Talk:Devşirme

Is this considered accurate or misleading?
Hi, I read in this article ("History" section), the following line: "children of the rural Christian populations of the Balkans - particularly Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, and northern Greeks" Question: We are talking about the 14th-15th centuries. Is there any source that cites the existence of a people called "Macedonians" separate than the Greeks of that time? It is completely out of context that there is a reference to a "Macedonian" population at the times we are talking about. No reference at all and we can only assume and not prove that there was any such population, which constitutes (I dont know the exact term you use in here) a POV statement. Further more, the link that is attached to the word "Macedonians" directs to a page that includes (I quote): "Macedonian refers to different population groups" including Greeks and Bulgarians that are already mentioned in the first sentence ("particularly Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, and northern Greeks"). This way, the use of the term "Macedonians" in the sentence, is clearly reffering to the modern day people that claim to be Macedonians and not to those that at the 14th-15th centuries were actually residing at the lands of Macedonia and were called Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs etc, but not Macedonians. 195.251.32.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Resisted Comment - Devşirme system humiliating the people
The following "The devşirme system humiliated non-Muslim societies controlled by the Ottomans and was resisted." should be removed for factual inaccuracy. Although some people wanted to avoid having their children drafted into this service, in places such as Bosnia, families made special deals to have their children drafted into the Devsirme system, because it guaranteed upward mobility. In 1515 1000 Bosnians bribed officials to have their children taken as devsirme. (Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History pg 46) also referencing (Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule) and (Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire). This statement should be removed. --Kammun1st (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What parent would want his 10 year old child brainwashed into another religion ?? And taken one thousand miles away never to be seen again?? You people are sick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.249 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sir, you yourself write: "Although some people wanted to avoid having their children drafted into this service. . ." That is precisely what "[it] was resisted" refers to. By all means it should be noted that the system was designed to humiliate. Few of us like being humilliated. Cutugno (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement has POV issues, as it implies that the system was intended to humiliate Christians, rather than just simply provide manpower for the Ottoman State. Furthermore, the citations are unreliable and heavily biased.  Andrew Bostom is fervently anti-Islamic, and has previously written stories about how Muslims caused the Crusades and are inherently anti-Semitic.  Srđa Trifković subscribes to the "Eurabia" theory and has previously claimed that Islam is inherently warlike.  As such, I would take what they say with a grain of salt.  In addition, the inclusion of "was resisted" is far too vague, as it gives no indication of the scale or ferocity of resistance.  On this basis, I am removing the sentence. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Even a cursory examination of Malcolm Noel's record shows him to be at the very least, anti-Serb. Shaw is an Armenian genocide denier and has been accused of writing from a Turkish nationalist perspective (see his article). Sugar does mention this but he also thinks that the negatives of this system far outweighed the benefits. Kostja (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Language on this part is very important. The text as it is clearly means that it was intended to humiliate its subjects. However there is a dilemma based upon the fact that the subject of devshirme rose to the most powerful positions in Ottoman Empire. At many times in history the head and the main decision maker in the Ottoman empire was a devshirme. I think when we overcome stereotypes and we think of this simple fact we can understand that it did not intent to humiliate its subjects and that the "devşirme system humiliated non-Muslim societies" is clearly and simply wrong.

I agree. In the antebellum United States, many blacks not only benefited from slavery, but they also owned slaves themselves. Many blacks were promoted to managerial positions overseeing other workers while still remaining slaves. And black longevity was much better in America than in Africa. So one could say that the southern slave system was beneficial to many black people. In regards to Andrew Bostom and Srđa Trifković, their point of view is definitely pro-European vis-a-vis Islam, and they should be excluded as sources. I will now go to the article on American slavery and edit it to make sure that the article is not judgemental POV nor overly anti-slavery. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Shandafurdie

I erased the sentence as it was way too assumptions and the sources are clearly biased. Once somebody comes up with a better source with actual historical evidence to support this point then it should be reverted. If anybody here actually cares about historical accuracy regardless of your personal feelings you will not revert it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.236.88 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note
Is it true that the children would not be forced to convert to Islam? I was under the impression that they would be forced to convert. Indeed, if they were to serve in the military they must have been Muslims as Christians were prohibited from bearing arms in the Ottoman Empire. Does anyone have a source for this?


 * no need to force to convert to a religion becouse they are too young to be a member of one. So I think statement is true but misunderstandable.


 * the first writer is correnct. They were forced. It was effectively mass conversoin. They were obviously not to 'too young' as they were trained to fight. Through almost the whole history they couldnt carry weapons unless they Muslim.


 * Small number of Devshirme was used to fill Jannisaries. All of those those forced to convert. Jannisaris were all Moslem. There rest comprise infantry and certainly Devshirme was used to fill ranks of low value, high causualty rate troops.


 * On another note the conflation of Devsirme with Jannisary which one sees in the paragraphs in the article that begin with "Training of these acemi ocağı ..." and "Upon reaching adulthood, ..." create a very innacurate picture. The assertion that most or any but a tiny minority were trined in "calligraphy, theology, literature, law and languages"

is simply innacurate.


 * Also conversion was effectively forced as if done by the family before the annual "gathering" it exempted against Devshirme.


 * Also Murad I did not insttute the Devhirme simply because he needs more troops. He is the first Ottoman Sultan faced with such a large number of Christian subjects and this is a way to convert them or through battle loss alter the demographics. 72.75.23.3 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If they were baptised they were Christians before being taken as tribute. If they were tribute essentially they were slaves and that would certainly imply they had no rights (if we take the Aristotelian view of slavery). The problems lie in being a privileged slave who in some respects can 'outdo' free citizens. Forced doesn't seem too strong a word. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Devshirmeh not only from Christian children
Very poor Muslim families in the Anatolia would see the devshirmeh as a means of saving their children from poverty. Such children would not forget their origins completely, and they might have supported their original families financially. I will write more details as soon as I find better resources on the topic. --C6H12O6 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No this should not have been added. Again it is a false identification of Jannisary with Devshirme. You are refering to the Jannisary corps. the phenomena of Moslem Turks being allowed to entering the Jannisaries is well know because it had a political effect. The corps were to have loyalty only to the Sultan. The introduction late of some children from Turkish families into Jannisaries created some otehr loyalties and problems with interference in the Sultinate. Again you are refering to Jannisary history not devshirme.22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" addition revert
Really? I find it very relevant! Especially to the definition of genocide which specifically states: "...and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'll be re-adding this sentence, and expect better reasoning for its removal than the usual "the g-word is offensive for Turkish editors and it must be removed at all costs from all relevant articles". Had it been Greeks who were doing these disgusting practices, I would have been the first to add it, to help my compatriots learn from their ancestors' mistakes and become better. NikoSilver 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello guys, I think we should first discuss here before adding the word 'genocide', considering in middle ages many atrocities happened -ex. crusades - However, the definition of genocide has "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group ...". The Ottomans had no intention to wipe out Christians, but they asked for tax. Niko, "the g-word is offensive for Turkish editors and it must be removed at all costs from all relevant articles"; genocide is not offensive for me, since I am not a blind nationalist but a social democrat and love to discuss. However, Devshirmeh has nothing to do with systemical destruction of a nation; Ottomans needed loyal manpower and they used such a system. My personal view is that Devshirmeh system was ugly from the point of human rights. However, many ugly stuff happened in middle ages. From the administration side, it was a success though. Also, the system somehow provided semi-protection for Balkan people since Devshirmes knew that they came from Balkan Christians and therefore they tried to protect them through 15th and 16th centuries. After 16th century, muslims are allowed to join and whole system collapsed soon. To be honest, I am not happy what happened after 18th century in the empire far more than Devshirme case, since bad administration hurted many people in the empire including Balkans. Ottomans had many mistakes in fact... I don't touch the article now and hope to hear from you soon


 * By the way, who added "This also has a basis in the Quran, surat 8, verse 41, which provides for the enlistment a fifth of the campaign captives."? because there is no such a verse telling enlistment of captives: "And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer" I don't touch it for a week, if no reply then I will modify..


 * Well, I like the way you put it. Can we please find a way to illustrate "ugly"? About "systematic", I'd say that this is the most systematic way for 3 reasons:
 * It subtracts from the group its future (kids)
 * It adds that future to another group
 * It uses this addition to further subtract other lives of that group.
 * I agree that many ugly stuff happened back then, and I'm willing to help in further illustrating that uglyness wherever it is not. For your other questions, I've no idea. NikoSilver 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, good point:) Yes, it subtracts from one group and adds to another systematically, however this was done in small numbers (not all kids were taken, some of them were chosen) and with the intention to increase manpower supply, they didn't intend to destroy Balkan people, because they needed Balkans. In a way, it may look like vassals had to provide manpower at war. Though it was systematic, it lacked the intention to destroy the group. Otherwise, we would not expect to see many minor groups still exists in Balkans after a long 4 centuries Ottoman rule. At the end, the state was in need of soldiers and they used such a system that I find ugly.. However, if the real intention was to replace Balkan Christians by force then todays Balkans would look much different, as happened in Spain during 15th century(expulsion of Jews and Muslims by Inquisition) or in Ottoman Empire during 20th century (expulsion of Armenians)

The system was not ugly, at all. It is a remarkable invention of the Ottomans to form the new Roman Empire by enculturating the young generations of their new subjects. You should note that this process is two-way: Ottoman culture are very much influenced by the new cultures being blended into the society through administrators who were Christian converts. This is why Ottoman Empire became the most tolerant society of her era, thanks to the multicultural elite. There are many Turks, with little reading on the subject, writing here with some kind of inferiority complex and some chronic islamophobist, and turkphobist. I understand the rationale, however it is almost a fact that the devshirme system was behind success of the Empire in the Balkans (territory and peace-wise) until its decline. Also, it would be to distort the facts to claim that devshirme was to gain troops: the main goal was to select the ablest, not the most physically strong. It, alone shows that the system was aiming for the best statemen not the best warrior. Only those could not fulfill their potential was sent back to the janisarries or ordinary army. And those who were not enculturated, (say converted to Islam; say Skenderbeg) were let go. Actually one is famous of doing so: Skenderbeg. Please read research rather than propaganda.

Title
Hi all, since Devshirmeh is not an english word (this is English wikipedia) and Devshirmeh can be translated into English i suggest the articles title be translated. Thoughts? Aristovoul0s 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Plese dont add irrelevant OR. --A.Garnet 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur, and devshirmeh is a word used in English, so it is an English word, it does not need to have Latin/French/German roots. Please see this and this. By the way, Devshirmeh is not Turkish, Devşirme is Turkish. DenizTC 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not found the word in any english dictionary so far. Aristovoul0s 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Denizz, what do you suggest as translation of the word? Aristovoul0s 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation to what? Translation to German is Knabenlese. Did you check the links above (this and this)? DenizTC 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Devsirme is more common, maybe we should move the article to Devsirme. DenizTC 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If an English word is necessary, the closest word in the English language is "recruit". However, the word makes sense only the Ottoman administration, therefore, it would be best to keep it as "devsirme".

Age of the janissaries upon being enslaved
The article states that the boys were taken between the ages of 12 and 16. The Serbian-language version and Bulgarian-language versions claim, respectively, between the ages of 10 and 16 and 8 and 10. The only English-language reference for this article says that they were taken between 8 and 10. Serbian folklore usually suggests between 7 and 14, which is more logical than the upper suggestions as its easier to brain-wash a young mind. I'll attempt finding clearer references.

Use of Muslim Children I was reading Rhoads Murhpey's Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 and he cites a case where Muslims might hve been used in the Devshrime, though it is as a footnote. I'll summarize the passage. He states that a order went out concerning the devshirme for the year 1666 in the areas of the central and western Balkans. The target was 300-320 persons. In the footnote to the passage it says that both Muslims and Christians were taken for this recruitment. I'll quote the footnote. This is in the third chapter. "See the facsimile of the document in John K. Vasdravellis, Klephts, Amatoles and Pirates in Macedonia During the Rule of the Turks, 1627-1821 (Thessaloniki, 1975), pp. 112-14 (doc. no. 10). The directive suggests that on this occasion, in contradiction to previous norms and practices, provision was made for the quota to be divided on an equal basis between Christian youth on the one hand and Muslim volunteers from Albania and Bosnia on the other." This is only the second history book I've read on the Ottoman Empire, but the use of Muslims in this case seems strange. Should this be included in the article? Also, another of his footnotes says "As a method of recruitment the devshirme was finally abolished in the early part of Ahmed III's reign." The source is V.L. Menage, Encyclopedia of Islam Vol. 2, p. 212. Ahmed III would put the date between 1703 - 1730, not the 1648 stated in the article. Anyone able to clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.191.114 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my article on this: the ages are clearly mentioned in Miller's fantastic and probably the most comprehensive book on Enderun which includes a section on devshirme. --188.59.186.98 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Age of enslavement and bosnian muslims having negotiated inclusion in the system
As for these recruitment capmains a sultan ferman had to be issued, age of recruits varied from as low as 8 to as high as 20 on some occations. In order to spare their children Bosniaks started to circumsize them and give them muslim names which lead to their inclusion in the systems; this also facilitated conversion to islam of such children.

Lack of Sources and POV
Hi, I'll start editing the article, removing all emotional/POV statements and replacing them with historically accurate sentences and citations. This issue has long been used by propagandists as an excuse to defame the Ottoman Empire, so it is no surprise that it is riddled with half-truths and emotional baggage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliobella (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good, I suggest you keep up. Two big errors I have noticed is the "Blood Tax" name, (any citations for this?) and then asserting that those children become "Ottoman Regulars", when they actually became an undisputed Elite.

Also, there were Orthodox Greek Regulars in the Ottoman Empire, thus saying that Christians "could not hold weapons for the Empire" is also wrong (I could also give you a plethora of Armenian Pashas)

--Eae1983 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reference to devshirme being known as 'blood tax' other than the name of the jpg file submitted and presumeably named by  en:user:A3ure ???? this coupled with the ludicrous attempts to portay it as genocide or it having been mandated by the Koran makes me suspect a anti turkish/muslim bias here. 84.192.135.134 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty of reference on that. Every Bulgarian historian refers to it as Кръвен Данък or Кръвнина, which translates as 'blood tax', as the practice was known by that name to the contemporary Bulgarians, as is depicted in their local folklore (tales, songs, etc). Like it or not, the Christian population was seeing the practice as a form of genocide or at least as a treat. The Ottomans were the oppressors and the sole fact that the Balkan people formed national identities after the fall of the Ottoman Empire proves it to the best. I do understand that the POV factor is important here, so both anti-Ottoman (not anti-Turkish or anti-muslim!) and pro-Ottoman biases play their parts here. It is a fact that taking someone into slavery is not a positive practice, although it usually has economic benefits for the enslaver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.186.123 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---balkan situation--- The description provided here is far from truth,the devshirme was feared by most slavic christians to the point that parents occasionally mutilated their children. I think we should quote some paragraphs from Ivo Andric (Nobel Prize laureate) novel The bridge on Drina to have a realistic idea of how the ottoman rule was perceived in the Balkans and how the devshirme was in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattP314 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC link
"This negative view of the devsirme systems is challenged by other scholars who note that especially in the context of that period of history the devsirme system was no were near as bad as other brutal forms of slavery that Europeans and later those European on the American continent would use. They note that many children taken under the devsirme system were able to reach high level positions within the Ottoman state and attain much wealth and thus cannot correctly be termed "slaves" again they write on the devsirme individuals; Some of these were trained for government service, where they were able to reach very high ranks, even that of Grand Vezir. Although members of the devshirme class were technically slaves, they were of great importance to the Sultan because they owed him their absolute loyalty and became vital to his power. This status enabled some of the 'slaves' to become both powerful and wealthy."

 Continued addition of this paragraph(WP:SYN & WP:OR) and "reference" will result in the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.The "reference" does not say "scholars" challenged this "negative view" and no scholars are mentioned nor is there an author to this "reference"
 * 2.The statement, "the devsirme system was no were near as bad as other brutal forms of slavery that Europeans and later those European on the American continent would use.", is not supported by this "reference"
 * 3.This "reference" is being used as a rationalization of devsirme, as indicated by the wording above, which is not supported.

Bostom and Trifkovic are widely rejected anti-Islamic propagandists
How can any poster excuse the use of this anti-Islamic propaganda, Bostom and Trifkovic are pseudo-scholars that are only used by far right wing groups not real unbiased scholars. This would be like taking the KKK as an alleged source of unbiased information on black people! And a few here have the gall to say the BBC is allegedly somehow not a "fair source", the only person who wouldn't consider the BBC a fair source would be someone in the extreme far right of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please........
 * 1)Your assertion that Bostom and Trifkovic are pseudo-scholars is unfounded, considering that Trifkovic has a Phd in History!
 * 2)Your own BBC source states, The devshirme system introduced in the 14th century compelled non-Muslims in parts of the Ottoman Empire to hand over some of their children to be converted to Islam and work as slaves. Some writers say that between half a million to one million people were enslaved in this way over the centuries. Conquered Christian communities, especially in the Balkans, had to surrender twenty percent of their male children to the state. Not all writers agree that the devshirme system was beneficial as well as oppressive, and point out that many Christian families were hostile and resentful about it - which is perhaps underlined by the use of force to impose the system.. Which oddly enough supports the sentence referenced by Bostom and Trifkovic!!
 * 3)And none of this supports your continued attempts to sanitize this article with your WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please the Devsirme was just so "evil" according to you and your far right racist "sources", the same devsirme that allowed those poor "oppressed" Christian kids to live in Palaces and receive the best education within the Ottoman state and thus likely one of the best in the world at that period. Anyone who has read any serious work of academia on the Devsirme system like Carter Findley's "The Turks in World History" would know that especially for its time the Devsirme system was relatively benign to actually good for those taken. "Slavery" is what white racists did to those in the cotton fields of the American South. People that came out of the Devsirme system included people like Melek Ahmed Pasha who became the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman state. You truly have no case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Talk about ignoring the facts. Your own BBC source  states the same thing as Bostom and Trifkovic and then you attribute sources placed here by someone else, as "your far right racist sources". Bring sources that actually state what you are editing, instead of WP:OR and misrepresenting sources. Also, show me exactly where I said, "the Devsirme was just so "evil"". So along with misrepresenting sources you are putting words in people's mouths. This is your final warning regarding this issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

""" 1)Your assertion that Bostom and Trifkovic are pseudo-scholars is unfounded, considering that Trifkovic has a Phd in History!"""

Some of the most famous holocaust deniers have PHD's, should we also take their word as a fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.236.88 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And how many Phd's state the Armenian Genocide did not occur? Should we take their word as fact?? As usual, you have missed the entire concept of creating this encyclopedia. As editors we are here to supply reliable published sources to wikipedia, we are NOT here to decide if an event occurred or if what is published is true or not. Since you have continued to ignore facts posted here(like:John R.Schindler), I will be more than happy to notify an Admin of your problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah typical, trying to play with words. The point is pretty clear, just because an author may have a PHD doesn't make him a reliable source. Otherwise why don't we start sourcing Roger Dommergue in the holocaust page. Instead of giving a section for conspiracy theory, why don't we put "other theories on holocaust" He does have a PHD after all.

The better question is, why isn't there a separate section on this page. Just because some nutjob made a point doesn't make it a fact either. Not all sources are treated equally and you cannot always use measures such as "educational attainment" to make them seem more valid. As for the Armenian Genocide, well you tell me? On that page is the denial of it written on the main page, or is it given a special section that clearly outlines "conspiracy theories" thus separating it from the rest of the article?

""" Some writers say that between half a million to one million people were enslaved in this way over the centuries. Conquered Christian communities, especially in the Balkans, had to surrender twenty percent of their male children to the state."""

What writers? You are just making up numbers. What evidence is there to actually support these claims? What respected scholar made such a claim?, please tell me. Kenzo400 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to check the reference provided by someone else. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

""This is your final warning regarding this issue."""

Also, i don't believe you have a right to make threats. This is a free talk page, people here have a right to express themselves and criticize the article. I know you get all emotional because somebody doesn't agree with you, but it's time to start acting like an adult.


 * I don't believe you have the right to remove referenced information. The only person getting emotional is some silly anon IP removing information that hurts his little ego.
 * The only person trying to play with words is you, since you are removing referenced information without due cause(only your personal opinion). Rather emotional of you.
 * Just an FYI, removal of references and/or referenced information is considered disruptive editing and can result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are not reliable then you do have a right to remove it. It can always be argued whether a source is reliable or not. If an editor reverts back the original change and the person keeps changing it, then yes that would be against the rules. But that is completely different. If normal people are not allowed to edit a page, then we wouldn't have been given that ability.

Quite a few people here have expressed why they don't believe these sources are reliable, and you continue to ignore them. You have not given any legit reasons why these sources should be deemed reliable, (other than saying the writers have a PHD) Well like i said before, perhaps we should reference holocaust deniers on the holocaust page and take their words as fact (many of them have PHDS)

From your replies the only thing i can take away is that "referenced information should not be removed"  So if i was to reference a blog here that contradicts this point, should that also not be removed? It's not hard to reference information. It is the quality of the sources that must be questioned. That is exactly why we have a discussion page, to actually DISCUSS the referenced material. You seem angry that people are even questioning it (personal feelings) Kenzo400 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I see is someone using an Anon IP to make it appear that more than one individual has "concerns" about the paragraph in question. Yet, so far I have seen no evidence to support claims they are "pseudo-scholars". The paragraph now has two more references both published. One by Christos Yannaras and the other by John R. Schindler, of which nothing is said about them being "pseudo scholars" or anti-Islamic propagandists. No evidence has been produce that indicates Bostom or Trifkovic are anti-Islamic propagandists. Instead of evidence to support your opinion, you post childish statements like, "it's time to start acting like an adult", and your childish attempt to play the "emotion" card. Come back when you have some evidence and not just childish insults. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you just look through the discussion page you can see more people expressing concerns about some of the statements made and the credibility of the sources. As for them being "pseudo-scholars" i'm not even sure where to start. The fact that Srda Trifkovic wrote a book called "the sword of the prophet" should be the first indication that he is nothing but a hateful prejudice maniac. Another indication should be that he was an unofficial spokesman for Republika Srbska, which is colonized territory and does not have official international recognition as distinct region. Half of the population in that region was thrown out during the war. He is a full supporter of this illegal settlement.

In February 2011 he was refused admission to Canada for being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government considered responsible for crimes under the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act This is taken right off the wikipedia page for him, you can see it for yourself.

This is another paragraph pasted directly from that page "The Canadian Institute for the Research of Genocide had complained that Trifkovic was promoting hatred, antisemitism and islamophobia and accused him of publicly denying what New American termed the "alleged" massacre of Bosniaks at Srebrenica in July 1995, found by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to be a crime of genocide"""

"The John Birch Society's New American Magazine attributed the decision to refuse Trifkovic entry to his criticism of Islam and "jihadists", his argument that American policymakers should treat Islam as a hostile political ideology instead of as a religion, and his call to halt Muslim immigration to the West.[22]"

"[W]e need an absolute moratorium on the immigration of Muslims into both Western Europe and North America, coupled with the denial of citizenship to all practicing Muslims, the denial of security clearances, and the policy of systematic deportation of all jihadists(sic) activists. ... Islam ought to be regarded as a violent political ideology rather than just a religious cult."

As for Andrew Bostom, just take a look at the books he has published. It is nothing but utter propoganda and complete focus on spreading hatred towards Islam. He is not taken seriously by anybody in the academic community. It's also not surprising that he has been on FOX news quite a few times.

Sorry for making this response a little too long, i just thought it was important to put all this information. I'm going to contact an editor because this is getting ridicilous, your sources have as much credibility as those pseudo scholars denying the holocaust happened. Kenzo400 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I can do that. Shaw was the Republic of Turkey's pawn for re-writing history. So Shaw's references need to be removed, since he is clearly a propagandist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about Shaw personally so i cannot comment on whether that is true. But in this article the facts presented and referenced to him are general descriptions of the system. Which do you think are false or not told correctly? There are no grand assumptions being made on the purpose of the system. In fact stating that the primary purpose was to humiliate the non-muslim population goes completly against this article. The stucture of the system clearly shows that there were many reasons for doing so. Whether they are moral or not is a completly different matter. We are not here to debate that. This is exactly why i said previously that you are letting your personal feelings get in the way. There is a big difference between talking about the structure of it and making statements like "it was created to humiliate the non-muslim population" That statement is clearly bordering on hate speech.

This article is supposed to be informative and generally describe the system. You are making wild speculations that simply are not supported. Sourcing a pseduo-scholar does not help the matter. I think anybody with basic knowledge about this would know that there wasn't one clear reason as to the purpose, in fact there were plenty. One was to increase the military size. Another was to have more of the native population involved in the empire as to assimilate them, and so on.. Kenzo400 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to to read about the rules of Wikipedia, Kenzo400, before you continue your disruptive edits. Having different viewpoints in an article is not only permitted but required. Kostja (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Different viewpoints yes, but they have to be neutral and objective. The paragraphs included violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy (Neutral point of view) since expressing the system as being "created to humilate non-muslim population" this is being based on an personal opinion rather than fact.Kenzo4000 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not proven that the references are NOT neutral, you have simply reverted the information. You are also edit-warring and sockpuppeting, violating those Wikipedia policies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of reasons. You are just too stubborn to listen to them. If you take a look at this page you can see that i am not the only person who has questioned these edits. You also falsely accused me of sockepuppeting, You can see that i signed all of my posts. This is a complete joke. Funny looking through your history i see a lot of people have made accusations on you of edit warring and purposefully altering articles based on personal opinion. I am not surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzo400 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You provided nothing, except your OWN opinion. And you have not addressed the other references included in the paragraph(which you and your sockpuppets continue to delete). You were found to be sockpuppeting as per, "'Confirmed by CheckUser as to abusing multiple accounts, so you are dead wrong with that regards. Moreover, you are not currently blocked; in order to keep it that way, please refrain from abusing multiple accounts or edit warring. –MuZemike 03:44, 23 May 2011". So, take your lies and your personal vendetta elsewhere. Continued negative comments about me will draw the attention of an Admin. Judging from your record of edit-warring, canvassing and sockpuppetry, it would not go well for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a joke. You are the only person here that insists on putting their own opinion into the article. I personally do not care if some inept editor agreed on the accusation, the fact is that i wasn't. You are just trying to discredit people who do not agree with these highly biased edits. Lol, if you feel insulted because i continue to debate with you, it's pretty simple (STOP RESPONDING) I have every right to post in this discussion page, and you are the one who continues this discussion. I know you like to have the last word, but it's time to grow up. Kenzo400 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non Islamophobic version
I deleted some of the references which were clearly written in a racist and islamophobist tone. Current version emphasizes the merit system, and includes info on the training of devshirme at Palace and other schools. Please note the purpose of devshirme is raising an elite group of statemen. Only those who are not able are recruited to Janissary or became ordinary soldiers. I also would like to add the diagram in the article. See  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corlumeh (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is not written law here. I do not like nor care for your veiled accusations of racism. You removed 6 references without any explanation other than racism and islamaphobia. I would like an explanation how the BBC source you deleted was a racist source, just for starters. Else your sanitizing of this article is cherry-picking information from a source. Simply giving one side(ie.Ottoman-side) of devsirme is complete POV-pushing in every sense of the word. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't express my opinion, at all. I am citing people who spent a lifetime working on this, Miller, Ipsirli, (which I should add later, btw), instead of people who distort history for their racist aims. Quantity does not necessarily mean quality, shouting louder does not mean you are right, spending more time on wiki does not mean you are unbiased, either. I also doubt you read the BBC article thoroughly. Concluding that the article is about Christian's resenting the devshirmeh?! No more to say!!!

My opinion after working on first=hand resources, like the diaries of devshirmeh several months, (thanks to my although limited Ottoman language skills, oh, by the way, what first-hand resources do these references cite?), if you can disagree, even logically: Devshirmeh is a protection against unlawful slavery and puts it under the protection of law. Without the law, the custom both in the west and east was the random picking up whoever you wanted, which was done by pirates in southern france by North African muslims, vice versa, of course. This is a good comparison why devshirmeh was a protection. Resenting: Of course, it could be and also some would feel humiliated, as well. (Who are they?) It still doesn't change the fact they were exceptions given the posisbility of a reward of being the parent of a vizier. There is also no Ottoman-side today, if there is Ottoman side, it includes those Christians, as well. Actually, that's the purpose of the whole system, to have a multicultural Ottoman side, instead of one ethnicity (Turkmen Oghuz initially) dominating the empire, and that's why devshirme was a remarkable law-based practice. The purpose was, again to diversify the elite, rather than warrior class. Otherwise, the recruiting rules would encourage to choose the strongest, rather than the smartest (ablest they called it, versatility principle). I understand your rationale that it is too pro-Ottoman, or may cause an interest in Ottomans and Islam, which should not be good; however this is one of the things they did right, and they deserve the credit, even at wiki.

I also would like to correct the impression that the purpose was to convert devshirme to Islam. Forceful conversion is not allowed in the religion, and even that would not be approved by the seyhulislam. However, if you say they were brainwashed, I agree. Ottomans needed empty brains, empty language skills, empty other skills to train them according to their abilities and demand-supply plans in the Empire. That's why these are the rules of recruitment. Also, those who failed (did not convert to Islam or other reasons) was dismissed; not killed. However, the system was very efficient, so i understand why it looks like forced conversion. I am done!--188.59.174.63 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) "a policy that was clearly contradictory to Muslim law, sharia, at all times." ?????????? POV! In islam the capturing of non-muslims as slaves IS permitted as part of the jihad against the non-muslims. 88.159.79.152 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention of köçeks
I was just reading the köçeks page, which was fascinating. That page mentions:


 * They were recruited from among the ranks of the non-Muslim subject nations of the Turkish empire, such as Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Roma and others. They were boys taken from their homes via the Turkish practice of blood tax.

("Blood tax" is a link to this page)

But on this page, I see no mention of köçeks. Danregan (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a published source that links Devsirme with Koceks? If so, please feel free to add it! --Defensor Ursa 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original research
This sentence, "Taking captives as a result of winning a lawful war was the preferred alternative to killing in war according to Islamic law, sharia''", makes no mention of devsirme nor does the cooresponding reference make any mention of devsirme. Therefore, this sentence is simply original research that has nothing to do with this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. If you replace captives with slaves (per source) it is related to the previous sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really?
 * "Yet it was the remarkable devshirme system of recruitment that caught the attention of outsiders. This effectively enslaved some of the sultan's own non-Islamic subjects and was therefore illegal under Islamic law, which stipulated that conquered non-Muslims should be demilitarized and protected. The devshirme-in practice if not in theory-also involved virtually enforced conversion to Islam, which was certainly contrary to Islamic law. " -- Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, edited by Alexander Mikaberidze, page 273.
 * Please explain to me again how, ""Taking captives as a result of winning a lawful war was the preferred alternative to killing in war according to Islamic law, sharia", and this source "Gibril F Haddad (2008). "Sex with slaves and women's rights". MMVIII © Qibla. Retrieved 25 September 2013" which does not mention devsirme, is not original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Both this cruel and unusual way of recruitment and the recruits themselves were known as devshirme, literally 'gathering' or 'hand-picking'. The plight of families losing their sons can be imagined, though the recruits might later attain high office and command. The method was also unknown in earlier Islamic practice, and almost certainly illegal from the point of view of sheriat, Islamic law." --The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, C.1300-c.1415, ed. Michael Jones, Rosamond McKitterick, page 860. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert Edgerton
This is a mind boggling claim, I feel as though some context is missing here. --Mttll (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there? There is a link,. What was missing was an explanation for the deletion of a reference and the referenced information, which gives the impression of simple dislike. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't "dislike" it, I find it utterly outlandish, which is what it is. --Mttll (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it to be a reliable secondary source written by an academic with a Phd. in Cultural Anthropology. Do you have anything, besides your own opinion, to counter this source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you expect me to provide a source that for some reason chooses to state the Janissaries were heterosexual, no, I can't do that. On the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with this passage, may I request that it is reinforced by some additional sources? --Mttll (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure you can find more sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quie sure I can find more sources that say what? --Mttll (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=DcV8ZE6uz7MC&pg=PA161&dq=jannisaries+homosexual+inpublisher:university&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7fqHUsS_D4XN2wX0h4GwCQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=jannisaries%20homosexual%20inpublisher%3Auniversity&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=nQbylEdqJKkC&pg=PA37&dq=jannisaries+homosexual+inpublisher:university&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g_mHUs3jH6TL2QXQpYDAAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=jannisaries%20homosexual%20inpublisher%3Auniversity&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=HCikDlcEHw8C&pg=PA59&dq=janissaries+from+their+natal+families+and+from+the+general+population&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lF-KUrfFKsLq2gWNvoGYBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=janissaries%20from%20their%20natal%20families%20and%20from%20the%20general%20population&f=false --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Now let's see what those actually say:

You don't go from this to "50,000 Janissaries lived as homosexuals" which almost makes it sound like a rule than a tendency. --Mttll (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't go from that to "50,000 Janissaries lived as homosexuals". The Robert Edgerton source was not written by me, which if you knew how I write references, would be terribly apparent. Since you don't care to do a search yourself and simply condemn university published sources instead, I see no reason to continue this "discussion". I would be against the outright removal of said information and reference, but using the information and writing(ie.weaving it) into the article a little better would be beneficial. I do believe this article has become a "hodge-podge" of bits and pieces of information which needs to be re-wrote for clarity and sentence/paragraph flow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing Yoel Natan reference in Intro/ Not a real person. Likely a reference to two terrorists. Kahanism
Please remove Yoel Natan as he is not part of the source you quoted. He is extremely biased, considered unreliable and likely a nut. He also would need his own reference and does not belong in the intro even if he was a reliable source. Do not add commentary and then hide it in the referenced material. That is deceptive and not what wiki is about.

Please remember early Islamic law is not the same as modern Sharia law. It would be better to use early Islamic law to be more precise. The reference does not have anything to do with Natan's claims. You would need a separate reference for those numbers. So I will take that out at a later date if you fail to provide a reference for those claims of Natan. Please use an appropriate reference or remove.

What is your connection to Yoel Natan as I have researched your past edits and see disturbing similarities in bias. Please remember wiki is not a place to promote oneself. It would also be considered original research. Remember that sources need to be reliable, that is something accepted by more than a few extremists. http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/06/my-god-is-better-than-yours-iii-yoel-natan-author-of-moon-o-theism-believes-dinosaurs-roamed-the-earth-with-humans/172.56.1.7 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable? Apparently you are "oh so" intelligent but are blissfully ignorant of Cambridge University? Alexander Mikaberidze?[12] As far as I know, I have never used Yoel Natan as a source. Take your accusations and snide remarks, "student in Kansas" and stay off my talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Really??? You kept restoring Yoel Natan's accusation when I reworded it as a claim and after I challenged it as not being part of the original source. By the way you are acting ignorant for not realizing that Yoel Natan is a blog and not a real person. You kept restoring it as is until you were thoroughly thrashed for your ignorance. Yoel Natan likely is a reference to a terrorist organization with who you have remarkable same line thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism You brought out the unprofessional tone so it is appropiate your tone came back and hit your big head square. Thanks for complying and removing the made up name of Yoel Natan you so ardently defended earlier. No scholar would consider having an acronym (Yoel Natan) that likely refers to terrorists as part of source of information. 172.56.23.6 (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.23.6 (talk)


 * Wow you really are dense. YOU left Natan. Even your second edit left Natan. And your third edit again removed the referenced section and left Natan, again! I simply added references to the other part of the sentence, which was separated by a semicolon. Your inability to understand that I did not add nor restore Natan to the lead is your own problem and I have clearly shown your statements are clearly false. Your own edits indicate you left Natan and removed the second half of the sentence which was clearly referenced(Mikaberidze & I. Metin Kunt). Even your own edit summary shows what you were removing, "Removed commentary that is not from the reference or of Sharia law. It is only against sharia law to enslave muslims. All other groups are allowed to be enslaved in Islam." Clearly you can not or will not take the time to realize the sources(Mikaberidze & I. Metin Kunt) are reliable and this Natan nonsense is simply a ruse to cover up your continued harassment. Terrorist organization. LMAO! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This. Is the editor that added Yoel Natan. I would suggest you take up your issue with him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any non-muslim who fails to pay the 1/5 levy has always been subject to have their protection removed and be enslaved under early Islamic law. You constantly fail to use critical thinking and distinguish between changes in Islamic law and practices. Your approach is as if nothing ever changed over time. You failed multiple time and only removed Yoel Natan an imaginary name after I pointed it out to you. You also have a track record of arrogance mixed with ignorance, as your previous comments on this talk page illustrate. And all you can do is bring up a reference that you misrepresented. That is not a new trick on wiki. You must accurately reflect the reference and not add in your personal feelings. Period!172.56.12.77 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yet it was the remarkable devshirme system of recruitment that caught the attention of outsiders. This effectively enslaved some of the sultan's own non-Islamic subjects and was therefore illegal under Islamic law, which stipulated that conquered non-Muslims should be demilitarized and protected. The devshirme-in practice if not in theory-also involved virtually enforced conversion to Islam, which was certainly contrary to Islamic law." -- Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, edited by Alexander Mikaberidze, page 273.
 * "Both this cruel and unusual way of recruitment and the recruits themselves were known as devshirme, literally 'gathering' or 'hand-picking'. The plight of families losing their sons can be imagined, though the recruits might later attain high office and command. The method was also unknown in earlier Islamic practice, and almost certainly illegal from the point of view of sheriat, Islamic law." -- The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, C.1300-c.1415, ed. Michael Jones, Rosamond McKitterick, page 860. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly whaoh!!! He is not sure, he has given an opinion. Say what? You have hung yourself with your one source over and over, yet apparently enjoy doing so. Your research method or better said lack of research is amazing. Notice the link I added to the article about Islamic views of Slavery. Do you now see how the whole article contradicts your specious claim? Maybe you have to be right. Now we are getting somewhere with another one source, out of context wonder that itself does not assert the absolute you assert. Your assertion also contradicts the whole article I link with many sources. The jury settled this issue long ago, Islam allowed slavery and even endorsed it but under Islamic rules. It was unusual that they turned the levy into a levy on people and not the fact that they enslaved the conquered. It was not the first time. Read about the Mamluk. Are you really serious or just opinion pushing for political points?I am unable to sort fools and POV pushers, it can be difficult because at times they can appear to be one in the same.172.56.12.77 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we drop the stuff about terrorists and Yoel Natan (who seems to be some nut anonymous blogger/author who self-publishes his books using Amazon's Createspace. We all agree he's a dreadful source. You both left Natan in the article for a while, but he's removed now so that should be a non-issue. Whether or not the source says "almost", it is a reliable source by our criteria and we can use it with an attribution to the author. Kansas Bear is not from Kansas, if you suggest he's a terrorist again you will find yourself blocked and/or these pages locked against IP editing. Nor is he a pov pusher or a fool, although he works hard in areas of Wikipedia full of pov pushers. IP, you wrote "Removed unprofessional tone. Just the Facts Ma'm! No tabloid statements please. This is not a place for your personal feelings or a place to elicit sympathies for your cause. Go back to your blog to do that" for an edit where you changed wording introduced here - your shot was improper and aimed at the wrong person. No more using edit summaries for personal attacks, right? Your last edit added a wikilink but your edit summary "Added internal wiki link to clarify the practice and to subdue personal opinions, original research, misrepresentation of source, and misrepresentation of the subject" is again what appears to be a personal attack (and its meaning isn't at all clear to me and I doubt to the average reader. I'm starting a new section below for discussion of any outstanding issues. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added an original research tag to the article. The IP is clearly here to write their biased opinion into the article in contrast to what reliable sources state. FYI, wikipedia can not be used to source wikipedia articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The most striking example of such a deviation from sharia norms was the Ottoman devshirme tax in Christian youths...", page 36, "Indeed the element of forced conversion, prohibited in the sharia, loomed large.", page 39, "The idea that peaceful Christians were slaves through conquest was common, but it contradicted the sharia.", --W. G. Clarence-Smith, Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, Oxford University Press, page 38. Section concerning devshirme.
 * "At first the Ottomans seem to have cared little for the niceties of the Sharia-their use of the devshirme and forced conversion of dhimmis is but one example of this nonchalance." -- F.E. Peters, The Monotheists:Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, Princeton University Press, 122.
 * "Unlike other Muslim empires, who purchased their slave soldiers from outside the lands of Islam, the Ottoman sultans seized slaves from amongst their own Christian subjects, contradicting the sharia or Islamic law that forbade the enslavement of dhimmis." -- Gabor Agoston, Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, page 183. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding issues with the article
A new section to calmly discuss any outstanding issues with the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about starting with the removal of the silly "By the 1650s there were more than 50,000 Janissaries who lived as homosexuals and practiced strict military discipline" claim. Just because the Janissaries were (in theory anyway) required to be celibate doesn't mean they were all suddenly homosexuals. Or is living without an attached harem of concubines or camp followers, or without regular visits from (or to) prostitutes, or living within a regime that orders such things to be forbidden (regardless of what was happening in practice), some new definition of "living as homosexuals". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Devshirme in the Ottoman Palace School
Is there any reason to have Devshirme in the Ottoman Palace School separate from Devşirme?--Z oupan 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)