Talk:Devshirme
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg)
POV check
[edit]The tone of this article should be checked for neutrality, weasel words, cherry picking, uncited material, partisan sources and stronger sources may be needed (peer-reviewed and historians) - the term forcible conversions should not be used without attribution and balance. Not all conversions were forced and historians have written that parents, in some cases, wanted their children to be taken because they enjoyed high status (in some cases very high) in the Empire. Sources should not be cherry picked. Seraphimsystem (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree entirely. That is like saying some black slaves in the US had it good by becoming house slaves, they moved on up....A slave is still a slave. This is no different. This was forced upon those Orthodox Christian families by the Muslim-Turks - they stole their sons from them. It was beyond cruel. Yes, some of those stolen boys may have, as the saying goes, "made it up in Masa's house" which would be the Ottomon Empire and became higher ranking, but they were still stolen children from their families. Their parents being Orthodox Christians, not only were humiliated by their defeat by Muslims, but their sons stolen from them and forced to convert to the religion of their conquerors. That is a big reason why Turks are not liked much in the Balkans to this very day. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:72:DB4F:3893:1212 (talk)
The Devshirme was not voluntary, and the fact that some did in fact volunteer does not change that fact. <Periander6 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)>
Entry in External links that had no link
[edit]I removed it to here: * Papoulia, B.D., ''Ursprung und Wesen der “knabenlese” im Osmanischen Reich''. München, 1963 (in German, title means 'origin and nature of the 'boy harvest' in the Ottoman Empire)
Misleading quotations
[edit]There are a few sources that have appeared in the article that don't seem to be quoted correctly.
First is the account by Paolo Giovio as given here. The source lists four alternative options available to parents, and says the parents "could" do this, not that they actually "would". It doesn't list any historical examples for parents mutilating their children. So we need to say what the source says. And while the source list 4 options, yet this edit selectively quotes 2 of them.
Second, is this edit that claims only Christians from Albania and Bosnia volunteered their sons. Can someone provide the specific quote that says that? There is this source that says many Greeks volunteered their sons to the service too.VR talk 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- We will begin with the contemporary and valuable Paolo Giovio quote which is already used in the article and than move on to your other grievances. This quote is useful because he summarises the options for parents who did not want their children harvested. Firstly - you stated 2 reasons were quoted. In the section you removed wholesale that is being discussed, not 2 but 3 reasons were quoted. I have good faith you made this numerical error with nothing malicious in mind, just a simple error. The 3 options stated that you removed: Bribery, conversion to islam or mutilation. The option left out was to marry the boys at age 12. I am happy to add this final option to complete the set and reinstate the Giovio quote with 'could' instead of 'would.' As the validity of these options, there is no reason to doubt any of them. For example, you cite mutilation as having no examples in the quote. The article already has reference to multilation to avoid the Devshirme but there is clear historical reference for mutilation.[1][2] The Giovio quote, already used in the article is extremely useful in balancing the mention of parents volunteering their children from both the muslim and Christian faith. Reaper7 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't remove the material, but added to it and moved it.[1] The first source you mentioned is totally unreliable, but the second one is reliable, so I will add it.VR talk 02:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GB_R90_DlGEC&pg=PA516&lpg=PA516&dq=devshirme+mutilation&source=bl&ots=NT35U01ldf&sig=ACfU3U2kqVXEe6ONhVZUN8_L7Knc5TgJXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX9NWiqZvqAhVjoXEKHSBYBdMQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=devshirme%20mutilation&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hywaBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=devshirme+mutilation&source=bl&ots=SsSo5on4ng&sig=ACfU3U3NjjEe2Pp_pjw4Q0GyoRyZAILssw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX9NWiqZvqAhVjoXEKHSBYBdMQ6AEwC3oECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=devshirme%20mutilation&f=false
Unreliable sources
[edit]There some unreliable sources used in the article. The following is definitely not reliabl:
These ones may not be reliable:
- Yannaras, Christos, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic self-identity in the modern age, (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006)
- Perry Anderson (1979). Lineages of the Absolutist State.
VR talk 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree on the last 2. I cannot find any reason to believe Yannaras or Anderson are unreliable.Reaper7 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just because a source is not WP:QUESTIONABLE doesn't mean it is always reliable. These sources are not examples of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They could still be reliable, though you need to show why.VR talk 02:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- It this man you you are questioning as reliable? Christos Yannaras. If so can you specifically point out as to why. Thank you. Reaper7 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe we misunderstood each other. I'm saying Christos Yannaras is not WP:QUESTIONABLE, but that doesn't automatically make him reliable either. Christos Yannaras looks like an expert on philosophy and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. He may or may not be a reliable source on Ottoman history. I don't have strong opinions either way. Let's see what others think.VR talk 14:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- It this man you you are questioning as reliable? Christos Yannaras. If so can you specifically point out as to why. Thank you. Reaper7 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just because a source is not WP:QUESTIONABLE doesn't mean it is always reliable. These sources are not examples of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They could still be reliable, though you need to show why.VR talk 02:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Section rename
[edit]@Aeengath:, I would prefer the old section name. (I'm talking about this edit). This is because there is overwhelming consensus that the practice was a violation of Islamic law. Even sources that list Ottoman justifications first note that the practice violated Islamic law. Also, I don't think there's any discussion on this violating laws other than Islamic law (e.g. international law).VR talk 16:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: I understand and you are right a lot of sources mention that but the Ottoman Empire did not see it as a violation of Islamic law or they would not have done it for 250 years. I think Legal status, religious legitimacy (or one of the two) is more neutral as it gives the space to explain how they did not see it as a violation of of Islamic law and how Ottoman clerics found ways to justify the practice and make it legal.Aeengath (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those who break the law rarely see their actions as breaking the law. Its upto independent source to characterize that they're breaking the law. Also, "legal status" and "religious legitimacy" are vague. We are talking about Islamic legal status and legitimacy in Islam, right?VR talk 14:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent:I don’t think it’s vague the Ottoman Empire was of an Islamic empire following an Islamic legal system, as such they had to justify the practice as legal (legal status of practice) and legitimate in the eyes of Islamic scholars. As editor we have to stay neutral and avoid stating opinions as facts even if there is “overwhelming consensus” WP:NEUTRAL Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic WP:POVNAMING if you prefer I’m ok to change it to “Status under Islamic Law”. Aeengath (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those who break the law rarely see their actions as breaking the law. Its upto independent source to characterize that they're breaking the law. Also, "legal status" and "religious legitimacy" are vague. We are talking about Islamic legal status and legitimacy in Islam, right?VR talk 14:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm more inclined towards fellow editor Aeengath's version here, as it seems to be more per WP:NPOV. ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Aeengath,
As editor we have to stay neutral and avoid stating opinions as facts even if there is “overwhelming consensus”
I disagree. Turkey has always disliked the term Armenian genocide, but the overwhelming consensus among scholars that atrocities against Armenians constituted genocide and therefore we call it "Armenian genocide", as we should. Ignoring overwhelming consensus is WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR talk 13:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Aeengath,
"The fact many were taken forcibly from their parents has been the subject of criticism."
[edit]Are you kidding me? That's like saying "The fact that Hitler killed six million Jews has been the subject of criticism". --19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.49.115 (talk)
Within living memory – 1918
[edit]
I came to read this article after I read of an annual tribute of children to be slaves of the Ottoman Sultan not discontinued until 1918. This statement was written by an assistant professor of history at Leiden University in the Netherlands about a territory bordering the country then known as Moravia.
This Wikipedia article currently implies the practice ended a century earlier or more. What is correct? Eddaido (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ottoman Turkish spelling looks like Farsi
[edit]See the Wiktionary page for the Ottoman spelling: دیوشیرمه Farsi spelling: دوشیرمه 68.193.141.193 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)corpho
While I believe that this article doesn't merit the previous discussions claiming POV, I do think that there are problems with this article:
- This article relies too much on personal reflections of contemporary figures. While personal accounts of Janissaries are okay, taking Western Christian (or even Byzantine) accounts of the Ottomans at face-value is problematic, and information should instead come from modern scholarship.
- Authors such as Andrew G. Bostom should not be used; they are not mainstream scholars.
- There is genuinely a problem of source balance in some places; disputes among scholars are underrepresented in this and similar articles; for example, the Janissary article does not talk about parents' negative responses, but talks of Dimitri Kitsikis' (very pro-Ottoman) position instead, which is also unbalanced.
Uness232 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Aciram (Putting this here as the issue is related to my first point above) The recent deletion that you have reverted seems justified to me, though not for the reason given on the edit summary. The parts of that section that were cited, were cited to the first-hand account of a Byzantine historian of that time (whose biases we can not take for granted), while the rest of the information is uncited. That is not okay per WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. Obviously the editor's view of the matter is highly oversimplified and somewhat propagandistic, but the content they deleted should either be sourced differently or deleted. Uness232 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)