User talk:Beshogur

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

baseless revertions

[edit]

hello. i would like to see your valid argument in reverting my contribs to Flags of the Ottoman Empire and Flag of Turkey. 83.9.35.43 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with "war flag" please. There is no war flag whatsoever, and that naval flag shouldn't be on the infobox at all. Those civil ensigns aren't real flags either. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in the case of the ottoman empire please refer to; war flag:

naval ensign;

also, i've been editing wiki since two months, what do you mean by 'years'. cheers.83.9.35.43 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmens

[edit]

Hello! I noticed your recent revert [1] and on my end it looks like the "ك" is merging into the "ен" in the infobox title. Would it be alright to revert your edit? (Note: I have not reverted it, my recent edit was adding an endash.) x RozuRozu • teacups 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XRozuRozu: I don't see it that way, maybe your browser has the problem? Your version has a big space between those two. Beshogur (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I tried accessing the page on Chrome (Macbook + Chromebook + phone), Safari (Macbook + phone), and the mobile app. It seems like it only shows correctly on my phone's Chrome/Safari, however not the app (where almost all of the Cyrillic is obscured).
I do suppose that most readers would probably access the page on a web browser on their phone, but I think that having "a big space" is better than having overlapping text. x RozuRozu • teacups 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now on mobile. It's
nastalic text. No reason for it. Beshogur (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The reason of revert of the 25.01.2025

[edit]

Why did you revert the edit 25.01.2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&action=history ?
The info there are all well-referenced.78.175.234.78 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much unencyclopedic. Also what are you trying to tell? Beshogur (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

[edit]

Two landmark ECHR rulings seem to be missing from wikipedia. Is there any way to create or undelete them:

Xenides-Arestis v Turkey

Demopoulos & others v Turkey

Both cases were hugely important regarding the Cyprus issue.

Both cases are also important developments in connection with the case below and should be linked in the see-also section of this article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolides_v_Orams

My justification of the creation/undeletion of these articles would be that they are highly relevant to the article linked above and they are certainly more notable than some other ECHR rulings that have articles on Wikipedia.

Another notable article should be created regarding the Immovable Property Commission of the TRNC

https://tamk.gov.ct.tr/en-us/

Quote > “The Immovable Property Commission was set up under the Immovable Property Law (No. 67/2005) in accordance with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey. The purpose of this measure was to establish an effective domestic remedy for claims relating to abandoned properties in Northern Cyprus.

The European Court of Human Rights, with decision on 1 March 2010 as to the admissibility of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey found that Law No. 67/2005 provides an effective remedy and rejected the complaints of applicants for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.”

These articles cover extremely important developments in the Cyprus Issue with significant legal implications. WildRabbitOnField (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War map

[edit]

Hello! Why are some factions on the Libyan Civil War map squiggly lines?

Here's the link: Libyan Civil War - Libyan crisis (2011–present) - Wikipedia Malka d-Ashur (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change my edit in Operation Euphrates Shield

[edit]

Why did you change my edit in the "Operation Euphrates Shield" with the number "1271617998"? It was content supported by sources and there was no problem with the writing style. What I wrote were the opinions expressed by the sources Capodeturkiye (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong address.

Uyghur language in Altai Republic?

[edit]

Why did you change my edit on the page for the Uyghur language about it being spoken in Altai Republic. If my understanding is wrong and its not official can you update the map at the bottom. I don't know how to update maps. Thank you so much, god bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.171.74 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the map below doesn't show Altai Republic. You must be mistaken. Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the map doesn’t show it, but it’s my understanding that it’s a minority language. Should we update the map. In India, English is a national language yet is not showing up on their map. Thank you so much. 76.14.40.7 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The translation says Altai Krai. Is there a source for this? --Vichycombo (Discussion Research Institute) 10:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am against adding Uyghur to the template while it is still not resolved. I will roll back for the time being in case there is a problem, and if it continues to happen, I will consider it vandalism. --Vichycombo (Discussion Research Institute) 10:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First I want to apologize. I don't mean to have my edits to be vandalism. I was just operating under the knowledge that Uyghur is at least a spoken language in Altai. I also added the Kazakh translation yet it was removed. It was in the Arabic scrip of Kazakh because (at least to my knowledge) the Altai republic has Kazakh marked as an official language on the Wikipedia, even before my edit. I just added the name in Kazakh Arabic script because the altai group (at least in Altay prefecture) uses arabic script for Kazakh. this page also shows Uyghur to be a common language in the Altai Group which trecends the Russian/Chinese/Kazakh border. I hope our conversation can be amicable. I just want to make it known that my intention is not to Vandalize. GOD BLESS!
Altay Prefecture - Wikipedia 72.29.171.74 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This has to do with the content dispute at Turkey. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Turkish people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KarsVegas36 (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzun Hasan

[edit]

Persian Gulf

[edit]

Using the provocative term "Arabian Gulf" in an article related to the reign of an Iranian dynasty can be considered an example of disruptive editing (Special:Diff/1043185465). Mahan (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murad IV

[edit]

Why did you revert my edit to the Murad article? IgnacyPL (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keraites

[edit]

Greeting. I want to say have eyes on article. every once in a while there is guy whom come and add something without source or unrelated source like this :(All Khereid tribal names have meanings in the Mongolian language and end with either the Mongolic plural suffix "d" (t; ud, uud, üd, üüd) and singular suffix "n" common among medieval and modern clans. History of Mongolia (2003) Volume II.) History of Mongolia (2003) Volume dosen say anything about plural suffix or clans or Idk ud, uud, üd, üüd .Volume II is about "YUAN AND LATE MEDIEVAL PERIOD" this was add by blocked user DerekHistorian. Or using original research like on Rashid al-Din Hamadani's Jami' al-tawarik . Even in Jami' al-tawarik hamadani in regards of Keraites write in section three: در ذکر اقوامی از اتراک که ایشان نیز هر یک علی حده پادشاهی و مقدمی داشته اند. Bezartanha (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khazars

[edit]

Just wanted to point out that I saw a similar usage among the Qipchaks and Shatuo before. I thought it'd be good to add same to Khazars as well due to references in Byzantine chronicles. Apologies if this confused you. Thanks for correcting my edits. Nifushi (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatuo Turks is used like that in Chinese sources. Adding Turks to everything is just redundant. Beshogur (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Khazars also called "Khazar Turks" in Chinese sources. You can click the Efn. I just didn't duplicate to the other citation.
"Chinese: 突厥曷薩 Tūjué Hésà; 突厥可薩 Tūjué Kěsà, 'lit. 'Türk Khazar'[1]" Nifushi (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shatuo were a polity in Chinese history, while "Khazar Turks" isn't even frequently used in English. And please stop following my edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I read MOS couple of times and I'm trying to understand and get better at editing Wikipedia. You're the highest edit count Turkish user I saw. That's why I was following how you edit articles.
Thank you for your time. Nifushi (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean adding "Turks" everywhere doesn't help. "Khazar Turks" appears one time in the article "Shatuo Turks" is more used. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know I was supposed to consider how frequently the word is used in English. I didn’t create the Qipchaks or the Shatuo. Please calm down. Nifushi (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I’ve removed all the controversial "Turkish" additions in the Seljuk-related articles as you reverted one of mine in Kilij Arslan I. Again, apologies for the confusion. Nifushi (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem but it's really anachronistic (it can be used) but it's kinda redundant and considering POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Recent Changes Barnstar
Thanks for keeping watch across a large number of articles! Bogazicili (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at ANI (not negatively)

[edit]

Sorry, I forgot that I pinged you during this report at WP:ANI about another editor with which you recently had a dispute. You are free to ignore it if you have nothing to add. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw it yesterday but kinda forgot. Beshogur (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed IV is the youngest Ottoman sultan and the youngest caliph in history.

[edit]

May I ask why did you reverted that? it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Google AI and ChatGPT kept making a mistake when I ask who's the youngest caliph, they said al-Muqtadir, but Mehmed IV is the correct answer. 2404:C0:1470:0:0:0:6729:D9E3 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a trivia. Beshogur (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna revert it back, because that information is very useful for AI to learn, the youngest Caliph isn't al-Muqtadir but it's Mehmed IV. Judicatio (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not useful and that's edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit in Bulgars?

[edit]

Why did you revert my edit in Bulgars on 6/25/2025? I cited sources. Rossen4 (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliabe source. Beshogur (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Seljuk Bey

[edit]

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2735617

https://x.com/CihanPiyadeoglu/status/1924508199152918803?t=KUG6uaAWPYpdM-U53RdKWA&s=08

@Beshogur, According to these sources, Seljuk Bey's religion was neither Christianity nor Judaism. Cihan Piyadeoğlu is a historian at Istanbul Civilization University, do some research if you want. Kartal1071 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The university is ranked 40th among 50 universities in Turkey. Also can you show me his reasoning? Curious. Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur,
Have you reviewed the article? If you do not know Turkish, you can get support from another editor who knows Turkish. Also, I do not care about the ranking of the University. Because what is important is not the University, but the fact that the Professors are quite good. If you want, you can do some research on Professor Doctor Cihan Piyadeoğlu. If he is still not a suitable historian, I can review the books of Osman Turan, Ali Sevim and Ahmet Taşağıl on this subject and let you know. If you also review the European sources, I hope we can reach a conclusion in line with the common results that will emerge from here. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to read the entire paper to figure out? Maybe show me the quote. Why should I believe the X post of a random historian? Calling that "they were Tengrist" based on??? what? Bu, bazı Türk bilim insanlarının, Selçukluların İslâm öncesi dinî inançları konusunda Türk halkları tarafından uygulandığı bilinen Kök Tengri inanışının bir biçimi olduğunu varsayan bir görüştür.4 should convince me? I would respect Ahmet Taşağıl's opinions, but not on his views outside Göktürks etc. Same for Ortaylı making non-Ottoman comments for example. Outside of their domain. Also checked the last paragraph of Sadettin Gürman's article: aksi yönde yeni kanıtlar ortaya çıkmadıkça, eldeki kanıtlar Selçuk, oğulları ve takipçilerinin İslâm’ı kabul edene kadar en azından kısa bir süre de olsa Hristiyan olduklarını göstermektedir. so what's the issue here? Beshogur (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 1115, 1116, 1117 in the article Kartal1071 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he is talking about Oghuz Turks and then suddenly comes to Seljuks' relations to the Khazars. Beshogur (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Oghuz Turks consist of 24 tribes. The Seljuks belong to the Kınık Tribe of the Oghuz Lineage. As I said, I will give you an answer after reviewing the books on Seljuk history by authors such as Osman Turan, Ali Sevim, Ali Öngül, Erdoğan Merçil. Kartal1071 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur I need to examine the Resources I mentioned and other resources related to this subject. Kartal1071 (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur, sorry I'm late because of some work. Here are the resources (I hope you know Turkish).
1-https://www.scribd.com/document/234279646/Osman-Turan-Selcuklular-Tarihi-Ve-Turk-Islam-Medeniyeti (page: 39-40)
2-
https://share.google/q3hlaLM1LZd5pR9H3 (page:2 page:16)
3-
https://share.google/WmTs2Cymt0iicS7hE (page:6-7) Kartal1071 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will check this in some days. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Kartal1071 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will check this soon. Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Kartal1071 (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vofa

[edit]

Hello Beshogur! I'm not sure why, but Vofa mentioned you in this discussion. I believe he may have confused you with someone else. However, I noticed on his talk page that you've encountered instances of falsification from him in the past. I’ve started a discussion about Vofa’s editing behavior here. I’d appreciate it if you could share your thoughts there. KoizumiBS (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murad II

[edit]

@Beshogur. Why are you reverting the content? The source is cited. Research first, then revert. Recently, you said there were 50 universities in Türkiye, but when I looked, I saw there were approximately 200. Kartal1071 (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.fulbright.org.tr/turkiye-universiteler#:~:text=T%C3%BCrkiye%27de%202024%20Ocak%20itibariyle,%C3%B6%C4%9Fretim%20programlar%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20kapat%C4%B1lmas%C4%B1na%20karar%20verilmi%C5%9Ftir Kartal1071 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think cited everything has to be included? İslam Ansiklopedisi doesn't even use Koca Murad. And where did you get "the Great". Şimşirgil isn't even a good historian. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be as you say. I could find a few more sources, but I won't bother. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know Koca Murad but what makes you think this is notable and meaning "Murad the Great". Seems too forced. Beshogur (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it necessary to add this because sometimes in movies and, very rarely, in primary source books, Sultan Murad II is referred to as Koca Murad, not Sultan Murad II. I know that the word Koca means 1) husband 2) great. I apologize if I made a mistake without knowing it. Kartal1071 (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem but (I am not in position to give a tip) a tip, take Islam Ansiklopedisi as reference if you can. Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use the Encyclopedia of Islam as a basis. However, the Encyclopedia of Islam can be lacking in some detailed information, so I have to consult reliable history books. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have good knowledge in the field of history, I would like to consult you on some issues, if you do not mind. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mongol rump states has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Mongol rump states has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

[edit]

Can you please explain your recent reverts beyond a "WP:NPOV" claim? All the relevant articles explain the status of occupation and are sourced, it is not a POV violation. I hope you understand that just because an occupying powers don't like the term, that doesn't mean it is not an occupation... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized independence, occupied by x, etc. just keep it simple. The infobox is not place for that. Beshogur (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't get under Russian occupation as well. The state claims itself to be a state, it has limited recognition and is under Russian occupation. Occupied by Russia on Georgian territory yes, but is the state Russian occupied? No. Beshogur (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman flags

[edit]

The reason I opened this topic is to resolve the issue by talking without getting into an edit war. Why do you keep changing it? I'm not trying to attack anything here. I'm trying to turn what's wrong into right. BEFOR01 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This star and crescent flag was adopted in 1844 not abandoned [2] Koshuri (あ!) 17:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The eight-pointed flag was declared in 1793. The flag you're talking about was declared after 1844, at the top of the original page. It's already mentioned in large print at the top of this page.
There are two possibilities: either there is a translation error or you see this as an arbitrary edit because I did not specify the source. BEFOR01 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now I got mixed up between them because the eight point star flag is also stated to be in use after 1844 on commons. Koshuri (あ!) 07:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the phrase "after 1844," I assumed this flag emerged after 1844, meaning it wasn't used before 1844. However, after doing some research, I learned that this flag was actually used in the Ottoman Empire from 1793 onward and was considered the official state flag until 1844.
Therefore, I felt that the phrase "after 1844" didn't fully reflect the historical context. In such cases, a brief explanation or footnote would have been more understandable. BEFOR01 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the 1793? The Ottomans used various flag. The source says after 1844, thus it's after 1844. Why do you bring your own ideas? Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bringing my own opinions here. I'm not harming any article by correcting the wrong year of the flag. I'm simply trying to provide useful information.
I first came across 1793 here and on Turkish Wikipedia. Many innovations were made in the Ottoman Empire during this period. These events were interconnected. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's another source that supports my argument. While it doesn't mention the 1793 issue, it does show flags from before and after 1844.
In short, the post-1844 flag was a five-star crescent.
Before 1844, it appeared to have eight stars. BEFOR01 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. Then why do you deny the photo was taken with a real camera? Let's take a look at a flag with a picture from the Republic era and then look at the flag with the picture I posted.
So, let's see which flag was accepted in 1844 and the flag of the republic that changed in 1922. BEFOR01 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't original research here. [3] this is the original reference for the image. The flag of Turkey and its empire from 1844. The flag is made of wool bunting with a cotton hoist. It is machine sewn at the ends, the top and bottom sides of the flag are selvedge edges. A rope halyard is attached to hoist the flag. It has a red field with a printed white star and crescent. The design is inaccurate with an eight pointed star not the correct five. 'MP' is inscribed on the hoist.
Please stop disruptive behavior. Beshogur (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding the flag with thicker star and crescent, this version is used on the main page Ottoman Empire, take your concerns there. Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want original research, I will not hesitate to do it.
"Please stop disruptive behavior." It seems like you're constantly trying to justify your behavior by saying things like, "Your behavior is disturbing."
Anyway, I have no business with the personal things you mentioned.
Before we get to the topic of sources, let's see what I am advocating for.
I argue that the flag between 1793 and 1844 was a crescent and eight-pointed star. First, let's talk about what I'm advocating. We'll also touch on the flag issue after 1844. The source you used is confusing and contradicts your argument. This eight-pointed star flag, adopted in 1793 during the reign of Selim III, was changed in 1844. Yet you present a source that claims that the flag had eight stars, even though you know that the flag with the normal five-pointed star existed in 1844. Encyclopedia Britannica We can access the original information you want from this source. Thank you for transcribing the information in the source you shared with me so I don't get tired of it. Now I'll do the same: "There were several Turkish flags throughout the centuries of the Ottoman Empire, most of them incorporating the crescent and star and the colours red or green. In June 1793 the flag now used as the Turkish national flag was established for the navy, although its star had eight points instead of the current five. The reduction in the number of star points was made about 1844. That flag design was reconfirmed as the Turkish national banner on June 5, 1936, following the revolution led by Atatürk, who had established a republic in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman dynasty." [2] BEFOR01 (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Original research is not allowed, please see WP:OR. You still don't get the point, that particular flag was used after 1844, that's what the reference says. There was no standardised Ottoman flag that used 8 pointed. this was also a naval flag according to the source. Beshogur (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not conducting original research here; I am citing published, reliable sources. The source you provided contradicts other reliable sources, yet you continue to defend it. For example, Britannica clearly states that the star had eight points in 1793 (naval use) and that it was reduced to five points around 1844. What should not be forgotten here is that if the Ottoman flag was lowered to the 5 stars in 1844, the previous flag was eight-pointed.
Another source of ours also supports this. -> "The star, originally eight-pointed, has been on the flag since 1793 and is associated with the Virgin Mary, whom Constantinople (later Istanbul) was consecrated."
This shows that multiple reliable sources agree on the timeline (1793: eight points, 1844: five points). Therefore, the issue here is not WP:OR but rather WP:N and WP:RS the weight of reliable sources clearly supports the 1793-1844 distinction. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica isn't considered a reliable source here. Your other source isn't reliable either. And the star isn't associated with the Virgin Mary. There was no standartized flag before 1844, and the point is that the original naval flag was dated after 1844, not before. Beshogur (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is a reliable source. If I were using only Britannica, I might agree with you.
However, when we look at all other sources, we see that there was a flag with an eight-pointed star before 1844, and that it was accepted by both the state and the navy in 1793.
If this flag had been used only for the navy, the state flag would not have been reduced to 5 stars in 1844.
Now let's look at other sources that support my argument without just using the Britannica.
Let's look at what historian Ahmet Şimşirgil, who is now a Professor,Dr, says.
Source 1
"Kırmızı zemin üzerine hilâl ve yıldız bulunan bayrak, Osmanlılarda ilk defa 1793’de devletin resmî bayrağı olarak kabul edildi. Ancak bu bayraktaki yıldız, sekiz köşeli idi. Bu bayrak Osmanlı Devleti’nin resmî ve umûmî sembolü olarak kullanıldı. Sultan birinci Abdülmecîd Han zamanında 1842’de yıldızın beş köşeli olması kararlaştırıldı ve Osmanlı bayrağının şekli kesinleşti."
My sources don't stop there. There's another source that I think is more official.
Dorling Kindersley Limited (2008). Complete Flags of the World. 5th ed. London: Dorling Kindersley. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-7566-4115-3. Produced in association with the Flag Institute (UK).
"Turkey’s flag dates from 1844,..."
+
“The star first appeared on the flag in 1793. Initially, it had eight points, but by the early 19th century it usually had the five seen today.”
------
For now, apart from the claims of these normal sites, if we collect these 2 sources with Britannica, I think these 3 official sources in total are sufficient. Therefore, the issue here is not WP:OR, but rather a matter of WP:RS. It is also about WP:WEIGHT, since multiple independent and reliable sources clearly establish the timeline (1793: eight-pointed star; 1844: five-pointed star). This should be reflected in the article accordingly. BEFOR01 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Golden 2018, p. 294.
  2. ^ "Flag of Turkey". *Encyclopædia Britannica*.