Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 5
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The article begins with this claim. I think this is a very serious error because it contradicts the very basic idea of an "empire", that they are NOT national. Otherwise they would be called like today's nation states such as France, Poland or Turkey, which refer to names of nations who founded them or are in majority of the population. Turks were only one the subjects of the empire and even maybe the most despised ones. Moreover, Ottoman governments, usually did not follow the interests of Turks, the majority of whom were at the bottom of the social hierarchy as peasants, but to the contrary exploited them, as can be seen from the greatest riots in Ottoman history like Jelali riots. Until the advent of nationalism to Eastern Europe, being a Turk was something nobody could confess to himself, and this word could even be used as an insult. Neverthless it is noteworthy to say that Turks did enjoy certain legal priveleges against Christian subjects of the empire, like other Moslem subjects, according to Islamic sharia rule.Ottoman Sultans, beginning from the days of "Beylik" (pre-state times of Ottomans,) until the fall of the empire, never married a single Turkish woman or gave birth from her. INVARIABLY, all the mothers of Sultans were non-Turks. For the majority of the history of the empire, and especially for the peak times between 1453 and 1689, the ruling of the empire was almost EXCLUSIVELY by non-Moslim and non-Turkish origin people, or in other words "devshirmeh"; children taken from their families in early age and brought up in "Ottoman-Islamic" way, not Turkish way. Those people (devshirmes), at the same time were at the heart of the army, by forming the "Janissarie" troops.So, what was it that made Ottomans "Turkish"? Or in other words, what is the source of this frequently made mistake? I think the answer to this question is that the Ottoman army and "state" spoke Turkish. Although one very heavily distorted with Persian and Arabic. And later when the empire collapsed, the Ottoman bureaucracy and army formed the core of the new nation state; "Turkey". So we make a backwards reasoning and make the conclusion that "Ottoman Empire" was Turkish. But the reality is not so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.123.120 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
The whole section about Ottoman Kosovo in the Kosovo article is highly insulting. It is completely and utterly bias and should be stricken from the article. 'Islamized Serb' says it all. It was obviously written by an Ottomanphobic writer who like many Eurocentric historians views the Ottoman Empire as one big black spot on European history, if acknowledged at all. This is such an anachronism!!! The Ottoman Serb citizens where an integral part of the cosmopolitan empire and contributed instrumentally to it's rise. They were part of the ruling elite and gene pool of the Osmanli dynasty. The devishirme was not 'blood money' and many Balkan Christian parents welcomed the opportunity it provided for career advancement. If the Serbs et al were so oppressed wouldn't they all be Muslim and no church or monastery left standing in Kosovo or Serbia for that matter. The hateful and vengeful bias against the Ottomans must end, afterall who were the Ottomans- Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Circassians, Tatars, Cossacks, Poles, Romanians, Albanians, Jews, Persians and finally, and not most importantly Turks. Please read Osman's Dream for a measured and timely history of the Ottoman Empire by Caroline Finkel.Vrooman 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry Deliogul if I made a mistake but, I have the following in my list: Mehmet I's mother Bulgarian Olga, Murat II's mother Veronika, Selim I's mother a Pontus Christian woman carrying the nickname Ayshe, etc. The confusion maybe because of giving Moslem names to Christian women after they are accepted into the Harem. The first two guys' (Osman and Orhan) mothers maybe Turkish in origin, but I didn't take that into account, since that is quite normal and expected. And even if I was wrong with mothers names, as you say "Ottoman identity was obviously not Turkish", so the beginning sentence of "Ottoman Empire, a Turkish state" is a very serious error and should be corrected. I hope you will agree on this.
Ok, thanks and see you )
That's your personal opinion Deliogul. To quote Quataert: "...the Ottoman family was ethnically Turkish in its origins, as were some of its supporters and subjects. But ... the dynasty immediately lost this "Turkish" ethnic identification through intermarriage with many different ethnicities. As for a "Turkish empire", state power relied on a similarly heterogeneous mix of peoples. The Ottoman empire succeeded because it incorporated the energies of the vastly varied peoples it encountered, quickly transcending its roots in the Turkish nomadic migrations from Central Asia into the Middle East."I think this answers it. The amount of Turkic ancestry that the Ottoman citizens possessed is irrelevant here. It's true that neither the dynasty nor the majority of the "Ottoman citizenry" (muslim population) were ethnically Turkish, simply because this ethnicity didn't exist at the time. In many languages of the Ottoman Empire "Turk" simpy meant only "Muslim". And out of all the Ottoman citizens, only a part was actually Turkish-speaking. Of course it's important that the administration of the Empire was done in the Turkish language, and that all the peoples who became Muslim and Turkish-speaking were called 'Turks', but this is not what a "Turkish state" implies. "Turkish state" implies a nationalism that was unknown to a religious empire, and to define an Islamic empire by a modern ethnicity is very unscientific. Therefore it's anachronistic to label the Ottoman Empire as such. This doesn't mean however that the modern Turkish nation isn't the main heritor of the Empire in both ancestry and culture. It's only a matter of precision and neutrality. In late antiquity "Roman" was used for "Christian", in the same way that "Turkish" was used for "Muslim" in the Ottoman Empire. I think the best formula is the one used in the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire articles. The states are defined by the now "ethnic-less" Roman, but in the very opening paragraph it is mentioned that they were known as the "German Empire" and the "Greek Empire" respectively. So it would be much more correct and satisfactory to change the opening into something along those lines: "The Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state (or Empire) etc... It was known to its Western contemporaries mainly as the 'Turkish Empire'...". Miskin 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand but those views don't sound too credible. Mehmet adopted some aspects of the Byzantine government and gave privileges to the Greek Church and population. Yet the Empire did make its own innovations on its system of government, it didn't just copy its predecessors. The Greeks were given local power on their respective millets but didn't participate in the decision-making of the Muslim government. By Roman/Byzantine "motive" you must be referring to the concept of creating an ancient/medieval-style religious empire which aimed to include all nations in the world? If you want to make such a section should find the source first, otherwise it might come out as OR. Miskin 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer whine. :) Miskin 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since everyone agrees that Ottoman Empire was not categorically "Turkish" I propose to change this word with a geographical definiton suc as: "...Mediterrenean, Middle Eastern, Southeast European ..." ohh I don't know what to say! Please help!
Yes, a seperate section should be created for that. I see that we cannot put any more geographical words in the beginning sentence, there are already many. And since we cannot define the empire, then we must change the structure of the sentence.
How is: ....was a state comprised of several "millets" which are religious and national groups autonomous in their internal affairs....
So, how do we change the sentence? "Agrarian based medieval state"? Even though they lived up to the 20th century, their medieval character never changed. Once they tried to change, they disappeared.
To me, it seems they would survive if they could change, but apparently they couldn't. Anyway that is another discussion. There are obviously not enough people around here to tell about their opinions unfortunately. I am personally only occupied with removing the word "Turkish" from the paragraph. I don't think we need to put a description instead of that. It can just remain blank, but the sentence order does not allow that. Let people understand what Ottomans were like, by reading the article, not just by reading the first paragraph. That is not too much to ask from them, I guess. Maybe this will also open another discussion, but the phrase "unification of cultures" is also wrong. Ottomans considered themselves so great that they did not care about any culture, they were superior to anything, and they just applied what was convenient for them. "Islam" was also for convenience. Of course in time, without their noticing, Islam gradually seized over them, and they themselves became a "convenience" for Islam. Finally, Ottomans' function in history was only one of filling the "gap" in time. So I wouldn't mind if you changed the whole paragraph.
I think the expression "agrarian land-based empire" or "agrarian land based empire also known as Turkish empire to its contemporaries" instead of the expression "turkish state" would do; as free smyrnan has proposed. There is no need to change the remaining stuff as they are actual, except the last expression; "unification of cultures" which is far too assertive remembering that the Ottomans never pursued such goals.
I have a couple of problems with the article, first of all, the beginning sentence of it states that Ottoman Empire was a turkish state but probably as we all know, nationalism meant nothing to Ottomans until late 19th and early 20th centuries. Turkishness was not something that they identified themselves with and in fact most of the Vezirs, governing elite of the Empire, in terms of their ethnic backgroud, were not Turks, but christian devshirmes. I think instead of saying it was a Turkish state we can stress that it was built by a small Turkish tribe..And then add to it what Smyrnan proposed that it was known as the "Turkish empire to its contemporaries". It would be more like a encyclopedic content, rather than having a revisionist, nationalistic history telling..--laertes d 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that the expression "turkish state" is wrong, but no-one can change it for some reason
The boundaries given on the "Ottoman Empire (1595)" map are in conflict with the map at the beginning of the section and are highly suspect. I think it needs to be replaced. 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Revolver66
I believe that since the map says clearly "acquisitions", it is impossible to include territories like the Crimea inside the borders. These were not acquisitions, and I think the current map is misguiding. I am very aware Turks will not like this, but I'm sure this is much more accurate than the original map. I did not add it on the page because.... I want to hear what others think first because I'm afraid it might be "mercilessly edited". ;)
It's just my first try. Don't get angry on me. After all, this was my attempt at doing what the to-do list said that needs to be done. Just my try. Sorry if it offended you or anything. Mirc mirc 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire is Turkey. Other countries only shared the debts of the collapsed empire. Also, for example, Egypt was lost tens of years before the actual collapse of the Ottoman State so how come they are one of the successors? Deliogul 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: If you are counting the religious rights of the Ottoman Sultan as the Caliph of the people of Egypt, that's only de jure not de facto. Also, I'm waiting your comments too ;) Deliogul 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Note 2: An unsigned guy deleted the successor states part. Now what are we going to do? We can just forget about that part or we can discuss this issue on an academic basis. Actually, I support this deletion but we need the consensus of Wikipedians. Deliogul 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please, why did you remove the section for dissolution? OttomanReference 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You also removed the "golden age" section, too. --OttomanReference 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you also clearly state what was the problem. Your edit summary claims there is a problem without being explicit. Thanks --OttomanReference 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:Slac Says: "slightly coloured language" "Golden age" is a terminology which was used for the period by respected historians (more than once). It is not false, not misinformation, ... It is factual. Introduction for 700 years of worlds' (historically) powerful entity can not be covered in 300 words. Your kind of objectivity is impossible. What you try to say "objective" without letting out some other important facts for some other people is impossible. Also what is "superfluous" (the Suleiman the Magnificent) for you is the biggest achievement of this empire. Introduction section of an empire should cover (a) territory (b) military achievement (c) cultural achievement (d) how it is dissolved. I found your comments really not constructive. Just because you are the one demanding objectifying, your total rewrite does not have continuity and sincerely does not hold integrity. see your version. The current version covers the perspectives of (a) territory (b) military achievement (c) cultural achievement (d) how it is dissolved. As I said before; if there is a way (through communication) instead of trashing the available (which people worked-on) introduction section, I would like to get your critique and add your position. However, the given response is very non-cooperative and it does not present any position that can be negotiated or clearly integrated. If you help me out by giving concrete positions that can be negotiated; I would like to have your POV be integrated. But you really need to grasp the fact that changing one view (what you give as an example Johann Sebastian Bach to Rene Descartes) could make it more relevant to you but that does not mean that it is relevant to rest of the world. In any how, if you tell us what is "essential for an understanding of the topic" for you, this community would try to integrate you view. But total rewrite, which you demand, based on your POV is POV. Besides for a person who criticize the language being too colorful, you are using excessive colorful language. Thanks.--OttomanReference 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Treaty of Hünkar Iskelesi was the agreement. It exists in tr.wikipedia
The Ottoman Empire was commonly also called "Turkey", including in peace treaties and conferences.
The name Turkey originates from the Medieval Latin Turchia, and has been used in English to describe the Ottoman Empire since 1369. Turchia still means Turkey in Italian.
Here are a few examples:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Abd-ul-Mejid
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058482/Treaty-of-Paris
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9078798/Congress-of-Berlin
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg
Therefore, please don't delete this information with prejudice.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You are developing a wrong conclusion. Turkey is the name of the "land" that the Ottoman Empire occupied; along the other terminologies. ps: Turchia means the land of Turks.. If you want to work with maps; there is also a word "Armenia" in those maps. That does not make it a state. Such as an Armenian state inside the Ottoman Empire. --OttomanReference 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg
Actually the name "Turkey" is written as a "state name" on the geographic region of Macedonia in this map.
Flavius Belisarius 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It may or may not have been "correct" to call the Ottoman Empire "Turkey" or the "Turkish Empire", but it was common practice in the past and we should report on it. Modern historians, of course, do not use that terminology; I have corrected many articles which said "the Turks conquered..." etc. to "the Ottoman Empire conquered". --Macrakis 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I think we all need to objectively look at this and realize that we need to avoid confusing the difference between the Ottoman Empire, and the modern country called Turkey. While both states control some of the same territory, they do not control the same extent of territory, and do not consist of the same demographics. Now, while the territory and demographics of the Ottoman Empire were constantly in flux, there is a clear delineation between these two different countries; legally, demographically, and administratevly. This is not the same as a change in regime (i.e. Iran under the Shah vs. Iran under the Ayatollahs), but definitively constitutes the end of one country, and the rise from its constituent pieces of many new countries. A modern comparison would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union, wherein the territory and system of government were dissolved, and from that rose new borders, multiple states, and a variety of new governments. While the modern state of Turkey clearly inheritted and recognized much of the legal agreements bound to the Ottoman state, these are still two radically different countries. Yes, the Turks reside in both, and are identified by both, but the states are not the same, and should not be so hastily tied together. I think it is important that this article be clear enough to convey to someone entirely ignorant of history that the Ottoman Empire is not Turkey, even though it was sometimes referred to as such. If the article is going to lead off with such an assertion, then said language must clearly differentiate that this is not a reference to the modern state of Turkey, and that we are speaking of two unique entities, both of which happened to contain varied percentages of residents who identified themselves as Turks. Hiberniantears 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Flavius Belisarius says: "Turkish dominated administrative institutions, ruling class of the empire" this statement is wrong. Administration originate from devshirme (Christians) and ruling class (Ottoman Dynasty) has been (look at girls in the harem) is not even Turkic background except initial period. --OttomanReference 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Want some more? :)
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just trying to reduce the article size a little, and move text to links already in the article. Your edit here [1] is a fine compromise. Hiberniantears 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
^ Actually that was what I wrote in the first place :)
Cheers Flavius Belisarius 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The name "Turkey" was more popularly used than the name "Ottoman Empire" until 1923. After the establishment of the "Republic of Turkey" in 1923, it became a necessity to solely use the name "Ottoman Empire" in order to differentiate it from present-day Turkey. A bit like the name "Byzantine Empire" which is used more widely today in order to differentiate it from the Roman Empire, despite the fact that the Byzantine Empire was actually called the "Roman Empire" by its own people, or "Rum" by the Muslims. Of course, unlike the name "Byzantine Empire" which was coined by a German historian centuries after the collapse of the so-called Byzantine (East Roman) Empire, the name "Ottoman Empire" was also used during the Ottoman period; but the name "Turkey" was more popularly used in the English-language texts, treaties and maps. Until the establishment of the "Republic of Turkey" in 1923 made the use of the name "Ottoman Empire" a necessity. Flavius Belisarius 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg
The name "Turkey" is written on the geographic region of Macedonia, clearly as a "state name". In the info table of the map, it says "Turkey's present boundaries", "Turkey's present possessions in Europe", etc. In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, it says "Sultan of Turkey" for Abdülmecid.
Either you are too stubborn not to understand it, or you can't understand what you read. In any case, I know that you dislike present-day Turkey and would wish to identify yourself with the "Ottoman" identity, but "facts" are more important than your personal emotions.
As for the Istanbul article, I believe I did a very good job there. The amount of knowledge that's been put in that article and the grammatical flawlessness of the overall editing is well beyond your capacity and skills, which have disgraced the Atatürk article.
I suggest you to put aside your personal complexes towards me and try to improve your own apparent (and appalling) flaws in terms of poor writing/grammar skills and lack of knowledge. Flavius Belisarius 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the Republic of Turkey, it's still the largest regional economic, industrial and military power among all of its neighbours. Essentially a success story, given the point from where it started. And Türkiye İş Bankası is the largest private bank in the entire region, for the record. Turkish industrial conglomerates like Koç and Sabancı are also the largest of their kind in the entire area. Flavius Belisarius 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree Flavius Belisarius 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The version of this article asserts that the Ottoman Empire was a successor to the Greco-Roman world, which is a naive form of nationalism that could only come from Turkey. Westerners have never agreed with this POV, so please don't push your WP:BIAS and just respect WP:NPOV. Geographically, the Ottomans roughly succeeded the Persians. Turkey is NOT European, but part of that Middle-Eastern/Islamic world. You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask anybody else who is not Turkish (or fascinated with Orientalism) and they will not say to you that Turkey is more European than Persian. Exactly what attitude did the Ottomans have that was Greek or Roman, in their dealings with Europe? The Ottomans pursued the same policies with respect to Europe that the Persians did. Don't advance historical revisionism to make Turkey seem "glorious". That is precisely against Wikipedia policy. 68.110.8.21 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Many ottoman sultans among other things represent themselves as the new "Roman Emperors" and used Ceaser as one of their titles ..It may sounds strange but Many westerners at the height of the Ottoman's power identified Turks with Romans:
"If we were to carefully investigate their origins and closely examine their internal and external affairs, we may say that the military discipline, obedience and good fortune of the Romans has fallen to this race."
Francesco Sansavino, Dell'Historia Universale dell'Origine et Imperio de Turchi, 1560. i took the translation from somewhere else, i think we can add such things in the article as well..--laertes d 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Kayser-i Rum" was the title used. Especially by Mehmed the Conqueror who saw himself as the Keeper of Greco-Roman heritage at that time.
I don't like the arrogant responses. When the Eastern Roman Empire fell, the Western (Holy) Roman Empire became the only Rome. The double-headed eagle was used to acknowledge this fact, although Russia rightly claimed inheritance from the East. Nowhere was the Ottoman Empire invited to judge on the matter, having destroyed the East. It is not logical for Rome to destroy Rome, or continue to exist afterwards! So it also is not with this article and your activism to make Turkish topics seem better than they are. Seriously, I think it is rather more a case of you Turks trying to feel better about what you did to Europe. So, you "nativise" youselves with glamourous propaganda and become immune to criticism of all the destruction that came from Turkish invasion (not so different from Hun and Mongol). Explain the hostility the Ottoman Empire had for European (e.g. Roman) institutions until its collapse in World War One. Obviously, there was no lost love between Turkey and Europe. I mentioned Persia as the only viable alternative. Turkey's historical pattern of engagement in European affairs, was a rough parallel with Persia's. I am not going to accept your POV, anymore than I will tolerate denial of the Armenian Genocide. You don't admit it happened, so why should anybody believe you? It's preposterous. Usurping pretenders have no say either. Fake Romans. You would not have invaded Cyprus or persecuted the Kurds if you were Roman, because Europeans don't do those things. You are not becoming part of the European Union. Enough is enough. 68.110.8.21 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I am upset because my intelligence has been insulted and because you're presenting it as incontrovertible FACT. (See the rules about balanced point of view in articles) Nobody in those times viewed Turkey as a legitimate successor to Rome or Greece. The main reasons being, that the Catholic Holy Roman Empire and Orthodox Russia existed to pursue their "rightful inheritance" to the imperial claim. No former province or country of the Eastern Roman Empire, willingly submitted to Turkish rule. I tried to explain in the last reply, that presenting Turkey as Rome is extremely insulting and heartless to the memories of those valiant fallen warriors in defense of Constantinople. All the Crusades in the world could not stop Turkey from destroying the Greek half of Rome. Just because the Ottoman dynasty created propaganda (oh, don't worry--we are a true Roman sucession) to assuage their critics, doesn't mean anybody has to believe it. The language of Turkey is not Romance or Greek; I "wonder" why. While it is Wikipedia's intention to stay neutral, the Turks were clearly foreign and in the wrong with regards to how they treated what was left of Rome. Sorry, but there are aggressors and victims in the world. Turkey did not bring Rome to Rome, but Turkey did bring Silk Road and Eurasian Steppe culture to the Mediterranean world. It is evident in the current capital of Turkey (Angora), that Turkey was pressured by Westerners to abandon the frivolous and aggravating status of Constantinople as their capital. This is against your claims of widespread acceptance. But whereas the Germans and Russians could succeed Rome and Greece, there was no contest over succession to Persia. Nobody but local Persians themselves contested Turkey's rule, so be happy that Turkey at least had that. 68.110.8.21 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
lol, i think you should have named the section youre creating greconationalistpov..
"Europeans don't do those things"
Sure for instance they absolutely dont do such things as genociding american indians, australian aborgiones, African people and often killing off natives in anywhere they set their foot..Not to mention pagan holocoust committed by christians in the Roman days..The discussion forum is supposed to be a serious place, you just go watch 300..--laertes d 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is longer than 110K. The sections should be brought to Wikipedia:Summary style. Is there anyone who want to tackle with this issue? --Anglepush 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This flag was never used as the official Ottoman "national flag", but as the flag of the Ottoman Navy between 1793 and 1844.
The first truly "official national flag" of the Ottoman Empire is the one of 1844, introduced with the Tanzimat reforms, which is practically identical to the present-day flag of Turkey.
Perhaps it's more romantic to put a flag up there that's slightly different than the flag of Turkey (the prototype of the Turkish flag) but it's simply not true that it was the Ottoman "national flag". Hence, it's factually wrong and misleading.
The Republic of Turkey didn't change the last Ottoman flag of 1844, but only introduced a law to standardize its geometric proportions in 1936.
Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1920 (Ottoman period):
http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/kararkoy02.jpg
http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/tepebasi.jpg
Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1927 (Turkish Republic period):
http://www.azizistanbul.com/eskifoto05/bahcekapieminonu1927.jpg
http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Portals/Istanbul/eskiimg/esk02.jpg
Flavius Belisarius 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Even that flag was not an official "national flag" - it was the "battle standard" used at the battlefields.
The naval version was blue (a bit greenish blue, i.e. turquoise) used during the naval battles.
The Ottoman Empire didn't have an official "national flag" until 1844. Which is the current Turkish flag.
Until then, every institution in the empire had its own flag. Flavius Belisarius 12:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Flavius Belisarius. I see you have reverted my edits to the article Ottoman Empire, regarding the statement about "temporary acquisitions like those of Lanzarote (1585), Madeira (1617), Vestmannaeyjar (1627) and Lundy (1655)", saying that "in 1585 Lanzarote was taken, including its governor who was later ransomed. Lundy remained under Ottoman control for 5 years between 1655 and 1660. Vestmannaeyjar was held for only 26 days though.)" Ok. And what about Madeira? I have never heard of such temporary acquisition (of course that can be my ignorance...)! Could you tell me some more on the story? And source it? Meanwhile, and given your rationale for the revert, I believe it would be better in the artcile to call it temporary occupations. I'm doimg so. And also tagging Madeira for a source. Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you! The Ogre 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)