Talk:Ottoman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article 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.

"Today part of"[edit]

This addition to the infobox is not only a magnet for the POV-pushers ("look how big we were!") who keep making dubious additions (Morocco, Malta, Niger, Ethiopia, Slovakia, even Uganda!), it is also completely useless and highly misleading. The territorial extent is depicted in useful form by the map, and that is more than sufficient. A laundry list of countries paints a misleading picture, as sometimes only a tiny part of the country in question was part of the empire(e.g. Russia), and often for an insignificant length of time. Athenean (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a comment to that effect in the infobox, lest people add it back. TompaDompa (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta and uganda not part of ottoman empire. Ottomans malta invasion but they could not be dominate. They do not appear on the list.

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire - Kaza - eyalet - beylerbeylik - vilayet

  • Niger part of Ottoman Kavar Kaza [1]
  • Morocco was vassal to the Ottoman empire and Ottoman ruled morocco directly certain period.

map is not 100% accurate.It can not be decided by a historian map. Learn and research management system should be made according. You did not have direct discussions rather than delete the page. Wikipedia empire maps are not 100% accurate. Determined in accordance with the historical research. Do you need to discuss before deleting.

I added back to the list. Deleting without discussion is inappropriate and malicious. --Gündoğdu (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia isn't at all dubious, the Ottomans controlled a large segment of the country from 1663-1684. The Ottomans also participated in the colonization of Africa in the nineteenth century to a degree greater than previously assumed, although I'm not familiar with the status of research on this topic. Morocco, Malta, Ethiopia, and probably Uganda shouldn't be included. If we're going to have an infobox like this we should only include countries situated on lands directly administered by the Ottoman Empire, not vassal states. Though I agree that in general this infobox is not really useful to begin with. I'd be fine with not having it at all. Chamboz (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is to be a list, we can include the following as indisputably having territory that was part of the empire:
        Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Palestine, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen.
The rest is up to what reliable sources can show, but this should be our starting point since there's no reasonable way to disagree with anything on this list. Chamboz (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That's 37 countries, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not the point though. A laundry list of countries is completely useless to our readers. A map is useful. A list is not. A list is also misleading to our readers, since it implies the Ottomans occupied a conutry in its entirety, which is not the case for most of those entries. That's hy we use maps to represent empires and not lists. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle, but looking at the page on the Roman Empire for instance shows that there all countries are listed in the same way. "Russia" and "Iran" are there listed. But yes, the maps are more important, and they are also unfortunately awful in quality. Chamboz (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, the WP:Editing policy states that "on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content". If there is consensus that the list is misleading, it should be removed. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where is misleading information. Can you give examples? This list is located in each empire pages. If misleading information, please sample data. We can do the necessary research. There are already discussions and reliable source of several countries. Please give examples where you think it was a mistake.

--Gündoğdu (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

FA-class articles, the highest quality articles on wikipedia, do not include this meaningless laundry list of countries (e.g. Byzantine Empire. I don't care about low quality articles. The list is useless and misleading, the article is better off without it. Athenean (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, the political entities of today hardly ever existed during the extant of the Ottoman Empire. We need to look into the technicalities of the matter. Morocco, as an independent republic, didn't exist at the time. It wasn't even known by that name. Syria, for example, never existed, and just about every other country in Turkey's neighborhood was pretty much a non-existent national political entity at the time. Their borders have changed over the years, so has their culture, language, and religion. Our understanding of what Kosovo is today wasn't our same understanding of Kosovo as we recognize it to be in 1560, 1970, 1995, or 2006. Conquering Algeria back then is not the same as conquering Algeria today. Modern Algeria's borders are entirely different than what it was at the time when the OE conquered a sliver of its contemporary modern borders. All in all, this list complicates these matters and misleads the readership into believing the Ottoman Empire was something it was not. Its got to go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Historian's note - the term "Syria" has been around since Babylonian times as a region. (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as a geographical term. But not the political term that signifies the Syrian Republic as we know it today...Hatay included ;) Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
And use it in its historical or geographical sense inside Turkey and you risk going to prison for insulting Turkishness! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This list is located on page 98% of the empires. and it shows the state spread the field. If you have any thoughts in this way must be removed from all of them. You say too many irrelevant things. This list shows the empire on the expansion area. There is no consensus for removal. This is something damaging. if you have such thoughts should be removed from all of them;

If you think that this list is useless. On other pages has the same situation. You need to consider the removal of all. There is no consensus for removal And list has the necessary resources. A list of which can not be removed, reliable sources. This is harm and was vandalism.

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire - eyalet - Kaza - beylerbeylik - vilayet Here are the necessary information.

There is no consensus. It has the resources. Damaging - cynical attitude - frivolity and abusive behavior will have to be reported

The list is not a list of newly added. There were already on the page. The list has been removed as harmful as and malicious. The list has been deleted for no reason and opened the discussion. Adding the list is not the subject of debate. There were already on the page. . --Gündoğdu (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

See [2] Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) regarding the big words "This addition to the

None of those articles are FA-class. They are in rather poor shape and are not useful as models. Athenean (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The list has the necessary resources. Removed in an unjust way. Adding the list is not the subject of debate. The list has been removed for no reason and debate opened. The list there were. This list is located in each empire page. If you have a thought in this way it should be removed all. Because they are all in the same situation. Unlike the others, this list has the necessary resources.

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire - eyalet - Kaza - beylerbeylik - vilayet Here are the necessary information.

We are not discussing here the addition list. You removed the list causeless. You said misleading remarks. The list is not a list of newly added. Please correct the error you have made. The list pages 98%. that are taking place in.--Gündoğdu (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose inclusion — The list seems to be absent from all "Featured Article" historical empires. "Other stuff exists" is widely rejected by the English Wikipedia community, especially when the other stuff is not either featured or good status. It also seems to me to be excessive detail which does not significantly contribute to a better understanding of the subject. The map of the empire lets the reader see at a glance the true geographical extent of it. The main prose is the place to talk about the most significant parts of the empire as they relate to the world today. Murph9000 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If you have that way of thinking it is necessary to remove the list of all empires. because: This list is not a list of newly added.There was already on the page. This list has the necessary resources. It was not on adding discussions but discussion came to other places. I do not see the added damage. While there should be added the necessary resources.--Gündoğdu (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new and much more accurate map for 1683. Chamboz (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better to discuss this issue on another related board too. Per consensus, we can decide about all of these articles. Just like MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Athenean and others, I'd suggest we go for a map, not the list. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether we use the "today part of" in this article can be determined by the community. However, Murph9000 and Athenean, there are FAs that use the parameter, Song dynasty and Tang dynasty are two examples. Since "today" is a valid parameter in the former country infobox, a blanket consensus to not use it should be proposed on that infobox's talk page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to Athenean's claims considerable sections of those countries were for a period centrally administered by the Ottoman Empire. Uyvar Eyalet has corporated most of the modern-day Slovakia into the Ottoman Empire, for example. And I think, it is pretty incorrect to take the "Today part of" section out when as a basic example Habsburg Monarchy or Russian Empire or Austria-Hungary or Holy Roman Empire (states which are often considered as main rivals of Ottoman Empire) has that section. I think it should be a collapsible list and accompany a map which shows the golden-era boundaries accordingly. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 October 2016, 19:11 (UTC)

Everyone here needs to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "Other articles do it too" is an appeal to tradition and not a valid argument. I have yet to see single argument as to why a laundry list of countries would be would useful and what it would add to the article that a map doesn't. Athenean (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't making an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but correcting your assertion that FAs don't use the "today part of" list. Some FAs do. Whether they do or not I don't think has a bearing on THIS article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I've encountered two arguments. The first is that a list helps blind readers of the article, whereas a map does not. The second is that a list provides the names of the countries and links to them.
I'd argue that given how misleading a list is (as brought up above), it leaves the reader less informed than they were. Per the WP:Editing policy, "on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content". Consequently, it should be removed.
The only cases where a list would not be misleading I can think of are recent dissolutions (such as the Soviet Union and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) where the former countries encompassed the entirety of the current ones. Even then, it's better covered by the "succeeded by" parameter and/or expressed in prose. TompaDompa (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Misleading indeed. The most egregious example being Russia, as the image that this conjures is the immensity of Russia being part of the Ottoman Empire, even though in actuality it was a very small part of Russia and only for a limited time. But the net effect is making the OE appear larger than it really was, which probably explains why some users are so keen on it. Athenean (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that a third purpose for the list is for readers who may not be familiar with geography, and so by looking at the map, and the list, they can understand some of the territorial scope of the Empire and it's relation to today's geography. That's not to say that this can't be misleading, such as seems to be happening with this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how the list helps any more with that than the map does it on its own. Could you elaborate? TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the general issue of using this parameter on empires at the Template page. Please comment there. Kanguole 18:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: I heavily disagree with Athenean I don't know why you want to corrupt the article based on manufactured standards set by you, we are just following the guidelines of the template given. You try and minimize Turkish related articles, if you look at the template article, it is crucial for having a today part of, and no it's not misleading the reader, if you check the template which includes German Empire as an example it contains a small portion of Western Russia yet Russia is in the today part of, today part never implied it was whole of Russia. Also Byzantine Empire or other FA articles follow their own way of editing and can be influence by the discretion of the editors who didn't object. Nothing says that Today part of is not FA material, isn't enough you have changed Turkish island names to Greek. Come one man please ! 21:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The new map[edit]


So I've made a new map to more accurately depict the empire's borders in 1683. This is typically declared to be the date of the empire's "greatest extent." However this is only true for Europe, in the Middle East the empire reached its greatest extent from 1590-1603, when much of western Iran and the Caucasus was conquered and before it was lost again. So now I've made another map for 1590 but I'm unsure what to do with it. We could insert the two maps, one after the other, indicating that one depicts its greatest extent in the Middle East, and the other its greatest extent in Europe. How does that sound? Chamboz (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good initiative, Chamboz. Two points, though, to keep in mind generally about maps: First, please don't use .jpg. Save the file as a .png or some other lossless format. Better yet, upload it in .svg format so that it can be corrected and/or built upon by others. Second, please reference the sources for the map in its description. Constantine 08:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I've replaced the maps with .png versions and added a source list. Chamboz (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
An excellent job, thanks to you both. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the infobox should include only one map. The remaining maps should be inserted in the body text. It is not uncommon for many empire articles to include maps of the empire at several stages. The FA-class Byzantine Empire article contains a multitude of maps, for example. This article should include maps of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries. Athenean (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Two maps in the infobox is too much, especially since they have small differences and represent a short period of the empire's life. It seems to say: "Look how big it was." Choose one map for the infobox, and then make a proper presentation with maps from the whole timespan of the OE in the main body. --T*U (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed one. Dr. K. 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is to show the widest border of the state. These maps are not enough alone. The ottomans could not reach its maximum size in 1683. Not enough alone. If there are maps showing the widest limits should be corrected.--Gündoğdu (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the problem is that the "maximum size" in the Middle East, when the empire included Tabriz and part of Iran, lasted only 13 years. For the whole sweep of Ottoman history, it was not really important, and it misleads the readers to pick a map which shows such an extent - especially the old map this page used to use, which classified it as "territory conquered after 1566" implying that it was controlled continually afterwards. The reason I picked 1683 is 1, because that's the typical date maps of this sort pick, and 2, because it allows the inclusion of Crete, which was not controlled by the empire in 1590 but which did remain in the empire for centuries. Chamboz (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gündoğdu: You seem to be edit warring in order to change the map in the infobox. As far as I can see, you have so far got no support. Since I do not take part in edit wars, I will not revert your last edit, but I am sure that someone else will do so. Or you could self revert, and then state your reasons for the change you want. If you manage to create a consensus, the map can be changed, if not, it will not be changed. That is how Wikipedia works. --T*U (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is to show the widest border of the state. Those who have been more appropriate for the map was replaced with a map showing the widest limits. Ottomans was going to misleading maps they reach its maximum size in 1683. The main map must map showing the wide boundaries that have reached the state. Two maps we use can solve together but it's too much. --Gündoğdu (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gündoğdu: Actually I disagree with what you say is the purpose of the map. In my opinion, the purpose of the infobox is to give basic information at a glance, and the purpose of the map is to give a quick idea of the extent of the Empire. Too much detailed information should not be cluttered into the infobox, and a map that needs a lot of explanation ("this area was included at that time, while that area was included at another time...") makes the infobox useless. We need to have one map giving the extent in one specific year. And most important: The map has to be as correct as possible. I do not have strong feelings about what year to choose. User:Chamboz has presented good arguments for 1683, but I am quite willing to discuss other years, provided reliable maps can be found or made.
If a more detailed discussion about the maximum extent of the Ottoman Empire is wanted, it should not be squeezed into the infobox, but could be part of a new section in the main body of the article, covering the "rise and fall" (or the growth and shrinking) of the Empire. With relevant maps covering the whole period from 1299 to 1923, this would add useful information to the article (provided the maps are correct).
I am concerned about the way this dispute has been going. There seemed to be a rough consensus for the map provided by Chamboz. The only user who has raised a voice against it, has not been taking much part in the discussion here, but has inserted first one, then another alternative map, edit warring against several editors. I kindly ask User:Gündoğdu to self revert, then to read carefully WP:BRD, and then take part in the discussion here in order to try to come to a consensus. That is how Wikipedia works (or should work). Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(If a more detailed discussion about the maximum extent of the Ottoman Empire is wanted, it should not be squeezed into the infobox) I'm sorry but you are wrong. The purpose of the map; the state is the largest show all of its land borders and is dominated. The purpose of it already is and it should be. If you examine the status of the other pages you will see that in this way. for example;

It does not have to be the case in a particular year fixed. The purpose is to show the widest border of state. Currently inadequate and misleading map on the home page.--Gündoğdu (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chamboz:; The purpose of the map is to show the widest border of the state. Your 1683 map does not provide the necessary conditions. Some places that have dominated the state are missing. Yeah, that's 1683 map but our aim is not to show the 1683. To give an example of a lack of:

Clearly missing map. you're thinking about how to fix this deficiency.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about different ways that I could combine these elements into a single map without misleading the viewer. Any suggestions? Chamboz (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There are maps useful and appropriate. Why you insist on missing a map. As a solution; I think this could be the solution of any one of these maps. I would to get your opinion.--Gündoğdu (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There are precedents for using an animated map (Mongol Empire), using a static map that labels which years specific territories were under the empire's control (Russian Empire), and of course having an anachronous map that includes every territory that was ever a part of the empire (British Empire). They all have drawbacks:
  • With an animated map, the reader loses detail because each frame only stays on screen for a short while. If instead each frame is on screen for long enough that the reader gets a chance to take it all in, the animation takes a really long time to get to the end.
  • With a labelled map, the reader will have difficulty interpreting the map at a glance. This can be somewhat ameliorated by colorcoding the map.
  • With an anachronous map, the reader does not get any chronological information whatsoever, and knows nothing about how the empire looked at any point in time.
TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm 100% opposed to an anachronous map. Labelled maps are additionally difficult because the Ottoman Empire did not only expand - all of those maps that show X borders in 1453 - Y borders in 1566 - Z borders in 1683 are usually hugely erroneous because they depict the empire as if it were constantly expanding and not also contracting in certain areas. The only solution I've thought up so far is to modify the map for 1683 to show in another color all territories which were once part of the empire, but which no longer were by that date. Frankly I think this whole issue is fairly insignificant - for most of its history, places like Azerbaijan and Yemen were not part of the empire, and it might be better for readers not to come away with the fallacious notion that they were. But I think Gündoğdu is correct in that what readers really want to see is the empire at its greatest extent, which is why the map up there is 1683 to begin with, and not a more "normal" period of Ottoman history, like 1622. It's like the front-page map represents some sort of Platonic ideal of what the Ottoman Empire was, and anything not shown in the map is implied to never have been related to the empire. Chamboz (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think using a 1683 map, adding all territories that were at some point in time a part of the Empire in a different color (possibly two: one for territories lost before 1683 and one for territories gained after 1683), and marking which years those territories were part of the Empire in text on the map itself (like in the map of the Russian Empire, which has explanatory text such as "Persia 1907–1921") would be a pretty good solution. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chamboz:, I think that we need to fix with a suitable map. What do you recommend we do. it's not wise to use the missing map. Do you have an idea of making a new map ? Do you think it ? There are clearly deficiencies and we currently use this map. The 1600 map may solve the problem.--Gündoğdu (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gündoğdu: I made a new one, let me know if you like it. Chamboz (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The map is anachronous and therefore problematic. Western Iran and Yemen were only held very briefly. Saying "territory lost before 1683" does not inform the reader of that, and readers could think that the territory was held for a very long time. Chamboz, there is now way to please Ottoman nostalgists without sacrificing scientific integrity. No map will ever be big enough for these people. I think it's best to just stick with the 1683 map and if some people have a problem with it, too bad. For every empire out there, this is how we do it. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chamboz: Thank you for your effort, but a different color instead of scanning it would be better if you use. The borders does not appear correctly. Gündoğdu (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The above comment was changed at 18:39, 13 November 2016, after the three following comments. In order to make the comments below comprehenensible, the original comment is repeated here:
@Chamboz: Thank you for your effort, but if you use a solid color would be better. The borders does not appear correctly. Daghestan - Eritrea - Djibouti It does not seem. There won't be a problem if you fix it with a constant color.--Gündoğdu (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
--T*U (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there will be a problem if you "fix it with a constant color", since that would make the map incorrect, giving the false impression of a size that the Empire never had. I think that the former 1683 map is the best solution, but if consensus is reached that the areas lost before 1683 should be in the map, I would suggest that those areas be shown in a different colour altogether in order to emphasize that they were not in the Empire at the same time as the other areas shown. --T*U (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the original 1683 map is more ideal, I just made this one so it would be an option in case people prefer it. For precedent for not including territory that was only briefly held, one can look to the Habsburg Monarchy page, where Naples, Sicily, Serbia, Oltenia etc. are not indicated in the map at all, which is limited solely to what the Habsburgs ruled in 1789. Chamboz (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that using the 1683 map is the best solution. Superimposing two different eras on a single map is pointless, OR and confusing, not to mention POV. Dr. K. 17:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Preambular paragraph[edit]

dynasty information is available on its dynasty page.Ottoman dynasty. So removed from the preambular paragraph because it is so unnecessary.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the dynasty was founded by a figure named Osman is not at all unnecessary, and saying it was founded by "Oghuz Turks" is misleading. There were plenty of people in the service of Osman who were not Turks. I would agree that mentioning the specific origin of Osman, beyond the fact that he was Turkish, is unnecessary though. Chamboz (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oghuz Turks not misleading. They were originally oghuz tribe. The Turkish people are Oghuz Turks. Service of Osman people and The origin of the dynasty is unrelated from each other.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Osman was Turkish, but not all of his followers were. Saying the empire was 'founded' by Oghuz Turks leaves out all the people who were not Turks, such as Köse Mihal. Chamboz (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Mongol empire established a so that the Turkic tribes that was taking place in this formation. That does not make them partners dynasty. You say many irrevelant things.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It is very clear that the Ottoman Turks in Oghuz, and this was stated in paragraph. The sources of nearly all agree on this issue. Please do not make misleading arrangements.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Ottoman Turks were Oghuz, but the point is that not all the early followers of Osman were Turks. Many were Byzantines, both converts to Islam and some Christians. Of these Köse Mihal is the most famous, as he was one of the great lords of Osman's time. Chamboz (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Resources are very clear. Do not revert when such a situation. You return again without justification. Please you indicate clearly the words of the on the subject. You say it is not a consensus on what. Please if you speak more clearly better.--Gündoğdu (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with saying "The Ottoman Empire was founded by Oghuz Turks" because it ignores the major role played by non-Turks in the foundation of the Ottoman Empire. I hope that's clear. It's much better to say the empire was founded by Osman, because we can then specify in the article that Osman's followers included both Turks and non-Turks, while he himself was a Turk. Chamboz (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
We are obliged to note that while these people are Oghuz Turks. We have to specify it. This is the case in all of the page. There is nothing wrong here. Where is the situation you're uncomfortable. We're talking about their origin.--Gündoğdu (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"was an empire founded at the end of the thirteenth century in northwestern Anatolia by the Turkish tribal leader Osman."

"Turkish" already links to "Oghuz Turks", though. So it is already specified. What you're doing is erasing the name of "Osman", which is what I disagree with. Let's just wait for someone else to give their opinion. Chamboz (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite a lot happened while I was asleep... I am quite happy with the current solution to the lead. I never understood why Osman should not be mentioned. --T*U (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chamboz:; You did return causeless way back. Sentence disorder was corrected by source. You have a specific reason to back ? Please do not revert unnecessary.--Gündoğdu (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained - I still think it's very misleading to say that the empire was "founded by Oghuz Turks" because it misleads the reader into thinking it was founded exclusively by Oghuz Turks. But the empire was multi-ethnic from the very start, Turks were only the largest and most important group, but not the only group. Chamboz (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Your way of thinking is very erroneous. Those people were living under the rule of the state. Those people was not a partner in the state and the dynasty. You did return again causeless way back. Oguz Turks are empire builders and managers. There is nothing wrong and misleading here. What are you trying to say? Please do not revert without reason.--Gündoğdu (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest a solution: If we say
"was an empire founded at the end of the thirteenth century in northwestern Anatolia by the Oghuz Turk tribal leader Osman."
we will mention the Oghuz Turks directly without saying that they were all Oghuz Turks. --T*U (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No @Gündoğdu:, they were partners in the state. Figures such as Köse Mihal were major lords under the Ottomans, and the Ottoman army contained significant numbers of Greek converts and even Christians from a very early date. Heath Lowry's book The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (2003) is a great source on this topic. T*U's solution works for me by the way, though to be correct it should say "Oghuz Turkish" rather than "Oghuz Turk", I think. Chamboz (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see User:Gündoğdu already did that more or less - if it stays the way it is now I'm fine with it. Chamboz (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Chamboz I fixed it, but your opinion is wrong. Köse mihal later became a Muslim and has been helpful to them. The vast majority of Muslim states such as the armies of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties was composed of Turks and have been found in management. There are in the same situation in the Mongol Empire. This does not make them a partner in the state and dynasty. There are countless examples more on similar topics. your opinion is very wrong.--Gündoğdu (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

End year[edit]

Every now and then, the end year gets changed between 1922 and 1923. Personally, I would prefer to leave it as 1922/1923 and add an explanatory note about the end of the Ottoman Empire. I have therefore done so, but the note could definitely be improved upon.

The technical limitations of Template:Infobox former country present us with a number of problems:

  • The parameter year_end is coupled both to the duration at the top of the infobox (1299–1922 or 1299–1923) and to the parameters event_end and date_end.
    • This can be circumvented by using the parameter life_span, as I have done.
  • There can be only one event_post (not, for instance, an event_post1 and an event_post2).
    • The regular parameter event_date1 (and so on) cannot be used for dates later than year_end (I tried, and it puts the events in the wrong order), so that cannot be used to circumvent the problem.
      • Leaving the parameter year_end empty gives an error message for the duration (even if the parameter life_span is used – the error message overrides the manual input) and an error message in the list of events that says to enter an end year.
        • As long as the parameter life_span is used it really makes no difference which year is used for year_end, so I would recommend keeping the last or penultimate event in the list as event_end even if it would be inaccurate to describe it as the event that marked the end of the Empire.

This solution was based on the infobox over at Roman Empire, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

THE MAP[edit]

The map can not disclude YEMEN, since Yemen Eyalet and Yemen Vilayet has been a part of Ottomans until the end of empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire lost control of Yemen in 1636 and did not regain it until the 19th century. Chamboz (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It still makes 179 years control, isn't 179 years sufficient to show it on the map ? -- (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That logic doesn't work on its own. For example, the empire lost Yemen in 1636, but gained Crete in 1645. It held Crete for over 300 years, much longer than it held Yemen. Why should Yemen be privileged over Crete? And we can't use a map that shows both, because they weren't both held at the same time until the 19th century. Chamboz (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Then isn't it better if we use the older map which clearly shows all the territories with their conquest time ? -- (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the older map is full of errors, so the consensus is not to use it. Chamboz (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman empire.svg

, This detailed map doesn't look like having errors. Thanks. -- (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to a different map which used to be used, this one is somewhat better but still problematic. Just some examples: it gives totally wrong dates for the conquests in Iran and North Africa, shows the coasts of Arabia with the wrong color, doesn't depict direct Ottoman control over the southern cities of the Crimea, wrongly depicts all of Bosnia as Ottoman in 1481, and has numerous other mistakes in Ottoman Hungary. More importantly, it doesn't depict the full extent of the empire to the west and south, leaving out Algeria and Yemen. Ultimately it's just an anachronistic map. No one can look at this map and get an accurate picture of what the empire looked like at any single point in time. The current 1683 map at least gives people a definitive look at what the empire's borders were in a particular year, and doesn't have any errors (to my knowledge). Chamboz (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The map should have all of the once conquered lands. Not just the greatest extend in Europe witch makes it confusing and shows a lot of missing parts in Asia/Middle east. The current new one shows perfectly the times it was once (wheter several year or centuries) conquered and under witch Sultans rule MAMODIVIC (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The current map is better then the one before it. It atleast shows the once captured lands and by witch Sultans. Indeed, there are some innacurate things in it however, till now all maps had innacurate things. I think that there needs to be done more work on the current one like fixing the parts of Podolia and Yemen (as that was captured later again as well). MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Latest Map[edit]

The current map clearly has an ulterior motive, Ottomans had control over Yemen, Western Iran, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, parts of Sudan, and the Gulf Arabia which all lacks on the insisted 1683 Map, maybe they all entered under control in different times okay, but it's like showing the Byzantine Empire in 1452 in it's main map, people insisting on changing the map clearly has a hidden agenda, i will be reporting this on wikipedia administrators immediately.-- (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Found a far more accurate map, please do not change it. Thank you. -- (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)