Talk:Historiography of the Ottoman Empire

Untitled
This opening statement is chronologically out of order, which makes it confusing to read. I do not have the subject or technical knowledge to correct. Thanks

I'd like to see some info about the Ottoman Empire's affect on the rest of the world. That is, the affect of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the League of Nations "mandate" grants to Britain and France. Thanks!

Improvement Drive
The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Revising the Finance Section
Here's a part that doesn't parse well: "The Ottoman military increasingly adopted western military technologies and methods, increasing army personnel of 120,000 in 1837 to over 120,000 in the 1880s." OK, factually I suppose that passes ("over 120,000" is larger than 120,000). But wouldn't it read better if the two numbers differed? It makes me suspect that the original writer of this part of the article may have simply made a typo. Could someone consult the cited source and see if there's a better way of putting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging with Decline of the Ottoman Empire
The article Decline of the Ottoman Empire looks like abandoned variant of this article. Perhaps its maps could be put here (their original place) and the "Decline" turned into redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the historiography of the fall of the Empire. It tries to ask the question "Why?" Decline of the Ottoman Empire is a historical article that explains what happened between 1828 to 1908, such as wars, assassinations, military coups.. Who was the minister, who was the sultans... Decline is a part of history of Ottoman Empire series, Rise, Grow, stagnate, decline, dissolution. This article is a conceptual article. These are two different concepts. --TarikAkin (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2009

UTC)    i love adam

It seems odd, but clear enough once it is explained. This article is called "Fall" but is actually about the historigraphy of the decline, while the other is called "Decline" and is actually about the decline. Perhaps other topics, for example the decline of other empires, should be similarly split between an article about a decline and one about the historiography of a decline. One question for this particular empire is not clear. Where's the article that is actually about the fall? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Laughable
I just find it quite hilarious how there's an article titled Fall of the Ottoman Empire, but there's no article titled Fall of the British Empire. Just shows us the level of orientalist discourse here on Wikipedia. I'll probably go ahead and start it myself! Cheers!--134.71.165.189 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Britain voluntarily gave up the last bits of it's empire. The Ottoman Empire didn't.  So Fall of the British Empire isn't so much correct as the vague sauntering downward of the British Empire.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished in 1922 and the Ottoman state ceased to exist. When, pray tell, did the British state cease to exist? Hell, when did their colonial empire cease to exist? 1948 with the independence of India? 1997 with the hand-over of Hong Kong? What about all those little islands and peninsulas they still control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Name change.
This article is not about the fall of the empire. It should be renamed. Perhaps: Theories Why the Ottoman Empire Fell. 69.253.190.244 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article needs a lot of cleanup work. It's badly organized, chaotic, and contradictory. It doesn't properly synthesize its sources into a coherent perspective, and will no doubt leave readers confused. In some places it goes into minute detail in ways which don't give the reader any particular insight into the topic, while other sections of the article are left bare and destitute. It's also unnecessarily long. I've tagged it as such. Chamboz (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article contains long and seemingly random discussions of Ottoman manufacture, agriculture, domestic and international trade, transport, finance, and demongraphics under the heading of "The decline theory". However nowhere in these sections is there any indication of how these topics relate to the decline theory. It's just a bunch of random comments on aspects of the Ottoman economy with nothing to tie them to the topic they're supposed to be about. Basically all of it needs to be replaced or moved to another section. Chamboz (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Overlap with Ottoman Decline Thesis
Much of this article overlaps with the article Ottoman Decline Thesis, which is more coherent in addressing historiographical issues pertaining to decline, and better reflects the modern academic consensus. I'd suggest that much of this current article's discussion of decline be trimmed into a summary linking to Ottoman Decline Thesis as its main article. Chamboz (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
The article gives a tremendous amount of space to the Decline Thesis, and a tiny section on criticism, while scholarly opinion is in fact overwhelmingly opposed to the Decline Thesis. This is highly misleading to readers. Most of the article is totally incoherent anyway; I'm going to begin a process of trimming it, particularly the uncited stuff. Chamboz (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)