Ottoman Empire was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Ottoman Empire is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
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.
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)