Talk:Osman I

Comments

I would question the POV of this article, so unctuous in its praise of Osman, that it borders on nationalistic propaganda.

I would agree. Examples thereof:

he had already both proven his skill as a leader, and his prowess as a combatant

He dressed simply, in the tradition of the first warriors of Islam, and like them he wore a turban of ample white linen, wreathed round a red centre. His loose flowing kaftan was of one colour, and had long open sleeves.

a bloodly [sic] lesson to all who should harbour thoughts of contradiction to the fixed will of so stern a lord

I think, however, that this is most likely a result of the page being essentially a copyright violation: it puts a reference at the bottom of the page, but doesn't show exactly where that reference is being cited (probably because the majority of the page is clearly copied from that book); hence, it violates copyright. —Saposcat 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two examples are not necessarily POV, the third one is not clear as a sentence therefore, also not clear whether a POV or not. --TimBits 18:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted, they're not necessarily POV; given the context of all of the statements, however, I would definitely argue that they are actually POV.

Anyhow, insofar as they're almost certainly taken from another book (specifically, von Hammer's) without proper referencing, the copyright problem is probably the bigger one at this point. —Saposcat 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably one of the worst wiki's I've seen as of yet. Full of nationalistic stuff, however that was to be espected from nationalist Turkish people. Anyone try to fix this?

I know that the article is rubbish but I don't have time to fix it (actually rewrite!!). Deliogul 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul you had the time to write all these comments, especially 'your ideas', so i think you should have enough time to rewrite the article. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My İdeas

• Yes, Osman Ghazi prefered a simple life but not because of Islam. He lived according to old Turkish nomadic traditions. Actually, his name wasn't Osman. It was Atakan or Utman(common Turkish names of Osman I.'s time). After two or three centuries, Ottoman historians changed his name to Osman because it is an important religious name(look at Caliphate, Hz. Osman - Uthman ibn Affan). Deliogul 11:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Also, we have to accept that we don't have clear data left from the time of Osman Ghazi. Today, we know him as a legendary leader both because of his achievements and the legends surrounded all around his personality. Osman Ghazi represents simplicity, bravery and leadership. With respect, Deliogul 10:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I want to say some new things today. First of all, we have to delete much of the data about his abilities as a warrior and his beauty as a man since they are not that much releated to the Wikipedia's academic point of view. Osman Ghazi was a legendary leader but we can try to find the limits of legends. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I propose that we do a direct translation from the Turkish version. The Engish version as of now has nothing to do with it and it is full of subjective information. The Turkish version is well documented and includes more facts than legends. I consider the "hands touching the knees" part not as a praise and rather derrogative. --Devran77 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti Turkish Infiltrations

"...Not all of Osman’s counselors agreed with Osman's path of conquest. Osman silenced all remonstrance and quelled all risk of dissension and mutiny by an act of prompt ferocity, which shows that the great ancestor of the Ottoman Sultans had a full share of the ruthless cruelty that has been the dark characteristic of the Turkish Royal House..." Who put these two sentence to the article? What is dark characteristic of the Turkish Royal House? It seems like a copy paste text from a racist anti-Turkish author. I suggest this text to be removed. --Ogulsev 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is rubbish. Deliogul 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a member a Seljuk hause

He was Sultan of Iconium from 1299 to 1317 and then Sultan of Rûm or Anatolia from 1317 to 1326.

The above sentence was from the article and I deleted it. Simply because it was wrong. Osman I had never been a member Seljuk dynasty. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1324, not 1326!

Osman I died in 1324. (I also changed the Turkish Wikipedia/Vikipedi) Böri (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New creation

The InfoBox clearly concerns this guy as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, NOT him as a tribal leader of Kayi Turks. Since he founded the Ottoman Empire and was thereby the 1ST Sultan, the "Predecessor" Field in the InfoBox should be changed to read "New creation" instead of showing the 2nd-to-last tribal leader (Osman being the final of those before becoming Sultan) before the Empire was founded. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.188.103 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

World power for over six centuries

That is wrong, from 1300 to 1900 I think this mean but Ottoman empire stopped being a world power already in the 18 th century, from 13?? to 17?? sounds more OK, thats about four centuries. I change "world power" to "empire". Awakened82 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother's name

What was the name of his mother. According to the article it was Khaima. But according to most other sources, Khaima was not his mother. Khaima was his grandmother. According to Ottoman studies [1] his mother's name was Halime. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian

Persian: عثمان بن أرطغرل, is modern Persian ? The Persian language is innebitalbe for the Seljuq era. And for the early Ottoman era, it's important. But I cannot find عثمان بن أرطغرل in old books (in google books). If it were an alternative modern Persian, let's remove it because Wikipedia is not a dictionaly. Takabeg (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

His name in Persian is not relevant to this article at all. Does his name occur in any historical Persian source? There is no need to write what his name means in Persian as he has no relationship to Persian history or culture, so it is totally unrelated. Or we can add here what his name is different languages, for example Japanese or Arabic, but if I would add a Turkic language you would delete it ofcourse instantly, shall I write in Shah Abbas article what his name is in Azerbaijani, ofcourse you would delete it or other users. But Shah Abbas spoke Azerbaijani as his motherlanguage and was related to Azerbaijani culture, But Osman I has no relationship to persia at all but still you add Persian to unrelated Turkic articles and delete the word Turk from Turkic related articles.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And besides this is عثمان بن أرطغرل in Arabic/ bin بن means (son of) in Arabic. Translated it says: Osman ( عثمان) son of( بن) Ertuğrul (أرطغرل) . It is 2 names with a Arabic word between them. This is not Persian.

Formerly in this article his alternative names discribed as Ottoman Turkish, Persian: عثمان بن أرطغرل,

It means both in Ottoman & Persian his names was عثمان بن أرطغرل

So I put {{Citation needed|date=June 2011}}. This way is more reasonable. Please stop blind revert. Takabeg (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I already explained above, I didnt blindly revert, did you read my explanation?

1 The name is not Persian but Arabic

2 In no other Ottoman Ruler, the Persian name is written.( I do not encourage you to do it)

3 Persian has no relationship to this Ottoman Sultan or the rest of the Ottoman sultans. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Because Ottomans and Persians also used "X bin Y" style. We can wait sombody who would find sources .Please stop blind revert. Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Statement

"Because the one without fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Are you sure this is what he said? It makes no sense from an Islamic point of view. It should say:

"Because the one with fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Last Statement

"Because the one without fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Are you sure this is what he said? It makes no sense from an Islamic point of view. It should say:

"Because the one with fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created." 96.55.183.132 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)