Talk:Principality of Bitlis

„Rojaki“ name

Why isn‘t the name of this page „Rojaki dynasty“ as it is mention in the article? It was ruled and named by the Rojaki tribe, not?

Bitlis = Badlis

Bitlis = Badlis : these two towns are one, there should be only one article, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not let facts interfere with nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference I removed does not exist, there is one entry called Bedlis and it describes Bitlis in Turkey. So the articles need to be probably merged. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Badlis → Principality of Bitlis – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

• "Bitlis Principality" -Llc 7
• "Bidlis Principality" -Llc 7
• "Principality of Bitlis" -Llc 11
• "Principality of Bidlis" -Llc 2
• "Emirate of Bitlis" -Llc 7
• "Emirate of Bidlis" -Llc 0
• "Bitlis Emirate" -Llc 4

-- Takabeg (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Faulty premise with regards to 1665: no Murad VI ever reigned the Ottoman empire

The article states: "In 1665, Abdal Khans status as the Emir of the principality was strengthened after a visit to Bitlis by the Ottoman sultan Murad VI as he supported the Ottomans in the feud between the ottomans and the Safavids" This is impossible as there was never a Murad VI, and the closest Murad (IV) whgi was reigning to 1665 was Murad IV who died over two decades earlier. The next and last Murad (V- ruled briefly in the second part of the 19th century (over 200 years later). In 1665 the ruling sultan was Mehmed IV! Either the year or the sultan (or both) are thus clearly wrong. This part of the article clearly must be somewhat rewritten but I do not have the necesssary knowledge of the region's history to correct it. Could someone please correct it? -- fdewaele; 22 December 2020, 17:11 CET.