Talk:Orhan

Orhan
''Orhan conquered most of eastern Anatolia and took part of the political gambling in the Byzantine Empire by marrying the daughter of a Byzantine prince who was a rival to the king. When the prince - with Orhan's support - overthrew the king'' - king? The rulers of Byzantium were Emperors. Is that who we're talking about? If so, which Emperor are we refering to? And who is this prince? -- Zoe

Good point. I didnt write this article, but I've amended it to give the correct information. John Julius Norwich's 'Byzantium' trilogy is a good reference point for this period of Ottoman history

Simon

Janissary?!
Orhan Ghazi formed a standing army (according to the legend, all members of his army were wearing white). This doesn't mean that he formed the janissary system which has strong connections with the dervismeh system. As far as I know, Murat Hüdavendigar founded the first true janissary army. I'm going to edit this wrong statements in the article if nobody has any counter arguments. Deliogul 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Enemies?
(final sentence) "...and the Crescent was not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia, but was also planted on the European continent, where its enemies have since sought to dislodge it for five centuries..." Funny stuff this. Did a grey wolf write it or something? Totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. The sentence should be rewritten in a more friendly tone. And the centuries are six (and a half). Kalambaki2 08:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The first?
I'm wondering why the numeral is used (Orhan I) instead of simply Orhan, since he is the only one of the dinasty with this name. Could someane please clarify this for me? Thanks!--RR&#39; (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no other sultans named Orhan in Turkish history. Most probably Orhan I has been used to disambiguate. I looked up for any diambiguation page. But there were none. So Orhan I can be moved to Orhan. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely the case, and I have not come across Orhan I across any literary/historical texts (including the English-language texts I have at hand, and other encyclopedias). I am starting to worry that this oddity is being perpetuated because of this article's name. If nobody objects, I will do this (there is already an article Orhan, about the name, though).Enozkan (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Also, Orhan moved to Orhan_(name). Enozkan (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reign
1324-1362 (not 1326-1359!) Orhan I died in 1362. I also changed the Turkish Wikipedia/Vikipedi Böri (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother or father?
In the section Passage of Power it reads: The latter refused on the grounds that their mother had designated Orhan as sole successor. I don't have this dialog in my references. It is possible, but most unlikely. I don't think the mother had that much authority. I wonder if the word mother should be replaced by the word father ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to reach the editor 24.147.194.182 with no success. But the history page shows that in the original text the word was father and not mother. So I reverted the the change. Now it is allright. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Grandfather
There are three candidates for Orhan's maternal grandfather. Abdülaziz as stated here, Sheik Edebali as stated in the article Mal Hatun and Ömer Bey as stated in Turkish Wikipedia. Well, which one is the true grandfather ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Malsultan Hatun (Malhun) was Orhan I’s mother, and Malsultan’s father was Omer Abdülaziz Bey. So yes, Omer Abdulaziz was Orhan’s grandfather. 69.42.1.66 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

İbrahim's mother
Who was İbrahim's mother ? (İbrahim was executed after the death of his father) In section marriages and children the name İbrahim has been mentioned twice, one as the son of Asporsha and the other as the son of Maria Cantatakouzene. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

POV in intro
Removed
 * The damaged town walls feature nowhere in contemporary Ottoman records.

from the intro. It could be added further down the page (or better yet, just moved to Fall of Gallipoli) if there is some discussion about historical records, validity, and disputed claims. As it stands, I think we all know primary sources about military prowess can now and again prove untrustworthy, and drawing attention to this particular bit seems editorializing. Plus, of course, it's unsourced. — LlywelynII  06:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration
Transliteration of the Arabic seems to yield a name closer to "Awrkhan Ghazi." I'm sure Orhan Gazi is the current Turkish, but what is the Ottoman Turkish? That's what should go in the lede, although the modern Turkish can certainly go in alongside. — LlywelynII  06:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, found "Ottoman Turkish script" which fixes some issues but still leaves each letter capable of several different transcriptions. Anyone know enough Ottoman to know which is correct: Orhan Ghazi, Aurḥân Ġazi, Aörḥan Ġâzî, etc? — LlywelynII  06:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While most Ottoman names are Islamic names, Orhan is a Turkic name. (Name used before Turks converted to Islam and continued to be used after the conversion albeit rarer than the Islamic names) . So no need to check any Arabic sources.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Main Portrait of Orhan
Are we sure that's a painting of Orhan? It doesn't look much like the few others I've seen, and it looks near identical to his son, Murad I. --207.75.185.107 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC) That paintings are from the 19th century, it's better to place, if there is, Ottoman miniatures. Beshogur (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Murad I had a similar image created by the same artist, however it is noticeably different to what Orhan's looks like. --AaDIL123456789 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has been edit-warring that image back into the article arguing that "many Ottoman sultans after Orhan have a picture in the same style" and "such an important figure should at least have a picture". These are, of course, ridiculously weak arguments. We don't include images in articles as symbolic markers of how "important" a figure is. We include images if and when they are useful to readers. This image isn't useful at all. Like so many other similar items from a-historical series of imaginary pictures of rulers, it's nothing more than a random bearded face, It bears no relation whatsoever to the actual historical personality, it's artistically mediocre, stylistically alien even to the culture this person was part of, and, as such, completely exchangeable. Using these kinds of inauthentic depictions is just making Wikipedia look cheap, amateurish and dumb. Serious reference works do not do this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is taken from Life On The Bosphorus: Doings In The City Of The Sultan: Turkey, Past And Present, 1895. It's a typical 19th century orientalist representation of the Ottomans. It's not useful for the purpose of illustration because it gives off the wrong impression about how this historical figure looked like based on how Europe viewed the Ottomans in the late 19th century. The same can be said about Paolo Giovio's 16th century depiction (Orhan as a Renaissance merchant). I prefer a) an emic depiction which is b) historically faithful. Since we don't have that because the first Ottoman depictions of Sultans begin in the 16th century due to religious reasons, the article could use his tughra as a depiction on the infobox - if the infobox needs to have a depiction. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not vizier
According to section Passage of Power Orhan's brother Alaedddin was a vizier. But according to Halil İnalcık, vizier Allaeddin and brother Alaeddin were not the same person. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)