Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Gaza Thesis Removal

There are currently 2 refrences in the history section that refrence the Gaza Thesis, with one giving it credence. I definetly think these should be removed as the theory has been disregarded since the 1980s, and linking it in the offical page lends it undue credibility. Ashemus (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The page currently contextualizes all that, which is informative. Removing it is not informative. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A debunked thesis is not informative in any way, including it is disinformative in my opinon and should be removed. Ashemus (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Debunked? In what sense? Not many historians favor it anymore but similar things can be said about many of its 'rival' theses. If there has been a meta-study of some sorts conclusively denying evidence for it, I understand completely removing it. For now, I wouldn't go that far; maybe removing the credence given to it might be beneficial, provided that you have sources. Uness232 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Debunked theses can be incredibly informative, especially if there are people who still believe it. They add more context to the history of a study and invite readers to think more critically. TangoFett (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Hi the area of the Slowakia was not a Vassal state. 217.110.112.214 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It was. Upper Hungary. Beshogur (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Ottoman Empire, "Turk" was not used as an insult.

In the Ottoman chronicles, the name "Turk" is always used for the army, dynasty and state. (Neşri, "Cihannüma" "Ve kısm-i sadis evlad-ı Oğuz Han-ı Türki evladın[...]", "Faide: Han ve Hakan ki halk içinde zikr olunub dinilür, mülük-i Türk'e dirler."; Ruhi tarihi "Bu esnada uc tarafından haber vardı ki Kayı'dan Ertuğrul oglı 'Osman Beg'i ucdagı Türk begleri dirlüb Kurultay ya'ni büyük cem'iyyet ve sohbet idüb Oğuz töresi üzere han dikdiler. Meger asıl hikayet bu minval üzerine idi ki ucdagı Türk begleri ki Oğuz'un her boyundan anda cem' olmışlardı"; Aşıkpaşazade tarihi "Bırakdı velvele küffar iline, Ki Türk'ün oldu bugün devr-i zaman"; Karaçelebizade, Ravzatül Ebrar "Turan zemîni Mavere‟ün-nehirden olub cedd-i a'lileri Kayı Hân Kabayıl Türkden bir fırka ile İran-ı zemine intikâl"; Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi "gördüler kim dört yanların Türk almış"; Seyyid Murad, Gazavat-ı Hayrettin Paşa "Böylece eşkıyanın başları aşağı oldu. Türk'ün şerbetini içtiler"; Celalzade Mustafa, Selimname "leşker-i zafer-yab-ı Türk"; Taci-zade Feithnamesi "Türk sıpahisi Efrasyab gibi yiğit"; Ömer Derya Bey, Estergon Fetihnamesi "Vezir-ü defterdar kafire der ki: görelüm nice kırarsınuz bu Türki"; Peçevi tarihi "Küffar hanı bu işe hayran oldılar ve gördüler ki Türk ne kuvvete maliktir" ; Düstürname-i enveri "od gibi kızar andan türk eri", "türk otuz bin vardı atlu yayan", "çünki taş atılsa kaçardı firenk, götin açar türke dayim kibr ü lenk"; Matrakçı Nasuh TÂRÎH-İ ÂL-İ OSMÂN "kafirler gördi ki Türk'ün nihayeti yok", "kafirler gördi ki dağ kaçmağla Türkten kurtulış yok"; Gelibolulu Muhammed Gazavatı Murad Han, "ki tagı taşı cümle Türk dutmış". Kumaner18 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There are a few things going on here.

First, it's true that the term wasn't always used negatively. Especially in earlier eras (14th, 15th centuries) it was used as a term of self-identification, as you can see in the early chronicles you cited. It's only later, in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries that it took on a more negative connotation in association with peasants and nomads. Second, the Ottomans were aware that Europeans called them "Turks" and often used the term when expressing the point of view of European characters in their chronicles, or when they speak to Europeans--you have a few examples of this in the quotes you provided. Third, the word Turk also retained its other associations aside from the negative: the Turks were also legendary figures from mythology like the Shahname, so when the Ottomans fought against Iran, sometimes they fit themselves into that mold of being "Turkish warriors like Afrasiyab," as in one of your quotes. So yes, the matter was more complicated than "Turk" just meaning peasant and/or nomad, but that was still the primary everyday meaning of the word in the early modern period. Chamboz (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Maps

I want to talk that please add only 1 map which is detailed and and Easy to understand.There are upto 5 maps which is complex and not easy to understand. Nauman335 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No they're not. Beshogur (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur These maps are not showing a full details

you have to pick a full map of empire at its great Nauman335 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Coat of arms (most recent), flag (most recent), I don't see any reason to put most recent map. Also greatest extent is already on the infobox. You have to click. Beshogur (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur but only a single map with details and It's peak is best describes otherwise upto 5 maps is not Nauman335 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolutionary Serbia links to modern day Serbia

This edit randomly changed the link to Revolutionary Serbia in the Successors to the Modern day Serbia with no reasoning. 19:52, 4 February 2023 This should be fixed. Sebwazhere (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Yippt (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

I want to edit information about Constantinople observatory of Taqi al-Din. Ansari-aftab-ali (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rehsarb (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Change “During this time, the Ottoman government engaged in genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.”

To

“During this time, the Ottoman government engaged in genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. However, Armenian Genocide is yet to be proven. In 2019, Turkey offered 20 million US dollars to Armenia to open their archives in the presence of third parties to prove the genocide, which was then rejected by Armenia.”

Sources:

https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-turkey-armenian-genocide-20190424-story.html

https://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/tca-issue-papers/turkey-offers-armenian-diaspora-290.htm

https://apnews.com/general-news-international-news-315c62b03268430ab297bcef86a3b1bb 188.119.8.154 (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Two provided sources are in fact the same AP wire piece, which clearly states "many scholars see it as the 20th century’s first genocide." Neither this source nor the second one provided supports the statement, "Armenian Genocide is yet to be proven." The second suggested addition, if added as requested, would imply a conclusion not made by either provided source, which would qualify as synthesis, and thus original research. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

In the Decline and Modernization Area it gives biased information about Abdul Hamid the Second for his so called "cruelty and paranoia". This may be true but at least give reference to who called Abdul Hamid II this. It should say something like the following. "Abdul Hamid II, was also heavily criticized with many names such as "Abdul Hamid the Damned"" etc. Ayan727 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source that describes him as incompetent, paranoid and cruel. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done I removed it since a) this article is not about him and b) it doesn't seem to add anything to what's already mentioned about his paranoia. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

name and perspective

for me the name would be "osmanic empire" - i can not even find the term osmanic in the article - IMHO it should exist as alternative name in the very top of the article. Additionaly there certainly is some alternative history of an organizational system that endured centuries - the article has a very mainstream / modernistic feel to it. Ebricca (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

who is who?

Who is the Ottoman Caliph? who is the Sultan? who is the "sadr Azam" (prime minister)? who is the Pasha (Badishah)?

Ottoman government is very unclear on its power structure!

15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 137.59.145.217 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

ottoman empire is poopoo Fennalfennan123 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global History, 1500-Present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 February 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Phammywammy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lavenderluvr12 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Insane amount of text more subheadings and remove text.

Re.ove text has to be pared down from reading. 64.189.18.39 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

This article has multiple issues that apparently has just been ignored or maybe not addresses since content was incrementally added. The article is of interest to an amazing (to me) Twenty-seven WikiProjects.

I have reassessed the article on the reasoning that it does not pass the B-class criteria.

Tags

See: Hidden categories

"Unsourced statements" from June 2011, "Failed verification" from September 2016, "citation needed" from July 2021, and "better sources needed" from April 2022. Article with "dead external links" from May 2024

There are other issues. Please see the "Section sizes" and the Anchor tag at the top of this page.

Relative B-class criteria

• #1)- The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. While the article currently shows to have 314 references there are areas where unsourced content has been contested and some content (fifth paragraph of the "Rise (c. 1299–1453)" subsection) that should not need six references. There are large amounts of unsourced content, sentences as well as subsections like "Cuisine" and "Sports", as well as unsourced content added (from one to several sentences) after a reference.
• #2)- The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Inaccuracies are hard to ascertain when so much material is unsourced.
• 4)- The article is reasonably well-written. Aside from having unsourced and apparently under sourced material it is hard to judge "reasonably well-written" when the article suffers from being severely bloated (read the "See also" section) with

a)- "Excessive detail",

b)- "Irrelevant content that is better placed in a different article" (or just cut down), and

3)- very possibly "Trivial content". Of particular relevant interest would be Wikipedia:Scope, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read.

Bloat

Aside from the enormous article bloat it extends to the optional appendices.

The "See also" section has eleven entries.

The "Further reading" section is enormously bloated. Under the heading is {{Main list|Bibliography of the Ottoman Empire}}. All of these sections should contain minimum "summary" only content.

The "Further reading" section has the the unusual "General surveys" subsection with twenty-three entries, the "Early Ottomans" subsection with three entries, the "Diplomatic and military" subsection with twenty-one entries, the "Specialty studies" subsection with eleven entries, and the "Historiography" subsection with thirteen entries. Along with the four entries in the External links this is a total of an astounding 75 links. While possibly not a Wikipedia record the appendices seem to attempt to redefine "bloated".

The External links section follows the policies and guidelines of the External links.

External links solution

Lacking any local editor's involvement I will cut the "External links" section down to 3 or maybe 4 entries. The rationale for trimming (with dynamite) would be:

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. This is indicative of a fact that maintenance of the section (trimming) is not subject to BRD but concerns, comments, or other actions, should be post talk page discussion.

Normally I would just trim excessive links as uncontested maintenance and possibly move them here for any possible discussions, however, at this time I will just post the comments and see if anyone responds. Thanks in advance for any possible help. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)