Talk:Abdulmejid I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

readability[edit]

the language used in the third paragraph "In compliance ..." is very hard !! i know this is not the simple english wikipedia , but still , i can hardly get the meaning of the article!!

as a native speaker, I find the paragraph to be not terribly well-written, but basically easily comprehensible. I can see how someone who is not a native speaker might find it difficult, though. john k 21:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic/Turkish[edit]

The article is considered an Arabic article, because during his lifetime, his name was written in Arabic script. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) before changing the article again. Cuñado - Talk 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the manual in question, and feel it leaves much to be desired insofar as Ottoman Turkish merits only one passing mention therein. A Google search (I'm not using it as a be-all and end-all source here, but merely as a guideline) gives 86,200 hits for "Abdülmecid", 19,300 for "Abdulmecid", 1 (a Wikipedia site) for "‘Abdu’l-Mijid", and 99 (but only 5 relevant, and all 5 of those Wikipedia-related) for "Abdu’l-Mijid". In short, something is seriously wrong with the title, whatever Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) might say. The fact is, no one interested in Ottoman or Turkish history—whom we could assume would be the major "target" for this article—would ever use "‘Abdu’l-Mijid" (or its close and "strictly transliterated" equivalents) for this man. Ottoman Turkish has its own standard transliteration system, and that is being completely disregarded for (frankly) pedantic reasons on this page. —Saposcat 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's stupid to transliterate a name from Turkish language using the Arabic language rules. Anyway, the Wikipedia rules are quite clear on the naming issue: the most commons spelling in English-language sources is used. bogdan 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches are a terrible way of gauging spelling for issues like this. Google doesn't know what to do with the typed apostrophe and turned comma, and it also doesn't distinguish between Abdülmecid, the Turkish Sultan, and Abdülmecid, the Turkish farmer.
Please divert your comments to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#The problem of Ottoman Turkish, since it's being discussed on a policy page. Cuñado - Talk 02:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Web searches are not relevant. But book references are very relevant:
1350 pages on Abdülmecid
our search - Abdü’l-Mecīd I - did not match any documents. bogdan 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the official policy: WP:NAME: "Use the most common name of a person" bogdan 10:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that "Abdul Mejid" is the most common name for the sultan, not any of the options under discussion. john k 10:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google books contradicts you 715 pages on "Abdul Mejid". bogdan 10:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
817 pages on Abdulmecid sultan
449 pages on "Abdul Mejid" sultan
bogdan 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was, of course, basing my statement on vague impression, which cannot, of course, be contradicted by a google search. john k 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

In the first place, the ordinal should be used, because there was an Abdul Mejid II. In the second place, I've almost always seen him as "Abdul Mejid", not "Abdülmecid," in English sources. john k 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bezmialem[edit]

Accoriding to the article Sultan's mother was of Circassian origin. But according to the articles of Mahmut II and Bezmialem she was a Russian Jew. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents[edit]

I don't see the point in having a long unsourced list of descendents. Listing living people is especially problematic. See WP:BLP. I will trim this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You are a very evil person All the names are officially Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC) http://www.ottomanfamily.com/[reply]

There's a discussion about this at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdülmecid I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Introduction[edit]

@Dimadick: Per WP:CHALLENGE, I removed the latter part of the introductory paragraph as it does not cite any sources (in-line). For others not familiar with how citations work, please see WP:CITE for information on why we need to cite sources and how to do so. ParthikS8 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not supposed to cite any sources. The Lead of an article typically contains no sources, as it a broad overview of the rest of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

  • "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


WP:CITELEAD, which you have quoted states:

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

None of this contradicts what I have said. It is simply stating that when initially writing the lead, one may not find the need to include so many citations as the lead is unlikely to be challenged. However I challenge this lead - so this is all redundant. Bring forth you sources please. If not to cite the lead then to at least establish that the lead is attributable to some sources. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

The inflation doesn't add up. They say that he wanted to donate £10,000(or £1,000,000 ($1,200,000) in today's money). But then they say he donated £1000 which they say has the equivalent value if $2.4 million? We need to fix that Trajan anntonnius (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulüflü Ismail Paşa[edit]

On the section 'Issue' could someone add him there Ahmad449 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century Middle Eastern 'Nationalist' Movements[edit]

Slightly concerned that the very first paragraph announces that Abdul Mejid's reign 'was notable for the rise of nationalist movements within the empire's territories' and that he was concerned to stop 'rising nationalist movements within the empire.' Arab 'nationalism' was a feature of the 20th century and should not be talked of until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War 1 and the setting up of the British and French League of Nations Mandates.

It is acceptable to talk of 'proto-nationalism' in the 19th century, though some historians object even to this term as too teleological and deterministic. There was talk of independence from Ottoman rule in this period, but only in select Arab intellectual circles, not the large portions of the population denoted by a 'nationalist' movement. Moreover, such schemes were incredibly vague as to exactly what 'independence' would entail and almost all envisaged not complete separatism but some form of semi-independence within the Ottoman imperial framework!

I'm not an authority on the 19th century political trajectories of all the Ottoman provinces, but I would direct future authors to Carol Hakim's 'The Origins of the Lebanese National Idea: 1840-1920' which is a compelling demonstration of these arguments in the case of Mount Lebanon (until 1860 part of the Ottoman governate of Saida). Her work is fairly recent, but I'm sure you'll find ample application of her ideas to other Ottoman territories if you go looking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.137.142 (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdulmejid_I&oldid=1216971413"