Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 4

Constantinople vs. Istanbul
I would suggest that we use the name "Constantinople" to refer to the city which existed before the Ottomans conquered it. So, "The Fall of Constantinople". After the Ottomans conquered it, I suggest we refer to the Ottoman capital as Istanbul. In both cases, it's reasonable to use the other name in brackets.

--Merlinme 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about the brackets, but not about which name will be each time in and out (if my opinion counts!)! I had the same problem, when I wrote some parts of Phanariote article and I didn't know which name of the city to choose. Then I went to Constantinople article and I saw that the name of the city officially changed to Instabul in 1930. So, until then Constantinople was the official name. That is why I think that during the whole Ottoman period historically the right name is Constantinople. Now if you want to mention Instabul under parenthesis, I'm Ok! But not vice versa; in this case we reverse the historical reality and continuity!--Yannismarou 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A fair point- I stand corrected. I'd been going by what earlier editors had written in this article, i.e. "the Ottoman capital of Istanbul", rather than checking the "etymology of Istanbul" article.

--Merlinme 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically the name Istanbul goes much before 1453, and actually has roots in Greek (see the etymology page). Ottoman officials used "Konstantiniyye" and "Istanbul" frequently, as well as other names like "Dersaadet". The name wasn't changed to Istanbul in 1930, it was chosen to be the official one among the many other names. Constantinople is good to name the capital of Byzantine Empire, but not Ottomans. A state should have the right to call its capital in its own language.

--Haydarhan


 * The most commmon name for the capital at that time (in English) was Constantinople, and this is the English Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I agree with Haydarhan here. The criterion is not what was the common English name among the contemporaries of the Ottoman empire; the criterion is what is today the common English name when talking about the Ottoman empire, in retrospect. This is the 21-century English Wikipedia, not a 19th-century encyclopedia. In my experience, modern historical works in English (those dealing specifically with Turkey and the Ottomans) predominantly use "Istanbul". (About the historical usage facts, please see my rewrite of the Names of Istanbul page and discussion there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I say Istanbul is a better choice of name. -- WiiVolve 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Technological advantages
I have removed this sentence as this is clearly incorrect. What advantages? When?

The technological and scientific advantages the Ottomans had once enjoyed over the European powers (as a result of the medieval synthesis of classical learning with Islamic philosophy and mathematics by Ottoman scholars and the guilds of writers, and knowledge of such Chinese advances in technology as gunpowder and the magnetic compass) had long since evaporated.80.41.89.31 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with this user. It's a rather sweeping statement that needs to supported by specific examples if it's to remain in the article. In what ways, and when, was the Ottoman Empire more advanced than the European powers? OttomanReference has since put the section back in, however I think it needs more discussion than that. The separate article technological and scientific advantages is very sketchy, and doesn't talk about specific examples. Are we talking about weapons and armour? Architecture? Medicine? Navigation? And at what period? At the moment the sentence is far too vague.

--Merlinme 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I agree that the Ottomans had ALL of the technologies mentioned better than the Europeans. Here, watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire+of+faith&hl=en

-- WiiVolve 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottomans were called Istanbul as Konstantiniye but this name prohibited by Mustafa III. Also they were called it as Istanbul, Dar-ul Hilafe, Dar-us Saltanat, Deraliyye, Dersaadet, Asitane, Beldetul Tayyibe, Islambol, Sudde-i Saltanat etc. Hence, instead of usage of Constantinople -with an orientalist approach- Istanbul(last name) should be used.


 * Constantine founded the city and nobody had any problem with it for centuries. Mehmet the Conquer named himself as the Roman Caesar (Kayzer-i Rüm) and he synthesised the Roman heritage with Anatolian Turkish traditions, the city became Konstantiniye. Istanbul name was choosed as the legal name of the city during the Republican Era. I think, it is better to use Constantinople while editing history related articles. Deliogul 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt look good
I didnt understand what is them into infobox, british mandate of iraq etc.. if it is the states after dissolution of ottoman empire, bulgaria greece etc should be add. it doesnt clear understand for everyone. it should be romeved or do something for being more intelligible. Zaparojdik 01:04 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to take your word on "do something for being more intelligible." Hope you do not just talk bad for the things that are done, but seriously improve the CONTENT. A) The info box is required by WikiProject Former countries, all previous countries have the same format. B) The next states originating from Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, These are the states that originate after 1922(dismantle), Bulgaria was before Ottoman Empire dismantled, so it does not count. If you are interested you can work on the article Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and add any other state that is not included on that list. GOOD LUCK--OttomanReference 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of states formed by the partitionaing of the Ottoman Empire is quite large. Therefore, to reduce (and hopefully avoid) disagreement, I have set the successor state to the one undisputed state (and main legal state) that replaced the Ottoman Empire: Turkey. - 52 Pickup 14:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantinople & Istanbul
"Constantinople (Istanbul)"

I think that this should be reversed into "Istanbul (Constantinople)". Please support.

-- WiiVolve 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Constantinople is the proper way. I mean, Constantine founded the city right? ıt is better to use Constantinople for historical references. Deliogul 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but what is this?"Devlet-i Âliye-yi Osmâniyye دولت عليه عثمانيه Ottoman Empire


 * It is something like the "Great State of Ottomans" or the "State of the House of Osman". Ottoman language is confusing but its translation must be like these. See you, Deliogul 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire - Islamic, or not?
I Just removed the word "Islamic empire" from the text and replaced it with "Multi-national"

Ottoman empire, unlike the general misconception, was not an Islamic state. Not only the fact that the founder of the empire itself (Osman I) not a muslim until is later life; but also the sustainability of the Empire was dependant on multi-religiousity and multi-ethnicity. Islam was accepted as the superior religion in Ottoman reign, though the empire was not like other imperialistic countries in implementing the state religion to the conquered states but rather preserving their status-quo as long as the "infidels" paid their tax (or sometimes Blood Tax).

About spreading islam in Ottoman time;

Compared to the Spanish and Portugese states that ruled in South America only for a couple of centuries and converting the whole continent to Christian faith, or the Arabic empire that converted all the North Africa and Middle East to Islam in just a little over 100 year time-span, the Ottoman empire can not be referred as an "Islamic state". In fact; except a few states in Balkans, Islam did not spread during the Ottoman time and yet the multi-religiosity was encouraged, since the taxes acquired from the non-muslims living in the empire was the main source of income besides looting.Ombudsee 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True that the millet system allowed religious tolerance unheard of in the west, and true, in the early days the ghazis were more freelance raiders than zealots; but that's not to say that Islam didn't have a pre-eminent position in Ottoman public life. I do want to give appropriate credit to the many different groups/religions in the empire; but the fact is that the Ottomans (more in rhetoric than reality, of course - they were quite capable of acting conciliatory towards Christian states, and vice versa) presented themselves always as the centre and driving force of world Islam. Slac speak up! 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're both saying the same thing, but can't agree on wording it. I am still not in favor of referring the ottoman empire as an "Islamic nation" although it was ruled by an "Islamic notion" :) Especially since one of the most renowned of the ottoman sultans, Mehmed II was adverting himself as the "ruler of the third roman empire", and "Kayzer-i rum" (Which literally means the "kaiser of the romans") Ideas anybody else? Ombudsee 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Along with other institutions of a similar time-span, it is impossible to categorize the OE that simply. If you take your statement to mean that the OE was secular, I think we all can agree that it was not. "Islamic state" has a particular meaning, which is different from having a state religion that is Islam. (the difference is a state endorsed religion vs. having all the law of the land in accordance with Koran)


 * Again, I cannot simply say anything for the entirety of the OE from 13th century to 20th century. The first period is tribal custom. After they managed to organize a "state" - shall we say beginning with Orhan I or Murad I, they seemed to have used Islamic law exclusively.


 * BTW, poll taxation (which was 10%, BTW) of non-Muslims and not forcibly converting them is completely in-line with Islamic law. That is the status accorded to "other people of the book"-Christians and Jews in Islamic law. So the blood tax (devshirmeh) is what is not completely kosher according to Islamic law. And they did it, at the time, by the following legal argument (this is not a defense, just a statement of the legal shoe-horning they did) - the poll tax on non-Muslims is in return for them being exempt from military duties. By holding certain people (boys to be taken) non-exempt, they argued they could take these boys as soldiers. This is how the original fatwa (Islamic decree) was constructed.


 * However the OE quickly evolved two separate legal systems, even for Muslims, shariat along with orfi, with shariat eventually just looking after family related law (marriage, divorce, inheritance), and orfi (literally "custom law", akin to English common law), dealing with everything else. Since this is an evolution, I am not sure when to date this.


 * I just checked for further evidence in the first constitution of the OE in 1876 . It states in article 8 that all subjects of the OE, without regards to religion are to be referred to as Ottomans and does not distinguish between Ottomans in any other way. However, in article 11, it specifically states that the religion of the OE is Islam and everybody has freedom to practice whatever religion they have and the particular rights of recognized religions are under state protection.


 * So I think that the OE having Islam as a state religion should be stated somewhere, though perhaps not necessarily in the opening paragraph. To call it an Islamic state (at least for its entirety), the constitution (for example) should have stated that the Koran is the paramount law of the land, which it does not and was not in practice either. --Free smyrnan 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the Islamic being removed. It was a "Islamic Turkish Empire".. There is nothing wrong with saying that, I am an atheist and a Turk, and it doesn't make me uncomfortable. Ombudsee, you are joking right?? :)) All the janissary songs contain "Allah-u Ekber". And Ottomans did actively spread Islam. Not only did they do so, but they also took pride in it. Any claim to the contrary is downright false. In fact, they were more Muslim than Turkish at the end of the day. Don't forget that, until 20th century, Turk meant "Muslim" in Europe. Check out the etymology link I provided for the word "Turk" in the Turkey article. I will revert it back to "Islamic Turkish Empire". Removal of such info would go against all major historical analysis. Nearly all academic sources refer to the Islamic and Turkish nature of the Ottomans, that info cannot be removed. Sultans took pride in being the "Caliph of all Millet-i Muslumaniye". Please do not remove that info. Modern Turkey might not be Islamic, but Ottomans definitely were. France was also Catholic before the Revolution. Baristarim 11:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with every word you said until the second from last sentence. It should be Modern Turkey might not be as Islamic. :) -- WiiVolve 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ombudsee, you have to provide the sources for your claims, otherwise they will be Original research. Simple argumentation to prove that they were not Islamic is not sufficient. "Empire", by definition, means multi-ethnic (not multio-national by the way, do not confuse the concepts of multi-national and multi-ethnic). It was not multinational since they were all Ottoman citizens. However, OE was multi-ethnic, but that is already implied by the name "Empire". Otherwise it would have been called a "Kingdom". Empire=combination of states with different ethnic backgrounds. Baristarim 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And please do not cite the constitutions of OE, they were not worth the paper they were written on :)) And don't say that the Ottomans didn't try to spread Islam :)) Who built all the mosques of all the Balkans? Millions of people were converted during centuries. I am not judging however, since that was common practice in those days among all the countries and empires of the world. We shouldn't judge the events of 16th century with 20th century standards. Baristarim 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, Blood tax didn't originate from the Islamic traditions, it is a concept borrowed and transferred from the pre-Medieval and Medieval feudal societies of Europe and the Mediterranean. Ottomans simply adopted a notion of the conquered lands to their own government style. Similar "Blood taxes" were applied in France as early as ~900. And that type of application of that notion was a degeneration of the concepts of the social structure of the ancient Roman Empire and (somewhat) Greek city-states. Back in the day, there were no differences between Islam and Christianity (as it was applied from a dogmatic point of view, maybe not political however). That's why conversions were so common, coz it was easy.Baristarim 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, let's not set up a straw man and attack it. I cited the constitution in order to show that OE does have a state religion. As for OE being an Islamic state, I have no *personal* problems with calling it such. However, the definition of an Islamic state should have all law being subject to Koran, and the OE does not fit that description starting fairly early on, with the development of the orfi legal system. Does the OE have a state religion? Emphatically yes, this being Islam. --Free smyrnan 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And personally I am getting rather tired of the blood tax topic. It is something that happened over 3 centuries and affected some hundreds of thousands of people over the entirety of its existence. This topic is getting much more attention than stuff that took place over 7 centuries and affected tens of millions of people. I see in this systemic bias. --Free smyrnan 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I was not trying to use the Constitution citation as a basis to attack your arguments. It was not personal. What I was trying to say was only that it cannot be used as a part of a historical anaylsis since it forms a small part of the the Ottoman legacy in religion. In historical context, Islamic state doesn't neccessarily mean that all the laws were based upon Islam. What matters is if the guiding ideology of the state were based upon Islam. Even in today's Iran, non-Muslims are exempt from some of the shariah rules (though these are minor). But it is an islamic state. Historically Ottomans have always been considered to be an Islamic Empire. I mean, the Sultan was the Caliph!! It is like saying the Vatican is not a Catholic state, that's all I am saying. Ottomans were Muslims, they waged wars to spread Islam, they fought wars to maintain Islam, they did everything they could do build mosques, open Islamic schools etc. And the head of state was the spiritual and political leader of all the Islamic world. It was an Islamic Empire, that's all. Baristarim 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the blood tax.. I am not interested in the topic, I just wrote it since it has been occuring in many discussions lately. I agree that it is blown out of context. Baristarim 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood and accepted. Like all things growing/dying organically, it is very difficult to classify the OE in any one pigeonhole. I don't have a problem calling it Islamic. The definition of an Islamic state, after all, post-dates the OE :). --Free smyrnan 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ottoman Sultans were the shadows of God on Earth and they were the Emirs of the believers but they were also the Kayzer-i Rüm(Roman Caesar). Actually this is not all. Many people defines the Ottoman Empire as a Turkish state just like the ones Turks had in Central Asia. So Ottomans have a religious identity, a racial/tradition identity and a "world state" identity which comes from the title Caesar. Which one was more important, I don't know but I think it changes from professor to professor or from a Sultan to another one. For example, I know that İlber Ortaylı (a prominent historian and the manager of the Topkapı Palace Museum) is closer to a Cihan İmparatorluğu(World Empire) point of view. Also we can say that Mehmet II was more interested in being the Caesar than being the Emir of the beilevers but his son Bayezid II was a pro-Islamist ruler and we can say that he saw himself as a Islamic leader. Deliogul 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to admit that I never thought this would become such big of a deal. So I guess I'll have to defend myself :) To begin with, the word "Islamic" was put there just a couple of days ago (Instead it just said "a Turkish empire"), so it was not like I removed -the- key point in the article that had been there for a long time. I just thought that it was not the right wording, as I express one more time.


 * Being a theist Turk myself, I also want to mention that neither do I have problems with calling it an Islamic state - or the other way around - as long as it's the correct information. I'll just summarize my point one more time; though Ottoman rulers were Turkish (that can also be disputed) muslims, the Ottoman empire was not founded on a "suppress-the-other-religions" basis, unlike the theocratic empires of the time, but it was rather established on a multi-ethnical union (I still think that the "multi-national" is not an incorrect terminology by the way; since Merriam-webster defines nation as; a: people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit)


 * But as Free smyrnan already said it, I think it's just a simple point-of-view conflict, and I might have been the one to call the Ottoman Empire an "Islamic state" in some aspects; such as the implementation of the sharia laws in the judical system.


 * Plus, I don't know how much of a citation this would have been regarded as; but I just googled "Ottoman empire" and "not an islamic" and there popped up a result. It is an essay by Ömer Taşpınar; a journalist for the Turkish newspaper "Radikal"; but just to make something clear; I am not posting this to prove that I was right, but to show yet again that this is just a conflict of perception; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-9-2003_pg3_4


 * I sincerely don't advocate anything here; and the article can remain as, if that's how it's seen more appropriate.


 * About the spreading of Islam during Ottoman reign... Actually recently I was just reading about it, and it's a whole different story. We can discuss about that some time later though... It already kind of makes me feel awkward to discuss in English, to the people whom I know we have the same native language with :)


 * Regards;Ombudsee 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ombudsee, you are right about the language of our discussion but I'm sure that other people from different nations are willing to discuss and see our ideas here so, at least for now, writing in English is the proper way ;) Personally I'm not against your ideas and actually it would be great if the Ottoman State was fully a Turkish state but as others mentioned too, the Islamic law code that they used and some regilious policies that we can see during some time intervals(for example İslamcılık, Ottomans tried to unite Muslims in the empire -it didn't work but it was a state policy- to defend it). Also, I'm looking forward to see your point of view about the spreading of Islam during the time of the Ottomans. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed "Islamic" since there could be a problem with the proper context and maybe further discussion might be needed. No rush though :) I will try to look into this later. How I would like to see this article reach FA!! :)) It is still a GA, so it is not so bad. Hopefully Turkey will become FA in a week or so, then hopefully Ataturk will be able to reach GA. That article will need a lot of work as well. This article also has a lot of work to do before it goes FA. Baristarim 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is what we should consider before answering this question. Would Fatih Sultan Mehmet consider himself as a Turk or as a Muslim first? The Sultan is the Ottoman himself because he is the absolute power. If we can answer this question the problem is solved. Today's Turkish Republic is secular and there are many atheist (which I have no problems with). However that doesn't justify the fact that Ottomans were Islamic than Turkish. ltimur


 * Hello. I just wanted to pop in and say that I am a native English speaker from the United States who is very interested in the Ottoman Empire.  Just so you know... your discussion in English is definitely appreciated! :)  I've made a couple of very minor grammatical and syntactical edits to this and a few related articles.  I hope I'm not butting in... brjason

It is importatnt to remember Arab muslims did not then and now consider themselves Otomman, Particularily now among Muslims it was a Turkish dominated institution.

Question: Could we call Russia under the monarchy a Orthodox Christian empire instead of Russian empire because the head of monarchy was also the head of the Orthodox church? exactly Eliteforce 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

flag link
The words Late Ottoman Flag in the infobox currently link to Flag. I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to get them to link to Ottoman flag. Help? - TheMightyQuill 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Language merry go round
Well.. I don't want to get hyped over this, so I will simply ask people their opinions on what names should be included in the intro. Persian, Greek, Ottoman, Turkish etc. If the fact that it was an empire that interacted with many language groups is what is motivating this, then we should create another article similar to Names of Istanbul. So what do you think? Baristarim 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lacrimosus just suggested that Holy Roman Empire went through a similar debate. That article now has a Nomenclature section. Perhaps that's all that's needed here? - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, those four are good enough. But that's up to everyone to decide. -- WiiVolve 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there are also many names that have not been added, so it doesn't simply come down to four names. There are its names in Arabic, Armenian, Bulgarian you name it. And its names as referred to by its people or the Ottoman government like "Sublime Ottoman state", the "eternal state" in the Ottoman language and Arabic alphabet. They have also changed over 7 centuries :) So I suppose that a seperate nomenclature article might be the way to go. There have been outbreaks of small-scale edit-wars over this, so maybe a seperate article would satisfy it.Baristarim 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - We need a separate article for the history of the name of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe WikiProject Turkey will lend us a hand :) -- WiiVolve 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not start with a separate section within this article. If it becomes big enough to require its own article, so be it. Right now, we don't have more than a relatively short list. -- TheMightyQuill 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Readability of the introduction
There is surely far too much information in the introduction at the moment. The opening paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article, not a list of countries and seas which the Ottoman Empire came into contact with at some point in six centuries. Compare the article, on, say, the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire introduction is half the size of the Ottoman Empire introduction, and it has far fewer references to specific countries and oceans.

At the moment the opening paragraphs to the Ottoman Empire just read like a list, and it really doesn't help the reader get a quick idea of what was significant about the Empire. I'm seriously tempted to remove half a dozen sentences. Do we really need to know about the isle of Lundy, and what happened in 1627, in the introduction to an article about six centuries of history?

I'll remove some of this detail in a few days, unless someone else can come up with a better way of organising the text. --Merlinme 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Top marks to OttomanReference for handling this in a very impressive way, I really liked how he put the information in another article on the geographic extent of the Empire. The geographic extent is an interesting topic in its own right, but it just shouldn't be in the introduction to main article, so thanks to OttomanReference for sorting this out.

--Merlinme 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam
The Ottoman Empire is an Islamic empire. The sultans strived for unity between muslims. Everything was done in perspective with Islam. So dont call it a Turkish Empire but a Islamic Empire.


 * Another unsigned post... You must first look at the discussion above which is also about the identity of the empire. Many people don't think like you and we decided to remove the "Islamic" thing. Deliogul 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Was the introduction sabotaged?
It reads like this: "Also please note that these people invented the foot rest and have many many sweatshops that they work in but dont work because that they are stupid (ottoman). " Carecafe 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see it was corrected while I was registering to report this. Carecafe 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This is a very poorly written article- which does not advocate the neutral point of view. First of all, it is a simple lie that Serbia opposed the Ottoman for a hundred years. the parts that were opposing, were the parts under command of the Ungaro-croatian kingdom- viz. Belgrade, Macva, Vojvodina. This wa NOT medieval Serbia (which was southern than today's Serbia, and it shouldn't be treated as such. This looks like the work of an amateur, who is trying to sell to someone political propaganda.

The Ungaro-croatian commanders are not even mentioned- people like Hunyadi or Zrinski, who were highly esteemed even in Istambul, and were always considerd by the Turks themselves as worthy opponents, as well as great men. (For example, Nicholaus Zrinski, was highly thought of by Mehmed-pasha Sokolovic, i.e. the Ottoman commander, and grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire who conquered Hungary (Szigetvar, 7. sept. 1566) and was ready to take on Vienna again.)

Some of them, after they fell, received a Christian funeral by the Turks after their deaths (for example, the defenders of Gvozdansko, 12. january 1578), which was a token of admiration of their courage and bravery by the Ottoman commanders. These events should be mentioned, since they speak not only of the brave men and women who lost their lives then, but also of the fact that the Turks were not savages trying to destroy Christianity as they were often described in Europe, but honoroble and noble men who respected their enemies, at the extent of speaking latin christian prayers at their graves. It is a pity that such chivalry is no more. (imagine an american commander in Iraq delivering to an Iraqi a muslim funeral-and this is now, while Gvozdansko was more than four centuries back!)

The moral of this story is that wikipedia should not be used as a place to tell stories, but for exploring facts. My message to whoever wrote this article is to take up books and research them. Knowing english, as any worthy historian will confirm is not enough, latin, german, hungarian and turkish is also needed to explore this period of european history. Any one who cites only english books is a narrow-minded egoist who thinks of himself to have drunk all the knowledge from the world

Military history is of this period is the article Rise of the Ottoman Empire. This section gives "one sentence" summary of 200 years of this specific period. --OttomanReference 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I must beg your pardon, but why is it needed to say that Serbia stood unconquered for a hundred years (which is also not true, much less a fact, and even less a relevent information) if the military history is a different topic?

There are many editors, with different perspectives. That is only normal. It is all about communication. I'm pretty sure history of Serbia would cover the topic more extensively. Besides the perfect neutrality is only a myth.--OttomanReference 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware about the philosophical problem of neutrality, but I think that we can agree on the policy to speak of facts.

There is also a problem with the name of the "Hungarian kingdom"- it would be more correct to speak about the "Hungaro-croatian kingdom", or even about the "Kingdom of the crown of st. Stephen". (One is the Croatian variant, while the other is the Hungarian, and they are both correct, unlike "Hungarian kingdom". The relevant document is tha Pacta Conventa of 1102

You are welcome to correct the references given, or improve the sentences with correct links, fix the obvious problems, so that we can go and find more info. No one is claiming to be the only expert or "the expert" of Ottoman history. OttomanReference 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no neutrality in this article. It describes the ottoman empire as being peaceful and letting all religions living in harmony. This is not the case. Religion oppresion was a major tool of the ottomans, and its no lie that thousand if not millions of orthodox christians died in this time.MajinHurricane 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, If you were giving your proper tax, you could pray whoever you want and you didn't have to serve to the Ottoman military. Some argues that it is better than the crushing European feudal lords' rule and others think that, even if the old administration was clearly bad, the Turkish rule was not fit into the European understanding. This can be a long debate but you don't have enough evidence to declare the time of Ottomans as a reign of terror. See you, Deliogul 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem in the law section
"Women nearly always choose the Islamic courts, as these courts tended to be fairer towards them and to give them more just recompense."

This is the wrong use of tense. It looks as though someone has tampered with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.188.183 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not relevant to discuss these issues before a special article on the issue that covers the whole concept. That is missing. I do not know anyone who is expert in this specific field can help us with a good summary. The sentence is removed until a citation can be found. --OttomanReference 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Will this help?
I just found a few websites that deal with the Ottoman Empire. Is there any way we can use them in this article? -- Insineratehymn (talk &bull; contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Baristarim 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those two sites look like honest, relatively unbiased attempts at pulling together useful information. However, I don't think they can substitute for scholarly sources. They aren't published by reputable book publishers or in reputable journals, they don't give sources for their information (no footnotes or even bibliography), and one of them doesn't even list the author; the other one says "World Cultures has been designed for freshman-level students". So these are weak sources at best. --Macrakis 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital contradiction
In this article, Istanbul is listed as the fourth capital. Istanbul says "Istanbul became the third capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453." Clearly the same convention should be used on both of these articles. Calbaer 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We can argue that the first true administrative capital of the Ottomans was Bursa. According to this logic, İstanbul was the third one after Bursa and Edirne. At the early stages of the Ottoman Beylik, the political center of the Ottomans was the Otağ (Tent) of the Bey (actually, Osman Bey). See you, Deliogul 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)