This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Ghaza thesis is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the
welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our
open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
Fringe?
In the "Gaza as a non-religious term" section we have the unsourced claim "the next major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins was carried out by Heath Lowry in 2003". Then comes an account of Lowry's opinions. Given that Lowry is best known for his denial of the Armenian Genocide, it would be fully in keeping with that agenda for Lowry to produce a work denying that from its foundation the Ottoman State had engaged in religious wars of conquest. The "Many akıncıs (raiders) were also Christians" assertions seems to parallel the water-muddying "Armenians did it too" mutual killings assertions typical of genocide denialist tracts. Forthis content to be remain, I think there needs to be more than one source making these assertions, or, alternatively, to indicate notability, Lowry's assertions will need to have been mentioned in other sources.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
Lowry's work is a major contribution to early Ottoman history and has no relationship whatsoever with his views on the Armenian Genocide, whatever they may be. It is not appropriate to use an unrelated issue to discredit this historian - if you simply want to know that his work is well-respected, then I point to the fact that you can find him cited in the most recent scholarly general history of the empire, Douglas Howard's A History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Lowry's book has been criticized from some angles (you can look up the scholarly reviews) but it's undeniably a critical work on early Ottoman history and well within mainstream scholarship.
Chamboz (
talk) 20:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Who says his work regarding "de-Gazifying" the Ottoman Empire has no relationship to his views on the Armenian Genocide? You? Many consider Lowry is discredited as a person - his status never recovered after his little bit of ghost writing for the Turkish embassy was discovered and he became an object of ridicule. Regardless, there is a requirement here for some proof that Lowry made a "major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins" and that it concerned the Gazi thesis - either a source that actually uses those words, or a quantity of sources who have commented on his opinion regarding Gaza as a non-religious term sufficiently to justify such praise and to justify his opinions as being worthy of a section by itself.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
"Many" consider Lowry discredited as a person, according to you - but you won't find that view in academic reviews of the book of his being discussed here. His work is consistently cited in all discussions of early Ottoman history, including in other works cited on this page, like the article "Ghaza" in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. I don't know what personal grudge you have against Lowry, but it's not going to fly here. His views on the Armenian Genocide are irrelevant when it comes to the topic of early Ottoman history, a topic of which he is an established expert.
Chamboz (
talk) 22:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, I hate liars and deceivers. Alas, few are as arrogantly stupid to have skewered themselves in quite the same way as Lowry did - poetic justice is rarely so entirely self-penned. But to go back to the issue here, you will still need to come up with more than one source that cites Lowry's opinions as important regarding the Gazi Thesis to justify a whole section. The source you have cited does not make any mention of Lowey's opinions being a "major reformulation".
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 03:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
You are obviously motivated by a personal bias against Lowry, as evidenced by the way you describe him and by the fact that you're not demanding a similar level of extra verification with regard to the other historians mentioned in this article. The statement in the article is that "Following Kafadar, the next major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins was carried out by Heath Lowry in 2003." and this is hardly a controversial fact. After Cemal Kafadar's 1995 Between Two Worlds, the next major book to address Ottoman origins was Lowry's - unless you'd like to suggest another. It's not a statement that Lowry's interpretations are accurate, it's simply a statement noting that Lowry's book exists. To contest this fact is to be stubborn to the point of absurdity. Please take your grudge against Lowry elsewhere.
Chamboz (
talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You appear to be motivated either by an absurd liking of him, or have article ownership issues. You still have failed to presented sources that say, or even approaches the saying, that a "major reformulation of the theory" was made by Lowry. And I see no evidence in subsequent sources that his contribution made any significant change (which is what "major reformulation" implies) in the current status of the Gazi Thesis. Similarly, claiming his work as "the next major book to address Ottoman origins" is an OR opinion without presenting sources that state it.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
And I see no evidence in subsequent sources that his contribution made any significant change (which is what "major reformulation" implies) in the current status of the Gazi Thesis.
Aside from, you know, the source I cited which you subsequently deleted: the article Ghaza in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire: "Similarly, as has been pointed out by historian Heath Lowry, the closest comrades and fellow-fighters of the first two Ottoman rulers, Osman Ghazi (d. 1324) and Orhan I (r. 1324–62), included several Orthodox Christian Greeks and recent Christian converts to Islam."
Lowry has been highly influential for demonstrating the role of Christians and converts in the early Ottoman state. His book can be found in the bibliography of both recent general histories of the empire (Finkel and Howard). In the first chapter of Finkel's Osman's Dream he's cited six times. In Colin Imber's The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650, his book is the first to come after Kafadar's in note 6 for chapter 1, charting the historiography of the Gazi Thesis. There is absolutely no basis for arguing that his book was not a major contribution to the field. I personally don't even agree with all of his arguments, I tend to learn more toward Kafadar's interpretation, but no discussion of the Gazi Thesis can be complete without including Lowry. "Major reformulation" does not mean that everyone agrees with that reformulation, but his book is explicitly about reimagining the nature of early Ottoman state and society. That is the definition of a reformulation.
Chamboz (
talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is not about the history of the Ottoman Empire, or a history of its foundation, it is just about a particular thesis by a notable 20th-century scholar on the Ottoman Empire that sought to explain the reason for that empire's rapid growth from small and unassuming beginnings, and the motivations driving that empire to expand. Material about the background to its formulation, and the later responses to that thesis is also on-topic, its historiography as you put it. But it all has to be directly related to the article's subject. Your citation from the encyclopedia was not about the Gazi Thesis, it was about the term gazi, and its mentioning of Lowry was about his alternative interpretation of the word's meaning, that it might sometimes be used devoid of its religious meaning - again this was not specifically about the Gazi Thesis. There is nothing in any presented source so far to justify the claim of this being a "major reformulation" of responses to the Gazi Thesis.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 20:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
You cannot be serious. They are obviously the same topic. The Gazi Thesis is named as such because of how it interprets the meaning of the term "gazi" in early Ottoman history. Lowry's book is, as stated in his introduction, written directly in response to Paul Wittek's Gazi Thesis. The Gazi Thesis informs all discussion of the meanings of gazi and gaza in early Ottoman history. The article in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire directly addresses Paul Wittek and the Gazi Thesis, go back and read its second paragraph. Stop grasping at straws and let it go.
Chamboz (
talk) 20:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
If Gazi Thesis and gazi are "obviously the same topic", a topic that "informs all discussion of the meanings of gazi", will you be wanting
Ghazi merged with this article?
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
It seems you (presumably intentionally) missed the last part of my sentence, "in early Ottoman history". So no, they shouldn't be merged, because this is about scholarship on the term 'gazi' within the specific context of early Ottoman history, due to the extensive historiography devoted to this particular topic, whereas the article "Ghazi" is about the term more generally and its role in Islamic history as a whole. Within the early Ottoman context, discussion of gazis and gaza is inseparable from the Gazi Thesis. But the Gazi Thesis has nothing to do with gazis in, say, eleventh-century Afghanistan.
Chamboz (
talk) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Ghaza thesis is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the
welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our
open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
Fringe?
In the "Gaza as a non-religious term" section we have the unsourced claim "the next major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins was carried out by Heath Lowry in 2003". Then comes an account of Lowry's opinions. Given that Lowry is best known for his denial of the Armenian Genocide, it would be fully in keeping with that agenda for Lowry to produce a work denying that from its foundation the Ottoman State had engaged in religious wars of conquest. The "Many akıncıs (raiders) were also Christians" assertions seems to parallel the water-muddying "Armenians did it too" mutual killings assertions typical of genocide denialist tracts. Forthis content to be remain, I think there needs to be more than one source making these assertions, or, alternatively, to indicate notability, Lowry's assertions will need to have been mentioned in other sources.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
Lowry's work is a major contribution to early Ottoman history and has no relationship whatsoever with his views on the Armenian Genocide, whatever they may be. It is not appropriate to use an unrelated issue to discredit this historian - if you simply want to know that his work is well-respected, then I point to the fact that you can find him cited in the most recent scholarly general history of the empire, Douglas Howard's A History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Lowry's book has been criticized from some angles (you can look up the scholarly reviews) but it's undeniably a critical work on early Ottoman history and well within mainstream scholarship.
Chamboz (
talk) 20:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Who says his work regarding "de-Gazifying" the Ottoman Empire has no relationship to his views on the Armenian Genocide? You? Many consider Lowry is discredited as a person - his status never recovered after his little bit of ghost writing for the Turkish embassy was discovered and he became an object of ridicule. Regardless, there is a requirement here for some proof that Lowry made a "major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins" and that it concerned the Gazi thesis - either a source that actually uses those words, or a quantity of sources who have commented on his opinion regarding Gaza as a non-religious term sufficiently to justify such praise and to justify his opinions as being worthy of a section by itself.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
"Many" consider Lowry discredited as a person, according to you - but you won't find that view in academic reviews of the book of his being discussed here. His work is consistently cited in all discussions of early Ottoman history, including in other works cited on this page, like the article "Ghaza" in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. I don't know what personal grudge you have against Lowry, but it's not going to fly here. His views on the Armenian Genocide are irrelevant when it comes to the topic of early Ottoman history, a topic of which he is an established expert.
Chamboz (
talk) 22:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, I hate liars and deceivers. Alas, few are as arrogantly stupid to have skewered themselves in quite the same way as Lowry did - poetic justice is rarely so entirely self-penned. But to go back to the issue here, you will still need to come up with more than one source that cites Lowry's opinions as important regarding the Gazi Thesis to justify a whole section. The source you have cited does not make any mention of Lowey's opinions being a "major reformulation".
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 03:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
You are obviously motivated by a personal bias against Lowry, as evidenced by the way you describe him and by the fact that you're not demanding a similar level of extra verification with regard to the other historians mentioned in this article. The statement in the article is that "Following Kafadar, the next major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins was carried out by Heath Lowry in 2003." and this is hardly a controversial fact. After Cemal Kafadar's 1995 Between Two Worlds, the next major book to address Ottoman origins was Lowry's - unless you'd like to suggest another. It's not a statement that Lowry's interpretations are accurate, it's simply a statement noting that Lowry's book exists. To contest this fact is to be stubborn to the point of absurdity. Please take your grudge against Lowry elsewhere.
Chamboz (
talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You appear to be motivated either by an absurd liking of him, or have article ownership issues. You still have failed to presented sources that say, or even approaches the saying, that a "major reformulation of the theory" was made by Lowry. And I see no evidence in subsequent sources that his contribution made any significant change (which is what "major reformulation" implies) in the current status of the Gazi Thesis. Similarly, claiming his work as "the next major book to address Ottoman origins" is an OR opinion without presenting sources that state it.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
And I see no evidence in subsequent sources that his contribution made any significant change (which is what "major reformulation" implies) in the current status of the Gazi Thesis.
Aside from, you know, the source I cited which you subsequently deleted: the article Ghaza in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire: "Similarly, as has been pointed out by historian Heath Lowry, the closest comrades and fellow-fighters of the first two Ottoman rulers, Osman Ghazi (d. 1324) and Orhan I (r. 1324–62), included several Orthodox Christian Greeks and recent Christian converts to Islam."
Lowry has been highly influential for demonstrating the role of Christians and converts in the early Ottoman state. His book can be found in the bibliography of both recent general histories of the empire (Finkel and Howard). In the first chapter of Finkel's Osman's Dream he's cited six times. In Colin Imber's The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650, his book is the first to come after Kafadar's in note 6 for chapter 1, charting the historiography of the Gazi Thesis. There is absolutely no basis for arguing that his book was not a major contribution to the field. I personally don't even agree with all of his arguments, I tend to learn more toward Kafadar's interpretation, but no discussion of the Gazi Thesis can be complete without including Lowry. "Major reformulation" does not mean that everyone agrees with that reformulation, but his book is explicitly about reimagining the nature of early Ottoman state and society. That is the definition of a reformulation.
Chamboz (
talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is not about the history of the Ottoman Empire, or a history of its foundation, it is just about a particular thesis by a notable 20th-century scholar on the Ottoman Empire that sought to explain the reason for that empire's rapid growth from small and unassuming beginnings, and the motivations driving that empire to expand. Material about the background to its formulation, and the later responses to that thesis is also on-topic, its historiography as you put it. But it all has to be directly related to the article's subject. Your citation from the encyclopedia was not about the Gazi Thesis, it was about the term gazi, and its mentioning of Lowry was about his alternative interpretation of the word's meaning, that it might sometimes be used devoid of its religious meaning - again this was not specifically about the Gazi Thesis. There is nothing in any presented source so far to justify the claim of this being a "major reformulation" of responses to the Gazi Thesis.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 20:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
You cannot be serious. They are obviously the same topic. The Gazi Thesis is named as such because of how it interprets the meaning of the term "gazi" in early Ottoman history. Lowry's book is, as stated in his introduction, written directly in response to Paul Wittek's Gazi Thesis. The Gazi Thesis informs all discussion of the meanings of gazi and gaza in early Ottoman history. The article in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire directly addresses Paul Wittek and the Gazi Thesis, go back and read its second paragraph. Stop grasping at straws and let it go.
Chamboz (
talk) 20:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
If Gazi Thesis and gazi are "obviously the same topic", a topic that "informs all discussion of the meanings of gazi", will you be wanting
Ghazi merged with this article?
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.reply
It seems you (presumably intentionally) missed the last part of my sentence, "in early Ottoman history". So no, they shouldn't be merged, because this is about scholarship on the term 'gazi' within the specific context of early Ottoman history, due to the extensive historiography devoted to this particular topic, whereas the article "Ghazi" is about the term more generally and its role in Islamic history as a whole. Within the early Ottoman context, discussion of gazis and gaza is inseparable from the Gazi Thesis. But the Gazi Thesis has nothing to do with gazis in, say, eleventh-century Afghanistan.
Chamboz (
talk) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
