Talk:Osman I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

I would question the POV of this article, so unctuous in its praise of Osman, that it borders on nationalistic propaganda.

I would agree. Examples thereof:

he had already both proven his skill as a leader, and his prowess as a combatant

He dressed simply, in the tradition of the first warriors of Islam, and like them he wore a turban of ample white linen, wreathed round a red centre. His loose flowing kaftan was of one colour, and had long open sleeves.

a bloodly [sic] lesson to all who should harbour thoughts of contradiction to the fixed will of so stern a lord

I think, however, that this is most likely a result of the page being essentially a copyright violation: it puts a reference at the bottom of the page, but doesn't show exactly where that reference is being cited (probably because the majority of the page is clearly copied from that book); hence, it violates copyright. —Saposcat 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two examples are not necessarily POV, the third one is not clear as a sentence therefore, also not clear whether a POV or not. --TimBits 18:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted, they're not necessarily POV; given the context of all of the statements, however, I would definitely argue that they are actually POV.

Anyhow, insofar as they're almost certainly taken from another book (specifically, von Hammer's) without proper referencing, the copyright problem is probably the bigger one at this point. —Saposcat 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably one of the worst wiki's I've seen as of yet. Full of nationalistic stuff, however that was to be espected from nationalist Turkish people. Anyone try to fix this?

I know that the article is rubbish but I don't have time to fix it (actually rewrite!!). Deliogul 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul you had the time to write all these comments, especially 'your ideas', so i think you should have enough time to rewrite the article. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My İdeas

• Yes, Osman Ghazi prefered a simple life but not because of Islam. He lived according to old Turkish nomadic traditions. Actually, his name wasn't Osman. It was Atakan or Utman(common Turkish names of Osman I.'s time). After two or three centuries, Ottoman historians changed his name to Osman because it is an important religious name(look at Caliphate, Hz. Osman - Uthman ibn Affan). Deliogul 11:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also, we have to accept that we don't have clear data left from the time of Osman Ghazi. Today, we know him as a legendary leader both because of his achievements and the legends surrounded all around his personality. Osman Ghazi represents simplicity, bravery and leadership. With respect, Deliogul 10:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I want to say some new things today. First of all, we have to delete much of the data about his abilities as a warrior and his beauty as a man since they are not that much releated to the Wikipedia's academic point of view. Osman Ghazi was a legendary leader but we can try to find the limits of legends. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• I propose that we do a direct translation from the Turkish version. The Engish version as of now has nothing to do with it and it is full of subjective information. The Turkish version is well documented and includes more facts than legends. I consider the "hands touching the knees" part not as a praise and rather derrogative. --Devran77 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti Turkish Infiltrations

"...Not all of Osman’s counselors agreed with Osman's path of conquest. Osman silenced all remonstrance and quelled all risk of dissension and mutiny by an act of prompt ferocity, which shows that the great ancestor of the Ottoman Sultans had a full share of the ruthless cruelty that has been the dark characteristic of the Turkish Royal House..." Who put these two sentence to the article? What is dark characteristic of the Turkish Royal House? It seems like a copy paste text from a racist anti-Turkish author. I suggest this text to be removed. --Ogulsev 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is rubbish. Deliogul 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a member a Seljuk hause

He was Sultan of Iconium from 1299 to 1317 and then Sultan of Rûm or Anatolia from 1317 to 1326.

The above sentence was from the article and I deleted it. Simply because it was wrong. Osman I had never been a member Seljuk dynasty. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1324, not 1326!

Osman I died in 1324. (I also changed the Turkish Wikipedia/Vikipedi) Böri (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New creation

The InfoBox clearly concerns this guy as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, NOT him as a tribal leader of Kayi Turks. Since he founded the Ottoman Empire and was thereby the 1ST Sultan, the "Predecessor" Field in the InfoBox should be changed to read "New creation" instead of showing the 2nd-to-last tribal leader (Osman being the final of those before becoming Sultan) before the Empire was founded. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.188.103 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

World power for over six centuries

That is wrong, from 1300 to 1900 I think this mean but Ottoman empire stopped being a world power already in the 18 th century, from 13?? to 17?? sounds more OK, thats about four centuries. I change "world power" to "empire". Awakened82 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother's name

What was the name of his mother. According to the article it was Khaima. But according to most other sources, Khaima was not his mother. Khaima was his grandmother. According to Ottoman studies [2] his mother's name was Halime Sultan. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Halime Hatun is mother of Osman Gerald Idrizi (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Persian

Persian: عثمان بن أرطغرل, is modern Persian ? The Persian language is innebitalbe for the Seljuq era. And for the early Ottoman era, it's important. But I cannot find عثمان بن أرطغرل in old books (in google books). If it were an alternative modern Persian, let's remove it because Wikipedia is not a dictionaly. Takabeg (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

His name in Persian is not relevant to this article at all. Does his name occur in any historical Persian source? There is no need to write what his name means in Persian as he has no relationship to Persian history or culture, so it is totally unrelated. Or we can add here what his name is different languages, for example Japanese or Arabic, but if I would add a Turkic language you would delete it ofcourse instantly, shall I write in Shah Abbas article what his name is in Azerbaijani, ofcourse you would delete it or other users. But Shah Abbas spoke Azerbaijani as his motherlanguage and was related to Azerbaijani culture, But Osman I has no relationship to persia at all but still you add Persian to unrelated Turkic articles and delete the word Turk from Turkic related articles.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And besides this is عثمان بن أرطغرل in Arabic/ bin بن means (son of) in Arabic. Translated it says: Osman ( عثمان) son of( بن) Ertuğrul (أرطغرل) . It is 2 names with a Arabic word between them. This is not Persian.

Formerly in this article his alternative names discribed as Ottoman Turkish, Persian: عثمان بن أرطغرل,

It means both in Ottoman & Persian his names was عثمان بن أرطغرل

So I put {{Citation needed|date=June 2011}}. This way is more reasonable. Please stop blind revert. Takabeg (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I already explained above, I didnt blindly revert, did you read my explanation?

1 The name is not Persian but Arabic

2 In no other Ottoman Ruler, the Persian name is written.( I do not encourage you to do it)

3 Persian has no relationship to this Ottoman Sultan or the rest of the Ottoman sultans. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Because Ottomans and Persians also used "X bin Y" style. We can wait sombody who would find sources .Please stop blind revert. Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Statement

"Because the one without fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Are you sure this is what he said? It makes no sense from an Islamic point of view. It should say:

"Because the one with fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Last Statement

"Because the one without fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created."

Are you sure this is what he said? It makes no sense from an Islamic point of view. It should say:

"Because the one with fear of God the Creator, has no fear of the created." 96.55.183.132 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, so I changed it.--Ministar Nesigurnosti (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wife: Mal Hatun is the same as Bala Hatun

The text says: "He married Malhun Hatun in 1280, daughter of Ömer Bey. He also additionally married Bala Hatun in 1289, daughter of Sheikh Edebali.", as visible on Malhun Hatun both names apply to the same person. - I would have changed it, but could not decide on date. (Tomtom 67 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)).

What's in a name!

Re: Ottoman historians often dwell on the prophetic significance of his name, which means "bone-breaker", signifying the powerful energy with which he and his followers appeared to show in the following centuries of conquest. The name Osman is the Turkish variation of the name Othman, or Uthman, of Arabic origin.

The name in Arabic which means "bone breaker" is Hashim, not Othman. The latter means a "baby snake" or a "baby houbara"! العُثْمانُ  : فَرْخُ الثُّعْبَانِ

العُثْمانُ  : فَرْخُ الحُبَارَى  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.22.5 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) 

Awful citations

Random websites, books published half a century ago... even a New York Times article published in 1876! This page has awful citations, and seriously needs to be checked against actual modern academic works. Chamboz (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Osman's Dream

User:Gündoğdu Please do not erase reliable citations in order to push your version of the story. Whatever the details of the rest of Osman's life, it's blatantly obvious that 'Osman's Dream' was mythological and not factual. You'll have a hard time finding any but the most deeply nationalistic historians who claim otherwise. It is extremely misleading to readers to present the events of the dream as if they were fact, and it's intellectually dishonest to erase citations from reliable modern scholars who disagree with that presentation. Chamboz (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gündoğdu Now you have kept the previous sources, but utterly changed the text which they are attached to, which is even worse than simply erasing them because it misleads the readers into thinking the citations support statements which they do not support. Please refrain from such activity. I have reinserted the text which the citations support, but another issue is that you've now inserted another version of the dream story parallel to the one already there. This is not useful for the readers. Is there a reason why the quotation from Finkel is inadequate on its own?Chamboz (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gündoğdu is disrupting the segment on Osman's dream, erasing academic sources which claim that it is a later creation and replacing them with citations of unreliable websites and even what appears to be a Turkish children's book. His edits portray the mythical story as if it were historical. I have reverted this. Chamboz (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Date of Osman's Accession

User:Gündoğdu reverted my removal of the specific date of Osman's accession to rule. None of the cited sources actually gave a specific date. In fact there is no known date, and it only misleads readers to present it as otherwise. We have no reliable dates about Osman's life before the 1301/2 Battle of Bapheus.

"We know nothing with certainty until the Battle of Bapheus, Osman's triumphant confrontation with a Byzantine force in 1301 (or 1302), which is the first datable incident in his life." - Kafadar, Cemal (1995). Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, p. 129.

"We first hear of the Ottomans around 1300 when, so a contemporary Byzantine historian tells us, there occurred in 1301 the first military encounter between a Byzantine force and troops led by a man called Osman." - Finkel, Caroline (2005). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923, p. 5.

Historians such as Colin Imber (The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power) and Halil İnalcık (The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600) give no date for Osman's accession, not even the year 1299. This is because even the year 1299 is merely legendary. To quote Caroline Finkel, "But why should the year 1299 CE be considered the founding date of the empire? - there were no battles, no declarations of independence or storming of a bastille. The simplest explanations are often the most convincing: that year corresponds to the years 699-700 in the Islamic calendar." (p.2)
Chamboz (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Osman's Birth Date

User:Gündoğdu erased a citation of the academic publication Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire in order to replace it with the citation of a website. There's no justification for this. I've reverted the change. I encourage him to discuss it here if there's some reason why the encyclopedia is inadequate and a random website is better. Chamboz (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Kayı

@User:Gündoğdu: You've repeatedly demonstrated your ability to spam less than reliable sources in order to push your POV on other pages, so here let's take a look at three of the four sources you've added - the fourth I can't comment on:

• Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı, (1994 8. Baskı:2003), Osmanlı Tarihi I. Cilt: Anadolu Selçukluları ve Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında bir Mukaddime ile Osmanlı Devleti'nin Kuruluşundan İstanbul'un Fethine Kadar, Ankara:Türk Tarih Kurumu

İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı died in 1977. Despite the seemingly recent publication date of this work, he's been dead for 40 years and his works are seriously outdated.

• İnalcık, Halil, 2010, sf. 1-2

This is not a complete citation. I have no idea where you got it from, but I have to assume you've copied it from some place - the Turkish page for Ertuğrul? The same citation appears there.

• İbn-i Kemal (Kemalpaşazade) (haz. Şerafettin Turan) (1992) Tevarih-i Al-i Osman I, II ve VII Defterler, Ankara :Türk Tarih Kurumu

This is a citation of a 15th-century primary source.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many citations you throw at the page to say that "The Ottomans were from the Kayı tribe" because the facts are the same. The only evidence for the Ottomans being descended from the Kayı comes from Ottoman works written more than a century later, which most historians recognize as being filled with legendary stories invented later by the Ottomans to shore up their legitimacy. Maybe it was true, maybe not. The key issue is that Turkish historians, working from the nationalist tradition begun by Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, are more likely to accept those Ottoman traditions as true because it gives Osman a clear lineage linking him back to the Oghuz Turks, and lets them write that his early supporters were mainly Turks from that tribe. Western historians, working outside of the nationalist tradition, are much more skeptical about Osman's origins.

Kafadar, Cemal (1995). Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. p. 122.

"That they hailed from the Kayı branch of the Oğuz confederacy seems to be a creative "rediscovery" in the genealogical concoction of the fifteenth century. It is missing not only in Ahmedi but also, and more importantly, in the Yahşi Fakih-Aşıkpaşazade narrative, which gives its own version of an elaborate genealogical family tree going back to Noah. If there was a particularly significant claim to Kayı lineage, it is hard to imagine that Yahşi Fakih would not have heard of it."

Lowry, Heath (2003). The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. SUNY Press. p. 78.

"Based on these charters, all of which were drawn up between 1324 and 1360 (almost one hundred fifty years prior to the emergence of the Ottoman dynastic myth identifying them as members of the Kayı branch of the Oguz federation of Turkish tribes), we may posit that..."

Lindner, Rudi Paul (1983). Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Indiana University Press. p. 10.

"In fact, no matter how one were to try, the sources simply do not allow the recovery of a family tree linking the antecedents of Osman to the Kayı of the Oğuz tribe."

Let's see what other people think, since neither of us are ever going to change our minds about this. Chamboz (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You put a very large claims. Are you claiming they were not Oghuz Turk. The Ottomans were cultured people nomadic. All historians agree on this issue. Ertuğrul is not a fictional character. We already know who the father is ertuğrul. Suleyman Shah. Suleyman Shah is not fictional character. The tomb of the father of Ertuğrul today are in Syria.Tomb of Suleyman Shah. This is only reveal even all reality. You claim that their not oghuz but you can not say who they are. A claim can not be this way. You are come up with very misleading claims. You need to make clear and detailed explanations.--Gündoğdu (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Direct quotes from three of the most renowned and highly cited scholars of early Ottoman history does not constitute a weak claim. And half the claims you're accusing me of making are claims which I never made. All I'm saying is that we cannot accept the Kayı lineage as definitely true.

And User:Gündoğdu, the fact that you erased your incomplete citation rather than completing it shows clearly that you don't actually have access to that source and haven't read it yourself. I wonder if that's true of your other sources as well. Chamboz (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I did some sources quote but these sources are reliable and relevant information about this topic. If you are uncomfortable about it, I find clean sources. There are numerous resources about this topic. Almost all of the resources(minimum %95). The ottomans kayı tribe, you will see that it was said and agreed. If you claim they are not kayı tribe but you have no idea who they are. There are you many claims are incomplete. You have to put forward more detailed arguments for a debate to be understood.--Gündoğdu (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think you ottomans initially deny that they are nomadic. Clear and evident that the they are nomads. Another nomadic community in Turkic tribes not has been taking place in Anatolia size. This alone even sufficient to explain the situation.--Gündoğdu (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I know you can find lots of Turkish sources saying the Ottomans were Kayı, because it's part of the nationalist mythos and so it gets repeated a lot. But as I've said, the claim to Kayı lineage is not taken nearly as seriously among non-Turkish historians, and the above three I've quoted (who are among the foremost experts, their work is the foundation of the modern understanding of the early Ottomans) explicitly believe it's a myth.

As with so many aspects of early Ottoman history, we just don't know the truth. You ask who Osman was if not Kayı - the answer is we don't know. But nationalist historians have a hard time accepting this because they want the founder of their empire to have clear origins. Chamboz (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ertuğrul - Suleyman Shah You can not deny the reality of these people, but you're not known who they are?? This is very misleading. Kayı tribe migrated to present-day Söğüt and entered into relations with Anatolian seljuks. I do not think you can deny the kayı tribe relationship between the anatolian seljuks.--Gündoğdu (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Gündoğdu, User:Chamboz: This article has a lot of sources stating that there is no way to know if Osman was of the Kayı tribe. The sources are definitely reliable, from well known experts in the field, published by well known university publishers.

Gündoğdu has presented sources that purportedly are supporting the claim about the Kayı heritage. These sources have to be analysed. In order to justify the claim, we can safely disregard the İbn-i Kemal source, since it is a primary source from centuries back. Two sources remains: Sakaoğlu and Uzunçarşılı.

• Regarding the Sakaoğlu source, I will ask Gündoğdu to elaborate: 1) Please present the exact words Sakaoğlu uses to describe Osman's Kayı heritage together with an English translation (I am sure you will get help with the English). 2) Please describe the qualifications of Sakaoğlu and the publisher in order to show that this is a scholarly source.
• According to User:Chamboz, Uzunçarşılı "has been dead for 40 years and his works are seriously outdated". If the source is that old, it certainly can not override the current scholarly sources. I would still want the same information here: Exact citation with translation plus description of Uzunçarşılı.

Even if any of these sources can qualify as a WP:Reliable source, they cannot override the current (many) scholarly sources. It is completely unacceptable that the infobox presents the Kayı heritage as a fact without reservations. It would at least have to be qualified with something like "Possibly", "Purportedly" or similar, since the bulk of the sources question the validity of the claim.

I will reserve my final conclusion until I see details of the given sources. --T*U (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Gündoğdu has added three 'new sources', which are all books written by people who aren't Ottomanist scholars; one's a pop-history book, another is a more general history that mentions the Ottomans in passing, and the third, hilariously, actually explicitly supports my position.

Braginsky, Vladimir. *The Turkic-Turkish Theme in Traditional Malay Literature* (eBook ed.). Leiden ; Boston: BRILL, 2015. p. 213-4.

"the first section of this lineage goes to the khans from the tribe Kayı, the eldest and most prestigious among the Oğuz tribes. It further continues to the Seljuks and finishes with Ertuğrul, father of Sultan Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman house. This largely fictitious section of the lineage, which plays an important role in the legitimization of the Ottomans, was initially composed in the fifteenth century by court historians of the sultans Murad II and Mehmed II and finally stabilized in the sixteenth century."

This is all pretty ridiculous. I think it's safe to say we can remove the reference to the Kayı from the infobox. Chamboz (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear User:Gündoğdu is simply piling up every occurence of "Kayi tribe" from a google search without any attempt to ascertain if the so-called sources added are reliable or even if they support the claim (ref 4 only cites a school textbook). This is not leading anywhere.--Phso2 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not deny osman father is ertuğrul, but then you say that we not know they origin. You speak very misleading. You have no idea about their origin but you throw incomplete claims. You need a detailed and clear speech.

• Ertuğrul
• Suleyman Shah
• Tomb of Suleyman Shah

Do you think these people fictional character??--Gündoğdu (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We know that the name of Osman's father was Ertuğrul, but every other fact about Ertuğrul's life could be legendary. We do not know that Ertuğrul's father was Süleyman Şah - even the Ottoman genealogies did not agree on this. Yazıcızade (1436) says that his father was named Gökalp. The Düstürname (1464) says his father was named Gündüz Alp. Karamanî Mehmed Paşa says his father was Gündüz Alp. Many of the early genealogies don't include Süleyman Şah anywhere in his family tree. It could be totally fabricated. You can see for yourself in İnalcık, Halil "Osmanlı Beyliği'nin Kurucusu Osman Beg", pp. 485-490. This is an article that you yourself have cited in the past. So you must have access to it, unless you just copied the citation from somewhere else. Chamboz (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you think; Kayı Tribe relations with Anatolian seljuks. Kayı tribe migrated to present-day Söğüt. You argument Ottomans was not from kayı tribe. What was the status of kayı tribe? Who do you think is the Ottomans? your claims missing and do not complement each other. What do you think about being nomadic Ottomans?--Gündoğdu (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How do we know that the Kayı tribe migrated to Söğüt? Because those same Ottoman writers tell us so. If they can fabricate a genealogy, they can fabricate tribal migrations. As for Osman being the leader of a nomadic Turcoman tribe, that is generally recognized by historians and most vigorously argued by Rudi Paul Lindner, who does not believe in the Kayı genealogy. Chamboz (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chamboz: This is quite clear, The Ottomans originally nomadic people. In anatolia did not migrate from other nomadic and did not show presence. The empire had set up nomadic culture. They are later passed to settled. This nomads reveal their origin clearly. Are you saying that it is uncertain kayı tribe. You speak too vague. Who do you think they are?--Gündoğdu (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Halime Hatun

That article states that she is Osmans mother. Are there any sources that says she may be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why, yes. The soap opera Diriliş: Ertuğrul. It has propelled an endless stream of IP users trying to "correct" the infobox here. Eperoton (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I learned about that series (and Halime) yesterday. And it is indeed a source, yes. What could possibly motivate those IP:s?[3] Anyway, I haven´t found anything we can use in the article in english. It does seem possible that WP:RS in turkish exist, so I´m hoping someone can help on that. "...first mentioned 200 years after the death of Ertuğrul, accounts differ and are sketchy...Since 1820 described as ..." or whatever a reputable historian may have written. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Asked for input here[4] too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps write Halime Hatun is Osman's mother but write 'possibly' in brackets. That way both sides have reached a compromise. Halime Hatun is added but as there is a lack of accessible source 'possibly' is written until a source is found. Michelle Tomlinson (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Religion

The founders of the Empire were of the Bektashi Sufi order. The Ottomans got oriented towards Sunni Islam after the conquests of Medina and Mecca by Selim the Grim. It was an better idea to discuss this first on the talk page before editing, the invitation for a discussion still stands though. Redman19 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

the mother of osman is halime hatun the wife of ertugrul gazi Hybridpickz (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Osman bin Ertuğrul (Arabic), Osman Ertuğruloğlu (Turkish). You also need the full Turkish name. 佐藤達也003 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Halime Hatun

Osman I's mother according to many sources is Halime Hatun, even if there is a discrepancy in the matter. Just two of the sources I found in other article of Wikipedia are:

• Bahadıroğlu, Yavuz, Resimli Osmanlı Tarihi, Nesil Yayınları, 15inci baskısı, 2009, ISBN 978-975-269-299-2.
• Peirce, Leslie P., The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford University Press, 1993, ISBN 0-19-508677-5.

Please add the information accordingly. -176.33.53.10 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, by Leslie P. Peirce?

Here is one:

• The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, by Dr. Raşit GÜNDOĞDU, page 11.

Do you have any information on Dr. Gundogdu? What is his doctorate in?

Another one:

• The Symbolic Restoration of Women's Place in Turkey's Resurrection, Elif Guler, "Studies in Popular Culture", Vol. 40, No. 2 (Spring 2018), page 106. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There is NO reliable ORIGINAL source that tells us who Osman's mother was. There is NO mention of a "Halime" as Ertugrul's wife or Osman's mother in any single one of the Ottoman chronicles. All later tales of Halime and Hayme are based on myths created centuries later, in the last century to be specific. The tomb in Sogut was placed there by Sultan Abdulhamid without any knowledge of who was being reburied there. It was nameless until relatively recently. If we have a scholar stating something, we need to see *their* citations too. The Lowry text cites two additional sources, one a Turkish scholar, for the "Unknown" in reference to Osman's mother. None of the academics who mention Halime or Hayme as the potential mother of Osman give any citations, as there are none. The Pierce text absolutely does not mention a "Halime" as Osman's mother. Also, the journal article mentioned above was an analysis of the fictional series Dirilis: Ertugrul, which is a fictional show based on a real historical personage, so that definitely is unusable. Pinging Gråbergs Gråa Sång for any input. One thing I do know - Googling through Google Books won't help. We have to trace the actual source itself, and in this case, there simply isn't one. Teavannaa (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

please put halime hatun as the mother of osman gazi 112.134.62.132 (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

He was the main founder of ottoman empire which his father Ertugrul relay wanted to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C280:760:C60:CB2D:B542:6826 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Osman I's father

According to British historian David Nicolle Ertuğrul was probably not Osman's father. We must not display uncertain information on Wikipedia, so I am removing that information.

Nicolle, David (1983). Armies of The Ottoman Turksh 1300-1774 [Osmanlı Orduları 1300-1768]. Osprey Publishing & Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. p. 7.

(Please note that I am using a translated version of the book.) --Visnelma (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No. First time hearing this. See WP:FRINGE. Beshogur (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: saying that it is first time hearing something is not a good argument to prove that thing is wrong, I have cited a reliable source from a academic historian, so you should too. --Visnelma (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Funny because the whole article is cited. See What else do you want? Beshogur (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

We call this fringe theories, FYI. Beshogur (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: the first book you cited is written by Ahmed Akgündüz who is not even a Ottoman specialist (he studied law) and thus he is not a reliable academic historian. The second source you cited is written by Standford Shaw who is largely criticized by academic historians and whose works contain errors, so he is not a reliable historian too. Halil İnalcık is dead and his works are outdated. Caroline Finkel says there is a coin on which "Minted by Osman son of Ertugrul" is written and it also states that coin's date is uncertain. Osman I died in 1324 and the same source written by Caroline Finkel says that the oldest surviving Ottoman coin dates back to 1326-7. Since the first surviving coin is minted after Osman's death, there is no way that there can be coin on which "Minted by Osman son of Ertugrul" is written, so this source is self-concradictory. None of the source you have cited is reliable. Unless you cite reliable sources I will change this information, best regards. --Visnelma (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Typo corrected. --Visnelma (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Visnelma:, Halil İnalcık is dead and his works are outdated., that is not how wikipedia works. you cite reliable sources I will change this information, best regards. this is nothing more than disruptive editing. About your other texts, pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I absolutely agree with you on we shouldn't prefer sources we like, but I have been telling you the sources you cited are either unreliable or self-contradictory due to the reasons I have already mentioned. Also I don't think changing a wrong and unverified information is distruptive editing. I am waiting for your answer. Best regards --Visnelma (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Visnelma:, all sources seems legit to me. Your arguments is not valid, especially Halil Inalcik, which is the most accepted person among Ottoman History. Beshogur (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Visnelma: Returning to the WP:FRINGE discussion, can you find any reliable sources beyond the work by David Nicolle which discusses this paternity issue? Remember, to merit inclusion here, an idea needs to be "broadly supported by scholarship in its field". A theory put foreward by just one academic work wouldn't meet this requirement.
Alivardi (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: I have read a more recent book of the same author and in a nutshell it said European scholars used to think Ertugrul did not exist at all but coins minted in 1200s proved his existence also stating he was Osman's father, thanks for your attention. I might add this information later, but right now I am a little bit busy. --Visnelma (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Typo corrected. --Visnelma (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ILL:s

Beshogur, a comment on your edit here [5]. There is nothing wrong with adding Template:Interlanguage links to en-WP. They can have good content of value for a reader. That said, IMO one is often enough, and none of these particular ones were very good, so they don't really add very much. But that's not how wiki works. + this is English wiki wasn't a good reason for removal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don't know how french pages will help since these are mostly stubs with no references. Also you probably know that "Alps" section doesn't fit here. If you want to add those links back, no problem. Beshogur (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Importing additional content

Hi! I'm currently in the process of merging in some content from v:WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Osman_I,_father_of_kings under CC BY SA license (doi:10.15347/WJH/2021.001). It was itself translated and adapted from the Arabic Wikipedia page (عثمان الأول) by User:باسم and checked by independent reviewers for accuracy. Obviously, there was existing information at this page (especially the middle sections), so I'm attempting to be cautious with merging the additional text in. Please feel free to double check and help out. Assistance very much welcomed! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now finished up importing over the additional content mentioned above. I think the issue with the incorrect image being used for Osman's sword has been resolved (and being brought up on other language wikis that use the image). A few minor points of note: Is the date of Ertuğrul's death 1280 or 1281? This source suggests 1280, but I want to check if the discrepancy is historical record ambiguity. It may be best to bring into alignment the infobox (and Ertuğrul's page and wikidata item) if possible. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The article contains some images two times plus some same story lines repeated as in content:Historical Background & content:Origin of Ottoman Empire. IAmAtHome (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Does source really says, "Gündüz Alp, Osman's younger uncle"? IAmAtHome (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability, glad to see the import! Do you have any plans to take this through GA/FA? I only just stumbled on the WikiJournals, but looking at the thoroughness of their peer reviews, it appears that content that was suitable for publication is probably at the very least GA-worthy, and it'd be nice to see this page get a badge to match its quality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of wife

Beshogur, other interested, are these [6] good edits? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Nope. Beshogur (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. GoingBatty, I just bulldozed over your awb-edit, but that seemed like the easy solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: No worries - I just made the edit again. I'll leave it to you to fix the |volume= parameter in several references that display the |volume= has extra text errors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any of those in the ref-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Extreme Vagueness in Content "Lineage"

The section are full of statements without citations with or without reliable sourcing(and many more cite to unrelated sources), rendering them to "opinion" status Take an example: " In fact, it is accepted that Ottoman, European, and Byzantine sources are not very reliable when considering the origins of Osman and his clan." By whom, on what source such claims are based, by what means etc... Also specifically this section has information contradictory with other parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.151.98 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

103.113.149.192 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,I want to change the mother of Osman from Unknown to Halime Sultan.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IronManCap (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"Leader of the Kayi tribe"

Last month User:Visioncurve had edited the article to change the "leader of the Ottoman Turks" to "leader of the Kayi tribe", citing the "Personality" section. I believe this edit was not correct, as stated on the Kayı tribe article

According to Ottoman tradition, Osman I, the founder of Ottoman Empire, was a descendant of the Kayı tribe. This claim has, however, been called into serious question by many modern historians. The only evidence for the Ottomans' Kayı descent came from genealogies written during the fifteenth century, more than a hundred years after the life of Osman. More significantly, the earliest genealogies written by the Ottomans did not include any reference to Kayı descent at all, indicating that it may have been fabricated at a later date.

Thus there is no consensus among historians for him being from Kayi tribe. These are based on later Ottoman traditions and are hagiographic in nature. In fact, early biographies of Ertughrul (e.g. Ibn Bibi’s el-Evāmirü’l-ˁAlāiyye fi’l-umūri’l-ˁAlāiyye in Persian), which according to tradition Osman I descended from, does not include any tribe information, meanwhile later translations of the Ibn Bibi's original text (Yazıcızade’s Tevārih-i Āl-i Selcuk) stating it. --Gogolplex (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Kafadar, Cemal (1995). Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. p. 122. That they hailed from the Kayı branch of the Oğuz confederacy seems to be a creative "rediscovery" in the genealogical concoction of the fifteenth century. It is missing not only in Ahmedi but also, and more importantly, in the Yahşi Fakih-Aşıkpaşazade narrative, which gives its own version of an elaborate genealogical family tree going back to Noah. If there was a particularly significant claim to Kayı lineage, it is hard to imagine that Yahşi Fakih would not have heard of it.
• Lowry, Heath (2003). The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. SUNY Press. p. 78. ISBN 0-7914-5636-6. Based on these charters, all of which were drawn up between 1324 and 1360 (almost one hundred fifty years prior to the emergence of the Ottoman dynastic myth identifying them as members of the Kayı branch of the Oguz federation of Turkish tribes), we may posit that...
• Lindner, Rudi Paul (1983). Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Indiana University Press. p. 10. ISBN 9780933070127. In fact, no matter how one were to try, the sources simply do not allow the recovery of a family tree linking the antecedents of Osman to the Kayı of the Oğuz tribe.

About paganism

I am sorry from my english, its no my native language: The first dream reports that one day he spent the night in the house of a righteous man (Edebali). The owner brought and placed the Koran into Osman's room. Osman, who had not yet converted to Islam, became interested in reading and read all night, and in the morning he fell asleep and he dreamed of an angel who predicted glory and honors to him and his offspring. Waking up, Osman converted to Islam. According to Gibbons and Kinross, the legend records the fact that the Qais were pagans and it was not until Osman that they were converted. The wave of refugees-migrants from the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols in the XIII century consisted predominantly of pagans. The moment when the kayy were converted to Islam is unknown, historians only indicate that the adoption of Islam by the tribe occurred after the resettlement of Ertogrul in Anatolia and that Osman was a ghazi. According to Gibbons, "The conversion to Islam of Osman and his tribe led to the emergence of the Ottomans (Ottomans), fusing together various elements living in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor". I can provide sources for each word if you choose to contribute. --Werter1995 (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We can not run with speculations. For example, if Osman's convert was attested in historical sources, which isn't, then it has no place there. We only know that he was a muslim, so "paganism" isn't appropriate. We can not speculate whether he converted or not. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Okey. Then I will remove. --Werter1995 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

But here I suggested writing a section about the possibility of paganism, and not adding it to the Infobox. --Werter1995 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Werter1995: thanks for understanding. You could write that in the body, somewhere. Beshogur (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, my English is bad. I can add sources to my paragraph, and you copy it into an article and correct my English. --Werter1995 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Paganism should not be added because any reliable historical text does not mention this. Also, the encyclopediac sites like Encyclopedia Britannica, TDV Encyclopedia of Islam and World History Encyclopedia, etc do not give any clue about such possibility. IAmAtHome (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

But here I suggested writing a section about the possibility of paganism, and not adding it to the Infobox. --Werter1995 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Then you can mention it in content; lineage or Origin of Ottoman Empire, if you want. But I think its strange & not important as other encyclopediac sites don't give any clue about his conversion to Islam. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I am added sourses from my paragraph, and you copy it into an article and correct my English if you wish. --Werter1995 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not good at all in English. But I will check it when I have time. Beshogur knows better Ottoman history. He can help. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Name of Empire

Not ottoman empire. It is Osmania Empire 37.111.205.108 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

An Ottoman fools day joke? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)