Talk:Dragut

Comments

Untitled

Wonderful work, congratulations. Turgut is also my dad's name. I summer a few miles from Turgutreis every other year, and I had no idea he was born there. What a life, what an adventure... where are these men now?--Murat (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Granada?

The article said in the Djerba section that "he landed in Granada". Granada is not a seaport so I'm guessing he landed in the Granada coast, right? Probably Almuñecar. Anyway, I found this reference in this regard http://www.almunecar.com/Visitors_Guide/Sightseeing/Watchtowers.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I made the necessary correction. Thank you very much for your contribution and interest in improving the article. I mostly used Italian and Turkish sources when editing Turgut Reis, and they simply referred to it as "the coast of Granada" without any specific definition of the settlements, but mentioning that Turgut Reis (Dragut) took 4,000 prisoners there. Thank you very much, once again. Regards. Flavius Belisarius 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The display box info for the monument of the Admiral Turgut Reis I have detected a possible minor grammatical error, it reads "The Monument Of The Admiral Turgut (Dragut) Reis in Bodrum, Turkiy." which should be "The Monument Of The Admiral Turgut (Dragut) Reis in Bodrum, Turkey.". If anyone does not object to this then I will change it within the next 14 days. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Turgut Reis is not from Greek Descendant

Turgut Reis is comes from Turkish origin, his name also approves it, Turgut was a very old Turkish word.

Someone said "He was captured and taken prisoner by the corsairs in his youth and had converted to Islam." That is untrue, if he is born and living in that region, he couldn't be capture or taken prisoner by the corsairs, because he is also from Corsair's homeland, Aydin-Mentese region.

And who said this thesis, he didn't know anything about Ottoman Law and Administration above subject. In Ottoman land, no one can captured or taken prisoner if he/she is not guilty or criminal because he/she is from Christian or Jewish origin. All the religious groups and people had equal rights.

Turgut didn't converted Islam or Turkish! Any one never made any man to convert to his own nation, especially in Ottoman. At first paragraph, that is said, he is Turkish; at Early Career part, he is becoming greek ? That is very ridiculous.

All other nations in Ottoman were free and were able to free expression. Anyone can express himself a Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Albanian. There are lots of Greek or Armenian Pashas then Turks. Thinking of he is Greek is just an imagination.

Turgut is a Turkish corsair and at his childhood times, he was always thinking of holy war against Crusaders and for that, he acuumulate to buy a ship then set sail to Mediterranean. He was a zealous for his ideals.

No need to mention origins

The Ottoman Empire was just like the Roman Empire, the peoples had different origins, there is no need to mention all the origins because all of them were just considered as Ottomans as the peoples in the Roman Empire were considered as Romans.

Turgut Reis was raised as an Ottoman and lived his life as an Ottoman as he spoke the Ottoman Turkish language. Redman19 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Greekness was important especially for the Ottoman Navy. Traditionally, the best seamen had been drawn from the subject Greeks, but the War of Independence cut off this source of supply.

Sources

Can you provide me a source where Turgut Reis states he is proud of his "Greekness"? Or anything else where he is relating to his Greek background.

Many Greeks who were against Ottoman rule kept their own identity and participated in the War of Independence against the Ottomans. Turgut Reis was a Greek in origin but he was an Ottoman at top, again there is no need to mention the origin of every figure in the Ottoman Empire, thats just nonsense. Redman19 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way his Greek background is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. Turgut was born of Greek descent in a village near Bodrum, on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Redman19 (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

who cares if turgut reis was of greek origin? like you said yourself he was raised like an ottoman and lived like an ottoman, most greeks i know dont even know who turgut reis was, most greeks dont care about our history, turgut is a part of ottoman turkish history not greek. even his name is turkish. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.piratesahoy.net/66/turgut-reis/ according to this link his father was a Turk, its just useless to discuss his origins as they were all considered as Ottomans. 195.240.250.105 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

yeah thats right, barbarossa was also of greek origin but he is considered as an ottoman just like turgut reis. jennifer aniston is also of greek origin but she is considered as an american, same situation. you really think everyone in the roman empire was ethnic roman? hell no but they were all speaking the same language and were all considered as romans, the same goes for the ottoman empire, there was 1 culture, 1 language, 1 lifestyle, i think i made my point clear. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, piratesahoy.net isn't reliable source. This link is a copy of old version of this article. Takabeg (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many other sources that say his father was a Turk named Veli, but that doesnt matter, the users above just wrote down the same thoughts I had, many Turks in Turkey are also of different origins but you need to understand that we Turks dont care about bloodline, its the thoughts thats connecting us, with your logic you can consider Dunga not as Brazilian but German, it makes no sense. Redman19 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not quite correct that all the Roman subjects were considered Roman, in fact most were not, they all took the Roman citizenship very late near the end of the empire. You are right about the culture, lifestyle etc. in the Ottoman empire. It is indeed the same with USA, and it's true that Jennifer Aniston is considered an American, but as you can see her exact origin (Greek, Scottish and Italian) is still mentioned in her article & that's the case with thousands other persons articles. That someone is of Greek, Scottish or Italian origin doesn't make him less American, same way as Turgut's origin doesn't make him less Ottoman as Redman pointed. I don't see the reason not to mention the origin of a person when that's very usual & normal in WP. In any case the origin of a person is a part of his biography. When we talk of big, multinational empires like the Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman, it was even possible for emperors to have a different origin than most of his subjects. I am afraid that what 188.202.146.57 said about the Greeks is right, but that's not good for the Greeks as it's not good for the Turks either to do the same, given that the two people are already living in the same neighbourhood for at least 1.000 years and will continue for the foreseeable future; & in any case WP is not about Greeks & Turks, if Greeks don't care about Turkish history that's not a reason for everyone to do the same here. Anyway & to the point, the discussion "origin vs culture" makes no sense, they are two entirely different things and can be overlapped, you don't have to kill the one because of the other. It is obvious that you can be of German and Irish and Kenyan origin & no one to object mentioning that in your WP article because you have American culture, language & lifestyle. Ask Obama. --79.167.5.2 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its wrong to describe Turgut as a Greek Ottoman, he was just an Ottoman. His roots are already mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. Jennifer Aniston is also not mentioned as a Greek-Irish-American no she is just mentioned as American, her roots are described in the briography section of the article not in the head. Redman19 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

His roots are already mentioned in the biography part of the article so I left it out in the head. Redman19 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First I have not a single edit in the current article. Just happened to see the discussion & gave my opinion without changing a single letter on its text. 2nd I thought the discussion was about whether or not we must mention his origin, & I answered only to that, if I misunderstood it accept my apologies. 3rd About Aniston, you are right for her article but is common by many media to address her as Greek-American actress although she is not really of 100% greek ancestry. I can't see why not Turgut Reis for the reasons already explained above. I don't want to create an issue over it although I honestly can't see the reason you reverted Takabeg. I don't know him & I've never exchanged a word with him, but from what I have seen from his past edits he is a very cool minded and objective editor, never opening fights over stupid nationalistic things & I have not a clue about his nationality, which is the best indication of his neutrality as an editor, and if I may, wish every editor in WP to be like him; WP would become a better place. 4th It is common place to mention the basics of some person including his origin in the lede although a full biography usually is present in the articles. The first paragraph you mentioning is the lede and to this there is no second, what you mentioning as the second is the biography chapter. By necessity everything that is presenting in the lede is a repetition compared to the full body of the article, I think this was the reason for Takabeg's edit which I think is absolutely normal. But what I really couldn't understand the most is that together with his origin from the lede you also removed his origin from the infobox although the Ottoman was present and his origin is clearly mentioned in his biography. I don't know that if he was of Turk origin you would did the same, but if so, it would be also wrong. Can you please put it back? --62.38.121.164 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen Greek Ottoman is just absolute unnecessary, in the Ottoman Empire everybody was known as an Ottoman nothing more than that, Greek Ottoman is a sentence that didnt exist in Ottoman times because everyone was just an Ottoman in the first place, you get my point? The word Ottoman means Osmanli in English, the term Osmanli already describes something with Turkish elements, even if Turgut was a Turk I wouldnt revert it but thats not the case, Im very objective in this case and Im not reverting because I hate Greeks, I have many Greek friends, Im no racist. Redman19 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a statement in the head of the article stating that he had Greek roots but Im refusing to call him a Greek Ottoman, thats bull. Redman19 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Redman I don't believe you are a racist. I have seen your edit here which although I don't think is correct for the reasons below, is very far away from being racist and to the contrary is a clear try to make the infobox more neutral. And I read carefully your position in the current article which is mild and without blindness or any fanaticism. I am going to do the same, since to say the truth I fill lucky that we can talk about it without stupidly reverting each other. Look, the issue you're opening is a bit complex but in any case, sooner or later it has to be discussed. Let me explain in short the issue. The problem is that during the period that we discuss there was not any idea about nationalities as such which came centuries later and surely after 1789. In fact, for historical reasons even the majority of the Greeks didn't have the slightest idea of their origin and they didn't even call themselves Greeks mainly due to the fact that Greekness, during the evangelism of the Roman world, had been associated with idolatry and for Orthodoxy being identified as such was forbidden. It sounded more as an invective. The issue is complex but the fact is that for more than a millennium nobody could call himself Greek, nobody knew history and his origin except of some scholars, which is the reason you called the Greeks Rum, Romioi, the name they called themselves. The people at the time, identified themselves primarily according to their religion or religious dogma. Not according to their unknown origin. They lived, fought and died according to these identities. Same way the Turks didn't have a clear national identity for their reasons. They identified themselves initially according to their clan (Osman, Selchuk etc.), and religious and little was known about their far coming roots and origin. The Ottoman empire came very much as the successor of the Byzantine empire in many ways, giving more or less equal rights to her subjects at the minimum conditions to accept the imperial rule and law as both empires were due to their size by necessity multilingual. The issue is that, either they knew it or not, the people as it's known today more or less existed. So I agree with you that at that time the expression Greek Ottoman didn't exist since there were almost no Greeks identifying themselves as such, but the truth is that they really existed as also the Turks existed. Not because at some time they had a common leader, but because they had a common origin. Given the historical situation I agree that it would have been almost impossible to call someone Ottoman Greek then, but how would we call him today? Greek? Turk? Ottoman is not a nationality, it never was, that's why the "Ottoman" is not enough even for the Turks to grant origin. It's only a name, of a leader, of a clan, of the many clans. So, without disagreeing with what you say, I see no other way to describe such persons, as this is the closer possible to what they really were. If we had to keep us in pace with the terminology of the 15th or 16th century then it would be impossible to speak even for Greeks since none of them these days would agree to be called as such. And of course they were not ..Romans. --62.38.121.164 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Today is a different story, everyone in Turkey is called a Turk in the first place, they register nationality not ethnicity. In the Ottoman Empire they registered your religion and not nationality, the western world called the people living in the Ottoman Empire Ottomans, just simple as that and I think we should keep it that way. Also everyone in the Ottoman Empire called himself Ottoman, only the people who were against the Sultan refused to call themselves Ottoman. Redman19 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY, this is what I am telling you, please read it again.--62.38.121.164 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But mate then again I think its wrong to call Turgut Reis a Greek Ottoman while Jennifer Aniston is mentioned as an American. Dont you think it would be strange if we mentioned Jennifer as Greek-Irish-Scottish-American? no she is just American, there is no problem if we mention her roots, but she is an American in the first place. Turgut Reis was of Greek origin but he was an Ottoman in the first place, its simple, lets not make it complicated. Redman19 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. What I am trying to tell is that today American IS a nationality. Ottoman was not. And is not. Aniston is indeed an American in nationality, is Greek etc. by origin.--62.38.121.164 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there wasnt anything like a Greek Ottoman either, its just wrong to call him a Greek Ottoman, he was an Ottoman of Greek origin, keeping in mind that Turgut Reis lived like an Ottoman and spoke the Ottoman Turkish language, nothing is relating him to his Greekness because he had no Greekness and just wasnt considered as a Greek. Its like calling Dunga an German-Italian Brazilian, its wrong very wrong. Redman19 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Look he had the very Greekness of his origin. Which is the problem we have as to how to call him. I already agreed with that "there wasn't anything like Greek Ottoman". You are right and historically accurate on that. For their time they had solve the problem, given that they were lucky not to have to do with nationalities or even origins. But we live today, we write today and we have to explain it based upon the today realities, with nationalities and origins. OK there's no need for rush, I appreciate your tries in good faith, lets sleep on it in the hope to find an elegant solution. I will not touch it before we will agree on a formula, if we find any. Cheers, (I don't know Dunga) --62.38.121.164 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-Sufw24ymwk/RpORHJX65iI/AAAAAAAABBs/P6U0WXzP-eY/s1600-h/Turgutreis.jpg <<< see this picture, he didnt look like a greek but an ottoman, i fully agree with redman19 he was an ottoman with greek roots, not a greek ottoman, many scholars and historians describe people in the ottoman empire as ottomans, i think this article is just fine, his greek roots are mentioned so i dont see a problem, he was an ottoman, end of discussion. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I partially undid the blanket edits which entirely removed Turgut's Greek origin. The edits, though done by an IPs, removed information which was properly sourced. Perhaps some Turkish editors have a hard time accepting non-Turkish origins of Ottoman figures, being Turkish myself I can understand the confusion as Turgut Reis is an Ottoman Turkish name, many Ottoman figures with Turkish names had origins other than Turkish (for eg Ottomans like Ali Pasha was Albanian, Gedik Ahmed Pasha was Serbian and Veli Mahmud Pasha was of Croatian origin), a Muslim Turkish name doesn't necessarily equal an ethnic Turk. Greek-Ottoman is in fact a correct term to use as he was ethnically Greek (check the sources) and part of the Ottoman empire, this article should not be use for Turkish nationalism. As always, input from intelligent and neutral users is always welcome. Eskisehirili (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)