Talk:Mamuret-ul-Aziz vilayet

Kharpert
Hovik, efforts to document Armenians in the Ottoman Empire are appreciated. However, you are unfortunately making grave errors. There is no such thing as a "vilayet of Kharpert". Vilayet is an Ottoman administrative term meaning province (derived from Arabic of course). The Ottoman name for Kharpert was Harput. This province was actually an eyalet until the 1860s, when it became a vilayet (part of a provincial restructuring programme). During this change, the administrative center was moved from Harput to Mezre, which was renamed Mamuretü'l-Aziz. There was no "vilayet of Kharpert" or "vilayet of Harput". It was the "vilayet of Mamuretü'l-Aziz" (properly, "Mamûretü'l-Âzîz vilâyeti"). I will change this article back to its old name once you have read this. Ordtoy (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some opinions on this please? To clarify what I wrote, this article is discussing a province of the Ottoman Empire. The name of the province was Mamûretü'l-Âzîz, centered on Mezre/Harput. The latter's Armenian name is Kharpert, but while this is relevant information, it was not the name of the province. A few other articles by the same user have the same problem (Vilayet of Sebastia and Massacres in Kharpert vilayet for example). Thank you, Ordtoy (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The vilayet was widely known in foreign-language (i.e. non-Ottoman) literature as "Harput province". I think the main title should obviously be the vilayet's official name, but "Harput province" should be there as an alternative name. Meowy 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Box
I don't think the info box adds much to this article besides the map: "Life span?", "Enter start date" and "Enter end date" all appear in it. The population figures are also presented as fact whereas in the text it is made clear that there are extreme differences of opinion with regards to the provincial population. I think it needs to go or be replaced by something better. Ordtoy (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox can hopefully be expanded in the future, especially by someone who happens to know Turkish (which I don't), since presumably the best sources about the Ottoman period are in said language. As for the population estimate, I noticed that they are extremely inconsistent even within the article: in the same paragraph 3 different figures for the Armenian population are reported, and each one is markedly different from the next. The one source I reported in the infobox is from the official 1914 Ottoman census. I don't want to get involved in an argument about the Armenian genocide, but neither can I see why the Ottoman census should be treated any differently from other censuses of the same period.--LK 02:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at the very least you should put the official numbers in the population section and explain why they contradict the other numbers. The Vilayet of MA only existed between 1864 and the dissolution of the empire in 1923. Ordtoy (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the official census contradict the other sources? How should I know that? Look, you can change the population figures if you think your sources are more reliable than mine, but please don't delete the whole infobox.--LK 10:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So we are back where we started: adding the info box degrades the quality of the article: it is half complete with information that contradicts the information in the article. Until it is (mostly) finished, I propose removing it or replacing it with a different box which doesn't follow such a rigid template forcing the display of unknown information. And "Disestablished" is not relevant here. Ordtoy 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a work in progress, and the infobox is no exception. The population figures may contradict the figures in the article, but again as I pointed out the article contradicts itself countless times when it comes to the population. The figures I provided are, again, from the official Ottoman census, so they should be notable enough to be included in the article. The infobox is half finished? Actually is one one of the most complete, when you compare it with other articles about vilayets or eyalets.--LK 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm only monitoring this one, so that's no excuse :) But seriously, I think you have to go in and explain in the Population section why the numbers in the box and the numbers in the article are so radically different. At the very least, put the census numbers in the text; otherwise, it looks absurd to state what the population is and then contradict it in three different ways in the text. Ordtoy (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We both know that figures for the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire are heavily debated, so while we can (and indeed should) explain the matter in the article, we should also decide on which of these data we should use in the infobox. In short, if I were to follow your suggestion and move the census figures out of the infobox, which ones should replace them? Deleting them without replacement would only make the infobox emptier ;) --LK 19:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a See Population section statement? Personally, I think a infobox without population figures would be best in this case. As it stands, the figures look like fact, when in reality none of the sets of numbers were produced in a way which would make them reliable. Ordtoy (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

?
I want to ask some questions about this edit and its edit summary: corrected name so it is standard everywhere in article and removed the word 'province' from the translation.

1. First of all, this is not translation but transliteration. Is there such standard everywhere ? Which guideline of Wikipedia was applied ?

Fujian 福建省

(省 means eyalet) we can see 省 even in the infobox.

East Azarbaijan Province استان آذربایجان شرقی

(Ostān means eyalet) we can see Ostān even in the infobox.

Damascus Governorate مُحافظة دمشق

(muḥāfaẓāt is a first-level administrative division) we can see muḥāfaẓāt even in the infobox.

So there is no such thing as standard, however you want it.

2. Which sources did you use to say "corrected name" ?

3. Common name in English books:

etc...
 * "Ma'mûretü'l-Azîz" - 6 results
 * "Ma'muretül Aziz" -Llc - 7 results
 * "Mamûretü'l-Azîz" - 3 results (You said it must be correct. Why ?)

Takabeg (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You changed to two of the instances of "Mamûretü'l-Azîz" to "Ma'mûretül Azîz" but did not change all of them, including the name of the article. I reverted the change so the name is standard in the entire article. Google searches are not the way of determining proper transliteration. Ottoman to modern Turkish has a more or less standard transliteration. First, the Arabic letters ayn and hemze are not usually represented by ' in modern Turkish transliteration. For example of see the Ottoman Turkish page, where it is Osmânî not 'Osmânî. Secondly, the ü of the Arab el- is regularly attached to the preceding noun. Of course, some transliterations are different and there isn't a single standard used in Wikipedia so we could change it, but it seems fairly good the way it is... and if it is changed, it should all be changed. Ordtoy (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll correct all of them accoding to reliable sources. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do a Google Books search on "Mamûretü'l-Azîz", you will get 9 results not 3 ;) Ordtoy (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We can get Mamûretü'l-Azîz only 3 on google books. Moreover all of them are not English books but Turkish books as follows:


 * Ali Karaca, Anadolu ıslahâtı ve Ahmet Şâkir Paşa, 1838-1899
 * Ahmet Şerif, Çetin Börekçi, Anadoluʼda Tanı̂n: Cilt 1
 * Erhan Afyoncu, Ermeni meselesi üzerine

And if you want to prefer TDK's rule about düzeltme işareti, name must be changed as Mamuretülaziz. Today, in modern Turkish transliteration, we cannot use düzeltme işaretleri (â, î, û... ) limitedly. Takabeg (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Artilces must be written in accordance with reliable sources, not to your personal preference and/or explanation. Takabeg (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with the düzeltme işareti. 2. This has everything to do with two transliteration questions: You have arbitrarily decided which transliteration scheme is best, but you decision is not based on an understanding of Ottoman Turkish and how it is transliterated. It also is not based on frequency of occurrence in Google books, which is apparently very important to you. Note that searching for (your way) gives you nine Turkish books. Searching for (my way) gives you nine Turkish books... so what have you accomplished? Now the article name is different from the name used in the article. But if you insist that your way is better, I'm not going to sit here and fight you. Eventually someone else will come along and correct everything that you have done. Ordtoy (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * should the Arabic ayn letter be represented by ' in transliterating Ottoman Turkish
 * how is the Arabic article el- represented when used to conjoin two nouns in transliterating Ottoman Turkish
 * Good news. Wikipedia already has a transliteration scheme for Ottoman Turkish: []. Please consult it because it will explain many of the transliteration points which you do not presently understand (notably long vowels; the Arabic definite article ال). Ordtoy (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that page. But TDK don't show such guideline. For example, as you know, the TDK doesn't accept azîz (according TDK aziz is correct). Moreover nobody can remove sourced information. Thank you.  Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamuretülaziz 650 results Justin McCarthy also used it.
 * "Ma'muretül'aziz" 9 results
 * "Ma'mûretü'l-Azîz" 88 results
 * "Ma'muretül Aziz" 6 results
 * "Mamûretü'l-Azîz" 8 results


 * This is transliteration of Ottoman Turkish NOT modern Turkish, so TDK's guidelines for writing modern Turkish words do not apply here. Wikipedia has guidelines for transliterating Ottoman Turkish to the Latin alphabet and these are being used here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, long vowels are used throughout Ottoman Turkish and no one is suggesting that we change these. It seems to me that you don't really care about finding the best solution. Instead, your only goal is to have something (anything!) different from what I am suggesting. If you disagree then please apply for mediation to resolve this issue. Ordtoy (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The important is which one is common name in English language. Takabeg (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamuret-ul-Aziz -Llc 823 results in English books Takabeg (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz doesn't have a common name in English. Common names apply to decisions over İstanbul/Istanbul or Bayrūt/Beirut. To suggest that Mamuretülaziz (or any other variant) is common in English is incorrect. There is a very clear policy on what to use in these instances. I am quoting from Wikipedia's own guidelines: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Romanization." The key here is "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet ... must be transliterated." The only thing you have contributed to this article is Google search results for books which you have not read. This is not how an encyclopaedia is written. Ordtoy (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Common name

 * "Harput Vilayet" -Llc - 24 results
 * "Vilayet of Harput" -Llc - 8 results

As long as I can understand, Harput Vilayet is common name of thie vilayet in English.

Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you will see that the eyalet of Harput was reorganized as the vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz with changed borders. They are not the same thing. Ordtoy (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * official names are not necessarily common names. Takabeg (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said you are confusing two different things. One was called Harput. The other was called Mamûretü'l-Azîz. Just because you find many Google hits for Harput doesn't mean we should rename an article about something else. Ordtoy (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vilayet of Kharpert" -Llc 7
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Kharpert" -Llc 2
 * Ottoman "Kharpert Vilayet" -Llc 2
 * "Vilayet of Kharput" -Llc 19 -
 * Ottoman "Kharput Vilayet" -Llc 10 -
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Kharput" -Llc 5
 * "Vilayet of Harput" -Llc 8
 * Ottoman "Harput Vilayet" -Llc 6
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Harput" -Llc 3
 * "Vilayet of Mamuretülaziz" -Llc 0
 * Ottoman "Mamuretülaziz Vilayet" -Llc 0
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Mamuretülaziz" -Llc 0
 * "Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz" -Llc 34
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz" -Llc 10
 * Ottoman "Mamuret-ul-Aziz Vilayet" -Llc 2
 * "Vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz" -Llc 0
 * Ottoman "Vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz" -Llc 0
 * Ottoman "Mamûretü'l-Azîz Vilayet" -Llc 0

Takabeg (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your "research" is, again, not relevant. You are searching for two different things: Harput and Mamûretü'l-Azîz are not the same thing. Ordtoy (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But it is better than your famous original researchs :) Takabeg (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to know whether you understand that the eyalet of Harput and the vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz are not the same thing. Ordtoy (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC) GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mamûretü'l-Azîz Vilayet → Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ORIGINAL & WP:USEENGLISH


 * Mamûretü'l-Azîz Vilayet (all languages) - 0 WP:ORIGINAL
 * "Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz" -Llc minimum 31
 * "Harput Vilayet" -Llc minimum 13
 * "Vilayet of Kharput" -Llc minimum 19

-- Takabeg (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Eyalet of Harput and the Vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz are not the same thing. If you read the article you'll understand what happened. Ordtoy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mamuret-ul-Aziz Vilayet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007185405/http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/ermeni_faaliyetleri_pdf/Arsiv_Belgeleriyle_Ermeni_Faaliyetleri_Cilt_1.pdf to http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/ermeni_faaliyetleri_pdf/Arsiv_Belgeleriyle_Ermeni_Faaliyetleri_Cilt_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adrianople Vilayet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)