From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Ottoman military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2 December 2006

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archive 2 - To be Archived on ...

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Naming again 1.2 Good article review 1.3 GA Review 1.4 Biography assessment rating comment

[edit] Comments

[edit] Naming again

If the article is named "Barbarossa" since it is commonly known(?) among English speakers, surely it should begin with the full name of this person. Why does it start with "khair ad din" while proper Turkish name would be "Hayreddin"? Shouldn't the encyclopedia respect national names where they are not "commonly known" in English? Filanca 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the name since nobody objected, and added a poem. Filanca 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name back to Khair ad-Din since the modern Turkish spelling Hayreddin is already given between brackets in the same sentence. I think it would be anachronistic to use the modern Turkish spelling since this was only introduced in the 20th century, by Atatürk. Before that time Turkish was written in the Arabic alphabet, and a transliteration like Khair ad-Din points up the structure of this name, as it would have done to the Turks of Barbarossa's time. There is no single correct transliteration for Arabic, and other forms would do just as well, e.g. Khayr al-Din, Khayr ud-Din, etc. Most scholarly transcriptions write "Kh" as an underscored "K": Kair al-Dīn). In pronunciation the "l" in the article "al" is assimilated to the following "D", hence "ad-Din" instead of "al-Din", but the article is always written as "al" in Arabic. If you insist on using the modern Turkish transliteration of "Hayreddin", you should also write "Paşa" instead of "Pasha".

One more thing: I don't know Turkish, but I have the impression that the spelling "Hayrettin" is preferred over "Hayreddin" in modern Turkish. In Google, "barbaros hayrettin" yields 65,800 hits and "barbaros hayreddin" only 17,400. So, even in modern Turkish there seems to be no consensus on the correct spelling of the name. One more argument to stick with Khair ad-Din, I'd say.

Bontekoe 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This person is not Arabic, he is Turkish and Turkish names are pronounced differently from Arabic ones even if they are of Arabic origin. Wikipedia accepts Turkish spelling for Turkish people. Example: Mehmed II not Muhammad II. English-speaking writers follow Turkish spelling too. An example is John Freely in Strolling Through Istanbul (find the full reference in the artivle). I would not insist on Pasha over Paşa, but the first one seems to be the common use in English. See Atatürk article: "Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha". The double use of "Hayreddin" and "Hayrettin" is not a reason for reverting to a non-turkish spelling. But since you alluded to that, although both usages are accepted in modern Turkish, use of "d" is more common for historical personages and "t" for modern names. Although you may get more hits with "t" spelling, "d"s are more common in scholarly sources, hence I prefer it here, but "t" is not "wrong" strictly speaking. These are the reasons for re-writing the Turkish name instead of Arabic one. Filanca 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Barbarossa was neither Turkish nor Arabic. He was a native of the Greek island Lesbos, so if you want to use modern concepts of nationality, he was a Greek. As you will doubtless be aware, however, in Barbarossa's time there was no such entity as "Turkey", or "Greece" for that matter. There was just the Ottoman Empire, which included a multitude of different ethnic groups, Turks being one of them. Calling Barbarossa "Turkish" is plainly unhistorical and in point of fact an expression of modern Turkish nationalism.

Just as relevant to this case is that the name Khair ad-Din is purely Arabic. The modern Turkish rendering is an attempt at a phonetic rendering of the Turkish pronunciation of an Arabic name. As I said, the transliteration "Khair ad-Din" points up the structure of this name, which means something like "The goodness of faith", while forms like Hayreddin are just a meaningless combination of sounds (I suspect this may have been Atatürk's intention all along).

As to Hayreddin being being the common form of this name among English-speaking writers, I can do no better than cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, which speaks of Khayr ad-Din. The only existing English biography of Barbarossa is Ernle Bradford's "The Sultan's admiral", which speaks of "Kheir-ed-Din".

I am neither Turkish, nor Arab, nor a Muslim, and I don't really care very much how you write it. As I pointed out, though, the spelling "Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" is already given between brackets in the first sentence of the article, so I'd say there is no point in repeating it. Moreover, Wikipedia's naming conventions say: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." So just out of curiosity, I'll change the name back again to Khair ed-Din and see what happens.

213.10.105.39 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. What is your reference for Barbaros being Greek? Surely Hayreddin is not a Greek name. Why dont you rename the article with a Greek name? :) Midilli was an Ottoman land and ethnic Turks lived there as well as ethnic Greeks. Of course Hayreddin is phonetic representation of his name, this is what an alphabet normally do :) This person was not called Khair-ad Din (which is a phonetic representation of an Arabic name). Wikipedia convention for Turkish historical names is to accept Turkish rendering as in Mehmed II. Unless there is a Mohammad II article, this one should stay as Hayreddin. Filanca 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Filanca, I never said Barbarossa was Greek. I said you might call him that "if you want to use modern concepts of nationality", and the implication was of course that would be unhistorical. As to Wikipedia naming conventions, I quoted chapter and verse (the Encyclopedia Britannica and Bradford's biography), but you ignored that. Obviously you are prepared to continue an issue like this indefinitely, so I'll let you have it your way.

Bontekoe 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you used modern conceptions of nationality Barbarossa would be Ottoman. When we say he was Turkish, naturally we speak of his ethnicity, not meaning he was a citizen of the Turkish Republic. I've noted that some English sources use Khair-ad Din, while I've provided another source in English using "Hayreddin". A Google search for "Barbarossa Khair" and "Barbarossa Hayreddin" plus "Barbarossa Hayrettin" gives close hits (not including English pages with "Barbaros Hayreddin"). Evidently there is no consensus among sources about spelling of this person's names. And you seem to overlook the fact that there seem to be a consensus in Wikipedia, about using Turkish spellings for Turkish people. Even in this article; names of Arabic or Persian origin used by Ottoman Turks, like Yakup, Mehmed II, shehzade, Selim, are written in Turkish spelling. Writing those names as if they were Arabic would amount to calling a Frenchman Petrus instead of Pierre.

About "hayreddin" being a "meaningless combination of sounds", yes, probably some ordinary Turks living in Ottoman times would think such an Arabic phrase was so. While more scholarly ones would make sense out of it. Still this is the way it was pronounced. Turkish latin alphabet did not change the way people speak. Filanca 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

This article has been nominated for Good Article review. Baristarim 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it needs more work to tighten it up and give it a compelling story line. There is at present, in my view, too much essentially irrelevant clutter about each small event and every single ship allegedly captured. Cosal 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to see what I can do.. Baristarim 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to greatly shorten the first section which mainly deals with Oruc Reis and is pretty much a verbatim repetition of what is already written on the Oruc Reis page. Cosal 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And while you are at it, do you think you can do some work on Ali Pacha, the Ottoman commander at Lepanto in 1571, about whom I can find very little and who is often confused with Kilic Ali Pasha? Cosal 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will try to do it tomorrow, i really have to get some sleep :) Baristarim 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

back then that island was ottoman soil and ethnich Turks lived there. Barbaros was an ethnic Turk.

[edit] GA Review

I'm really sorry. This is a quite good article - aye, the lead could use a little work, but otherwise, it's pretty good - but it lacks citations, and thus fails a key part of the GA requirement. I'm quite willing to help with the Citation process, at least from a procedural point, as I'm not familiar with Barbarossa himself much, but I've done a citing up before, and it's not exactly a quick process. Have a look at WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Footnotes, and... well, let's get this up to GA, and quite possibly FA once that's done. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

This article is shy of a GA rating because it needs citations and other details such as an appropriate infobox.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)