Talk:Ottoman Empire

Merger proposal

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.

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 [1], 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 main original source of this map is [2] in The Uprooting : the expansionist policy of Turkey and the persecutions of the Greeks by the Turks in the 20th century by Institute of Historical Studies, Panepistimiou avenue n° 34, Athens 1985, 58 p., [3] & The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks 1914-1923 p. 15. All other cited sources (as Languages in Asia Minor, 1910, since Baldamus, Alfred; Koch, Julius; Schwabe, Ernst: "Historisches schulatlas", ed. Putzger, Leipzig 1910, p.28, see here were consulted as comparative complements about the ancient times in western Asia (it's a german schoolbook) - see also here, partially diffeent from this map "Asiaminor1910" showing 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]. 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)

Digitized documents at wikilala.com

As you can see I have added wikilala.com to external links. For info I received this reply from destek@wikilala.com when I asked their plans:

"Very happy for your feedback and support. In the first plan we've included almost only the printed materials. In a few months we're planning to get written documents ready for further researches. .... Please e-mail us whenever you like if you have any questions or problems."

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Effect of “Tanzimat”?

This sentence seems inaccurate at its core, which comes after a reference to the tanzimat reform effort: “ Thus, over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organised, despite suffering further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged.”

I’d remove it simply because it’s inaccurate. The 19th century is when the term “sick man of Europe” developed, and it is indicated by its repeated losses to the Russian Empire. It probably would have lost the Crimean War without British help.

Still, there may be reason for it, so I thought I’d just point out the rather optimistic characterization rather than change it. Sych (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a basic reality of 19th-century Ottoman history (and cites a reliable academic survey, albeit one that's a little out of date now). The 18th century was a period of decentralization, when state institutions were weak and most aspects of government were handled by local authorities. The early 19th-century reforms, and the Tanzimat in particular, greatly strengthened the central state and its institutions, creating a powerful centralized government able to effectively tax, conscript, and regulate the lives of its population in ways it earlier could not. As the source notes, the Ottoman state had more power over its citizens and subjects in the 19th century than in any period prior. I think you're confusing this with the empire's relative military/geopolitical position vis-a-vis other states, which is something entirely different. Chamboz (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Not claiming that any of what you said was wrong, but I think it's important to stress the reason for this centralization, namely the loss of technological parity or advantage vis-a-vis the European states during the 18th century, which you also stated. So I think simply saying "The empire got more powerful" might not aid people's comprehension much, and rendering

"the Ottoman state had more power over its citizens and subjects in the 19th century than in any period prior"

simply in terms of an empire's general "power" - if such a thing exists - might give the impression that the empire was once again the leader in military technology. Uness232 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable clarification to me. Perhaps the sentence can be changed to, "Thus, over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organised within its own borders, but nevertheless suffered further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged." Do you think that makes it clearer? Chamboz (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I think "centralized" instead of "organized" might be a bit better, but that's just my own word choice. Uness232 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)