Talk:State and Religion (Ottoman Empire)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Beginning
This article seems to start of a little more like a paragraph I'd expect to be further down in the article. Perhaps providing a short summery before the main part of the article would help. ~ Falls End (T, C) 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tagged
This article states that "the Ottoman Empire was tolerant towards its non-Muslim subjects and it did not attempt to forcibly convert many of them to Islam." This whole thing strikes me like complete WP:OR, so I'd like that bit cited by independent verifiable and reliable sources please. I see there are {{citation needed}} tags in the second heading (probably sitting there for ages). The article is currently tagged, and as a next step I'll move for WP:AfD. NikoSilver 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added info and sources, I think the intro is NPOV now. I agree to the tag's removal. Please deal with the rest of unsourced statements. NikoSilver 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] See also
I removed the 'see also' from the sections. I do not see what they have to do with this article... Inquisition is about heresies among the Christian denominations; Witch-hunt was a mostly Catholic practice, related with paganism and affected certain individuals, not population groups. Mission (Christian) refers to colonianism of the New World, and in any case this article is not talking about Muslim missionaries (or anything similar) to justify the inclusion. I am not saying that the Christians were saint or did nothing to be blamed for, but i would like to see links for articles that at least have a mere connection with this one. e.g. a possible article 'State and Religion in the Holy Roman Empire' or 'Status of the Muslims in 11th century Spain'. Hectorian 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
OK, OttomanReference, u are moving way too fast! i do not want to cause a revert war, thus i will say here with what i disagree, and what i consider bias and unsourced statements:
- Ottoman Empire, as a state, was against the anarchy: no state is in favour of anarchy (in fact, these terms are incompatible!).
- There was no instance of Ottoman Sultan interfering with how Christians perceive (perform) their religious activities and personal issues: noone expected the sultan himself to ban baptisms in a specific church or to declare a transfer of property from a specific person as invalid (we are talking about those who did "in the name of the sultan")
- To understand the issues of Religious persecution; it is important to recognize the base point, or compare the policies from the general practice of its time. There is no cases of Inquisition and Witch-hunt under Ottoman Empire. Inquisition and Witch-hunt had never been policy of Ottoman Empire: had there been anything similar, we would be talking about inter-muslim issues. do not compare denominations with religions. the comparison is off, and in fact without base.
- In the past, Christian missionaries sometimes worked hand-in-hand with colonialism, for example during European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia: again, why do u compare Islam with Christianity? the article is about the religious affairs of the Ottoman Empire, not about the a Muslim vs a Christian empire, and which was more tolerant.
- Regarding "conversion accompanied by privileges"; there was no set of Christian converted-Muslim rules or Christian converted-Muslim privileges, which could be classified as a "specific policy for conversion": huh? the one tenth tax applied only to christians... the blood tax was for the most time affecting only the christian subjects... Being exluded by these, was a huge privillege!
- Civil engineering: why are u "hiding" the content under such a title? couldn't the cities be build (quality reassurances and architecture (structural integrity, social needs, etc) and shaped, with these churches been still operating, instead of been converted to mosques and armouries? do not present it as if it was a policy to move ahead... it was a policy of conversion... Hectorian 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- My $0.02: This article seems to be trying to form a POV in the reader. Your edits about the imperfections in the tolerance of the OE are one example, these are another. Your earlier edits were trying to (IMHO) show that the OE was not a paradise. These edits are trying to show (again, IMHO) that in comparison to what was being done minorities at other countries of the time, it was. Who cares? I guess we all do, which is why we are writing about these things, but we really should try to stay away from both extremes. If this continues, I suggest you discuss it in the Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, because I think the underlying issue is not the facts but the way we choose to look at the facts. Regards, --Free smyrnan 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway, i made my edits and sourced them after i was requested. when OttomanReference is done with his edits, i will add the requests for facts and i expect the same thing to happen. I know that i may be influenced a lot from by Greek background, but i am willing to see the other POV as well. Thanks for the advice; if things will not work out, i will try to draw some attention in the [[Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board]]. Cheers Hectorian 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
