Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 5

message: I believe that since the map says clearly "acquisitions", it is impossible to include territories like the Crimea inside the borders. These were not acquisitions, and I think the current map is misguiding. I am very aware Turks will not like this, but I'm sure this is much more accurate than the original map. I did not add it on the page because.... I want to hear what others think first because I'm afraid it might be "mercilessly edited". ;)
It's just my first try. Don't get angry on me. After all, this was my attempt at doing what the to-do list said that needs to be done. Just my try. Sorry if it offended you or anything. Mirc mirc 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your map is good but it would be better if we change the explanation under the map instead of changing the map itself ;) Crimean Khanate accepted the supremacy of the Sublime Porte and fought next to Ottomans for centuries. Turks even tried to save Crimea from the Russian advance during the Crimean War. Ottomans didn't gain all of their territory by conquest and it is really normal when we think they didn't lost all of their territory during the times of war ;) See you, Deliogul 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. That's a good idea. I might do that too, if time allows me. And that one will explain a little more clearly the status of the changed territories, while this one will make a somewhat more clear distinction. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll do that today, but I don't know as I might be busy later this afternoon. Mirc mirc 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just two suggestions for the little country of Croatia :-). Central Croatia (the area above the letter "B" in the word Belgrade, lol) and a small coastal strip up north were never ever a part of the empire. On the other hand, Dalmatian region (which is indicated as free) in actuality was under the Turks apart from islands and a couple of major cities (which, of course, belonged to Venice). On grander scale it may be a bit nitpicky, but still... :-) Cheers  Zoran M 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My try at a new map 

message: In my humble opinion, the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire is Turkey. Other countries only shared the debts of the collapsed empire. Also, for example, Egypt was lost tens of years before the actual collapse of the Ottoman State so how come they are one of the successors? Deliogul 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different understandings of what a successor state is. Even though all these states are successors, most Turkish people think that there is one successor, Republic of Turkey. Maybe it is best to create a section explaining when these states are split off (successor) from Ottoman Empire. Communication will help, if they read it. --OttomanReference 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor States 

message: :In a significant shift in military and diplomatic policy, the empire ceased to enter conflicts on its own and began to forge alliances with European countries. There were a series of such alliances with France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Russia.
:What is an example of the Ottomans aligning with the Russians during this time period (19th or early 20th century)? KVenzke 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the details but there was a agreement between the two empires to guarantee the help of each other if another entity would attack one of the sides. Also, Russian Navy would help to defend the borders of the Ottoman Empire against a naval attack. I guess somebody will remember the date and the name of the agreement soon. See you brother, Deliogul 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliance with Russia 

message: The Ottoman Empire was commonly also called "Turkey", including in peace treaties and conferences.
The name Turkey originates from the Medieval Latin Turchia, and has been used in English to describe the Ottoman Empire since 1369. Turchia still means Turkey in Italian.
Here are a few examples:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Abd-ul-Mejid
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058482/Treaty-of-Paris
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9078798/Congress-of-Berlin
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg
Therefore, please don't delete this information with prejudice.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ottoman Empire was also known as Turkey 

message: Flavius Belisarius says: "Turkish dominated administrative institutions, ruling class of the empire" this statement is wrong. Administration originate from devshirme (Christians) and ruling class (Ottoman Dynasty) has been (look at girls in the harem) is not even Turkic background except initial period. --OttomanReference 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish dominated administrative institutions

message: *Historic map by John Bartholomew & Co.: Changes in Turkey in Europe, 1856 to 1878
*A New Map of Turkey in Europe (1789), 1:2,840,000, 56x56 cm. The British Library (BL-MR 43.315.107), London
*Map of Turkey in Europe and Hungary in the 17th century, engraved by J.Russell, published in Barclay's Universal Dictionary, 1823
*Map of Turkey in Europe and Hungary in the 17th century, engraved by J. Barlow, published by Brightly & Kinnersley in the Rev. E. Blomfield's A Complete and Universal Dictionary, 1812
*Map of Turkey in Europe and Hungary, drawn and engraved by Sidney Hall, published in the General Atlas of Ancient and Modern Geography, 1827
*Map of Turkey in Europe by J. Rapkin, published by J & F Tallis, London, Edinburgh & Dublin, c.1850
*Map of Turkey in Europe by Sidney Hall, printed in colours by Fr. Schenck, Edinburgh and published by A & C Black, c.1856
*Map of Turkey in Europe by J. Wyld, engraved by N.R. Hewitt and published in Edinburgh by John Thompson & Co., c.1823
*Map of Turkey in Europe engraved by A. Findlay and published by Thomas Kelly in A New and Complete System of Universal Geography, 1818
*Map of Turkey in Europe by John Archer, published in The National Encyclopedia Atlas, 1868
*Map of Turkey in Europe by Keith Johnston. Published in Keith Johnston's The Royal Atlas of Modern Geography, 1861
*Map of Turkey in Asia engraved by J.Archer, published in The College Atlas, c.1850
*Map of Turkey in Asia by J. Bartholomew, published in Philips' Imperial Library Atlas (edited by William Hughes), London, 1864
*Map of Turkey in Asia (Asia Minor) and Transcaucasia" by Keith Johnston, published in Keith Johnston's The Royal Atlas of Modern Geography, 1861
*Map of Turkey in Asia engraved by J.Russell, published in Barclay's Universal Dictionary, 1823
*Map of Turkey in Asia engraved by Sidney Hall and published in Black's General Atlas, Edinburgh, 1846
*Map of Turkey in Asia in Kelly's New System of Universal Geography, 1828
*Map of Turkey in Asia published in Cooke's Geography, 1817
Want some more? :) 
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell us the differences between these words: "America" and "United States of America". If you look at the maps and texts, you would see that most of the time authors are using the word "America" such as "America did this, America did that." With your logic, name of the state established in July 4, 1776 is "America" but not the United States of America. When someone asks you the name of the state which Bush is the president, you would argue that it is America. With the same logic, name of the state that is established in 1923 is "Turkey" but not the "Republic of Turkey". Such that the name of the Ottoman state is Turkey. Because why, the maps tell it so. The argument is the name of the state and the state has never been named as Turkey. I have no idea why it does not register to you. OttomanReference The word Turkey has been used to all Turkish states, some even existed at the same time (with the Ottoman Empire). If Ottoman Empire is Turkey, Ramazanoğlu which lasted until 1571 is not Turkey? Isn't it possible that you are looking from a very narrow window. The word Turkey has its own meaning beyond the Ottoman Empire.  It covers Republic of Turkey, Ottoman Seljuk Sultanate of Rūm, ... You are pushing the word into a form that does not fit to it. --OttomanReference 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more time, we are talking about the name of the state. The "name of the state" of the organization ruled by the Ottoman Dynasty has never been Turkey. Because Turkey has been used, as the name implies, to every Turkish state. You are generating a "misinformation" by claiming Ottoman Empire or "osmanli devl;eti" or "sublim porte" (these are officially used) is officially the "Turkey". Instead of understanding what is communicated to you, you continue with your misinformation. This is bad, but I do not know if you can grasp it. This is waste of time. I'm sure you gonna do the same thing on this issue with what you did to Istanbul page. This is not a compliment to you. --OttomanReference 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not let me put you down. One more time; if you believe it is a good job, do not listen to me. The FA path is open to you. It is easy to come and throw shots. By the way, if Ottoman Empire was Turkish Empire, why did the Republic of Turkey end up with all this illiterate people, no bankers, no skills. So called Turkish empire. You want to hold on something which is totally hallow. ...  --OttomanReference 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  By the way, we are talking about Ottoman Empire and "Koç and Sabancı" should be thankful to Ataturk. It is questionable if they had chance to develop their industrial systems during Ottoman Empire. Do you know the ethnic background of these people you refer to, are they turkic background or were they Jewish and Arab??? Do not let me remind you that in Ottoman times all the guilds were under control of Armenians. Trade was under Greeks. Financial system was under control of Jews. Even the language they used was not Turkish. the Ottoman Turkish language is not Turkish (The fact that Persians and Arabs have a better grasp than Turks to this language, should say something to you). You know what they say, "Ottoman Turkish was largely unintelligible to the less educated members of society" Have you wondered who is that less educated member? Ottoman Empire was a real empire, composed of many ethnicities, and its ruling class was not what you believe. The native Americans (Indians) are not the rulers of America. What is this "ideological values of the Turkish Republic" that I was opposing? What is this Turkish Republic anyway? I checked the list of nations under UN. There is no Turkish Republic. Are you referring to Republic of Turkey. If so, it's name is not Republic of Turkish. And its PM (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) is an immigrant from Georgia. Turgut Ozal was Kurdish descent and Abdullah Gül is an Arab. These ultra-nationalistic views of yours are not substantiated. --OttomanReference 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those who still question the FACT that the Ottoman Empire was alternatively (and more popularly) called Turkey 

message: The version of this article asserts that the Ottoman Empire was a successor to the Greco-Roman world, which is a naive form of nationalism that could only come from Turkey.  Westerners have never agreed with this POV, so please don't push your WP:BIAS and just respect WP:NPOV.  Geographically, the Ottomans roughly succeeded the Persians.  Turkey is NOT European, but part of that Middle-Eastern/Islamic world.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Just ask anybody else who is not Turkish (or fascinated with Orientalism) and they will not say to you that Turkey is more European than Persian.  Exactly what attitude did the Ottomans have that was Greek or Roman, in their dealings with Europe?  The Ottomans pursued the same policies with respect to Europe that the Persians did.  Don't advance historical revisionism to make Turkey seem "glorious".  That is precisely against Wikipedia policy.  68.110.8.21 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to make a point clear. Roman heritage is not a requirement for being "glorious", just like being "Persian" won't guarantee "failure". On the other hand, the central system and the military power of the Ottoman Empire was direct continuation of the Roman Empire with a Turkic/Islamic notion added to it. "Kayzer-i Rum" (Roman Caesar) title was used by Mehmed II and "Sultan-ı İklim-i Rüm" (Sultan of the Roman Lands) was used by Selim I. Deliogul 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was talking about European war strategy.  There would be nothing gained by a 20th Century invasion of Cyprus by other Europeans.  Turkey's very nature from inception, has been at odds with Europe.  Geographic proximity does not mean an affinity, especially since the state of Turkey was imposed on the region from an exterior force.  68.110.8.21 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkonationalist POV 

message: I am upset because my intelligence has been insulted and because you're presenting it as incontrovertible FACT.  (See the rules about balanced point of view in articles) Nobody in those times viewed Turkey as a legitimate successor to Rome or Greece.  The main reasons being, that the Catholic Holy Roman Empire and Orthodox Russia existed to pursue their "rightful inheritance" to the imperial claim.  No former province or country of the Eastern Roman Empire, willingly submitted to Turkish rule.  I tried to explain in the last reply, that presenting Turkey as Rome is extremely insulting and heartless to the memories of those valiant fallen warriors in defense of Constantinople.  All the Crusades in the world could not stop Turkey from destroying the Greek half of Rome.  Just because the Ottoman dynasty created propaganda (oh, don't worry--we are a true Roman sucession) to assuage their critics, doesn't mean anybody has to believe it.  The language of Turkey is not Romance or Greek; I "wonder" why.  While it is Wikipedia's intention to stay neutral, the Turks were clearly foreign and in the wrong with regards to how they treated what was left of Rome.  Sorry, but there are aggressors and victims in the world.  Turkey did not bring Rome to Rome, but Turkey did bring Silk Road and Eurasian Steppe culture to the Mediterranean world.  It is evident in the current capital of Turkey (Angora), that Turkey was pressured by Westerners to abandon the frivolous and aggravating status of Constantinople as their capital.  This is against your claims of widespread acceptance.  But whereas the Germans and Russians could succeed Rome and Greece, there was no contest over succession to Persia.  Nobody but local Persians themselves contested Turkey's rule, so be happy that Turkey at least had that.  68.110.8.21 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more calm reply 

message: lol, i think you should have named the section youre creating greconationalistpov..
"Europeans don't do those things"
Sure for instance they absolutely dont do such things as genociding american indians, australian aborgiones, African people and often killing off natives in anywhere they set their foot..Not to mention pagan holocoust committed by christians in the Roman days..The discussion forum is supposed to be a serious place, you just go watch 300..--laertes d 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about European war strategy.  There would be nothing gained by a 20th Century invasion of Cyprus by other Europeans.  Turkey's very nature from inception, has been at odds with Europe.  Geographic proximity does not mean an affinity, especially since the state of Turkey was imposed on the region from an exterior force.  68.110.8.21 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greconationalist POV 

message: The article is longer than 110K. The sections should be brought to Wikipedia:Summary style. Is there anyone who want to tackle with this issue? --Anglepush 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone who would take the summary style editorial. Article is TOO LONG. Anglepush 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Sections  and [[WP:SS]]== 

message: Hello Flavius Belisarius. I see you have reverted my edits to the article Ottoman Empire, regarding the statement about "temporary acquisitions like those of Lanzarote (1585), Madeira (1617), Vestmannaeyjar (1627) and Lundy (1655)", saying that "in 1585 Lanzarote was taken, including its governor who was later ransomed. Lundy remained under Ottoman control for 5 years between 1655 and 1660. Vestmannaeyjar was held for only 26 days though.)" Ok. And what about Madeira? I have never heard of such temporary acquisition (of course that can be my ignorance...)! Could you tell me some more on the story? And source it? Meanwhile, and given your rationale for the revert, I believe it would be better in the artcile to call it temporary occupations. I'm doimg so. And also tagging Madeira for a source. Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you! The Ogre 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go (from the official website of the Turkish Navy) . The source is the book of Admiral Büyüktuğrul, who cites a letter written by the British Ambassador in Spain, Sir Francis Toone, to the Duke of Buckingham that in 1616 the Turks landed on the coastline between Cadiz and Lisbon, and landed on Madeira in 1617. Flavius Belisarius 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, my friend, but those sources are in Turkish, a language I do not speak or read. Could you shed some light on the subject? Cheers! The Ogre 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire - shorth lived possessions