Talk:Ottoman Serbia/Archive 1

Untitled
This article seems to be glorifying Serbia. - 208.42.198.62
 * "The Turks defeated the Serbian army in two crucial battles..." Indeed it does
 * In my opinion it glorifies more Austria, Hungary and Turkey... serbs are presented "as piggy in between" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.68.189 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming from "History of Ottoman Serbia" to "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration"
FocalPoint, since you renamed article to title "History of Ottoman Serbia", please provide and source/evidence that says that there was an territory known as "Ottoman Serbia". Title to which I renamed article ("History of Serbia during Ottoman administration") does not imply the existence of non-existing territory named "Ottoman Serbia", but refers to "history of territory of present-day Serbia during Ottoman administration". PANONIAN 16:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was renamed by PANONIAN on the 17th of March, therefore, I only reverted that renaming. I will write more later. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As the issue is under discussion, I find the second move on your part, really unnecessary. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And your own move was necessary? By the way, I asked you about sources that would support existence of "Ottoman Serbia"? You have such sources to present or not? PANONIAN  18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration" instead of "History of Ottoman Serbia" or "Ottoman Serbia" (same with all categories in Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country).--Z oupan 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Ottoman Serbia: Budin Province, Ottoman Empire: A book called Ottoman Serbia, is it enough or you want me to continue? --FocalPoint (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is Wikipedia-based book (book that used data from Wikipedia), not reliable source. Please continue. PANONIAN  18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN-13: 9781155717630, Publisher: General Books LLC, Publication date: 5/6/2010, Pages: 56 A published book not a reliable source? Is this a joke? --FocalPoint (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Books LLC--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not question the information that this could be Wikipedia based. My question is whether a book (in this case supposedly a derivative work of Wikipedia) is or is not a reliable source. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. My comment does not mean that I disagree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your assistance. Wikipedia accepts that articles or mirrors of Wikipedia are not reliable sources, however, in this case we have a derivative work, the editor of which could choose another title. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ottomans and the Balkans: a discussion of historiography, Fikret Adanir, Suraiya Faroqhi, page 40, BRILL, 2002 "The liberation struggles in Ottoman Serbia, Greece or Bulgaria..."

Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O Tony Jaques, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, page 773 "A patriot army ... advanced into Ottoman Serbia"

--FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but main problem is that there was no historical territory that was officially named "Ottoman Serbia". I do not deny that name is used in certain sources, but term have purely geographical meaning and various sources are using the term for different areas in different time periods. It would be impossible to have one generally accepted definition what term "Ottoman Serbia" might mean. This article should be a part of the series of the articles about history of Serbia and therefore it should describe "period of Ottoman administration in the history of Serbia" and not some officially non-existing territory named "Ottoman Serbia". PANONIAN  08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The name under which this article was developed was "History of Ottoman Serbia". The name "Ottoman Serbia" is widely used as you can see not only from the two books shown above but also many from other sources:


 * A Brief History of the Serbian Insurrections 1804-1817 By Dale Pappas, Ottoman Serbia
 * The Balkan Economies C. 1800-1914: Evolution Without Development, Michael R. Palairet Cambridge University Press, "Given the low population density of Ottoman Serbia..."
 * Land Campaigns Book 1, Roger Underwood "It attempts to re-create the invasion of Ottoman Serbia by a Habsburg Imperial army led by "
 * Yugoslavia As History: Twice There Was a Country, John R. Lampe, Cambridge University Press, 2000 "...roughly half as much again as Ottoman Serbia or ..."

You have changed the name of the articles (for other parts of the Ottoman territories as well) and the categorization, for something you think is right, while there is wide bibliographical evidence the the term "Ottoman Serbia" is in use. This is completely unacceptable practice in Wikipedia. We do not record my opinion or your opinion. We record what the sources are writing. The sources are clearly writing about Ottoman Serbia. So I am asking you and I expect you to follow Wikipedia rules and practices and refrain from such changes. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Following the conclusive proof presented above, I moved the article back. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FocalPoint, you did not had need to engage yourself in revert warring. As I explained to you, term "Ottoman Serbia" is too undefined to be used for Wikipedia article. Can you define this term? To which territory (and in which time period) would term "Ottoman Serbia" refer to? Can you answer these questions? It is not enough that you find some term in some sources but you have to be able to say what that term mean and to what exactly it referring. And if you cannot answer these questions then what you doing here would be inventing of history of an fictional non-existing country in Wikipedia. And by the way, if this is some kind of "revenge" because I renamed articles and categories about Greece as well, I can tell you that I only acted in good faith, but, as far as I am concerned you can have Greece-related articles as POV and inaccurate as you want (I will not touch them any more). But please, do not engage yourself in POV-ization of Serbia-related articles. PANONIAN  15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. Of course, the modern states of Serbia, Syria, Greece, Armenia, etc. did not exist in the Ottoman period, and it is anachronistic to speak of "Ottoman Serbia/Syria/Greece/etc."  But I don't see how it is any better to speak of "Serbia/etc. under Ottoman administration/rule".  Neither Serbia nor Greece nor Armenia was "under Ottoman rule", because there was no such thing as Serbia or Greece or Armenia -- they were not administrative units within the Ottoman system, and in fact even before the Ottomans, the borders of the historical Serbian, etc. kingdoms did not coincide with modern borders, and their states certainly didn't have the ethno-nationalist pretensions of the modern states.


 * So in some sense the problem isn't the title -- there isn't even a subject matter corresponding to the title "Ottoman Serbia" or "Serbia under Ottoman rule". But in fact, there is a modern literature which divides along modern-national lines so that all the history, at all periods, of Kastoria is treated as part of "Greek history", that of Gjirokastër is part of "Albanian history" (cf. Albania under the Serbian Empire), and that of Vidin is part of "Bulgarian history", even though all these cities were ruled at various times by Serbian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Ottoman rulers, and had populations with a variety of religions and languages.


 * Which means we need to find a title for those things that is not too misleading. An accurate but clumsy title would be "History of the territory of modern X under Ottoman rule".  To my ear at least, "Serbia under Ottoman administration" is worse than "Ottoman Serbia".  Both incorrectly imply that there was such a thing as "Serbia" at the time, but the first seems to imply it more strongly.  The first also implies that there was a stable thing called Serbia which was "administered" (why not "ruled"?) by various bureaucracies.  So I find "Ottoman Serbia", like Ottoman Greece, the better title.  Similarly, by the way for History of Bulgaria during Ottoman administration, which I'd prefer to see at Ottoman Bulgaria.


 * But in the end my personal preferences aren't the issue. What do reliable, third-party sources use?  First of all, in reference to Serbia, "Ottoman rule" is about 10x more common than "Ottoman administration" in Google Books.  The phrases "Serbia under Ottoman rule/empire/domination/yoke/administration" are infrequent enough that it's hard to draw conclusions, but it's suggestive that the ratios are 15/5/3/1/0.  But "Ottoman Serbia" appears 244 times.  Seems like the clear winner. --Macrakis (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Macrakis, I see your point. I would agree that "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration" would also imply that there was some Serbia during Ottoman administration, so I would not support that title any more. However, I will introduce another proposal for title: "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia" - that one does not imply that there was some kind of "Ottoman Serbia". PANONIAN  18:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am proposing this for this article only, not as a general name of all "Ottoman-related" similar articles. You can do what ever you want with title of similar article about Greece and please do not mix that issue with this one - my basic mistake was that I tried to rename all similar articles and from now on, I will only focus on articles about Central European countries that are the primary subject of my interest - Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania. I have no a single intention to conduct any additional edit in any Greek-related article. So, FocalPoint should not rename articles about other countries to make case of name of Greek article stronger. As for sources that using term "Ottoman Serbia", while there are such sources, the term is completely unclear and it is not clear to which territory (and with which borders) these sources are referring to with name "Ottoman Serbia". Such unclear term should not be used as article title. PANONIAN  18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against renaming the title of History of Ottoman Serbia to Ottoman period in the history of Serbia. The arguments are the same FocalPoint and Macrakis used in case of previous renaming. I am also against renaming of similar articles and categories in case of Kosovo and Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you say because of which reason? PANONIAN  19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already said why. "The arguments are the same FocalPoint and Macrakis used in case of previous renaming." I can repeat some of them:
 * Macrakis wrote: "What do reliable, third-party sources use?...."Ottoman Serbia" appears 244 times. Seems like the clear winner."
 * FocalPoint wrote: "You have changed the name of the articles (for other parts of the Ottoman territories as well) and the categorization, for something you think is right, while there is wide bibliographical evidence the the term "Ottoman Serbia" is in use. This is completely unacceptable practice in Wikipedia. We do not record my opinion or your opinion. We record what the sources are writing. The sources are clearly writing about Ottoman Serbia."
 * I wrote: all categories should be moved after discussion, or none. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What do reliable, third-party sources use for what exactly? This is not article about historical territory with its own name, but sub-article of the article History of Serbia (and cannot be seen as anything else). You say term "Ottoman Serbia" appears in sources. But, in which context? And to which territory this term referring? It is factually and politically incorrect to say that Pashaluk of Belgrade was an "Ottoman Serbia" - it was no more or less "Serbia" than Ottoman provinces located in Vojvodina or southern and western Serbia. So, please define what term "Ottoman Serbia" means to you: Pashaluk of Belgrade or also other pashaluks that were located in Vojvodina, southern Serbia and western Serbia? Since I live in Vojvodina, I consider view that Pashaluk of Belgrade is identified with term "Ottoman Serbia" to be very insulting. Either Vojvodina, Niš and Sandžak were parts of "Ottoman Serbia" as well either there was no territory that could be described as "Ottoman Serbia" (and the second claim is true one of course). Alternatively, we can say that vassal Serbian Despotate and Principality of Serbia were an "Ottoman Serbia", but if we decide to write about these territories only, we would be obligated to remove much of the content from this article and to return it to History of Serbia article (that, of course, would be full step backward since the sub-articles are created with the purpose to split the main article if it have too much content). PANONIAN  20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking about other articles, in ideal circumstances we should not use terms "Ottoman (country)" anywhere, exactly because of vague and undefined meanings of such terms - in fact, usage of these terms would trigger countless nationalistic disputes about "exact borders" of these fictional "Ottoman countries". For example Ottoman Greece article claims that cities of İzmir and Constantinople were parts of "Ottoman Greece". This claim have nothing with history, but have much with modern political concept of Megali Idea. I really do not have so much time to argue with Greek users about these issues, so I will not touch "Ottoman Greece" article anymore. However, name and nature of "Ottoman Greece" article are not obligation for us to change this article about Serbia (and some other articles) in the same way. PANONIAN  20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what can be insulting in the simple fact that some parts of what is Serbia today belonged to different empires (i.e. Ottoman and Austrian) in one period of history. There is consensus that the topic of this article is Ottoman Serbia which is supported by many RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What different empires? The whole territory of present-day Serbia was part of Ottoman Empire (Habsburgs conquered northern parts of the area much later). The point is why you want to make difference between two parts of present-day Serbia in the time when both were part of the Ottoman Empire? And what consensus you speak about? Among whom exactly? And why you did not answered my question about exact definition of borders of "Ottoman Serbia" and time period in which it existed? PANONIAN  21:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could answer with a question:"Will you specify the "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia""? I don't like the tone of your comments and therefore I will make a short pause in participating in this discussion for now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is consensus among participants in the discussion on this talk page that the topic of this article is "Ottoman Serbia". This consensus is based on wikipedia policies and arguments grounded in common sense.
 * You actually did specify the period to which you refer as "Ottoman period in history of Serbia" as period between 1402 and 1912 (diff). Most of that period territory of what is today Serbia belonged to different empires or kingdoms (Ottoman, Austrian, Hungarian, Serbian...) so your assertion about two(?) parts of present-day Serbia belonging to the Ottoman Empire in "Ottoman period" (1402—1912) is incorrect. I think you refused to accept consensus and renamed this article and other articles and categories like Ottoman Albania, Ottoman Kosovo, Ottoman Hungary.... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there was consensus that previous title of this article ("History of Serbia during Ottoman administration") was bad. There is no any consensus about current title since only two of us are discussing it. So tell me, why you want to create impression that some fictional "Ottoman Serbia" existed in history? Who exactly should be deceived by such fiction? Also "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia" would and should refer to period from 1386 to 1912 when various parts of present-day Serbia were administered by the Ottoman Empire. Also, I renamed several articles in order to make them more scientific and to avoid fictional nationalistic views about fictional "eternal countries occupied by the Ottomans". PANONIAN  18:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There was a consensus that your one-sided decision to change all articles and categories about "Ottoman-areas" was wrong. Two above mentioned users clearly emphasized: ""Ottoman Serbia" appears 244 times. Seems like the clear winner." and "there is wide bibliographical evidence the the term "Ottoman Serbia" is in use.... The sources are clearly writing about Ottoman Serbia."
 * You may believe that Ottoman Serbia never existed in history, but it sure exists in sources.
 * Your comments and actions are case of extreme WP:IDHT. You refused to respect consensus after all explanations and arguments carefully presented by other users (like this) you unjustifiably accused one of them and me for:
 * trying to create impression about existence of some fictional Ottoman Serbia
 * in order deceive somebody to believe that some eternal Serbia occupied by the Ottomans existed in history
 * I think this comments are serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The one thing is the fact that sources using some name and completely different issue is understanding of these sources. I created new disambiguation page with name Ottoman Serbia in accordance with these sources. You are free to expand that page with additional meanings of the term if you have some additional sources for that. PANONIAN  04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The page you created is WP:POVFORK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not - it is disambiguation page in accordance with Wiki practice. Disambiguation pages are created in the case when there is no main meaning of some term. We clearly have such case here. PANONIAN  05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is school example of POVFORK. All other editors who participated in this discussion explained that the topic of this article is Ottoman Serbia. You are the only one who claim different and you haven't convinced anybody that you are right. Instead of respecting the consensus you created another article on the same subject according to your point of view. What is worse, you created another article by converting existing redirects into content fork. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who "explained" that? In Wikipedia, personal "explanation" means nothing without sources. So, do you have source that says that subject of this article is a main meaning of disambiguation term "Ottoman Serbia"? And I do not see any consensus here about anything. PANONIAN  06:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on name once and for all
Article names:
 * Ottoman Serbia (former article name)
 * Ottoman rule in Serbia
 * Ottoman occupation of Serbia
 * Serbia during Ottoman administration
 * Serbia under Ottoman occupation
 * Serbia under Ottoman rule

"Ottoman period in the history of Serbia" is not in my taste. According to Gbooks, and the other Ottoman X-articles, the most appropriate is "Ottoman Serbia". Let's put forward all possible names and vote, because we need to meet consensus. I've put forward some examples, you guys add more, until we have a good bunch of possible names, then we'll vote. Btw, is the "History of X" really important?--Z oupan 19:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.


 * OK, you want to respect sources? No problem. I just created an disambiguation page named Ottoman Serbia which list various meanings of the term in accordance with sources. That is all that we can say about "Ottoman Serbia". In another words, while sources are using term "Ottoman Serbia" there is no main meaning of the term and it could describe either vassal Ottoman Despotate of Serbia from the 15th century either vassal Ottoman Principality of Serbia from the 19th century either any part of present-day Serbia during Ottoman administration from 1386 to 1912. There is no support in the sources that subject of this article is example of a "main meaning" of the term. PANONIAN  04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the term "Ottoman Serbia" (Osmanska Srbija) is not used in Serbian, but the article name should be a collective term used to refer to this era, as it is a parent article. The "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia" was custom made by you. What is the term mostly used in Serbian historiography? Unless there's a Serbo-Croatian term overwhelmingly used, "Ottoman Serbia" would be right per Ottoman Greece and the rest.--Z oupan 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.


 * Ottoman Serbia — I support the former name of the article. I am against one-sided decision and actions to rename all articles and categories about "Ottoman-areas" to "Ottoman period in the history of area" or to any other name without gaining consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source which says that this articles covers the main meaning of disambiguation term Ottoman Serbia? If you do not have such source, usage of that name for this article would be example of original research. PANONIAN  06:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You first claimed that Ottoman Serbia is fictional and never existed, even accusing me for trying to create impression about existence of some fictional Ottoman Serbia in order deceive somebody to believe that some eternal Serbia occupied by the Ottomans existed in history. Then you created the new page about Ottoman Serbia (as blatant POVFORK, from redirect to this article). Four other users carefully explained to you that this is the article about Ottoman Serbia and emphasized that they are against your one-sided decision and actions to rename all articles and categories about "Ottoman-areas" to "Ottoman period in the history of area" or to any other name without gaining consensus first. You are still refusing to get the point and stick to your POV long after the consensus of the community has rejected it. You continue to repeat your POV almost without end, refusing to acknowledge others' input. Even personally attacking other users because they rejected your POV. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
 * I think I gave a fairly clear explanation for my opinion, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed there is a clear consensus (User:Zoupan,User:Antidiskriminator, User:Macrakis, User:FocalPoint) of retaining the article at its previous name, Ottoman Serbia, as supported by many sources. Please also note that this is not only an issue of this article, it is an issue generated from the idea of categorising articles about an historic empire with modern day borders, as explained in Category talk:History of the Ottoman Empire by country. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that "there is a clear consensus" - only if all users agree about something we can speak about a consensus. So far, there is only a partial consensus supported by User:Zoupan,User:Antidiskriminator, and User:FocalPoint. While User:Macrakis said that term "Ottoman Serbia" is better than "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration", he did not said does he support title "Ottoman Serbia" in opposition to title "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia". In another words, there is only "slightly prevailing opinion" here but certainly not an "consensus" (and the issue is very open for further discussion). Furthermore, Antidiskriminator and FocalPoint, why you avoiding to answer my question of how would you define term "Ottoman Serbia" in time and space, i.e. which territory and in which time period this term describing? Examining the sources, I saw that term might have multiple meanings: it could either describe two historical vassal Ottoman states that were clearly defined in time and space (i.e. the Despotate of Serbia and the Principality of Serbia - and we already have articles about both) either various undefined geographical areas in various parts of the history. Note that second example of term usage is purely anachronistic and only shows that modern authors used name "Serbia" for these areas because of simple fact that these areas were (or are) part of Serbia in modern times (i.e. in the time when these authors wrote their books). There is, however, no evidence that term "Ottoman Serbia" was used by the primary sources from 15th-19th century period. In another words, if anybody of you wants to have article about "geographical area" named "Ottoman Serbia", he is obligated to provide evidences that such area really existed in mentioned time period, that primary sources from that time period using this term, and to define exact borders of this "geographical area" (supported by the sources, of course). You both are free to counter my analysis about multiple meanings of the term and about purely modern nature of term usage. PANONIAN  07:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have notified User:Macrakis to this discussion. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "if anybody of you wants to have article about "geographical area" named "Ottoman Serbia", he is obligated to provide evidences that such area really existed in mentioned time period, that primary sources from that time period using this term, and to define exact borders of this "geographical area" (supported by the sources, of course)"
 * @PANONIAN: WP:NOTABILITY clearly says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. In this case there are hundreds independent reliable sources on Ottoman Serbia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is exactly the problem - we do not have a single topic named "Ottoman Serbia". Name is used for multiple topics (or you want to say that my statement is not correct?). PANONIAN  11:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has one topic. It is the "Ottoman Serbia". It is notable topic because it is covered by hundreds of reliable sources. As far as I know there is only one region Serbia. In case of Albania, there are at least two Albanias: Caucasian Albania and Balkan Albania. In case that both of them were part of the Ottoman Empire then there would be a point to have Ottoman Albania as disamibguation page for both of them. But in case of the Ottoman Serbia, Albania, Greece... and other articles and categories that you renamed, it is a single topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article
User:PANONIAN, 'rough consensus' does not mean 'unanimity'. It does mean that if one editor, after having explained his position on Talk repeatedly, and after a reasonable amount of discussion (not infinite discussion -- what you might call "proof by exhaustion" ☺), cannot persuade every other editor on the page of his position, he should probably accept their judgement, and especially not take unilateral action.

The current title, "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia", is problematic for the same reasons as previous proposals.

Making Ottoman Serbia into a disambiguation page is peculiar and tendentious.

If you cannot persuade your fellow-editors in Talk discussions, you should not be taking controversial unilateral actions. Continuing this way risks having you considered a disruptive editor. --Macrakis (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be moved back to its original name Ottoman Serbia. I agree with Macrakis, that making Ottoman Serbia into a disambiguation page is not a good idea. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I too agree. The old name is both more simple and logical: as the Ottoman Empire is a historical entity, the "History of" part is completely redundant. By definition, the primary aspect of any article on "Ottoman Serbia" will be its history. Only for more specific topics, e.g. "Culture of Ottoman Serbia" or "Demographics of Ottoman Serbia" are more complex names needed. Constantine  ✍  19:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So far, no one supports "History of Ottoman Serbia", nor the disambig. . Rename it to "Ottoman Serbia".--Z oupan 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ottoman era in the history of Saudi Arabia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)