Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottoman Empire/Archive 1

Comment

a while back I started going over all of the sultan articles and cleaning them up. someone from the turkish wiki was mangling them something bad. i also reformatted the list of valide sultans. i'd like to, optimally, make the english page a facsimile of the turkish page, it has a graph on it. very cool. Dlayiga (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My good sir, no offense to you or the Turkish Wikipedia, but the article on the Turkish Wikipedia is only C-Class, but is Featured on the Japanese Wikipedia and Latvian Wikipedia, which leads me to believe that our article, if a facsimile of any other Wikipedia's article, should be a facsimile of one of those. mynameinc 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Award

WP:OTTOMAN needs its own award. What should it look like? I am leaning towards a barnstar, but with File:Osmanli-nisani.svg incorporated. Submit ideas, thanks, mynameinc 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if one is looking for something barnstar-ish, there is always the Iron Crescent... Constantine ✍ 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a better proposal for our award. The award picture. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Current proposal. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The star has a white background, which I can remove, but it doesn't define the Ottoman Empire. I mean that in a barnstar way (because it's small) one can't see the definition of the Ottoman Empire. We should also define what exactly this barnstar is for. We could have a barnstar for creating new articles and another for improving multiple articles, or at least we should have a name for this barnstar like national merit or something. We should look for another image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We have as options the following:

• 
• 
• 

The first two files seems more 'barnstarish' to me. I like the idea of using different images for different awards proposed by Diaa abdelmoneim. Turco85 (Talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok so we scrap the current barnstar and use each barnstar for a certain award.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We could use one award for achieving A-Class, one for FA-Class, related achievements. Possibly each one represents a different number of A-Class an individual has created/significantly contributed to. Suggestions. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think FA-Class isn't a concern of our awards as the user already indicates in his userpage which articles got FA. We should have things like a contributor who improved a lot of articles concerning Ottoman Empire (Tireless Contributor Award) and another maybe for creating 5 requested articles (Creationist award).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be set out like this:

		The Ottoman Barnstar of ...
		I, (users name), am awarding you this Barnstar... (and give your reason)

		The Ottoman Barnstar of ...
		I, (users name), am awarding you this Barnstar... (and give your reason)

Turco85 (Talk) 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I think each picture be for a different award. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the project

So now what? We have eleven members. All of them want to help in making better Ottoman Empire articles. But where do we start and how do we improve? Which articles are missing and how do we collaborate? We need a list of missing articles and a topic outline.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can make us a better looking Project page, do you mind? Ours is very basic, of course. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please start an "Open tasks" ("Missing articles"?) subpage? Or would it be better to begin listing things here. I have a short list of red links on early Ottoman figures. Perhaps Diaa abdelmoneim also has things to add. Aramgar (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire/Open tasks. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

After 3 hours of dedicated work I revamped the Wikiproject page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I seen, and I thank you. This is the first WikiProject I started, and I am still a newbie in Wikipedian matters. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also thank you for the revamped Project page. I am horrible in the field of making sophisticated pages using the Wikiformatting. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 00:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The project page looks great. Hopefully we keep this project alive and active! Turco85 (Talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles notification

I've included the project in the New Article Bot search. If I did it correctly, any new articles pertaining to the Ottoman Empire should be viewable here once the bot runs again. For fine-tuning the search parameters (its my first attempt at this), the rules are to be found here. Regards, Constantine ✍ 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Invite others

Do we have an invitation template we could post at user talk pages? If not, we should make one. Any ideas? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What about something like this:

Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Ottoman Empire. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Ottoman-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Turco85 (Talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. If everyone else does, we could create a subpage for it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire invite? mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest calling it Template:WPOT-Invitation Turco85 (Talk) 10:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks great and I like the template suggestion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Should we substitute the template, and make a field for the username to make it feel more personal? mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See template talk for usage. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I like that idea. Great job! I think we should re-do the barnstar though. Turco85 (Talk) 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging Modern Nations

Should we tag modern nations for our project? (I was going to avoid It but found there was no seperate page for the region of greece only one for the nation).Trakov 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakov (talk • contribs)

No. That is too far out of our scope. But I sincerely thank you for your efforts. Try Balkans, Aegean Sea, related articles. Thanks again, mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Turkey

For more details see Talk:History of rail transport in Turkey#Copy vio - rewrite article

(duplicated message on various related talk pages)

For both the republic of Turkey and the Ottoman empire historical info is required on the railways (in part due to copyright issues with current text). Please feel free to contribute. Additionally if anyone has additional sources of info on Rail transport in Turkey please leave info on that pages talk page. Thank you.

Please note the article History of rail transport in Turkey includes in its scope railways built in the Turkish part of the Ottoman empire prior to 1927.. For those wishing to add info on Ottoman railways the page Ottoman railways (currently a disambiguation page) would be a good place to start, and definitely would benefit from expansion. Best wishes.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century Jew who developed a religious movement called Frankism--a form of Sabbateanism--and promoted it in the Ottoman Empire) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Growth, stagnation and decline

In most articles about Ottoman history as well as the History of Ottoman Empire sidebar, the era classification is as follows

• 1299-1453 Rise
• 1453-1683 Growth
• 1683-1827 Stagnation
• 1827-1908 Declice
• 1908-1923 Dissolution

I don’t know if this scheme is sourced. But this is not consistant with the classical approach. There is nothing wrong with the beginning of Growth era. But it must end by the beginning of the 17th century. Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606 seems the best border line between the Growth and Stagnation eras , although Sokullu Mehmet Pasha’s death in 1579 may yet be another alternative; but certainly not 1683. Becuase, in the 17th century, Ottoman Empire lived some of its worst days. Jelali revolts left Anatolia in ruins. Although, Podolia and Create had been annexed, much greater territory in Caucasus and West Iran had been lost. Barbary states refused to be controlled by the porte. Economy and cultural life was in decline. How can this period be called growth ? According to classical classification the period between the peace of Zsitvatorok and the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 is stagnation and from 1699 toTanzimat in 1839 is the era of Decline. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK archive

I suggest to create an archive for DYK's related to WikiProject Ottoman Empire.Any ideas pro or contra? CeeGee (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ottoman Empire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

provinces for deletion

FYI, Kars Province, Ottoman Empire and Karaman Province, Ottoman Empire have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sırp Sındığı

A heated discussion is going on in the talk page of Battle of Maritsa. Assuming that the battle is Sırp Sındığı in Ottoman chronicles, what is the date of the battle, 1364 as Turkish Wikipedia claims or 1371 as English Wikipedia claims, or were there two battles. The western sources tend to support 1371 with Lala Şahin commanding Ottoman army instead of Hacı İlbey. Please contribute to discussion on page The talk page and correct the text if necessary. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Egypt needs attention

Khedivate of Egypt recently appeared at T:TDYK having been recently expanded by User:DCI2026, whose enthusiasm doesn't always, umm, match his/her attention to detail, and who has left out a lot of detail on the later khedivate. Indeed, it's pretty debatable whether you can even call it a khedivate before the title was officially granted in 1867, arguably most of the current khedivate article should be in an article called Pashaluk of Egypt or some such. The Cambridge History of Egypt certainly avoids the K word until 1867. (as an aside, Google Books has most of the CHE, a great source for this stuff.) More importantly, the article largely overlaps the better one at History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty, although the latter's title could be made more concise. I don't know what the best approach is - there's also an article on Muhammad Ali's seizure of power which again is perhaps not the best title. I have a feeling that given the huge potential scope of these articles, there's room for several articles here, but the current structure isn't right - and unfortunately it's the best current article that should be broken up. I'd propose that the "dynasty" stuff gets moved into the Khedivate article proper, and then the remainder gets consolidated into a single article about Egypt under Muhammad Ali or something and we see how that looks - in the long term you could be looking at a whole family of daughter articles on his social reforms, his military campaigns and so on. There's also interaction with Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Muhammad Ali Dynasty, plus the main article at History of Ottoman Egypt really needs a thorough copyedit, it's gibberish in places. This isn't really my subject (although I find it fascinating), and it really needs to be worked out through consensus so can I leave it in your hands? Le Deluge (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali's seizure of power and History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty are both based on text from the 1911 Britannica. There have been some improvements to them over the years, but there still is a lot to do with them. - SimonP (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally brought up the issue of article redundancy. Here are some of my proposals to improve the current mess:

• History of Ottoman Egypt and Egypt Province, Ottoman Empire should be merged. Technically, it is possible to prevent the two articles from overlapping if the first article were to focus on a chronological description of events, with the second article focusing on the characteristics of the province (such as economy, demographics, etc...). In practice, however, the second article has been an underdeveloped stub since its creation, so for the time being a merger is the best option. If an editor wants to put effort into developing the second article, then it would be possible to split the articles again in the future.
• The historical scope of articles needs to be clearly defined. I suggest the following: History of Ottoman Egypt (1517–1798); French Campaign in Egypt and Syria (1798–1801); Muhammad Ali's seizure of power (1801–1805); History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty (1805–1953). Currently, nearly half of the History of Ottoman Egypt article covers the French campaign and the ensuing political chaos, thus making it redundant with other articles. Although Egypt remained technically part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, most history books (as well as the Egyptian government's official website) use 1798 as the cut-off date marking the end of Egypt's Ottoman period. I suggest we do the same.
• The History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty article only covers events from 1805 to 1882. The History of modern Egypt article covers events starting from the 1882 British invasion onwards. Using 1882 as a cut-off date is quite artificial (and even slightly offensive to some Egyptians, since it suggests that modern Egypt was born with the British invasion), and is certainly due to the fact that the articles are largely based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which obviously had a pro-British bias. I suggest that the 1882–1953 period be removed from the History of modern Egypt article and copied to the History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty one. The dynasty's rule is treated in most history books as a single, coherent era, and this should be the case here. Once this is done, the History of modern Egypt article should be renamed History of republican Egypt, since it will only cover events from 1953 until today. "Republican" is a much more precise, objective term than "modern". The link to History of modern Egypt should then become either a disambiguation page or a redirect.
• The Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Muhammad Ali Dynasty articles should remain as they are, since they cover totally different topics. The first article is a biography of the ruler, so there's no risk of overlap. The second article in its current form is almost a duplicate of History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty. However, that's not a reason to merge/redirect it. The Muhammad Ali Dynasty should be kept as a separate article, but should be re-written so as to focus primarily on the ruling family itself (Albanian-Macedonian origins, rules of succession, regalia, palaces, wealth, constitutional status of rulers, current membership, etc...).
• The Khedivate of Egypt (1867–1914), Sultanate of Egypt (1914–1922) and Kingdom of Egypt (1922–1953) articles should be kept separate from each other. Each one of them covers in greater detail a specific sub-period within the more generic 1805–1953 timespan covered by the more generic History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty article. I agree that the articles in their current form are quite redundant with one another. However, they should be improved instead of being redirected/merged. The Khedivate of Egypt article should focus mainly on the Europeanization process during the reign of Khedive Isma'il Pasha as well as the so-called "veiled protectorate" from 1882 to 1914. The Sultanate of Egypt article should focus on the British protectorate and its effects. The Kingdom of Egypt article should focus on the liberalism of the 1920s, the authoritarian policies of the 1930s, the struggle between the king and the Wafd, etc...
• Given that Muhammad Ali's rule did not extend to Egypt only, I suggest we create a Conquests of Muhammad Ali article, which would deal with Muhammad Ali's military campaigns outside of Egypt (Levant, Sudan, Hejaz, etc...).

A notice about this ongoing discussion has been left on the talk pages of the relevant articles/WikiProjects. Therefore, if there is no opposition to my proposals within the next few days, I will go on and implement them. --BomBom (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed in solving disputes with Skanderbeg article

According to this advice I am asking members of this project for help solving disputes on Skanderbeg article. Here is the list of non-resolved disputes. Under that list there is new section with name Proposals how to deal with non-resolved issues. Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Call for discussion

I want to bring a spelling problem into discussion. As far as I know there is no standard romanization of Ottoman Turkish. But (among other things) there is a confusion of Ottoman personal names ending in -t (like Murat, Mehmet, Ahmet, Beyazıt , Hurşit, Ferhat etc). I prefer to use –t ending. But I observe that some contributers use –d ending (Ahmed instead of Ahmet, Murad instead of Murat etc.) Since Turkish pronunciation prohibits using –d ending, I don’t see any reason why -d ending is preferred, except that –d ending may be the proper usage in Arabic. But Ottoman people spoke Turkish and I think it is highly irrevelant to use the form in Arabic. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needed

I think that article Han (konaklama) should be created on en wikipedia. Is it possible that such article does not exist? If someone knows it does, but with another name, please inform us.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any han article in this encyclopadia. But there is an article about Caravanserai. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous sources from Bosnia and Herzegovina (like this one or Serbia (this one which state that Khans and Caravanserais are different things. Maybe it is different in other places, but here there are two major differences:

1. Khan is usually smaller and profit based inn, built in town centers with more comfort and luxury for longer stay of more wealthy and regular guests
2. Caravanserai is usually bigger and very often nonprofit based (on basis of endowement (vakuf) of rich individuals providing free accommodation for up to three days) built near main roads, with less comfort and luxury for poor people and shorter stay of guests and possibility to provide shelter for big number of horses too

I hope that some member of this project can know more about it and confirm information from local sources here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move: Foreign relations of Palestine

It has been proposed that Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority be renamed and moved to Foreign relations of Palestine. Please see the move discussion here. Alinor (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed and then re-opened again from scratch at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Requested_move_.28open_version.29. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Map translation

If someone could provide me with an accurate list of translation of the names of the Ottoman provinces in this map. I can create a new English map. Thanks in advance.P. S. Burton (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Translated on the personal page of P.S Burton. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Subaşi

I need help. I found two different definitions of Subaşi term. Can someone help me with advice what definition is more appropriate?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is one of those areas where Ottoman history is a complex tangle of roles and institutions over different eras and different regions - and the job titles of government officials in the Ottoman empire couldn't have a neat 1:1 map onto job titles in the modern world.

The latter definition is probably more appropriate; I looked through several more sources and saw the "subaşi" variously described as a prison chief, a police officer, a police shift leader, and some kind of gendarme - but the local kadı, zaim, or feudal lord (ie. timar-holder) - or their men - might also perform some duties that we'd expect a police chief to do.

If in doubt, look for sources - but if you read another 10 sources you would find another 10 subtly different definitions! bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I find it very helpful.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jahja

The article Jahja (Yahya) is about the third son of Mehmet III (so elder brother of Ahmet I and Mustafa I.) Although the article is sourced, I couldn't find sources about this prince in general Ottoman History books. Besides his name is not mentioned in Turkish Wikipedia. I suggest those who have sources about Jahja to check this article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

New stub template

Hello to all! This is to let you know that {{Ottoman-bio-stub}} has been created for tagging stub articles pertaining to Ottoman people. Constantine ✍ 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Star of David

According to articles Karamanids and Isfendiyarids the two medieval beyliks used the Star of David as their flag. Two flag images were created by different contributers and they were added to the articles by a third contributer (on 15 Feb., 2005). But I am highly spectical about the reliability of the flag images. Any suggestions ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; even if the mapmaker had had accurate flags to begin with (which seems to be a bit of a stretch), the flags portrayed on the map have been adapted to fit the mapmaker's own conventions, and wouldn't have reflected nuances of local usage (or even of governance or religion). The map is an outstanding piece of history in its own right, but "the Asian portion of the Atlas ... both apocryphal and accurate ... is a mixture of fact and fiction". After all, this is a map which still uses fantasies such as Prester John to fill otherwise blank spaces - there's no admission that "OK, we don't know much about this area, let's leave it empty". If we have to resort to primary sources, can't we at least get a primary source which is a bit closer? bobrayner (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested page move

There's a contested page move at Talk:Trebizond Vilayet#Requested move that could use input from more editors. If anyone reading this page wishes to register an opinion there, it would be very helpful. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A "problematic map"

Ottoman Empire in 1683

An editor has been removing what they claim is an historically inaccurate map of the Ottoman Empire from a large number of articles. I have reverted these edits until a consensus discussion can be held regarding it. The opinions of editors knowledgable about the history of the Ottoman Empire would be very helpful. The image is on Commons, but a short discussion about it is on its Wikipedia talk page here. Additionally, there's a discussion about the removals here. Assistance would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found sources stating that Circassia was "loosely subjected" to the Ottoman Empire, but also that they were the last of the independent people in the area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot read "loosely subjected". In which page did you find ? Takabeg (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 60, third full paragraph, second sentence Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look. Late-Ottoman geography can be... controversial, fuelled by nationalist disputes (and nationalist mythmaking) between Ottoman successor states. bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png is not correct. I hope creator will correct errors. Some nationalists want to show this empire much wider. In this map, the term "acquisition" is used. But the Ottoman Empire had never acquired Circassia. As you know, The Ottoman sultan didn't find any disadvantage they were "giving" also coasts of Circassia, where actually had never passed into the hands of the Ottomans, to the Tzar of the Russian Empire with extravagantly promises. (Osmanlı sultanı gerçekte hiçbir zaman fiilen eline geçmemiş olan Çerkesya kıyılarını da bol keseden Rusya Çarı na "vermekte" bir sakınca görmemişti, Sefer E. Berzeg, Soçi'nin Sürgündeki Sahipleri, Kafkasya Gerçeği, 1998, p. 46.). At present we'd better use this map. Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Luristan was occupied by the Ottomans between 1587 and 1603 (Andreas Birken, Hans-Henning Gerlach, Tarih Atlası, Mantis Verlag, p. 40.). Hamadan was occupied by Ottomans between 1724 and 36 (ibid, p. 41.). But the creator wrote "Map depicting the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent, in 1683". Wrong. Takabeg (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources saying that Circassia was, at some time, a part of the Ottoman Empire

• This source, albeit from 1828-1829, says, on pages 242-243, that Bayezid II reduced and annexed Circassia to the Empire in a 7 year war c.1486. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• This entry on "Circassia" from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (2007) says about Circassians: "They were Christianized in the 6th cent. A.D. but adopted Islam in the 17th cent. after coming under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. In 1829 the Ottoman Turks were forced to cede Circassia to Russia." Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• This source, the Encyclopedia of European peoples vol. 1 (2006), says the same thing, that the Circassians adopted Islam when "under the rule of the Ottoman Empire of the Turks", bottom of first column, page 176. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I was invited by user Takabeg to this discussion, I will be glad to say a few words...I think that this map has many mistakes (Hungary, Croatia, Persia, Abkhazia and Circassiaand, and a parts of Africa) and it is also very misleading (acquisition years, name of the map), but in general it is still a good map to introduce an Ottoman Empire altogether. I wouldn't use it in the more specific subjects (articles on en-wiki) which are related to the Ottoman Empire, only to the general ones. In short (IMHO), until somebody makes a better map, this one has to stay. Regards, --Kebeta (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I found more mistakes. There is mistake in the year of expansion of OE to the territory which today belongs to Albania, Greece and Macedonia. Big part of Albania, Northern Greece and Western Macedonia was under stable (which lasted for centuries) Ottoman Empire much before 1451. Kastoria from 1385, Vlorë (on the Adriatic sea!), Berat and Gjirokastër from 1417, Debar (1448), Ioannina from 1430, .... It means that line which shows acquisitions of OE in period 1359 - 1451 in the western Balkans should be moved to the left to touch the Adriatic sea and contain all above mentioned cities.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

These things I see more as misleading instead as mistakes, but I mostly agree with your remarks above. That is way I think it is not good to have this map for specific places and events (as you have listed them), but more for general usage as I have explainded above. Many maps on wiki have mistakes, but IMO if thear purpose is not to push POV, than they can stay until better ones are made. --Kebeta (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to get a historic map perfect, but we should have a low tolerance threshold for content which misleads readers. The map isn't used just for decoration; it's used as part of wikipedia content on history. We have to draw a line somewhere on the accuracy scale which distinguishes between "Get rid of it now" and "Flawed, but it'll do until there's something better". I think the map is pretty close to that line. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bobrayner. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: Close to the line on the "Flawed, but keep it..." side? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kabeta: Can you draw up a list of the articles in which the map appears for which its disadvantages outweigh its advantages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to illustrate importance of what Bobrayner said about "a low tolerance threshold for content which misleads readers" in case of this article. Article about Ottoman Empire have average of 6.000 views daily(!). It is ranked among first 1.000 articles on wikipedia by its traffic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Really?! I never would have expected that.

It's unfortunate that the creator of the map, User:AtilimGunesBaydin hasn't been by to join the discussion, but their participation on Wikipedia seems to be rather sporadic. I've just noticed that a number of other editors have worked on improving the map, so I'm going to drop them a notification about this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I found another mistake. A territory which today belongs to Montenegro is presented as it was acquired in period 1451-1481. Many articles about Montenegro, Principality of Zeta explain that it became part of OE in 1499, which is after the period 1451-1481 presented in this map. There are numerous sources which support those informations: 1, 2, 3...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Another mistake in case of the territory of Montenegro. Coastal area of Montenegro (Kotor, Budva, Bar, ... were parts of Albania Veneta and captured by OE only in 16th century, not in 15th like it is presented on the map.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are mistakes in case of Herzegovina also. OE captured Mostar in 1468 and Trebinje in 1482. I am sure that map presents Trebinje out of OE and most probably Mostar too. Those two towns were very important at those days.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: Can you source some of these errors, please, so a non-expert can understand them? My concern is that we seem to have transitioned in a few short days from a map which "in general ... is still a good map to introduce [the] Ottoman Empire" to one that appears to have errors everywhere, at least by your estimation. Not having a background in this area, I, and other editors like me, cannot make a judgement about the realtive quality of the map without understanding the nature of these errors. Therefore, it would be much more helpful to cite a source or two to support each claim instead of simply saying "Ooops, here's another one." Absent the backing of a reliable source, there is nothing to base a decision on except your good looks and the nice poem you left on my talk page. :) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry because I created a little confusion with my messages. I wanted so much to help and to give some ideas to editors who have worked on this map how to improve it. Of course I can source those errors. I will do it within next couple of days.

Regardless of the mistakes I mentioned, I am still grateful to users who created this map. It was not an easy task to prepare it and I am sure that a lot of other users are ready to help with its improvement. I am willing to do my best to help in case of western Balkans. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That will be great, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• About Caucasus and western Iran: the Ottoman Empire acquired and administrated Tiflis, Tebriz, Erdilân, Gence, Rûmiyye, Hemedan, Merâga, Kirmân-Şâhân, Revan, Luristan in the late 17th and early 18th century. But I couldn't find any reference about Circassia. I guess they might accept Ottoman sultan as a religious leader. But in those century, considerable number of Circassian were Christians. We must not use wrong and disputed map for readers of Wikipedia. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• There are three sources cited above. What are your sources to support your contention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• There was edit wars on this file in Commons. This is alternative version. I assume some Iranian and/or Persian users are unsatisfied with existing exaggerated map, but unfortunately their claims are also groundless. I guess it's difficult for creator to accept or understand these errors and improve map. <Personal attack redacted> Takabeg (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Discuss issues, not editors. Saying that another editor is racially, ethically or nationally biased in their ediiting, with no foundation for the charge, is well established as being a personal attack. I'm going to redact your statement one more time, and if you revert it, I will bring this to an admin for action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This map is one of the best maps of the Ottoman Empire I've seen so far. But as with many historical maps ıt has a problem of chronology. The empire didn't reach its maximum extent in all fronts simultaneously. In 1590 it had reached almost (but not exactly) its maximum extent by the treaty of Ferhat Pasha. But in the 16th century Crete (in Greece),Podolia (in Ukraina) as well as Uyvar (Nové Zámky in Slovakia) were not parts of the empire. In the 17th century although these territories were also acquired, vast territories in West Iran and most of Caucasus were lost. So it is almost impossible to define the maximum extent. Thus my suggestion is to rename the map as Ottoman Empire in 1590 with a note about the three small acquisitions in the 17th century. Other than that the map is OK. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming the name of the map will not solve anything since the name of the map is not important but what the map present as accurate...some lands conquered after 1566 doesn't mean that the lands conquered before 1566 are still under Ottomans, and that is the main error of this map...If somebody can delete this text (THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN 1683) from the maps legend, that would help a bit... --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the map wants to do two things simultaneously, show the largest extent of the empire in terms of territories it controlled over a block of time, and also to show its extent at a particular moment in time. These can't really be reconciled, of course, because the Empire is a moving target and the map just sits there. (Perhaps an animated map might be useful.) If the map could provide dates for specific places, and be renamed to something more generic such as "The Ottoman Empire at its height, c. this date-this date", perhaps that would alleviate the perceived problems? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably impossible to present both acquisitions and holdings simultaneously, unless we use animated map. I think it is important to have in mind what is written in the legend of this map. It explains that map presents acquisitions. Title should correspond with the legend. But even if map does present only acquisitions not the maximum extension of OE (which would be surrounding Vienna in that case), the acquisitions presented in this map have some mistakes. The latest I discovered and maybe the most important is Belgrade. The map says it was captured in period 1451-1481. The article about Belgrade and many sources that it happened in 1521. I will provide a list with sources to support claims about mistakes, but I just wanted to point to the legend which says acquisitions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please find below a list of mistakes in the map which I mentioned on this talk page, together with sources supporting my claim about mistakes. There are some more mistakes I noticed in the meantime, but I will try to prepare them within another list.

List of mistakes found in this map together with sources which support the claim about mistake:

Belgrade. The map says it was captured in period 1451-1481. The article about Belgrade (FA) and the article about Suleiman the Magnificent (also FA) who captured Belgrade says it was in 1521. There are many sources which support such claim: Kenneth Setton. A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, edited by ... By Kenneth Meyer Setton p. 335: "He died in 1520, leaving on the throne his young son Suleiman, who began his reign by conquering Belgrade in August 1521" The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History By Karl Kaser p. 34: "After the Ottomans... their troops...the mighty fortress of Belgrade was taken in 1521" Civilization in the West, Part 1, Crane Brinton p. 195: "In 1521, Suleiman took Belgrade ..." Historical dictionary of Islam By Ludwig W. Adamec p. 296: "Ottoman sultan, called the “Magnificent” in Europe and “The Lawgiver” (al- Qanuni) by the Ottomans. During his reign, the empire reached its high point of power and success. His army captured Belgrade in 1521" Albania, Greece and Macedonia. Map says that they were in most cases acquired in period 1451—1481. Much bigger parts of Albania, Northern Greece and Western Macedonia then it is presented in the map were under stable (which lasted for centuries) Ottoman Empire much before 1451. Kastoria from 1385, The Turks: Ottomans (2 v. ) : In 1385 Ottoman rule was established in Ishtip, Bitola, Prilep and Kastoria Studies on the Ottoman architecture of the Balkans p 303, The founding of Yenice Vardar must have taken place between 1383, the year in which Serres fell,3 and 1385, when Kastoria, Vodena 4 and Verria were taken. Vlorë from 1417 (on the Adriatic sea!), Kenneth Setton The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries p. 404: "... in 1417 the Turks had occupied Avlona" Robert Elsie Historical dictionary of Albania "The fortresses of Vlora, Kanina, and Berat were conquered in 1417 and Gjirokastra fell in 1419." Berat from 1417 Dictionary of Islamic architecture By Andrew Petersen Berat is a much older city dating back to the llyrian period. Initially conquered by the Ottomans in the fourteenth century, it was then recaptured, and not finally occupied by the Turks until 1417 Robert Elsie Historical dictionary of Albania "The fortresses of Vlora, Kanina, and Berat were conquered in 1417 and Gjirokastra fell in 1419." Ottoman architecture in Albania, 1385-1912 p.48 "In 1417, Berat became part of the Ottoman Empire when this strong city succumbed to a surprise attack." Gjirokastër article (WP:GA) says from 1417. Riza, Emin (1992). "Ethnographic and open-air museums" (PDF). UNESCO, Paris. Retrieved March 18, 2011. p 178: In 1419, under Ottoman occupation, Gjirokastër became the county town of the sanjak of Albania Robert Elsie Historical dictionary of Albania "The fortresses of Vlora, Kanina, and Berat were conquered in 1417 and Gjirokastra fell in 1419." Debar from 1448 Ioannina, article says from 1430, .... The Jews of Ioannina p. 14 : "Ioannina surrendered on October 9, 1430 and remained under Ottoman rule until February 21, 1913" The Ottoman Empire: the classical age, 1300-1600, - Halil İnalcık p. 210 : 1430 Ottoman conquest of Salonica (29 March) and of Ioannina. The Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies By Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack p. 292 : Mehmet I had reorganized the Ottoman state, and his son, Murad II, was able to take Thessalonike (which had been given to the Venetians in 1423) by assault in 1430, while Ioannina surrendered Montenegro (Principality of Zeta). The territory which today belongs to Montenegro is presented like it was acquired in period 1451-1481. The articles about Montenegro and its precedent (the Principality of Zeta) explain that they became part of OE in 1499, which is after the period 1451-1481 presented in this map. There are numerous sources which support those informations: Concise Encyclopaedia of World History By Carlos Ramirez-Faria, "In 1499 the Ottoman Empire conquered most of Montenegro" Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve bahası petitions and Ottoman ... By Anton Minkov,: "under Ottoman rule...Montenegro (1499) History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries By Barbara Jelavich p. 84 : "The Montenegrins: After its conquest in 1499 the Ottoman government ....land of Montenegro. Part of coastal area of Montenegro (part of Albania Veneta). The map says the whole coastal area of todays Montenegro was captured by OE in period 1451—1481. Sources say that OE captured only a part of the coastal area of Montenegro and only in 16th century. Kotor article says 1538. Many sources say it was only besieged but not captured in 1538. The Serbs By Sima M. Ćirković p 110 : The coastal cities remained under Venetian rule: Kotor and Budva permanently, and Bar and Ulcinj until 1571 Budva article says never was in OE. The Serbs By Sima M. Ćirković p 110 : The coastal cities remained under Venetian rule: Kotor and Budva permanently, and Bar and Ulcinj until 1571 Bar article says 1571 The Preaching of Islam p. 188: "...war broke out between Turkey and the Republic, and the Venetians made an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Antivari, which before the Turkish conquest had been in their possession for more than three centuries (1262-1571)." The Encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 1 In 1502 the Turks captured Durazzo, and in 1571 Antivari and Dulcigno Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-In-Europe (Vols. I and II) By G Muir MacKenzie, Adelina P Irby, W. E. (INT) Gladstone p. 194: Here, in 1571, they stood the siege that delivered them to the Turk ; an event fatal to the prosperity, almost to the existence, of the town. The garrison of Antivari consented to capitulate on honourable terms Herceg Novi article says 1482. Jugoslavia: Economic geography, ports, and communications p. 344: In 1483 Ercegnovi was captured by the Turks. Ulcinj article says 1571. The Encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 1 In 1502 the Turks captured Durazzo, and in 1571 Antivari and Dulcigno The Serbs By Sima M. Ćirković p 110 : The coastal cities remained under Venetian rule: Kotor and Budva permanently, and Bar and Ulcinj until 1571

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of problems you describe, I'm going to e-mail the map's creator, to see if we can get his or her input here. I don't think they've been aroun since August 9th. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This map is very important and maybe we should raise this issue on the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop and ask for another version which correct all mistakes of the existing map?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of response by the map's creator to my e-mail, that sounds like an excellent idea, as long as all changes asked for are adequately sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing by Beyond My Ken

• This is Canvassing with real meaning. We can understand easily that User:Nedim Ardoğa is one of persons concerned in Commons and not neutral on this issue. Please don't repeat. Takabeg (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I noted above that I was going to contact all editors who contributed to the various versions of the map, and I did - all editors, with the exception of the one who is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. I did not look to see which of the editors had expressed what opinion or what they did to the map, I simply went down the line and contacted them all. That's allowed under WP:CANVASS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I deny the accusation of being non neutral. The map in question has been created by User: AtilimGunesBaydin in 2006, long before I became interested in en:Wiki. It is a good map except that the title is misleading. It shows the boundaries in 1590 and not in 1683. True, even for 1590 there are three small errors which I've noted before. But Uyvar is too small to be seen on the 637*599 size map. Crete and Podolya should be cleared for 1590 situation. (Crete is the southern most island in Aegean Sea and Podıolya is a part of the bulge to the north of Romania.) There may also be some minor errors in poorly populated regions such as Kuban territory (north east Black Sea coast) and southern boundary line in African desert. Well if somebody claims the map is wrong he/she should specify which part is wrong. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Accurate map of vilayets circa 1900?

I've been looking for an accurate map of the Ottoman Empire which clearly shows the vilayets as they were demarcated around 1900, but I couldn't find a locator map that was definitely accurate (and included sources). I have used this svg map to create most of the location maps for the vilayets articles, but it is unsourced and it appears to be wrong in many significant aspects (it's missing some subdivisions, the borders are completely different from the ones found in most maps) so I created another map based on information I found on euratlas, but I don't know if this can be considered accurate either. Can someone help me in finding a map that is 100% authoritative, and shows all vilayets including the ones in the arabian peninsula? Cheers, LK (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(There is a minor inaccuracy in this map : some oriental Cyclades in the west of Astipalea (Amorgos, Santorini, Anafi) don't belong to the vilayet, but to Greece.--Phso2 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Combine Eyalet & Vilayet pages into Province pages

Recently, User:Underlying_lk, User:Vegaswikian & others have been moving around some of the Eyalet and Vilayet pages in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. For example, Edirne Province, Ottoman Empire > Edirne Vilayet > Adrianople Vilayet.

As User:Takabeg points out on Talk:Adrianople Eyalet, the first problem is the new pages are WP:OR and violate WP:NOTNEO. For example, he found

"Eyalet of Adrianople" -Llc 15,
"Adrianople Eyalet" -Llc 0 (the current namespace),
"Eyalet of Edirne" -Llc 5, and
"Edirne Eyalet" -Llc 2 (-2),

and proposed to consistently reformat the pages as Eyalet of X and Vilayet of X rather than as X Eyalet and X Vilayet.

The problem is that none of these is the English common name. Ottoman "Province of Adrianople" -Llc clocks in with 65, outranking them all. To avoid OR and violating NOTNEO, we should be using Province of X (where there are other modern provinces in the same space) or Province of X (Ottoman Empire) rather than the current pages. We can't ignore the English common name just to pick the second or third but not the fourth or fifth to suit ourselves; we especially shouldn't combine some English common names with the local endonym for the provinces.

Now, at one point, Underlying_lk raised the valid objection, "'province' is too generic[:] both vilayet and eyalet can be translated as province." The solution is not to avoid ENGLISH or COMMONNAME but to simply combine the pages with appropriate redirects.

1. The article names should be in the form Province of Commonname or Province of Commonname (Ottoman Empire) per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH.
2. Because this title covers them all, the articles should combine the (early) sanjaks; beylerbeyliks, pashaliks, & eyalets; and vilayets & mutasarrifates (=mutasarrifliks).
3. Redirects from all the other versions of the name. E.g., Eyalet of Edirne, Edirne Eyalat, Eyalet of Adrianople...
4. The lede sentence should include the major Ottoman names with Anglicized translations. For instance:

   The Province of Adrianople (Ottoman Turkish: ایالت ادرنه, Eyālet-i Edirnê, Edirne Eyalet from 1826–1864; Ottoman Turkish: ولايت ادرنه, Vilâyet-i Edirne, Edirne Vilayet from 1864–1922) was a province of the Ottoman Empire in south-eastern Europe. ...

   or

   The Province of Adrianople was a province of the Ottoman Empire in south-eastern Europe. It was called the Eyalet of Edirne (Ottoman Turkish: ایالت ادرنه, Eyālet-i Edirnê) from its founding in 1826 until the Tanzimat Reforms of 1864, after which it was known as the Vilayet of Edirne (ولايت ادرنه, Vilâyet-i Edirne). ...

5. If the province was also known as a "Beylerbeylik" or "Pashalik" that should be clarified in a sentence further down the article, talking about the commander of the province:

   ... Because it was commanded by a pasha, the province of Janina was also known as the Pashalik of Janina. ...

6. For the sake of room and clarity, any other translated names (modern Turkish, Hungarian, Serbian, Bulgarian, &c.) should be moved down to a separate Name section, excepting only very special cases such as Eastern Rumelia. The same goes for Yanya Eyalet, where you've got something like five fairly common names: Janina goes in the lede, then the others are mentioned lower down.

Thoughts? — LlywelynII 02:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with some parts.

A strict naming convention affecting a wide range of objects will tend to diverge from WP:COMMONNAME because things are often named inconsistently in the real world. I would happily favour WP:COMMONNAME but it may deliver different results for different articles.

I'm wary of widespread use of "province" because information (vilayet / eyalet / pashalik &c) is immediately lost from the title.

bobrayner (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any information missing. The Turkish terms are still employed in the text as the Turkish terms that they are. It would simply comport with COMMONNAME and at the same time combine the Eyalet and Vilayet pages. I haven't seen any that have so much unique information they wouldn't be improved by this inclusion of information into sections of a single page. — LlywelynII 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"the first problem is the new pages are WP:OR and violate WP:NOTNEO"

Nonsense. "Vilayet" and "eyalet" are used by English language sources as far back as the early 19th century, possibly earlier. Neither word can be claimed to be a translation of the word 'province'. Of course contemporary news sources would mostly use 'province' as a convenient English shorthand for a foreign word, but in a historical context, where there is a risk of mixing the two, the most accurate denominations are preferred (unless you can explain me how you would deal with having the same name for the Sanjak of Herzegovina, the Eyalet of Herzegovina and the Vilayet of Herzegovina without causing a massive headache to the reader). The difference between eyalet and vilayet is particularly sharp because, while all the borders of Ottoman subdivisions were incrementally changed over the course of the centuries as the empire lost or gained territory, the vilayets were created in a clean break with the past, redrawing well-established borders by splitting, merging and partitioning territories in a timeframe of less than a decade. You shouldn't consider the mere presence of a foreign word in the title to be a violation of any number of policies, there are countless time-honored precedents where a foreign label has been preferred to a more common English word for the sake of clarity, you can verify this by seeing pages such as Masovian Voivodeship or Moscow Oblast, where it was decided that no English denomination could convey the same meaning as the original form.--LK (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with the desire for clarity, but it's certainly not nonsense.

In your own example, Sanjak of Herzegovina currently redirects precisely to Herzegovina Eyalet. That page then links to the modern Bosnia and Herzegovina instead of the Herzegovina Vilayet page, which is as stubby as it could possibly be. Aside from ENGLISH COMMONNAME concerns, there simply isn't enough material on most of these pages to justify separate pages.

As for the "clean break" of the vilayet reforms, the Tanzimat certainly was an attempt to alter the empire's power structure. On the other hand, aside from reorganization in Rumelia and Armenia, the fact that fully 28 of the 39 vilayets had the exact same name and capital as the preceding eyalet belies the idea that we're dealing with fundamentally separate regions. There were administrative changes, there were border shifts. They were still similar provinces. — LlywelynII 17:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick search for New York Times articles containing the word 'vilayet' and published before 1900 yields 64 results, all relating to the Ottoman Empire. These denominations have been common in English language sources for long enough to make any "ENGLISH COMMONNAME" concern irrelevant to this discussion.--LK (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what "common name" means. It does seem that the NY Times appreciated "Vilayet of X" in their style guide at some point (and I do like some of their names, like "Greek Archipelago" instead of just "Archipelago"), but even in that one source 64 is still less than the 249 results for Ottoman province and much less than 853 for Turkey province on the same pre-1900 search. Further, individual eyalets and vilayets pop up as "province" still more often (cf. Talk:Eyalet_of_Adrianople, 65 to 15). Certainly, eyalet and vilayet should have their own pages and the provincial pages should have separate sections for each. I just don't see how they currently deserve their own pages. — LlywelynII 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see your misunderstanding now. Reread the first post. I wasn't saying "vilayet" is a neologism. I was saying the current format of the pages is; right now many pages read "X Eyalet" and "Y Vilayet" and they should read "Eyalet of X" and "Vilayet of Y." There are exactly 0 cites for "Adrianople Eyalet" versus 15 for "Eyalet of Adrianople", but the page was using the former.

That's a completely different issue from the fact that the common name was always "Province of X". — LlywelynII 00:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen you mention WP:OR and WP:NOTNEO (and something warning against "combining English names with local endonyms", which is exactly what quite a few journalists and historians did), so yes, you did bring up concerns about 'vilayet' & c. being neologisms in English. But I'm glad you changed your mind when confronted with evidence of the contrary. Regarding any other naming issue you raised, all my points from the previous posts still stand. And besides, by your own logic, we should move the page Ottoman Empire to Turkey, since that's the most used term by contemporary sources as you correctly pointed out.--LK (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a stylistic point, mixing them up is bad form, but the common name is the common name regardless. You're absolutely right about Constantinople and Turkey, if we were building Wikipedia in 1923. On the other hand, in contemporary sources, it's almost exclusively Istanbul (w/r/t the modern city) and Ottoman Empire (w/r/t early modern "Turkey") any more. — LlywelynII 09:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Turgut

Hi, everyone. When you have time, could you control this attempt (Turgut Reis) ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nogai eyalet?

Did an eyalet by the name of Nogai ever exist? I created the currently very stubby article based on what I could grasp from the corresponding Turkish wikipedia page, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere either on Google Books or the wider internet, or on any map of the Ottoman Empire (this map seems to depict it as a part of imperial russia). From what I read on Nogai this horde was at some point a tributary to the Ottomans, but there's no mention of it having an eyalet of its own or even being integrated into the empire. Besides, it would have been highly unusual for the Ottomans to name a province after an ethnic group, especially in the 17th century, which makes me think that at very least the current name is wrong. If someone that can read Turkish could check the references mentioned on the tr.wiki article that would be enormously helpful.--LK (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated this page for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nogai Eyalet).--LK (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I !voted delete. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Two other AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zigetvar Eyalet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karasi Eyalet.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Hi, everyone. A historical document was used incorrectly in the article Armenian Genocide. See Talk:Armenian Genocide#Personal explanation. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanjak of Berat

Resolved

There are numerous sources which mention this sanjak as sanjak of Berat. But there are sources (like this) which claim that sanjak of Berat did not exist and that it was sanjak of Valona, but sometimes referred as Berat because of its seat which was Berat for some time. There are also numerous sources which claim that Berat belonged to Sanjak of Vallona (Vlore).

If anybody knows something more about this subject please help with resolving this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"XIX. yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti'nin idarî düzenlemeleri sonucu sancak merkezi olma özelliğini de kaybederek yeni teşkil edilen Yanya vilâyetinin bir kaza merkezi haline geldi" (Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 4, p. 119.) Takabeg (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At least, in 1520, Berat is one of the kaza of the Avlonya Sancağı (p. 722.) Takabeg (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Takabeg. Taking in consideration that Sanjak of Avlona is supported with Rumelia Eyalet I will rename Sanjak of Berat to Sanjak of Avlona. I found 8 GBS hits for Avlona, only three for Valona and only one for Vlore. I guess that the best alternative is Sanjak of Avlona?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Hi, everyone. The name "Egir Eyalet", (also "Eyalet of Egir", "Province of Egir", "Egir Province") is original research. What do you think of Talk:Egir Eyalet ? Takabeg (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Kadı or Qadi?

Both seem to be equivalent to one another. They come from Turkish and Arabic respectively, and the confusion between the two recently became something of a stumbling block in my Modern Middle East course. Can we examine the possibility of merging the Kadı content into the Qadi article? I have done very little so far where editing is concerned, and this is my first conversation contribution on Wikipedia. I think it best if a more experienced editor examine this issue, and if need be, rectify it. Amringel (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Amringel 16:53 14 September 2011

Multi-move discussion

Readers here may be interested in contributing to a proposal regarding the renaming of 11 Ottoman Eyalet articles. See Talk:Mosul Eyalet#Multi-move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)