User talk:OttomanReference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, OttomanReference, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


e mail[edit]

can you provide an e mail?neurobio 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

Hey. I just reverted your edit of the Armenian Genocide article, because it was (apparently) a revert all the way back to Tabibs last version, before my recent (major) revert. When reading your edit summary, I believe that you might have made a mistake to revert to that version? Another thing is that at the moment, I get some strange results when checking the most recent diffs, and I think it might be because of the 'pedia servers having some kind of errors and failures at the moment. Please check the diffs for yourself, because at the moment I am not too sure what is actually going on. -- Karl Meier 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles[edit]

The content of the deleted article/s can be sent to you via email if you wish. El_C 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tugra Mahmuds II small.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tugra Mahmuds II small.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Treaty Of Sevres.gif[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Treaty Of Sevres.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 23:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You didn't do anything wrong. It is the person who uploaded the image you used that made the mistake. If we don't have a verifiable source for the original image, we cannot use derivatives of it. You should be able to find maps that you can use here (although I suppose that it would be best to double-check them). Sorry about the inconvenience. Jkelly 23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: R - T wars[edit]

Please read WP:OWN. You don't own a single article in Wikipedia. Everyone is free to edit any article he thinks fit. It's as simple as that. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Empire[edit]

Template:Empire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. bogdan 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi. You seem to know a great deal about the Ottoman Empire, would you be able to answer my question here? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I understand now. —Khoikhoi 03:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Osmanlis[edit]

Hey, I think it might be a better idea to just have "Osmanlis" redirect to the disambiguation page Ottoman, in that both the state and the ethnicity (and a few other things besides) can be reached. What do you think? —Saposcat 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A small explanatory-type text along the lines you mentioned should be no problem, I think. I'll do the redirect and add the text as best I can. —Saposcat 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Done; see Ottoman. —Saposcat 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Libya[edit]

Just created. Check Italian invasion of Libya... I just needed someone who could copyedit it, I'm not of English mother language. Let me know and thanks. Attilios 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The full article is here: Italian invasion of Libya. Attilios
I seem the tone of the article is balanced. The invasion was a great failure by any point of view, and it tries to show it without bias. The image is the single one I found which could be uploaded. It's a scene of war aftermath... didn't understand your problems with it! Thanks! Attilios

Is it repeated?[edit]

Oh well, to make matters worse, there's the Bulgarian National Revival that is a wider phenomenon and also includes cultural awakening/resurgence. In my opinion, we should make the title National awakening of Bulgaria just a redirect to History of Ottoman Bulgaria#The struggle for independence or Bulgarian National Revival, as the national awakening is part of Bulgaria's history in the Ottoman Empire and is more or less the same as the national revival. If we are to remove the content you've copied from History of Ottoman Bulgaria so there would be no repetition, History of Ottoman Bulgaria would become too short. I'd say there's no need for a separate article on the topic at present and you needn't have created one. What do you think? Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I'd say you simply be bold and do it the way you'd like to see it. You can count on me for copyediting and additions as with most Bulgaria-related topics. You probably know that the Ottoman rule of Bulgaria is a quite controversial topic among Bulgarian and Turkish historians alike (opinions generally being quite contradicting), so we should try to be as neutral as possible. There are guys that know quite a lot about the period among the Bulgarian Wikipedians, let's just hope there's someone willing to collaborate. Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ottoman Empire[edit]

Thanks for your attempts to clean up that paragraph, and for your hard work on the Ottoman Empire article in general. Myself, I'm going to wash my hands of the whole article, since trying to clean it up at this point and make it a strong article on a par with something like the Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire articles just seems to me like an exercise in futility and is getting me rather depressed. Good luck to you with the article in future. —Saposcat 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Well, it is simple. There's no NPOV when you state that "under such conditions, Muslim Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa came to view the Ottoman state as a revived Islamic empire, and were willing to fight and fall for it, as evidenced for example by the Battle of Navarino, in which the Egyptians sacrificed their entire naval fleet". This is rhetorical and AFAIK inexact, because northern Africa was almost indipendent and Egypt was only officially a vassal of the Ottoman Empire and agreed to participate to the suppression of the Greek revolt because it was promised some concessions. GhePeU 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kayı boyu[edit]

Why did you remove the "see also" section? Your edit summary ("rvv") was misleading and uninformative. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't completely follow your response (although you seem to think that I'm User:3210), but if you're saying that the link is not relevant to the article, that's all that's needed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman timeline and History of Turkey[edit]

Hello OttomanReference, maybe we can start combined efforts to salvage History of Turkey and work in the Ottoman timeline. --Dschwen 07:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

History of early Ottoman Bulgaria[edit]

I reverted it to save the previous structure and information, because the article was left in a bad condition and I had no time to rewrite it (and why should I, when it'd already been written?). I agree the "Oppression against the Bulgarian population" section is quite POV and certainly needs removing an amount of bias and good referencing, but I wouldn't be able to cope without any external help.

Perphaps you could be able to write about the positive side of the Ottoman rule and try to neutralize (without removing content)? I do my best to be neutral, do not regard myself as a nationalist and I do know that those 480 years of Ottoman rule are also Bulgarian history, as well as that the period has had its certain (yet many people would say limited) advantages. What do you think, possibly we should look for someone who's neither Turkish nor Bulgarian and has no point of view on the topic, so should be able to remove the POV and make the article neutral? Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The structure seems fine, it's just that simply adding the subheadings and leaving them empty or almost empty wouldn't help the article. I plan to work on the article in more depth in the future, as i really needs improvements and will to a large extent follow the section organization you've provided. I will also try to make it well-referenced and neutral, but as I said, I need help for this. No matter what, words like "oppression", "brutal", "terror", "excessive violence" are very POV and can hardly ever be neutrally referenced, let alone with third-party contemporary sources, and I openly admit that. I know the article needs much work, but it's better to have something than nothing, that's what I think. Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


hey, sorry for delay. I checked your move and its completely OK with me. Cya Metb82 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Turkish War of Independence[edit]

Hey, this is just a bit of heads-up, since you seem to be dealing with the Turkish War of Independence a bit lately: the introductory sentence definitely needs to be rewritten. The first sentence of any article needs to define more or less exactly, and as much as possible, what the subject of that article actually is. Currently, this sentence—

—does not do that at all. Compare these articles' opening sentences, all on similar themes:

I'd prefer not to get involved myself, largely because I'm simply uninterested in post-Ottoman Turkish history, but also because you seem to be keen on this sort of organizational stuff. —Saposcat 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a hint (since I don't have time to do it now, though I may soon): the opening sentence of the "Russian Revolution of 1917" provides you with an almost perfect "script" (as you said) for how to structure the opening sentence of Turkish War of Independence. —Saposcat 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Foundation of Ottoman Empire[edit]

Look, the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica template format that you are using as a basis for von Hammer's text on the Foundation of Ottoman Empire article is a special case, and is slowly being phased out of Wikipedia in any case.

Take a look at the Wikipedia:Citing sources page: briefly, regardless of whether the text is in the public domain or not, quotation marks and page references need to be added for everything that is taken from your source.

With that in mind, I'm going to put up the unreferenced template again. Please just leave it there: the quotes, etc. do not have to go in immediately; they can be gradually worked into the article, and the tag at the top of the page does not change any information in the article, it simply alerts whoever comes to the page that there is a slight referencing problem, and requests their assistance.

What I am doing is not a slight on your work, which I greatly appreciate; rather, it is simple adherence to academic honesty. Please try to understand this. —Saposcat 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

An example of how the von Hammer referencing could be done[edit]

Since it seems like large chunks of text from von Hammer are being used on Foundation of the Ottoman Empire (and Osman I, as well as other sultan-related pages), here's a similar situation from an academic text—the standards we should be going for—that could be a guide for how to incorporate these texts into the article. The text is: Andrews, Walter G. and Kalpaklı, Mehmet. The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early-modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-8223-3424-0:

There is a famous story from sixteenth-century Istanbul about a poet named Ferdi who was fabulously handsome and one of the noted beloveds of the age. The story is told in some detail by ‘Aşık [Çelebi] and is related in a slightly different version in the first half of the seventeenth century in a narrative poem of advice and tales by the poet and biographer Nev‘izade ‘Atayi ... ‘Aşık's version tells the tale in the voice of Ferdi himself in an "as told to the author" style. The bulk of our telling will freely translate this version, but ‘Atayi begins by describing Ferdi's situation, and we will begin with his paragraph:
When Ferdi was a young man, he was widely known in Istanbul as a handsome and attractive beloved. But he was, at the same time, unruly, quick-tempered, and given to rages. At one point he was pursued by a man who seems to have taken the hyperboles of poetry seriously. As Ferdi told it:
Once there was a fellow who was enamored of me. Although it was plain to see that he was "a city boy" and not one of the elites, he was rather elegant and had some education ...
(Andrews 251)

A long story is then told, at the end of which is an endnote saying this: "The first paragraph of the story of Ferdi is taken from Kortantamer's summary (Nev‘izāde Atāyī, 227–28) of destan 39 of the Sohbetü'l-ekbar. The remainder is our translation from Meredith-Owens, ed., ‘Āşık, fols. 190b (line 23)–192a (line 3)" (Andrews 375).

The books that Andrews and Kalpaklı refer to in the endnote are further listed in the book's bibliography: (1) "Kortantamer, Tunca. Nev‘izāde Atāyī ve hamse'si. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1997" (Andrews 403); (2) "Meredith-Owens, G.M., ed. Meşā‘irü üş-su‘arā or tezkere of ‘Āşık Çelebi. London: Luzac, 1971" (Andrews 404).

Though we shouldn't take the colloquial style of introduction that Andrews and Kalpaklı use to introduce their translation (theirs is a long book and so has more leeway stylistically, while this is an encyclopedia), their referencing standards are the ones that Wikipedia (and any encyclopedia or academic work) is held to.

Now, ‘Aşık Çelebi and Nev‘izade ‘Atayi's texts are clearly public domain, just like von Hammer's—but need to be fully cited and quoted just the same. If you know of any translated copy (with the text) of von Hammer's book on the web, please point it out to me and I can take care of arranging any and all referencing with its help. If not, then if you could simply point out to me where von Hammer's own text (or rather, the translated version thereof) is in any articles using it, then again, I'd be happy to handle the referencing.

Please forgive the immense length of this note: I am a furious stickler of referencing and academic honesty, and so wanted to point out exactly what could be done in this situation. —Saposcat 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


I have on idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should make clear what exactly you are objecting to instead of indulging in sweeping assumptions about the reasons for my ignorance. I did not create the "History of Turkey" template. My entire point is that "History of Turkey" should not just include the history of the Turkish national state, including the history of the Turkish people and what not, but also the history of the region now known as Turkey, viz. Anatolia and Thrace. Since you seem to share that view, I really don't know what you are complaining to me about. dab () 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Hey OR,

The comments you left on my talk page, was that to me or Cglassey? BTW, I really appreciate your hard work here. I was just checking in with another historian (I assume you're one was well?) Anyways, adios. —Khoikhoi 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, an article to cover the historical names of the city with detailed explanation of their etymology is good idea, but I find the article title rather bad. Have you thought about Historical names of Istanbul or Names of Istanbul? Even if you don't like it this way, "etymology" should not be capped, i.e. it would be better as Istanbul (etymology). But named like this, is only suggests that the article would discuss the etymology of the name Istanbul and not the city's other names.

Let me know what you think of these suggestions. TodorBozhinov 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you deleted Sublime Porte from the Constantinople, should that be added to the "Names of the city" article? —Khoikhoi 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry about that. As it stands, the intro looks awfully crowded. Do you mind if I move most of the names in other languages to a new section in the article? —Khoikhoi 05:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I did what I could. Perhaps more info should go in the intro. —Khoikhoi 05:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly, strongly disagree. That sentence was up there for months until the anon deleted it, all I did was simply revert it and cite a souce (Britannica). The massacres of Armenians is not just a "minor detail", it definately deserves to be mentioned in the main article. I'm sorry, the fact that Armenians, who played a large role in the development of the Ottoman Empire were hardly present in Anatolia by the end of the war is something that should be mentioned. —Khoikhoi 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
OttomanReference, you'll notice that on the Turkish Wikipedia, there's a short, three paragraph "Armenian genocide allegations" page, with the main one being at "Armenian Deportations". Just because the Turkish government staunchly opposes it, should we ignore the fact that 21 countries think the other way around? It's also a fact that most Western historians and academics regognize that it was a genocide. However, if there's any more neutral wording you could think of, please let me know. I don't think removing a very important sentence is going to make the article that much "shorter". The key making it so there isn't as many sub-sections in the article. —Khoikhoi 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, how about something like this?
In 1915 the Ottoman government ordered all Armenians deported from eastern Anatolia; at least 600,000 of the Armenians, who numbered up to 2 million, died during a forced march southward during the winter of 1915-16. Armenians believe—and Turks deny—that the catastrophe that befell their community was the result of atrocities committed by Turkish soldiers following government directives. Armenians outside Turkey refer to the deaths of 1915-16 as an instance of genocide.
Or do you think that's too much information? Any way to shorten it? —Khoikhoi 23:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How about this? No one denys that the number of Armenians in Anatolia dropped considerably by the end of the war. —Khoikhoi 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks great to me! The only weird thing is the "everything is described in article" part, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.
Other than that, I'm afraid that our friend from Istanbul will try to delete it again. In that case, we should probably talk to him/her. —Khoikhoi 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: This message[edit]

You really ought to calm down. You seem to be taking things a bit personally. The basic issue is simply that, without highly extensive changes (not just a word here and a word there), the page amounts to little more than source material, which is frowned upon because it makes the article unencylopedic. You say that "[i]t can not be qualified as a source if you can not prove it is word by word same"; this is not exactly true: a source can be used as a source, but needs to be entirely rewritten, from top to bottom (those "highly extensive changes" I mentioned above).

And don't issue challenges about proof and references and whatnot; it seems a bit childish, especially insofar as all I am doing is seeking academic honesty. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Military coup in Turkey, 1960[edit]

Much better sorry I tend to get a bit carried away sometimes. Whispering 03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "disputed" tag[edit]

Selam. You added {{Disputed}} to the articles Abdi İpekçi and Bahcelievler incident.[1][2]. Strangely enough, you added this to text that you yourself contributed. Perhaps the intention of this tag is not clear. As you can read on Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, this tag is to be used when you come across an article with a large number of statements (five or more) that appear to be incorrect and that you cannot correct yourself. In that case you are also supposed to start a section Disputed on the talk page of the article, in which you describe the problems you see. If your intention was to signal the fact that there are others who dispute the mainstream version presented in the article, and they form a significant voice, then the proper way to deal with that is to add a section to the article presenting the different point of view. --LambiamTalk 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought. Wouldn't it be better to start a new article Counter-guerilla in which these incidents related to Gladio in Turkey are described in the necessary detail (and I guess also Susurluk and possibly Şemdinli[3][4]), while identifying which parts are speculation. As long as you have a source, you can always say things like: "According to So-and-so, ...", or "The newspaper Dedikodu reported that ..." and so on. Then on the Gladio page, section Turkey, you can put {{Main|Counter-guerilla}} and summarize in the section. --LambiamTalk 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations/Your message[edit]

Well, if you really want to write a non-POV article, you SHOULD not only use the Turkish sources but also some eliable information. As regards the Ottoman atrocities, the so-called Bulgarian Horrors or an impartial infromation on the Armenian genocide (which, by the way not only the Armenian people refer to as a such), you might wish to have a look in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Istanbul at Ottoman times[edit]

I was going to post the following on Istanbul talk page, but then I realized that there might be some users who would consider this another opportunity to express their POV and depict a false image about Ottoman Empire. Please pass this to other users.

"There are seperate comprehensive articles on Byzantium and Constantinople times of Istanbul. I bet there is a lot more information with great encyclopedic value about Ottoman times than which is included in this article. Can some users with background on the subject contribute to a new article and share their knowledge?" DeliDumrul 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my vague message. You are right, it doesn't need to be under a seperate article (in fact it shouldn't). I just wanted to ask you if you can expand that part of the article. I'm not quite capable of doing it myself. Anyways, thanks for your interest :) DeliDumrul 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Insert non-formatted text here

do not contact me ... you know better than to keep making POV changes. do not play little word games with me. Good day!

Regarding your recently-created articles regarding the Armenians in World War I[edit]

Could you please explicitly cite the Armenian Genocide in the context of your newly-created articles regarding the Armenians in World War I? Thanks! Regards, Clevelander 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Van uprising[edit]

you forgot to vote there. upps it is closed sorryneurobio 22:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

what is that?? "The Van Resistance was a defensive resistance by the Armenian population in the city of Van against the Ottoman Empire's attempt to liquidate them during the Armenian Genocide of World War I." that is totaly wrong and misleading and POV and/or what ever avaliable. liquidation and During when during?! the depprotation law was issued months later. besides the first idea about deportation was provided to Turkish goverment by govermor of Van after the van rebelion. this is well documented. there is no stop with these guys. and that "and in small towns began a local uprising with pitchforks, wrenches, pipes, and other makeshift weapons" the damn town was a russian arsenal and every one knows that!oh God give me patience. same for you too...neurobio 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I thought you were staying away from armenian genocide article. you see the shape of the article they have invended a Teskilati mahsusa as the SS and a Nazi style execution command office. you know what I got a ban because of my last message to you? I thought we were thinking the same way. The Van rebelion was months before deportation orders. What ever. I am really fed up.neurobio 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

no worries. I did not even think that you had a part in my ban. I respect your style and see that you are here to do real stuff. I just wanted to chat to some one who knows what I am talking about. Unfortunately it is not really possible to add something in that article an edit war breaks up immediately. neurobio 23:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


It's not a problem, OttomanReference! The parts of Wikipedia related to Armenia did need expansion though. I didn't know about your distinction between Western Armenia and History of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire articles. Actually, I was thinking of merging both articles into one. Don't you think it should be that way?

--Davo88 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it's more clear. Thanks.

--Davo88 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Society of Free Armenia[edit]

Hi, Ottoman. Do you have any info where the part about "Society of Free Armenia" was taken from? Any sources? Can you provide quotes directly supporting what's on the article? Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:History of Ottoman[edit]

Hey! I noticed your template, {{History of Ottoman}}, and I was wondering why you choose to alow the template to be hidden. It's a very small one, so I think that you should just always have it shown in its entirety unless you plan on expanding it in size significantly (i.e. more than some 5 lines). You haven't edited it since May, so I'm guessing you're not going to expand it, but I want to get your opinion before I remove the "hide" part. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


You mentioned that, "A friend pointed that it could reach where a world view of an administrator could shape the article beyond simple facts". Do you know of any examples? I mean, how can one person shape an article? Thanks. Politis 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Ottoman[edit]

First of all, I'm a Turkish. I know that there was no official flag, but the popularest one was crescent moon and the star with seven angular. During foundation of republic it changed into star with five angular and now we are use it as Turkey's flag.

view this;



  • Ottoman Empire wasn't have an official flag, both(star with seven angular and five) was de facto but crescent moon and star with five angular was the popularest one. It will be true to add there Turkey's flag because it's ridiculous to have no flag of the country! You see?
    • Yes my friends, crescent moon and the star with seven angular was the popularest one OLD TIME but it changed in period dissolution of Ottoman Empire (1908–1922) and star with five angular always used in the west. It teachs in Turkey that Ottoman Emp. wasn't have an official flag and the latest one that we use now is the popularest one. There's just Turkey's flag for Ottoman in our history books but there still writes it was DE FACTO.

History of Ancient Libya[edit]

Hello, i read the article History of Ancient Libya, i was interested in such article because there are very few articles on the ancient libya. But i think there is a misunderstanding. The article seems to go on the history of Libya not on the ancient Libya. The modern Libya was a part of ancient Libya, like as Morocco, algeria, Tunesie, and a part of Egypt. Did you write your contribution supposing that the history of ancient Libya is the same history of modern Libya? Best regards! Read3r 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hey OttomanReference. I noticed that Kurdistan Province, Ottoman Empire wasn't mentioned in the Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire article. Can you think of any way to work it in? Thanks in advance. —Khoikhoi 08:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman empire[edit]

See this;

World 1898 empires colonies territory.png

-Zaparojdik 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, It's already not important for me if Ottoman is a colonist empire. Meantime, Are you Turkish?-Zaparojdik 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My Reversion on the van article[edit]

Hello. The reason why I deleted more than half of the content of the Van Resistance article is because it was off topic. The Van Resistance should deal with the start of hostilities from the start of massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to relief by Russian Armies. If you want to push it, the retaking of Van by Ottoman Troops and the second capture by Russian troops can be included. The rest is pretty much off topic and needs to be incorporated into a different article. You can ahve a background summary leading to a main article, and summary conclusion. Also, try to use correct grammar when writing articles, and use proper English pronounciation of Armenian names instead of the Turkish ones, as you did on Armen Garo's page. : ) Cheers, (Hetoum 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Occupation of Izmir[edit]

Hi OttomanReference, since you created the article, you should know Occupation of İzmir has been placed for deletion. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern theatre[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page, but lets keep the discussion on Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I as others may well like to read what we have to say and contribute the debate. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me up to date with what you are writing on the "Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I", as I am watching that page there is no need to repeat it on my user talk page. As I said lets see what other think. There is no hurry as the changes you are making are not one that I think damage the substance of the page (far from it) but they are reorganising the page in a way which at the moment I have not been persuaded are for the better. As we clearly have a different POV on this, I think it wise that others contribute to the debate so that we can build a consensus on the best way to organise the page. I have added a comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to advertise our discussion more widely to the military history editor community --Philip Baird Shearer 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


From the article you created:

The Occupation of İzmir (also known as the Occupation of Smyrna) refers to period of Greek rule in Smyrna (which Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" later changed to Izmir) by Greek forces in wake of the Ottoman Empire’s defeat during World War I

So Kemal was the one who gave the city the name Izmir, and it was known only as Smyrna before? (Hetoum 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Revert of edit to "The Ottoman Empire"[edit]

Hi. You reverted an edit to the Ottoman Empire about the Ottomans' technological superiority over the Europeans. However the user in question had started a discussion on the talk page, and he does have a point. The statement of the Ottomans superiority is currently unsupported by any examples. We need to know in what ways, and when, the Ottoman Empire was more advanced than the European powers. The separate article technological and scientific advantages contains very little detail. Are we talking about weapons and armour? Architecture? Medicine? Navigation? And at what period? At the moment the sentence is far too vague. Can you take part in the discussion on the Ottoman Empire talk page, please?


--Merlinme 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about removing the problematic part of the quote, i.e. the comparison to Western Europe. I thought you'd put it back exactly as before. However I think you may have misunderstood me; I would be perfectly prepared to believe that the Ottoman Empire was more advanced than medieval Western Europe, provided we are talking about specific examples. From my limited knowledge, I would have thought you could make quite a strong case that Ottoman medicine was better than Western medicine, for example.

As a general point, we would not have needed to have this discussion if you had explained what you were doing, either on the Ottoman Empire discussion, or even in the edit summary. Putting the sentence back slightly changed and calling this a minor edit was not very helpful. But that's more of a procedural point, on the whole I think your edits are very positive, keep up the good work.

--Merlinme 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Defense of Van & Van Resistance[edit]

The edit history was messed up somehow. Please give me a sec while I fix it—thanks! :-) Khoikhoi 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done now. Please let me know if I made any mistakes. Ciao, Khoikhoi 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Protection is only necessary when edit-warring occurs. I don't think Hetoum is around right now, but if an edit war starts up again, please let me know so I can protect the page. Regards, Khoikhoi 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


The template is made about history of Turks. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I saw your edits to Young Turks and I thought I say hi. How are you today? Cosika 06:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ottoman casualties article[edit]

At this point, I say we keep the article as it stands. I withdrew my nomination for deletion. It's time that we worked together to clean it up. I apologize for jumping all over it (when I saw that image on the page I automatically assumed it was, as I said a "propaganda tool" of the Turkish government). I've been really stressed out this week so please forgive me. -- Clevelander 15:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi OttomanReference. I will look into the matter. The thing is, you can't move pages by copying and pasting - it destroys the edit history. You're going to have to get an admin to move the page back for you. I will try to help resolve this problem. Cheers, Khoikhoi 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I'd like to find a title that all parties agree on, not just one that you or Clevelander prefers. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Khoikhoi 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said we were going to vote; but we need to come to some consensus, don't you agree? Khoikhoi 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman, you should know by now that the important thing in Wikipedia is compromise, not dictate. All of what you just told me are points that you can make at Talk:Ottoman Muslim casualties. I mean seriously, is there anything you can come up with to end this dispute? Do you just want it to drag on forever? Khoikhoi 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation board launched[edit]

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, i am sorry for not getting back earlier about the "Ottoman Muslim casualties" page, I will try to see what I can do. On the other hand, I used your tabs for the layout of the board I mentioned above, I hope that you don't mind :)) Baristarim 07:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey s'up.. Try to rate the article's quality on the quality-assessment scale page that I just put up. We can only rate an article as "Good Article" only after it has passed through "Good Article review". It doesn't mean that the subject matter is good, it just means the article in its current state would be a good read for impartial readers. Baristarim 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)[edit]


I have to say that I am continuing to have difficulties with some of your edits to this article. One difficulty is your lack of command of English. I understand that it is difficult to write well in a language that is not your native tongue. I would have difficulty writing well in French or Spanish and I have no knowledge of Greek or Turkish so I am not trying to belittle you when I comment on your lack of command of English. However, it is difficult to work with your edits because they often do not make coherent sense in English.

It is natural to find non-native English speakers making errors in spelling and grammar. Those of us who are native speakers or at least fluent can fix these. However, if your English is not strong enough to make edits that can be cleaned up easily then I would suggest that you edit the Talk Page instead. I would like to suggest that you put your edits in the Talk Page and then let me or someone else put them into the article after we have ensured that the text makes sense and have made any necessary corrections in spelling or grammar.

You seem to have some knowledge about this subject and this knowledge should be incorporated to the extent that it is verifiable.

I am concerned that some of your points appear to be original research. A few also appear to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. In particular, I am concerned about your assertions that Greeks outside the 1914 borders of Greece did not unanimously support the Megali Idea. I can believe that this is true (it is rare that a whole group of people unanimously supports anything). However, it is not sufficient to make arguments in support of an assertion. In Wikipedia, we need a reliable source to back up the assertion.

--Richard 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

November 13 1914. Washington post

hi maybe you will be interested in this one.neurobio 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have gathered a rather large archive of Newspapers related to Armenian issue. I can send you if you are interested. just write to meneurobio 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally get your points. unfortunately the real life in wiki is not that way. there is a gang working in every article related to the issue and I am in their black list. my contributions are instantly deleted and my articles are nominated for deletion. I send them to you assuming you are a pro historian. neurobio 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm not interested in deleting this picture. It clearly says "Turky" (and not 'Turkey') in reference to the Ottoman Empire, but it can't be brought forth as an argument to use 'Turkey' instead of Ottoman Empire. Furthermore the Byzantine Empire was also called 'Greece' as well as the 'Empire of the Greeks' by its Western contemporaries, but this doesn't mean that we should disambiguate 'Greece' to 'Byzantine Empire' in wikipedia. That was then and this is now, today we use 'Ottoman' and 'Byzantine' Empires respectively, independently of their contemporary names. Miskin 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On December 11, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Occupation of Istanbul, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello OttomanReference and thankyou for creating this article which appears to be one of a long line of fine Ottoman related articles you have contributed. GeeJo was the kind soul who nominated this article for DYK. In future, feel free to self-nominate, as the vast majority of our articles are self-nominated. Happy editing and keep up the great work! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

Treaty of Batum[edit]


may be you can chack Talk:Treaty of Batum, the treaty between Turky and Armnia or Georgia. Geagea 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic states and empires —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talkcontribs) 16:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

See Western Armenia, I think it should be moved to Ottoman Armenia. I saw that you proposed a similar thing in the past, so drop by and sound off. Baristarim 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I think a couple of small ones instead of a single large one would be much better.--Doktor Gonzo 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. If you don't observe this event then I hope you don't mind this greeting. :) - Darwinek 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedros Kapamanjian[edit]

Hey OttomanReference, could you please add references to the Bedros Kapamajian page and include it in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation page also, where Bedros is mentioned. I could not find any sources. Thanks man Fedayee 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Mutlu Yillar! Ne diyecektim, sana ulasmanin bir yolu var mi? Bu arada sana ulasabilmenin bir yolu var mi diye soracaktim. PKK Timeline sayfasina fazla bakmaya zamanim olmadi, ama TfDsine baktim. Cheers! Baristarim 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seni simdilik Turkiye sayfasinda revert yaptim, içerim yuzunden degil ama uzunluk yuzunden. Talk page'e de bir not biraktim. Su anda makale FA candidacy'de, o yuzden hiç edit-war falan olsun istemiyorum, deriyi yuzduk yuzduk yani... :) Talk page'a bir not biraktim, orada itibaren konusabiliriz gerekirse diyorum. Ama Jeyzel'in yaptigi edit ozet olarak bana epey iyi gozuktu, hem de yazilis açisindan da kotu gozukmuyor. Her neyse, zaten daha ilerde degistirilebilir bir kisim. Cheers! Baristarim 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is not if it is Ottoman history or not... The question is style. The paragraph about the 623 year Ottoman rule is shorter, and that doesn't make sense from an encyclopedic point of view. It was added there after the comments at FAC.
The paragraph is not very good where it is already. Anyways, what I am trying to say is that the article could be further improved even after the FA, we shouldn't be trying to mess with the article too much. Ottoman, please do not start an edit war over this. The section there is not about the AG, but a quick overview.. If you have any other questions, please contact me. Jayzel's version seemed concise and short in a manner that reflects the nature of the dispute. Cheers! Baristarim 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
However your version is still there for the moment, and I will try to see if something can be made to improve it. Cheers Baristarim 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the problem is definitely not the content.. You are right about it belonging more in the foreign relations section. Have a look at the FAC: that's exactly what I said. All I was trying to say was that an edit war in the midst of the FAC won't be good. I will look into the foreign relations section right now. I was just trying to defuse the tension in the FAC, but I will definitely work on improvements... Cheers! Baristarim 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So this turned out ok. I am sorry that I couldn't get involved earlier about it. Turkiye makalesi de hele bir fa'yi geçsin butun sorunlarla ilgileniriz. Saygilarla... Baristarim 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Streamlining of Ottoman Empire opening paragraphs[edit]

Hi, just a quick note to say thank you for streamlining the Ottoman Empire introduction, as I had requested on the discussion page. One minor point: I think you overuse the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. Even if you put the information somewhere else, deleting large chunks of an article is surely not a minor edit.

But that's only in passing, I was very impressed with how you handled the editing itself, I liked the way you managed to use the deleted information in another article on the geographic extent of the Empire which was interesting in its own right.

Thanks again,

--Merlinme 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is linked to many things mentioned as scattered in the article. It is difficult to teach insight if one does not have it already. I hope this satisfies your curiosity. DADASHIM 07:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I will take a look at WPTR.. I am currently very busy but I will reply fully later today :) Cheers! Baristarim 07:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine for the moment. It has been eight-nine days since the start of the FAC, so it's ok. Everything seems to be ok with the article, but I will try to copy-edit it again in the next couple of days. In any case, let's make sure that there aren't any modifications except those for grammar etc :) Baristarim 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will see what I can do. Unfortunately I have to go to sleep, but I will also contact Atilim and A. Garnet to see what can be done.. Cheers! Baristarim 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of Istanbul article[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you just split the Istanbul article, moving several sections off into their own articles. That seems like a fine idea, but there was no edit summary beyond the default section title. Combined with the new feature which showed a change of -1700 characters or so, it initially looked like vandalism on the Recent changes page and I was tempted to revert it. Of course, I looked first, and left it as is, but it would be appreciated if you could be sure to use edit summaries in the future, so as to make your intentions clear. Matchups 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello there, to answer your question the Armenakans, reformed Hnchaks, and Sahmanadir Ramgavars joined together in 1921 to form the Ramgavar Party. The majority of the membership of the Armenakan Party was absorbed into the Ramgavar Party. ROOB323 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I think we should merge those two articels like you said, but I am not sure what others would think about the merge. ROOB323 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

Ottoman, I apologize for nominating all those Turkish-Armenian War articles for deletion. I have no idea what I was thinking. -- Clevelander 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Dear OttomanReference, Thanks ver much for your comments. I am trying to standardize the templates. Districts of İstanbul template looks different than other Districts of X templates, and much better.

  • I have some offers;
    • Title;Districts of "X": "X" can be obtained from pagename automatically.
    • Districts of "X":This template should go to "X Province" page, since district is an administrative division and a subdivision of province. To use this template in city pages seems not proper.Instead, we can use "Municipalities of X" template in city/town pages, in the same manner above.
    • Lets change all of "Districts of.." teplates with modified "Districts of Istanbul" template.
  • For villages and neihgbourhoods we need another template; "Villages of Y"; here "Y" is the name of district( can be automated as pagename also)

What is your oppinions? Regards MustTC 08:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, firstly,I am starting to modify "Districts of Istanbul" template to use as standart "Districts of X" template.
  • secondly, new "Municipalities of.." and "Villages of.." templates.
  • thirdly to change old templates with new ones; I need some help. Is it possible to automatize this work, any bot etc.?

regards. MustTC 08:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear OttomanReference, Please check Template:Districts of Turkey and Istanbul Province for application. Looking forward for your oppinions.Regards.MustTC 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please take a look again. I combined your contribution, deleted flag(I think no need here)MustTC 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, looks better. The only matter is; Title of template in articles which include Turkish letters.Article's titles may include Turkish letters but map names not. We are using provname variable to bring correct map and we are using provname variable to create Template title. In this case article title and template title are different. Lets use {{PAGENAME}} for template title and provname for map. Any commendMustTC 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. Good work. There will be only one template which include all Turkish districts. Let me change "provname" with PAGENAME in template title.Lets see how it works. Regards, Thanks.MustTC 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I will try to do it whenever possible.Regards~~
  • There is no any problem. Ayvalık itself is a district of Balıkesir Province.No need to use this template in district pages, but only in "X Province" pages-which are totally 81 province. MustTC 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I see.Thanks. How I can rename some Images (map of some provinces).If we can do it there will be only one parameter as "provname".Otherwise we wiil accept difference between Titles of pagename and template.Regards MustTC 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please also look for another solution; frame in frame, I mean is it possible to hide-show in region line.MustTC 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok for KISS. It was only a trial to see how works and other possibilities.Regards.Thanks for your good efforts.MustTC 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

a sign of my appreciation[edit]

MecidiNisaniSemsesi.jpg Mecidi Order
I, Doktor Gonzo award you the Mecidi Order for your efforts to improve Turkey related articles --Doktor Gonzo 12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Districts of Turkey[edit]

Dear OttomanReference, Your creative works are appreciated. I think all provinces tagged now.

  • To do;
      • Map names; will be fitted with province article names. Some , done. Urgent.
      • Generating Category under related region, Your help needed. Is it possible "switch function" here also. Important
    • Mass work, all districts tagged with this template( copy from, paste to district page). Need time and other users help.

Thanks for your valuable works.

Turkish Barnstar of National Merit for your creative edits on Template:Districts of Turkey

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustafa Akalp (talkcontribs) 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).


Hello. The new comprehensive one looks good but is still quite ... ... monumental :). Feel free to revert my edits. I am now working on several other projects so I won't help you with replacing of templates. Maybe it can be automated by some bot? P.S. I am a geography fanatic and what strikes me a lot is that several articles about Turkish rivers etc. are still filled with some Ancient times info, this should be definitely updated. Regards. - Darwinek 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi! It was just the grammar, nothing else. This is mismatched: He was an editor, writer, journalist and married with 3 children. I guess instead of reverting I could have broken it up into 2 sentences , but I was tired... I did put 'Grammar' in the comment though. Regards, --Free smyrnan 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Districts of Turkey[edit]

Template:Districts of Turkey has been nominated for deletion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Pls. Take a look. Regards. MustTC 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the template is that it is a) large and confusing and more importantly b) these regions are not official classifications, there is no government of the 'Aegean region' for example. Turkey is administered ate national, provincial and district levels. I would be happy if the entry for each province contained a) a list of the districts in the province b) a list of the 81 provinces and then c) your list of regions, which can link to an entry listing the provinces within the region and a geographical description.

But I do think it is great that the Turkish content on wikipedia is growing and congratulations to you, Mustafa Akalp and everyone else writing about Turkey here. Istanbuljohnm 09:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The regions are very much official. Google is our guide. Ege Bölgesi gives 1.290.000 hits, Aegean region 1.260.000. Weak statement.--Doktor Gonzo 09:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree, the regions are referred to quite clearly in the state budget, geographical info etc. They are not "administrative", however they are still regions.

It is still too large - and it still lists the provinces under their regional heading, which is false and unnecessary. I can't create a template myself but you need three very simple boxes:

  • a list of districts in the province, with a map
  • a list of the provinces of Turkey with a map showing the location of the province that we are currently reading about
  • a list of the geographical regions, with no map, no colour scheme and no list of provinces. Just a box with the eight or so region names - this will then link to a page for each region which can list the provinces usually said to be within it, but more importantly geographical information about the region. THAT would be useful. Keep up the good work Istanbuljohnm 10:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - trust me the template looks much nicer if you take the word districts out of the title line. Please leave it like I have put it at least for the weekend, and see what other people think. If you click on Corum and also on Alaca you will see that it works for districts and provinces too. best regards. Can M. Istanbuljohnm 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this has been moved back to its original location status quo ante after the AfD, after a techincal problem was solved. Baristarim 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So, what is going on with that page? I am fine with the current title except that I still think that there should be a different subarticle for the Muslim Millet. Bu konuda yalniz olmaktan da sıkıldım ne diyeyim, o sayfa da ne gibi çalismalar yapmayi dusunuyorsun? Ona gore yardim edebilirim ama ne yazik ki o sayfaya en çok zaman harcayan editor sen oldugun için senin goruslerini de almak istiyorum... Thanks Baristarim 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Losses 1914-18[edit]

Please share with us your source for Ottoman losses in WW1. The statistic of 2.1 million on the WW1 page has no supporting analysis. It is a statistic from a secondary source( Grey- Chronology of WW1 Vol 2, P 292) that lacks solid documentation. If you know of a Turkish demographic study of 1914-18 please let me know.--Woogie10w 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You may ask why I made the change to WW1 casualties. The reason is for the sake of credibility the schedule must add down to a total.--Woogie10w 10:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I borrowed the Gelvin book from the library, you are right the nr is 5 million. He mentions the deaths of 1.5 Armenians due to ethnic cleansing, I think that should be posted--Woogie10w 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you reccomend a source on the web in english, french or german that presents the Turkish POV on the Armenian genocide controversy?--Woogie10w 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(not related to the above request) [5]

The tables are great, but the pages are limited. You can also use the search function and seek a particular word in the pages (for example Turkish, Albanian, Kurdish:). Even if you can't access the pages, you still have glimpses of the context where the search term is used. Regards. Cretanforever 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please add back the Urartu4.jpg in Military_history_of_Armenia[edit]

Can you please add back the Urartu4.jpg in Military_history_of_Armenia Thank you. Narek had removed it 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This one 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to this kid please. Nareklm 02:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ottoman Empire[edit]

Thanks for informing me. I saw the article's content is already restored. The user who removed it has been officially warned, and I'll watch him closely. In case he insists, he will be blocked. Regards!--Yannismarou 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I worked very hard to integrate all that info into the Countercoup article, to make it all organized and smooth. You've added countless grammatical errors.

Stop using "m"; your edits are not minor.

Many sentences now appear twice. The organization is very poor; why, for instance, would "causes" be moved into a section entitled "Afthermath"(sic)?

I understand that you mean well, but your English is not successful in this article. Why have you done this? All I see is bad English and poor organization substituted for good English and competent organization... Why?DBaba 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma[edit]

Should you wish to comment, User:Rarelibra has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


You know all those battles you made? how come there's no information just wondering, also did you break it down? and call them battles, some info would help thanks. Nareklm 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Your going a little far there, heh, well i don't know if you had any education on this, i wasn't accusing you of anything i was just wondering, by the way by "famine and sickness" you were referring to the Armenian Genocide right? but don't you think all the deportations caused this? thats my analysis. Even if the ottomans made Armenians walk and leave there homes out of "war zones" they still were responsibly, im not a person who shoves the genocide through someones throat and accuses them, this was obviously a small case that turned big. Maybe it wasn't the Turks intention for the Armenians to die, look at the pictures, if the Turks were barbaric why would they make the Armenians walk? why didn't they kill them already? and cut there heads off or something, eh what do i care let the historians debate this and initialize it. Nareklm 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? i never called you a genocide denier, im saying that Armenians did suffer either way if it was a massacre or genocide, i really don't give a $%i# if it was a genocide my friend, the ottomans should have made an apology at least, what were those forced deportations about? were they cleansing Armenians out of our lands, out of war zones or what? There's too many answers but i hate what Turks and Armenians are doing today, making a mockery out of the genocides, the new generation especially im part of it but i would not fall in the same category as they do. Anyway injustice was served during those times, either way we both got massacred, for example the Armenian rebels did alot of damage to the Turks, they killed thousands of people, also what do you think about the Turkish genocide, alot of Turks say 1 million Turks died and Armenians killed them, I've talked to turks about this but mostly nationalists claim this but im not saying your nationalist just in case you believe in this, Nareklm 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was a Massacre or Genocide we both suffered all those people killed, and no one has respect for them whether they were Turks or Armenians. Nareklm 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


What in the world do you mean by "please drop this distrust"? Khoikhoi 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he said. Khoikhoi 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Disclaimer: It must be noted that "state terminology" of "Turkish people" is "People of Turkey". Turkish people as an "ethnic group" is not present in Turkish official terminology. Census in Turkey is performed as a block representation and does not use this category or any of which regarding ethnicity. "The official conception of the nation is that of an entity which affirms itself as an open community, the will to live together expressing itself by the acceptation of the rules of an unified public domain, indicative of Turkish citizenship. - can you please explain to me what is the point of writing this on that page? Chaldean 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So the whole point of throwing this paragraph in the article is to tell the reader the Turkish state does not or by law does not discriminate against other ethnicities? Chaldean 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he didn't remove it, but he clearly stated his opinion on the talk page. I don't think it makes much sense to clarify that it is forbidden to discriminate people with ethnic background. What's the point of saying that if it happens anyways? If people want to know the sources of the article, they can just see the "References" section at the bottom of the page. As for Demographics of France, it's about something different (terminology). If you want to clarify that within the definition established in 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the three minority groups that are officially recognized in Turkey are Armenians, Greeks and Jews—you can mention this further down below. However, I disagree that the official government position should be stated at the very top of the page. As WP:NPOV#Undue weight points out, we should give the majority view a priority. Khoikhoi 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is not about a general demographics - how can you say that when the title of the page is demographics of Turkey? Chaldean 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(to OttomanReference) I know it's about the Demographics of Turkey, but the page is not titled, The Turkish government's view on Turkey's demographics. There are certain views on this that are the majority, such as the internationally accepted ones. Most people know that not everyone in Turkey is ethnically Turkish; the government view can be mentioned further down below. Khoikhoi 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Ottoman,

Having read through a number of Turkic related articles i.e. Seljuq dynasty and Timurid Dynasty, I realise a bloody big "History of Iran" template dominates the articles. I have tried to tell the editors there that these dynasties were not exclusively part of Persian history to warrant such a overbloated template taking over the whole article. I therefore suggest that we create a template entitled "Turkic dynasties" to accurately reflect academic opinion which primarily cites these empires as being of Turkic origin. I dont have any template skills, but i know you are good creating these things so i thought i'd ask your suggestion. --A.Garnet 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A "Turkic dynasty" template was already deleted per vote and consensus. The Template:History of Iran has nothing to do with ethnicity or language, but is just a summary of the civilizations and dynasties that ruled the GEOGRAPHICAL region. That's why it also includes the pre-Aryan civilizations, the Arabic conquest, and so forth. You totally misinterprete the template.
Besides that, there is an on-going discussion about renaming the template and splitting it into a "pre-modern history" template and "modern history" template. Just check its talk page. If you are still biased and obsessed with this template, then it's clearly a "bad faith" action.
And, btw, your action has already lost ANY credibility since you removed the "History of Iran" template out of the article, but did not remove the "Turkey-related articles" template. Tājik 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into it Ottoman, see how this dispute comes along. Thanks, --A.Garnet 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tovmas Nazarbekian[edit]

Hello OttomanReference, I have a question. I saw your edit in Tovmas Nazarbekian article, you added "Armenian victory over Khalil Pasha at Diliman." I was just wondering by saying Diliman do you mean the city of Dilijan? or is it a completly different city than Dilijan? ROOB323 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if you find out any information about the city please informe me also if you have time. Thanks. ROOB323 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

treaty of Sevres[edit]

Dear Ottoman Ref., Yesterday, a New- vandal User, reverted many Turkish related pages. I and Baris reverted them back.

  • Tr.of Sevres was in this list.
  • He/she added; two clauses here ;
    • misplaced (in wrong section)
    • There is no any remark that these clauses are belong to treaty.
    • Clauses is not correctly taken from original/official treaty.
    • To take only two clauses and placed them into a wrong section, gives misinfo to readers.

Please fell free to organize article as you wish. Regards MustTC 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Panoramic_view_of_the_Golden_Horn.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Panoramic_view_of_the_Golden_Horn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disrespect for the fellow Wikipedians[edit]

Why are pushing the disputed version for the Ataturk article which is already criticized on the talk page of the article? Regards. E104421 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Source of Romanian losses WW1[edit]

The civilian losses of 430,000 listed for Romania are from an article in Metron-The International Journal of Statistics from 1927. The author uses Romanian government data to estimate total civilian losses from 1914-20. At the prewar level the number of deaths would have been 941,000(188,262 X5), actual deaths were 1,273,927. The increase in civilian deaths was 333,000. This does not include an additional 97,000 deaths due to an increase in infant mortality. Total excess deaths 430,000. The cause being famine and disease during the war. The article is in French, give me a fax nr and it is yours tomorrow.--Woogie10w 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The NY Public Library has Metron from 1927 but the pages are falling apart, it cannot be copied. I purchased a copy of the article from Metron in Rome.--Woogie10w 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cretan Turks[edit]

Needs attention.--Doktor Gonzo 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: endorsement[edit]

Hi! As you may know, there was an edit war a few months ago over including this section. After a great deal of discussion, the eventual compromise between all editors was to delete the section, but include some criticism in the article. All editors agreed to include the paragraph about the Kurds' criticism of Atatürk. I read the GA failure, and only a little bit of it seemed to be about the criticism. Atatürk's reforms is one of the things he is well-known for, and it doesn't make much sense to hide the information in a sub-article, especially when all editors agreed to it. Besides, most biographies of Atatürk will mention his reforms, right? Khoikhoi 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need to make ad hominems, OttomanReference. I am not a "stringer Kurd activist", whatever that means. I honestly appreciate your efforts to the article, but you have to understand, a compromise is a compromise. I don't really see it as non-controversial as a move as you do, and you're the only one that wants to remove that entire section. Also, you have a bias too. We all have biases. So please stop attacking me just because I "endorse" having something that all editors agreed upon. Khoikhoi 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but there's a fine line between being bold and being unilateral. What specifically do you dispute about the section? (besides having it in the main article) Most of it is well-sourced, don't you think? It's not like the entire section is unsourced. Let's work together to make this article reach GA status. Kolay gelsin. Khoikhoi 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with template in Vakifli, please?[edit]

Hi, I am rather unfamiliar with the geographic templates and I chose town TR template for Vakıflı, which is a village. Could I ask you to take a look and correct? Thx! --Free smyrnan 09:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your four "minor" edits[edit]

So, are you going to provide sources for Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Cholera.png, Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Turkish Refugees from balkans.png, Image:A Turkish Kaleidoscope (1926)- Anatolia shepherd.png and Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Turkish refugees seeking help.png, or are you just going to inexplicably revert my tagging? --Iamunknown 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you didn't just revert my edits. I'm still concerned, however, that the images have conflicting dates. --Iamunknown 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Armenian-Turkish relations[edit]

Thanks for your clarifying and support to ASALA - Treaty of Kars issues that have to be in this article but, was continuously deleted as I edited. Your clarifications left no suspicion on the subject. SEY01 07:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish Revolts[edit]

I'll work on it, but why did you delete the information from the Atatürk article now that sources have been added? Isn't that what you wanted? (citations) I'm confused. Khoikhoi 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't not only about revolts, it's about criticism of Atatürk by the Kurds. You deleted all of it. You can {{main}} it out if you want, but there's no need to erase it. Khoikhoi 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to this, the revolts are very relevant to Atatürk:

In the 1890s, with the Ottoman Empire on its last legs, Kurdish nationalism began to stir. The 1920 Treaty of Sevres promised Kurds an independent homeland when Turkey was carved up after World War I. But Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, rejected the treaty. Turkish forces fought to regain the land, crushing a series of Kurdish revolts in 1920s and 1930s.

Khoikhoi 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk and the Kurds[edit]

I will add some material from a paper by Andrew Mango published in 1999 on the relationship between Ataturk and the Kurds. I believe that it deserves a brief paragraph in the Ataturk's page. Thanks.Heja Helweda 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk[edit]

Hi! I am sorry to inform you that you have been blocked for twenty-four hours for violating Wikipedia's policies in regards to the three revert rule. For reference, your reverts are here, here, here, and here. gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I noticed you are deleting a lot on the Ataturk page and elsewhere, saying they deserve their own page. Shouldn't they also be mentioned on the Ataturk page, since they involve him? To me it seems like you're only requesting that the negative things be taken out, which doesn't seem fair. --AW 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Armenian terrorism[edit]

I think there is enough material to start a category for Armenian terrorism. It starts with the Ottoman Bank Takeover, then there is the Yıldız Attempt, assassination of Talat Pasha, then diplomats and civilians murdered by ASALA and other Armenian organizations. I want to know what you think about the category.--Doktor Gonzo 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mustafa Kemal Ataturk extension[edit]

He's not still serving in the Turkish military, is he? Do you know when his military service ended? Biruitorul 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My question still stands. Biruitorul 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My question still stands. If you don't have an answer, say so, but please don't leave me hanging. Biruitorul 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


So how are you? I just got back from being very busy in the real world.. I see that Ataturk article still needs some work, I will try get involved more soon, I have been busy rating the unassessed WPTR articles, and it has been taking some time since there are many of them.. Cheers! Baristarim 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rmvl of AG reference[edit]

Such a blatant removal - of not even shortening but just cutting - is not acceptable. You guys tell me what you find so problematic with it, ignoring length since Kemal is the only reason you guys hold those lands, but this is otherwise suppression of sources and info. You don't even bother trying to edit the information and instead opt for a complete removal of the passage. My message on the talk page has been there for days and no one has yet to respond. I know what this man represents to your people but this is cynical. --MarshallBagramyan 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down party boy, I'm sorry to "insult" dear leader but you guys should stop treating this man as if his ____ don't stink. Practically ever Armenian related article you have created has been written in poor grammar, poor evidence and summary and has been using obscure, hard to find, difficult to verify sources. I told you guys that I did not want to start a war nor maintain one on the Ataturk page but you are only making this difficult only for yourself. The passage in question deals with Ataturk directly being accused of extending the Genocide, and nothing, much less your lyrical comments on my talk page, can prevent the suppression of that info. --MarshallBagramyan 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving Denial of the Armenian Genocide[edit]

I have suggested that Denial of the Armenian Genocide should be moved to Denial of the Armenian Genocide allegations. I assume that you would be interested in the debate and would like to submit your opinion on the proposal. See: Denial of the Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Scientia Potentia 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag-Administration of Western Armenia.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag-Administration of Western Armenia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar time![edit]

BoNM - Turkey.png The Barnstar of National Merit
For your consistent work on Turkish history related articles, templates, as well as your efforts at getting the WikiProject Turkey running again sometime ago. Tebrikler! Baristarim 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I moved this comment [6] from your user page to your talk page; I think that it was mistakenly put there. Plus, I went ahead and included Category:WikiProject Turkey Wikipedians to your userpage - I have the impression that you don't like using Userboxes. Nevertheless, if you want you can revert and accept my apology. (The thing is that we have switched to a dynamic list for WPTR participants and we don't have a static list anymore where every user would come in and sign).

On another note, WikiProject military history has a brand new Ottoman military history task force. Maybe you would like to sign up? Cheers! Baristarim 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a debate at Bedros Kapamajian.. Maybe you should check it out.. cheers! Baristarim 04:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I tried that name but Khoikhoi did not accept it. Khoi said that Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian Kurdish, he was killed, so it is not only PKK-Turkey conflict. But, current name Turkish-Kurdish conflict is wrong because that there is no ethnic conflict. There is a problem related to ethnic Kurdish problem but it is not directly an ethnic war. I asked the naming dispute to R.Cakır, and he said that "I think that "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is not a good idea because it refers to some kind of civil war that does not exist yet. I would prefer 'Kurdish question (or problem, or maybe conflict) in Turkey' or Turkey's Kurdish question'. But, Khoi did not like the name because according to him not only Kurds are responsible for the conflict. He said that he would think about the name, but no suggestions came form him! I searched on the Internet, and found an article by Koç University academician Somer: "People seem to instinctively understand and fear that this time such a path may lead to a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, i.e. not only a conflict between the state and Kurdish separatists as the conflict previously was, but which involves ordinary people". from That would be another nominee for the name: "Turkish state- Kurdish separatists conflict". If there is a vote, we should make a consensus. Any name other than this name is suitable. But, at the last vote, people who are against the current name gave votes to different names so article's name did not change. We should refrain from this. Is "Turkish state - Kurdish separatists conflict" good?Burgaz 11:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict[edit]

Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --denizTC 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country data Ottoman Empire[edit]

Can I ask why you changed flag in this template? According to Ottoman flag article you've messed up because that flag was used between 1793 and 1844, later it was changed to current Turkey flag. Please note that 1793-1844 era flag is still available via {{flag|Ottoman Empire|1793}} code. I think that {{flag|Ottoman Empire}} code should refer to 1844 flag. Piotr Mikołajski 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your POV, but:

  • 8-arm star flag was used between 1793 and 1844, not later.
  • 5-arm star flag was used after 1844. If I understood correctly we have no proper image of that flag.
  • We have 5-arm star flag of Turkey which is not perfect but quite close to proper flag used after 1844.

My questions:

  • Shouldn't we use 1793 design flag for 1793-1844 perdiod only?
  • Shoudln't we use Turkish flag for years after 1844 until someone create better image?

I still think that it's better to have not quite perfect flag (with slightly different colours and dimensions but with 5-arm star etc.) for years after 1844 than to use completely wrong flag. Piotr Mikołajski 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... I didn't expected long emotional and meaningful response but short answer on questions asked above. Please, do me that favour and be more precise next time. I have some doubts and wanted to read some explanations. Unfortunately I didn't got any. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


In Van Resistance article, can you cite sources for this sentence?

The next day 20 April 1915 Armenians in the city of Van,in the surrounding countryside, and in small towns began a local uprising with pitchforks, wrenches, pipes, and other makeshift weapons. Hetoum 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if you cant site this, AND you had not written it, it needs to be aggressively removed as per wiki rules on uncited info. But, you seemed to have added and put a lot into this article, so I did not see why you did not get rid of it.

Hetoum 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You have been blocked for 48 hours due to continued edit-warring. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

script-need help[edit]

Hello Ottoman, I am trying to use a scriptfunction; {{#replace:string|needle|product}}: (Example: {{#replace:Žmržlina|ž|z}} returns Žmrzlina.) It doesnt work. Is it something wrong, are you familiar with this function? Thanks in advance. Must.T C 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


  • I am trying to make a sub-template for pagenames with Turkish letters;
    assume function above, is working;
    I assumed also
    can be redefined in function(is it possible to assign a new value to this variable in function)
  • then we could use
    in the article where we need.

Ok?Must.T C 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    • OK. No overload, I can use another parametername.Must.T C 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we change capitalization ? denizTC 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ON infobox province tr template, I was trying to add weather forecast links, but now the variable {{{name}}}'s are all capitalized on the province pages (like Adana, Adiyaman, Elazig, etc. turkname is with Turkish characters, like Elazığ) We need small names for the meteorology links, capitalized names are fine for the government website links. If we want to have the meteorology links in the infobox, one option is to edit all provinces and make the variable {{{name}}} lower caps. Another option is adding a {{{weather}}} variables to all the provinces. If we can change capitalization, we have less tedious options. <span style="text-transform:lowercase;"> does not work. Please see [[7]]. denizTC 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If we do that, the template will be too long, and we will need to duplicate it for weather, and then for everything else we might want to add to infobox later. denizTC 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

armenian national movement[edit]

Thanks for your tips. I made responding comments on ARF page. The problem is the following - as soon as I will do any edit on page Armenian National Movement, my "friend" will remove it. I need to settle first issue on ARF and then to go for another dispute. Admins unfortunately, basucally disregard personal attacks on me from my opponents.--Dacy69 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what page exactly I should create (which I believe would be another dispute which I am trying to avoid). Russian Azerbaijan, Caucasus 1828-1918? People can argue that they should be incorporated in relevant history page? --Dacy69 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That will not work. You can see the attitude - they hunt me on any single edit related to that. I can create a page - then it will be put on deletion. If I insert info on other page, like you suggested - Armenian National Movement- it will be deleted. I would like concentrate on one narrow issue rather than spread on several more wide ones. I fully understand your reasoning and appreciate its value. In the meantime, as I told you, I don't need to write history of WW2 or Drezden to prove one single event in it.--Dacy69 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Not a problem, not at all. If you think that's an accurate date, then by all means let's insert it into the template. Biruitorul 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Hey, scriptmaster!, I need a tool to collect Redlinks from some definite articles(under a category, or include a keyword etc) to a list.Do you know any one?Regards.Must.T C 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide[edit]

You have multiple reverts at this article since its unprotection with no edits to the talk page at all. You were just blocked for edit warring there. Please stop continuing the current edit war, and intead work the problem out by discussing it. If the edit war continues it may be dealt with by blocks. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Turkey-Greece-Bulgaria on Treaty of Lausanne.png[edit]

I noticed that your image is tagged with {{pd}. Please replace the tag with a more specific one. Is the picture made by yourself? If so, you may tag it with {{pd-self} instead.--Joshua Chiew 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, I doubt whether there is an English-language source from the Georgian perspective. But there are quite a few books where Georgia's involvement in WW1 is discussed. I think A Modern History of Georgia by David Marshall Lang is the most comprehensive one. Erickson, Edward J. (2000) Ordered to Die: a history of the Ottoman army in the first World War, Kedourie, S., editor (1998), Turkey: Identity, Democracy, Politics, and Sicker, M. (2001), The Middle East in the Twentieth Century could also be of considerable help. Best, --KoberTalk 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, I will do some research but I remember something about a joint Iranian-British contingent fighting the Ottomans. I will let you know as soon as I find some information.Azerbaijani 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates-Help needed[edit]

  • Please check template;

Template:Turkish cuisine.

    • I have a problem with "state=" . I want to expand one sub-level only with a click.i.e. first click on main template expands only one level. and with one click on a sub-template expands only one level this template. and in sub-sub-template expands only this one, so on.

How can achieve this?I can not solve with autocollapsed,collapsed states, maybe I made wrong.I dont know.

    • Another question; Assume that this template with only two level. First level would include clickable names of sub-templates in one row.When we click one of them, this sub-template contents will appear in the second row.How??

Thanks in advance.Regards.Must.T C 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments needed.Regards.Must.T C 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time Ataturk.JPG[edit]

Hello OttomanReference, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Time Ataturk.JPG) was found at the following location: User:OttomanReference/Ataturk. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop Disrupting Temp Page[edit]

Hello. Please stop disrupting my temp page of the Van resistance article. It was created so I could work in peace and avoid edit warring for every edit. Hetoum I 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello OttomanReference, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:YouthGoingWest.jpg) was found at the following location: User:OttomanReference/Ataturk. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

rv var[edit]

Please take a look.Regards.Must.T C 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal[edit]

Hi Ottoman, Mustafa Kemalin katildigi dogu cephesi savaslarinda, bu sehirlerin ismini tek tek internal link koymanin akilci oldugunu sanmiyorum, cogu zaten Ermenilere yonelik katliamlarla anilan yerler, Bitlis, Mus gibi..Tehcir 1916'ya gelmeden hatta 1915 yazinda bitmisti ama bunu da her bu sayfaya bakan bilmez..Bi de bu adamlar var goruyorsundur, niye yazmiyosunuz soykirimdaki rolunu falan diye konusuyorlar..O yuzden diyorum ki su haritayi silelim, bastaki diyarbakirdaydi ifadesi de gereksiz bence..--laertes d 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman kastettigim bir seyi saklama degil ancak o haritaya bakan ve pek bi bilgisi olmayan bir insanın dusebilecegi yanılgılara karsı uyarmaktı..Neyse cok onemlı degil

But ı have another thıng thah ı need some help, the same exact people who are pushing theır greek natıonalıst poınt of views ın every single article are doing ıt now in a Kurdish related article..(Nikosilver, Kekrops..)There is only me and Garnett who are reverting them, if you have some time, can you come and help a little, thanks in advance..

Thats the article:

[[8]] --laertes d 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have created two pages on Armenian casulties, I am wondering why so, when already one exist. Anatolmethanol 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahaettin Sakir[edit]

I have noticed that you had redirected the "Sabahattin Bey" article to "Bahaettin Sakir".

Aren't they different personalities?Sabahattin Bey was known as "Prince Sabahattin" and he was liberal, while Bahaettin Sakir was nationalist - Pan-turkist. --Jagatai Khan 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Battle of Van. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Shell babelfish 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


hi Ottoman, i have to say i really dont like your picture editings to ataturk article, okay i do understand that you want a describing picture for all the separate sections, however these pictures that you have added are often in very poor quality and Ataturk himself is not visible at all..Or some of them are just simply bad pictures, for instance:


This one is one of the worst pictures of him i have yet seen. I beg your pardon but have you looked for it too much? Or dont you think that there already enough pictures for this article? Regards--laertes d 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually added several pictures to the article, my main concern was that in many of these pictures it is almost impossible to see Mustafa Kemal himself, he is like a shadow in many of them. Otherwise i appreciate your contributions Ottoman..--laertes d 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:OttomanReference/Ataturk[edit]

User:OttomanReference/Ataturk, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OttomanReference/Ataturk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:OttomanReference/Ataturk during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Istanbul[edit]

I have problems with the references you have cited in this page: Occupation_of_Istanbul. Basically, I have a suspicion that much of the information in the entry is taken from a uncited source and not from the multiple sources that are cited. I am particularly concerned about the F.O. documents you cited, since it would be unusual for an editor to have access to such material. Can you confirm that you have indeed consulted such materials, and, if you have, say why it would not be counted as original research. If however, there is actually an uncited source, you should mention it: it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. Meowy 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice[edit]


I have closed the MfD on your Ataturk user subpage as a "keep". Best wishes, Xoloz 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal for List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories[edit]

If you're interested, please comment here. — AjaxSmack 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Armenian_Intellectuals.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Armenian_Intellectuals.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Foundation of Ottoman Empire[edit]

AfD nomination of Foundation of Ottoman Empire[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Foundation of Ottoman Empire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation of Ottoman Empire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Armenian martyrdom portrayed-1918.png[edit]

File:Armenian martyrdom portrayed-1918.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Armenian martyrdom portrayed-1918.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Armenian martyrdom portrayed-1918.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Administrative reforms against terrorism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Administrative reforms against terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative reforms against terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Ataturk-(1967) - Sivas congress Refet-Rauf-bekir.png[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tugra Mahmuds II small.gif[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Tugra Mahmuds II small.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 talk 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of Istanbul[edit]

Since you have started the article names of Istanbul, maybe you may help me to answer a question about the usage of the name Istanbul. I’ve created a number of articles about the treaties signed in Istanbul. But some users insist that Istanbul wasn’t in use before 1930 and the articles are moved to the the articles with Constantiople. As far as I know Istanbul had always been the popular name of Istanbul after the 15th century. Although Konstantaniyye was also used in writing, Constantinople had never been used. Can you name a source about the usage of the name Istanbul ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi OttomanReference. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Establishment of the Turkish national movement and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bitlis Takabeg (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bashkaleh Resistance[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, OttomanReference. You have new messages at Talk:Bashkaleh Resistance.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battle of Tobruk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, OttomanReference. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Tobruk (1911).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Ottoman countercoup of 1909[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ottoman countercoup of 1909 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A duplication of the article 31 March incident. No need for two articles on the same topic. Redirect there.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. E4024 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, OttomanReference. You have new messages at Talk:Decline of the Ottoman Empire#Period of duration.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Template:Infobox Ottoman sultan (which is created by you) is being considered to be deleted. At the moment the opinion of the majority is delete. Please join the discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 16. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ottoman Empire periods infobox[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ottoman Empire periods infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Mustafa Kemal Ataturk extension[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox Mustafa Kemal Ataturk extension has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Activities of the PKK by the year and period.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Armenian Resistance.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ottoman sultan[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox Ottoman sultan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion of Armenian casualties of deportations[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Armenian casualties of deportations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has a serious number of issues. It has been tagged as original research and disputed material for over 6 years now. But more importantly, this is a classic case of WP:FORK. All of this content can be merged in the Armenian Genocide article if need be. As far as I can see, much of the information found in this article is on that page anyhow. Other pages include Ottoman Armenian casualties, which is almost the same topic. Both may need to be merged or deleted. I think we should just start with this article for now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Your edit from 2006 doubled the size of the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire article. These additions have several problems. First, no citations are given – and moreover the text is written in a somewhat archaic style which leads one to believe it was copied with little or no modification from a much older source. Second, the content is not particularly relevant to the article, as it provides great detail on secondary issues, moreover written from a particular European Christian point of view that is not introduced properly. Your assistance would be appreciated, at least by providing the source for this material. – Justinbb (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Independent sheikhdom under British protectorate listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Independent sheikhdom under British protectorate. Since you had some involvement with the Independent sheikhdom under British protectorate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 03:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Lifestyle of the Ottoman Empire/to do[edit]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Lifestyle of the Ottoman Empire/to do requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G8 in spirit: archive of a deleted talk page whose corresponding article was deleted via AfD

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)