Talk:Ottoman architecture

Observations

This "article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" tag currently at the top of the entry is certainly justified. Some of the content of the article is so bad it reduced me to laughter! The most giggle-rousing bit was where it was claimed that (in the 13th century Divrigi mosque portals) the Turks invented Baroque architecture and them passed the style on to Italy! Meowy 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Ottomans achieved the highest level architecture in their lands hence or since" is a rather imprecise statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.157.74 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

redirect? why?

why is turkish architecture redirecting here? Turkish is not the same as ottoman, they had seljuks and they have modern turkish architecture (after the proclamation of the republic) as well. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. Also "Architecture of Turkey" redirects here but it is completely different... Ottoman is in the past, where is modern Turkey's architecture? --Egek (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please people, we need to create a page for modern Turkish Architecture. Anyone know anything? I'm an Architecture student from Delft, The Netherlands, but I don't know anything about currect Architecture in Turkey. Comeon you lazy Turkish Students you are studying in English so use it! I. Kilic 82.171.81.187 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge ??

Respectfully strongly disagree re: merge - Would be similar to merging Moorish architecture with Spanish architecture. There is not even a direct [or indirect] categories link from it to Category:Spanish architecture, as historic 'Moorish' was centered in but extended beyond present day Spain-the Iberian Peninsula. So with Ottoman architecture in the Ottoman Empire extending beyond present day Turkey, and belonging only in Category:Turkish architecture by period but Not merged into Culture of Turkey survey article.

Turkey and its rich architectural heritage deserves an independent new Turkish architecture. or Timeline of Turkish architecture survey article briefly covering the many eras-styles in Category:Early Turkish Anatolian architecture and Category:Turkish architecture, freestanding from the Culture of Turkey and Ottoman architecture articles. Perhaps similar in format to Timeline of Italian architecture with {See|Neo-baroque}}... {See|Gothic Revival architecture}}... {See|Art Deco}}...etc links within it--?--? — and — A separate new focused Turkish modern and contemporary architecture article, similar to Italian modern and contemporary architecture, on 20th-21st century Turkish architecture.--?--?---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "Architecture of Turkey" (now redirect) would be best. --Elekhh (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above-mentioned comment and I want to add another comment: Ottoman Architecture itself is a multi-cultural architecture. There is no need to go into details but for example in its last periods Armenian Architects (educated in Europe) built neo-classical mosques especially in Istanbul. On the other hand Architecture of Turkey is entirely different. The modern architecture in Turkey at the beginning wasn’t similar to the rest of the world but it created its style like Ulusal Mimari (National Architecture). One also has to keep in mind that, at least in the beginning, new Turkish republic tried to shun from the old, the tradition. Therefore these two have to be separate. We will be working on the Turkish version of Architecture of Turkey article. I will let you know once the new article is in Turkish Wikipedia. Mimar77 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not necassary. Kavas (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ottoman architecture is different from Turkish architecture. Turkish architecture was also influenced by the Ottoman architecture. But there many discontinuous aspects between two culture, as Mimar77 said. Takabeg (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There should have been only one merger discussion instead of two parallel ones. In any case both this and the merger discussion at Culture of Turkey have resulted in consensus not to merge, and have been closed. --Elekhh (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger forgot that;

Contemporary (post-1923) Turkish Architecture categorized as 1st National, 2nd National etc. OnurT 17:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

File:BursaCityMiniature.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BursaCityMiniature.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Edirne Train Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Edirne Train Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Paradise gardens section is too general, and doesn't fit here

I am going to delete this section. I don't think it is necessarily bad to have a section about Ottoman Paradise gardens, but this section is mostly not specific to Ottomans. I think such a section fits better into the Islamic architechture wikipedia page. Alternatively it could be written more like a encyclopedia entry and reincluded, with more specifics to the Ottomans.

For example, the section starts off with a quote from the Quran, and proceeds to talk about how throughout the Muslim world mosques often have gardens next door, and these gardens fit with the content of the Quran. This discussion continues for several paragraphs.

In an article on Ottoman architecture, it would suffice to say that gardens are often built next to mosques throughout the Muslim world, and then link to the Islamic architecture page. Only the distinctive features of Ottoman gardens should then be included here. Again, I don't necessarily think there should not be a section on paradise gardens -- I just think it should focus on Ottomans rather than general Paradise gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryshuai (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Periodisation is silly

A style doesn't start & end like a military campaign. For instance "Baroque period (1757–1808)": who gave the starting shot for Baroque influence in 1757, and who stopped the race under threat of capital punishment in 1808 (NOT 1809 or 1810, may Allah forbid)? Can somebody who's well-versed in the topic please do something about it? Thanks, it's very important for the history of architecture in a lot of countries which emerged from the Ottoman Empire. Have a great year, Arminden (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed overall, the origin of these dates is unclear. Some, like 1703 for the beginning of the Tulip Period, might be reasonable suggestions that correspond to well-defined historical periods, but others shouldn't be so clear-cut when thinking of Ottoman architecture as a whole. (I would need to read up on it myself to be more precise.) Plus, the dates are also inconsistent with the contents of the sections themselves and with neighbouring sections. The "Bursa period (1299–1437)", for example, is mostly unsourced and includes examples from after 1453 and is preceded by an undefined "Early Ottoman Period" which covers the early 1300s. My suggestions for the moment:

• Remove the years from the section titles altogether. They're not essential for an architecture article. We could add general date ranges (e.g. "14th-15th centuries") later if needed, but a better practice might be to discuss the historical period in the first couple of sentences of the text of the section itself, and add more dates in-line when mentioning specific works; together that will make things clearer to the reader.
• Combine the "Early Ottoman Period" and "Bursa period" sections together, for one thing. They overlap already and unless the article is far more developed in the future, I don't think there's a non-problematic division of this period. A more pertinent question is whether this section should cover the post-1453 architecture in the reigns of Mehmet II and Bayezid II; currently it seems to do so, but only in passing.

Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Baroque

Ottoman Baroque is a style that has left its trace all over the former empire. It has its characteristics, representative architects & monuments, etc. It easily deserves its own article. There is a large monograph on the topic, Ünver Rüstem, Ottoman Baroque: The Architectural Refashioning of Eighteenth-Century Istanbul (2019) and probably much more in Turkish. Don't forget Ottoman Rococo, which is another term I came across and must be dealt with in this context, clarifying what's specific about it within Ottoman Baroque and in relation to European Rococo. I'm looking forward to see what's coming our way here. Arminden (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description is needed in the lead, but not a propagandistic ode

I have removed the following completely unsourced paragraph from the lead to be discussed here.

Ottoman architecture has a lot of interesting aspects, which should be presented concisely in the lead, along with its main achievements, but this is unbearably triumphalistic cultural nationalism - and factually wrong, as the Ottoman happened to inherit a territory heavy with artistic traditions, which have heavily influenced and actually have given birth to Ottoman art, as the (sourced) parts in the lead & article do show.

There are excellent scholars who have written with respect and knowledge about Ottoman architecture in the context of classical, Islamic, and European architecture. We need a summary of such a comment, not this.

Anyway, here is the composition "Why are we the best and have always been", which I've had the guts to remove from the lead:

"The Ottomans achieved the highest level architecture in their lands hence or since. [Says who? What about the ancient Greeks & Byzantines?] They mastered the technique of building vast inner spaces confined by seemingly weightless yet massive domes, [Hagia Sophia...?] and achieving perfect harmony between inner and outer spaces, as well as articulated light and shadow. Islamic religious architecture which until then consisted of simple buildings with extensive decorations, was transformed by the Ottomans through a dynamic architectural vocabulary of vaults, domes, semi-domes and columns. The mosque was transformed from being a cramped and dark chamber with arabesque-covered walls into a sanctuary of aesthetic and technical balance, refined elegance and a hint of heavenly transcendence." [Says who? What about the Umayyads, to mention just the best known Islamic precursors?]

Enjoy. Arminden (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

another mosque with the ottoman architecture is present in the Shah rukn e Alam colony,new Multan, Multan, Pakistan,

the aforementioned mosque is called masjid e Al Shaikh Al Hafiz Ameen bin A.Rehman Syed Tariq Haider (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent expansions (general notes)

I've more or less finished some major expansions of the Early and Classical period sections. I'll continue to expand and/or revise sections, but I'll probably slow down for now, so this seems like a good time to make a few notes:

• Please feel free to keep an eye out for typos and errors, as it's easy for me to miss my own mistakes when writing this much.
• I did my best to explain details clearly, but feel free also to suggest improved wording if some sentences sound too technical. If there's something that you're unsure about but you think it needs a second look, feel free to bring it up here or notify me.
• While expanding, I opted to leave more material in than out, as I figured it's easier to trim content later than to create more of it again. I did some minor trimming already, but I'm happy to collaborate in trimming more if needed. The page is already long now, so in the long-term I imagine there may be good grounds to move or split off some of the material from this page. I'd suggest waiting until some of the remaining sections or topics have been revised and expanded too, but it's up to everyone. Some topics, like Ottoman architecture in the outer provinces, probably deserve their own pages instead (e.g. Ottoman architecture in Egypt), especially if there are significant differences in local styles.

Any other feedback is also welcome. I hope the expansions are at least helpful in laying down foundations for a developed article. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm about to replace the remaining short unsourced sections in the "European influence" period with full-length sections (which I've been working on in a separate draft so as to not bog down this page in the meantime). There was a lot of ground to cover and I'm confident that all of it is relevant to a full overview of the topic, but after the additions are done I think the article will be exceptionally long, and there's potentially still more subtopics to cover in the future.

So the next step I'm planning after this will be to split off some of the major sections into their own pages. The Classical, Baroque, and even the Tulip Period sections look to me like good candidates for this as they're fairly well-defined styles/periods that could stand reasonably well on their own. The same can't be said for "Early Ottoman" and the later 19th century, which cover very diverse styles, but there could be ways to do it eventually if necessary. Afterwards, I'll come back to trim those sections down on this page (or at least do some initial trimming).

If there are objections to this course of action or other general suggestions on how to proceed, once again feel free to comment. It may take me a little while to create the new pages anyways, and I might do further revisions here first while the text is still all in one place. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Really great to see these improvements. Looking forward to more! MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another (maybe final) update: I've now done more or less everything I said I would do above, or at least as much as I am willing to do without more consultation. The new articles Classical Ottoman architecture, Tulip Period architecture, and Ottoman Baroque architecture have been created and can be used to further expand on those topics as needed. I've done some cutting back on this page as follow-up, but there's still lots left so there can still be some discussion on how to manage page length going forward. I'll also note that the Classical Ottoman architecture page includes a new section with brief overviews of Ottoman architecture beyond the main capital cities in the 16th-17th centuries, so that's an example of how we might replace the current large gallery section at the bottom of this page.

At some point in the future I'd like to add a "Painted decoration" section after the "Tile decoration" section, as this is another visually obvious (but less famous and less understood) aspect of Ottoman buildings. After that, depending on how long that section is, I'll consider splitting off either the Tile decoration section into a new page on its own or both "decoration" sections into a new "Ottoman architectural decoration" page where more details (e.g. stone-carving) could also be added without lengthening this page. R Prazeres (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New "Early Ottoman architecture" page created

I've created a new Early Ottoman architecture page to host the content of the "Early Ottoman period" section and allow for further expansion of related topics there instead of here. I believe the new page is needed for the sake of managing this page's length but it's worth noting again that there's no exact definition of "Early Ottoman architecture", it's more of a chronological label, so I was wary of how to define the scope of the new article. The label certainly applies up to the 15th century, but some authors treat pre-1453 and post-1453 architecture in different chapters or sections (for example). Still, as already discussed and cited in the main article here, the Classical period is generally considered to begin with Sinan, and the Bayezid II Mosque is often cited as the last stage before Sinan. So I figured the simplest and most useful option was to set the new article's scope as including everything up to Bayezid II's time (i.e. everything before the Classical period), which is how this article is currently divided too.

With that in mind, the lead of the new page currently starts with: "Early Ottoman architecture corresponds to the period of Ottoman architecture roughly up to the 15th century. This article covers the history of Ottoman architecture up to the end of Bayezid II's reign (r. 1447–1512), prior to the advent of what is generally considered "classical" Ottoman architecture in the 16th century.", followed by a footnote explaining that some authors divide their discussion of the period in different ways. Maybe this wording is fine, but if anyone can think of a better one, I'd welcome suggestions.

Lastly: now that this new page exists I will cut some of the less essential content from the "Early Ottoman period" section in this article (e.g. info on mosques built by viziers and other minor points), along with some of the images. The full content can still be found at the new page. R Prazeres (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: If there's disagreement on the scope I've chosen for the Early Ottoman architecture page, then this too can be modified if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tile images

The categories are a mess but it looks like they have been holding photo walks in Algiers. There are quite a few new images in categories for the casbah, the citadel and the Palace of the bey. Doublecheck the captions, I was having trouble with that at one point.Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Possibly useful images

Apparently we are not using these at Regency of Algiers, ity you can good if not do as you see fit:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Also

The Ketchaoua Mosque dome inside down

And:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the last historical period(s) into a new article

Short explanation: everything in the two sections called "19th-century eclecticism and other styles" and the "First National Architectural Movement (early 20th century)" will be copied to a new article called (provisionally) "Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries". This is partly in preparation for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to reduce this article's length.

Long explanation: Each of the historical periods covered in the article already has its own main article (see previous discussions above), except for the 19th century section. I've been considering how to define and name a new article for that section and I think the easiest solution for now is to create it as "Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries", thus covering essentially everything after the Baroque style. Although there is a clear shift that happens in the first half of the 19th century, it does not involve a single style and there is no conventional name for this phase of Ottoman architecture history, so it needs to be a descriptive title. The trends of the late 19th century also continue into the early 20th century (the last Ottoman decades), hence why both centuries need to be mentioned. Likewise, the First national architectural movement overlaps with and emerges directly from the other architectural trends of that time, so I propose to treat that as a subtopic of this period (i.e. one of several styles that occur), as there's no clear and principled way to further subdivide this period, to my knowledge.

After this is done (assuming there are no objections), I plan to address the WP:LENGTH of the article (currently at 20545 words) by condensing each of the sections that have their own articles, thus introducing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in this overview article. I'll make a new talk page section when I'm ready to do that, so that editors have a place to discuss that process as needed. R Prazeres (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks, so I'll start the process of creating the split article today. But feedback and suggestions are still welcome at any time, either here or at the new article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I had missed this. I think First national architectural movement should be considered under Turkish architecture, but it still can be covered in Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries. I know you already created the article but I'd rename it to Late Ottoman period architecture. Ottoman Empire ended early 20th century. Late Ottoman period or era is used in multiple sources, although the dates may differ [1] Bogazicili (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

• I agree, First national architectural movement should merely be covered here to the extent that it began in the last two Ottoman decades; any of its later developments and examples should be covered at its own article and at Architecture of Turkey.
• I definitely see the title of the new article as open to revision. I was tempted to name it "Late Ottoman architecture", but I worried that "Late Ottoman" is too vague and doesn't have a conventional definition either. (I figured "20th century" isn't a problem here because the article would necessarily not cover things beyond the Ottoman period anyways.) I also didn't want to imply that "Late Ottoman architecture" was a formal label used in sources, but "Late Ottoman period architecture", as you suggest, might already be more clearly neutral and descriptive in that regard. Whatever the title, we could also follow what I did for Early Ottoman architecture and just state explicitly in the lead which period the article is intended to cover, with a footnote further clarifying issues of periodization. Would that be effective?

R Prazeres (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: Following my last suggestion above, I've added this edit as an example of how this could look. R Prazeres (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Article length

As I mentioned above, one of the next steps to improve the article is to reduce its length (by at least half; see WP:LENGTH). Relevant subarticles for each period have now been created (see previous talk page sections above), so all of that content, plus some extra detail, can now be found at: Early Ottoman architecture, Classical Ottoman architecture, Tulip Period architecture, Ottoman Baroque architecture, and Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries. So my plan is to go through each of the corresponding sections in this article and condense them to perhaps just 3-4 paragraphs and a few images each, focusing on general developments and maybe mentioning the most strictly important monuments only. I think that'll be enough, but we can condense further if needed. That will also free up some space for this article to potentially cover other general subtopics relevant to Ottoman architectural history in the future.

I won't be starting right away, so feel free to bring any concerns or suggestions about this in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)