Talk:Ottoman Empire

Latest comment: 20 days ago by M.Bitton in topic "centered in Anatolia"
Former good articleOttoman Empire was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 1, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2004, October 29, 2005, and October 29, 2006.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 2, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Double Dates?

edit

I see some editors are putting double dates in their edits- specifically, the Hijri year calendar. Is this against the Wikipedia rules of standard formatting, or is double dates in isolation (aka, in that specific line but nowhere else) fine?

The prime example I'm referring to is the second map of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox, below which has a description that refers to the Islamic Hijri calendar as well as the standard Western calendar date.

Crazynyancat (talk) 12:49 PM 4 June 2021 (PST)

History

edit

I was looking over the edit history of this article and noticed a massive cut in byte size in this edit by @Tpbradbury. While the overall cleanup of the article is much appreciated, I wonder if there's been a case of overcorrection? The history section, as my example here, previously featured ~130 sources, and now features exactly 0 inline citations. I think that this section has been reduced too much, and even if others disagree, would still like to see at least some of the sources restored! The Morrison Man (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the diff of the edit in question. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes it was radical, but a step in the right direction as you say. i sometimes add references after, but suddenly got busy at work. i was hoping gnomes would gradually add them back in. the alternative, which i've been doing more recently is to use the excerpt template, as that retains everything including any references, but it sometimes doesn't work if the source article material isn't the right fit. could we use it here? Tom B (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Before the history section is thrown away, the Ottoman history article should be improved. It is not in good shape. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed The Morrison Man (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Histroria

edit

A bandeira vermelha de 1 circulo para 4 luas 2804:14D:2A83:49A6:E945:63F5:9BEA:C3B5 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this? The Morrison Man (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"centered in Anatolia"

edit
 
16th century map of Constantinople
 
18th century map
 
19th century map

How wrong can this statement be. Centered in Anatolia like 100 years, not more. It was centered in Balkans. Even during its last 10 years, it wasn't centered in Anatolia as such claimed. Beshogur (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have sources that back up your claim? Considering, among other things, the location of the capital, I'm not sure that I agree. During the last 10 years it didn't even control any land in the Balkans. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I should provide a source to remove a vague text that has no source? What does centered in Anatolia mean? Geographic? It's redundant in the lead, politically? It's not centered in Anatolia. So during the last 10 years makes it "centered in Anatolia"? Edirne became capital in 1361, 62 years after supposed foundation of the Ottoman Empire (ca. 1299). Another example is Kosovo was conquered in 1389, while Konya was conquered in 1467. It was not centered in Anatolia.
For the second one, why are we taking one person's allegedly (see quote) conflicting thoughts who say like "it's accurate but it's not", and who are the supposed other "historians" the note talking about? Nevertheless, the quote says With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, all previous names were abandoned and Istanbul came to designate the entire city seems like a later addition as well, yet verification (even if it's so) doesn't mean inclusion. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The capital has quite clearly been in Anatolia for most of the Empire's history, as can be gleaned from the infobox. Following this, I don't understand how the Empire would not literally be "centered in Anatolia". The Morrison Man (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fatih, Istanbul is Anatolia? Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also Edirne became capital in 1361, it's in Thrace btw. Beshogur (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
To answer both in one go, yes, half of Istanbul is in Anatolia and all other capitals except for the 100-year span of Edirne have been in Anatolia. If you want to be extremely pedantic, yes, Constantinople was settled on the other side of the Bosporus, but consider that Anatolia was the Empire's place of origin and one of the few it held for most of, if not its entire existance. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know Ottoman Constantinople's had barely Anatolian part right? You confuse İstanbul with Constantinople. Söğüt, Nicaea, and Bursa being capital for 70 years doesn't make it "centered in Anatolia", they changed capitals because they got bigger cities each time, and Söğüt being just a village at that time. Beshogur (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added some maps fyi, also from Istanbul: During the Ottoman period, Üsküdar (then Scutari) and Kadıköy were outside the scope of the urban area, serving as tranquil outposts with seaside yalıs and gardens. But in the second half of the 20th century, the Asian side experienced major urban growth; the late development of this part of the city led to better infrastructure and tidier urban planning when compared with most other residential areas in the city. Just to give you an idea in case you didn't know about Anatolian part. During the empire, that part consisted of bunch of hamlets, nothing more. Beshogur (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Beshogur is correct. Half of *modern* Istanbul is in Anatolia, but for most of the Ottoman era, the term referred only to the area within the old walled city, today's Fatih, which is entirely in Europe. As for the Balkans and Anatolia, it's fairer to say that the empire was centered in both. It's true though that the Balkans had a relatively larger place in the empire for most of its history: it's where it was founded (in the sense that it may have originated as a principality in Anatolia, but it only became an empire through its conquests in the Balkans) and the Balkans provided the better part of its tax revenues and manpower for most of its history. Chamboz (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also what I'm saying is "centered in x" would be redundant anyways, even if it's correct. It's not like they're centered in x area and conquered some far lands from there. I don't know who added that. Beshogur (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply