Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"such as Lanzarote (1585), Madeira (1617), Vestmannaeyjar (1627) and Lundy (1655)" please I have never heard of an invasion of the Ottomans in the Island of Madeira nor on Lanzarote, please verify the source of this statements !!

If you make a search as history of Lanzarote in a search engine. You will find same information that Murat Reis the Elder (an Ottoman admiral) captured Lanzarote. Please note that; It was not a full sovereignty over those islands but as the text mentioned they were temporary acquisitions.Tarikes (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[Archive 6 has been created with a link at the right handside. Archive 7, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 7" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thetruthonly (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are various capitalization errors that need fixing. Many of the titles only have the first word capitalized. In the section titled "Decline and modernization" (which itself could be fixed), the last paragraph has the words "ottoman empire" uncapitalized. This is obviously not right for a proper noun. Someone who can should either fix this sentence or, actually, it seems that it could be excised completely without detracting from the article.

Since this page is semi-protected, my formal request is:

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Please change "ottoman empire" to "Ottoman Empire" in the section titled "Decline and modernization".
• Please update section title "Expansion and apogee" to "Expansion and Apogee".
• Please update section title "Revolts and revival" to "Revolts and Revival".
• Please update section title "Stagnation and reform" to "Stagnation and Reform".
• Please update section title "Decline and modernization" to "Decline and Modernization".
• Plese update the city name from constantioplr to konstantinniye (here is the source, Turkish foundation of history http://kutuphane.tbmm.gov.tr:8088/2008/200805026.pdf ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.152.254 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

--Jayson Vantuyl (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the first request, I actually ended up removing those two sentences at the end of the paragraph: they were fairly incoherent and seemed unnecessary. As for the four other requests,  Not done - I suggest you see WP:MOSHEAD, that's simply the way titles are capitalised on Wikipedia. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was confused by Ottoman Army (and others) below, not realizing that they were proper nouns made it all appear inconsistent. The Manual of Style shall be my new best friend. Thanks.--Jayson Vantuyl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

                                 OTTOMAN FLAG IS FALSE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.138.18 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 

And in 1922, vahdettin leaves the country and in that date the empire has ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.159.117 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to help me expand Rise of the Ottoman Empire? It's in need of referencing (big time) and its sections don't cover enough for the article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposal has been made for the creation of a WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Izzedine (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the flag is correct? because the flag only took its form after the revolution, the majority of the ottoman empire's time it was three smaller moons with one star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

-Ottoman Empire in 19. century and Independence War-

Why isn't anything in this page about Ottoman Empire in 19. century and Independence War?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire is not featured article in Turkish Wikipedia...--Mighty B (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading Expansion and apogee (1453–1566)

This sentence needs a citation: "This lock-hold on trade between western Europe and Asia is frequently cited[citation needed] as a primary motivational factor for the Queen of Spain to fund Christopher Columbus's westward journey to find a sailing route to Asia."

Here is a source:
Book: The Middle Sea, A History of the Mediterranean
Author: John Julius Norwich
Publisher: Chatto & Windus 2006 - Random House
ISBN: 978-0-701-17608-2

I quote from page 243:

"...Maples was now threatened and even Rome itself. Clearly Christendom must take decisive action, but how? Pope Pius II had tried on two separate occasions to launch another crusade but had met with little response. In any case, the Ottoman army consisted of highly-trained professionals. In a direct confrontation it would be effectively invincible.

Here, perhaps, lay the answer to the problem: to approach the Turkish horde from the east, attacking it from the rear, where it would be weak and probably undefended. Isabella hesitated no longer. She was, she believed, financing not just the opening-up of a new and important trade route; she was taking the first exploratory but essential step towards what might be the last Crusade against the infidel. Ferdinand too was enthusiastic; Columbus later claimed to have brought a smile to the monarch's lips when he suggested that the profits from the great enterprise would pay for the conquest of Jerusalem..."

Marty Boogaart (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is heading in the right direction, thank you. But John Julius Norwich, though a wonderful writer, is not a trained academic historian, by his own admission he does not write as such, and for a citation of this kind, that is really what is required.

It also, on its own, doesn't deal with the statement "frequently cited". (Lewvalton (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Why do you people keep adding those? They're not successors, simply breakaways of the empire.

The Ottomans weren't a friendly union that dissolved into their friendly little states, it was an empire and the Turks were the boss in it. Other peoples in the empire, like the Greeks and Slavs were suppressed by the Ottomans. You could list them as something else somewhere but they definitely weren't successors. So stop adding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.252.137 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i wonder why people feel the need of inclunding a so called "genocide" since first its not histroically 100% prooven nor the treatment of a minority during WW1 is worth mentioning in the ottoman empire site..since there are articles specially for this > WW1 and the so called "Genocide" page itself...if you mention things about the so called armenian "issue" then you have to mention the muslim casualties as well otherwise the article wouldnt be neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.17.17 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they are "breakaways of the empire", then they are de facto successors since they are now sovereign states in previously Ottoman territories. This is simply useful for readers, who can see what became of the empire. BTW, is there a limit to the number of successor states ? I can't make the last three appear (Yemen, Hejaz, South Caucasian republic). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This coat of arms looks like the original one but it's too fancy, that flower-thing closes the flag on the left, which is wrong. both flags have to be visible.

other subjects

please don't bother about the word constantinople anymore. istanbul is also not turkish. word istanbul comes from stampoli or something like that. it doesn't matter. the flag

that flag is the nearly the right ottoman flag. after the turkish republic was formed, it was changed a bit, the ratios, the size of the star, etc was standardized. this flag was used around the world war 1 and independence war (of turkey/ottoman emp.). i think before that there was another flag which was very very similar to this one. only difference was that the star was seven-pointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwarleyTR (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The description on the file used for the coat of arms states: "It is not the State coat of arms of the Ottoman Empire, as the Empire did not use any" Shouldn't this coat of arms be removed then? Also see above comments about inaccuracies in the rendition of the coat of arms. --ZARguy (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire is (officialy)succeeded by Turkey,and not by the others since they dont share and y culutral similarity or somethig and if they do they did a revolt against their former rules(the Turks which belonged the Ottoman Empire) and excactly those Turks are the inhabitants of the Republic of Turkey so its complete nonsense to make greece or wtf to an Ottoman Successor they didnt succeed the empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.131.129 (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it called Ottoman instead of Osman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.11.37 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

PAX OTTOMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.69.102 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The era classification in the History of the Ottoman Empire sidebox needs attention.

• The growth era is between 1453-1683. This means that the Ottoman Empire continued to grow in the 17th century. But it is not true. To be sure, Podolia and Crete were annexed. But Anatolia, the core of the empire was in ruins. The empire was living the worst days as far as the public peace, cultural life and economy are considered. Vast areas in Caucasus and West Iran had been lost. The barbary states were almost independent. The reason the empire didn't disantegrate was the Thirty Years' War in Europe. The classical classification is better. The growth era must end by the end of the 16th century. (either by the death of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha in 1579 or by the Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606.)
• The dissolution era between 1908-1922 is quite meaningless. All Balkan countries (except Albania) and all African countries (except Libya) had already been lost by 1908 and the remainning territory was under the supervision of great powers of Europe. So I think the decline and dissolution must be treated together. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to WP:BRD? Especially the "D"? I endorse this removal of the piece on "Mongoloid Turks", I don't know how this racial nonsense got into the article in the first place.

Also, this is the article about the Ottoman Empire (1299–1923). Not about the "Armenian question" of the late 19th century, nor about the Armenian genocide of 1915, nor about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922), these have their own articles. I know people like to obsess over these topics, and they are welcome to do so at the relevant pages, but we need to keep these WP:UNDUE tangents out of this article on a giant empire with a scope of seven centuries. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This section, the Armenians began pressing the Ottoman government for greater autonomy after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878. ref-Hovanissian, Richard G. "The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1914", in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II, pp. 203–238.-ref A number of Armenian uprisings and attacks took place in the cities of Anatolia, leading Sultan Abdul Hamid II to establish the Hamidiye regiments in eastern Anatolia. These were formed mostly of irregular cavalry units of recruited Kurds.-ref Hovannisian, Richard G. "The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1914", p. 217.
is unsupported by the sources listed, until this section is changed to sentence(s) supported by the reference it will be tagged with a WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal:That these sentences,

• the Armenians began pressing the Ottoman government for greater autonomy after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the [Congress of Berlin in 1878.-ref-Hovanissian, Richard G.The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II, pp. 203–238.-ref-
• A number of Armenian uprisings and attacks took place in the cities of Anatolia, leading Sultan Abdul Hamid II to establish the Hamidiye regiments in eastern Anatolia. -unsourced-
  

Be changed to,

• the Armenians attempted to demand implementation of Article 61 from the Ottoman government as agreed upon at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.-ref-See Hovanissian, Richard G., The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 218.-ref-
• Following pressure from European powers and Armenians, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, in response, assigned the Hamidiye regiments to Ottoman Armenia. -ref- Hovannisian, 217,222.-ref-
  

Which is completely referenced. Thoughts, opinions, hatemail? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear which dates in the article are in the Julian calendar, and which are in the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please update the Algerian flag as it's done for Tunisia to be consistent. If you put the Tunisian flag and the French in the corner of it you should do the same for the Algerian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.104.45.97 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gday. When was the first constitution actually promulgated? The English wiki says November 23rd, the German one December 23rd, the French one both. Documents I read on the topic say December. Cheers, 203.143.165.25 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an article on the Ottoman Empire is well-served by having only one map. At the very least, there ought to be one map for its growth (1300-1683) and one map for its decline (1683-1922). Ideally, we could have a variety of maps showing the empire's extent at different points in its history. john k (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed one of the areas given in the infobox from 19.9 million km² (1595) to 5.2 million km² (1683), using one of the references used at List of largest empires. Please see discussions at Talk:Ottoman_Empire/Archive_3#Land_Area and Talk:List_of_largest_empires#Edit_request_from_Savaskan.2C_9_December_2010 for why. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable; note that previous edit(-warri)ors only changed the number, but never the source. Go figure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, pet peeve, can't stand it when that happens. I'd checked the 5.2 million really is what the source now cited says. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

78.180.102.151/78.184.247.97/78.184.245.207/78.180.127.168: You have now been reverted multiple times by both Jeff5102 and myself. Please explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am questioning the quality of the sources. One is a statement of the elsewhere unknown "Head of the Center of Studies of Anatolian history Mehmet Avdjier". Another source is an opinion piece, written by Mehmet Başoğlu, Co President of the Rutgers University Turkish Student Associaton, an organisation which "goal is to promote the rich Turkish culture and heritage to the community of Rutgers University." That's hardly a "reliable third party source", I should say. The same goed for the Eurasia21-source, while the article in the L'Actuel-site never provides a number of slain Turks as far as I can read that gibberish what is intended to be English).

Furthermore, I do not understand why the anonymous IP-guy wants to keep up the illusion that, according to western estimates, only 600.000 Armenians died. As a source, he uses a report from 1916, at which time the full impact of the genocide was not clear. For the actual estimate (1 to 1.5 mln), you can find the sources on the Armenian Genocide-article. Thus, I am curious why this anonimous user is pushing his POV as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My points precisely :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ottoman dynasty was the only ruling imperial family in the history of Europe with an unbroken bloodline of continuous emperors, descending from the same ancestor, in a single state, from the beginning to the end. Only the Habsburg dynasty in Austria and Spain came close in terms of duration, but the Habsburgs did not continuously hold power in a single state; they reigned in numerous states and with temporarily or permanently broken, limited periods. Dynasties kept changing in England, France, Spain, Russia and other monarchies in Europe. To give an example, Queen Elizabeth II (House of Windsor) has no ancestral connection with Queen Elizabeth I (House of Tudor). The same case of "no continuous bloodline connection" is also valid for the first and last monarchs of all European states.

The Roman, Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires had numerous dynasties (ruling families.) There was no bloodline connection between the first and last rulers of these states. The Ottoman Empire was unique in the history of Europe in terms of the fact that Mehmed VI (the last emperor) was a direct descendant of Osman I (the first emperor.)

Queen Elizabeth II does actually have ancestral connections to Elizabeth I and much further back, but that is beside the point. All you have to do is find references for the succession and write it into the article (not just the lead section). You may find something in Line of succession to the Ottoman throne.--Charles (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, she doesn't. If she did, the "House of Tudor" would have continued and events such as the Glorious Revolution (the intervention of William of Orange, etc) wouldn't take place, would they? The name "House of Windsor" was actually "invented" in 1917: The true name is the "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", a German royal family. But the anti-German sentiment in England during WWI caused King George V to change the name as the "House of Windsor". 88.251.87.33 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? In the Muslim world, the Ottoman dynasty had a pretty unique longevity (only the Abbasids from 750 to 1258 come anywhere close, I think). But Europe has been rather unique for dynastic continuity. You seem to be confusing agnatic or patrilineal descent with "bloodline." Elizabeth II, is, though descended patrilineally from the Wettin family of Saxony, a blood descendant of the last Hanoverian monarch, Queen Victoria; of the first Stuart monarch, James I; of the first Tudor monarch, Henry VII; of the Plantagenet king Edward III; of the Norman King Henry I; and of the Saxon King Edmund Ironside. Every monarch of England since 1066 has descended from William the Conqueror. Every monarch of Castile and Spain since 1035 has descended from Sancho the Great; the same is true for every monarch of Aragon (and Spain). The only exception is the brief Bonaparte usurpation - even Amadeo I was a descendant of King Charles III. Every King of Portugal descended from Afonso Henriques. Every king of France from 987 onwards was a descendant of King Robert I. The Habsburgs and Habsburg-Lorraines ruled over Austria proper continuously from the 13th century to 1918, over the other hereditary lands from the mid-14th century or so, and over Hungary and Bohemia from the early 16th century. Why is the Glorious Revolution any different from the numerous depositions of monarchs in the Ottoman Empire, as in 1618, 1622, 1623, 1648, 1687, 1703, 1730, 1807, 1808, May 1876, August 1876, and 1909? James II was deposed by his daughter and her husband, who was also his nephew. Ottoman sultans were deposed by their nephews all the time. And if any country is to be given pride of place for length of patrilineal succession, it surely has to be France. john k (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that in the same sense that Elizabeth II has no ancestral connection with Elizabeth I, Mehmed VI had no ancestral connection with Mustafa I, Osman II, Murad IV, Suleiman II, Ahmed II, Mahmud I, Osman III, Mustafa III, Selim III, Mustafa IV, or Abdul Aziz. john k (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems, he is trying to say that in Ottoman Dynasty and the Ottoman State, all rules were from the same House with no exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.190.24 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman,

Let's take a look at the map of the Ottoman Empire's maximum's extend in the article and then let's take a look at the same map for the Roman Empire, clearly the Roman Empire is superior in territory by a factor of 2 or more. Yet, an obscure Biology study is referenced to validate the claim that the Ottoman Empire was 5.2 mil. sq. km (vs. 5.00 mil. sq. km for the Roman Empire) Can someone correct this embarrassment please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.52.122 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(See also above, at Land area (again)). The cited source is an article in Journal of World Systems Research, which is not obscure and is a reliable source. However, I agree that this looks strange. While the value of 5.2 Mm² for the Ottoman Empire seems believable to me, the size of 5.0 Mm² for the Roman Empire in 117 C.E. seems somewhat too small. However, the map we have for that is not an equal-area projection but one that tends to exaggerate areas farther up north, so a visual comparison is precarious. This number comes from an article by Rein Taagepera (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 125. doi:10.2307/1170959. (The data used by the article in Journal of World Systems Research was also compiled by Taagepera.) As the criterion used by Wikipedia is verifiability (and not truth), we would need a reliable sources for other sizes than these before we can make changes.  --Lambiam 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Otranto was first invaded by the Turks in 1480 (although it only stayed under Turkish control for 1 year). It was then invaded yet again by Ottoman admiral Barbarossa in 1537. We should therefore include this in the map. Any other thoughts? Thetruthonly (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess Otranto is not suitable to be called an Ottoman dependency because it stayed under imperial rule for such a short time. Remember, the world was not this fast back then. When you lose some territory, you had to wait a year to be ready for another fight.Deliogul (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It was in fact a "temporary acquisition", and not something that could be considered part of the Empire. If America lost a territory that it was only in the possession of for about a year, then it would likely not be considered a former possession of the United States a few hundred years later.Hawkrawkr (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The final and official replacement of Constantinople by Istanbul did not take place until 1930., "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", by Bernard Lewis, p. x

• The capital of the Ottoman Empire was originally called Constantinople.....and did not officially adopt the name Istanbul until 1930, "New Encyclopedia of Islam", by Cyril Glasse, p.229

• ...Constantinople was not officially renamed until 1930..., "Daily Life in Ancient and Modern Istanbul", by Robert Bator, p.33

• Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930...., "Osman's Dream", by Caroline Finkel, p. 57

So much for "one hundred years ago". --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It happened this way probably because Ottoman Sultans succeeded the throne of Roman Caesars via conquering the heart of the once mighty empire. It was not like "change this, change that". The dynasty used to give utmost respect to this heritage. Deliogul (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "change of a name" is only one perspective in this issue. The names of the cities changes with time. It is not unique to Istanbul. Wikipedia uses the current name in these articles. Good Example is New York City. We do not see different articles created for every name used by NY city, or Istanbul. On the other hand, Constantinople is not just a name of the city. It is a historical state centered around the city. There is an article devoted for it at the Wikipedia. User:Kansas Bear takes the problem only from one perspective. I wonder if he is aware that by constantly changing the references to the city (article Istanbul) to "Constantinople," he is creating an illusion that the "state Constantinople" is Istanbul. He is constantly creating "REDIRECT" from the word "Constantinople" in the articles to the page "Istanbul." Many of my friends surprised when they click on the "Constantinople" link and find themselves in the city of Istanbul. In the past, to my friends, I had to explain the difference between these two entities. I just want to give a friendly reminder, being correct on one perspective is not being totally right. Wikipedia avoid redirects as a rule. If the Article name is Istanbul, we should keep the links as Istanbul. User:Kansas Bear should argue over changing the name of Istanbul to "Constantinopole." By the way what would happen if I act like Kansas Bear but replace "Constantinople ("City of Constantine") " to "Kostantiniyye." Which one has the highest authority? It is better to use what Wikipedia used in the article created for the city. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article link to Istanbul, and just say that prior to 1930 the city was known internationally as Constantinople? Ultimately, we're talking about the same exact place, so the debate is a bit silly. Bombay is a really good example of how to deal with the change of a city name. Ultimately, we should obviously merge the article on Constantinople into Istanbul, and make it open just like Mumbai does. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Easier Said Than Done. Currently there are two articles and three different ways for the same entity. I guess the first breakdown was between Turks and Greeks. They divide the city historically at the onset of the Fall of Constantinople (1453). Second breakdown occurred by the perspective of User:Kansas Bear. He links the article Istanbul between 1453 to 1930 using the name Constantinople. If you ask them, they come up with righteous reasons. They do not give away from their perspective and stubborn to others. This needs a Wikipedia size arbitration. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The city was officially and in daily parlance called Constantinople until Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic. Also, it was referred to by Greek and Turkish speakers as, Is tin Poli or Istabmbol/Stambol. The term 'Constantinople' spans both the Eastern Roman/Greek/Byzantine Empire, as well as the Ottomon/Turkish Empire. It is as 'Turkish' as it is 'Greek'; there is a fast growing acceptance of that reality amongst both peoples - just as they accepted in the past. Politis (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you say Politis, is it a Greek Comedy to have two different articles for the same entity. I do not bother to ask your perspective on using different names depending on the articles, and creating stupid redirects. I guess, if you could see the problem created by this "war on names", you would not say "reality amongst both peoples." I'm having my tea looking at people preying at the historical sites at Istanbul. I guess my realities shaped by the present time. Not by historical arguments, or texts from Bible. The article Mumbai lives in the present time, not in the historical Bombay. What does this tell about you? Living in the present or past? My point is, give the deserved respect to past, but keep it in present, one article one united culture of the city, working all together rather than keeping two small article domains to each national perspective. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you enter constantinople link in this article, it opens Istanbul. Therefore, it must be Istanbul, because 1- It's the historical city- city before 1453 2- Even it wasnt named as Istanbul, Turkish people used it as mentioned in different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It redirects there because Istanbul and Constantinople are one and the same.Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Military of the Ottoman Empire is a sub article on this topic which was already split up. The content of this section in this article should be an appropriate length for a "summary style." The text in this article is too big to far an WP:Summary Style. It is a major copy of the "Military of the Ottoman Empire," rather than a summary. It does not consider to balance other parts in the main page. A major negative point for/as a summary section; it does have subheadings of its own, which it should not have. As so, falling into being developing content by itself rather than the summary of the content already developed in the Military of the Ottoman Empire. This content has many issues such as being a POV fork (developing arguments rather than summarizing (becoming a spin-off)). — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to move the deleted information to the main article Military of the Ottoman Empire before deleting them from the Ottoman Empire article with the pretext of "summary editing". Many details have been lost. 85.153.24.5 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not bite me. I wanted to do the best. Instead of attacking me on the personal level, help me to fix what is missing on the Military of the Ottoman Empire we can improve that article. I spend hours to give a balanced WP:Summary edit on this article. If you tell me what is missing on the , I will be happy to work with you to IMPROVE both articles. — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is user:Shiham K really the User:Flavius Belisarius? I used the history search tool and find out that the edit controversial text by User:Flavius Belisarius matches the same text that user user:Shiham K is constantly reverting to. Cemil Yilburak (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the deleted information, and wow, you really screwed up, big time. There is a lot of valuable information in there that could help many people with there research, but you deleted it. It should be put back in, although there are perhaps a few peices of irrelevant information in there.Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital:

Söğüt (1299–1326) Bursa (1326–1365) Edirne (1365–1453) Constantinople (1453–1922)

What is Constantinople? I think this is İstanbul since 1453. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.129.241 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, grow up! I don't get why you people can't just accept the truth and move on with your lives! "What is Constantinople", what kind of question is that? You keep vandalizing all over this talk page, and it is NOT appreciated. It was not Istanbul until 1930, when the name was officially changed. Unless you have a reliable source saying otherwise, please stop vandalizing this page. Thank you.Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

these things are rude, city of the name is Istanbul, we live in istanbul and we say there as istanbul - not constantinople, when will you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.220.223 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul wasn't around until 1930. The Ottoman Empire was dead by 1922. When will people blinded by nationalism such as yourselves get it?Gabr-el 05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And why is the broken time of the empire is 1923???? It has ended in 1922 and Ottoman Empire didn't joined Lausanne Treatry, because Sultan has gone in late 1922 and the Empire is over. Gabriel, why won't you understand? It doesn't matter what you called Istanbul. Are you calling ancient places with ancient names???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.14.101 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Convention of Constantinople - an example of a Turkish and International usage of the city's name pre-1930. Gabr-el 05:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gabr-el, please do not call it 'nationalism'... because we do not see the old name of New York- New Amsterdam-written in articles before 1667 do we? Or places of Greece which had Turkish names (e.g. Selanik) written in all those articles. In fact it is those who still believe today’s Istanbul to be Constantinople who are being nationalistic but I’m sure you wont agree with my point of view... since at wikipedia Turkish people are always wrong. Turco85 (Talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms. It would help if these people knew their own history!!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would also help if my opponents did not try to drag in the race card here. If Turks want to believe that their nation is the best nation in the world, that's perfectly fine and up to them. If they want to reinvent their history, go ahead, but not on Wikipedia. Why would we write down Greek cities in Turkish? That's completely irrelevant. They haven't lost their Greek names under the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks did not call them by the Turkish names. Your New York - New Amsterdam example is so flawed and irrelevant - this is about a city that was called Constantinople from 330 to 1930. New Amsterdam is not valid when discussing the city from the time of its renaming. We don't call it New Amsterdam in most articles because most articles about New Amsterdam are post-Dutch rule, when it was called New York!! You have proven yourself to be both a poor logician and a poor historian.Gabr-el 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that it is wrong that Constantinople is written in the article? No I did not. I only responded because you are calling people nationalists which is, in my view, inappropriate. I am not your ‘opponent’…but this comment has once again shown how aggressive users are towards the Turkish wikipedians... this is not the first time I observe this and it will certainly not be the last. Turco85 (Talk) 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I said he was blinded by nationalism, whats your point? I have nothing against Turkish Wikipedians; do not accuse me of being racist against Turks by saying I am aggressive towards them. The line above is very nationalistic. That is all I said. This issue has been done to death. Gabr-el 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But you also questioned my academic knowledge. If you do not want to be perceived as aggressive, then please be a bit more respectful. Turco85 (Talk) 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be getting somewhat better on WP, Turco, but you are correct, the depth of prejudice against Turks is so deep and so unconscious that the Turk-haters are able to run around and do pretty much what they want. I can't think of another ethnic group that is as mistreated on WP. For example, think of Kansas Bear's sentence above, "It would help if these people knew their own history!!!"--and try to imagine that he addressed that sentence to an African-American--the rush of good editors denouncing him would be overwhelming. But when he says this to a Turk, no one speaks up.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Let me guess, there's a Genocide going on in Wikipedia, in the form of numerous blocks on Turkish Wikipedians? This whole anti-Turk issue is something of your making; look at the way you are trying to court Turco, and how you present an allegation that wikipedia is anti-Turkish. At the end of the day, me and Kansas bear are defending the truth, which is that Istanbul was never the capital of the Empire, just as New Amsterdam was never the capital of the United States during the War of Independence (because neither correspond to the correct time frame). Witnesses to the fact that you are attacking us for defending the truth, regardless if its presented in a manner that is a little sensitive to yourselves. Gabr-el 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this the reason you edit wikipedia? So you can indirectly call someone a racist? You want to talk about race, why don't you address the NUMEROUS times I've been called an Armenian, Kurd, or Iranian? How about checking the 3 times my page has been vandalized and check where those IP addresses lead. Who should I address when the evidence states: "It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms.", Dorothy and Toto? Since I use references, most people find that upsetting, so I'm anti-Turk(another label attached to me) and a racist. Pity no one EVER cares to check my page where I clearly show my ancestry(since it's of such great importance), which I should know since I've done the genealogy! Don't cry to me if people don't know their own history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hate Turks, why not just admit it? Apparently it's perfectly acceptable to hate Turks on WP. If you don't hate Turks, why not make a big effort and try to treat them with respect--maybe even write something NPOV about Turkey once in a while. Your choice. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hate Americans of a multi-ethnic background why don't you just admit it? As for "maybe even write something NPOV about Turkey"....So reverting vandalism on Ataturk's article is what? Evidence of my hatred of Turks?? You don't like my edits, then find the evidence that proves my sources are incorrect. Spare me your personal animosity simply because I'm not "bowing down" everytime I cross paths with someone that may happen to be Turkish! It appears your own hatred has blinded you to facts even when they hit you in the face. So go back to patting yourself on the back since you have indirectly called me a racist for the 2nd time. My, you must think you're something special, since you can spews childish insults on the internet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this simple for everyone:

• Istanbul was not the name until 1930, FACT
• The Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1922, FACT
• Therefore, the Ottoman Empire was finished 8 years before the name Istanbul came
• Therefore, Istanbul was not used as the name of the Capital

And echoing Kansas bear's words, it would help if these people knew their history. Gabr-el 04:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness not everybody is an expert is their history. Stupid argument in my eyes. Justinz84 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're not an expert in their history, then they shouldn't act like one. Nor does it take an "expert in history" to know the capital of one's country. Thats some stupid reply you have there Gabr-el 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk like that and you have rollbacker privileges? Someone obviously made a mistake. For the good of WP let's hope that mistake is soon rectified.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gabr-el, ignore this person. It is very apparent that history is beyond his comprehension. He believes that the US was at war with the Ottoman Empire[1]!! LMAO!! Instead of making demands for respect, he should spend quality time reading how the US did NOT declare war on the Ottoman Empire;

• Middle East historiographies By I. Gershoni, Amy Singer, Y. Hakan Erdem, p66.
• America and the Armenian genocide of 1915 By J. M. Winter, p115.
• Two thousand questions and answers about the war By Julius Washington Muller,p4.
• Herald and Presbyter, p21.

Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have some good qualities KB--you're knowledgeable enough to make some good contributions, and you know how to use sources. But you seem intent on insulting those who disagree with you. That's not behavior conducive to cooperative editing and it's not good for WP. It's best to conceal your contempt and rage. And thanks for the references, but I think most of us already knew that there was no official declaration of war.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Please, please don't take away my rollback privileges!!! Gabr-el 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Gabr-el. Mate, there are people in this world who do not know the names of capital cities in todays world- let alone to know the names of cities in the early 1900s. Justinz84 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your "mate". Whats your point? We're being criticized and attacked for defending history. Besides, that echoes the sentiment, that people should learn their recent history - Constantinople was the name until only 80 years ago. Gabr-el 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So why we use the Turkish names in older capitals like Edirne and just use "Constantinople" for İstanbul? Maybe Edirne is not stirring any nationalistic sentiments on both sides of the border?! Why not putting "Adrianople" or something for Edirne and "Brusa" for Bursa? You guys are funny to read though, thanks :) Instead of all this non-sense, why not writing something like "Constantinople (present day Istanbul)" or "Constantinople (name changed to Istanbul in 1930) ? Than it will be both factual and also people will understand the modern-day location?? --Gokhan (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gokhan, I don't have a problem with either of your suggestions, Constantinople (present day Istanbul) or Constantinople (name changed to Istanbul in 1930). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a little note, "İstanbul" is not Turkish, it's Greek, there is no Turkish word or name for the city, well come to think of it, modern Turkish (official lang. of Turk. Republic) is a crafted language, out of Arabic, Persian, French and others, so we cannot expect it anyway. Thus, the official name of the city, according to the Ottoman records, is "Konstantiniyye" which basically means the city/place of Konstantin, who surprisingly happens to be the name of the guy who founded (or let's say, upgraded from Byzantium) the city. The local population, the public loved to call it Stampoli, which transformed into İstanbul, because Constantinople was a Roman name, and neither Turks nor the Greeks loved them exactly (and Ottoman and Turkish is not the same thing, claiming to be Tukish, was a crime in the Ottoman Empire, usually met by summary execution). But the Ottoman rulers liked the idea of being a kind of successor to the Roman Empire and kept the name, just changed the spelling. (And no, i'm Turkish, and living in İstanbul for 25 years, so just suck it up guys. History is not what you are taught at schools.)78.177.8.201 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Just as an aside, the Greeks didn't hate Romans but were Romans themselves, Rhomioi.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you named Istanbul as "Constantinople", you should also name previous capital cities in their former names - such as Edirne=Adrianople. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.186.73 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

i wanted to say something. The law in 1930 changing it to "Istanbul" was merely for Western uses. Amongst Turks it was always Istanbul , and officially too. Ataturk changed it "officially" so that westerners would stop calling it Constantinople. It is a typical imperialist view to think that it was not officially Istanbul until 1930, it is a view that dictates that something does not exist until the west acknowledges it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.245.105 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so does that mean that we should call Mumbai "Bombay"? There are people who still call it Bombay, even though the official name is Mumbai. Also, it wasn't "always" Istanbul, because the very word Istanbul is GREEK. Why would TURKS give their capital city a GREEK name before they had conquered the Greeks, and after Greek was no longer a common or trade language? (p.s.: I fixed your spelling and capitalization errors)Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

when was the empire at it's greatest extent? say, prior to the outbreak of the First World War it would also help if you could provide a map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.219 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Under Suleiman the Magnificent, the Empire reached its zenith. Now although the Empire had landed at Otranto in 1480, its greatest success was under Suleiman the Magnificent. Gabr-el 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question - the Empire and its classical institutions have always been regarded to've have reached their high point of functional effectiveness and prestige under Suleiman, but you were asking about when did the Empire reach its greatest territorial area, and that was in fact in the late 17th century, before the defeat at Vienna.Lewvalton (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul is Turk not greek sınce 1453.!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbascabbar (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 

And, what does that have to do with this conversation, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.128.125 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople is "Konstantiniyye" in Ottoman Empire, so it must be "Konstantiniyye"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.123.118 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right! --144.122.250.210 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "Konstantiniyye"; it's "Kostantiniyye" (قسطنطينيه). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.139.224 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right. I've got eleven Ottoman coins on which Kostantinniye is written. It should be changed to Kostantiniyye.(It was not Constantinople) F.Mehmet (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and Constantinople is the English name, so leave it alone please. We do not write Rome as Roma for instance.--Charles (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is an ENGLISH Wikipedia page and therefore we use the English word. Srroy if that brusts your bubble...Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I just think Talat Pasha ordering the mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 (making it the first genocide of the 20th century) is an important fact about the Ottoman/Turkish Empire.

I agree that's it worth mentioning.. I don't know that we need a section for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.166.253 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think there was no such thing as genocide, honestly i wish there was so you couldnt write those lies here.

Stop all of this right now, please... there is a separate article on the subject that covers the whole subject. Everyone is very familiar with the positions of those involved, and so we don't need it bleeding onto these pages. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]n}

01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

you think Genocide is trivial? it will bleed onto these pages despite your protest. gadfly46 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the assryian,dermian and greek genocides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, for most of Wiki users, Otooman Empire has made more massacre than any other country. Greek massacre is totally shit. Greek soldiers burned villiges and killed everybody who lives there. And you still talk about Greek genocide. Give me evidences about these genocides!!

look up on youtube infidels under islam and i wont be silent

Don't spread your poison here. "Greek massacre is totally shit"? What are you, twelve? The genocides need their own paragraphs here. I can't believe that there weren't any to begin with! The articles for the Armenian genocide, Greek genocide, and Assyrian genocide ought to be included. Anything but is pure ignorance. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC) All of these claims are only claim!not real...Reality is that about 500 thousands ottomans were massacred by armenians and in 1878 ,1913 about 1 million ottomans were killed by russians and greeks,about 4 million civilian ottomans immigrate to the anatolia..that is reality not claim.!!!history scientists accept a term as Ottoman Pax..About 30 different nation lived safely and peacely..but when nations betray to the ottoman empire and massacred to the ottomans they began to say 'ottomans killed us'.If you think logically why these nations alived???..ın the balkan war who is the foreign minister ın ottomans Gabriel NORADUNKYAN !!!.who is the richest and exclusive nation Greeks!!.why are you talking still!!ı think sınce ottomans defeated every time all of europe until 1683 ,there is a cowardise and jealousy.that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbascabbar (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) don't forget to add turkish ,irish(1850), native american,algerian genocides in here then there will be a point in talking about armenian or greek so called genocides(greek?they cleansed all of pelopennesia,the first and real greece)Girayhan (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Who remembers the Armenian massacres today?" - Adolf Hitler. Be warned, denying a massacre is a VERY dangerous sign.Hawkrawkr (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire was not "succeeded by the Republic of Turkey". The Republic was the last region to emerge as an independent state from the empire and this meant the end of the empire - a little Serbia was the last state to emerge out of Yugoslavia, and this meant the end of Yugoslavia. Unlike the Empire, the Republic did not take up the califate, it became secular and the land of the Tukrs. It is a fact that there are emotional ties between the two and this can lead to misleading conclusions, but, with all due respect to the memory of Ataturk and the modern Turkish state, there was no succession. I suggest we edit accordingly that phrase in the introduction. Politis (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OR, anyone? I can hardly imagine this is the mainstream position in scholarship. I'm not an expert, and I can only counter your OR with mine at this point, but it seems to me that the contemporaries very much did see the new Turkey as a continuation of the old. It certainly was considered as continuing the same international rights and obligations under international law. And it did inherit not only the symbols (flag etc.) but also the name, at least that used abroad: Turkey. Just compare the texts of the Treaties of Sèvres (with the Ottoman government) and that of Lausanne. Both treaties call the country Turkey. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fut Perf, Turkey in fact succeceded the Ottoman Empire , to claim it didn't its like saying the German Empire was NOT suceeded by the Weimar republic.

Just one question, didn't the empire (as traditionally viewed by historians) start in 1453 with the capture of Constantinople? i think we should switch the date, 1299 seems like artifically enlarging the life span of the Empire.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1- So you are accepting that Ottoman Sultans were actually Kayzer-i Rums. Just joking. The first ruler that was called Sultan was Murad Hüdavendigar. It was back in mid 14th century. Also, we can say that the Battle of Kosovo of 1389 must be enough for cherishing the rise of the empire, if the assumed titles of rulers don’t impress you.

2- As far as I know, Turkish Republic officially succeeded the empire. It is not about opinions of scholars but about diplomatic stuff. Also, we must keep in mind that Caliphate was legally present under the republic, until it was abolished with the Kemalist reforms in 1924. Deliogul (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is an interesting question. How far can a modern nation state be the successor of an empire. Is Greece the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire/Greek Empire/Byzantium? Is England the successor of the British empire? Is Italy the successor of the Roman Empire? Thanks all for your food for thought. Politis (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Ottoman Empire was "in many way an Islamic successor to the Byzantine Empire." True, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantines-however Ottomans were not Roman/Byzantine in any way in the form of religion/culture. User:Stephantom1

I have some sympathy with Politis' position on this but mainstream opinion confers the status of successor state upon the Republic of Turkey. siarach (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As for England and the British Empire - England isn't even a country anymore than is Languedoc or Texas. Any analogy using the UK/British Empire is inappropriate. While the UK preceeded the Empire and was its founding state the Commonwealth is the continuation of the empire with the UK forming only a member state along with other nations which formerly made up the Empire. siarach (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Stephantom. While the Ottoman Empire controlled broadly the same territories that were once under Byzantine dominion (when the eastern roman empire was at its greatest extent) and might have absorbed some of the administrative structure the idea that this somehow makes it a successor state isn't valid imo. siarach (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) In fact, as some other people seem to agree with me, I'm thinking about removing it for the points stated above-that is unless anyone can prove that the Ottoman Empire was 'in many respects' an Islamic successor to the Byzantine Empire. What do people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephantom1 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They were more like polar oppossites than anything! The hatred between the traditional Byzantine areas of Greece and other Balkan areas against the Muslim Ottoman Empire and vice versa was very real and often extreme. When Constantinople finally fell to the Ottoman Empire, after the initial pillaging etc, it was quite lenient but the state of hatred brewed up over hundreds of years of intense warfare saw terrible atrocities being committed by both sides in the Balkans (Vlad the Impaler etc). The language changed, the architecture changed, the religion changed and, eventually, the culture changed beyond recognition. Also after all those years of fighting Constantinople was drained of much of its competitive advantage. Though still a great and welathy city it had declined dramtically, losing trade to Venice and Genoa etc.Willski72 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I know, Turkey did not succeed Ottoman Empire, Turkey disestablish it and banned the Sultan. A successor state has the same political opinion with the old country. Atatürk tried to make Turkey independent from being a successor of Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A successor state can also be a state that becomes the dominant power in a particular region after the fall of an old one. Please stop all of this childish bickering. Hawkrawkr (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did we get a new map for the article? I like this one better.

I think we should put it back.

I strongly agree, I think it is highly inappropriate to use a .gif-image in the infobox, which in addition looks horribly compressed. The previous image was much more suitable (though the large northern-Europe part which only takes up unnecessary space should be cut away from the map). Why it was removed I have no idea, but it should be put back at once in my mind. -GabaG (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is not a clear reason behind this recent change, we should put the old picture back. Deliogul (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I thouht the following Image that i put instead of the old one is much better because the old one is like a combination of different countries to the peoples who don't know much about Ottoman Empire. I know this is silly for a person to imagine Ottoman empire that way but as you know all kind of people see this page and we should consider this type of people. by the way i don't think that the new one is ugly it's like those maps that were put in byzantine empire and roman republic.

The red map doesn't contain the Ottoman province of Eritrea and the Ottoman province of Sudan, the latter being formally (de jure) ceded by Turkey in 1923 with Article 17 of the Treaty of Lausanne,^[1] 9 years after its "de facto" annexation by the British Empire in 1914, when the Ottomans joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers.

On a further note, the Ottomans conquered and held parts of Morocco such as Fes between 1554 and 1603 (check out the history section of the Fes article) which are not included in any of these maps. 151.57.199.31 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is not included in the first map I can gladly edit in using Photoshop. I would have to go with the first map- the other two just use garish colors and are very, very simplistic.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, the capture of Fes was to put into place an Ottoman-friendly government, NOT to conquer it. Morocco was a client state, and not an actual part of the Empire itself- that is probably why it is not included in the map.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another map which could be considered that I made of the OE. -GabaG (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

the map is incorrect. wallachia and moldova were not part of the ottoman empire, they were merely vassals. there is a huge difference between the notions of being a province and being a vassal. here is a 17th-18th century map for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T%C3%BCrkei_und_Schutzstaaten_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fte_Ausdehnung_bis_zum_Karlowitzer_Frieden_1699.jpg the ottoman empire is shown in pink while the vassals are shown in yellow with pink borders.

please fix the map, or i will remove it. 79.113.12.250 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Among there maps shown on this page both the red map (ImperioOtomano1683.png) and the multicolor map (File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png) titled Ottoman Empire at the height of power (ca 1680) are clearly incorrect.Because in 1680 West Iran and Azerbaijan were not the parts of the Ottoman Empire. Besides the Ottoman Empire was not at the height of its power in 1680s. On the other hand, the green map (OttomanEmpire1600.png) titled Ottoman Empire c 1600 is also incorrect. Because, in 1600, west Iran and Azerbaijan were parts of the Ottoman Empire. Among the three incorrect maps I'd prefer the multicolor map for it is detailed and except for the legend it is fairly realistic. But the legend should be changed to Ottoman Empire in 1600s. Then everything would be OK. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The map is very wrong. The Ottoman Empire never extended that far into the Horn of Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.7.214 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased in many levels. It cannot be trusted, as wikipedia cannot be trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.171.127 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to share specifics? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still controversial among historians, and answers will vary depending on who one asks. The article itself even claims that "Mehmed II made the city the new capital of the Ottoman Empire, and he assumed the title of Kayser-i Rûm (Caesar Romanus = Roman Emperor). But, Greeks and other western European peoples did not recognize this title. "

DogeMarco (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.170.15 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Greeks recognized this after the conquest through the preservation of their Church. Why would western European peoples recognition matter, as this is the title of Eastern (European) Roman Empire!--74.192.197.62 (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The map being used doesn't look accurate. According to this map, the Ottomans ruled the entire Sahara desert and Arabian peninsula. I don't think they held all that territory at any one time. Karsanji (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

According to its description, the previous map was based on Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris: Fayard (1989). That map corresponded quite well with those given in mainstream historical atlases such as Westermann, Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, McEvedy, The Penguin Atlas of Modern History, and The Penguin Atlas of World History, as well as with the ones shown in Kettermann, Atlas zur Geschichte des Islam. The current map is both anomalous and unsourced. This seems like a good enough reason to revert to the previous one. Iblardi (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This page states that the official religion was Sunni Islam, but that other religions were "tolerated." This use of such a word is offensive, as anyone with two brain-cells knows that the Ottomans were one of the most oppressive countries in history. The language would be better if it passively stated, that the Empire "included other religions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks God! I've got very healthy brain-cells. If Ottomans had not tolerated religions, its Christian vassals would have been Muslim countries today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_II#Freedom_of_the_Bosnian_Franciscans F.Mehmet (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes! I think I've one healthy brain-cell, or possibly two, despite not regarding Ottomans as the most oppressive thinkable. They didn't play their cards very well, but there were other extinct large empires, such as the Portuguese Spanish, Austrian, German, British, French, Soviet Union, etc. who performed so-so but still shrunk to oblivion with some sad little screech. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

People, please. Its Christian vassals ARE Muslim countries today. Every country that was under Ottoman control, with the exception of Israel of course, is today a Muslim nation. Sorry to burst your bubble, F.Mehmet, but this is the world we live in. Perhaps you should study your countries and current events a bit better. Hawkrawkr (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense :). See Bulgaria (orth. chr.), Greece(orth. chr.), Macedonia (orth. chr.), Serbia(orth. chr.), Montenegro(orth chr.), partially Croatia (cath. chr.), Hungary (cath. chr.), Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia) (orth. chr.), Moldova,Ukraine (orth. chr.) even Southern Russia. Also, in the early 1570s Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was under Ottoman control. Perhaps you should study more than me!!!F.Mehmet (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think F. Mehmet is right! You should study your lesson very hard... Look at the places which they are occupied by France and UK. They do not have their language and their religion no more. Everything just happen in almost 100 years. If they could able to rule them more than 100 years then I think they even will no longer be exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.17.82 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use the term Ottoman Air Force fot the caption of this photograph taken during the Balkan Wars. Even the Turkish Air Force says in their official website: The Air Force General Inspectorate (in Turkish Kuva-yı Havaiye Müfettiş-i Umumiliği, Edward J. Erickson prefers the term Aviation Inspectorate for the subtitle in his work Defeat in detail), trying to reconstruct itself on 29 July 1918 had no personnel, but only remained as a title on paper. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png

For example, the Ottoman Empire had never possesed the coasts of Circassia.

The Ottoman sultan didn't find any disadvantage they were "giving" also coasts of Circassia, where actually had never passed into the hands of the Ottomans, to the Tzar of the Russian Empire with extravagantly promises.^[2]

See also: this page

We cannot use File:The largest territory of the Ottoman Empire.png. Because it is not accurate and it's worse than File talk:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png. Takabeg (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Namuslu wrote There is no consensus on the Talk page and, despite its "minor flaws" (e.g. the Adriatic coast of Croatia; parts of Circassia, etc) it is still the most realistic and well-crafted map available. This user accepted inaccuracy of map. "minor flaws", "realistic and well-crafted" are nothing but his/her POV. Here is an encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Takabeg (talk • contribs)

The current set up is very confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense, since it names basically all territories of the Empire which were lost after WWI and also older loses such as Serbia. Please change it back to how it was before, with Turkey as the successor state. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey took over the Ottoman debt and I believe the successor statehood of Turkey was an article of one of the post-World War I treates. Plus it doesn't make sense to have, for example, Serbia or the Hellenic Republic as successor states as they gained independence years before the Ottoman Empire fell. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your discussion page, you seem to know more than me, so I'll leave it to your judgement. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources ? Takabeg (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I see why none question the Wikipedia beyleri 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The flag of the Ottoman Empire is wrong, which is shown here. This flag is Republic Of Turkey's flag. Ottoman Empire's flag is 8-rounded. Not 5-rounded. You must change it. I know you'll tell me that flag, which in turkish wikipedia, is wrong. I know that it's also wrong. I've requested to change it. Mirochi (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you mean this one.--LK (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

f i couldnt help but notice that the recent map on the article ridiculously expands the borders of the ottoman empire's greatest extent to almost triple... adding countries such as morocco, Mauritania, niger, chad, ALL of algeria, Libya, Ethiopia, Oman... is this map any accurate at all?? Arab League User (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)--

Vassal States :D 96.55.183.132 (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See de:Diskussion:Osmanisches Reich. Takabeg (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when? OK, one of the longest lasting I can see (though the Byzantine Empire was about 150 years more, and if being ruled by an emperor is enough to qualify as an empire, then Japan beats it by ~600 (conservatively) to ~1600 (traditional dating) years; Japan isn't very empire-like in other ways, though...); it well outlasts such famous empires as the British, Mongol, Aztec, Roman imperial period, etc.

But largest? According to our own list of largest empires, the Otto mans are about 25th, at about 15% the area of the British Empire and about 22% of the Mongol Empire (likely a fairer comparison). 98.194.40.185 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are ottoman muslims in philadelphia such as rory hart. Idkaboutit (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to know--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This 16 empire sentence extremely damages the credebility of this well constructed page. The claim is totally nationalistic and largely desputed. And the word "turkish" instead of turkic make it sound even more childish, please the owner of this page fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.170.211 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no Otto-man, Ottoman used by English that stuck. real is Osman(li) (belong to Osman the founder), it's just a name no "Otto" and no "man" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismet11 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for protecting this article for two weeks. As near as I can tell, both users did technically violate the three revert rule, but in neither case does it appear to be intentional. User:Namuslu (contribs) appears to believe that it applies only to reverting edits by the same user, (which is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and I take serious issue with the current policy, though I obey it myself) and made a point of not reverting the revision in dispute in their subsequent edit.[2] User:Salihkocaboy (contribs) appears to have created an account solely for the purpose of reverting Namuslu's edits, however they appear to be relatively new, and the warning of the 3RR was given only five minutes before the final revert.

In short, you have one user with a long history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, who appeared to be sticking to their (incorrect, but quite understandable) interpretation of the 3RR, and another new user, who seems completely unaware of WP's policies until they were explained. This doesn't appear to be an ongoing edit war, and blocking all users from editing the page on account of a one-time violation of the 3RR by two users, both apparently acting in good faith, would seem to be serious overkill. --Quintucket (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Bankalar Caddesi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As a new user and a non-expert I'm reluctant to edit myself, but I wanted to suggest a review of the section "The Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan" which contains the sub-heading "Jews and Assyrian Christians forced migrations between 1843 and the 21st century". The information appears to be out of place and the style of the section seems out of keeping with Wikipedia standards. Footnote 150 also seems unusual. Thanks! Tgellene (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way? Uhlan ^talk 21:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Population of the Ottoman Empire seems a lonely stub. Any way of including here? Haruth (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's better than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Takabeg (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is content fork of the article Demographics of the Ottoman Empire. "If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Since the data from the article Population of the Ottoman Empire already exist in the main article (Demographics of the Ottoman Empire) there is nothing to merge. Therefore article Population of the Ottoman Empire should be deleted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. We can merge to (redirect to) Demographics of the Ottoman Empire. Takabeg (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but in any case, we should follow the wikipedia rules and inform creator and contributors to that article about this discussion. I am in a hurry, but if nobody else do it till this evening, I will do it tomorrow morning.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about my promise and I informed the creator of the article in question today diff. Since it is season of summer holidays and not urgent issue I propose to wait for a week or two before we proceed with proposed merge procedure.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Move the contents of the population article to the demographics one and redirect it to Demographics of the Ottoman Empire.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should Merge.--` (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge - there already is demographics article.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Merge Uhlan ^talk 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism? I don't know how to fix it so.............

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. I like Ponies alot. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.109.131 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just press the undo button on the article's history page if it happens again. Cheers Uhlan ^talk 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have filed for a page protection for this article due to persistant vandalism. Uhlan ^talk 04:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire never occupied meaningful part of Italian Peninsula. Faced with the expression "part of Italian Peninsula" a reader may think the Ottoman seized a very important part of Italy. Indeed Otranto area is about 76 km2, the Italian Peninsula is 1000 Km2. In other word the Ottoman Empire had the ability to control for only a year less that 0,01% of territory and just for a year. For instance during ww2 Italy occupied some small land in France. No one would say that Italy had occupied the French Empire- The same applies to German conquest of Channel Island. No one would say that "Germany had occupied a part of British Empire" because of that conquest. Indeed I have amended the expression n order to express that Ottoman tried to expand to Italy making Otranto a starting point but failed in that attempt. Ottoman history is plenty of glorious victories and I think we do not need to emphasize their conquests by means of ambiguous wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just edit the article yourself. Uhlan ^talk 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Written by Qusai Sir I would like to make it clear that you are entirely wrong , because the state which you have been writing about is actually where my grandfather is from , and you should refer to ottoman and Arabian history books to find that Sicily ,Napoli and those southern parts of italy was entirely controlled by the ottomans , in addition to that the name of the one who lead the conquest to Italy was called "Abu igal Al Atlsi" and he's Fromm Libya . By the way , there is no such terrortiry called Libya infaact Libya and part of today Algeria was called "africiyyah" "إفريقية" . Moreover the map is COMPLETELY inaccurate and is shrunk and false :) 2.49.191.235 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Italy would be several hundred thousand square km not 1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.236.110 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ottoman Empire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It needs citations, expansion of stubby sections, some cleaning, copyediting etc. I'm not sure it is even a GA! Anyway ...--Yannismarou 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)