Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

ottoman map

Please correct the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.152.45 (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific, i.e say exactly what is wrong with the map. Uhlan ^talk 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gessing that you are User:Tobby72? Uhlan ^talk 03:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Map of the Ottoman Empire

the actual map is wrong. in their largest expansion in 1683 they also controlled the complete west coast of the caucasus.

the arabic and the german wikipedia articles have correct maps and one of them should be implementet in the english wikipedia article. 62.240.192.35 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references proving your theory right before we change it? Uhlan ^talk 08:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The eastern coast of the Caucasus, however, was in the hands of the Safavids along with the rest of Azerbaijan, Eastern Kurdistan, Elam, and Khuzestan. This map is highly exxagerated in it's eastern frontiers. The Ottomans never had any control over the Caspian Coast, especially in Gilan. Kaveh94 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grot/hd_grot.htm here is just one credible source. While it is true that the Ottomans very temporarily captured Tabriz which they evacuted from quickly after, I don't believe any credible sources give evidence of the conquest of Baku. Even putting Tabriz under Ottoman territory may be an exaggeration since their time there was so short but to put in isolated areas like Gilan or Eastern Azerbaijan would be nothing short of inaccurate. Kaveh94 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to find a map with those revisions. I'm not the best at geography! Uhlan ^talk 05:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

this seems to have a few decent maps. Not to sure about the correctness of them. Though I am quite sure that this has any factual accuracy at all. The borders of North Africa and the Balkans seem much to large. Uhlan ^talk 05:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaveh is correct here. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent ;) Uhlan ^talk 05:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge with another article

I just noticed that there are two articles in Wikipedia about the Ottoman Empire. Should one of those articles be merged with the other one?80.108.31.215 (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the link to the other article? Uhlan ^talk 08:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Prdecessor states: Armenia and Slovenia?

I am not an expert but were not meaningful parts of Armenia and Slovenia conquered by Ottomans for meaningfully long periods? How about Gerorgia? Or Moldova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.155.172 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Seems like someone added a better (more attractive colours) map. Good. --E4024 (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Source falsification

There is a big problem of source falsification with this material [1]. Namely, there is nothing in the source regarding the Ottoman Empire, let alone the claim being made. It is an extreme form of source falsification. Athenean (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I will comment two sentences of removed paragraph.

1. The source (The Dark Side of Democracy) says that: "In the Balkans all statistics of death remain contested. Most of the following figures derive from McCarthy ... who is ofter viewed as scholar on the Turkish side of debate. Yet even if we reduced his figures by as much as 50%, they would still horify." - it is wrong to present POV figures, although they are attributed to McCarthy, because uninitiated reader does not necessarily know that he is "scholar on the Turkish side of debate" so it would be against NPOV and UNDUE.
2. I checked the Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. It does not contain any of the words used by this author: “murderous ethnic cleansing on stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe”, so I think it was wrong to refer to this report while quoting such expression.

I will try to investigate other sentences if I have time. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

First: I cannot understand how anyone can say that "there is nothing in the source regarding the Ottoman Empire". Mann's book says exactly what is cited.

Second: The fact that Mann mentions that McCarthy is "often viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side" does in no way discredit Mann as a source. On the contrary, this shows that he is viewing McCarthy from a critical stance. In spite of this he concludes with the exact words: "This was murderous ethnic cleansing on a stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe, as the report of the Carnegie Endowment (1914) recognized." Mann's words, not McCarthy's.

Third: It is true that you do not find the words "murderous ethnic cleansing" in the Carnegie Endowment report. That is because they are Mann's words. The report was written in 1914, and the terminology was different: "extermination", "elimination". Mann says that the report "recognized" the ethnic clensing, not that they called it that.

All in all, Mann seems to me to be a good NPOV source. (And readable, too!) Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mann's work is interesting and readable.

• Nobody discredited Mann as a source. There is a problem with interpretation of his work and wikipedia rules. Although Mann carefully explained that McCarthy is not NPOV, McCarthy's estimations about the number of Muslim victims are added to this article. I refer to the figures presented here: "between 1821 and 1922 around five and a half million Muslims were driven out of Europe and five million more were killed or died of disease and starvation while fleeing". Therefore I wrote "it is wrong to present POV figures" because it would be against wp:NPOV and wp:UNDUE.
• I will try to clarify what I wrote about report of international commission: it does not contain any of the words used by Mann: “murderous ethnic cleansing on stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe”, so I think it was wrong to refer to this report while quoting such expression.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your last point is easily fixed. How about "Mann also refers to the 1914 Carnegie Endowment report and describes the acts as "murderous ethnic cleansing on a stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe"." This makes it clear that the words are his, but that he also has based his conclusion on the report.

Regarding your first point, I see that we have a slightly more difficult situation. If we are not presenting McCarthy's numbers, it is more difficult to make a foundation for the Mann quote. I see two possible ways of doing it.

• We could present McCarthy's numbers with a comment about him being "often viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side", and then present Mann's reservation before giving the quote. Possibly too awkward.
• Or we could ignore McCarthy and do it like this: First a statement that there was an etnic cleansing, but that the numbers are contested. Then the sentence about "Cleansing occurred as a result of the Serbian and Greek ...". And eventually the revised sentence about "murderous ethnic cleansing". Notes to Mann and to the report.

What do you think?

Regarding the contested reference to History of the literary cultures of East-Central Europe p. 21, I think the problem is simply that this is a series of four volumes, so the note has to state in which volume we should look for p. 21.

Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Before I reply to your proposal I would like to say that you started discussion about very complex topic. Any simplification and use of non-neutral sources should be avoided because it is against wikipedia rules and would mislead the readers.

• Re my first point: I am against addition of McCarthy's numbers because Mann himself explained that he is not neutral. Therefore it would be against wp:NPOV and wp:UNDUE to add any of McCarthy's numbers.
• Re my last point: I am against your proposal to quote Mann's opinion and to connect it with 1914 Carnegie Endowment report because it could mislead the readers to believe that 1914 Carnegie Endowment report actually supports Mann's view. Mann's conclusion about that report is his personal view and simplification of the events which is against WP:NPOV. Maybe it would be the best to simply avoid it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Causes of the Balkan Wars

The existing text of the article gives undue weight to Bulgarian revanchist demand as main cause for First Balkan War. Carnegie Endowment founded International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Here is what that commission says about the three causes of the First Balkan War (p. 49):

First, the weakness and want of foresight of Turkey, on the verge of dissolution; second, the powerlessness of Europe to impose on a constitutional Turkey the reforms which she had succeeded in introducing into an absolute Turkey, and third, the consciousness of increased strength which alliance gave to the Balkan States, each with a national mission before it, namely, the protection of the men of its race and religion dwelling in Turkey, against the Ottomanization policy which threatened national existence.

I propose to remove Bulgarian revanchist demand as the only cause of the First Balkan war and instead to carefully explain the above mentioned causes presented by international commission.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Empire

This seems misleading. The Empire couldn't have been 'Turkish' considering that 'Turk' was a pejorative (see standard textbook on Islamic societies, Ira Lapidus, p. 498). Turkish empire was only used by Europeans who were largely ignorant of such distinctions, until now that is. This needs to be changed for the sake of clarity and truth. Ottomanist (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give an exact reference to the Ira Lapidus book? I am trying to find the book and would rather do so before changing the article. Uhlan ^talk 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A History of Islamic Societies, By Ira Marvin Lapidus, p. 498. Ottomanist (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ottomans were a Turkish dynasty. Some pejorative use of "Turk" by a limited number of individuals against the masses doesn't change that. --Mttll (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Great Turkish Empire should be mentioned in the intro as it is so-called by most of the historians. Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How many Empires have there been, not without a dominant nation? The concept of Empire, per definition, implies multi-ethnicity... ("Ottoman" is the name of the dynasty that governed the Turkish Empire, like the Bourbons or any other royal family if we wish to understand with examples.) The Turkish/Ottoman (both are valid in English) Empire for the major part of its existence referred to itself simply as "Devlet-i Aliye" a name which can be translated more or less as "the Supreme State". --E4024 (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish nationalist POV-pushing

"The Ottoman Empire", also known as the "Turkish Empire" or simply "Turkey" was a Turkish empire...You've got to be kidding right? This is nationalist POV-pushing of the highest order. The Empire was multi-ethnic from start to finish. Even the Sultans were of mixed ancestry. We shouldn't attach such an ethnic label to any empire article on this encyclopedia. Similarly, I moved the six alternate names to a new "Name" section, as an opening sentence with six alternate names is very clunky and unwieldy, so I moved them to a new Name section. I don't see what's controversial about that. Athenean (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's more nationalist POV-pushing than calling Russian Empire, Russian Empire. --Mttll (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect to get anywhere with you, I was putting the question to the community. Athenean (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, isn't it just a wonderful coincidence that the Republic of Turkey somehow happened to be the sole successor state to the Ottoman Empire? --Mttll (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any POV in the assertion above. Sure, the empire was multi-national, and it would be wrong and POV etc to move the present article to "Turkish Empire" or such like, but the fact is a) the Ottoman Empire was and still is commonly called "Turkey" in every language I know of. Yes, one wouldn't label Ottoman Christians or Arabs "Turks", and even the actual meaning of "Turk" in Ottoman times and the extent of "Turkishness" of the Ottoman Empire are a matter of debate, but no one would deny that the Turkish ethnos, language and culture played the dominant role in the Empire. Constantine ✍ 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bravo Constantinou, filemou... :-) --E4024 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A correction on my statement above, because just now I saw the "was a Turkish empire" in the end of the sentence. Yes, this particular statement, in its simplicity, is potentially misleading, because it can be read as ascribing a single ethnic label to the entirety of the state. Some rephrasing would be in order. Constantine ✍ 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I rephrased it to "founded by Turkish tribes in Anatolia", I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have a problem with that. Athenean (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read also my comment above (in line with that of Constantine). Alex2006 (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that - as the lead currently states - the Ottoman Empire was historically known as the "Turkish Empire" quite frequently (possibly even more frequently than as the "Ottoman Empire"), so I don't quite get the accusation that this is necessarily about "nationalist POV-pushing of the highest order". As well as the map evidence posted in the section above, a simple search on Amazon for publications or books with that in the title makes that obvious enough, bringing up as it does a large number of historic publications with that very name. As noted above, even an authoritative book from the 1970s has "Turkish Empire" in its subtitle. Arguing that it cannot be so called because it was not entirely ethnically Turkish not only has nothing to do with anything when it comes to noting that it very definitely was called that, but is just a plain odd argument anyway. As noted, the Russian, Roman and British empires were not mono-ethnic or mono-national. Describing an empire as the "XX-ish" empire merely means it was an empire that belonged to the XX-ish, not that everyone within its borders was ethnically XX-ish. It is also quite common to see references that go even further, and simply use the name of the dominant country/entity to mean its entire imperial domain. Hence, you will often see the Crimean War being referred to as a conflict between Russia, France, Britain and Turkey - with no mention of any of the combatants imperial status. N-HH talk/edits 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Piedmont/Sardinia. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because that was not an empire and only provided logistical support: Pizza and pasta... :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

At best Risotto and Brasato... :-) At that time pizza and pasta were unknown in Piedmont. And you call this logistical support? :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature dispute

Some users are objecting to the capital of the Empire being referred to as "Constantinople", insisting on Istanbul. Yet most sources, including modern sources, refer to the city as "Constantinople" in an Ottoman context. It is generally referred to by sources as "Istanbul" only after the 1930s. This is especially true for the sources used within the article. Similarly, the term "Turkish Empire", which some people insist on using in the lede, is extremely rare among modern sources. As such, including it in the first line of the lede is unwarranted. Athenean (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If "Turkish Empire/Turkey" was virtually exclusive way to refer to the Ottoman Empire in English between 1299-1922, I don't think it can be argued mentioning it in the lead is unwarranted. If there is a false impression that it's being used as commonly as "Ottoman Empire" in 2012, that can be eliminated, as I just did. As for Constantinople, if you but click on one of the many links leading to the article, "Constaninople", the first sentence you will see would be a Wikipedia convention, so to speak: --Mttll (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the city before the 1453 Ottoman conquest. For a more detailed history after 1453, see History of Istanbul.

Wrong. Wikipedia policy is that we follow the usage of the sources. Check the sources used in the article. What do they use? Constantinople or Istanbul? The quote you provide is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is that a policy or anything like that. Athenean (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So since there are different sources referring to the same city by both names for the same period, is the article expected to use Constantinople in one sentence and Istanbul in the next? I know Wikipedia can't have original research, thank you very much. But as we can both see in the article Constantinople, it can have certain conventions even if just for practical reasons. If you are not happy with this, I suggest you go dispute this there first.

By the way, you haven't explain why you removed "Turkish Empire/Turkey" in the opening sentence. Here are some historical documents for you from the article, "Names of the Ottoman Empire": --Mttll (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Historic maps using the alternative names of the Ottoman Empire

• Historic map by John Bartholomew & Co.: Changes in Turkey in Europe, 1856 to 1878
• 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 John 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
• Map of the Turkish Empire in Europe and Asia, by George Cram, c.1890
• Map of the Turkish Empire (Natoliam, Turcia Turcicive Imperii) published by De Jode, c.1590
• Map of the Turkish Empire (Imperium Turcicum in Europa, Asia et Africa; regiones proprias, tributarias, clientelares) by Johann Baptist Homann, c.1720
• Map of the Turkish Empire (Imperium Turcicum complectens Europae, Asiae et Africae) by P. Schenk, Amsterdam, c. 1720
• Map of the Turkish Empire (Turcicum Imperium) by Jodocus Hondius, 1607. Published in English by Michael Sparke, London, 1635
• Map of the Turkish Empire (1844)
• Map of the Turkish Empire in Europe and Asia, published by Letts, London, 1883
• Turcicum Imperium
• Turcicum Imperium

Good Morning, I would like to share my opinion. In an Italian context (for example Pietro Della Valle, Relations of the Venetian Ambassadors, etc.) the used term for the Empire is "Turkey", not "Ottoman Empire". The name of the Sultan was "Il gran Turco" or "Il gran Signore". About maps, is the same: for example, I have an atlas of 1908, where "European Turkey" spans from Tirana to Istanbul. The term "Ottoman Empire" appears to be a modern expression as "Byzantine Empire" is, with respect to "Roman Empire".

About Constantinople/Istanbul, I suggest to read Mamboury ("The tourist Istanbul", a standard reference book about the city), who has two pages about the Names of the City and - above all - Mantran "La vie quotidienne...". According to him, in the Ottoman time there was no "Official name" of the city. A lot of the public jobs concerning the City refer to it as Constantinople, and a lot refer to it as Istanbul: the two names were interchangeable. Mantran, an intelligent person, in his book, which deals Istanbul during 16th and 17th century, uses both names, making no difference, since there was no difference at the time.

About the sources, one should differentiate:

• historically, it is true what Athenean says: most of the west sources use Constantinople (although the new works, as the "Cambridge History of Turkey" adopt also the convention t< 1453 Constantinople, t> 1453 Istanbul).

• in architecture/ Art history, the convention t< 1453 Constantinople, t> 1453 Istanbul is firmly established since at least 30 years. Mamboury (1953) adopts it, Müller-Wiener ("Bildlexikon", 1976) uses it too. In the last years, some Turkish authors adopt Istanbul also for the city name in the Byzantine times: personally I disapprove it. Alex2006 (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

English Bobby, I will appreciate if you explain your POV a little more than "no it hasn't" here. --Mttll (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see any firm evidence that "most sources use Constantinople". People seem to make these sorts of sweeping statements on these pages with nothing to back them up. The one book about the empire I have on my shelf - Kinross's Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire from 1977 - consistently uses "Istanbul" to refer to the city during the Ottoman period. A wider review in Google books suggests mixed usage among serious sources - with plenty using Istanbul, although it's hard to confirm anything in terms of precise mathematical ratios. Texts that address the question directly of what the city was actually called in the period in question again appear mixed, with several claiming it was renamed Istanbul after it fell to Mehmet while others point out it was only "officially" renamed in the 20th century (not that, in fact, these two opinions are necessarily contradictory - even those that asert the latter acknowledge Istanbul was in common use as the "new name" in the Ottoman period).

Also, people can't have it both ways. If the claim is that "Turkish Empire" is only found in older sources and therefore should not even be noted, simply as an alternate name, then the supposed fact that Constantinople is more commonly found in older sources on the Ottoman period - even if it's true - should certainly not be invoked as a reason for using it here as the primary designation for the capital city. N-HH talk/edits 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Constantinople, my sense is that all English sources before 1930 use Constantinople as the name of the city. Between the 1930s and, I don't know, the 1970s, virtually all sources refer to the city during the Ottoman period as Constantinople. Since around the 70s, works of general European history (particularly diplomatic history) still refer to the city as Constantinople during the Ottoman Period, while works on Middle Eastern history have increasingly been using Istanbul. john k (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I read until now about 150 books dealing with the City (excluding guides and reference works). They span from Procopius to Gautier, from De Amicis to Dos Passos, and I can tell you that - excluding the Turkish authors - writers using the term "Istanbul" can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Alex2006 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well we don't need to exclude Turkish authors. Plus, a Google Book search for "Ottoman Istanbul" or some variation thereof reveals to me a large number of reputable books using that term to refer to the city under Ottoman rule - at a rough guess, just as many as using Constantinople. Plus there's the issue of those sources that explicitly address the issue, and explicitly say that that the Ottomans changed the name (even if not "officially" and even if it was not taken up universally). N-HH talk/edits 18:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The term "Constantinople" was universally used in western literature until some decades ago, but by the Turks was different. How I stated above, I think that there is nothing wrong in using "Istanbul" together with "Constantinople" for the name of the city until its "official" renaming. The Ottoman Empire was a multicultural State, and the Ottomans used both names. Alex2006 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia following what is/was used in the English language. Just like Rudolf Hess is a spelling not used in German but common in English, the name of a town should reflect what is used for the town at that time in the English language. Lumialover2 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is broad agreement on that principle I think - or at least should be. It's more a question of what name was/is used in English for the place, or parts of it, in that historical context, where the evidence is mixed, or at least is clear that usage was/is mixed. N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy vs caliphate

The Ottoman government in the periods 1299-1876, 1878-1908 and 1918-1922 is best described as absolute monarchy in English. The term, caliphate, would definitely not cover pre-1517 era. And caliphate is never meant to be a specific form of government, but a source of religious legitimacy for any given form of government, at most. Note that the caliphate actually survived the monarchy in Ottoman Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the caliphate was by no means suspended during the constitutional periods. --Mttll (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Map translation needed

File:Map-of-Ottoman-Empire-in-1900-German.svg is not in English. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - Edit request

Somehow, the date of the promulgation of the Republic of Turkey appears as 01 November 1923 when in fact it is 29 October 1923. I could not do it by myself. I would be happy if an experienced user can correct that. --E4024 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears 29 October 1923 and sultanate abolished appears 1 November 1922?--Rapsar (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rapsar, because another of my great Wikifriends, Buster7 has already done it. --E4024 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Map

I think there are some problems with the map, it seems somebody just deleted the Transilvania region in the Balkans considering that this place wasnt a part of the empire because it was simply paying tributes to the Ottoman State. However, giving various forms of regional autonomies was the way to rule a large territorial empire, in fact if you start deleting parts of the map based on that you will be reducing the Ottoman Empire to Constantinople and its close entourage alone. The entirety of the Ottoman state was ruled via vassal states and autonomous regions. Hence, I believe that deleted part should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If Romania wasn't a part of the Ottoman Empire, then what was the Romanian War of Independence (1877–1878) (a part of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)) about? Where did the Pruth River Campaign of 1710-1711 take place? In which part of Slovakia was the Peace of Zsitvatorok (1606) signed? 78.181.132.235 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern Romania was an Ottoman vassal state. The obvious solution would be to show it hashed or in a different colour on the map.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Egypt too was an Ottoman vassal state, Kurdish areas were an autonomous region ruled largely by Kurdish people etc., anybody can extend this list. As I stated before, nearly the entirety of the Ottoman state had been ruled via vassal states and autonomous regions, so what's the point of singling out Romania? Being a vassal state means Romania was part of the Ottoman Empire, pretty much any historical map will show it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The map you are referring to is I believe this one (or the other one, below) [2]. This map used to be fine until User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu ruined it by blanking the region of Romania and only adding the text Christian Vassal States. He did this in a very unprofessional way. If someone has the skills to undo that I'd much appreciate it.

This map [3] was also ruined by the same user. As you can see, he removed half of Ottoman Southeastern Europe. Can someone please return this to its original appearance?

This map [4] is in my opinion quite good, because it also shows the vassal territories with a lighter color. DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with DragonTiger23, a single user decides to make substantial changes to the conventional history maps by coming up with the idea that vassal states should not be shown in an Ottoman map. In fact, he is only interested in removing Romania from the Ottoman map and has no problem with the other vassal states of the empire that are still part of the map after his edits. If only someone can return the map to its previous state I believe we can continue using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I managed to undo it.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

For those who want to read more about the history of the Ottoman Empire, read Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream, New York 2006. --R. la Rue (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Intoduction POV?

From the introduction paragraph: "The conquest of Constantinople was a pivotal event in the evolution of Turkish statehood, since the victory of 1453 cemented its Eurasian nature, which remains one of the essential characteristics of Modern Turkey. " This seems POV, and has no citations for it. At any rate, it doesn't seem factual enough to be in the introduction paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.183.53 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

and: what is the exact meaning of "Turkish statehood" in this context (history of the Ottoman Empire)?--R. la Rue (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient Cartographic Info about the Ottoman Empire

How can there be no 'proper' map of the ottoman empire on this page? There is only a single map on the entire page and even that with insufficient information: the border of the empire are clearly not visible (they get off-chart, especially on the Maghreb side). There used to be a less detailed animated map, and even that was better than this one... what happened? I understand that detailed map information is important, but I believe borders are at the top of the list when it comes to empires.

It would probably more reasonable to have a map of perhaps the 'golden-ages' of the ottoman empire as a main map, and a separate animated map showing how the empire had taken its geographical shape during its existence at the history section. That would at least also make it easier to understand it at first glance. Right now, the illustration themselves don't even tell me how big the ottoman empire was back then, neither can I find out who their neighbors were - overall pretty insufficient. EthemD (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are several maps used until now but none of them was completely accurate so they were removed, as far as I remember.

• This files are animated maps showing how the empire had taken its geographical shape during its existence.
• Here are different maps of the OE.

Maybe it would be a good idea to chose the least problematic files, define what should be done to improve their accuracy and ask somebody at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab to correct them before they are added to the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me we ought to have several maps. Beyond the current map, I think there should at least be a map or two of the Ottoman Empire int he 19th century/early 20th century. john k (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a map I made showing the Ottoman territories (including nominal and vassal) in 1914 before World War I.

I had added this some time ago, but apparently somebody didn't like it and deleted it. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd be good for a start, although I'd rather prefer a pre-Balkan Wars map. The 1914 map represents a territorial expanse that only pertained for a couple of years (1913-1918). A map that takes 1900 as its baseline would be more useful, I think, since that would show Ottoman borders that existed for 30 years (1878-1908). john k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think it would be best showing a static image as the main, and an animated one presenting the expansions etcetera beside the History paragraph. I don't get what you see in using one of the maps of the more recent ottoman empire - they are almost the most exclusive ones (in terms of area). I think its important to be inclusive. We're talking about an empire here - people want to know its influence to the world, its potential, its size. There are various maps, I just picked one for checking the dates [5] and from the looks of it between 1566 and 1881, so more than half of its period of existence, the OE ruled over half of the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea; important connection points like the Dardanelles, Bosphorus & Suez canal; important religious sites like Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Mecca & Medina; as well as river Euphrates & Tigris towards the Persian Gulf. This is the least I'd expect. We can look at old pictures and choose from those but of course a new one from the Graphic's Lab like Antidiskriminator suggested would be nice as well! EthemD (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Population exchange did not occur during Ottoman Empire, and is separate event from genocide

I have undone this edit [6], for a number of reasons. The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey took place in 1923-1924, after the massacres of the 1914-1922 period. It is a completely separate event from the Greek genocide. It also has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. It was agreed upon in 1923 between Greece and the Republic of Turkey, and was implemented in gradual fashion over the next few years. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved before the exchange was agreed upon, or even discussed. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Go read the source, page number is given

"Ethnic cleansing continued after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire's final collapse generated nationalist power struggles. Greece landed an army in Turkey in 1919 starting a war that produced ethnic killing, deportations, and ethnic cleansing...Killings and arson were committed during the Greek-Turkish war, but the Lausanne population exchange was not a genocide." Cavann (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did read the source. The article didn't state anywhere that the Treaty of Lausanne was genocide, did it? In fact, it doesn't even mention the Treaty of Lausanne. Because the treaty of Lausanne was signed by the Republic of Turkey and not the Ottoman Empire. The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the Greek genocide are two completely separate events. That's why we have separate articles for them. One preceded the other, they are not the same. You are conflating two completely separate events. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI genocidal policies were enacted against the Greeks as early as 1914. See Greek genocide for details. Athenean (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet the Oxford Handbook entry does not mention that even tho it mentions Armenians. The preceding sentences before my edit lacked neutrality, unsurprisingly. If you are so worried about Lausanne, we can say "According to The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Greece landed an army in Turkey in 1919 starting a war that produced ethnic killing, deportations, and ethnic cleansing; however, no genocide occurred." Cavann (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? Read Greek genocide. An estimated 750,000-900,000 were killed between 1914-1922, and you're telling me it wasn't genocide? Why do you think we have a Greek genocide article? Which, by the way, is loaded with sources. also, can you understand that the treaty of Lausanne and the preceding genocide are two completely separate events'? Can you acknowledge that? Athenean (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw your Oxford Handbook, says

Many, though not all, Greeks, were deported from selected coastal locations, and in 1915 Armenians were deported from most of Turkey, in what was ethnic cleansing and genocide

It mentioned the deportations of the Greeks beginning in 1915 in the same sentence as those of the Armenians, i.e. they were both part of the same genocide. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence

Under "Religion" the second sentence reads as follows: "By 1914, only 19.1% of the empire's population was non-Muslim, mostly made up of Christian Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians, and some Jews.[130] about 5.3 million people who 23.5% of the populaition outside the Arabian peninsula provinces." There's plainly some confusion here that ought to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.70.143 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No evidence that these countries were ever part of the Ottoman Empire

Removed from the infobox: Austria Azerbaijan Djibouti Ethiopia Morocco Russia Slovenia Somalia South Sudan United Arab Emirates

This source shows a map of the Ottoman Empire, overlapping a map with modern borders. It only covers the period of Suleyman, though.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not about countries, but about the territory. The territory which today belongs to those countries was once part of OE.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "part of the territory"? I don't think that the Ottomans ever occupied Wladiwostok :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Did the Ottomans ever occupy a sizeable part of any of these countries for a significant amount of time? If so, is there a source to prove it?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What does sizeable mean in this case? And what does a significant amount of time mean? Alex2006 (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More than a few towns, and for at least a few years? It's pretty arbitrary, I know. But neither should we list every place that was occupied for just a matter of months. And even if we decide to be overly inclusive, I think that the Ottomans never occupied Djibouit or Morocco, or South Sudan or Somalia.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If certain territory which once belonged to the OE was/is later/before part of other countries which succeeded/preceded OE I think that those countries should be listed. Per Template:Infobox former country only "Preceding and succeeding entities" should be presented here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So we should for example include all the former Greek city states of Anatolia, or the Crusade States of Levant, and so on? Good night :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did some short check at home. There is evidence that the Ottomans occupied for some time the coast of Eritrea and Djibouti, in prevision of an attack to Ethiopia which never took place. About the latter and South-Sudan, I think that the flags refer to the (partial) Egyptian occupation in 19th century, when this country was de facto independent but nominally still an Ottoman province. Alex2006 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that the Ottomans held Massawa for centuries, but did they ever occupy any city/towns in Djibouti or Ethiopia, and if so, which ones? The territorial expansion of the Khedivate of Egypt shouldn't be considered here, IMO. As you rightly pointed out it was independent in all but name.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all maps that show the existent of the Ottoman Empire include all the territory they had conquered during that period. For example this map click image 6 shows the empire in 1638 including some of the country you had mention: Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Russia, and Somalia. But not countries like Qatar and Oman that are already listed? I will add the ones included in my map on to the main article.--AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag is wrong

For most of the history of the Ottoman Empire, they used the green and gold variant - not the red and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.145.77.139 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dates listed in article are wrong!

On the 10th of October 2013, someone listed in the article that the Ottoman Empire was disestablished and replaced with the current Republic of Turkey in 1918, this is absolutely false as the Republic of Turkey was not proclaimed until after the Turkish War of Independence ended in 1923, and all of my attempts to correct this today have been reverted, when the article has listed the proper dates for YEARS. Please, let's put the. Back to being correct once and for all. --184.57.53.231 (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement that the Ottoman Empire didn't loose any ground until 1699 is wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nasuh_Pasha 1612.

The Ottoman Empire agreed to return all territory gained by the treaty of Istanbul of 1590. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of Istanbul

Istanbul does not mean city of islam, and it wasn't renamed by Mehmed II. There are far more sources that claim otherwise and they seem more reliable -actual academic works as opposed to single line of text in a BBC subdomain- so this statement should be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul#Kostantiniyye

Disruptive or offensive username (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman/Turkey dispute

There has been a long running discussion regarding the use of the term "Turkey" in articles about World War I at Talk:Anzac Mounted Division which has spilled over into the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history here [7] and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators here [8].

This discussion relies on the following note: "At the time of the First World War, the modern Turkish state did not exist, and instead it was part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. While the terms have distinct historical meanings, within many English-language sources the term "Turkey" and "Ottoman Empire" are used synonymously, although many academic sources differ in their approaches.[Fewster, Kevin; Basarin, Vecihi; Basarin, Hatice Hurmuz (2003). Gallipoli: The Turkish Story. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen and Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-045-5.] The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey"."

This note has been added to two articles which have both changed "Ottoman Empire" to "Turkey." They are, Anzac Mounted Division which was operational between 1916 and 1919, now describes Turkey fighting during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, and in the Charge at Huj article which also uses "Turkey," despite my protests and an edit war. --Rskp (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I proposed to resolve the Anzac Mounted Division wording dispute consistently, by reaching a consensus which would be valid for other articles as well. My proposal was rejected. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: MarcusBritish has expressed a concern that Takabeg (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) — Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As Takabeg was the editor who first alerted me that it was indeed the Ottoman Empire which took part in WW1, I thought that editor might be interested to know about this dispute. This was not canvassing. --Rskp (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Another policy which you failed to read and comprehend, Roslyn? WP:CANVASSING states canvassing "is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate" – and also requires invitations to discussion to be neurally worded. Given your clear lack of understanding of English, you should known that "wrongly", from your message to Takabeg, is an adjective which describes an opinion, and is therefore a non-neutral word, pertaining to your subjective opinion. It also follows on from the MilHist consensus, as you are clearly on a mission to find an excuse to override that consensus, insisting that 11 people are wrong and you are always oh so right. So please, don't assume to tell me what is not canvassing, I don't appreciate your presumptuous tone nor outright lies. A neutrally worded invite to a debate requires an invite and a link with absolutely no statement of your personal views that could influence the editor. You didn't do that, so it was canvassing. To add to the insult, you also cherry-picked someone specifically who supports your personal view, rather than a range of invites, that was your own admittance, which constitutes partisan canvassing – more in your favour. Learn the ropes Roslyn, don't hang yourself with them... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What is this gibberish transliteration? Οςμανλι İμπαρατορλθήθ Χθμξθρίυετί Δεωλετί --88.251.12.238 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pavlo-Kurtik Vilayet - possible hoax

According to the article "vilayet", vilayets were introduced in 1867.

The article Pavlo-Kurtik claims there was a Pavlo-Kurtik Vilayet in the 15th century, and that it was below a sanjak.

Androoox (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you discuss single-article issue on this talkpage, but not massive renaming and changes you performed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

The section on Samuel Morse and the electric telegraph is in conflict with the main Wikipedia article on the electric telegraph and appears to be inaccurate. Corduanp (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Peter Corduan

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed what Peter noticed, in that the article claims that a patent was issued for Moore's telegraph in 1947, and that is was the first one for that device worldwide, which is contradicted by the article on the telegraph, which indicates that it was patented in 1937 in the U.S. I checked the link that this article used to support that claim, and I believe it to be highly propagandistic in nature. I'm new, and not sure how to proceed on this. CaptainLego (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I can't find a Morse patent in 1837, although this page states "The Telegraph was invented by Samuel Morse in 1837 (US patent No. 1647)" However, Morse's patent 1647 "Improvement in the mode of communicating information by signals by the application of electro-magnetism" was applied for on 7 April 1838 and patented on June 20 1840 as can be seen here.

Although these dates are all before 1847, this article only states "Samuel Morse received a patent for the telegraph in 1847, which was issued by Sultan Abdülmecid" - Patents were issued on a country by country basis, so it is entirely possible that Morse did receive a patent from Sultan Abdülmecid in 1847. In the context of showing how the country was modernizing, this shows the Sultan was willing to consider and implement new ideas.

Furthermore, despite the last poster's statement, I do not see any claim in the article, that it "was the first one for that device worldwide", notwithstanding the claim in the original source. I also note that the source uses the wayback machine, so presumably this claim is not on a current web-site.

So, assuming good faith, the statement appears entirely plausible - a patent was issued by Sultan Abdülmecid in 1847, although a less contentious source would be preferable - Arjayay (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I remained interested in this topic, and found a few seemingly more reliable sources. It appears that Morse was not present for the demonstration of the telegraph, which isn't explicitly stated or refuted in the article, but possibly implied. In addition, the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire (http://books.google.com/books?id=QjzYdCxumFcC&pg=PA557&lpg=PA557&dq=Sultan+Abd%C3%BClmecid+and+the+telegraph&source=bl&ots=PeV6N7IEw3&sig=aGpk7Yg0v4vIzMFRaG30v-T2_Dg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hC20U4zcCpGDqgatjICYAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Sultan%20Abd%C3%BClmecid%20and%20the%20telegraph&f=false)states that construction of telegraph lines in Turkey did not begin until the Crimean War, which started in 1853, after the date proposed by this article. Can anyone find anything to reconcile this? Or should it be rewritten? CaptainLego (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20070716155929/http://tulp.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/wap/ejz18.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo

There seems to be something wrong in the last two sentences under "Rise" - "Only Albania was able to resist, due to the leadership of its national hero, Skanderbeg (George Kastrioti), who finally was routed by the sultan at the second Battle of Kosovo (1448). Four years later, János Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448."

Should the first sentence read " ...first Battle of Kosovo (1444)" ?? Baska436 (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the two sentences in question are indeed wrong. Albania as state did not exist at that time while Skanderbeg did not even participate at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anti. I really don't know anything about the subject, but I was struck by the contradiction in the dates (second battle 1448, ... four years later ... second battle 1448). I suggesst altering it to say something like " ... crusade of Varna. Albanians, under their national hero Skanderbeg, continued to resist. Four years later János Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448." Baska436 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The problematic text was added by IP editor with this edits (diffs) and should be removed from the text of the article because it is so wrong it can not be repaired. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about the empire's territorial extent.

I have been doing some editing on the List of Largest Empires article and I noticed that the Ottoman Empire is noted for having an approximate extent of 5.2 km at it's height. Yet the map in the infobox seems to contradict that. The map depicts the Ottoman Empire being larger than the Roman Empire, which was 6.5 km at it's height. That being said, wouldn't we agree that the map overexaggerates the extent of the empire? Kirby (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well since the romans controlled about 70% of the land the Ottomans did at their height and held Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Italy, England, and parts of Germany on top of that I think it makes up for the size difference of about 1.3 million kms, perhaps the issue may be how Crimea is depicted (about half of the territory pictured was a vassal, although one whose sovereignty was more like a province than a vassal nation) but that only accounts for a small amount of land, and the rest of the map is very accurate to dozens upon dozens of ottoman and foreign records, so I don't think there is that much to be changed, look at this map I linked to Rome's wikipedia page and compare it to this Ottoman one and you can see that most ottoman land is held and western europe on top of that -

- Rome - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png

- ottomans --- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/OttomanEmpireIn1683.png

70.69.172.92 (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sudan was theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire after its conquest by the Egyptians, so maybe that's being included? john k (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Included where? Moreover, in the article the Khedivate of Egypt is consider a successor state of the Empire, so we cannot consider Sudan as an Ottoman conquest. Alex2006 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Included in the total land area? At any rate, given that the Khedive was ostensibly an Ottoman official ruling in the name of the Sultan (and, indeed, Khedive was a title granted by the sultan), I'm not sure I get why Sudan should not be considered as being under Ottoman suzerainty in the mid-late 19th century. Certainly "it contradicts something that another wikipedia article says" is not actually an argument. john k (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, but if we put Sudan as Ottoman, then we have a contradiction in the article. Egypt was de jure ottoman, de facto autonomous. I think that one should consider how the other vassal states were handled, and then look at the sources. Alex2006 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

League of Lezhë as preceding entity of Ottoman Empire

League of Lezhë (1444—1450) was short lived military alliance (some say state) of several Venetian pronoiers and local noblemen who controlled territory which is today southern Montenegro and region around northern part of border between Albania and Macedonia. It was never viable. Some of its members began fighting (and even killing) each other as soon as it was established. In 1444 Lekë Zaharia was killed by Nicholas Dukagjini. Many of its members (of Spani and Dushmani family) refused to participate in the Albanian–Venetian War. Eventually the last remnants of this alliance (some say state) ceased to exist in 1450. In 1451 most of its members signed Treaty of Gaeta and accepted suzerainty of the Kingdom of Naples while some of them remained independent (i.e. Zeta) or remained Venetian pronoiers. Around 30 years later the whole region fall under Ottoman control.

Rodrige belong to small but persistent group of editors who struggle to add League of Lezhë as preceding entity of Ottoman empire (diff) although the territory once controlled by this League fell under Ottoman suzerainty 29 years after this League was already disestablished. Rodrige offered the following explanation ""In the moment that the ottomans recaptured albania (1479) it automaticaly means that this league preceded the ottomans, even though in a secondary period)" Since "preceding" means (link) "Existing or coming before another or others in time, place, rank, or sequence; previous." it is obvious that this League could not precede OE 29 years after it was already disestablished. Therefore I will remove this League from the list of preceding entities, unless somebody present valid counterarguments within reasonable period of time.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Edirne" city name

I request to change "Adrianople" to Edirne throughout this article because Edirne is the common name for the city not only in modern English language but also, as the note in the infobox itself says, it was also the official name in the time when it was ruled by the Ottomans. An overuse of ancient pre-Ottoman names in an article about Ottoman era is certainly unneeded. 182.181.213.23 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate rather than Sultanate

The heading should just mention that it was a Caliphate. Although its beginning of being a Sultanate first can be mentioned somewhere in the history section. Any editors object to this? Historian paris (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now there is a discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Alex2006 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is about dates. Historian paris (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This thread is failure and attacked continuously by biased and non-objective views

I would like to inform that Ottoman Empire was found at 1299 according to all historical bases, libraries and sources. However the establishment year is still telling 1453 which is totally misinforming all people.

Founder of Ottoman Empire was Osman bey lived in 13 century and 1453 is the year when the Ottoman Empire conquered Costantinople by 7. Ottoman Sultan namely Mehmed II.

You can not block the people to get enlighten at the end of the day. These are cheap attitudes.

The editor user:Alessandro57 claims that the Ottoman term 1299-1453 is not considered as an empire. But this claim is quite questionable. Prior to 1453 the demographics of the Ottomans was already multinational. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me here :-) I am not claiming anything. I reverted the edits because the fact that the empire started in 1453 is well sourced in the article, and changing an information without changing the underlying sources is disruptive editing. About the subject of discussion, I think that here there is some confusion about the definition of empire, which has nothing to do with its multinationality or extension: the Roman republic towards the end of its life was more multinational than the ottoman empire, and none dreamed to call it an empire. In order to define a state as empire, one of his chiefs must have defined himself/herself emperor. In the case of the Ottoman state, this was a Sultanate, later a Caliphate, but the first Sultan that called himself "imperator", connecting himself to the roman tradition, was Mehmet II after the conquest of Constantinople. This view is supported by the historiography which I know. Of course, if you have sources which affirm the contrary, you are welcome to bring them here. N.B. Toworrow I`ll go to the library and pick up the second volume of the Cambridge history of Turkey which appeared last year. This covers the years 1453 - 1605, and it is considered the standard reference book. Let`s see what is the point of view there. Alex2006 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the infobox and the article should cover the same duration. Since the article covers the 1299-1453 term, the infobox should also cover the 1299-1453 term. Otherwise we need an extra article for the 1299-1453 term . Please don't rush to revert the changes. If you really want to split the article maybe you should start a discussion. As for the definition of the empire in WP, it is "extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled by a central authority" Prior to 1453 all of Bulgaria, most of Greece and Macedonia as well as parts of Serbia and Albania were already the parts of the Ottomans and it was perfectly in accord with the definition of an empire. (Ironically in 1453, most of Turkey was still out of Ottoman realm) Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Inalcik, Halil; Quataert, Donald (1 May 1997). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-521-57456-3. The Ottoman state came into existence around 1300 as a small frontier principality which devoted itself to the gaza, Holy War, on the ....The Ottoman crossing the Dardanelles and settlement on European soil proved of crucial importance for the transformation of the Ottoman state from rather insignificant frontier principality into empire...
• I agree with Nedim Ardoğa here. The topic of this article is Ottoman state. Because it evolved into empire and remained as such for about 5 centuries it is known as Ottoman Empire. The infobox should also cover the 1299-1453 period of its existence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nedim, what you write confirm what I wrote above. The author speaks about "Ottoman State", not Empire. We have three sources in text that confirm that the empire started in 1453. We don`t need another article, but we have to make clear that 1299 is the birth date of the Ottoman state, not of the empire. Otherwise you should find reliable sources that state that the Empire was born in 1299. Without RS, yours is disruptive editing. Per WP:BRD, the stable version should stay until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached. I await a self revert from your side until consensus (based on reliable sources) is reached. @Antidiskriminator: the Roman state started in 753 BC, but we don`t say because of that that the Roman Empire started also in 753 B.C. Alex2006 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alessandro57, I respect your contributions to wikipedia and your honest effort to improve the quality of OE related articles. Your above comment to Nedim Ardoğa seems unnecessary harsh. I know that it is safe to AGF in case of Nedim Ardoğa. 1299 as start year of this state was in this article for years. I don't remember anybody seriously contsted, so it can be considered as consensus. Taking in consideration objection of multiple editors to its replacement with 1453, that means that editors who believe it should be replaced with 1453 should reach consensus at the talkpage first. I don't claim I am right in this case, but WP:BURDEN lays with editors who want to replace 1299 with 1453.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like playing with the words. I think that the convention of naming the power structure is quite loose in history. Use any word you like; sultanate, empire or state. In any case there wasn't much difference between the pre-1453 and post-1453 eras. Prior to 1453, the Ottoman Sultanate was already a multinational and large sultanate. On the other hand the three empires of the medieval Anatolia; namely the Latin Empire, the Empire of Nicaea and the Empire of Trebizond were all small states not larger than a typical principality and yet the historians call them empire. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nedim, you are continuing to miss the point: I have nothing against the fact that the Ottoman Empire started in 1299, but in the article there are three RS that say that it started in 1453. Until you won`t find RS that assert what you write, yours is OR and disruptive editing, and - together with the refusal of complying to the WP:BRD policy, it goes against wikipedia rules. I will now move this thread where it belongs, and revert the article to the original version. After that, you - and all the other users, myself too - are welcome to find RS that support what you affirm (this means, that the Ottoman state in 1299 was already defined as an Empire: that was a state, is clear for everyone) and discuss it on the talk page. Another revert without sources to your version will have as consequence the opening of an incident against the author of the revert. Alex2006 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

what if you put state 1299 and empire 1453 in the infobox? Historian paris (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is exactly what the disrupting editors should have written. At its birth, the Ottoman state was one of the many small Anatolian beyliks. Alex2006 (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The subject of this discussion is life span of this state. For more than 10 years this article says that life span of this state began in the 13th century (link to mid-2004 text). That counts as consensus reached (with an absence of objections). Restoring the consensus based version is not disruptive. There are multiple reliable sources which support life span 1299-1923 (link to GBS hits) and there seems to be a scientific consensus that period 1299-1453 is period of the Rise of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody denies that this state evolved into empire after it was already established. That is what multiple sources presented by Alessandro57 say. They don't dispute that life span of this state was 1299-1923. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it is disruptive in the moment that in the article there are 3 RS sources which affirm the contrary. And none disputes that the state was born in 1299. The roman state was born according to tradition in 753 BC, the roman Empire 750 years later. Bring sources that affirm that the Ottoman empire was born in 1299, and we change the date. Otherwise, the solution proposed by Historian paris is optimal. Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If 3 sources you presented do not dispute life span of Ottoman state being 1299-1923 why you insist on different life span? There are hundreds of sources for this lifespan. I presented link to hundreds of GBS hits. The common name of this state is Ottoman Empire. "Ottoman empire was founded in 1299". "Ottoman empire was established in the 13th", "Ottoman empire was founded in the 13th", "Ottoman empire was established in 1299". Do you insist I should list all those hundreds of sources one by one here to prove 1299-1923 life span?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, why don`t you read the lead of the article, so maybe you have a chance to understand what I mean? :-) In the lead is written:

"With conquests in the Balkans by Murad I between 1365 and 1389, and the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, the Ottoman sultanate was transformed into an empire.[8][9][10]"

8, 9, 10, are the three source that I mean. NONE of these sources states that the empire was founded in 1299. The editor(s) who inserted these sources, chose as the date for the founding of the empire the last one (1453). Could have chosen the earlier date, 1365. I repeat: if you know reliable sources which states that the empire has been founded in 1299, bring them here. BTW, your GBS search regarding 1299 gives three hits, not hundreds.

Now, back to the roots: the problem here is that by the Ottomans the first who has called himself consciously "Emperor" (Kaiser-i-Rum, that is "Emperor of the Romans") was Mehmet II in 1453. Otherwise, the appellation that the Ottoman used for its state was "devlet", which means "state". I got the 2nd volume of the Cambridge history of Turkey, and from there it is clear the the historians consider the establishment of the empire as preceding 1453. Babinger in his work writes the same, and also Ostrogorsky has the same opinion. In other words: 1453 is wrong (unless one considers the self nomination of Mehmet II as kaiser-i-rum as establishment), but 1299 is also wrong: at that time the Ottoman were basically robbers which lived plundering the other Turks and the Byzantines (interestingly, the same occupation of the Romans at the beginning of their history). I think that the solution here could be that suggested by Historian paris. Alex2006 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Alex2006 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The word empire is a word of Western culture. Traditional Turkish word is khanate and the Islamic word is sultanate. But there is nothing wrong to call the sultanate empire. My objection is to the arbitrary beginning-milestone of the empire. If it was called an empire for the post-1453 era, than with the very same logic it should be called empire for the pre-1453 era also; Same dynasty, same institutions, almost the same area and the population. (By the way before 1453 its land area was wider than the total area of the three empire I've cited above .) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mates, how about the way i did it? I think it would be the right way to solve this interesting issue. I've been looking to other empires like french british and roman but i could find any discussion like that. kazekagetr 15:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Which way? Explain... Alex2006 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there should be no firm date given for the creation of the Ottoman 'Empire'. I also agree with others that the word empire is a fluid, subjective, term often simply meaning a large, powerful, multinational, state, regardless of the actual title of the ruler(s) and period of formation. This is certainly how the word empire is used in Histoire de l'Empire ottoman, an 800-page collective work to which 11 specialists have contributed. No date of creation is given or even hinted at. However it is assumed that the 'empire' existed before the conquest of Constantinople. One chapter is titled Formation of the empire (lower case e...) and development of the State (Formation de l'empire et mise en place de l'État), a period which started with Murad I. It is very unfortunate that because of those stupid, often misleading infoboxes, so many feel the need to give firm dates to everything (I wonder on what "year" the British Empire was created? Maybe I should go have a look) --Lubiesque (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lubiesque

Hallo Lubiesque, I agree with you. We could write in the infobox: "between x and y" using the present sources, or the sources that other users can bring. I also agree that Nedim is using the word in the way that you are mentioning. The problem is that 1299 is misleading, since at that time the Ottomans were basically a gang of raiders plundering their neighbors, certainly not an empire. Alex2006 (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be the sensible solution. Actually, to indicate that the formation of the empire was progressive ,I would rather have "Gradually, between x and y" (if it's not too long for an infobox).--Lubiesque (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I read just today on the preface of the second volume of the Cambridge History of Turkey that there is no consensus among the scholars about a lot of issues concerning Ottoman history. I think that wikipedia should reflect this fact. Alex2006 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This state was founded in 1299. That is the start date which should presented in the infobox. Yes, this state gradually evolved into empire. That is decade-long consensus about the life span of this state. It can be changed only if proven that this consensus is changed. Not forcibly, by edit warring. @Alessandro57, I of course read the lede. It says that this state was first sultanate which was transformed into empire. That sentence and 3 sources do not refute 1299 - 1923 life span. On the contrary. I presented several links to GBS which prove that there are hundreds of sources which support 1299-1923 life span. Here is one of them. No doubt you saw it. --Antidiskriminator (talk)

19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: I just checked on the talk page: you are right, the version of 1299 was the stable one until 3 days ago, and was reverted by an user which has only one edit. There is no doubt that the stable version is that with 1299, sorry! Alex2006 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex2006 no empire has actually 'founded' as an actual empire mate but all have them 'became' one, so about what i think is that we should stick with the 1299 as the 'foundation' but 1453 as the 'transformation'. BTW there are no definite dates about any empire. some of them even doesnt have a clear foundation dates. kazekagetr 19:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC) ,

No problem guys, I reverted since I thought that 1453 was the stable version, now I see my mistake. I still think that 1299 is not optimal, but I see that there is no consensus to change it, so let`s leave it as it is for now (I an leaving and will be offline for the next days). Bye Alex2006 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased map

The map at the beginning is a joke where did you get your information? The Turks never reached further then the port of Massawa on the Redsea. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Ottoman_Empire_16-17th_century.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.69.6 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They did actually. AcidSnow (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why?

May I ask why religion sections are removed? Do editors feel they followed no religion? Blizzio (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide photograph

Now that the page is protected, can we please have some input here at the talk page as to why a photograph of the Armenian Genocide shouldn't be included? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there is already an Armenian Genocide page, only Armenians anti-Ottomans want these pics here as per the username Yerevan capital of Armenia. Not only that we have already abundant of pictures in that sections it's too crowded. The position of picture is extremely absurd, it's stuck in the Government section but what tried to put in the Decline section. In the Decline section we have the Young Turks Picture and Mehmed VI picture, no need for Armenian causing problem in this page Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The images in the section do not even overlap into the following section, as occurs at other places on the page, and the image in question accompanies text about the Armenian Genocide. So there is no problem with over-crowding, and the layout comports with WP:LAYIM and WP:IMGLOC. And the argument that there is a separate page on the genocide does not mean it should not be covered here. I see no reason to remove the image. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It does overlap, it steered towards the Government section of the Ottoman Empire, extra pictures are unnecessary unless you are trying to push an agenda. There is already two pictures occupying the place that are important, the third picture of the Genocide is not. It says "When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section; if the images in a section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that may mean that the section is too short or there are too many images in that section." I see plenty reason in removing the image. Do you know anything about the Ottoman Empire or do you get pleasure in corrupting articles with extra images? I will love to understand how your mind works Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Noone here is 'corrupting articles' just because of a picture. You should stop your bad faith accusations before we move forward with this. As for the picture, it is essential to have at least one visual depiction of the annihilation of 1.5 million Ottoman citizens. How can that not be an important? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are corrupting the article by posting unnecessary images that disrupt the government section. Are you implying you have good faith, or else you would have removed the picture and let the section be. It is not essential to have a picture of the Armenian Genocide when there are fare more essential pictures in there in their place.

The Decline section has: Young Turk Revolution and Mehmed VI the last Sultan

The Government section has: Ambassadors, Sublime Port and Eyalet picture

Now suddenly we have people like you adding pictures and making the place crowded to push their own agenda, tired of people like you ruining Wikipedia Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First, the formatting issue is a simple adjustment, which I will make once the page is unlocked. Second, I doubt anyone involved in this discussion added this image. You seem to be the only one pushing an agenda. Lastly, many sections on the page have three or more images. What the page needs is more content; that would be a better focus than removing images. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for adjustment, just removal, once the page is unlocked this picture will be removed. I'm the only one pushing agenda says the supporter of pushing an agenda. My agenda is clear to have a better Ottoman Empire article.

"many sections on the page have three or more images."

They don't overlap to other sections. Are you new here?

"What the page needs is more content;"

Like pushing Armenian Genocide pictures. This is a joke.

"that would be a better focus than removing images. "

Says the guy whose sole job is to adjust images in Wikipedia? I'm sorry what is your expertise in the Ottoman Empire? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to remove the image. Please do not continue edit warring. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you please cease your personal attacks. You also have to realise that you do not have consensus to remove the picture. Further, you should also consider the fact that personal attacks will not help you gain consensus. In fact, if you continue with personal attacks, they will be removed. Thank you for your understanding. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the expansion of content regarding the Armenian Genocide, I could say that I'm willing to take up the task. After all, one sentence is clearly not enough when it comes to the second most researched genocide in academia today. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not need consensus to remove extra materials from an article. I need consensus because someone like you wants me to have consensus and put me on some burden. Just by a chain and put it on me, also Dr.K you must be joking by sending me pranking jokes and disciplinary action when I never talked to you or edited topics that you think I have edited. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another thing you have to update yourself with is to assume good faith. We don't do pranks on Wikipedia. Please see my reply to your message on my talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This Etienne guy is making laugh, the article is fine with the wording in paragraph, no need to increase the length of it because if you feel like it, Ottoman Empire entered WW1, yet we don't need to add all of it in one section the user will click on it and enter to an article discussing just that. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If the content is significant and relevant to the Ottoman Empire then why not? I don't see a problem with that. If we use your approach of "Oh, but there's an article for it already", then we might as well remove all the content about the Great Siege of Malta or the Crimean War. There's articles for those events too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"If the content is significant and relevant to the Ottoman Empire then why not?"

The content is already there.

"I don't see a problem with that."

I see many problems with that because the section is beautifully done

"If we use your approach of "Oh, but there's an article for it already", then we might as well remove all the content about the Great Siege of Malta or the Crimean War."

False analogy, the Armenian Genocide was mentioned, the Maltese Siege was mentioned and the Crimean War was mentioned, anyone who needs extra details of set actions and incidents will just click on the article.

" There's articles for those events too."

HAHHA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the article carefully. There's an entire paragraph devoted, for example, to the Crimean War. Same goes for the Siege of Malta. But under your logic, we'd have to reduce that paragraph to a mere sentence too because there's already an article for it. And just because the content is already there doesn't mean that it doesn't require expansion. Such a significant event needs some more explaining than a single sentence consisting of "resulting in the death of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in what became known as the Armenian Genocide." In fact, I'm quite shocked that there's no mention of the Armenian Genocide in the lead. That's also something to consider after the protection is over. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"There's an entire paragraph devoted, for example, to the Crimean War. "

Just five sentences. Not warranting to take every Ottoman Subjects into great lengths, to feed Armenians Ego.

"Same goes for the Siege of Malta."

Just three sentences and it shares the same paragraph with Battle of Lepanto, you show no understanding of the Ottoman Empire.

"But under your logic, we'd have to reduce that paragraph to a mere sentence too because there's already an article for it."

Nope under my logic the article stands good, it explains the Armenians Genocide very well although we have Armenians that want 100 pages on it, and we have the Siege of Malta explained well and so the Crimean War.

"And just because the content is already there doesn't mean that it doesn't require expansion."

And what level of expansion?

"Such a significant event needs some more explaining than a single sentence consisting of "resulting in the death of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.""

It doesn't, it is not as significant as the Crimean War and the Great Siege of Malta.

"In fact, I'm quite shocked that there's no mention of the Armenian Genocide in the lead."

What a surprise, I'm shocked you are not shcoked that there is no Armenians Genocide in every section to corrupt the Ottoman Empire article.

" That's also something to consider after the protection is over."

That is something to not consider. If you open any Ottoman Empire written by a well-established author you will see the summary being very similar. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Just five sentences" is five times more than just one sentence is it not? I don't think I've ever said I want 100 pages of content concerning the Armenian Genocide. Please don't exaggerate the situation. How do you know the Armenian Genocide is not as significant as, for example, the Great Siege of Malta? A simple google search would disprove that immediately (compare: [9] and [10]). As for the lead, it'll be decided upon through a consensus at the talk page. That's how Wikipedia works. None of us here have a right to take an own approach to this article (i.e. "once the page is unlocked this picture will be removed.") We also don't have to do what other books or academic papers do. That's simply not our job. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

""Just five sentences" is five times more than just one sentence is it not?"

We don't just certain incidents based on the amount of sentences.

"I don't think I've ever said I want 100 pages of content concerning the Armenian Genocide."

Yeah sure, your interest in the Ottoman Empire is very well known

"Please don't exaggerate the situation."

You never heard of Sarcasm Armen?

"How do you know the Armenian Genocide is not as significant as, for example, the Great Siege of Malta?"

Because the Siege of Malta is when the Ottoman Empire was defeated, even Battle of Djerba is more significant than the Armenian Genocdie

"A simple google search would disprove that immediately"

We don't need based on things in here on popularity as you might think. Any Historian knows this.

"As for the lead, it'll be decided upon through a consensus at the talk page."

No it won't. If you are going to add Armenian Genocide you need to add more things that are far more significant than that.

"None of us here have a right to take an own approach to this article (i.e. "once the page is unlocked this picture will be removed.")"

If you feel justified, I have edited many articles

"We also don't do what other books or academic papers do."

We actually do, we based on them of the books and academic papers and journals, these are the main source of citation.

"That's simply not our job."

It's my job as a Historian of the Ottoman Empire, not your job as someone who lacks knowledge in it. This is the problem with Wikipedia, people who are interested in incidents and take it to the next level. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just yet another typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The reasons given for removing the picture just look like bad excuses. There is no reason to remove the picture. There is a clear consensus to keep it. Further edit-warring and disruption will be dealt with. Athenean (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's far from I don't like it, twisting my words is a great tactic. My decision is based on the uniformity of the article without disrupting the government section of the Ottoman Empire in which the Image is doing. I don't expect you to understand Ottoman Empire at all Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And I don't expect you to be allowed to edit these topics much longer if you continue like this. You are behaving very aggressively towards other users. If you continue like this you will be banned from wikipedia, or at least this topic area. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"And I don't expect you to be allowed to edit these topics much longer if you continue like this."

Like not pushing an agenda?

"You are behaving very aggressively towards other users. "

Like who? Do you have evidence? Or are you making things up?

"If you continue like this you will be banned from wikipedia, or at least this topic area."

We will see Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't see any "historian of the Ottoman Empire" here, more like demagogic arguments. If you want to get Wiki cred, bring forth some sound arguments backed up with some sort of reasoning. --92slim (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Well I don't see any "historian of the Ottoman Empire" here,"

That is your problem

"more like demagogic arguments."

Where?

"If you want to get Wiki cred"

I don't want Wiki Cred, I want to remove the picture and expand the government section of the Ottoman Empire, by adding the functions of the Viziers.

"bring forth some sound arguments backed up with some sort of reasoning"

I already did. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single argument apart from the fact that you prefer not to include any documentary photos of the event. Because anybody can claim to be a so-called historian, you'd have to provide an argument and maybe a source that explains why it's not related to the Ottoman period would be helpful. As of yet, I can't see any reason to remove it unless you want to put it down to a vote. --92slim (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"You haven't provided a single argument apart from the fact that you prefer not to include any documentary photos of the event."

I have provided two arguments, not my problem that you are having an issue. Hint: It's not about my preference.

"Because anybody can claim to be a so-called historian, you'd have to provide an argument and maybe a source that explains why it's not related to the Ottoman period would be helpful."

Anybody can provide any pictures they want to push certain agenda.

"As of yet, I can't see any reason to remove it unless you want to put it down to a vote."

No vote is needed, this isn't mob rule. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I will put my terms on the table, because this article is being closed for far too long and this is counter-productive. I will not remove the Armenian Genocide picture. On the count that it stays in it's designated area in the Decline section and not the Government section as it is now. Surely we can compromise. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Which agenda? You're forever alone here mate. It is supposed to be in the Decline section, if that's the reason you're arguing, but the photograph shouldn't be removed because there is no logical reason to remove it in the first place. --92slim (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The image isn't overlapping on my monitor but apparently is on others. It just needs to be adjusted to fit properly once the page is unlocked. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not overlapped on my monitor either. And I've got 1024×768. But I'll accept that it is in good faith and we can handle that accordingly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The overlapping happens if the window is made very broad, so that the text needs fewer lines. I absolutely agree to keep the picture, but suggest that it is made the same size as the two pics above (thumb). Also, the caption could be shortened, while the main text well could be extended. --T*U (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and shortened the caption by removing wording from it that was just duplicating wording already in the main text content of the article. I also agree with expanding that main text a little. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Which agenda? You're forever alone here mate."

And you are part of the wagon, that jump on trendy stuff, instead of thinking for yourself. Typical attitude from you and I expect no change. 92slim

"It is supposed to be in the Decline section, if that's the reason you're arguing, but the photograph shouldn't be removed because there is no logical reason to remove it in the first place."

There was. I posted above, it;s your problem that you are keep arguing non-sense

I agree with Tu-nor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has content relating to the Armenian Genocide, and it is an important event in the history of the Ottoman Empire, so to have an illustration or photograph to accompany that content is completely in keeping with what a Wikipedia article should have. There might be a better image that could be used, but that is not what is being discussed, so I think the photograph should remain. I have to say Alexis Ivanov's lack of any valid argument is as glaring as his lack of formatting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you not tired of beating the dead horse or do you have a reason to resurrect a dead discussion. You can post hundred Armenian Genocide pictures if you want. Just make sure you know your place in the pecking order. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Content addition

A number of editors above, including myself, mention that further addition of content regarding the Armenian Genocide is warranted. Étienne Dolet undertook the expansion of the section with sourced material and added a brief summary in the intro. Alexis Ivanov has removed the summary from the lead, stating that the addition had not been agreed upon. WP:LEAD states that the lead is a summary of the body of the article. The addition to the lead is brief and appears warranted as it is a significant issue. So, following WP:BRD, I support inclusion of the added summary in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree also. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree to add the information about the Armenian/Assyrian/Pontic genocides back to the lead as well. With Tiptoethrutheminefield's revert of its removal, I'm sure he's on the same boat as well. TU-nor had also agreed to add more information about the Armenian Genocide as well. In light of this, the sentence will have to be restored. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will revert then per consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above reasoning - lede summarizes content, and having one sentence in the lede summarizing that particular content is appropriate given its importance (the number of works dealing with the Armenian Genocide is indicative of its established importance, in contrast with the far lower number of works dealing with other aspects of the Ottoman Empire's WW1 activities). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, reading through the whole article I see an immense amount of falsehoods, distortions, and oversimplifications. Much of it down to the poor-quality sources used. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

" (the number of works dealing with the Armenian Genocide is indicative of its established importance, in contrast with the far lower number of works dealing with other aspects of the Ottoman Empire's WW1 activities)."

It makes sense since the history of Armenians is bound to be looked upon as a victims and superiority complex, Ottoman Empire is far more than an Armenian playground to promote their agenda. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"falsehoods, distortions"

and you will being the truth? Funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 02:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, until you can be bothered to learn how to properly format and indent your posts, I will ignore them. And so probably will everyone. It is not up to others to have to work through the confusion that your lack of formatting causes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your stupidity and arrogance amazes me, especially the need to drag and mention my name every time after days of the closed discussion and reached agreement. How many times are you going to beat a dead horse, move on for Christ sake Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau, Sr. is not a trustable source and the picture belongs in its own article and not here. Many more references can be provided but this is a start. It does not serve much of a purpose except to incite hate and misunderstanding of the late Ottoman period. In addition, if we were to talk about massacres, we would also need to add the many massacres committed by Ottoman Armenians against Ottoman Turks, the massacres at Iğdır being just one. I suggest removing it. -Dominator1453 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)