Talk:Janissaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Janissary)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Janissaries was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 20, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ottoman Empire (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottoman Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottoman Empire 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. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives
Archives:

Untitled[edit]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

Changed B-Class referencing to No as some sections are missing citation. Otherwise, article is fine.--dashiellx (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added plenty of refs and it's been re-assessed as B-class. More eyes on this would be appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs in lede[edit]

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

Initially a small compact force of elite troops, they grew in size and power during the five centuries of their existence until they eventually became a threat to the fabric of the Ottoman empire. In their later years, they mutinied whenever an attempt was made to reform them, deposing and murdering those sultans they regarded as enemies.

This is completely unreferenced, and makes some very strong claims, to boot. This has to be cited or stay gone. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather strange action, since the Janissaries had to be disbanded with extreme force and violence due to their direct threat to the Ottoman State, as a whole section in the article explains. Unreferenced? Whole library full of books have been written about why and how they were disbanded, some are mentioned here. Did you even read the article? Please restore the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this months ago, and you come now demanding I restore it? Interesting. If there are so many great sources, then add one to the lede that shows this statement to be true. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Celibacy controversy[edit]

There is a controversy about being celibate as a Janissary:

"They were subject to strict discipline, but they were paid salaries and pensions on retirement, and were free to marry; those conscripted through devşirme formed a distinctive social class[...]"

but then "Janissaries trained under strict discipline with hard labour and in practically monastic conditions in acemi oğlan ("rookie" or "cadet") schools, where they were expected to remain celibate."

What's correct now? -- Halk52 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The first, I suppose, refers to Janisseries overall; the second to their initial period of training. It doesn't seem very controversial to me.  Roger Davies talk 06:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeniçeri[edit]

Yeniçeri means "new soldier" in Turkish. [1] F.Mehmet (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

However, whilst this is the generally accepted view, there is an alternative etymology that derives Janissary from the Persian جان نثار jan nissar - life or soul scatterer. This is a much more coherent and meaningful phrase than yeni çeri, which is an odd mixture of the Turkish yeni, new, and the rather obscure Middle Persian chērīh, bravery, victory (çeri in modern Turkish simply means "contents" - yeni asker would have be a more straightforward rendering of "new troops" in Turkish).

Incidentally, يکيچرى does not say yenicheri but yakicheri - it would be interesting to see the word written in an authentic Ottoman text. And why would it have passed into spoken usage as "Janissary", if it were written yenicheri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.158.43 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it says yeniçeri. The letter ک in this word (and many words derived from old Turkic and have velar nasal) symbolises velar nasal in Ottoman Turkish. During Ottoman times, we wrote "yeni"يکى -"new" You proved its Turkish origin yourself. See Ottoman Turkish. Greetings. F.Mehmet (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Paşa / Mehmet Pasa Sokolovic[edit]

Sokollu Mehmed Paşa (family name: Sokolovic) was a christian Serb from Bosnia not a Bosniak. He became a muslim shortly before he was turned into a member of the janissary. The history of the Balkans may be difficult, but nonetheless the article should be based on facts, which are worldwide known.--80.133.175.6 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I bet you haven't got a neutral source for this information. Mehmed Paşa's origin is not known. Maybe he was a Bosniak, maybe he was a Serbian, it does not change anything. The most important thing is that he is an Ottoman. Greetings.F.Mehmet (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well regarding a fact that "Bosniak's" are either converted Croat's, either converted Serbs..he surly wasn't "Bosniak".and regarding a fact that Bajo Nenadić sound like Serbian name...i will say he was a Serb before become Ottoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ceddin Deden[edit]

ceddin deden was written in 20th century. if you look at the lyrics, you can see the nationalism there. nationalism isn't the best thing for empires, i suppose.

btw, it was written by ismail hakkı bey. --78.171.96.86 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

İsmail Hakkı Bey (1860-1929). And it was composed by Kaptanzâde Ali Rıza Bey (1881-1934). Takabeg (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph appears to be missing something in the middle[edit]

There seems to be something missing between the first and second sentances here (and the 2nd sentance doesn't seem to be in quite the right style or tone either):

The Janissaries became the first Ottoman standing army, replacing forces that mostly contained tribal warriors (ghazis) whose loyalty and morale were not always guaranteed.[1]But they all learned Islam in the madrasas and each of them became a Muslim. Turks took them as slaves but showed mercy and they stayed in the closest rooms to the Sultan's room. Turks themselves were not strangers to the "slave-soldier" system, since Turkish slaves and mercenaries served as memluk or ghilman soldiers in the Abbasid and Fatimid Empires. Ghaznavid Turks also used Afghan and İndian slaves in such manner.

Wardog (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Famous Janissaries[edit]

I consider it an omission not to mention famous Janissaries as Koca Mimar Sinan and Piri Reis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.194 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree for Mimar Sinan, but are there any sources that Piri Reis was a janissary?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dahis?[edit]

Mladic made reference to this term in a video in the trial, which can be seen at BBC news. Dahis redirects here, but the term occurs only once in the article, without explanation of what it is/means. Could someone possibly fix this? --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Janissary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, the lead should be around three paragraphs, and should summarize the whole article without including information that is unique (not found in the body of the article).
    • I'm not sure what the summary in the infobox is for...the infobox should be easily digested bits of information (statistics, etc), while summaries are left to the lead.
    • Some redundant information/headings. For example, there is the heading "Recruitment, training and status" and the heading "Training".
    • The organization is rather...strange. The history sections and the technical specification sections (recruitment, training, equipment, etc) seem all mixed together. I think a good deal of thought should be given to the organization of this article, so that the reader has a coherent story to follow.
    • Because of the issues with referencing and organization, I did not do a thorough prose check.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The largest problem (and the main reason for the failure of this GAN) is the lack of referencing. There are entire sections missing references, including statistics, opinions and potentially controversial information. Because of the lack of referencing, it is hard to see if there is original research.
    • Two citation needed tags - these should have been fixed before the article was nominated for GAN, especially given that the one was placed almost four years ago.
    • What makes ref #11 (The Janissaries and the Ottoman Armed forces) a reliable source?
    • Ref #5 (Encyclopædia Britannica. Eleventh Edition) needs additional information - what volume? what article?
    • Ref #23 (See "Janissary music," New Grove Online) needs additional information - what is this? A book? A webpage? An encyclopedia?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • It appears to cover the major aspects, but due to the other problems I did not do a check for focus.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • I did not check this.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • File:Ataturk Janissary.jpg needs additional information - the licensing is for author death + 70 years, but there is nothing showing who the author is or that he died more than 70 years ago.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am unfortunately going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are significant issues with referencing and organization that preclude it from being of GA status at this time. I see that the nominating editor has no edits to the article or its talk page besides the nominating edit, and I would like to suggest that they take some time to work on the article with the criteria in mind. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

CONverted to Islam, not REverted to Islam ![edit]

Because the children recruited into the Janissary core where from Christian families, they CONVERTED to Islam during the training stages. They did not REVERTED to Islam, because they had not been Muslim prior to the enrollement into the Janissary training !! In fact, inclusion of Muslim childred into the Janissary core was totally forbidden during the first four centuries of the existence of the Janissary core !! Be more carefull with the use of the English language when you create history articles. The inapropriate use of some words would mislead the reader and give a disparate and twisted image on the subject.

Translations in the intro paragraph[edit]

Why are there so many translations in paranthesis in the first paragraph? Should all of those even be there? Robert (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is entirely unnecessary, unless those translations hold direct historical significance (e.g. the Turkish translation). I'm removing all the translations other than the turkish translation. If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to revert it, but please comment here so we can have a discussion as to why those are necessary (in the lead of all places) --Nick2253 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)