Talk:Evliya Çelebi

Comments

Wasn't Evliya Celebi Homosexual?

I am intend to offend anyone, but like many many of his day who seemed "married to his work," Evliya Celebi was actually a homosexual who had a young lover he met when his lover was a boy and continued to be his primary companion into later life. The boy, and later the man, who became his life partner was also his travel companion and was active in Evliya's social life, though it was not overtly apparent that they were gay lovers due to the nature of the times and Muslim culture. Due to the need for politeness and political correctness, this fact has pretty much gone unmentioned and there was also some active efforts to censure this detail from history. There is certainly no cause for shame and even Leonardo da Vinci is now safe to acknowledge his homosexuality and relationships without fear of persecution due to increased public acceptance. One reason that influenced his travels were the different laws and customs in the places he visited, which for some locations included a provision that the "top" partner in a homosexual relationship is not really a homosexual with that designation only reserved for the "bottom" partner. This is the classic only the "catcher" but not the "pitcher" arguments. Also among his travels he is acknowledged as the original inventor of RentBoy or RentBoy.com, or at least the 17th century version of it, though in throughout the Muslim culture and particularly the Ottoman Empire was a "down low" acceptance of maintaining relationships with boys, to include the same status in that culture that would be attributed to someone like a modern-day playboy dating Hollywood Starlets or young models. Consistent with the "top" or "pitcher" not being considered gay, these relationships with boys were completely exempt from being considered homosexual activity without regard to the nature of the relationship whether it be top, bottom, pitcher, catcher, etc. Politis 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pic

The sole picture is of low quality and adds little- perhaps something illustrative of his major life events/locals could be found?--Mavigogun (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Second picture of dubious merit has been added. Thoughts?--Mavigogun (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The description of the pictures included no pedigree information - making assessing their worth as reference material impossible; both have been removed.Mavigogun (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Verified the second picture to not be EÇ (Fazıl Ahmet Paşa) Mavigogun (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The person elobrated "Evliya Çelebi was born in Istanbul in 1611 to a family from Kutahya.":

Naming Conventions

• Constantinople was conquered by Fatih Sultan Mehmet in 1453 and its name was changed to Istanbul (1453 is before 1611 = true). In other words, he was born in Istanbul, not in Constantinople. Therefore, "Evliya Çelebi was born in Istanbul in 1611 to a family from Kutahya."

The assertion is inaccurate: variations of Constantinople were used officially by the Ottomans through the late 17th century; while İstanbul was used concurrently at times in some official documents, the name move from Constantinople to İstanbul was not codified until the founding of the modern Turkish Republic in 1923.--Mavigogun (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that lecture books on history currently being thought in Turkey are wrong? "in some official documents"... If they exist, as you are speculating, those were (probably)the official documents between other countries on following up on previous agreements. As far as Turks concern, begining the day of May 30 1453, Constantinople became Istanbul. Therefore, "Evliya Çelebi was born in Istanbul in 1611..." Why would one country take over the other one? To keep its name for several hundered years!?!? Again... It's cultural injection!... it is NOT Constantinople since 1453. Please let your "western" friends know :)

Use of the Constantinople variants by the Ottomans through the late 17th century isn't speculation on my part- see Finkel, Caroline, Osman's Dream, (Basic Books, 2005), 57. The likely hood that the name was used due to pre-conquest agreements for several hundred years is farcical speculation - and doesn't speak to our standards here (cited reference). Nor does common Turkish use of the name (which precedes conquest) speak to the issue here: what name was used by the state (The state used many labels - including Kostantiniyye, Constantinople, İstanbul, and Islombol). Popular sentiment of contemporary Turks has absolutely no bearing.--Mavigogun (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

... 2.Anatolia, the Caucasus, Crete and Azerbaijan (1640) 3.Syria, Palestine, Kurdistan, Armenia and Rumelia (1648) 4.Eastern Anatolia, Iraq, and Iran (1655) ...

• Kurdistan? Not only there has ever been (never will be) such place within the borders of Turkey (as it is intended to be protrayed here), the elaborator (a person of severe delusion) may, also, not know what "kurdistan" mean (-what it means to those who made it up). According to some people's imaginations, "kurdistan" is the "so called" region consists of parts of 4 countries; these are Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Therefore, "sprinkling" "kurdistan" into the mix while Anatolia, Syria, Iraq and Iran already in such list suggests that the elaborator is trying to "inject" culture.
• Such cultural injections and attempts to create culture is becoming more fashionable amongst those who are in desperate need to belong to something bigger than themselves. Turkey has thousands of years of history. If needed to be included in it, all you need is to ask :)... As Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi said "Come as you are", anyone and everyone is accepted (Ottoman Empire Style!). HONOR is the root of everything a person can have! Have you some, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.103.194 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The name for the region has been in use at least since 1150, and is used here without regard to present political ramifications. Neither this space, nor the associated article, are appropriate venues for settling political conflicts. Rather, the question should be: is the label accurate? If it is meant to describe a region largely inhabited by Kurds, and if the present geographic connotation is in keeping with what is being described, then the answer is yes. If, however, the term paints too broadly, greater granularity may be needed.Mavigogun (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redacted rant- this is not a venue for political discourse or a vehicle for righting perceived social wrongs, but serves exclusively as a utility for the article. --Mavigogun (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redacted OT rant. --Mavigogun (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just like the well-established name Kurdistan, the name Istanbul had been in use for a long time (even by Greeks!), well before Turks established themselves in either area. However, there is no question that there was a shift away from Constantinople towards Istanbul after the conquest in 1453. Yes, Constantinople was still used by the Ottoman state after 1453 and into the 20th century, but Istanbul was much more common. Even the name Dersaadet was much more common than Constantinople. The argument that only in 1930 did the name officially change and therefore all references prior should be to Constantinople is poor for several reasons. First, the official name before 1930 was certainly not Constantinople. Secondly, the official name was not Istanbul because no one had thought the idea of issuing an official decree on the name of the city was all that important before the nationalist government under Atatürk. Third, the much touted '1930 renaming' was actually just a directive for the Turkish postal service. Ottoman Turkish documents (even those written by Greeks, Armenians or other Christians), virtually always used Istanbul or Dersaadet, not Constantinople or any of its other names. Istanbul was the customary name before Evliya Çelebi and after Evliya Çelebi. Finally, there is not a single serious Ottoman history book which refers to the city as Constantinople and then suddenly shifts to Istanbul when discussing the 1920s or later simply based on a trivial decision of the Atatürk government. I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different. Ordtoy (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Evliya Çelebi did not refer to the city as Constantinople but rather Istanbul (and sometimes İslâmbol). Ordtoy (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Singular references by Evliya are moot, whereas what the rest of the English speaking world(since this is English wikipedia) called the city is relevant(per:http://www.archive.org/stream/narrativeoftrave01evli#page/n7/mode/2up). As shown by references that indicate the city was called Constantinople and recognized by the Ottoman Empire(Kostantaniyyeh) as such until the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1930. Istanbul should remain as stated in titles of books, which indicates the perspective of the author, but any mention of the city prior to 1930 should first be mentioned and linked to Istanbul followed by (Constantinople) with appropriate references. Thereafter in the article the city should be referred to as Constantinople. Sticking with the facts removes any nationalistic nonsense from the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being nationalist. If you look at my history of edits, I have been very active in restoring Armenian, Greek and other non-Turkish names to Turkish cities and villages when they have been removed by actual nationalists. Getting to the issue, as I pointed out above, the name 'Constantinople' was not the official name of the city during Ottoman times since there was no declaration of the city's 'official name'. Let me give you an analogy. London was called in Roman times 'Londinium' and it had other names before it became known as 'London'. However, when do we find that it was officially renamed London? Do we use 'Londinium' or a Celtic name until the date of official renaming as London? Another analogy. The Chinese government did officially rename Peking as Beijing fairly recently. However, all Wikipedia articles use the now common name (Beijing). They do not use Peking until the date of the official renaming when they all switch over to Beijing. To repeat my most important point, the name 'Istanbul' is closely correlated with the conquest of the city by the Ottoman Empire. This is reflected by every (I can't stress this enough) academic work in English on the Ottoman Empire: the city is always known as Istanbul in academic literature on the Ottoman Empire. Finally I will add the line from Wikipedia's diambig line from the Constantinople article: This article is about the city before the Fall of Constantinople (1453). For a more detailed approach after 1453, see History of Istanbul. Best, Ordtoy (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you intentionally ignored two references which clearly state what the name of the city was prior to 1930. Even the link I provided says Evliya was born in Constantinople, which means your stated opinion, "This is reflected by every (I can't stress this enough) academic work in English on the Ottoman Empire: the city is always known as Istanbul in academic literature on the Ottoman Empire." is blantantly wrong.(per:http://www.archive.org/stream/narrativeoftrave01evli#page/n7/mode/2up). Best. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my fault. I should have been clearer and said "every modern academic work". I have already acknowledged that Constantinople was more prevalent in English in the 19th century and before. You can see Constantinople in the 19th century translation from German of von Hammar's book for this reason. Likewise for the old Britannica. All modern academic works, however, use Istanbul. If you really need an example, see the first sentence from the first reference from the bibliography on the E.Ç. page (An Evliya Çelebi Bibliography): "Evliya Çelebi was born in Istanbul, ...". Also see An Ottoman Mentality also by Dankoff, who is a noted Ottoman scholar at a US university. And please refer to any academic work on the Ottoman Empire written in English (E.J. Zürcher, S. Shaw, Bernard Lewis). I haven't seen a modern academic work in English in which Constantinople is used to discuss events prior to 1930 and then switches to Istanbul afterwards. Also, as I mentioned above, the 1930 law that is mentioned here was a directive from the Turkish postal service to no longer accept Constatninople on letters mailed to Turkey. That is not an official name change. I am involved in this discussion in good faith (and I am not reverting the change until this discussion is complete). I believe that it is confusing and incorrect to use Constantinople instead of Istanbul for the Ottoman period for the reasons I have outlined above. Ordtoy (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. The modern academic work on Turkey uses the following convention: Constantinople before 1453, Istanbul after 1453. For example see "The Cambridge History of Turkey" which is being published now and is the standard reference work about the subject. Cheers Alex2006 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a single throw-away sentence in a non-academic work is considered more important than all other works simply because they didn't bother to state the obvious: "Istanbul was the name most commonly used by the Turks after their conquest of Constantinople." Ordtoy (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention, Mehmed Zilli Agha is his father that he was chief goldsmith of the Ottoman Cort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.98.104 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Dartslilly and {{u}Mavigogun}}: you are both edit-warring. There was discussion several years ago (immediately above) about Istanbul v. Constantinople. Please continue the discussion on this talk page and reach an agreement, but stop reverting each other. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) (re pinging Mavigogun because I messed up the syntax). Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd Please do not ping me to this. There is no consensus in the above discussion and it's proof that the same editor has failed to gain consensus for this change over 10 years. I stand by my decision to revert and encourage the editor to seek consensus on the talk page, but if it's not supported by WP:RS this has to stop. My personal position is that when two names are in use, Wikipedia should use the term that is used by WP:RS, as we routinely do in other contentious articles. Beyond that my only involvement in this article has been to expand it with music related content (my main editing areas are arts and especially music). Dartslilly (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I indented your comment for you. This is a content dispute. Reverting each other repeatedly is edit-warring. It is not vandalism or a BLP violation, so there is no exception for repeated reverts. You need to discuss with the other editor. The previous discussion was 9 years ago. The appropriate guidance for this issue is WP:MODERNPLACENAME. You both need to examine that guidance and reach a consensus on how it applies to this article. But stop edit-warring. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I am taking this article off my watchlist. Dartslilly (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Listen everyone, just write it like "Constantinople (Istanbul)" and move on. Zero^talk 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding year of passing

I noticed that the year of death provided in the infobox does not match the one specified in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)