Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 4

message: I would suggest that we use the name "Constantinople" to refer to the city which existed before the Ottomans conquered it. So, "The Fall of Constantinople". After the Ottomans conquered it, I suggest we refer to the Ottoman capital as Istanbul. In both cases, it's reasonable to use the other name in brackets.
--Merlinme 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the brackets, but not about which name will be each time in and out (if my opinion counts!)! I had the same problem, when I wrote some parts of Phanariote article and I didn't know which name of the city to choose. Then I went to Constantinople article and I saw that the name of the city officially changed to Instabul in 1930. So, until then Constantinople was the official name. That is why I think that during the whole Ottoman period historically the right name is Constantinople. Now if you want to mention Instabul under parenthesis, I'm Ok! But not vice versa; in this case we reverse the historical reality and continuity!--Yannismarou 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The most commmon name for the capital at that time (in English) was Constantinople, and this is the English Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I agree with Haydarhan here. The criterion is not what was the common English name among the contemporaries of the Ottoman empire; the criterion is what is today the common English name when talking about the Ottoman empire, in retrospect. This is the 21-century English Wikipedia, not a 19th-century encyclopedia. In my experience, modern historical works in English (those dealing specifically with Turkey and the Ottomans) predominantly use "Istanbul". (About the historical usage facts, please see my rewrite of the Names of Istanbul page and discussion there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I say Istanbul is a better choice of name. -- WiiVolve 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I agree that the Ottomans had ALL of the technologies mentioned better than the Europeans. Here, watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire+of+faith&hl=en
-- WiiVolve 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Constantine founded the city and nobody had any problem with it for centuries. Mehmet the Conquer named himself as the Roman Caesar (Kayzer-i Rüm) and he synthesised the Roman heritage with Anatolian Turkish traditions, the city became Konstantiniye. Istanbul name was choosed as the legal name of the city during the Republican Era. I think, it is better to use Constantinople while editing history related articles. Deliogul 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantinople vs. Istanbul 

message: I have removed this sentence as this is clearly incorrect. What advantages? When? 
The technological and scientific advantages the Ottomans had once enjoyed over the European powers (as a result of the medieval synthesis of classical learning with Islamic philosophy and mathematics by Ottoman scholars and the guilds of writers, and knowledge of such Chinese advances in technology as gunpowder and the magnetic compass) had long since evaporated.80.41.89.31 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree that the Ottomans had ALL of the technologies mentioned better than the Europeans. Here, watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire+of+faith&hl=en
-- WiiVolve 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Constantine founded the city and nobody had any problem with it for centuries. Mehmet the Conquer named himself as the Roman Caesar (Kayzer-i Rüm) and he synthesised the Roman heritage with Anatolian Turkish traditions, the city became Konstantiniye. Istanbul name was choosed as the legal name of the city during the Republican Era. I think, it is better to use Constantinople while editing history related articles. Deliogul 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technological advantages

message: I didnt understand what is them into infobox, british mandate of iraq etc.. if it is the states after dissolution of ottoman empire, bulgaria greece etc should be add. it doesnt clear understand for everyone. it should be romeved or do something for being more intelligible.  Zaparojdik 01:04 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would like to take your word on "do something for being more intelligible." Hope you do not just talk bad for the things that are done, but seriously improve the CONTENT. A) The info box is required by Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries, all previous countries have the same format. B) The next states originating from Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, These are the states that originate after 1922(dismantle), Bulgaria was before Ottoman Empire dismantled, so it does not count. If you are interested you can work on the article Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and add any other state that is not included on that list. GOOD LUCK--OttomanReference 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of states formed by the partitionaing of the Ottoman Empire is quite large. Therefore, to reduce (and hopefully avoid) disagreement, I have set the successor state to the one undisputed state (and main legal state) that replaced the Ottoman Empire: Turkey. - 52 Pickup 14:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It doesnt look good 

message: "Constantinople (Istanbul)"
I think that this should be reversed into "Istanbul (Constantinople)". Please support.
-- WiiVolve 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Constantinople is the proper way. I mean, Constantine founded the city right? ıt is better to use Constantinople for historical references. Deliogul 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is something like the "Great State of Ottomans" or the "State of the House of Osman". Ottoman language is confusing but its translation must be like these. See you, Deliogul 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantinople & Istanbul 

message: The words Late Ottoman Flag in the infobox currently link to Flag. I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to get them to link to Ottoman flag. Help? - TheMightyQuill 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag link 

message: Well.. I don't want to get hyped over this, so I will simply ask people their opinions on what names should be included in the intro. Persian, Greek, Ottoman, Turkish etc. If the fact that it was an empire that interacted with many language groups is what is motivating this, then we should create another article similar to Names of Istanbul. So what do you think? Baristarim 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacrimosus just suggested that Holy Roman Empire went through a similar debate. That article now has a Nomenclature section. Perhaps that's all that's needed here? - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, those four are good enough. But that's up to everyone to decide. -- WiiVolve 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, there are also many names that have not been added, so it doesn't simply come down to four names. There are its names in Arabic, Armenian, Bulgarian you name it. And its names as referred to by its people or the Ottoman government like "Sublime Ottoman state", the "eternal state" in the Ottoman language and Arabic alphabet. They have also changed over 7 centuries :) So I suppose that a seperate nomenclature article might be the way to go. There have been outbreaks of small-scale edit-wars over this, so maybe a seperate article would satisfy it.Baristarim 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - We need a separate article for the history of the name of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe WikiProject Turkey will lend us a hand :) -- WiiVolve 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not start with a separate section within this article. If it becomes big enough to require its own article, so be it. Right now, we don't have more than a relatively short list. -- TheMightyQuill 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language merry go round

message: There is surely far too much information in the introduction at the moment. The opening paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article, not a list of countries and seas which the Ottoman Empire came into contact with at some point in six centuries. Compare the article, on, say, the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire introduction is half the size of the Ottoman Empire introduction, and it has far fewer references to specific countries and oceans. 
At the moment the opening paragraphs to the Ottoman Empire just read like a list, and it really doesn't help the reader get a quick idea of what was significant about the Empire. I'm seriously tempted to remove half a dozen sentences. Do we really need to know about the isle of Lundy, and what happened in 1627, in the introduction to an article about six centuries of history?
I'll remove some of this detail in a few days, unless someone else can come up with a better way of organising the text.
--Merlinme 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability of the introduction 

message: The Ottoman Empire is an Islamic empire. The sultans strived for unity between muslims. Everything was done in perspective with Islam. So dont call it a Turkish Empire but a Islamic Empire.
:Another unsigned post... You must first look at the discussion above which is also about the identity of the empire. Many people don't think like you and we decided to remove the "Islamic" thing. Deliogul 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: It reads like this: "Also please note that these people invented the foot rest and have many many sweatshops that they work in but dont work because that they are stupid (ottoman). "
Carecafe 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see it was corrected while I was registering to report this. Carecafe 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the introduction sabotaged? 

message: This is a very poorly written article- which does not advocate the neutral point of view. First of all, it is a simple lie that Serbia opposed the Ottoman for a hundred years. the parts that were opposing, were the parts under command of the Ungaro-croatian kingdom- viz. Belgrade, Macva, Vojvodina. This wa NOT medieval Serbia (which was southern than today's Serbia, and it shouldn't be treated as such. This looks like the work of an amateur, who is trying to sell to someone political propaganda.
The Ungaro-croatian commanders are not even mentioned- people like Hunyadi or Zrinski, who were highly esteemed even in Istambul, and were always considerd by the Turks themselves as worthy opponents, as well as great men. (For example, Nicholaus Zrinski, was highly thought of by Mehmed-pasha Sokolovic, i.e. the Ottoman commander, and grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire who conquered Hungary (Szigetvar, 7. sept. 1566) and was ready to take on Vienna again.)
Some of them, after they fell, received a Christian funeral by the Turks after their deaths (for example, the defenders of Gvozdansko, 12. january 1578), which was a token of admiration of their courage and bravery by the Ottoman commanders. These events should be mentioned, since they speak not only of the brave men and women who lost their lives then, but also of the fact that the Turks were not savages trying to destroy Christianity as they were often described in Europe, but honoroble and noble men who respected their enemies, at the extent of speaking latin christian prayers at their graves. It is a pity that such chivalry is no more. (imagine an american commander in Iraq delivering to an Iraqi a muslim funeral-and this is now, while Gvozdansko was more than four centuries back!)
The moral of this story is that wikipedia should not be used as a place to tell stories, but for exploring facts. My message to whoever wrote this article is to take up books and research them. Knowing english, as any worthy historian will confirm is not enough, latin, german, hungarian and turkish is also needed to explore this period of european history. Any one who cites only english books is a narrow-minded egoist who thinks of himself to have drunk all the knowledge from the world
Military history is of this period is the article Rise of the Ottoman Empire. This section gives "one sentence" summary of 200 years of this specific period. --OttomanReference 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, If you were giving your proper tax, you could pray whoever you want and you didn't have to serve to the Ottoman military. Some argues that it is better than the crushing European feudal lords' rule and others think that, even if the old administration was clearly bad, the Turkish rule was not fit into the European understanding. This can be a long debate but you don't have enough evidence to declare the time of Ottomans as a reign of terror. See you, Deliogul 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: "Women nearly always choose the Islamic courts, as these courts tended to be fairer towards them and to give them more just recompense."
This is the wrong use of tense. It looks as though someone has tampered with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.188.183 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in the law section 

message: I just found a few websites that deal with the Ottoman Empire.  Is there any way we can use them in this article? --Insineratehymn(talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Baristarim 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two sites look like honest, relatively unbiased attempts at pulling together useful information. However, I don't think they can substitute for scholarly sources. They aren't published by reputable book publishers or in reputable journals, they don't give sources for their information (no footnotes or even bibliography), and one of them doesn't even list the author; the other one says "World Cultures has been designed for freshman-level students".  So these are weak sources at best. --Macrakis 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will this help? 

message: In this article, Istanbul is listed as the fourth capital.  Istanbul says "Istanbul became the third capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453."  Clearly the same convention should be used on both of these articles. Calbaer 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can argue that the first true administrative capital of the Ottomans was Bursa. According to this logic, İstanbul was the third one after Bursa and Edirne. At the early stages of the Ottoman Beylik, the political center of the Ottomans was the Otağ (Tent) of the Bey (actually, Osman Bey). See you, Deliogul 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital contradiction