This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added back the paragraph on Osman II's military exploits—which was moved by OttomanReference to another article—on the grounds that this article, Osman II, should not neglect information relevant to the subject/person covered. The article is (at least at the current time) short enough that it is not overwhelming the reader, which is the general reason to start shunting information off to other articles (v. Wikipedia:Long article layout), and any reader coming to this page and wishing to find here any information directly relevant to Osman II should—I believe—be able to find it here. — Saposcat 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't just paste a translation of Tuği's primary source account into the article as if it's fact to be relied upon. Tuği was a janissary, and thus a partisan of the group which killed Osman II. Posting a primary source like this means encouraging the reader of the article to do Original Research, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. The rules say you can't post long quotes from primary sources. Tuği has been analyzed by numerous modern historians, it would be more appropriate to provide an analysis of his account based on modern historians. See for instance Gabriel Piterberg's 2003 study, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play. Chamboz ( talk) 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This has been directly translated and not copied and pasted as accused. Secondly, this account is unbiased and an actual eye witnessing account, whilst the accounts written by western sources are based on " what they have heard ". This is a Turkish account and it should be included on the page so a different account is also read. Various Turkish historians have used this account in their works of Sultan Osman. I do not understand how you can continue to delete such a historical account very easily! Allow people to read a variety of accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baburhan 1 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
ok boomer
luigi says n-word in 18CE and Jesus gets crucified
"I contend that the purpose of Tuği’s text as speech was not only to entertain but also to establish a narrative of the Haile-i Osmaniye that would depict the kul favorably, justify the role they had played in the event, and render intolerable what was consequently inflicted upon them in Anatolia, especially in Erzurum and its vicinity."
I cannot understand why it is not admitted that Osman II's mother was "Valide Sultan" during his reign. His enthronement portrait also features Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, her son ascending the throne in 1618, and Mahfiruz dying in 1620 or 1622. 2A04:2411:300:9800:CBA:6744:59C2:9090 ( talk) 21:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added back the paragraph on Osman II's military exploits—which was moved by OttomanReference to another article—on the grounds that this article, Osman II, should not neglect information relevant to the subject/person covered. The article is (at least at the current time) short enough that it is not overwhelming the reader, which is the general reason to start shunting information off to other articles (v. Wikipedia:Long article layout), and any reader coming to this page and wishing to find here any information directly relevant to Osman II should—I believe—be able to find it here. — Saposcat 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't just paste a translation of Tuği's primary source account into the article as if it's fact to be relied upon. Tuği was a janissary, and thus a partisan of the group which killed Osman II. Posting a primary source like this means encouraging the reader of the article to do Original Research, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. The rules say you can't post long quotes from primary sources. Tuği has been analyzed by numerous modern historians, it would be more appropriate to provide an analysis of his account based on modern historians. See for instance Gabriel Piterberg's 2003 study, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play. Chamboz ( talk) 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This has been directly translated and not copied and pasted as accused. Secondly, this account is unbiased and an actual eye witnessing account, whilst the accounts written by western sources are based on " what they have heard ". This is a Turkish account and it should be included on the page so a different account is also read. Various Turkish historians have used this account in their works of Sultan Osman. I do not understand how you can continue to delete such a historical account very easily! Allow people to read a variety of accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baburhan 1 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
ok boomer
luigi says n-word in 18CE and Jesus gets crucified
"I contend that the purpose of Tuği’s text as speech was not only to entertain but also to establish a narrative of the Haile-i Osmaniye that would depict the kul favorably, justify the role they had played in the event, and render intolerable what was consequently inflicted upon them in Anatolia, especially in Erzurum and its vicinity."
I cannot understand why it is not admitted that Osman II's mother was "Valide Sultan" during his reign. His enthronement portrait also features Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, her son ascending the throne in 1618, and Mahfiruz dying in 1620 or 1622. 2A04:2411:300:9800:CBA:6744:59C2:9090 ( talk) 21:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)