Talk:Ottoman Empire

Template:Vital article

Today part of section

Hello to all fellow editors. I checked over different empires on wikipedia, many have today part of sections. Can we please reach a consensus on this? Austria Hungary, Kingdom of Armenia, Angevin Empire, Austrian Empire, Ashanti Empire, Aztec empire, Balhae, Kingdom of Benin, Empire of Brazil and more have this, I just looked at these empires, from a list, these were just from A to B. So I can say that dozens more have a today part of section in the infobox. Can we please do the same on this basis? There cannot be any reason not to if it is like this for many other empires. Thank you. Georgepodros (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really seen discussion in WP:RS. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean there aren't any such sources - can you tell us what you had in mind? My concern is that adding such a section would overburden this article. If we were to do it would we ascribe the legacy of the Ottoman Empire to Turkey? Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians on the right wing or nationalist end of the spectrum have also rejected a "common shared past". This is something they had in common with right wing nationalists in Turkey. Thus I have seen very little coherent discussion of this in sources. What we have are mostly "artificial national histories" harkening back to prehistoric times. The issue of Ottoman continuity is, as far as I know, not something scholars have reached an agreement on, and I am not keen on repeating the Turkish nationalist POV about this (which overlaps nicely with other nationalist POVs except for the points where they come into conflict with another). If you have some sources in mind, we would have to see them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The last thing I am is a Turkish nationalist. I am Greek. I moved to Turkey as a programmer in the 90s. I simply want this edit because it is very confusing to most when they see what the empire was made up of, these successor states, almost none exist today. So many empires which had far worse nationalistic problems (austria, kingdom of armenia, etc) have a today part of section, most likely because the successor states almost dont exist at all and to understand which lands these empires formed, it is more beneficial to add this section to the infobox. It can be an option "show" where you click on it to see, so only curious people can see it if you are scared of any nationalistic nonsense. I just would like to know myself too what countries really formed the empire. even lands like moravia and a very small part of uganda (conquered by mehmet ali) were de facto under control of the ottoman state. So what do you think in this regards Sir? Georgepodros (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This idea has been discussed before and it was decided not to include it. This is because 1. it does not offer the reader any particularly useful information, and 2. it will be endlessly fought over in edit wars to determine what should and shouldn't be included. It isn't useful to the reader, and in fact can be misleading, to see Uganda or Russia or some other country as having once been part of the Ottoman empire when Ottoman territory only ever covered a small part of the modern state's borders (and as is the case many of these instances, when Ottoman control in these regions was very loose and/or ephemeral). I don't see it as a useful addition and would be opposed to its inclusion. A map is more useful for giving readers a sense of where the borders of the empire used to be. Chamboz (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There used to be such a section (heavily fought over), but it was removed in 2016 after thorough discussions in this article's talk page and in the "Infobox former country" template talk page. --T*U (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I will defer to Chamboz and T*U on this, the explanations given above sound reasonable.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well. I am also a little sceptical about the provisional government part. The empire existed right until the declaration of the republic and the GNAT was considered illegal by the Ottoman State. The sultanate was abolished in 1922 but the state itself was still the Ottoman State. I hope we can reach an agreement to put the Republic of Turkey as the successor state. I can find the proper sources if you wish. [User:Georgepodros|Georgepodros]] (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkey is not the successor state. That is it one of the successor states is fairly trivial. I would follow Britannica on this: it was replaced by the Turkish Republic and various successor states in southeastern Europe and the Middle East. There are some isolated articles trying to establish continuity between the present and Neo-Ottomanism, but I don't think these are majority views yet. Given how slowly things move in Ottoman studies, it could be a while.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Im not claiming Turkey is a successor state, I am saying it is one of them. The GNAT is a rival government during the last years of the Ottoman Empire while the Republic is on of the successor states, as should be mentioned in the infobox. What do you think? Can we or can we not? Georgepodros (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned by what other editors have said here about the article history about the possible instability that it would cause relative to the benefits of adding it. That Turkey is a successor state is straigtforward, but naming and sourcing the others is not going to be straigtforward. For example, would we include Kuwait? And when listing states in Eastern Europe would we use their names at the time of the dissolution, or their current names? Would the successor state be Mandatory Palestine or Israel? Mesopotamia or Iraq? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System: Again Georgepodros is talking about the contents of the infobox, where there already is a "predecessor/successor" section. It is quite clear that what is meant, is the immediate successor, so definitely no Kuwait! It also means no Israel, and not even Mandatory Palestine, since the direct succesor in that area would be Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, as stated. As I understand Georgepodros, their question is if the Government of the Grand National Assembly should be seen as the immediate successor of OE with Turkey as a next-step succesor (as it now is presented), or if it should be seen as a rival government, in which case Turkey could be seen as the direect succesor of OE. --T*U (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I think due to the particular needs of this article, maybe we should skip it. I don't think telling readers that the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was a successor of the OE is going to be helpful. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

All I am saying my fellow editor friends is that the GNAT was not a successor but the rival government of the Ottoman government during the independence war. So yes no kuwait, no israel, they did not exist following the dissolution of the empire. The GNAT or provisional government did not directly succeed the ottoman state, which officially ceased to exist only following the declaration of the republic in october 29 1923. the sultanate being abolished is in no way regarded as the end of the Ottoman State by most historians. May we address this concern? I am no position to argue for the inclusion of all states which exist today which possess land once a part of the empire. I am saying the the provisional government is not the direct successor to the Ottoman state. Georgepodros (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Just saying: the notion of a "successor state" is irrelevant here. The Empire was broken up, and a whole bunch of new things started. In contrast, in 1867, the British Territories in North America became the "Dominion of Canada". That is a successor state. Or Russia became the USSR 1917-22. But the dissolution and fragmentation of an empire is not best described as "succession". Ben 72.141.106.240 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Absolute monarchy & Caliphate"

These changes I made were reverted by @Vif12vf:. The caliphal position of the sultans continued during the constitutional monarchy. Moreover, an Ottoman sultan officially gained this title for the first time in 1517. I tried to fix the wrong info through the changes I made. - Aybeg (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Aybeg: You need to bring reliable sources to support your changes. I recommend that you bring them to this talk page first for discussion. Zero^talk 07:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Common vs Official language of Ottoman Empire

• Titley (1983) The ref doesn't cite page number. But I am not very certain that the Source is RS in context, as it seems that the topic of the book is not language in O.E

• Wastl-Walter (2011)-->Claims that Persian was adopted by Ottoman Empire as official language of the Empire for some time.

So, the infobox is somewhat misleading as it dichotomizes the Ottoman Empire in two eras (before and after 17th century) and also states that Persian was a common language. Neither of these can be found in the references. The main body of the article though sets the record clear. Cinadon36 06:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure you would find any source stating any language as "common language".

• Learning to Read in the Late Ottoman Empire and the Early Turkish Republic, B. Fortna, page 50;"Although in the late Ottoman period Persian was taught in the state schools...."
• Persian Historiography and Geography, Bertold Spuler, page 68, "On the whole, the circumstance in Turkey took a similar course: in Anatolia, the Persian language had played a significant role as the carrier of civilization.[..]..where it was at time, to some extent, the language of diplomacy...However Persian maintained its position also during the early Ottoman period in the composition of histories and even Sultan Salim I, a bitter enemy of Iran and the Shi'ites, wrote poetry in Persian. Besides some poetical adaptations, the most important historiographical works are: Idris Bidlisi's flowery "Hasht Bihist", or Seven Paradises, begun in 1502 by the request of Sultan Bayazid II and covering the first eight Ottoman rulers.."
• Picturing History at the Ottoman Court, Emine Fetvacı, page 31, "Persian literature, and belles-lettres in particular, were part of the curriculum: a Persian dictionary, a manual on prose composition; and Sa'dis "Gulistan", on of the classics of Persian poetry, were borrowed. All these title would be appropriate in the religious and cultural eudcation of the newly converted young men.
• Persian Historiography: History of Persian Literature A, Volume 10, edited by Ehsan Yarshater, Charles Melville, page 437;"...Persian held a privileged place in Ottoman letters. Persian historical literature was first patronized during the reign of Mehmed II and continued unabated until the end of the 16th century.

I would say Persian was used for diplomacy, poetry, historiographical works, literary works and up to the late Ottoman period taught in state schools. It appears Persian was more than common throughout the Ottoman Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: it seems we agree on the facts and that is really important. The use of Persian lang was certainly common among literate people. But, given that literate rate was abysmal low in early Ottoman Empire, (per article: about 2–3% until the early 19th century and just about 15% at the end of the 19th century), it would seems that it the claim that Persian was "common" among Turks or the population of O.E is an overstatement. At least, no source claims that the use of persian was widespread among the vast majority. So it looks like a synthesis to me. Nevertheless, thanks for your input and your sources. Cheers. Cinadon36 12:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I adjusted the infobox per the given sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: certainly your edit is an improvement but the problem still exist as Persian is listed as common language, which was not. Cinadon36 10:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources demonstrate that it was more than commonly used within the Ottoman Empire. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that 's not my understanding. The sources demonstrate that it was used by the elite. No source presented in this discussion quantifies the use use of Persian language in Ottoman Empire.(not watching, please {{ping}})Cinadon36 11:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: What do you mean by "common"? Aryzad (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad: By common I understand that something is mainstream and it is relevant to an important portion of the population. There is no specific number to define when something is common or not, but I think that 3-4% is not what we have in mind when we using the word "common". Cinadon36 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: No, this is not how it works. In this situation, we cannot find a common language for the Ottoman Empire, and almost the rest of the empires. Probably, only Greek and Arabic can be called "common" in the Ottoman Empire. And then we also have to remove Ottoman Turkish too, because by this definition, it was even less "common" than Persian. We also have to remove Latin from the Roman Empire, Greek from the Seleucid Empire, Old Persian from the Achaemenid Empire and even English from the British Empire. It wasn't common in the British Raj and most of the British colonies after all. Aryzad (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad: Your examples are wrong because Latin and English were definitely commonly spoken in their respective empires. Large parts of the former Roman Empire still speak a language descended from Latin and most of the former British Empire still speaks English. If you want a proper comparison, Greek was the language preferred by elite Romans, not Latin.Swaggernagger (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Swaggernagger: You cited good points. However, I don't think English was common in non-white colonies (at least in India) during the British Empire. It was language of the elites and government. Aryzad (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits: French and Persian in the lead section

Did Ottomans use these two names Template:Lang-fr[1] and Template:Lang-fa, Imperātori e Osmāni in their official documents? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Both "Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿOsmānīye" and "Devlet-i Ebed-müddet" (and similar terms like Devlet-i Ebed-Payvand, Devlet-i Bi-zeval, etc) are actually Persian names of the empire. The Iranian states of the Ottoman era like the Safavids and Qajars used the same terms (Dovlat-i ʿAlīye-i Iran, for example). Another Persian name of the empire, which was used by the Ottomans themselves, was Mamalek Mahroseh ʿOsmānīye. (The Guarded Domains of Ottomans) This name was used by the Iranian states too. امپراتوری عثمانی is the modern name, and the title of the Persian article. Aryzad (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tbf the 'dowlat/dovlat' in Persian is from Arabic Dawla. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The term is Persian, the words are not really important. Alīye is an Arabic too. Those are loanwords and are no less "Persian" than Iranic words. Aryzad (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"امپراتوری عثمانی is the modern name, and the title of the Persian article.". Why the name of this empire in Persian (and Persian Wikipedia) should be mentioned in the lead? Did Ottomans used that name? Is that name mentioned in historical sources and Ottoman documents? Both French and Persian names should be removed from the lead if Ottomans never used them. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right about modern name. There is no need to citing that. However, the Ottomans used various names and this is not easy to pick one. "Velayat e Dar-al-Islam e Rum", the Islamic provinces of Rome, for example, was one of those. The most common historical term would be "mamâlek e mahrose ye osmanieh", the Guarded Domains of the Ottomans; it was used in both Ottoman Turkish and Persian, but the term is obviously a Persian term. The Islamic empires used it at least since the Seljuk era, to show their independence. Aryzad (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am a historian of the Ottoman Empire as well as a scholar of Ottoman Turkish. There are a number of problems with this article to the extent that they would taint the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information. My main references / sources of reliable information in suggesting these edits are the following two books

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu by İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı (there are several editions printed by Tarihi Türk Tarih Kurumu) - the author is one of the most renowned historians of Turkey in 20th century.

Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State by Cemal Kafadar (University of California Press, 1996) - the author is the foremost scholar of Turkish History in his generation and is a tenured professor in the History Department of Harvard University.

1) The word "Persian" on the 1st line as well as the word "French" & the following "Empire Ottoman" on the 2nd line should be removed. As mentioned previously, there is no need to include the French phrase for "Ottoman Empire" at the beginning, because French was never an official language of this empire. In fact, the only official language they ever recognized and used was Ottoman Turkish (as is referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia). It is equally redundant to include the word "Persian" for the same reason. Neither Persian nor Arabic was ever recognized as official languages in the empire. The phrase "Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿOsmānīye" might be the same in Persian, but then we would also have to include Arabic in the lead. After all, each of the three words of this phrase is of Arabic origin and they happen to be linked in a Persian construction, as is common in any Ottoman Turkish text.

2) Any sentence that defines the Ottoman Empire as "Persianised" or "Persianate" should be removed, because that is an oversimplification. Lines 5-6 read: "Although initially the dynasty was of Turkic origin, it was Persianised in terms of language, culture, literature and habits." The sentence is followed by links to four references, none of which actually makes this claim. This sentence implies that the Ottoman dynasty underwent a comprehensive cultural transformation, which included turning away from its Turkic origin and fully adapting Persian culture language, culture, literature, and habits. Simply speaking, this statement is highly controversial and factually incorrect. There is a huge difference between being influenced by Persian culture and being Persianised/Persianate. The references cited for this sentence show how influential Persian culture has been on the Ottoman state, yet one should realize that Ottoman Turkish remained the sole official language and court language in the empire. Persian was learned and studied by the educated class in the Pre-Tanzimat era; but there isn't any historical evidence to suggest that any significant portion of the Ottoman population spoke or read Persian.

3) For the same reason, the later sentence "Despite newer added amalgamations, the Ottoman dynasty, like their predecessors in the Sultanate of Rum and the Seljuk Empire, were thoroughly Persianised in their culture, language, habits and customs, and therefore the empire has been described as a Persianate empire." which simply reiterates the sentence above should also be removed. The Ottoman dynasty was very distinct from the Sultanate of Rum and the Seljuk Empire. Perhaps it wouldn't be as much of a problem to define the latter two as Persianate, but in the Ottoman Empire the Persian language and culture didn't enjoy the kind of status that these sentences claim.

4) The common languages part also needs some revision: The wikipedia page titled "Languages of the Ottoman Empire" could be a good resource in rearranging this column. Again, the role of Persian is over-emphasised. First of all, it is necessary to clarify that Ottoman Turkish was the official language. Arabic, on the other hand, was more than just a religious language. It was also spoken by a sizeable portion of the Ottoman population. Again, it would be misleading to list Persian as a court language (it simply was not); while it remains a fact that certain sultans commissioned authors/poets to write poetry and histories in Persian, much of Ottoman poetry was composed in Ottoman Turkish and likewise many more histories were written in Turkish. It would make more sense to put Greek and Armenian in this column than to waste so much space telling about each and every single use of Persian when the former two were actually spoken by a considerable portion of the Ottoman population throughout its life of six centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rum1992 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added two wikilinks above, along with an external link to the Google Books entry for a mentioned book as aids to navigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You cant say I am a scholar and remove the sourced content. This is WP:OR.

This, a RS, says Persian was the court language of the Empire. And this is how Wikipedia works. With the help of the reliable sources. Not original research. We cant remove "Persian was the court language" because you say it was not. Aryzad (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Ifly6 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." How this is not important? Aryzad (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Rome and Rum

@Khirurg: You can also read the Name section of the article, which clearly says Rumi means Roman: "In the early modern period, an educated, urban-dwelling Turkish-speaker who was not a member of the military-administrative class would often refer to himself neither as an Osmanlı nor as a Türk, but rather as a Rūmī (رومى‎), or "Roman", meaning an inhabitant of the territory of the former Byzantine Empire in the Balkans and Anatolia. The term Rūmī was also used to refer to Turkish-speakers by the other Muslim peoples of the empire and beyond." Aryzad (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: What you claim is like claiming that Russia is not actually Russia, it's Rossiya because Russian is not English! Arabic term روم ("Rum") refers the Roman Empire, and that's what the source says: "The Ottoman Empire is designated by all the rest of the East at this present time (late 19th century) as the Roman Empire." Aryzad (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Known as the Roman Empire

The first line of this article states that the Ottoman Empire was "historically known to its inhabitants and the Eastern world as the Roman Empire". Looking through the references for this claim, I don't see how they actually support it. It's part of the introduction, though, so I wanted to discuss it first before I remove it.

The first citation links to a page from an 1882 book that states "the very names of Greek and Greece disappeared from history, those of Rome and Roman took their place." This quote is incredibly short and stripped of all context but the small bit I can see doesn't even appear to be discussing the Ottoman Empire. Its accuracy is also questionable, coming from a 19th century publication by the Royal Society of Literature. What worries me most, however, is the rest of the Google Books page which shows "ottoman language rome name" as a search result. Unless there is some context to this reference that I'm not able to see, this leads me to believe the editor couldn't find a source for their claim and just added a random old book that showed up on Google.

While not as bad as the first, the second citation also seems to have been misinterpreted to fit the argument. It's been discussed in more detail before on [archived page] so I'll just give some short points here. The source merely states that Byzantine territories and certain region of the Ottoman Empire were called Rum. Nowhere does it say that the entirety of the empire was known as the Roman Empire. The author does show a quote from one of Timur's advisors who referred to the Ottomans as "the heirs of the Romans" but I see no reason why this 14th century source should extrapolate to the rest of Ottoman history.

This is also another big issue with the introductory sentence. Besides references to the Roman Empire covering less than a sixth of the empire's total history, the sources also don't give any indication that "its inhabitants and the Eastern world" referred to it as the Roman Empire. This sentence seems like synthesis and is also rather vague, as the Eastern world could be talking about a whole range of different countries.

In my opinion, the best solution would probably be to remove the sentence entirely but if it can be edited and sourced so it's factually accurate then that would be great as well. Swaggernagger (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Swaggernagger: The first source says: The very names of Greek and Greece disappeared from history; those of Rome and Roman took their place. Even Alexander is there always mentioned as "Alexander the Roman." The Ottoman Empire is designated by all the rest of the East at this present time as the Roman Empire; an Ottoman Turk is there called a Roman. This is a very good source for that claim. "inhabitants" is not mentioned in the source, but this is not totally untrue. Maybe Christians of the empire never recognized the Ottoman Empire as the successor of the Roman Empire, but they were considered by the Muslims of Empire and all of the Islamic world as the Romans. Even Modern Turkish is sometimes called "Roman Turkic" in Persian texts of 20th century.

I don't think the Empire being considered the successor state of the Roman Empire by the Ottomans themselves is a secret. Open WP article of a sultan and you see "Kaysar i Rum" (Caesar of Rome) in his titles. 1, 2, 3, some examples. Aryzad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of the other concerns I raised about that source, nor the other reference I talked about. It's still an out of context quote from a 19th century book that doesn't provide any citations for its claims, being misapplied to the whole of the Ottoman Empire's history.

As to your final point, the Ottoman leadership considering itself "Caesar of Rome" is not reason to state that its inhabitants and the Eastern World also called it that. There have been many empires in history that considered themselves successors to the Romans, but you'd be hard pressed to find its citizens and other nations calling it that.

I still stand by my point that these sources are being misapplied and the original statement either needs to be edited or removed in its entirety. Swaggernagger (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)