Talk:Dragut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Praise

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)[reply]

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

unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.


If one looks only at the name then the osmans had only turkish servants captains or military leaders/viziers. However a lot of them was not turkish but born albanian or greek or whatever region of the ottoman empire - and later used a turkish or turkified name when they rose to a position of power. So Turgut being a turkish name is no proof that Turgut was born in Turkey - especially as there are several versions of his name, e.g. Dragut. Your assumption that all religions gruops and people had equal rights is either total ignorance or at worst propaganda - of course NOT all religious groups in the Ottoman Empire had the same rights, e.g. the head tax, devshirme ConjurerDragon (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


all religious groups in ottoman land wasn't equal though all had rights and protected by state, corsairs weren't undisciplined looters, they were state sponsored, organized sailors, so its very absurd they are taking prisoners from their own homeland wether christian or muslim. corsair/privateer business description is making pact with a state for not looting that state's ships or lands while attacking its enemies' ships and lands. in fact there are many christian greek sailors in ottoman navy, that fact increases absurdity of those claims. turgut name doesn't spelled as dragut, it's a deformed form only used in european languages so bears no authenticity. a turkish name most likely indicate a turkish descent because great majority of converts uses islamic arabic origined names like abdullah not turkic ones. i lived in his home village karabağ. original karabağ village found over mountains away from shore. because knights of rhodes constantly pirating and looting aegean turkish shores. saint john knights were the ones who take prisoners from ottoman lands, not absurdly state sponsored ottoman corsairs from their native land. in fact ottoman corsairs appeared as a reaction to pirates of saint john. barbaros hayreddin and his brothers were merchants until barbaros captured by knights. then they used similar tactics on their opponents. and during state sanctioned corsair ships resupplying from their home country a young local villager helped them to find water source. they offered him to join corsairs, he was from a land under constant christian pirate threath and preferred the life of a corsair instead of simple peasant life threathened with pirate attacks. he was turgut reis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.188.115 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Bernd Langensiepen, Ahmet Güleryüz, The Ottoman Steam Navy, 1828-1923, p. 1.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply
]

Gentlemen Turgut Reis is not a person whose lineage is lost in history, on the contrary, his lineage is well known. It is known he was the son of a farmer named Veli. And this lineage also reaches today as descendants of the same family are known and they tell the same things.--85.98.19.134 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novel !

Legacy section. Takabeg (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Dönme or Dönmeh
I think Murat Belge use this term for Greek renegade ("Oruc and Hayreddin Barbarossa, the sons of a Greek renegade from Mytilene"). Takabeg (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dönmeh" was and is used for jewish people who have turned muslims (but believed to still practice judaism in secret). The greek people of Anatolia were not known to turn muslim en masse as the jewish movement of Sabetai Sevi "Şabbetay Zvi".--95.8.120.222 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Issue About His Origin: The Need For Stronger References

The Turk or Greek origined issue needs stronger facts. I have viewed the sources citations about the greek claim but all of those references are recent! and it is not clear where these recent references get their data from. I edited them out in place of the stronger = more reliable references of that period and those that cite them. As history wise the strongest reference is of that period's. Same with the argument of Murat Belge, his opinion is not based on any written, cited reference. He just explains his own view which makes it not a historical fact but well... a personal opinion. The Turgut Reis municipality in their right mind started annual symposiums about Turgut Reis and Turkish maritime, naval history in general (you can find the first ones' details in their website), which I think is a very important step into shedding light on the Grande Admiral and his life. In coming years I am hoping we will gather much more reliable data about his life.--Pruva (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Turkish" was often used with the meaning of "Ottomans" in sources. So "Turkish" is not always ethnic Turkish. We have to be careful. Takabeg (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The father's name "Veli" (which is based on reliable references) proves well enough that he was of Turkish (speaking as in sense of race - not in the sense of Ottoman citizen) so it is with absolute reliability to call him Turkish as this is his race. Even if we were to call him Ottoman hence his nationality... Then why not call him Ottoman instead of greek??? From what proven reliable material do we get the idea he is of greek origin? Where do those recent references you cite get their assumption based unto? For example if he was greek than what was his greeek name? His father's name? His family line? Just because some recent references call him racial greek without proof doesnt make him so because the other side of this discussion has the better and more reliable proof - his father's name... his relative's names... His family line... The village he was born in.. And being the source is from that period... There is absolutely no way that recent and vague references can match the reliabilty of the items I listed above. Please use hard evidence material or leave the issue... Just because of such careless behaviour today wikipedia is not known to be a reliable source of information as everyone with an idea plays with it at his/her heart's content.

As of now... The most reliable idea is he was an Ottoman citizen of Turkish origins.--Pruva (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I don't quite understand what's the matter at hand, but I'll just say that the "oldest source equals best source" argument is a logical fallacy massive enough to create a crater, possibly a black hole.--LK (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong probability that the mother and father of Turgut Reis were Greek. However, Turkish sources do not take this information seriously. Similarly, the father of

Halikarnas Balıkçısı, doesn't seem to mind this strong probability related with Turgut Reis. On the contrary, he acts to erase such a possibility from our minds, by starting with explaining his birth in his book.
Turkish original: Turgut Reis'in anne-babasının Rum olması ihtimali güçlüdür. Ancak, Türk kaynakları bu iddiayı ciddiye almazlar. Benzer biçimde, Hızır Reis ve kardeşlerinin babalarının Rum'dan dönme bir timar beyi olduğu kuvvetle muhtemel, annelerinin Rum olduğu da kesindir. Halikarnas Balıkçısı, Turgut Reis'le ilgili bu güçlü ihtimale önem vermeye hiç niyetli görünmüyor. Tersine, kitaba doğumunu anlatmakla başlayarak böyle bir ihtimali zihnimizden silmek üzere davranıyor.

— Murat Belge, "Mavi Anadolu Tezi ve Halikarnas Balıkçısı" - Edebiyatta Milliyetçilik, Birikim, Sayı 210, Ekim 2006, p. 35.

Takabeg (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

User removed many sources that mention to

Greekness of his parents and replace with other sources to show him an ethnic Turkish
. Let's investigate sources provided by user.

Stanley Lane-Poole (1890). The Story of the Nations: The Barbary Corsairs. G.P. Gutnam's Sons. pp. 124. "The name of Dragut has already occurred more than once in this history: it was destined to become as notorious as Barbarossa’s as the century advanced. Dragut or Torghoud was born on the Caramanian coast opposite the island of Rhodes. Unlike many of his colleagues he seems to have been the son of Mohammedan parents.

Author used the term Mohammedan and not mentioned to ethnicity of his parents. But he didn't mention to "ethnic Turkishness". A Greek renegade (converted) is also Mohammedan.

Cengiz Orhonlu (1968). Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi "Journal of Turkish History with Documents". pp. 69. "Turgut Reis is one of the well known of Turkish seaman of XVI. century Mediterranean. He is the son of a villager named Veli from the Menteşe - Serulus (Serulus or Seravulos) region. At early age he joined the seamen and became known. In short time he became a captain of levends. In some views his life as a corsair starts almost during the same time that of Barbarossa brothers. Later he began to operate on western Mediterranean seas, working together with Barbarossa bothers (Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Künhü'l-ahbar, University books, No: 5959, pg. 300a)"

Orhonlu used the term Turkish seaman, but as we know, Turkish/Turkey can be used with the meaning of Ottoman/Ottoman Empire. He didn't specified ethnic origins of him and his parents. The name Veli is doubious. If it were true, a Greek renegade could call himself Veli. The name of his father cannot prove "ethnicity" of him and his father.

Cihan Yemişçi (2011). Turgut Reis'in Nereli Olduğu Meselesi "The Question of Turgut Reis' Birth Place. I. Turgut Reis Turkish Maritime History Symposium (27-28 May 2011). "When we investigate the question of where the famous seaman was from, we can see the answer is recorded in two chronicals of that period. The first one is the Künhü'l Ahbar written by Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali Beg (who is praised to be one of the most well known and most reliable highly valued source by Babinger) and the other is Tuhfetü'l-Kibar fi Esfari'l Bihar by Katip Çelebi. In both sources it is written that the famous seman was the son of a farmer named Veli from Sıralovas sub-district."

Cihan Yemişçi investigated and estimatee his birth place, not his ethnicity. Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı (1998). Osmanlı Tarihi, II "Ottoman History, II". T.R. Department of Turkish History. pp. 384. "The whole story of Turgut was written by Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali recited from a relative of Turgut Reis: Sami Beg, the son of Kayıt Hasan Beg."

This source doesn't mention to his ethnicity.

Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali (1596). Künhü'l-ahbar.

This sources was used by Cihan Yemişçi to investigate his birth place.

Takabeg (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we can see that the sources, although they may not say so explicitly lean upon the fact that he was of Turkish origins. This is due to the name of his father which is written down as Veli.Proposing that a Greek renegade could call himself Veli is just that, a proposal (what if). We must also take in to account that sources used to pin down his ethnicity are going to be from far back in time. A time where nationalism did not exist and emphasis upon the religion was boldened. One of the sources you have questioned says that his parents were of Islamic roots. Living in Anatolia and being of Islamic roots is a strong indication of Turkish ethnicity (bearing in mind his parents name also) if his parents were of Christian roots we would assume he was Greek and he himself was converted which clearly is not the case. So the evidence as it stands; He is from Anatolia, his parents are of Islamic roots, his fathers name is Veli. Now as you can see this is a clear profile for a 16th century Turk. Regards, T.Irmak - Give a lie 1 day head start, it will take the truth 100 years to catch up- (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What ? User:Pruva removed those sources:

Takabeg (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple academic sources accepted as reliable report an information (whatever that may be) it's not in the place of wikipedia editors to question the soundness of their reasoning, as that would be tantamount to original research. If you feel so strongly about this matter, the most sensible thing you can do is finding other academic sources that state the opposite, and represent both views in the article, not deleting references because in your opinion the historians who authored them are mistaken or biased.--LK (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I find worth noting: "Historically, Greek Orthodoxy has been associated with being Romios, i.e. Greek, and Islam with being Turkish, despite ethnic or linguistic references." This is from a wikipedia article and it's unreferenced, but if it were true it would blur the lines of 'turkishness' further, especially as no source definitely nails him down as an ethnic Turk.--LK (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Both of your arguments are about criticizing the Turkish view. However as I think you are still overlooking what I am saying about greek view lacks proof, I will remind it once more (with all clarity): No Original Reserach, No Unverifiability. These are the rules. And these rules are there so that the content is solid, justifieable and as hard a fact as it can get, which I am concerned about in this isse. It is about what is more logical... You have a view that can list the family line through direct sources... On the other hand you have a view, its sources are unclear on the issues which the hard claims the other view makes. Which of them would you choose?

Well then let us hear those sources you have listed, where they base their assumptions on... Clearly (if they are not original research) they should cite a verifiable source that would - should have the ability to get the info through some means, be it as a first person experience (i.e. in our case he knew the character personally - which is a rare event) or he would get the info from a relater (which is the common event). Now the thing with relating events are, they get more distorted the later from the original date of event-person they get. That is the rule of history, the counter-claim you make about older source does not make it more reliable - is actualy the illogical one here hence the logic I provided above and would also be a talk of amusement in real historical debate circles as the older is more reliable indeed in history logic (provided of course the source is well known and trusted in historical circles). And I guess since this article is about history so historical study rules should apply.

When we get back to debate, the reason why I deleted the other sources is clear, I do not know if they are verifiable, I need to trust them, so that I may know they are no original research. These are Wikipedia's rules are they not and rightfully so as it is only logical to expect these in a claim. How would I know if they are not original research? It is vague at this point to me. (Just as Mr. Belge's claims are vague, he gives no references, he just condems a book - a novel!!! It is as if Don Quixiote waging war on windmills - so meaningless, because I do not understand what his assumptions are based onto, I am puzzled at the illogical fallacy in this - such things should have place in popular media, not a medium in which facts should be attained as much as possible at utmost seriousness) I want to see the backings of those claims. Not wikipedia editors, it is up to us of course as a reader, researcher to judge the sources, so that is what I am doing now.--Pruva (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As I had expected another victim of reality to popularity. Wikipedia is more and more drifting from reality to popular ideas oh like when you defend an idea that is much more real than what is popular, it doesnt get the justice it deserves. Thanks to ignorant people like you. I asked that in order to find the real truth you have to provide the verifiability of the sources. But no, you played the dirty trick of systemic bias... Now that part of the article is like a maze of misguidance because of your arrogance. I have looked through some of your edittings in other subjects, you act on zeal and defy logic and crush the usefull work of others without hesitation. I am guessing it is not the real truth you are after hence your blind eye to logic but it is your zeal towards everything that sounds - looks like nationalism to you..? And mislabeling everything you dont like as systemic bias? And was there any sign that I was judging the issue and my logic in the guidance of my national thoughts?? No I strictly insisted upon just the logic and truth - the only just academic means to judge the issue right from the start. To me this labelling of yours, this zeal, that is a poor excuse of a cover to change the facts. You have proven yourself in my eyes to be unworthy of any academic research, either by moral code (deliberatly altering the facts) or by impertinence like a spoiled child that doesnt come to terms and insists always on his terms no matter what.

And to all the real historians - researchers out there, I say do not bother to read this nonsense, it is beyond hope of getting usefull understanding of the issue.

To sum up, the reality is, as with all the solid hard references I have provided (instead of the unverifiable original resources of vague claim the other). Turgut Reis - was born as a Muslim Turk of Saralavos sub district in Karabag village. His father's name is Veli. That village today is home to still Turks and has of course no trace in its history of greek origin or convert. His family line today is known, the family heritage still continues today. You can talk to residents of Karabag village about his life and family line. If you want you can join the annual symposium about Turgut Reis that happens at Turgut Reis municipality.--88.246.21.36 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think his name supports the idea that he was turkic. There was absolutely no reason for a muslim greek to take a TurkIC name that has no relation to islam. In fact, taking a non islamic turkic name would absurd.

( and I saw somewhere that someone claiming barbarossa was greek either. All I can say is that Barbarossa made his assistant wrote a book about his ife called "Gazawat ı Khayruddin Pasha", and thanks to that book, we today know that he was not only Turkic, But also was proud of it. Most of the time he tells us how brave his TURKISH soldiers are and how coward the local arab subjects are. 176.43.85.147 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

WP:COMMONNAME

  • According to
    google books
    :

Jan 1, 1980–Sep 5, 2011

Jan 1, 2000–Sep 5, 2011

Jan 1, 2005–Sep 5, 2011

-- Takabeg (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Turgut Reis may be a well known person in Turkey. But aside from acedemicians he is not a well known figure in English speaking world and there is no well established use of his name in English language. In such cases, conventions of the language appropriate to the subject should be used per
    WP Article Titles . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. "Dragut" appears to be a good bit more common in English sources.
    WP: Article Titles ("If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject") but there are actually quite a number of English sources as the nominator shows. —  AjaxSmack  21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Turgut Reis" -Llc -> max 241 (most results are empty, includes even Turgut Reis Street), minimum 70 Takabeg (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragut Reis- 184 Ottoman Turgut Reis-150 Dragut- 60 Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your researches are completely wrong. You must use "Turgut Reis" insted of Turgut + Reis, you must use Ottoman Turgut Reis -Llc instead of Ottoman Turgut Reis llc. Takabeg (talk)
Dragut is not nickname'. It was derived from درغوث‎ . Takabeg (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pirate? Pirate infobox has nothing to do with Turgut Reis. He is the commander of Ottoman Navy. It's an insult. I think it should be like this one.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Dragut
File:Turgut Reis.jpg
Portrait of Turgut (Dragut) Reis
Bornc. 1485
Bodrum, Ottoman Empire
Died23 June 1565
Sliema, Malta, Mediterranean Sea
OccupationAdmiral
TitleAdmiral, Bey and Pasha of  Ottoman Empire

This item has been addressed. Thank you for your contribution. --Cdfi (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-

The name Turgut is an etymologically Turkish name. Unfortunately, the sources stating he was Greek are of course obsolete and highly unreliable. That's why misinformed people should not edit this website...  :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.82.176 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragut's Parents Religion is Disputed

My editing is very messy please clean it up, however here are the references that show that his parents were MUSLIM:

Sorry I am new at editing please help me implement the change to remove the part about his parents being Christian as that is untrue and not supported by the majority of literature.

You are picking sources to suit your point of view while removing those that do not. Slow down and allow time (a week at least) for other editors to comment. Until change is agreed the article stays as it was.Charles (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that say one thing and other sources that say another we need to cover both.Charles (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help so far, Charles. Citations supporting both views are now present within the article and I have highlighted the fact that the religion of his parents is disputed. I hope now that you could kindly stop reverting my changes as I have added a lot of valuable, referenced content. There is absolutely no intention for an edit war, I am new to this but please be respectful of my contribution. Cdfi (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 9781934757550
    . Brantome, that Dragut was born at a small village in Asia Minor called Charabulac, opposite to the island of Rhodes, and that his parents were Mahommedans.
  2. ^ Lane-Poole, Stanley (1890). The Story of the Nations: The Barbary Corsairs. G.P. Gutnam's Sons. p. 124. The name of Dragut has already occurred more than once in this history: it was destined to become as notorious as Barbarossa's as the century advanced. Dragut or Torghoud was born on the Caramanian coast opposite the island of Rhodes. Unlike many of his colleagues he seems to have been the son of Mohammedan parents, tillers of the earth. Being adventurous by nature, he took service as a boy in the Turkish fleet and became "a good pilot and a most excellent gunner." At last he contrived to purchase and man a galleot, with which he cruised the waters of the Levant, where his intimate acquaintance with all the coasts and islands enabled him to seize and dispose of many prizes.

Information Box Image

Hello,

I would like to start a discussion about the profile picture for the Dragut page. There are two images here that need to be looked at.

File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg
realistic coloring
File:Turgut Reis Admiral.JPG
impressionist coloring

Can we reach a consensus on which is best to represent this historic hero?

It's worth noting that beyond the coloring there are differences in the relative angles of the head, arm, and body

Thank you, --Cdfi (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


For your attention Discasto

Here is what happened - when I started editing the page, the profile picture was the realistic colored one, apparently within that file on wikimedia somebody had uploaded the realistic colored one on top of the impressionist colored one. That was somebody else's mistake, not mine. What I chose to do, after seeing the Dragut article change to an image I had not seen before (again when I started editing the profile image for Dragut was the realistic colors one, not the impressionist), after receiving some advice, was to reupload the realistic one to a new filename on wikimedia, which I titled "Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg" and to edit the Dragut article to relink to the SAME IMAGE, only with now a different name. So in fact the status quo as it had been for months is represented by "Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg" and not "Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG".

Learnings and next steps: 1. The status quo is actually the realistic colored one 2. Next step is to decide which image (realistic or impressionist) is better to represent this great hero on his article.

Thank you, please add your voices.

--Cdfi (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are good. You like one. Other editors like another one. As there's no reason to replace a valid image with another equally valid image. Thus (and per
WP:BRD), it's better to leave the existing one. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
| Discasto my friend I have no problem opening up a sincere discussion and going through the process you've mentioned I am learning a lot and enjoying wikipedia but as I've explained clearly above you refer to "not changing it" but because the underlying linked wikimedia image had changed, the image on the Dragut article changed as a result, so I updated the link to keep the SAME image as it was for months - I did not change the image! The image I'm reverting TO is the same it has been since I joined wikipedia earlier this year. I just ensured that the page's appearance didn't change when the wikimedia Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG file was split into two. If you want we can get on skype or something and have a chat about it. Please please I don't want an edit war but the "status quo" was the "realistic colored" image not the "impressionist colored" image, anyway thanks for your patience with a wikinoob. --Cdfi (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discasto I will wait for you to agree before reverting the image.. as I have no intention of edit warring hope you can read the reasoning I've provided and become convinced if you have questions please ask I can clarify any confusion. The image you are reverting to hadn't been the profile image since at least when I started on wikipedia earlier this year. The image that was set was the "realistic colored" one and as there was no edit warring on the image, and it was stable, we can assume it represents the status quo. The image I was reverting to is the image as the page appeared all the way up until a few days ago when somebody on wikimedia started changing things on the linked image, which is a whole other story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfi (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discasto have you had a chance to review the above? Thank you --Cdfi (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 19:27, 15 March 2017‎ Discasto (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,793 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (Leaving the previous image until a consensus is reached) (undo | thank)
Discasto I will wait a bit longer but if I don't hear from you I will revert the page to how it was before as per instructions on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22

--Cdfi (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is an essay". Anyway, the discussion is pointless, as the image (in any of its versions) is not free of copyright. --Discasto (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then I will revert to the realistic colored one as it was status quo and we will all await outcome of the deletion requests on the images. --Cdfi (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Discasto are you aware of any reasoning as to why only one of the two copyrighted pictures of Dragut has been deleted? Why not Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG? Your view appreciated thank you Cdfi (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Discasto (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Recropping of New Free-license Information Box Image

Hello User:Discasto, I think it's great that you've cropped the new information box image, may I suggest that you help to recrop it in such a way that the scale of the statue with the young man sitting below it remains visible? Thanks for the really great initiative and I definitely agree that the original was not centered properly.

Best regards, --Cdfi (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have it: File:Istanbul Statue of Turgut Reis IMG 8583 2010.jpg. However, IMHO, the picture in the infobox must focus on providing a close description of the subject of the article and not in highlighting the size of the statues of the subject. It's only an opinion. --Discasto (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Discasto - the recrop you've provided now includes the monument's name plate. Will update the infobox image now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfi (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, doesn't look right, the monument still isn't centered in the frame... will have a look tomorrow. --Cdfi (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Discasto as I've been blocked on commons (rightly or wrongly), would you mind uploading this version of the image, I've recropped it to include the monument's name plate http://imgur.com/a/GsjT5 thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfi (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Rollback of Unexplained Removal of Information

Recent edits by User:2a02:a44e:a90c:1:e595:11d6:8eff:e18 in the article history show that information relating to Dragut's ranks of Pasha and Governor among others has been removed neither justification nor substantiation provided.

I am requesting one of you good people to discover from User:2a02:a44e:a90c:1:e595:11d6:8eff:e18 the rationale behind the change as I do not see the created value. I will allow time for somebody else to have a look before I revert the changes myself.

Sincere regards, and look forward to collaborating with you --Cdfi (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Discasto

As I haven't heard from anybody I will revert the removal of information by User:2a02:a44e:a90c:1:e595:11d6:8eff:e18 as referred above. --Cdfi (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Rollback of Unjustified Changes to Images

Hi Team, recently changes were made by User:77.166.30.3, removing the statue of Dragut's monument altogether with the reasoning that a smaller image from a different perspective is already elsewhere within the article, supposedly justifying removing the monument as dragut's infobox picture, which has enjoyed silent consensus for a substantial period of time. The other image that was present within the article is lower resolution, and does not serve to show the scale of the monument, it instead looks much smaller than it really is. If one of the two images must go, then it should certainly not be the infobox image which is of much better quality and accuracy. I wonder why this user chose not to open a discussion about it on the talk page first?

I will be reverting these changes tomorrow, should the poster not provide reasoning enough as to why we should go through with the changes without first having some sort of informed discussion about it. --Cdfi (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the unjustified changes have not been defended, they have now been reverted. --Cdfi (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding Policy

Hello,

Recently 2 edits by User:Lucky_For_You have made bold "The Drawn Sword of Islam" and "the greatest pirate warrior of all time" in the intro paragraph, but has left "the uncrowned king of the mediterranean" unboldened... may I understand the rationale for the selective emphasis? If there is no justification provided in 48 hours I will revert the changes.

Thank you, and best regards,

--Cdfi (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey categories

See this revert. @Cdfi: categories should not be based on naming, but on the defining characteristics of this article. This article is a biography of an Ottoman person, that's what categorization should be based upon. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim categories

See this revert. @

WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Dear Marcocapelle, you've made multiple edits to remove categories. I've done some research and now believe you are right in removing some of the categories you've removed. I will no longer contest such previous edits.

However, could it not be argued that the modern Turkish military has named modern naval vessels after this person, and as this is described inside the Dragut article itself, the article is linked to the modern Turkish Navy and relevant categories should remain?

Regards, --Cdfi (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cdfi: Thanks for your reply. The Turkish navy category should be added to articles about naval vessels bearing the name of Dragut if such articles exist. Also, if such articles exist, you might consider incorporating a section in this Dragut article with links to the vessels articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marcocapelle I understand your reasoning for removing categories related to the ships and Turkish navy themselves... but why remove "Category:Military history of Turkey"? I believe that is qualitatively different from the others --Cdfi (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added Admiral of the fleet to the Naval Commander part in order to clarify the rank 77.166.30.3 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Discussions

I suggest we switch the Bust and Oil painted image, what do you guys think? 77.166.30.3 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 77.166.30.3's suggestion to swap the golden bust with the oil painting, I believe I would be agreeable. Let's place the oil painting on the left side so that the subject is facing toward the center of the article. --Cdfi (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Updated: This has been done. --Cdfi (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I think you made the image a little too large, it's way too large if you compare it to other topbox images. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me we should consider inserting the Oil painted image as the topbox image, switching places with the statue, I leave it up to you guys. Redman19 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can try. lets see how it works out. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think?? 77.166.30.3 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 77.166.30.3, how are you? Can we ask you to slow down a bit? We appreciate your enthusiasm to improve this article but let's follow the proper process. Was there anything wrong with the infobox image the way it was? It has enjoyed silent consensus for months now. If you think the change is needed, then fine, we can begin the discussion. The reasoning for the Monument Statue to Dragut being the primary image is here:

I posit that the infobox image of Dragut's statue shows a grander achievement than the oil painting, as many figures from this era have oil paintings of them, but few have statues commissioned in their honor, so it makes more sense to represent Dragut by his greater achievement', represented by the infobox image of the momument commissioned in his name. Please provide your reasoning. 

--Cdfi (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a solid point, I still think the oil painted image is more colourful and a real catch to the eye when seeing the article, but I can live with your reasoning also, kind regards. Redman19 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redman19 you could have taken that a few different ways and I'm impressed to see your non-defensive and collaborative spirit. I completely agree that the oil painting is beautiful and improves the overall value of the article. How about we add a section specifically called "Dragut in Art".. and we can put a grid of paintings or something similar? There are plenty out there depicting Dragut. I haven't fully thought it through but maybe you can come up with an idea to improve it? Thanks, and best regards. --Cdfi (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good hands if you are around my friend, keep it up. May I ask? what is it that is bonding you to Dragut? there are so many great seamen and explorers in history, why Dragut? just being curious. Redman19 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why would you remove a fine oilpainted picture for a statue thats already in the article? Redman19 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Redman19. I believe you aren't posting with the required neutrality on this. Rather than making this about "why" I "removed" a "fine" oil painting, consider the following:

The photograph of the statue has enjoyed silent consensus for months. It is status quo, if you want to change it, you will need to win more support and probably stop being accusatory - my revert is part of the normal BOLD > REVERT > DISCUSS process.

I posit that the infobox image of Dragut's statue shows a grander achievement than the oil painting, as many figures from this era have oil paintings of them, but few have statues commissioned in their honor, so it makes more sense to represent Dragut by his greater achievement. The secondary statue image does not do much to improve the article and will most likely be removed if you do not object.

--Cdfi (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia should support variety in its articles, this does not only apply in the use of different forms of English but also having a display of different images in the articles. Having two statue images of the same kind isn't supporting this. Redman19 (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the secondary image has been removed. --Cdfi (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Commander or Grand Admiral?

Dragut was a Grand Admiral for most of his naval career, this would translate in Kapudan Pasha which means Grand Admiral or Fleet Admiral, I suggest we should stick to that rank instead of profiling him as just a naval commander. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, there is already a sentence where he is described as an admiral. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 77.166.30.3, and thanks for contributing. --Cdfi (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Sock Puppetry

Fellow editors, the page seems to have been the subject of a sock puppet attack. Please remain vigilant so as to protect this important historical resource. --Cdfi (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dragut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Over Recent Removal of Material Content

I am writing to express concern over multiple edits performed by a user named Drmies, beginning with one on December 7th, 2017.

Their edits have removed much content without any justifiable reason (they said the code view was unreadable, and instead of cleaning up they just deleted) and seem to diminish the article and the subject of the article. I am reverting the edits to the status quo and welcome discussion on the talk page. --Cdfi (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Peacock if Referenced As Originally Appeared in Historical Texts

A recent edit by user Srnec removed content from the introductory paragraph claiming that it constituted 'peacock' terminology. While we appreciate this user's contribution to the page, we will respectfully disagree as the words used are cited in historical sources and are stated as they appear in the original source; they are not inflections of any wikipedia editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery https://www.wordnik.com/words/renown https://www.wordnik.com/words/fear

Best regards,

--Cdfi (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The present lead is ridiculous. If you can't see that, what is there to say? The point isn't that he wasn't famed, respected or feared but that it isn't particularly notable that he has been described in such terms. But not any such terms used of a subject are suitable for WP's voice. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec Please don't use words like "ridiculous" or implying that there is a problem with me because "I can't see that". There are a lot of ways you could have responded to me, but you've chosen aggression - please rethink your approach. Moving on, thank you for your edit it is healthy to discuss these things as part of the BOLD>REVERT>DISCUSS cycle. It is notable that he was described in this way by historical sources (including non-Ottoman) as it gives a picture of who he was and the scope of his effect upon the known world at that time. The content that you have been removed was properly cited and has enjoyed consensus for a very long time now so any changes will need to be thoroughly justified. Thank you. --Cdfi (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not at all "notable that he was described in this way by historical sources". It does not give "a picture of who he was and the scope of his effect". The words in question are "famed", "respected" and "feared". To what prominent military leader in history could these not refer? Since User:Drmies also removed the material and was reverted by you, I do not think it has consensus. Can you point to another biography on Wikipedia that starts like this? Srnec (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, peacock. I have restored an earlier version. Cdfi's version is unreadable and not in accordance with the MOS on how to write a lead; I chime in with Srnec. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above two users Srnec and Drmies appear to be working in tandem to disregard the BRD process and begin an edit war instead of seeking consensus and/or agreement from editors via the talk page as per edit warring guidelines. As they are working together, they will be treated as a single entity.

  • The users have responded to requests to discuss on the talk page with aggression, seen here [1].
  • They have expanded their removal campaign to include the fact that Dragut was Muslim from the lead-in [2]. Why are they doing this? Dragut is was known as "The Drawn Sword of Islam", and the fact that he was Muslim is defining to his character and should be apparent within the lead-in. Their removal of content is bordering on vandalism.
  • They have been alerted to the fact that the content which they have removed does not violate PEACOCK guidelines [3] as it is referenced as it appears in historical sources by definition "stating the facts", and they have not provided justification except by stating that they do not "think" there was consensus, when in reality the content was added last year and has enjoyed silent consensus since then, for approximately a year now. The removal of this content can be seen as an attempt to diminish the subject of the article.
  • The content that is being continuously removed does not fit the definition of peacock / puffery as it is accurately cited in historical sources.
  • The example given on page [4] shows that quoting the facts is allowed.
  • It states: 'Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.'
  • This has been done. The words "famed", "respected", and "feared" have been properly cited in historical texts giving an accurate view as to the article subject's historical scope and influence, and importance. The said words were directly present in the historical texts as "renowned" "respected" and "most dangerous". The words are analogues by definition, see: https://www.wordnik.com/words/renown and https://www.wordnik.com/words/fear
  • Here is the example used in the Manual of Style constituting "just the facts" [5]:
Just the facts:
Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]
  • Direct parallels between the content removed and the example above can easily be drawn by neutral editors and/or administrators, as the removed content has been properly cited in HISTORICAL accounts describing the article's subject.
  • The above users also stated that, in their opinion, they do not view as notable that Dragut was described this way in historical sources. However the users also contradicted themselves by stating that these terms apply to "notable military leaders in history", which I do not dispute. Therefor, using that same token of logic: as Turgut Reis is a notable military leader in history, properly referenced descriptions of his character and influence appearing in the lead-in are not "ridiculous" (as stated by Srnec [[6]]) and in fact pragmatically contribute much to a quick view of the article's subject being a "notable military leader in history" from within search engines, which lists the lead-in only.
  • These users are entitled to their opinions, but I ask that they please follow the correct process which is to CEASE edit warring and discuss on the talk page instead of continuing to make the disputed edits despite objection being clearly voiced.
  • I am placing notices on each of their talk pages regarding edit warring and am seeking formal resolution for the edit warring behavior the two users have exhibited.
  • I am placing my faith in the collective to not allow me to be banned for reporting these users simply because one of them has administrator rights on the English Wikipedia. May justice prevail.

--Cdfi (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Furthermore, the manual of style [7] states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points ... The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." I posit that the reader should be aware that Dragut was famed, respected, and feared after reading the first sentence, especially as the references have been well cited from historical sources.

Cdfi (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read it, Cdfi. What I found was a first paragraph filled with quotes about how great Dragut was but no description of what Dragut achieved. There is a problem here with peacock terms and a lede that doesn't establish what the subject is notable for in the first few sentences. (PS: The AN/EW and RfPP reports suggest to me that you are editing with an agenda and have lost objectivity... maybe it's time to step away from this article?) EdChem (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem I don't know what the AN/EW and RfPP reports are but you're accusation is unfounded and I disagree with its premise. It's also really tacky to accuse me of something simply because you'd rather not address the logical arguments I have laid out. --Cdfi (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cdfi, here is your report to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring (AN/EW) page, where you were told by Bbb23 that there was "[n]o violation" and by Ritchie333, in relation to the bickering between you and Drmies: "Enough. If anyone has any further problems with the content, please seek dispute resolution." You are correct that Drmies' "abuse", as you termed it (I'm not endorsing that term), was an example where Drmies would have been well-advised to "hold [him or her]self to a higher standard of conduct" and perhaps not commented in this way... but your have been more than a little provocative and Drmies views of the content do accord with policy, from what I have seen. Here is your report to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (RfPP) page, where you were told by Acroterion: "Do not use protection as a way of enforcing your preferred version. Do not canvass noticeboards, leave it at AN3." (Note that AN3 is another abbreviation for AN/EW).
As for your comments about my view, please tell me "accusation" I have made. I stated that I have read the lede in question and noted that the first paragraph contains quotes about how great Dragut was – which it does – and does not actually explain what he achieved – which it does not. It is only after five sentences (and into the second paragraph) that the reader learns that "the Ottoman Empire's maritime power was extended across North Africa" under his command. The seventh sentence then states that "Dragut constructed great feats" in Tripoli but gives no indication of what these were. Cdfi, you were the one who quoted the MOS that "notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." You state that "I posit that the reader should be aware that Dragut was famed, respected, and feared after reading the first sentence." In response, I suggest that extending the power of the Ottoman empire across North Africa is far more a reason for notability than how he was seen by people at the time. Further, I commented and maintain that it is my impression that your edits and reports suggest that you have lost objectivity. You are free to disagree, of course, and I deliberately expressed my impression as exactly that – not as a statement of fact about you – and asked that you consider stepping away. I did not state and definitive conclusion, I offered an observation and invited you to reflect. That you perceived it as an attack that you describe as "really tacky" and offer an assertion that I did not address any of your arguments – when, in fact, I offered a direct comment on your "logical argument" that the MOS favours peacock terms about Dragut over facts of his achievements as a demonstration of notability in the lede – again suggests to me that you are struggling for objectivity.
I note your comments that you placed "notices on each of their talk pages regarding edit warring and am seeking formal resolution for the edit warring behavior the two users have exhibited." These notices were reverted (by Bbb23 on Drmies' talk page and by
right great wrongs" is problematic. EdChem (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Dear EdChem, thank you for taking the time to educate me unlike the others who simply demean and harass. I appreciate your view. In my understanding of edit warring I was doing what I thought proper protocol was. I guess I still don't understand. In any case, the article has been updated to better reflect in the first few sentences who the subject was and his notability, please have a read and suggest improvements. I thank you and look forward to working with you in the future. --Cdfi (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization in headings

@

MOS:HEADINGS, which says "Section headings should follow all of the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)". This article's headings should be downcased, except for proper names and the first word of each heading. Chris the speller yack 12:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Chris the speller: Thank you for the heads up, Chris --Cdfi (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragut&oldid=1207487032"