Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 2

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

message: the motto of the empire was 'devlet-i ebed-müddet' (civitas eterna in Latin) which means the eternal state. --Msu512 06:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I'll add it. The English translation would be 'the Eternal State', or? /The Phoenix 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOTTO 

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

message: Why has the table been replaced with Infobox Country (a template used for data about modern countries)? What is the reason? I see none to support it. Rather, it: 1) is unnecessary; 2) includes data about Internet TLD, etc, and that is completely horrible. Why have the table changed to Infobox Country? /The Phoenix 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was a country, but I don't understand why there should be a template instead of a table including all the data neccessary and excluding all the uneccessary data. I propose a switch from template to table. If we do, we can include whatever we want, but we don't have to include things that doesn't belong there, such as Internet TLD. And if the position of the flag is better (which I agree to) using the layout provided by the infobox, we take that and all the positive things about it and put it into an ordinary table. Thus, we'll have all the benefits and none of the negative sides. /The Phoenix 17:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Country???? 

message: It said: Sultan Abdülaziz had to be called back under the promise that he would ease the way to a constitutional monarch. Sultan Abdülaziz changed the centuries old state structure at November 23, 1876. He declared the name of the new constitution as Kanun-i Esasi. It lasted until the Crimean War.
Since the Crimean War was already over for 20years when the Sultan allegedly reformed the state structure I erased the last sentence from the text. However, I haven't the foggiest when these reforms actually took place. Could be prior to the Crimean War for all I know. Could someone please check this?
--Istabraq 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts in chapter "Decline (1828-1908)"? 

message: The whole article is in bad shape. 
The "State" section is especially bad. Poor English, and biased, it looks like its describing the states relationship with Jews and the Orthodox church, than outling the state's structure, which is what I'm guessing the "State" section is supposed to be about. Its full of references too vague to make sense. Until this section is rewritten and moved, I think the article is better without it. 
"Law", "Culture", and "Religion" also need rewriting.--Yodakii 12:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Detail is certainly important, but so is style and grammar. I think a short well-written article is still better than a long, hard to understand one. In any case, I'll try to fix what I can. --Yodakii 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I believe we should represent this phrase in the Ottoman script.  I believe it would be
!Vpendse 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daulat-i Abbat Muddat 

message: The article is getting quite large and I think there it may be better to have a seperate article for the history of the Ottoman state. --Yodakii 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it is a problem as it is. It is broken down well. I think Tommiks did a good job. --A.Garnet 18:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Also, when Allied forces including the Arabs and Armenians eventually defeated Ottoman forces in the Middle East. I don't know of any work that includes the Armenians in the defeat in the Middle East. W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff in "Caucasian Battlefields : A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border, 1828-1921" don't even report in the zone of the third army, now one would have hard time imagining for the Middle East proper. I'd like this to be sourced. Fadix 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate an explaination soon. Thanks Fadix 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would appreciate Tommy explaining this deletion 

message: Ottomans were having the whole Arabian peninsula. Especially Holy places for Muslims like Mecca and Medina. But your map is wrong. Please have a search on that event.
Thank you.
They also loosly controlled Sudan.
Cameron Nedland 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is wrong 

message: Division of Ottoman History into Eras in this article does not comply with the Turkish Historiography.
which uses the following convention:
# Independence(1299) to fall of constantinople 1453 : Foundation Phase
# thence till death of grand vizier Sokolovitz : Rise
# thence till 2nd Siege of Vienna(1683) : Stagnation
# thence till Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca(1774) : Decline
# thence till Abolishment of Monarchy(1922) after the Great War : Dissolution
What is the source of the convention used in this article?
and should we or should we not change it?
--Calm 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division of Ottoman History into Eras 

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

message: The flag used by the Ottoman Empire was very similar to the one used by the Republic of Turkey. Some claim that the country had lots of different flags, but every country has different flags (Naval Jacks, Civil Ensigns, Presidential Ensigns, Ministers Flags, Merchant Flags, Civil Flags and State Flags to mention some). The State Flag of the Ottoman Empire looked like the Turkish one, since there are several photographs from late XIX century and early XX century displaying various official state events like diplomatic conferences/mettings and others (like the picture displaying the declaration of the Holy War against the Entente in 1914) which clearly show the flag they used.
--
The flag used by the Ottoman Empire has changed over time significantly and it is uncertain which one should be put on the article. However, what is certain is, that the current flag on the article is the flag of the Republic of Turkey exactly and it is not of the Ottoman Empire despite any similarities.
:I think the preceding comments may be correct- I've done a little Googling and all the flags (ex http://www.fotw.net/flags/eg-ott.html, )http://i-cias.com/e.o/ottomans.htm) appear to be a single crescent moon and white star, not three moons and no star. In addition, helpdesk received a complaint to the effect that: "http://www.halukakcam.com/Bayraklar/Bayrak3.htm The flag that is currently on the page for the "ottoman empire " is the flag of republic of Turkey. The above ling has the correct flag. The crescent shape and the star shape are different. thank you for the correction"
:This is a pretty major error if true; please find out the truth of this matter. If I can find a replacement flag, I will. --maru  (talk) contribs 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... nm. I should've seen it was just a vandal... --maru  (talk) contribs 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I can assure you, that the latest flag the Ottoman Empire used is identical to the flag of the modern Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire had that flag from 1844 until its dissolution in 1922. The Republic of Turkey which was subsequently founded, used the same flag. Latinus 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flag of the Ottoman Empire 

message: The competing maps are both off somewhat. The Ottoman conquests extended a little more south in North Africa, as with Libya and Tunisia in particular.  Also, the Ottomans basically controlled most of Egypt and extended with a contigous range into a small part of northern Sudan. In addition, they controlled all of western Arabia, the Hijaz. They did not however, conquer Circassia or extend past Dagestan. Probably should adjust the map to reflect this. Tombseye 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The map which I have seen in the link is much more better. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was reading about Ottoman conquests and find that both maps are off 

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

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

message: I suggest removing the image of Le Bain turc (in the Culture section), because it neither represents the culture/reality of the Ottoman society nor is it an example of the art of that society. 
Ingres, a Frenchman, did not even visit the Ottoman domains; his painting was "inspired" by the writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu:  
:..in Ingres’s Le bain turc, a painting from a century later supposed to have been inspired by Montagu’s account, but one which foregrounds lounging and fondling, rather than the conversation and beautification activity Lady Mary describes.
Such an image should be included in an article about the Western misrepresentation of the Ottoman Empire and not one about the actual empire. --DelftUser 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate image… 

message: A recent edit changed "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu" to "Osmanlı Devleti" in the infobox, with the comment "it is most commonly termed 'state' (devlet) in modern Turkish)".  This is no doubt true, but I don't think the either modern Turkish name is what belongs in the infobox -- it is the contemporary name which belongs there; I believe it is already correctly indicated (in both Ottoman Turkish and in Latin scripts) as "Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye".  Comments? --Macrakis 15:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see -  دولتِ عَليه عُثمانيه transliterates as dvlt-i 'aliyh 'usmanyh - so the "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu"/"Osmanlı Devleti" is not in the Ottoman Turkish text. In Roman Republic, it has the Latin name and then the English name, whereas Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth omits it. I guess it's up to the editors. I think that the modern Turkish text is misleading and only the Ottoman Turkish text should be left (along perhaps with a direct English translation). --Latinus 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with the removal of the modern Turkish entirely (I was not, however, bold enough to remove it entirely—I've always been a bit too mousey for the Wikipedia:Be Bold editing guideline). Anyhow, my own change to Osmanlı Devleti was a bit rash: the period before Sultan Mehmet II's conquering of Constantinople in 1453 is termed devlet (as a subsequent check revealed), while afterwards it was, in fact, known as imparatorluğu. Regardless, I'm going to go be bold now and remove the modern Turkish entirely. —Saposcat 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in infobox 

message: Whoever replaced the "Citation needed" notes with references to books (Sir Edward Shepherd, et al.) needs to give (at least) page number references and (preferably) supportive quotes within the books mentioned; otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to have the books listed as references, as the "Citation needed" notes were attached to specific claims that had no support.
By the way, the "Citation needed" note attached to the sentence "He (Osman I) published the first coin under his name, demonstrating the trust he built" referred more to the aspect of "trust" (an unverifiable opinion in almost any circumstance: who, for instance, can say that it was not power rather than trust?) than to the minting of the first coin (about which there is little doubt); the "trust" aspect of the sentence—not the "coin"—must be either supported or deleted, in my view. —Saposcat 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Recently Added References 

message: I don't know if this was brought up before but we have 2 different Ottoman maps with different borders showing the empire at the height of its power:
 
The one on the left should be correct, Ottoman borders never reached Caspian Sea and they did control whole western coast of Saudi Arabia and the whole state of Egypt.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the contradiction between 2 maps, it doesn't look god. And we at least know Ottoman Empire never reached the Caspian Sea, right?
FIX THE MAPS!!!--Kagan the Barbarian 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ozdemiroglu osman pasha conquered most of tha caucasus and azerbaycan didn't he?--Kahraman 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: the maps linked to above show the ottoman empire at the caspian sea ,  --Astrokey44 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps are conflicting with eachother 

message: The text says : 'The decline period of the Ottoman Empire was characterized by the reorganization and transformation of most of the empire's structures' that means it was a period of reorganisation and transformation, which implies modernisation and growth.. to call this period decline is not logical imho..--Kahraman 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Janissaries were not forcible islamicized. I think you are referring to the devsirme method, which the ottomans copied from the Byzantines and used up to the 16th century. Devsirme were young impressionable children maybe 4 to 5 years old, collected from poor christian parents and schooled islamic method. That poverty was  reduced and a loyal military force was gained, in addition to the mounted cavallery they collected as tax from their muslim subjects. Many times the children grew up and sent money to their christian parents and family, and many of them returned to their homelands after they had retired from military service. In the 16th century the devsirme system was abolished, janissaries were recruited from exclusively muslims. The Janissaries existed for 4 more centuries, and abolished in the 19th century, and replaced with the draft, which meant that all young christians amnd muslims had to join the army--Kahraman 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline or reorganization 

message: Th article says: "The Kinsik was one of the main tribes "tr:beylik" taking part in this migration."
Is "tr:beylik" a typo? Maurreen 20:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a sort of typo; it was meant to give the Turkish word for "tribe"—not exactly a correct translation, incidentally (it should be aşiret or kabile), but in context it's accurate enough and provides a good lead-in to the important concept of beyliks that is introduced later in the article. —Saposcat 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tr:beylik" ? 

message: Concerning the following paragraph, the third of the four introductory paragraphs:
:At its highest point, the Ottoman Empire contained many important places of classical antiquity, including Homer's Troy and Achaea, Zeus' Europa, Io's Bosphorus, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus together with all the Seven Wonders of the World, the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great, Abraham's oasis and wells, the Nile River, the Mount of the Sermon, and the Hill of Golgotha.
I wonder if this paragraph actually adds much of anything worthwhile to the introduction. Should it, perhaps, be removed? Any thoughts? —Saposcat 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an exciting point that they ruled over so many culturally significant and strategical sites, but simply listing a bunch of wikilinks does not convey meaningful information. A section on the expansion into the ancient Greek and christian sites would be interesting, though. As for the seven classical wonders, some of them were not even standing at the time of Ottoman reign, the same goes for Troy, and it gets confusing reading about the "property" of the gods (Zeus'...). I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph. Poulsen 09:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was thinking it was a largely pointless paragraph of clutter to have there in the introduction. Any new section about such expansion might, indeed, be interesting—but it certainly shouldn't go into the introductory section. Good removal. —Saposcat 09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this doesn't really belong in the intro, I agree with Poulsen that this is very interesting information. Perhaps someone (with more knowledge than I) could add a section for "Ottoman Empire in classical culture" or something similar? --Laura S 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Opening paragraphs 

message: As it has several cleanup tags and is under the article improvement drive, I don't think it is currently stable enough to be a good article. Poulsen 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: it is by no means a good article (yet—it is getting there slowly, though). Good decision. —Saposcat 09:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Is there any reason to list every reference twice? It makes for overtly long lists. I can understand that for books which need to be cited again and again for each specific page used as source, it is useful to only list the biographical informations once. But as long as the reference is a single website the same note might be used several times and there's nothing to confuse, and they might as well only be listed where they are used. Case in point: Regnal Chronologies is generally not about the Ottoman Empire and is used only for a single fact - it seems superfluous to list it twice. Poulsen 09:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to follow fairly strict guidelines regarding references, footnotes, and their ilk; that's why I (re-)shaped the References/Footnotes section the way I did. If you think it needs cleaning up or streamlining, then by all means go ahead and do so. —Saposcat 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: "The Kayı was one of the main tribes taking part in this migration. When they began to settle in Anatolia in the 12th century, they accepted the suzerainty of the Seljukid State of Anatolia, which was at first a puppet and vassal of the Il Khanate of the Mongol Empire."
I may have misunderstood the paragraph but apperantly it suggests the Sultanate of Rum was the vassal of the Mongol Empire from the start. If that's the case, that's wrong information, Sultanate of Rum later became vassals of the Mongols after years of resistance. Regards.--Phew 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

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