Talk:Nizam-i Cedid

This Page needs information, not just history!
I consider this article to be nearly a stub. The article on jannisaries, the other ottoman infantry unit had much more information, someone include at least half of the types of info the janissaryis had. If you complete that goal, please delete this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaery (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 June 2006.
 * Yes, this article has good history but poor information.I will edit when i have some time.--Jagatai Khan 12:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nizam-ı Cedid is still an important name in Turkey. It was a new hope for the imperial army. Nizam-ı Cedid defeated Napoleon's forces in the Siege of Akka. After this success, sadly, Nizam-ı Cedid couldn't last long and it was disbanded due to the low central control of the imperial government and important people that wanted the old system back. With respect, Deliogul 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the title should not be according to the Turkish spelling. In English speaking literature it is rather Nizam-i Jedid. To use Turkish spelling is inappropriate here, IMHO. --139.179.161.111 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nizam-ı Cedid
Nizam-ı Cedid mean in arabic New Order why we put the persian language also?? Bayrak (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's via persian, Bayrak. Don't do it again.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a source available, to clarify this? It's not about what editors know, it's about what's verifiable. --Elonka 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is the phrase itself. Arabic doesn't link adjectives to nouns with the added vowel "-i"; that's Persian. In fact, contrary to what Bayrak said above, and if he appreciates Arabic so much he ought to know better, "Nizam-i Cedid" is meaningless in Arabic because it's not even an Arabic phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.240.228 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That etymology really shouldn't be controversial, but writing "Ottoman Turkish" should be fine (if less informative). Of course, Bayrak originally just wanted to remove "Persian" so that it only only said it was from Arabic . Unfortunately, "editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged," and technically Bayrak "challenged" it. This could well generate unnecessary work (looking up an uncontroversial etymology that most works do not bother to provide) while removal leaves the encyclopedia less useful to readers. In any case, if we can all agree on "Ottoman Turkish" we should be fine (or is someone going to challenge that as well?). The question of etymology is not a fight worth fighting, given the difficulty we will have in actually a finding a source that bothers to report it. We will just have to accept the loss of information. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka -- then Bayrak should fact tag, not remove non-controversial information that passes the smell-test and general knowledge. But i agree wit hthe above that this isn't really important.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worth bearing in mind that Elonka is the one who brought up WP:V, not Bayrak. Bayrak wasn't fact tagging. He was just removing Persian because he apparently thought the Arabic origin the only part of the etymology worth mentioning (perhaps he thinks that it did not transmit via Persian). 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing as colombo used to say. This from the wiki article on ottoman turkish (which looks pretty handy) -- "As in most other Turkic languages of Islamic communities, the Arabic borrowings were not the result of direct exposure of Ottoman Turkish to Arabic, a fact that is evidenced by the typically Persian phonological mutation of the words of Arabic origin." These are the 3 cites provided: Percy Ellen Frederick William Symthe Strangford, Percy Clinton Sydney Smythe Strangford, Emily Anne Beaufort Smythe Strangford, “Original Letters and Papers”, Published by Trübner, 1878. pg 46: “The Arabic words in Turkish have all decidedly come through a Persian channel.”[ http://books.google.com/books?id=b4cQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46&dq=arabic+words+in+Turkish+persian+ottoman&lr=#PPA46,M1]

^ M. Sukru Hanioglu, “A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire”, Published by Princeton University Press, 2008. pg 34: “It employed a predominant Turkish syntax, but was heavily influenced by Persian and (initially through Persian) Arabic. ^ Pierre A. MacKay Hesperia, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1967), pp. 193-195. excerpt:"The immense Arabic contribution to the lexicon of Ottoman Turkish came rather through Persian than directly, and the sound of Arabic words in Persian syntax would be far more familiar to a Turkish ear than correct Arabic". [1] The Arabic "jedid" (more or less) becoming "cedid" is typical of the "phonological mutation" refered to.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this statement strange in any way?
"The health of the troops was consequently excellent; so much so, that on one occasion, 50 men out of 3450 were in hospital. One man in every seventy was no unusual occurrence in the hospitals of the British army"

If you work it out, 50 out of 3450 makes 1 out of 69. Isn't this MORE than the British numbers given? Or am I misunderstanding? 124.176.162.13 (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture
This needs a picture of the Nizam, I put one on but someone removed it, why? Also there is a Persian Nizam I Cedid but it is called Nezam-e Jadid, perhaps someone should make an article on this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)