Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ottoman Turkish

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia[edit]

See also the second (rejected), third (rejected), fourth (rejected) and fifth request (open).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Ottoman Turkish)
submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Ottoman Turkish (لسان عثمانى or Lisân-ı Osmânî or لسان تركى or Lisân-ı Türkî, ota [invented])
  • Editing community: Fox Mccloud (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: Language is no longer spoken, but is very similar to modern Turkish
  • Locations spoken: Turkey,Balkans,iran azerbajcan and also widely used throughout the Ottoman Empire and in early Republic of Turkey from 1299 to 1929.
  • Related languages: Modern Turkish and other Turkic languages (Azeri, Kazakh, Uyghur, etc.)


The Ottoman language was the offictial language of the Ottoman Empire. This once great empire had it's origin in central Turkey, and made it's capital at Istanbul in 1453. It onced stretched from Morrocco to Iraq, and from Hungary to Yemen. The Ottoman Empire brought together many diverse peoples, and the language was important in the middle east, and has a rich cultural heritage. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk reformed the Ottoman language in 1927, replacing many words and the alphabet. Now Turks today can hardly understand spoken Ottoman, much less written. It is very similar, though, and some Turks still study the language as part of their history. I don't speak Ottoman, but I want to see Wikipedia in this language. I will contact people who know Ottoman on English Wikipedia.--Fox Mccloud 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • the big heritage of ottoman culture and language should be in ansiklopedia. it can be understanded by people that how Ottoman estebilished the longest peace in balkans and in meadle east and africa--3210 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Test wikipedia is up. I'll organize it when I have time.--Fox Mccloud 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we need Ottoman language alfabet like Azerbaycan vikipedia I wrote some sentences at ottoman language vikipedia. But first of all I wrote them at Azerbaycan vikipedia with Arab alfabet later copy them to Ottoman Language vikipedia . It is very easy writing Ottoman language with Ottoman Alfabet. But, We haven't got ottoman alfabet --Tarih 09:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

عينأ (i.e., aynen; i.e., "exactly") ... though I won't vote for (or against) those since I don't want my own prejudices to influence a vote I wasn't invited to take part in. —Saposcat 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, you don't have to be invited to support (or oppose) anything. Your free to vote on anything.--Fox Mccloud 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that; however, insofar as my opinions actually lead me to effectively oppose all of the language Wikis proposed on this page, I feel it best not to use them to color a vote that I haven't been specifically called on to participate in, as that would be rather unfair. —Saposcat 11:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if it may look overly critical: Wouldn't it be nice if you had contributors with some proficiency in Ottoman turkish? I know that real Ottomans would have been to polite to note that hoş is Persian and written خوش not هوش. A welcome like: ویکیپدیا نام دائرة المعارف سربسته خوش گلدڭز would have shown that Ottoman isn't just turkish with Arabic characters. Sorry but this request is nothing but a joke :(

And wouldn't it be nice if you were yourself a bit more familiar with Ottoman Turkish before you started criticizing people's sincere efforts. For instance, wouldn't it be nice if you knew that diacritics were, in practice, virtually never used in Ottoman, so that the "گلدڭز" that you claim is so correct would, in fact, be written "كلدكز"? And wouldn't it be nice if you assisted the project with your vast knowledge, rather than simply criticizing it anonymously from afar? I think that would be nice. —Saposcat 07:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Support----3210 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Mienski 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (if it has the grammar etc.)Reply[reply]
  • Support--Lighterside 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support But the name should be changed to Ottoman Turkish. The name Osmanlıca or Lisan-ı Osmani founded by Great Britain not Ottoman. They usually called their language Lisan-ı Türki. Ruzgar 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I am a history teacher from İstanbul. I can write at Ottoman language Wikipedia--Tarih 06:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support If Ottoman Turkish is that much different from arabic it should be created. --katpatuka 07:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support In normaly I don't support this wiki but it must be in two alfabet. In latin and arab. Because from (almost) 1500 to 1927 Ottoman Turkish used arab alfabet but from 1927 to (almost) 1960 Turkey use Ottoman language but in latin. After than 1960 Turkey stared use modern Turkish. So this wiki must be in arab alfabet and latin alfabet. --Absar 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Absar, I looked on English wiki, and it said nothing about the use of Latin Alphabet for Ottoman. If you are correct, 1927 to 1960 is only 33 years. Very short compared to the centruies of use of Arabic script. Also, according to the English Wikipedia, because of it's identified with Islam, Arabic script was seldom used by non Muslims. Jews used Hebrew script for it, Greeks used Greek script, and Armenians used Armenian script to write Ottoman. Should we include those scripts too?--Fox Mccloud 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I believe this wiki should be in both alphabets, too. I, just like most Turkish people, dont know Arabic alphabet. However, I can understand Ottoman almost perfectly. Having an Ottoman Wiki, would be definetely helpful for Ottoman History Sources Search on Wikipedia which will be helpful for resolving historical issues such as Armenian conflict. --Ltimur 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The proposal seems better without those words about Atatürk and his reform.It's useful to see such projects,but I have the same idea about alphabet usage(using both of them). --Heroic 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support For many reasons as cited above.. Baristarim 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema, 16:28, 2 september
  • Support Bir önemli mevzuda çoğu arapça ve farsça kelimenin anlamı bozularak türkçeleştirilmesididr. Osmanlıcayı bir Arap veya bir Farsi anlayamaz. Bu dili dünyada en iyi arapça ve farsça öğrenen türkler okuyup anlayabilir. Örneğin FERES+RAN osmanlıcada süvari demektir. FERES arapçadır ve at demektir RAN ise farsça koşmak demektir. FERESRAN kelimesini ne araplar anlar nede farsiler anlar. Birçok kelime aldığımız doğru ama anlamları bozularak türkçeleştirilmişlerdir bunuda unutmamak lazım. Veya arapça bir kelimenin arkasına türkçe çoğul yapma eki -ler,-lar getirilmiştir. Bunu daha çok bir dilin kelime ve bir kısım gramer kuralları bakımından zenginleşmesi olarak algılamak gerekmektedir. Bu yüzden bu dil başlıbaşına kuralları olan ayrı bir dildir. Latince bir italyan için neyse Osmanlıcada bir türk için odur. Latincede de yunancadan girmiş birçok kelime vardır diye onu bir kenara atmıyor kimse. Osmanlıcadada arapça ve farsçadan kelimeler girdiği için onu kimse dışlayamaz.Ayrıca saçma veya yapay bir dil veya arapaç farsça karması bir dilde denilemez çünkü yukardada açıkladığım gibi kelimelerin anlamları türkçeleştirilmiştir. Akademik kariyeri olmayan bir araba kolaysa osmanlıca okutun o arap farsça bile bilse o metinleri çözemez . Arkadaşlar mazur görün ingilizcesi rezalet bir adamım o yüzden türkçe yazıyorum. Ama fikirlerimi kullanabilirsiniz ve ingilizcelerini türkçe bilmeyenler için yazabilirsiniz. Maksat osmanlıca adam yerine konsun batılı kardeşlerimiz birazda dünya üzerinde başka uygarlık ve halkların olduğunu görsünler.sailormercury
  • Support Ottoman Wikipediya can be used and contributed by most South Azerbaijanies in Iran. Although Ottoman language is slightly different in choice of vocabulary and some grammatical rules, it is clearly understood by southern Azerbaijanis. Mehrdad 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It would be perfect to create the Ottoman page. The Ottoman language itself is a part of many peoples' historical legacy, and not only of that one of the Turks. It is being taught in the Turkish universities, used by many Turkish and international researchers of the Ottoman history, and thus it is not that much a dead language, after all Troublemaker 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support But it should be realy Ottoman language, not simply Turkish in Arabic script. Don Alessandro 16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is unacceptable. Not the language,the reasons why the page should be created.First this user says Atatürk ruined the Ottoman language and he made Turkish people use modern Turkish alphabet.This is totally wrong.He saved us from using a hard-to-learn language.We would be wasting at least 3-4 years learning that language's basics if he hadn't.Like I said before the proposal might be OK but not the presentation. --Heroic 10:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Heroic, I already apologized for my POV. No need to continue bashing my proposal.--Fox Mccloud 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • OK.The message above was different when I opposed the idea. I can support the proposal now--Heroic 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • thank you for accepting my apology and giving your support.--Fox Mccloud 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The language is still studied and understood by many, and as is mentioned in many cases, if Latin has a page, so should this language! Mecca Cola 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support it will be very usefull for anybody. -- 11:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support In arabic script... Qayrawani--20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer Latin script or latin&arabic spript together. Ottoman is mainly Turkish with arabic script.It include many words from Arabic and persian languages,but skeleton and rules from Turkish.An Arab(even he/she knows Persian language) cannot understand this language.Contraversaly, in modern Turkey majority of people dont know arabic script.A two scripted wiki can help to all users,for contribution and learning arabic script(especially for Turkish users).Mustafa Akalp 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, there's alot of weak languages in wikipeda, and ottoman is one of them, here in yemen we can speak that; because our grandfathers have wrote with it and still. there's people speak Ottman, why can't we add then we can both (turks and arabs) edit it. Just consider it a connection point between us.araneus
  • SupportE THP (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Weak Oppose. I personally don't see the ultimate point of an Ottoman Wikipedia (or, to be frank, of most Wikipedias in historical languages). Apart from, of course, the vastly different writing system, certain grammatical constructs such as genitives and plurals (some of which are still used in formal Turkish on occasion), and a thinned-out (and, in my opinion, much weakened) vocabulary (which is actually beginning to be brought back to some extent by writers like Elif Şafak and İhsan Oktay Anar), Ottoman Turkish is not really all that different from "modern" Turkish. However, if an Ottoman Wikipedia is begun, I would be willing to contribute as much as my limited abilities allow. —Saposcat 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I guess for those reasons you oppose the Old French and Attic Greek Wikis above?--Fox Mccloud 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose--Hattusili 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The proposal comment above by Fox Mccloud is written in a totally offensive language, it also includes a highly POV judgment of Atatürk's acts in early 20th century and it is my impression that this user has a strictly one-sided view on the subject. There is no reason or motive indicated in the proposal to create this Wikipedia, save the statement "I want to see Wikipedia in this language", which could easily be something like "It would be useful for students of history" or anything in that line. The fact that it is not, supports my impression I stated before. And it's sad if it would be created by the suggestion of a user who does not know the language and by the support of some users who are such uninformed on the issue to think Arabic and Turkish might be similar / related (please see the votes of katpatuka and Abdullah Geelah, above). I urge these users to check en:Turkic languages and en:Afro-Asiatic languages to start with. Also, the voters need to explain their motive, even with a short / simple sentence, instead of putting a vote tag and leaving. AtilimGunesBaydin 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm sorry you found my proposal offensive. I understand what you mean, after re reading it though. I edited it so it wont be so offensive. Sorry.--Fox Mccloud 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I believe that there is so little practicality in the creation of Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia. Because the difference between Ottoman Turkish ISO 639-2 [ota] and Turkish ISO 639-2 [tur] is the difference in time not in the language itself. ISO differentiate the language written by arabic alphabet (with the addition of some persian letters) before Atatürk's 1928 writing reform as being the Ottoman Turkish and denotes with [ota], and as Turkish language after the implementation of latin alphabet by the denomination of [tur]. (Ethnologue report on ota , Ethnologue report on tur) So we are speaking from the same language which has nothing to do with arabic or persian except for its alphabet and heavily influenced vocabulary. After the alphabet reform, not only another alphabet has been used but also emphasis has been given to purify the language from that heavy influence by the foundation of Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Institution) which acts as the authority on Turkish language in Turkey. When you transform the arabic transcription to latin we get the Turkish Wikipedia with some old words which are not used so often in daily life (like dil instead of lisan, öğretmen instead of muallim, okul instead of mektep), therefore there is no interest on having the same article written in Turkish and Ottoman Turkish for the people who looks for an information. Only interest could be for the students and amateurs of Ottoman Turkish who would like to use it on the net to make some practise. Beside that I don't see any practical user to whom that Wikipedia could be useful. --Mskyrider 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose --Bugtrio 10:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose C'mon, why would people write a encyclopedia in a language noone even uses at all? There is no pratical result of this kinda work. I mean, we should spend our time to write in languages which people use so we can share knowledge, starting an ottoman wikipedia is nothing but politics.-- 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think an unused language deserves an encyclopedia.
  • Oppose. Wiki's in extinct languages born dead -- Raghav 14:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The ottoman language is dead so who will read it?. And if you really want to read wikipedia in ottoman so badly, I suggest mixing Turkish-Arabic-Persian pages and there it is. 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This language was driven to extinction by Ataturk for a reason. Ottoman language is a symbol of the huge gap that separated the ruling elite from the common people during Ottoman rule. Turkish, which is the official language of Turkey today, was associated with common people; it was considered vulgar by Ottomans, who though Turkish was not worthy enough to use for official purposes. In my opinion, extinction of Ottoman, and declaration of Turkish as the official language is the symbol of people’s victory over monarchy and superiority of the elite.
In addition to that, extinction of Ottoman can also be interpreted as the rebirth of a long lost identity, namely “Turkishness”. It is true that Ottoman has a large vocabulary; the majority of this vocabulary comprises Persian and Arabic words. Some people, (e.g . Saposcat ) may find this rich, but I personally find it degrading. During Ottoman times, hundreds of ancient Turkish words were replaced with their Arabic and Persian counterparts as a part of the Islamization process of Turks. Stuffing Arabic and Persian loan words in Turkish is not richness but a burden on Turkish. Not only it prevented Turkish from evolving and growing, but also trapped Turkish culture under the more general definition of Islamic culture.
For these reasons I counted above, I oppose the creation of Wikipedia in Ottoman. I also find it shocking that some people claim that Ottoman is not that different from modern Turkish. I can read and write in Arabic alphabet, and I still can’t understand Ottoman without the help of a good dictionary. -- Seteney 12:00, 02 November 2006 (CET)