Talk:Ottoman Empire

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

The Ottoman Flag is not that flag. The Ottoman flag has a wider crescent. It's the Arabic Wikipedia Version. 173.79.162.223 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing for this change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The result was not moved. (NAC) Zoozaz1 talk 03:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Ottoman Caliphate into Ottoman Empire:

Why on Earth is Ottoman Caliphate a separate article?

Its sections should be added in the relevant areas to the Ottoman Empire article, and Ottoman Caliphate should re-direct there. To talk of specifically caliphate related ideas there is also the Caliphate article. It would be like having a separate article for the Umayyads and Umayyad Caliphate. The only reason to do this is because some of the earlier rulers did not claim to be caliphs - but that doesn't warrant an entire article. If editors really feel the need to compartmentalise this into a section, why not a section called, "Caliphate" on the Ottoman Empire article? ParthikS8 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge – I've heard "Ottoman Caliphate" and "Ottoman Empire" used interchangeably. Also they refer to the same political entity so it makes no sense to have two different articles, especially considering how short and incomplete the Ottoman Caliphate article is. Originalcola (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No I don't suggest merging the two subjects, being from the middle east, and having lived there since my childhood till 18 years of age, and studying the history of the region as part of my curriculum in grade and high school, I know the Caliphate is time period that the empire had gone through. We know that the authority and dictatorship had changed phases and definition such as Khedaiwi, sultan, Pasha, in different periods of their history. If you merge the two, your page will be so long and for anyone who's looking for a certain synopsis, the search time might be long.

The Ottoman Caliphate article is really short, lacking in both content and citations. There is also much overlap in content between the 2 articles and the Caliph title was held by the Sultan from 1517 onwards, so there was no real change in authority. Having 2 articles is just confusing. Also sign your post 129.9.75.190. Originalcola (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: two different entities. Comparing it to Ummayads is not correct. Ummayads were a caliphate itself, even had caliphs without owning any land Ottomans not. Beshogur (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion with Beshogur. - Aybeg (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge - The state named as Ottoman Empire was already occurs out of provinces, cities, emirates and principalities under the rule of the caliph who is eldest and saneful male member of the Ottoman dynasty. In other words, the caliphate was only the institution that ran the empire. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Ottoman Empire existed from 1299-1922. The Ottoman Caliphate existed from 1517-1924. The Caliphate continued to exist past the dissolution of the Empire. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- The empire and the dynastic entity are not the same thing, nor should they be treated as such. As they have distinct separate important events and historicity. What could be important in say the Caliph article could have zero relevance to the Ottoman Empire itself. There should be a "caliphate" section in this article that also links to the main article. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- The office of Caliph continued beyond the Ottoman Empire's dissolution and there is potential to expand on the role of the Ottoman rulers as Caliphs in the Ottoman Caliphate article, to a level of detail that would be inappropriate for this article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- The Ottoman Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire are different entities. While the Ottoman Sultan held the position of the Ottoman Caliph, both positions had their own duties and responsibilities. The Ottoman Empire was formed in 1299, while the Caliphate was formed in 1517 by one of the Ottoman Sultans. In other words, the Caliphate was (kind of) an entity within the Empire, while the Empire was all the lands owned by the Ottoman Dynasty. MatEditzWiki (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per @MatEditzWiki. Ytpks896 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose not even the same subjects. Rather, the caliphate article should be expanded. DriedGrape (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this since they are different things and it looks like most people agree. Tri-Citizen (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map is not Neutral

Here, it shows British Empire, all uninhabited areas are completely filled with color and shown as under British Empire control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

In the Ottoman Empire map, uninhabited areas are not painted. Because supposedly noone lives there therefore no control.

• @88.230.183.231: Please note that the British Empire's claims were recognized by foreign powers after the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, while the Ottoman Empire's claims on uninhabited lands were not recognized by any foreign nation (excluding its vassal/tributary states). MatEditzWiki (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire with subdivision and subjects 1593 map [content dispute]

There has been a content dispute with User:Beshogur about File:Ottoman Empire Detailed.png where he deleted the map from this page saying that "not even the flag is correct", and i want to know what exactly is wrong in the map (list all of the problems significant enough to warrant it's removal from this page), why it is wrong, and the source he's relying on to judge the map. AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (CLT)

@Userd898: I'm not the person responsible for removing the map, which aesthetically looks very nice, but I can point out that the biggest problem with the map in my mind is that it does not list any sources for the information it shows. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, through citing reliable sources. If you go to the Wikimedia Commons page for the map currently used it lists eight sources, whereas the new one lists none. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: thanks for the suggestion,I added sources on the Wikimedia Commons page and they should be easy to view now AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2021 (CLT)

@Ichthyovenator: @Userd898: sorry but I think aesthetically it doesn't look nice in the infobox. Doesn't meet wiki standarts (typical green map). Perhaps you could try make a white version instead of the yellowish colour, and remove the infobox + flag (probably fictional) so we could use it in infobox. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: the flag is not fictional, it is the famous flag used by ottomans until it got the flag that looks like the current one (with some shortly used intermediate flags), while the infobox is actually just the mapkey and the numbered states, so it's needed, and for the typical green map there isnt anything ik of in wikipedia explicitly endorsing it or prohibiting the use of other styled maps, ive seen in other articles maps that break this style, many times. and also it'd be an effort to recreate or edit the map to fit this style due to the many layers it has AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2021 (CLT)

Regardless of its use on Wikipedia, see if you can make the names of the 'foreign powers' outside the Ottoman domains more precise. Like 'Russia' is too general or 'German' Roman empire. Moreover, 'Italian states' and then also 'Papal states' etc. is a bit confusing. And it's quite unclear what the relation with Aceh was. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:D557:A7AC:598A:46F6 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@2001:1C02:1901:ED00:D557:A7AC:598A:46F6: the map is based off the ottoman empire, not it's surroundings, and the name german roman empire isnt uncommon or outside of official use at all, it has been seen in many historical maps and the empire's official name was "the holy roman empire of the german nation" while there's no problem at all with using the common name for russia. as for italian states there's only so much pixels in the map.AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 4:58, 8 May 2021 (CLT)

@Userd898: checked your "sources", none of them are wp:rs a lot of youtube channels especially. Beshogur (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: many maps in use on wikipedia are based entirely off youtube channels, especially those algeria eyalet maps that state "based off kayra atakan's works" most of my map is not based on youtube works, and i provided when it was based off those and the sources the youtube channels used.AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (CLT)

@Userd898: no they are not. Check the current map for example.[1] Even if they are based on yt videos, that's still not a wp:rs. Also I see no reason to add an alleged naval flag.[2] Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that you might be a little bit overly rude in your tone here, Beshogur. Clearly a lot of effort was spent on this map and I am not aware of any "wiki standards" that demand a "typical green map". We have numerous maps that break that pattern - see Roman Empire, Neo-Assyrian Empire, Mitanni, Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Kingdom, Visigothic Kingdom etc. That said, AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim: yeah, WP:RS requires reliable sources and youtube channels are not reliable sources that we can use - you can see if you can find out what sources those youtube channels used for their maps (and then include those as sources), or search around and see if you can track down maps in published, reliable sources that match your map (which you could then use as sources). It is true that maps based on youtube mapping channels may exist on Wikipedia, but those are a problem and we should not add to that problem. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: @Ichthyovenator: ok so this breaks down into two issues, the flag, and the sources. so beshgour provided evidence that there's no proof of this flag being adopted, which is enough to not be shown due to the burden of proof, but can i know what was the adopted flag back then? (or a description of it) so that i can fix it. the second part of the issue is the sources, ichthyovenator said i can put what these youtubers used as sources, and i already did that, it's in brackets after each youtube channel, do you propose that it'd be better if i removed the channel names completely and only show the sources they used?AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2021 (CLT)

@Userd898: I'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything about the flag. I don't think you should be adding the map back in until this dispute is resolved (and if it eventually is added in I don't think we need two maps in the infobox). The issue with the sources you include for the map is that they do not meet the requirements for reliable sources, they are from what I can tell non-academic websites and a forum post. The sources used should preferrably be books, research papers, or similar. The eight sources used for the other map are all books. Presumably the sources you used for your map used other sources, presumably books and research papers, for reference, meaning that your map should be fine to use, if you can track down those sources (or if you find any other such sources - even if it wasn't a source you looked at - where the borders match your map). I think your map looks better but per Wikipedia policy the other one takes presdence right now as it is better sourced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: ok i added more sources including academic ones for many subdivisions check them and see if it'd be good to use now in your opinionAbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (CLT)

@Userd898: I've taken the liberty of formatting some of your sources in your image description. The sources you added look good to me but I am not an Ottoman expert so I don't know for sure. I don't think that Ancient-origins.net, Somaliland.net, history.files.co.uk and historycy.org qualify as reliable sources, so if you can find replacements for those I think the map would be good to go. It is also problematic that you just write "wikimedia" as a source - if you've looked at specific images you should write which images you looked at. The posts at historycy seem to cite sources - but I'm not sure what for since I don't speak Polish, could those be used instead of referencing the forum posts themselves? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Userd898: As far as the names of foreign powers go, I am simply saying that you have a very nice map dedicated to accurate names for administrative units etc. Why not also avoid anachronisms and informal terms outside the Ottoman Empire? And like I said earlier, at least clarify what the Sultanate of Aceh is doing on the map (the legend does not clarify what the red striped zones mean). But apart from actual names, I think the territory that you have labelled 'Russia' here had more powers on it - especially around 1593. Perhaps also look at the Hawwara tribe lines, because right now, there are two southern 'borders' of effective rule, so which one is the southern border? These are just some thoughts, I hope you can manage to source your beautiful map properly. Maybe you can use the Cambridge History of Turkey to begin with, many university libraries have access. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:389C:4DBF:50F1:8681 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps 'Zaporizhian Host' instead of 'Zaphorizia'

Ottomans Were Turkic

Please indicate that the Ottomans are Turks History of MONGOL EMPRİE , BRİTİSH EMPRİE AND OTTOMAN EMPRİE (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@History of MONGOL EMPRİE , BRİTİSH EMPRİE AND OTTOMAN EMPRİE: The section Historiographical debate on the Ottoman state discusses the various historigraphical theories regarding this topic. The section is thorough and well-referenced. If you have sources that you believe offer more value than the information already included, please discuss those sources here and let the community come to a consensus on the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Double Dates?

I see some editors are putting double dates in their edits- specifically, the Hijri year calendar. Is this against the Wikipedia rules of standard formatting, or is double dates in isolation (aka, in that specific line but nowhere else) fine?

The prime example I'm referring to is the second map of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox, below which has a description that refers to the Islamic Hijri calendar as well as the standard Western calendar date.

Crazynyancat (talk) 12:49 PM 4 June 2021 (PST)

Denialist POV-pushing

This edit [3], which I have undone, contains many of the standard denialist tropes, such as eliminating the word "genocide" and replacing it with the weasel word "deportations" ("they weren't exterminated, they were deported!"), attempting to justify the deeds with the "Russian collaboration" canard and framing the genocide on a legal basis with the "Tehcir law" (i.e. it was perfectly legal), and downplaying casualties. The map is also completely superfluous and inaccurate (the OE did not control large areas of Sudan and Somalia (contra Turkish nationalist dreams). Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've got no comment on the map, other than that the sourcing used for it is still insufficient, but Hoeppala needs to stop with the sneaky attempts at downplaying the Armenian genocide, in this article and at Anatolia and Turkey. It's not a good look to go on an ideological crusade to downplay the attempted extermination of an ethnic group. If the low estimate of 600,000 deaths is also supported by the sources, that number could be included together with 1.5 million, but I feel like "up to 1.5 million" already implies the existence of lower estimates and going into excessive detail here is unnecessary and better suited for the individual article on the genocide. I'd also like to remind both Khirurg and Hoeppala of WP:3RR seeing as this is rapidly devolving into an edit war. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Given the reference to Russia's connection to the Armenians, perhaps have a look at the review article by David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, 'Getting to Know the Unknown War', Russian Review 75 (October 2016) 683-689. I think it provides a very decent impression of the scholarly consensus about the practically very minor role of Russian interference and the subsequent massacres of Armenians. Also keep an eye on Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), I remember some sneaky editing there from a few years ago. 2001:1C02:1910:D500:28C8:E109:91A1:E266 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The Problematic Map

This map is a combination of other sources which makes it contain original research. This is why it shouldn't be used on this article. Arguments like "The current map is also a combination of sources" are invalid, because this is just a whataboutism argument. If other maps contain original research, they too should be removed from the article.--V. E. (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) @Edmundo Soares:--V. E. (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty normal to create maps based off multiple sources (for cross-checking/reference). As long as there isn't WP:SYNTH, it shouldn't be a violation of OR. That said, I've removed the map as it was redundant duplication (we don't need 2 maps in the infobox), and the other map was included by consensus (see the top of this talk page). If editors want to replace that map with a new one, they should start a conversation on the talk about this. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The map(AnatoliaMap1910) actually is false,incomplete,forged and doesn't match the information given in the source

The original uploader of this map who uploaded this picture claimed the source to be this in the timeframe of 2012-2015 : Languages in Asia Minor, 1910, since Baldamus, Alfred; Koch, Julius; Schwabe, Ernst: "Historisches schulatlas", ed. Putzger, Leipzig 1910, p.28, see here This map in the book (it's a school atlas("Historical Schhulatlas") by the way) doesn't exist.

I've got a volume of the book, there is no ethnolinguiistic book about the languages of 1910, only of ancient times in western asia. Also it's a german schoolbook.

After years of using this nonexistent source he changed the source to this file after 2017(5 years after the map was made): here ,which doesn't match this map(on this map "Asiaminor1910" he shows Istanbul as Greek for example, I don't know how he came to that conclusion that Istanbul was majority Greek in 1910 since all population censuess show otherwise, also Bursa/Istanbul is shown as Greek in this map while the map which was given as source shows it as turkish.) Also the map does not give no information of Zazas and is completely wrong about the settlements of Zazas and Laz compared to modern settlements of Lazs and Zazas. So there's no information about Zazas in the source, for modern Laz and Zaza settlements See here or See here (the source of these maps are based on the site run by Sevan_Nişanyan -> https://nisanyanmap.com

The map he uses as source gives no info of Zaza settlements, and they are completely wrong in comparison of modern Zaza settlements. There was no population tranfers or movements of the Lazes in the last 120 years. There were no major Laz settlements west of Rize. Istanbul being majority Greek in 1910 is obviously by all censuses and foreign observers at that time FALSE! Even the sourced "Balkan Mikrasia 1914" doesn't show it as such. For modern last settlements around the Black Sea see: www.ethnosanatolia.com

Therefore the majority of the shown areas in the map are never sourced as claimed. He kept changing the soucres(he made this map in 2012 - don't know why it changed the source every several years?) and his newer and more recent one is not accessable by anyone https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/13115006?selectedversion=NBD5506466 and isn't found in the library it claims to be found, see here

I took the map out since it's not sourced/forged or contradics the source it gives. The orginal source "languages in Asia Minor, 1910, since Baldamus, Alfred; Koch, Julius; Schwabe, Ernst: "Historisches schulatlas", ed. Putzger, Leipzig 1910, p.28 look here which was claimed as basis for this map from 2012-2015 doesn't EXIST. Check the history the map from 2012-2015 you will come to the same conclusion. His other source (File:Balkan+Mikrasia 1914.jpg) doesn't give the same information as shown in the map (Bursa/Prussa and Istanbul being Greek on this one, while in the source they are shown as turkish, the whole eastern region rather mixed instead of one ethnicity). For example none of his sources show the ethnic make up of the Rize province, but for some reason he managed to show it on his map.

So in my opinion the orginal uploader did this map with contradicting his own sources, even made up sources which doesn't exists, should be deleted till he actually can show screenshots/proof that his sources actually exists. The orginal book claimed to be the source of this map can be bought here  : here or you can browse through an online scanned version of the book for free which confirms my point:here for free. You can scan through it for confirmation of what I've said. The source never existed. An overview of what I'm trieing to say: https://i.ibb.co/mFN54d0/vi1526yr0q711.png

I presume the map was created based on a description of the ethnography of Anatolia in the book, not from a map in the source. Zoozaz1 talk 16:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

From which book ? I don't find any describtion.The only ethnographic map in that book is this which is completely different. The modern Laz settlementents don't match the shown in the map, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, neither it matches of the Zazas. Also it contradicts the claimed source "Balkan Mikrasia 1914" map which shows Istanbul,Bursa as Turkish while in the "Asiaminor10" it's shown as Greek. Let alone it contradicts any academic who did an ethnography about those places. I will later add sources about the ethnic make up of Trabzon, from turkish, english, american,russian estimates of that time.

You might want to add a factual accuracy disputed tag on the map on Commons. The only thing that could explain it is that the map author claims the map is sourced from a 1910 edition of the German schoolbook, while only different editions are available online. You also might want to take a look at w:fr:Discussion:Génocide arménien#« Langues parlées en Anatolie en 1910 » and its corollary here. Pinging Varmin and Hégésippe Cormier who participated in the discussion. Zoozaz1 talk 17:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Therefore shouldn't be used in this article to show the ethnic make up of Asia Minor. The guy literally claimed a map on a false source for years, then changed it to an inaccessable book which was written in 1985, added another map as source which contradicts his own map or lacks information given in his map. Therefore it's dubious and should not used given the fact that modern settlements of people like the Lazes who didn't change places for the last 120 yeaars is entirely wrong.In eastern Rize the coastal areas were populated by Lazs, in the mountanious hinterland by Hemshin and Turks for example. Meanwhile this map shows the coast as Greek(where Laz live) and and mountanious region as Laz(Where Hemshin and Turks live). Atabegli (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try and dig to the bottom of this. I've wasted far too much time trying to challenge deliberately manipulated images related to late Ottoman history over at Commons, and the community there is utterly useless at weeding them out (regular participants just cite c:COM:NPOV and say it's a problem for the wikis that use the images to sort out – a free pass for those using Commons to spread disinformation across multiple wikis). I don't know whether this particular map is false/misleading, or whether the accusations are untrue/biased. Either way, I recommend just getting rid of the map if its accuracy is disputed. The simplest and easiest solution is to only use ethnic/demographic maps that are direct scans from source or with easily verifiable sources, which is not the case here. Better to just do without than have false information in our article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So what do you think about replacing all instances of the map with commons:File:Subject Nationalities of the German Alliance (1917) (cropped).jpg or commons:File:The Historical Atlas, 1911 – Distribution of Races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor.jpg? Zoozaz1 talk 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Both are far superior to this one. I don't know what the source of their data is (presumably an Ottoman census?) and how accurate that would be by modern standards, but I'm not a subject matter expert and it's likely the best (i.e. only) available option. At least there's no risk of alternation from on-wiki POV pushers. Thanks for suggesting them, I'd go ahead and choose one to replace it with. Jr8825 • Talk 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The French discussion says the source used in 2012-2015 doesn't exists if Google translate is accurate. The same conclusion I've shown proof for.. The links/images in that discussion are all dead though. The map File:Subject Nationalities of the German Alliance (1917) (cropped).jpg does show both Turks and Bulgarians in black color, so it doesn't show the Turks in Bulgaria.

It does have text that shows where the Turks were in Bulgaria. Zoozaz1 talk 18:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm for it. Atleast it seems somehow accurate for the Black Sea. Atabegli (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll replace the other map with that one. Zoozaz1 talk 18:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)