Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire

post-1844

Whats wrong with the post-1844 flag? All references I could find refer to the post-1844 as only official standard flag of the Ottomans. I haven't seen the flag depicted in the poor quality image at the top of this article in any references. --Yodakii 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In reality there was no A flag.

All the western referances that talk about the Ottoman Flag is incomplete. During Tanzimat, with the influence of western powers, they tried to reach a form of unity in a state that is as structured as a fractal image. Ottoman state was designed against a single concept to compansate the differences. Their millet notion is a good symbolism to cover this concept. The reflection of this multiple image was reflected to their flags, not to a single flag. By the way for the thinking minds, the current meaning of flag do not translate one to one to ottoman empire use of the word (literrally). For the flag under the ottoman page, we refer to Turkey's presidential insignia, as a source. That shape is accepted as the official flag of Ottomans, by the Republic of Turkeys presidental law. Other western sources, some I have chance to read, shows a general bais towards Muslim Ottomans, which the word by itself acts as an barrier to their credibility, if you know what I mean. I hope this explanation is good enough.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying there never was an official Ottoman flag? And that the Turkish government recognises the current flag as the official Ottoman flag?
How is the current flag better than the more recognisable one? Can you point to any sources for that image?
If there was no official flag, then what is the most commonly used state flag? What is the most widely recognised Ottoman flag? --Yodakii 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

U are thinking with 20th century terminology. That does not mean more advance, just it means our time. There was no nation for ottomans, to come up a national flag. I do not know how much else I can help to u with this. All the falgs (not a single flag) defined the nation (their devleti aliye). I advise you to watch the Ottoman Mehter Takimi, that will give you a visual clue about their conept, if you can get it! :-). There is a link at the page to insignia law which is the highest referance I can give to you on the internet. Rest is on your shoulders. ps:The recognizable flag you are talking has the star cutting the outer peripher of the moon, that is REPUBLIC OF TURKEY's flag. Just to remind you, again for the importance of the visual clues... By the way this is a comman mistake, even among the most respectful western source. The logic goes like this I guess; If it is not your flag, they all look the same. --tommiks 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So there is no one official flag? In that case, what makes the flag currently in the introduction any better? --Yodakii 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, mention any references you know of in References section. --Yodakii 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Kızıl Tuğ(The red flag) was the only thing that we can consider as a "flag" at the Ottoman Empire until the modern flag of the empire was designed in the last times of the empire. All old Turkish states used the Kızıl Tuğ(Mongol Empire and Golden Horde also used it even if they weren't Turkish states, Mongols are the Turan brothers of Turks). It was the most important figure(as well as grey wolf) in the Turkish history. With respect, Deliogul 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Standard" Ottoman flag?

I'd like to point out that there was no standard regarding the shape of the crescent until the turn of the 20th century or so (Ottomans lacking flag standards? I'm shocked! Shocked and appalled I tell you! lol!) however the only one that ever WAS standardized is what is now the flag of the Republic of Turkey. I really don't see the point in using a flag from the days of no standards when the modern Turkish flag WAS USED from 1844 on.

The reason you see a lot of "banana crescents" in flag books is it is harder to make a proper crescent out of crappy material (not every Ottoman war galley is going to be able to afford a silk flag like the sultan) but that crescent should really be rounder.

I really wish I could get a firm confirmation on how the golden crescents were placed on the green disc during the Ottoman Caliphate era (1520s - 1844) though I'm getting the grim suspicion that there was no standard there either...

Ancient Greek origin of Star and crescent

Someone keeps trying to delete entries about the ancient Greek origin of the star and crescent. There is no reason for the romantic myth abotu the battle of kosovo to be contained within the first paragraph without mentioning the factual origin of the symbol. nationalism, especially when it comes to straight out lies cannot be accepted on wikipedia

The flag has a complex origin. The color red is a prominent color in Turkish history. The crescent and star, however comes from an an ancient Greek symbol of Byzantium (now Istanbul). Upon capturing the city in 1453 the Turks found many flags with stars and crescents and adopted this symbol as a good omen. while it is now used as an Islamic symbol, this is only because of the fact that the Turks adopted the ancient Greek symbol and then their infulence over the middle east meant that it came to be a symbol for Islam. There are also several myths regarding the adaptation is that the Turks had won a great victory with heavy losses in the Battle of Manzikert against the Byzantines in the year 1071, which led them to move into Anatolia. After the battle when the Sultan (The Khan at the time) walked through the battle field, there was a pool of blood formed between a group of Turkish soldiers, with the crescent moon and the star reflecting upon it. The Sultan adopted this reflection as the flag of Turks, however this view is one more of a romantic myth than any factual basis.

Well, the crescent as a symbol was also in use in the pre-Islamic Uygur-Turk kingdoms, e.g. usually artistic depictions portraying monarchs or religious dignitaries show a crescent whose both sharp ends point to the top. (Will try to find an example from the scource in my college library, think it was the 'Uygurica'...)

In ancient and contemporary non-Islamic Turkic and Lamaist Mongolian art crescents are to be found, too. Since Manichaeism was the the first state-religion to be introduced by a Uyghur-Turk ruler after shamanism, this might be the explanation for the spread of this symbol in Mongolia, East-Tukistan, even when Buddhism and other religions gained more importance, and eventually in the Ottoman empire. Manichaeism somehow acted as a bridge to the cultural sphere of the various Iranic empires and manifold cultures in Middle Eastern and Anatolian antiquity that shone off and influenced its neighbours and successors, including Greek and Persian cultures respectively. This, if I am not mistaken, goes back to the originally Phoenician goddess Ashtoreth and the Hellenic goddesses Selene and Phoebe... and that finally lead to this usage of the moon symbol in its crescent-shaped form throughout that region. Nevertheless since animism was the aboriginal belief system of the ancient Turks, Turkic and other similar - related or unrelated - peoples throughout East Central Asia and Siberia, that even shows parallels to Japanese Shintoism, it has to be taken into account that Sun and Moon deities (well, Stars, too..) were deeply inherent to these aboriginal cultures. So it could mere chance that a crescent was used there as well. Even if you doubt that, the moon played an important role there too, and the crescent shape as symbol was already of relevance in the Manichaeist and Buddhist Uyghur kingdoms! So the Turks who appeared in Anatolia got from them. Period. 134.100.1.121 09:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't this page be at Ottoman flag instead of Ottoman Flag? —Khoikhoi 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It should. Done. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1389 or 1453

These dates 1299-1453 and 1453-1789 not true. The simulation in the article proves that the Ottoman Flag comes from Kosova war whicn happened in 1389. As you can see these date 1453 is false. I change that. Ruzgar 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof of your assertion. On the one hand we have the overwhelming weight of evidence for the Ottoman Empire adopting the symbol after 1453, and on the other we have an anachronistic legend that isn't even referring to the correct flag (the flag they adopted in the 15th century didn't have a star on it).

There was no star on the Ottoman state flag until 1844.

The modern naval flag is not the same as the national flag

I wish people would stop replacing the Ottoman flag with the "correct" flag. It is not the correct flag, it is the naval flag. Look at it, and look at the naval flag. The 7 pointed star is for the navy, the 5 pointed star is for the state. --Ingoman 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GA status

Here is the assessment according to the Good Article criteria:

1. It is well written

Need improvements

• The first paragraph starting with The early years are a time … is story-like prose which should be made more encyclopaedic. Another example of prose that needs improvement: this going all the way back to when.
• Run-on sentence. His son Orhan I saw himself differently, he saw…
• Sudden introduction of a subject without sufficient explanation: who bore the level of Roman legitimacy. Some additional explanations on “Roman legitimacy” is needed if this is related to the subject of the flag.
• Example of weasel words: It could be because, might just have been

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Need improvements

• No sources are cited. The “Legends” section definitely needs citations.
• Example of bad prose that also needs a citation: Why red was the perfect colour to say this with, we shall never know.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

Weak pass – Coverage seems fine, but I am not sure why there are passages concerning the status of dhimmi (Jews and Christians). Is this related to the flag or the history of the Ottoman Empire?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Pass

5. It is stable

Pass

6. It contains images

Pass

In summary, the article should go through a copyedit and a better encyclopaedic tone should be adopted and then the references should be inline cited within the article. After making these changes, please resubmit the article for GA nomination. RelHistBuff 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon reviewing, I am under the impression that the most critical point is the referencing, as good copyeditors aren't as hard to find. From what I see, most of the text comes from the books cited in the end. What should be done is to retrieve the pages where the statements are made and stuff the article with inline citations, using the "cite book" template. From there GA is quasi-guaranteed.--SidiLemine 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)