Jump to content

Talk:Ottoman Empire: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →top: add section sizes
Add "Article issues and classification" with reclassification and discussion.
Line 40: Line 40:
|aciddate=2 April 2006
|aciddate=2 April 2006
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Former countries |Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Former countries |Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject European history |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject European history |importance=high}}
Line 54: Line 54:
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=B |b1=yes |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y |Ottoman=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=C |b1=n |ob2=y |b3=y |b4=n |b5=y |Ottoman=y}}
{{WikiProject Iraq |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Iraq |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=mid}}
Line 131: Line 131:


Re.ove text has to be pared down from reading. [[Special:Contributions/64.189.18.39|64.189.18.39]] ([[User talk:64.189.18.39|talk]]) 07:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Re.ove text has to be pared down from reading. [[Special:Contributions/64.189.18.39|64.189.18.39]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:B-class criteria|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)- {{tq|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 [[WP:CHALLENGE|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)- {{tq|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)- {{tq|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 [[Wikipedia:Too much detail|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 [[WP:appendices|appendices]].
:The "See also" section has eleven entries.
:The "Further reading" section is enormously bloated. Under the heading is <nowiki>{{Main list|Bibliography of the Ottoman Empire}}</nowiki>. 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 [[WP:policies and guidelines|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:
*[[WP:ELPOINTS|ELpoints #3)]] states: {{tq|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.}}
*[[WP:LINKFARM|LINKFARM]] states: {{tq|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.}}
*[[WP:ELMIN|ELMIN]]: {{tq|Minimize the number of links}}. --
*[[WP:ELCITE|ELCITE]]: {{tq|Do not use {{tl|cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.}}
*[[WP:ELBURDEN]]: {{tq|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 [[WP:BRD|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. -- [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 16:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:14, 7 June 2024

Former good articleOttoman Empire was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 1, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2004, October 29, 2005, and October 29, 2006.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 2, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Double Dates?

I see some editors are putting double dates in their edits- specifically, the Hijri year calendar. Is this against the Wikipedia rules of standard formatting, or is double dates in isolation (aka, in that specific line but nowhere else) fine?

The prime example I'm referring to is the second map of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox, below which has a description that refers to the Islamic Hijri calendar as well as the standard Western calendar date.

Crazynyancat (talk) 12:49 PM 4 June 2021 (PST)

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)[reply]

Here's a source[1] that describes him as incompetent, paranoid and cruel. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Arthur Goldschmidt Jr. (2018). A Concise History of the Middle East. Routledge. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-429-97515-8.
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Empire&oldid=1227750878"