. Neither Persian nor Arabic was ever recognized as official languages in the empire. The phrase "Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿOsmānīye" might be the same in Persian, but then we would also have to include Arabic in the lead. After all, each of the three words of this phrase is of Arabic origin and they happen to be linked in a Persian construction, as is common in any Ottoman Turkish text.
2) Any sentence that defines the Ottoman Empire as "Persianised" or "Persianate" should be removed, because that is an oversimplification. Lines 5-6 read: "Although initially the dynasty was of Turkic origin, it was Persianised in terms of language, culture, literature and habits." The sentence is followed by links to four references, none of which actually makes this claim. This sentence implies that the Ottoman dynasty underwent a comprehensive cultural transformation, which included turning away from its Turkic origin and fully adapting Persian culture language, culture, literature, and habits. Simply speaking, this statement is highly controversial and factually incorrect. There is a huge difference between being influenced by Persian culture and being Persianised/Persianate. The references cited for this sentence show how influential Persian culture has been on the Ottoman state, yet one should realize that Ottoman Turkish remained the sole official language and court language in the empire. Persian was learned and studied by the educated class in the Pre-Tanzimat era; but there isn't any historical evidence to suggest that any significant portion of the Ottoman population spoke or read Persian.
3) For the same reason, the later sentence "Despite newer added amalgamations, the Ottoman dynasty, like their predecessors in the Sultanate of Rum and the Seljuk Empire, were thoroughly Persianised in their culture, language, habits and customs, and therefore the empire has been described as a Persianate empire." which simply reiterates the sentence above should also be removed. The Ottoman dynasty was very distinct from the Sultanate of Rum and the Seljuk Empire. Perhaps it wouldn't be as much of a problem to define the latter two as Persianate, but in the Ottoman Empire the Persian language and culture didn't enjoy the kind of status that these sentences claim.
4) The common languages part also needs some revision: The wikipedia page titled "Languages of the Ottoman Empire" could be a good resource in rearranging this column. Again, the role of Persian is over-emphasised. First of all, it is necessary to clarify that Ottoman Turkish was the official language. Arabic, on the other hand, was more than just a religious language. It was also spoken by a sizeable portion of the Ottoman population. Again, it would be misleading to list Persian as a court language (it simply was not); while it remains a fact that certain sultans commissioned authors/poets to write poetry and histories in Persian, much of Ottoman poetry was composed in Ottoman Turkish and likewise many more histories were written in Turkish. It would make more sense to put Greek and Armenian in this column than to waste so much space telling about each and every single use of Persian when the former two were actually spoken by a considerable portion of the Ottoman population throughout its life of six centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rum1992 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added two wikilinks above, along with an external link to the Google Books entry for a mentioned book as aids to navigation. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You cant say I am a scholar and remove the sourced content. This is WP:OR.
This, a RS, says Persian was the court language of the Empire. And this is how Wikipedia works. With the help of the reliable sources. Not original research. We cant remove "Persian was the court language" because you say it was not. Aryzad (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." How this is not important? Aryzad (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Because you need to read WP:ONUS. Ifly6 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ifly6: If you read articles of the empires, you see an empire's culture is often mentioned in the lead. Check this featured article for example: The Parthians largely adopted the art, architecture, religious beliefs, and royal insignia of their culturally heterogeneous empire, which encompassed Persian, Hellenistic, and regional cultures. For about the first half of its existence, the Arsacid court adopted elements of Greek culture, though it eventually saw a gradual revival of Iranian traditions.Aryzad (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I am (somewhat) okay with Persian being mentioned in the lead, although I do agree it is somewhat overemphasised, but French should probably be removed entirely. It was also widely spoken by the elites in 19th-century Russia, but you don't see the name of the Russian Empire listed in French in its English Wikipedia article. Yekshemesh (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Known as the Roman Empire
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
The first line of this article states that the Ottoman Empire was "historically known to its inhabitants and the Eastern world as the Roman Empire". Looking through the references for this claim, I don't see how they actually support it. It's part of the introduction, though, so I wanted to discuss it first before I remove it.
The first citation links to a page from an 1882 book that states "the very names of Greek and Greece disappeared from history, those of Rome and Roman took their place." This quote is incredibly short and stripped of all context but the small bit I can see doesn't even appear to be discussing the Ottoman Empire. Its accuracy is also questionable, coming from a 19th century publication by the Royal Society of Literature. What worries me most, however, is the rest of the Google Books page which shows "ottoman language rome name" as a search result. Unless there is some context to this reference that I'm not able to see, this leads me to believe the editor couldn't find a source for their claim and just added a random old book that showed up on Google.
While not as bad as the first, the second citation also seems to have been misinterpreted to fit the argument. It's been discussed in more detail before on [archived page] so I'll just give some short points here.
The source merely states that Byzantine territories and certain region of the Ottoman Empire were called Rum. Nowhere does it say that the entirety of the empire was known as the Roman Empire. The author does show a quote from one of Timur's advisors who referred to the Ottomans as "the heirs of the Romans" but I see no reason why this 14th century source should extrapolate to the rest of Ottoman history.
This is also another big issue with the introductory sentence. Besides references to the Roman Empire covering less than a sixth of the empire's total history, the sources also don't give any indication that "its inhabitants and the Eastern world" referred to it as the Roman Empire. This sentence seems like synthesis and is also rather vague, as the Eastern world could be talking about a whole range of different countries.
In my opinion, the best solution would probably be to remove the sentence entirely but if it can be edited and sourced so it's factually accurate then that would be great as well.
Swaggernagger (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Swaggernagger: The first source says: The very names of Greek and Greece disappeared from history; those of Rome and Roman took their place. Even Alexander is there always mentioned as "Alexander the Roman." The Ottoman Empire is designated by all the rest of the East at this present time as the Roman Empire; an Ottoman Turk is there called a Roman. This is a very good source for that claim. "inhabitants" is not mentioned in the source, but this is not totally untrue. Maybe Christians of the empire never recognized the Ottoman Empire as the successor of the Roman Empire, but they were considered by the Muslims of Empire and all of the Islamic world as the Romans. Even Modern Turkish is sometimes called "Roman Turkic" in Persian texts of 20th century.
I don't think the Empire being considered the successor state of the Roman Empire by the Ottomans themselves is a secret. Open WP article of a sultan and you see "Kaysar i Rum" (Caesar of Rome) in his titles. 1, 2, 3, some examples. Aryzad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't address any of the other concerns I raised about that source, nor the other reference I talked about. It's still an out of context quote from a 19th century book that doesn't provide any citations for its claims, being misapplied to the whole of the Ottoman Empire's history.
As to your final point, the Ottoman leadership considering itself "Caesar of Rome" is not reason to state that its inhabitants and the Eastern World also called it that. There have been many empires in history that considered themselves successors to the Romans, but you'd be hard pressed to find its citizens and other nations calling it that.
I still stand by my point that these sources are being misapplied and the original statement either needs to be edited or removed in its entirety. Swaggernagger (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Swaggernagger:Two more sources added. But this an obvious fact and I don't understand why even a source is needed. Here is for example a letter from Bayazid to Shah Ismail (Picture), the highlighted word is "Rome" روم.
He says when the news of your victory reached Roman territory, it made us happy. Aryzad (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I'm glad that you went looking for more sources and helping solve the problem in this way. However, I believe there are still several (large) issues with this part of the introduction.
For one, the sources you added don't actually address many of the concerns I raised above and suffer from some of the same flaws as the older references. Neither supports the statement that the Eastern world knew the Ottomans as the Roman Empire and the quote fromthis source is used here as a general descriptor for the empire, instead of the specific period after the Fall of Constantinople that the original author used as context. Additionally, I think my earlier point about titles that leaders of countries give themselves applies here as well.
Secondly, while I don't blame you for not removing the original sources and comment before more consensus, it does worry me that you have reverted changes made by other editors who did remove them. More specifically, your edit statements make very little sense and don't give any good reason why the changes had to be reverted. To an editor who removed the sentence about the Roman Empire because they considered the use of 'the East' vague and the sources cherry-picked, you responded that "The Roman Empire of those days was a country like England. When you conquer England, you become King of England. This is a simple fact. Two more sources added."
This argument is wrong on so many levels that I'm not even sure where to begin to debunk this. First of all, you cannot compare the Roman Empire to England here because they are very different things. In your example, England is a geographical region that you can rule over, making you King of England, while the Roman Empire is a state that has comprised many different regions and had wildly different definitions over the centuries. Additionally, being the ruler of a region doesn't mean that your entire empire gets renamed to that region. If Napoleon had conquered England, he might have claimed the title King of England, but he wouldn't be the British Empire. Similarly, just because they controlled the region of Rum, the Ottomans weren't the Roman Empire. But even if we ignore those points, your argument would still not support the edit you made. Someone who calls himself King of Rome, which I'm not denying the Ottomans did, isn't necessarily referred to as that by others, so the introductory statement is still unsupported. Based on the above, the accusation in another edit summary accusing an editor of being eurocentric seems unfounded and is troubling.
You consider the introductory sentence to be an "obvious fact" and "don't understand why a source is needed" but that does not justify the lack of proper sourcing or keeping up confusing statements, especially in the introduction of an article. I hope we can solve this without it turning into an edit war and requiring intervention.Swaggernagger (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Swaggernagger: Many of Mughal, Iranian and Ottoman sources of that era are in Persian, and I can read those sources. While those are considered primary sources and are not reliable, but the Ottoman Empire is called "Dowlat e Rum" in that sources, which means the State of Rome. This fact, makes the Ottoman Empire being called "the Roman Empire" an obvious fact" to me.
However, we need academic sources to write Wikipedia. You can check this one: "The Osmanli Turks called their empire the Empire of Rum (Rome)."
I don't think there was any difference between England and the late Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of that era was not the Roman Empire of Augustus' days. It was a country like France, or England. And the Ottoman Empire was considered one of the states of Rum long before the Fall of Constantineple. However, this is a less known fact. Aryzad (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Swaggernagger: Instead of "its inhabitants and the Eastern world", we can write "commonly known to the Ottomans and rest of the Islamic world as the Roman Empire." Aryzad (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Do not put usernames in section headers, per WP:TALK
Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion
@Khirurg: Stop! You can't remove source content just because you don't like it. If you can prove this is not the way the empire was called, then do it. If you can't, I will revert your edit. Aryzad (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, first all, I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on you. You tried it last time and it didn't work. You edit-warred against consensus and the page had to be protected form your edit-warring. This time, if you continue edit-warring, a block is likely. And you're never supposed to put usernames in talkpage section headings, it is extremely rude. Khirurg (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. If any edit-warring starts from the OP, a report will be promptly made at 3RRN. Also orders using exclamation marks are both useless and rude, not to mention just plain silly. Same goes with section headings using usernames. All this needs to stop. Dr.K. 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
[2] "The Osmanli Turks called their empire the Empire of Rum (Rome)."
Now you must explain why you believe this is not a reliable source or why you think the Ottoman Empire wasn't known as Rome. Aryzad (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No, you must explain why you think "The Osmanli Turks called their empire the Empire of Rum (Rome)." is the same as your attempted edit: "historically and commonly known to the Ottomans and the Islamic world as the Roman Empire". Dr.K. 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
"After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire since 330 AD, and whoever possessed the Imperial capital was the ruler of the Empire." Although this does not mean Ottoman Empire called himself Roman Empire. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: Forget about that. I will find a RS about the Islamic world later. Now, tell me what is the difference between "The Osmanli Turks called their empire the Empire of Rum (Rome)." and "historically and commonly known to the Ottomans as the Roman Empire"? What is the difference between "Roman Empire" and the "Empire of Rome"? Aryzad (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No pinging please. I know how to find the talkpage. Your question is self-explanatory. "Rum" means the location, i.e. the empire of Constantinople. "Roman Empire" is the empire of the Romans. I'm sure even the least educated Ottoman citizen would not consider himself/herself a "Roman". Also "historically and commonly" is not in the source either, even for the Ottomans. Dr.K. 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Rum/Rome, in Islamic sense, means the "Roman lands". It is not related to the political entity. The Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire was a country like China from the Islamic point of view. The Ottoman Empire, however, was called "Devlet i Rum/Rome", which means the State of Rome. From the article itself:
In the early modern period, an educated, urban-dwelling Turkish-speaker who was not a member of the military-administrative class would often refer to himself neither as an Osmanlı nor as a Türk, but rather as a Rūmī (رومى), or "Roman", meaning an inhabitant of the territory of the former Byzantine Empire in the Balkans and Anatolia. The term Rūmī was also used to refer to Turkish-speakers by the other Muslim peoples of the empire and beyond.
From the same source (A Rome of One's Own: Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum, p 16): "The designations “Rum” and “Rumi” were also common in Iran, Central Asia, and India and are even attested in Indonesia." Aryzad (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The references do not explicitly state the name that the Ottomans gave their empire as "Roman Empire". I suggest we exercise the same caution and keep the term given by the sources you supplied i.e. "Empire of Rum", instead of going a step further and translating it as "Roman Empire". Dr.K. 23:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The "Empire of Rome" is the more accurate translation (both Rum and Rome are used by the source) since the Byzantine Empire was also called by the same name (Devlet i Rum) by the Muslims. "Rum" is Arabic pronunciation of Rome so there is no different between Rome and Rum. Using "Empire of Rum" to call the Ottoman Empire is like using the "Holy Römisches Empire" to call the Holy Roman Empire. The whole thing is about the Ottoman claim about being the successor of the "Empire of Rome". Aryzad (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If both "Rum" and "Rome" are used by the source, let's use both. Dr.K. 04:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts? Aryzad (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks. Dr.K. 14:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just read this discussion. I would like to point out that the real meaning of Rûm was not "Roman", neither for the Ottomans nor for the Arabs: Rûm denoted (and still denotes) the Greeks living in the byzantine empire, and after the conquest in the ottoman territories (then) and in the Republic of Turkey (now). Mehmed II claimed to be the successor of the byzantine Emperors, not of the Roman Emperors. Alex2006 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on the whole discussion above, but just wanted to point out that this particular comment above is wrong. The Greeks in the Byzantine Empire self-identified as "Romans", not "Greeks"; the Byzantine Emperors called themselves "Roman Emperors" not "Greek" or "Byzantine". Rûm first appears in the Quran if I'm not mistaken, referencing the Byzantine Empire under Heraclius when it was arguably still intact as the Roman Empire of old, it should be obvious (to us today and to the Ottomans of old) what the term means.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A Rome of One's Own: Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum, p9:
The word “Rum” or diya¸r-e Rûm for defining a cultural as well as a physical space (the lands of Rome, limited over time to the eastern Roman lands, i.e., Byzantium) was adopted from earlier Arabo-Persian usage but now stretched by Turkish speakers to refer to the zone that they inhabited and in large part also governed.
The "Byzantine Empire" is a modern term and that empire was called the Roman Empire or the Roman Kingdom by both Muslims and Byzantines. By that point of history, the term "Greek" wasn't a common term and "Roman" was used by the Greeks to refer themselves. So the Greeks/Romans were the native people of Rûm/Rome and the Turks were the new people of the country from the Islamic point of view and probably from the Greek point of view. Aryzad (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ichthyovenator. Also, the RS includes the term "Roman". Dr.K. 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
For Ichthyovenator: the reign of Heraclius marks for the modern historiography the beginning of the byzantine empire (see for example George Ostrogorsky about it). Intact? The eastern part, at the end of the wars with the Sasanians, maybe. But the west was largely lost forever.
For Aryzad: I am not against the citation above, I am just pointing out that it should be contextualized, since in 2020 the word "Roman" has another meaning with respect to that which was given by the ottomans and Byzantines with "Rûm" or "Ῥωμαίωι": maybe we should write something as Empire of Rûm/(eastern) Rome. Rûm is never translated with "Roman", but with "eastern Roman", or "byzantine", and so was intended by the ottomans and the Arabs. See for example, Gulru Necipoglu, "Creation of a cosmopolitan capital and visual culture under Sultan Mehmed II" p. 262, where Rûm is translated as "eastern roman". Or, concerning the Arab world, the comment of the Sura 30 of the Koran edited by Mondadori, where the "Rûm" are defined as the byzantine; or, again, the article "Rûm" on the encyclopedia of Islam. BTW, "Roman" in the Turkish language is "romalı", not "Rûm", and "roman empire" "Roma İmparatorluğu", not "Rûm İmparatorluğu". Cheers Alex2006 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
You are right about modern meaning of the word but I don't think changing it to "(Eastern) Rome" is the best idea since the Ottomans had no idea about the difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire; there was only one Rûm. Maybe we can solve the problem with a [note 1].
Modern Turkish terms are different because Ottoman Turkish was full of loanwords. Aryzad (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
^From modern point of view, the term Rûm refers to the Eastern Roman Empire.
Correct: the Ottomans did not make any difference since at that time the only existing empire was the byzantine (eastern) empire: that is the reason why the encyclopedia of Islam says that in the Arabic literature the term "Rûm" refers mostly to the Byzantines. Speaking about "Rûm", they did not think about Rome, but about Constantinople. Anyway, your tag could be a good idea. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Vienna
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Adding just the battle of Vienna on the list as a event just to to fill the gap doesn’t make much sense. Then we should add other major Ottoman campaigns as well. Adding the great Turkish war would make more sense in this case Gal17928 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The sentence "Albanians continued to resist under Skanderbeg" is vague and lacks sources. Please add reliable sources or remove this sentence. Apparatchik (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The entire paragraph is sourced to Uyar, Erickson, A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Atatürk ABC-CLIO (2009). The clause: ...although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist is clearly a dependent clause modifying the main clause's statement about Ottoman victories over a multi-national army in the Balkans. There is no lack of clarity and it is adequately sourced. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Self-congratulatory titles and the lede
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
185.233.181.86 (talk·contribs) added a slew of titles to the article. I objected, not just because nonsense like that does not belong in the lede, but because of poor sourcing. One, and only one, was an academic paper on gender, not history, the others were WP:PRIMARY sources, unfit as a reference. Besides the lede is intended to summarize the content of the article, not nationalistic nonsense. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Censorship
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
For the 'The Armenian Genocide was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its Armenian subjects. An estimated 1.5 million people were killed.' could we get a cartoon or something less graphic please?- Thanks Ooh Saad (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think any pictures of that kind are present. I think censorship is unnecessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linear Seal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, it was just that the image shown was quite graphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Change to the description box(?)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the Description box, there is a map of the Ottoman Empire at the height of its territorial expanse, in 1683. The image is described however as being a map showing its territorial expansion since 1300, despite it not being a GIF. As I do not have editing privileges, I feel that someone who does have it should use them to change its description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:9DAB:A04F:83D4:5D70 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Internet Archive Bot
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Përshëndetje, redaktorë!
Sapo ndryshova 0 lidhje të jashtme te artikulli Ottoman Empire. Ju lutem, shpenzoni pak kohë për të shqyrtuar redaktimin tim. Nëse keni ndonjë pyetje ose dëshironi që t'i injoroj lidhjet apo faqet krejtësisht në të ardhmen, ju lutem, vizitoni këtë faqe për informacione të mëtejshme. Ndër të tjera, aty mund të gjeni dhe informacion se si mund të rregulloni problemet që mund të kem shkaktuar. Kam bërë këto ndryshime:
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
With Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) as its capital
[change to]
With Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) as its capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elevedevie (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The city's name was not officially changed to Istanbul until 1923, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as explained in the article. Constantinople is correct in this case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The last paragraph of the Economics tab should be removed. It does not add to the substance of the article or carry an academic tone. 72.42.154.110 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1- the statement that the map shows Khedivate of Egypt as part of the united kingdom of it's colonies, not as occupied.
2- the statement that it's unsourced
Answer for statement 1: the map does infact state in it's Key that the outline denotes De Facto independence or Being Occupied (aka being de jure part of Ottoman Empire but being otherwise De facto)
Answer for statement 2: The Sources that back up the maps are as follows:
[1] Pavet de Courteille, Abel (1876). État présent de l'empire ottoman (in French). J. Dumaine. pp. 91–96. (for yemen)
First you did not do that map, and it's problematic and unsourced. Those sources are not for that map. Second, stop your disruptive behavior. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You claim I did not do that map, can you tell me what's your proof for this claim? I put the paint.net layer files in the nomination for deletion page in response to you, and the map has both my real name and nickname watermarks on its corners, and I challenge you to give me one link for the map elsewhere on the internet uploaded before the date it was first uploaded on Wikimedia/Wikipedia, don't throw around empty claims slandering people, second, what disruptive are you talking about? even when I made this section here I notified you by transcluding the talk page into your user talk page, and third tell me exactly why and how this map is problematic, maybe I can update it and put a new version on Wikimedia, and those sources I posted back up the information in that map, you can compare each source and its respective area for the map.
there are three ways to verify that i made the map (you can do all three). first one is you can check in the top-left corner of the map you'll see the watermark "AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim AbdulHafiz", the second way is to check to lower-right corner, you'll see the watermark "Made by: Doodlate Here" and under it my discord username "Doodlate Here#6548" from there you can go to discord and verify that im the same person, you can also continue the content dispute there as it is easier. the third way is by seeing the paint.net layer files i linked in the deletion request page AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: Ok you might be right about that, I apologise. But your map still consist of errors such as grammar, etc. Also you might consider another way to denote occupied territories, it's not clear. Beshogur (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: thanks for your understanding, i accept your apology. you can tell me what's wrong about grammer in the map key so that i fix it, i dont know a better way to show occupied territories without the map getting to heavy or heaving weird grid/dotted effects, if there are other problems list them here and ill see if i can fix them AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: right on the infobox some English issues, also I don't think watermark on name is allowed here. Not sure. Also I think best location to place the map is here Ottoman_Empire#Administrative_divisions, not above. Beshogur (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I didn't find any noticeable grammar issues, but I'm not a native speaker, you can list the exact issues and the correct ways to say them, also yes ill put it in its respective area under or above the eyalets map, the watermark is just to avoid someone claiming the map as theirs, I haven't found anything explicitly not allowing it but I think it's allowed as that's the default position to take and because old maps have the name of the author on it I think if you found anything explicit about watermarks you can notify me, however.
btw, can you remove the deletion request from the wikimedia page as this dispute is resolved?. AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (CLT)
Asked for withdraw. Beshogur (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: thanks, by the way do you have a twitter or discord account you can link me too? im working on a project with another person and your knowledge of turkish history can help us, but i need a social media to talk on as its not allowed to discuss things outside wikipedia on wikipedia afaik AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (CLT)
Ottoman Were Turkic
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 12:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
All Empires are already multinational. The term of Empire literally use for describe multiethnic states
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
'At present, most scholarly historians avoid the terms "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" when referring to the Ottomans, due to the empire's multinational character.' So, we must say Bourbons when mentioned to French Empire because of multinational bla bla. This part of article is too senseless and also Sultan's of Ottoman Empire describe themselves as ancestry of Oghuz Khagan which mean legandery Turkish Central Asian leader. Also Europeans mentioned to Ottoman Empire as Turks. So i request for delete this part of article from patrols. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening or good night.
Nonsensical argument. The article cites a source for this - the academic consensus is to use "Ottoman" rather than "Turkish", if the academic consensus in regards to the French Empire was to say "Napoleonic" (the Bourbons never ruled as emperors) instead of "French", Wikipedia would follow that as well. If you have an academic source that disputes "Ottoman" overtaking "Turkish" in academia, you are welcome to provide it, otherwise this should not be changed. That the Europeans called the empire Turkish is already in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: He is right about empires being multiethnic, although ne source doesn't make any mention about nation of ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: Maybe I was a bit too hasty in my reply; of course all empires are multiethnic/multinational but I'd argue that the reason why "Ottoman" is preferred over "Turkish" is not really important - it is preferred in academia and Wikipedia should follow suit regardless of what people think of why it is preferred. If the reason stated in the article is wrong I'm sure that can be amended. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: I understand but reworded the sentence, it was an obvious wp or. Beshogur (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur:@Ichthyovenator: In fact, he is not right at all about empires being multiethnic by definition. Ethnicity is a category of diversity, a social construct with a history. Not everyone idenfitied themselves in ethnic terms, so you'll have to see when/why ethnicity became interesting for certain people. Many groups thought of themselves primarily in religious terms 'as late as' the twentieth century. For references, see many empire studies of the last five to ten years. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:784E:764F:8D5D:162 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
To add a little, the Oxford source you used to rephrase that sentence says the Ottoman empire reached its 'peak' in the sixteenth century, but there is an influential trend coming from empire studies to do away with such big narratives of rise-peak-decline, especially in the case of Ottoman studies. This does not mean that empire scholars ignore 'decline' as it was perceived by certain members of imperial elites. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:784E:764F:8D5D:162 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note #6 says this: "The Ottoman dynasty also held the title "caliph" from the Ottoman victory over the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo in the Battle of Ridaniya in 1517 to the Abolition of the Caliphate by the Turkish Republic in 1924."
Please de-capitalize "Abolition" because this title appears to be just a descriptive title rather than a formal name for the event. 64.203.186.67 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Ottoman Flag is not that flag. The Ottoman flag has a wider crescent. It's the Arabic Wikipedia Version. 173.79.162.223 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Please provide sourcing for this change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Ottomans Were Turkic
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ottoman Empire with subdivision and subjects 1593 map [content dispute]
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
There has been a content dispute with User:Beshogur about File:Ottoman Empire Detailed.png where he deleted the map from this page saying that "not even the flag is correct", and i want to know what exactly is wrong in the map (list all of the problems significant enough to warrant it's removal from this page), why it is wrong, and the source he's relying on to judge the map. AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: I'm not the person responsible for removing the map, which aesthetically looks very nice, but I can point out that the biggest problem with the map in my mind is that it does not list any sources for the information it shows. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, through citing reliable sources. If you go to the Wikimedia Commons page for the map currently used it lists eight sources, whereas the new one lists none. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: thanks for the suggestion,I added sources on the Wikimedia Commons page and they should be easy to view now AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2021 (CLT)
@Ichthyovenator:@Userd898: sorry but I think aesthetically it doesn't look nice in the infobox. Doesn't meet wiki standarts (typical green map). Perhaps you could try make a white version instead of the yellowish colour, and remove the infobox + flag (probably fictional) so we could use it in infobox. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: the flag is not fictional, it is the famous flag used by ottomans until it got the flag that looks like the current one (with some shortly used intermediate flags), while the infobox is actually just the mapkey and the numbered states, so it's needed, and for the typical green map there isnt anything ik of in wikipedia explicitly endorsing it or prohibiting the use of other styled maps, ive seen in other articles maps that break this style, many times. and also it'd be an effort to recreate or edit the map to fit this style due to the many layers it has AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2021 (CLT)
Regardless of its use on Wikipedia, see if you can make the names of the 'foreign powers' outside the Ottoman domains more precise. Like 'Russia' is too general or 'German' Roman empire. Moreover, 'Italian states' and then also 'Papal states' etc. is a bit confusing. And it's quite unclear what the relation with Aceh was. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:D557:A7AC:598A:46F6 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@2001:1C02:1901:ED00:D557:A7AC:598A:46F6: the map is based off the ottoman empire, not it's surroundings, and the name german roman empire isnt uncommon or outside of official use at all, it has been seen in many historical maps and the empire's official name was "the holy roman empire of the german nation" while there's no problem at all with using the common name for russia. as for italian states there's only so much pixels in the map.AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 4:58, 8 May 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: checked your "sources", none of them are wp:rs a lot of youtube channels especially. Beshogur (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: many maps in use on wikipedia are based entirely off youtube channels, especially those algeria eyalet maps that state "based off kayra atakan's works" most of my map is not based on youtube works, and i provided when it was based off those and the sources the youtube channels used.AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: no they are not. Check the current map for example.[3] Even if they are based on yt videos, that's still not a wp:rs. Also I see no reason to add an alleged naval flag.[4]Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that you might be a little bit overly rude in your tone here, Beshogur. Clearly a lot of effort was spent on this map and I am not aware of any "wiki standards" that demand a "typical green map". We have numerous maps that break that pattern - see Roman Empire, Neo-Assyrian Empire, Mitanni, Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Kingdom, Visigothic Kingdom etc. That said, AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim: yeah, WP:RS requires reliable sources and youtube channels are not reliable sources that we can use - you can see if you can find out what sources those youtube channels used for their maps (and then include those as sources), or search around and see if you can track down maps in published, reliable sources that match your map (which you could then use as sources). It is true that maps based on youtube mapping channels may exist on Wikipedia, but those are a problem and we should not add to that problem. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur:@Ichthyovenator: ok so this breaks down into two issues, the flag, and the sources. so beshgour provided evidence that there's no proof of this flag being adopted, which is enough to not be shown due to the burden of proof, but can i know what was the adopted flag back then? (or a description of it) so that i can fix it. the second part of the issue is the sources, ichthyovenator said i can put what these youtubers used as sources, and i already did that, it's in brackets after each youtube channel, do you propose that it'd be better if i removed the channel names completely and only show the sources they used?AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: I'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything about the flag. I don't think you should be adding the map back in until this dispute is resolved (and if it eventually is added in I don't think we need two maps in the infobox). The issue with the sources you include for the map is that they do not meet the requirements for reliable sources, they are from what I can tell non-academic websites and a forum post. The sources used should preferrably be books, research papers, or similar. The eight sources used for the other map are all books. Presumably the sources you used for your map used other sources, presumably books and research papers, for reference, meaning that your map should be fine to use, if you can track down those sources (or if you find any other such sources - even if it wasn't a source you looked at - where the borders match your map). I think your map looks better but per Wikipedia policy the other one takes presdence right now as it is better sourced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: ok i added more sources including academic ones for many subdivisions check them and see if it'd be good to use now in your opinionAbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (CLT)
@Userd898: I've taken the liberty of formatting some of your sources in your image description. The sources you added look good to me but I am not an Ottoman expert so I don't know for sure. I don't think that Ancient-origins.net, Somaliland.net, history.files.co.uk and historycy.org qualify as reliable sources, so if you can find replacements for those I think the map would be good to go. It is also problematic that you just write "wikimedia" as a source - if you've looked at specific images you should write which images you looked at. The posts at historycy seem to cite sources - but I'm not sure what for since I don't speak Polish, could those be used instead of referencing the forum posts themselves? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Userd898: As far as the names of foreign powers go, I am simply saying that you have a very nice map dedicated to accurate names for administrative units etc. Why not also avoid anachronisms and informal terms outside the Ottoman Empire? And like I said earlier, at least clarify what the Sultanate of Aceh is doing on the map (the legend does not clarify what the red striped zones mean). But apart from actual names, I think the territory that you have labelled 'Russia' here had more powers on it - especially around 1593. Perhaps also look at the Hawwara tribe lines, because right now, there are two southern 'borders' of effective rule, so which one is the southern border? These are just some thoughts, I hope you can manage to source your beautiful map properly. Maybe you can use the Cambridge History of Turkey to begin with, many university libraries have access. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:389C:4DBF:50F1:8681 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and perhaps 'Zaporizhian Host' instead of 'Zaphorizia'
Map is not Neutral
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here, it shows British Empire, all uninhabited areas are completely filled with color and shown as under British Empire control.
In the Ottoman Empire map, uninhabited areas are not painted. Because supposedly noone lives there therefore no control.
@88.230.183.231: Please note that the British Empire's claims were recognized by foreign powers after the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, while the Ottoman Empire's claims on uninhabited lands were not recognized by any foreign nation (excluding its vassal/tributary states). MatEditzWiki (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Denialist POV-pushing
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit [5], which I have undone, contains many of the standard denialist tropes, such as eliminating the word "genocide" and replacing it with the weasel word "deportations" ("they weren't exterminated, they were deported!"), attempting to justify the deeds with the "Russian collaboration" canard and framing the genocide on a legal basis with the "Tehcir law" (i.e. it was perfectly legal), and downplaying casualties. The map is also completely superfluous and inaccurate (the OE did not control large areas of Sudan and Somalia (contra Turkish nationalist dreams). Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've got no comment on the map, other than that the sourcing used for it is still insufficient, but Hoeppala needs to stop with the sneaky attempts at downplaying the Armenian genocide, in this article and at Anatolia and Turkey. It's not a good look to go on an ideological crusade to downplay the attempted extermination of an ethnic group. If the low estimate of 600,000 deaths is also supported by the sources, that number could be included together with 1.5 million, but I feel like "up to 1.5 million" already implies the existence of lower estimates and going into excessive detail here is unnecessary and better suited for the individual article on the genocide. I'd also like to remind both Khirurg and Hoeppala of WP:3RR seeing as this is rapidly devolving into an edit war. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely right. Given the reference to Russia's connection to the Armenians, perhaps have a look at the review article by David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, 'Getting to Know the Unknown War', Russian Review 75 (October 2016) 683-689. I think it provides a very decent impression of the scholarly consensus about the practically very minor role of Russian interference and the subsequent massacres of Armenians. Also keep an eye on Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), I remember some sneaky editing there from a few years ago. 2001:1C02:1910:D500:28C8:E109:91A1:E266 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments13 people in discussion
The result was not moved. (NAC) Zoozaz1talk 03:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why on Earth is Ottoman Caliphate a separate article?
Its sections should be added in the relevant areas to the Ottoman Empire article, and Ottoman Caliphate should re-direct there. To talk of specifically caliphate related ideas there is also the Caliphate article. It would be like having a separate article for the Umayyads and Umayyad Caliphate. The only reason to do this is because some of the earlier rulers did not claim to be caliphs - but that doesn't warrant an entire article. If editors really feel the need to compartmentalise this into a section, why not a section called, "Caliphate" on the Ottoman Empire article? ParthikS8 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Merge – I've heard "Ottoman Caliphate" and "Ottoman Empire" used interchangeably. Also they refer to the same political entity so it makes no sense to have two different articles, especially considering how short and incomplete the Ottoman Caliphate article is. Originalcola (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No I don't suggest merging the two subjects, being from the middle east, and having lived there since my childhood till 18 years of age, and studying the history of the region as part of my curriculum in grade and high school, I know the Caliphate is time period that the empire had gone through. We know that the authority and dictatorship had changed phases and definition such as Khedaiwi, sultan, Pasha, in different periods of their history. If you merge the two, your page will be so long and for anyone who's looking for a certain synopsis, the search time might be long.
The Ottoman Caliphate article is really short, lacking in both content and citations. There is also much overlap in content between the 2 articles and the Caliph title was held by the Sultan from 1517 onwards, so there was no real change in authority. Having 2 articles is just confusing. Also sign your post 129.9.75.190. Originalcola (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: two different entities. Comparing it to Ummayads is not correct. Ummayads were a caliphate itself, even had caliphs without owning any land Ottomans not. Beshogur (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm of the same opinion with Beshogur. - Aybeg (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Merge - The state named as Ottoman Empire was already occurs out of provinces, cities, emirates and principalities under the rule of the caliph who is eldest and saneful male member of the Ottoman dynasty. In other words, the caliphate was only the institution that ran the empire. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - The Ottoman Empire existed from 1299-1922. The Ottoman Caliphate existed from 1517-1924. The Caliphate continued to exist past the dissolution of the Empire. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose- The empire and the dynastic entity are not the same thing, nor should they be treated as such. As they have distinct separate important events and historicity. What could be important in say the Caliph article could have zero relevance to the Ottoman Empire itself. There should be a "caliphate" section in this article that also links to the main article. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose- The office of Caliph continued beyond the Ottoman Empire's dissolution and there is potential to expand on the role of the Ottoman rulers as Caliphs in the Ottoman Caliphate article, to a level of detail that would be inappropriate for this article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose- The Ottoman Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire are different entities. While the Ottoman Sultan held the position of the Ottoman Caliph, both positions had their own duties and responsibilities. The Ottoman Empire was formed in 1299, while the Caliphate was formed in 1517 by one of the Ottoman Sultans. In other words, the Caliphate was (kind of) an entity within the Empire, while the Empire was all the lands owned by the Ottoman Dynasty. MatEditzWiki (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per @MatEditzWiki. Ytpks896 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose not even the same subjects. Rather, the caliphate article should be expanded. DriedGrape (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this since they are different things and it looks like most people agree. Tri-Citizen (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Problematic Map
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This map is a combination of other sources which makes it contain original research. This is why it shouldn't be used on this article. Arguments like "The current map is also a combination of sources" are invalid, because this is just a whataboutism argument. If other maps contain original research, they too should be removed from the article.--V. E. (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) @Edmundo Soares:--V. E. (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty normal to create maps based off multiple sources (for cross-checking/reference). As long as there isn't WP:SYNTH, it shouldn't be a violation of OR. That said, I've removed the map as it was redundant duplication (we don't need 2 maps in the infobox), and the other map was included by consensus (see the top of this talk page). If editors want to replace that map with a new one, they should start a conversation on the talk about this. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The map (AnatoliaMap1910) actually is false,incomplete,forged and doesn't match the information given in the source
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
The main original source of this map [6] is [7] in The Uprooting : the expansionist policy of Turkey and the persecutions of the Greeks by the Turks in the 20th century by Institute of Historical Studies, Panepistimiou avenue n° 34, Athens 1985, 58 p., [8] & The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks 1914-1923 p. 15. All other cited sources (as Languages in Asia Minor, 1910, since Baldamus, Alfred; Koch, Julius; Schwabe, Ernst: "Historisches schulatlas", ed. Putzger, Leipzig 1910, p.28, see here were consulted as comparative complements about the ancient times in western Asia (it's a german schoolbook) - see also here, partially diffeent from this map "Asiaminor1910" showing Istanbul as Greek for example, I don't know how he came to that conclusion that Istanbul was majority Greek in 1910 since all population censuess show otherwise, also Bursa/Istanbul is shown as Greek in this map while the map which was given as source shows it as turkish.) Also the map does not give no information of Zazas and is completely wrong about the settlements of Zazas and Laz compared to modern settlements of Lazs and Zazas. So there's no information about Zazas in the source, for modern Laz and Zaza settlements See here or
See here (the source of these maps are based on the site run by Sevan_Nişanyan -> https://nisanyanmap.com The map he uses as source gives no info of Zaza settlements, and they are completely wrong in comparison of modern Zaza settlements. There was no population tranfers or movements of the Lazes in the last 120 years. There were no major Laz settlements west of Rize. Istanbul being majority Greek in 1910 is obviously by all censuses and foreign observers at that time FALSE! Even the sourced "Balkan Mikrasia 1914" doesn't show it as such. For modern last settlements around the Black Sea see: [www.ethnosanatolia.com]. I took the map out since it's not sourced/forged or contradics the source it gives. The orginal source "languages in Asia Minor, 1910, since Baldamus, Alfred; Koch, Julius; Schwabe, Ernst: "Historisches schulatlas", ed. Putzger, Leipzig 1910, p.28 look here which was claimed as basis for this map from 2012-2015 doesn't EXIST. Check the history the map from 2012-2015 you will come to the same conclusion.
His other source (File:Balkan+Mikrasia 1914.jpg) doesn't give the same information as shown in the map (Bursa/Prussa and Istanbul being Greek on this one, while in the source they are shown as turkish, the whole eastern region rather mixed instead of one ethnicity). For example none of his sources show the ethnic make up of the Rize province, but for some reason he managed to show it on his map.
So in my opinion the orginal uploader did this map with contradicting his own sources, even made up sources which doesn't exists, should be deleted till he actually can show screenshots/proof that his sources actually exists. The orginal book claimed to be the source of this map can be bought here : here or you can browse through an online scanned version of the book for free which confirms my point:here for free. You can scan through it for confirmation of what I've said. The source never existed.
An overview of what I'm trieing to say: https://i.ibb.co/mFN54d0/vi1526yr0q711.png
I presume the map was created based on a description of the ethnography of Anatolia in the book, not from a map in the source. Zoozaz1talk 16:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
From which book ? I don't find any describtion. The only ethnographic map in that book is this which is completely different. The modern Laz settlementents don't match the shown in the map, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, neither it matches of the Zazas. Also it contradicts the claimed source "Balkan Mikrasia 1914" map which shows Istanbul,Bursa as Turkish while in the "Asiaminor10" it's shown as Greek. Let alone it contradicts any academic who did an ethnography about those places. I will later add sources about the ethnic make up of Trabzon, from turkish, english, american,russian estimates of that time.
You might want to add a factual accuracy disputed tag on the map on Commons. The only thing that could explain it is that the map author claims the map is sourced from a 1910 edition of the German schoolbook, while only different editions are available online. You also might want to take a look at w:fr:Discussion:Génocide arménien#« Langues parlées en Anatolie en 1910 » and its corollary here. Pinging Varmin and Hégésippe Cormier who participated in the discussion. Zoozaz1talk 17:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Therefore shouldn't be used in this article to show the ethnic make up of Asia Minor. The guy literally claimed a map on a false source for years, then changed it to an inaccessable book which was written in 1985, added another map as source which contradicts his own map or lacks information given in his map. Therefore it's dubious and should not used given the fact that modern settlements of people like the Lazes who didn't change places for the last 120 yeaars is entirely wrong.In eastern Rize the coastal areas were populated by Lazs, in the mountanious hinterland by Hemshin and Turks for example. Meanwhile this map shows the coast as Greek(where Laz live) and and mountanious region as Laz(Where Hemshin and Turks live).
Atabegli (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not even going to try and dig to the bottom of this. I've wasted far too much time trying to challenge deliberately manipulated images related to late Ottoman history over at Commons, and the community there is utterly useless at weeding them out (regular participants just cite c:COM:NPOV and say it's a problem for the wikis that use the images to sort out – a free pass for those using Commons to spread disinformation across multiple wikis). I don't know whether this particular map is false/misleading, or whether the accusations are untrue/biased. Either way, I recommend just getting rid of the map if its accuracy is disputed. The simplest and easiest solution is to only use ethnic/demographic maps that are direct scans from source or with easily verifiable sources, which is not the case here. Better to just do without than have false information in our article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Both are far superior to this one. I don't know what the source of their data is (presumably an Ottoman census?) and how accurate that would be by modern standards, but I'm not a subject matter expert and it's likely the best (i.e. only) available option. At least there's no risk of alternation from on-wiki POV pushers. Thanks for suggesting them, I'd go ahead and choose one to replace it with. Jr8825 • Talk 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The French discussion says the source used in 2012-2015 doesn't exists if Google translate is accurate. The same conclusion I've shown proof for.. The links/images in that discussion are all dead though.
The map File:Subject Nationalities of the German Alliance (1917) (cropped).jpg does show both Turks and Bulgarians in black color, so it doesn't show the Turks in Bulgaria.
It does have text that shows where the Turks were in Bulgaria. Zoozaz1talk 18:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm for it. Atleast it seems somehow accurate for the Black Sea.
Atabegli (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll replace the other map with that one. Zoozaz1talk 18:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Digitized documents at wikilala.com
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you can see I have added wikilala.com to external links. For info I received this reply from destek@wikilala.com when I asked their plans:
"Very happy for your feedback and support. In the first plan we've included almost only the printed materials. In a few months we're planning to get written documents ready for further researches.
....
Please e-mail us whenever you like if you have any questions or problems."
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This sentence seems inaccurate at its core, which comes after a reference to the tanzimat reform effort: “ Thus, over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organised, despite suffering further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged.”
I’d remove it simply because it’s inaccurate. The 19th century is when the term “sick man of Europe” developed, and it is indicated by its repeated losses to the Russian Empire. It probably would have lost the Crimean War without British help.
Still, there may be reason for it, so I thought I’d just point out the rather optimistic characterization rather than change it. Sych (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a basic reality of 19th-century Ottoman history (and cites a reliable academic survey, albeit one that's a little out of date now). The 18th century was a period of decentralization, when state institutions were weak and most aspects of government were handled by local authorities. The early 19th-century reforms, and the Tanzimat in particular, greatly strengthened the central state and its institutions, creating a powerful centralized government able to effectively tax, conscript, and regulate the lives of its population in ways it earlier could not. As the source notes, the Ottoman state had more power over its citizens and subjects in the 19th century than in any period prior. I think you're confusing this with the empire's relative military/geopolitical position vis-a-vis other states, which is something entirely different. Chamboz (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Not claiming that any of what you said was wrong, but I think it's important to stress the reason for this centralization, namely the loss of technological parity or advantage vis-a-vis the European states during the 18th century, which you also stated. So I think simply saying "The empire got more powerful" might not aid people's comprehension much, and rendering
"the Ottoman state had more power over its citizens and subjects in the 19th century than in any period prior"
simply in terms of an empire's general "power" - if such a thing exists - might give the impression that the empire was once again the leader in military technology. Uness232 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable clarification to me. Perhaps the sentence can be changed to, "Thus, over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organised within its own borders, but nevertheless suffered further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged." Do you think that makes it clearer? Chamboz (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. I think "centralized" instead of "organized" might be a bit better, but that's just my own word choice. Uness232 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
89.122.39.11 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I want to add flags at the succeding states on the infobox!
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
We should add flags on successor states.
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I personally think it's a good idea! Many pages have it!
User:Beshogur, provide a reason why do you think it's not a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManUser21 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Beshogur, you haven't told a reason why you disagree with my idea! Please tell a reason! WikiManUser21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably those small flags are not helpful at all, and they're overused that cause visual pollution. Also it's advised to avoid flags on infoboxes. Beshogur (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
1)They are helpful. 2)There's a lot of pages that have it and nothing bad happens there. 3)Let's avoid an edit war.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The ottoman empire was formed at the end of the 12TH century not the 13th so this is the only change I request. 39.42.15.66 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Low quality edits unable to be reversed due to semi-protection:
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Have a look through: [9], and tell me whether "Fixed grammar & spelling" is the correct way to characterize such changes, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C19:4C00:C8F6:E573:7731:D651 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The movement to American spelling was ok, but agreed - that "fixing" introduced some errors. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Map image revert
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed someone changed the map image, in defense of my edit, almost all other empires for example German Empire, Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary use the same map image, I don’t see a reason to break that tradition, nothing wrong with it in my opinion. Redman19 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Chracterizing Istibdat and Abdul Hamid II's rule
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Recently there have been a few edits (and reverts) on whether the rule of this guy could be considered a dictatorship or a totaliatarian state. While I have my own thoughts on the issue, I'm opening this section to gather consensus. How do we characterize Istibdat? Uness232 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Abdul Hamid II definitely changed the country back to absolute monarchy. The notion that totalitarianism is total political power which is exercised by the state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola.
In the book titled Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968), French analyst Raymond Aron outlined five criteria for a regime to be considered as totalitarian:
A one-party state where one party has a monopoly on all political activity. (nope)
A state ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given status as the only authority. (nope)
State information monopoly that controls mass media for distribution of official truth. (probably)
State controlled economy with major economic entities under the control of the state. (nope)
Ideological terror that turns economic or professional actions into crimes. Violators are exposed to prosecution and to ideological persecution. (probably)
So this is definitely not totalitarianism. Also considering he's the sultan, how does he even become a dictator? There's a narrow line between those two terms. Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a revisionist exercise that would obviously never end - how many sultans, kings and emperors would we have to re-crown as "totalitarian dictators" if we followed the logic of these attempted edits? Totalitarianism is a concept that exists within a system with a party structure by excluding any and all other potential parties from power. It is unrelated to the power of monarchs, because their rule is already absolute and they have no party - they are individuals and the power that they wield stems, in principle, from the presumption of their divine right to wield it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, my question was a more general "How do we characterize the differences between Abdul Hamid and other sultans, as his regime was* a time of greater censorship, religious fanaticism (a la Hamidian massacres) and desexualization along European lines (see Dror Ze'evi's work on this) than most other sultans?" kind of question, but if the answer to that is a simple "We can't", I understand that as well.
*the modern narrative of the merciless tyrant Abdul Hamid is less than true of course, but it still does apply somewhat. Uness232 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, you sort of have your answer right there - kings that overstep tend to be called tyrants. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Uness232: the distinction between Abdulhamid's rule and other sultans should be made in the article body, not the infobox summary. Absolutism/autocratic rule is what the sources say (e.g. Shaw or the Encyclopaedia of Islam – both paywalled so try the Wikipedia Library if you don't have access); they don't call him a dictator. Absolute monarchy is the best term for the system of government, see the Russian Empire for comparison. Jr8825 • Talk 19:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for all of your responses. Uness232 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
His reign from 1878 to 1908 was a royal/monarchic dictatorship, characterized by autocratic, anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary, and anti-constitutional rule. All persons and organizations contrary to the Sultan's personality and policies were put under pressure. Democratic laws were replaced by the full sovereignty of the Sultan. He was one of the people who interrupted the democratic development of Turkey. The constitution of that period gave the Sultan the greatest authority, it's true. However, it is despotic to suspend the constitution and dissolve the parliament, and to keep it closed for 30 years. The references I have included in this article are available in the following article: Constitution of the Ottoman Empire#Initial Suspension of the Constitution. - Aybeg (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
While you seem to make a fair point, I think most people here are looking for quotes, directly from sources. If you continuously make the same point without bringing new information to the table, it is unlikely that a new consensus will be formed. Uness232 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
autocratic, anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary, and anti-constitutional rule as if 14-17th sultans had all those things. This is indeed absolute monarchy. Beshogur (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Eh, I wouldn't characterize most sultans as any of these things (except autocratic, but that's a given), not because they were fans of democracy (far from it), but because none of them had to resort to any anti-democracy/constitutional action. The public never had democratic ideals until the 19th, and there wasn't much to suppress. Abdul Hamid II was the first one to make use of widespread public censorship, fanaticism and fear to sustain his rule, so in a way I see where Aybeg is coming from. However, as Jr8825 has rightly pointed out (and I missed while creating this somewhat useless thread), the sources never use the word dictator, and I think (as you said, I believe) Aybeg needs to find mainstream sources (and quote them) before making such edits. Uness232 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eml5597. Peer reviewers: Mjc6876.
Ottomans were very distinct from the Turkic peoples!
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
They were literally arabs and persians (pashtoon) their official languages were persian (pashtoon) and arabic and turkic people were just slaves of them especially of dynasty! Their culture was a mixture of the arab and persian ones even they used the "turk" word like a swear. Moreover they just wiped out and masscared many of the turkmen tribes in only few years! Mehmet93069 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get your information from, but this seems to contradict all scientific consensus by a long shot.
1) The Ottomans were the ruling dynasty of a Turkoman beylik that grew to be a multicultural, multi-religious empire. They were very unenthusiastic in defining their ethnic roots, yes. However, they were definitely more Turkic than they were Arab or Persian (ethnically, and perhaps even linguistically; Ottoman Turkish was syntactically and gramatically closer to Modern and Old Anatolian Turkish than to Arabic or Persian, despite the heavy use of Persian loanwords).
2) The Ottomans were a Persianate empire, especially until the 16th century. This means that they borrowed the art, culture and traditions of Persia. However, keep in mind that Persianate != Persian != Pashtun, and also that the Ottomans were not just Persianate; many aspects of Ottoman society could be variously linked back to Byzantine, Greek and even Armenian and Sephardic traditions.
3) "Turk" was not a swear word in the Ottoman Empire. It did refer to lower-class Anatolian Muslims, so calling an aristrocratic Ottoman (or a Rûmi [lit. person from the land of the Romans], as they would call themselves) a Turk would be an insult, albeit not a racial or ethnic slur.
4) The unorganized massacres of Turkmens (more specifically Kizilbash) in the Ottoman Empire, and specifically in the reign of Selim I, were not related to their ethnic identity. These massacres, usually carried out near the Persian border, had one purported reason; to deal with the "heretical" Shia beliefs of said Qizilbash, especially during wartime. This in no way excuses these acts of course, but ethnicity simply did not play a large role in Ottoman politics and ideology until Westernization in the 19th century.
I hope this helps clear things up. Most of this information is already in the article, so if you're looking for sources, you know where to go. Uness232 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware, but what I've noticed is that this person is more so clueless than bad-faith. Uness232 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Images and captions
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In addition to Moxy's valid point about the number of images, I would also suggest that editors keep captions relatively short and simple, per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. Many images in the history section, in particular, have very long captions that read like summaries of a whole topic, rather than merely identifying the subject of the image. Some context may be needed to make an image's relevance to the main text clear, but this shouldn't take more than one sentence or so. Let the article's main text (or any linked pages) do the heavy lifting in explaining the events being illustrated. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In response to the issue raised by the maintenance tag, I've made a tentative edit (this) that cuts a large number of images across the article. You can compare it with the preceding version of the page here.
The choice of which images to cut is ultimately a little subjective, but I've tried to focus on: cutting down in the most crowded sections, cutting images less relevant to the next (e.g. illustrating something that isn't directly mentioned in the main text), cutting repetitive images (things that were arguably illustrated by more than one image), cutting images that for technical reasons don't show up near their relevant article section (e.g. on my display the first image in the Name section got pushed way down due to sidebars), and a few other specific reasons (e.g. one historical image had no precise date or author indicated on its caption or Commons description page). I made other minor follow-up changes relating to MOS:IMAGELOCATION and MOS:CAPFRAG.
Editors could easily chose a different selection to cut, or take a different approach to this issue. If this edit isn't satisfactory feel free to revert, amend, discuss, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced map
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Chronus: You have been around long enough to know that: a) WP:OR is a non negotiable policy and b) you don't reintroduce what is unsourced it once challenged (in fact, you are not even supposed to add it in the first place). M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@M.Bitton Your are just a WP:SPA who are try to do the same turkish propaganda of always. I will report your disgraceful behavior to the project administration. Chronus (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus: Your personal attacks have been duly noted. M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The link to "millet" doesn't work; this is not acceptable. Please fix. SuperHarmony910 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Caliphate abolition took place in 1924 after the Ottoman Empire's dissolution. When the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923, the Empire collapsed and the caliphate became a role in Turkish politics, not Ottoman. The Empire's history ended when the Republic founded on 1923. In this case, at the info box, history section; - Caliphate abolished - line shall be removed.
Nope. It's an aftermath important event. Beshogur (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
As you said, "aftermath". Avriya (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It is important contextual information. I don't see any purpose in excluding it except for reasons of pedanticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to include those names, in bold, to designate the Ottoman Empire in various sources, prior becoming an empire. But have no idea how. Any ideas? Beshogur (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"the" Sublime Ottoman State
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is no need for the definite article in what is a translation of the Turkish. Just as there is no l' before the French translation and no "the" in the title of the page (but there is at the start of the first sentence), so it isn't needed in the translation of the Turkish. It may be required in a sentence, but the translation is not a sentence. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Add an explanation for "Sublime Porte"
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pamuk, Şevket (2000). A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to mention that this source is obsolote, there are three different coins found of Osman until this day. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Nicaea as the Capital of the Ottoman Empire
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I noticed that, when listing the Empire's capitals, Nicaea is listed for the years 1301-1326. However, as far as I could tell the Ottomans didn't even gain control of the city until 1331, let alone make it their capital. Am I missing something here, or is that a mistake? 202.24.81.201 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for warning. I edited that part. Also earlier diffs used 1331–1335 (which I added personally a while ago). Someone vandalised it, and I missed the dates. Beshogur (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
POV in the religion section?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There has been an POV tag in the religion section for years now. I have now read the section in detail, and while there absolutely are things that could be added (legal equality on-paper after Tanzimat, rising religious persecution in the late 19th century that culminated in the genocides etc.), I don't see how this is not a fair (albeit a rather surface level) introduction to religion in the Ottoman Empire; particularly pre-19th century. I would consider removing the tag, but I wanted to get consensus first (or if a convincing argument is made, fix the section), what are the problems with the section? Uness232 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I've removed it. It was nonsensical. The reasons provided wasn't reason enough for a tag. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable Source Citation 176
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The source is from Nasser al-Fahd, known for his extreme views (playing football being polytheism, nuclear weapons against the USA) Mayouhm (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Not only that, he is in no way a historian. Removed the sentence. Uness232 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Mayouhm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023 (2)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The last sultan of the Ottoman Empire was Abdülhamid II. Vortexcyan (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝) 08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Correction of the map
Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I have changed the map of the Ottoman Empire. I have found this map in Wikimedia Commons. Morocco was a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Please read the article Morocco–Turkey relations, section "Saadian dynastic feuds and Ottoman influence". It is mentioned:
"Ramazan Pasha and Abd al-Malik left from Algiers in order for Abd al-Malik to be placed on the Saadi throne as an Ottoman vassal.[1] Ramazan Pasha arrived in Fez with Abd al-Malik and the Ottoman army and conquered Fez, this caused the Saadi Sultan to flee to Marrakesh which was also conquered. [2][3] Abd al-Malik then assumed rule over Morocco as an Ottoman vassal recognising Ottoman suzerainty.[4][5][6][7][8][9] He sent the Ottoman troops back to Algiers in exchange for gold while suggesting a looser concept of vassalage than the Ottoman sultan may have supposed. [2] Abd al-Malik recognised himself as a vassal of the Sublime Porte."[10]Gauhar2806 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Your map is low quality content. Beshogur (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
My map is of very high quality. I found it in the Wikimedia Commons. All your maps are incorrect because Morocco hasn't been shown as a part of the empire.Gauhar2806 (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you kidding? How is is this a "very high quality" map. I can see the pixels floating with my bare eyes. Also it's a stolen map (I don't know from where) and it doesn't even have a legend. Stop edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Your map is geographically incorrect. It doesn't show Morocco as a part of the empire. As long as you solve this problem your map will never be allowed in the infobox.Gauhar2806 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The current map has been there for a long time, and you cannot replace it without consensus. The map you are trying to add is grossly inaccurate, as it shows large chunks of Africa and the interior of Arabia as part of the Empire, which is highly inaccurate. Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Large chunks of Africa (Ottoman Tripolitania) was definitely part of the Ottoman Empire. And also much of Saudi Arabia was vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Everyone knows the Saudi Arabians declared independence from the Ottoman empire in World War I. The problem with the current map is it doesn't show Morocco as a part of the empire. And also the tiny map (map of 1914) being shown in the infobox is not acceptable. I think it is intentional to undermine the Ottoman Empire. I want a consensus for my map. The editors who are seeing this please make your comment in the talk page.Gauhar2806 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
As long as you solve this problem your map will never be allowed in the infobox. .. I want a consensus for my map. is this sort of dictatorship? Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
And also the tiny map (map of 1914) being shown in the infobox is not acceptable. Tiny map is like 2,5 million km2. I added two other maps as well showing two other periods, you can click. The reason it shows 1914, because the closest date to its dissolution. Prior to the WW1. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, actually unsure about this. 1683 map can be shown as first as well. Want to hear other users. Beshogur (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The new map is pretty ugly and has a big problem in that it has territory marked in two colors, but without any indication of what those colors mean. I have little knowledge about the historical issues, but I will note that regarding the question of whether Morocco should be included in Ottoman territory, our Morocco article says "Morocco was the only North African nation to escape Ottoman dominion", and I see several sources that support this. So I think the current map is better for both aesthetics and historical accuracy.Also, Gauhar2806, please do not make unsupported accusations like I think it is intentional to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Please read WP:AGF and act accordingly. CodeTalker (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
^ La bataille de l'Oued el-Makhâzen: dite bataille des Trois Rois (4 aout 1578) Pierre Berthier
Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1985
Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023 (2)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ottoman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The last sultan of the Ottoman Empire was Abdülhamid II. Vortexcyan (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝) 08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Correction of the map
Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I have changed the map of the Ottoman Empire. I have found this map in Wikimedia Commons. Morocco was a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Please read the article Morocco–Turkey relations, section "Saadian dynastic feuds and Ottoman influence". It is mentioned:
"Ramazan Pasha and Abd al-Malik left from Algiers in order for Abd al-Malik to be placed on the Saadi throne as an Ottoman vassal.[1] Ramazan Pasha arrived in Fez with Abd al-Malik and the Ottoman army and conquered Fez, this caused the Saadi Sultan to flee to Marrakesh which was also conquered. [2][3] Abd al-Malik then assumed rule over Morocco as an Ottoman vassal recognising Ottoman suzerainty.[4][5][6][7][8][9] He sent the Ottoman troops back to Algiers in exchange for gold while suggesting a looser concept of vassalage than the Ottoman sultan may have supposed. [2] Abd al-Malik recognised himself as a vassal of the Sublime Porte."[10]Gauhar2806 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Your map is low quality content. Beshogur (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
My map is of very high quality. I found it in the Wikimedia Commons. All your maps are incorrect because Morocco hasn't been shown as a part of the empire.Gauhar2806 (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you kidding? How is is this a "very high quality" map. I can see the pixels floating with my bare eyes. Also it's a stolen map (I don't know from where) and it doesn't even have a legend. Stop edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Your map is geographically incorrect. It doesn't show Morocco as a part of the empire. As long as you solve this problem your map will never be allowed in the infobox.Gauhar2806 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The current map has been there for a long time, and you cannot replace it without consensus. The map you are trying to add is grossly inaccurate, as it shows large chunks of Africa and the interior of Arabia as part of the Empire, which is highly inaccurate. Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Large chunks of Africa (Ottoman Tripolitania) was definitely part of the Ottoman Empire. And also much of Saudi Arabia was vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Everyone knows the Saudi Arabians declared independence from the Ottoman empire in World War I. The problem with the current map is it doesn't show Morocco as a part of the empire. And also the tiny map (map of 1914) being shown in the infobox is not acceptable. I think it is intentional to undermine the Ottoman Empire. I want a consensus for my map. The editors who are seeing this please make your comment in the talk page.Gauhar2806 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
As long as you solve this problem your map will never be allowed in the infobox. .. I want a consensus for my map. is this sort of dictatorship? Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
And also the tiny map (map of 1914) being shown in the infobox is not acceptable. Tiny map is like 2,5 million km2. I added two other maps as well showing two other periods, you can click. The reason it shows 1914, because the closest date to its dissolution. Prior to the WW1. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, actually unsure about this. 1683 map can be shown as first as well. Want to hear other users. Beshogur (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The new map is pretty ugly and has a big problem in that it has territory marked in two colors, but without any indication of what those colors mean. I have little knowledge about the historical issues, but I will note that regarding the question of whether Morocco should be included in Ottoman territory, our Morocco article says "Morocco was the only North African nation to escape Ottoman dominion", and I see several sources that support this. So I think the current map is better for both aesthetics and historical accuracy.Also, Gauhar2806, please do not make unsupported accusations like I think it is intentional to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Please read WP:AGF and act accordingly. CodeTalker (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
^ La bataille de l'Oued el-Makhâzen: dite bataille des Trois Rois (4 aout 1578) Pierre Berthier
Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1985
About the maps
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I removed it because the 1683 map also hightlights territories lost after 1590, which was the territorial peak. Beshogur (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 12:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:31 March Incident § Proposed merge of Ottoman countercoup of 1909 into 31 March Incident. Jr8825 • Talk 18:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eml5597. Peer reviewers: Mjc6876.
.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpireMain.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fictitious_Ottoman_flag_3.svg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_source_never_exists.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
