Talk:Ottoman Imperial Harem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 24 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michelle.camacho722, BVStudent1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwei4928.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Role of the concubines

"The favourite consort who was the mother of the crown prince and the other princes (haseki sultan)[...]" This needs citation. The haseki wasn't always the mother of the crown prince, see Hürrem Sultan. Letempsviendra (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved.Consensus is for capitalization of all the initials of the destination title.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 09:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Imperial Harem → The Ottoman Imperial Harem – Commonly recognizable title used by scholarly sources that is natural, precise per WP:TITLE should be non-controversial Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, but it should be Ottoman imperial harem per WP:THE and WP:NCCAPS. Eperoton (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, hadn't seen that before Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, I think Imperial Harem is a proper name - Topkapi palace capitalizes it, some scholars do also, but not all. I agree about the article, it makes linking more natural and it doesn't really change the meaning or recognizability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked into the WP:NCCAPS - Leslie Pierce does not capitalize, but Filiz Turhan does. M.W. De Visser only capitalizes Imperial. The same quirk is present in writings about Imperial Rome. I am not a big supporter of WP:NCCAPS, so in an ambiguous case like this one, I am leaning towards treating it as a proper noun Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There's indeed a case for treating "Imperial Harem" without qualifiers as a proper noun. On the other hand, "Ottoman imperial harem" seems to be generally spelled with only "Ottoman" capitalized in running text, based on scrolling results in a phrase search at Google Books. Eperoton (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I remember you saying you knew some Ottoman? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Only as much of it as one can get from Arabic, Persian and a mostly forgotten Turkish textbook. Why? Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I notice Harem-i Hümâyûn is capitalized in the majority of sources, but am not sure if this is due to some quirk of the language that capitalizes all place names this way Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ottoman script doesn't have capitalization, and I'll defer to you on capitalization in modern Turkish, but I'm guessing the expression functioned as a proper noun (following the use of this adjective in set Persian expressions), and that's why "Imperial Harem" is capitalized as its translation. The question is whether its better to use this expression, or the descriptive phrase "Ottoman imperial harem". Both seem to have enough support in RSs. "Imperial Harem" is prominently featured in Pierce's book, which is a standard reference. On the other hand, I've rounded up several sources in preparation for further work on this subject, and none of them use it, so it's not entirely standard. The descriptive variant is more informative for a casual reader. I'm not sure what your preference is, but I'm inclined toward this latter choice. Hopefully, other editors will chime in too. Eperoton (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title seems fine. What other imperial harems were there? Srnec (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: Many, including Chinese and Persian. Also, the current title does not meet the requirements for precision and recognizability. It is referred to as the "Ottoman Imperial Harem" in secondary sources, unless the meaning is clear from context. Our articles are not written for experts to guess which harem we are referring to. Someone without any knowledge of the subject should know from the article title what the article about (as should editors who will contribute) - Eperoton added a hat note, but that is not really good enough if someone wants to argue that the article topic is broad enough to include other imperial harems. If this is about "Imperial harems" in general, then we should have an article for the Ottoman Imperial Harem that is separate from this one.

Actually, this should not be a controversial move, but I requested the move from an admin because I have never moved a page before, and did not want to make a mistake - I don't know if the edit history copies automatically to the new page, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was aware of the Persian example, although. I thought it wasn't "imperial". I admit to being unaware that the term "harem" was used in a Chinese context. I thought it was reserved for Muslim monarchies, in which case only the Ottomans off the top of my head qualified as "imperial". I will bow out of this discussion. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: Even if we limit the definition to Islam, there is also the Mughal imperial harem and Abbasids - not only the Ottomans. Scholars seem to use "royal" and "imperial" interchangeably in this context. Thank you for your comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a clear lesson in not commenting "off the top of my head"! Srnec (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Just a note for other editors who may follow the same (reasonable) train of thought. As an proper noun, "Imperial Harem" isn't used in other contexts AFAIK, but interpreted as a descriptive phrase it would be applicable to other harems of Muslim empires (Safavid and Mughal come to mind). The distinction between the two wouldn't necessarily be obvious to the casual reader. It's true that the term "harem" usually implies an Islamic context, but there are exceptions. As Seraphim System points out, it is sometimes used in the context of China (as is, in fact the phrase "imperial harem", per Google Books search). I just noticed that Encyclopedia Iranica makes no qualms about about using the term "harem" in reference to ancient Persia ([1]). Eperoton (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Ottoman imperial harem OR Ottoman Imperial Harem, can argue the caps both ways but current title is ambiguous and not recognisable. Slight preference for captalisation as imperial looks wrong to me, and see Ottoman Empire. Compromise on Ottoman Imperial harem doesn't look any better. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, but I do agree the title should change. I would just prefer it to be to "Ottoman Harem" instead. But the title suggested is better than the present. --Aciram (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That title would also work IMO. Ottoman is a DAB but none of the other uses would suggest that Ottoman Harem is ambiguous. Half a million ghits for "Ottoman Harem" -Wikipedia and all of the first few pages are relevant, so it's a common enough name. Again, prefer caps. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Aciram what is the rationale for your objection? As for your proposal, I was going to object that it can apply to other harems in the Ottoman empire (see Harem for more on the term), but I've checked some sources and its use seems to be restricted to the imperial harem. If we make that clear to avoid confusion, I would support Ottoman harem (note capitalization per WP:NCCAPS) . Eperoton (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I just meant that I oppose that the title should be changed to Ottoman imperial harem, that's all! But I also commented that I do not opposed to a title change as such. Nothing more!=)--Aciram (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The closer is supposed to evaluate different responses with respect to how they relate to the article naming policy WP:TITLE. They will hopefully recognize the other arguments here which don't cite specific points of policy as based on WP:CRITERIA (Recognizability and Precision) and WP:COMMONNAME, but without any explanation it's unclear what rationale you had in mind. Eperoton (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "Ottoman harem" and "Ottoman Imperial Harem/Ottoman imperial harem" are the same article. The Ottoman Imperial Harem is definitely notable enough for a standalone article, but that doesn't preclude creation of an article about Ottoman harem in general (of course, there were many household harems in the Ottoman Empire, but sources may be harder to find.) It doesn't make sense to me to change the topic of the page in the process of move - I asked for the move so the article would meet the guidelines recognizability and precision. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Whether there are other imperial harems I don't know, but there are certainly other royal harems, and that alone makes it worthwhile to move; I would expect an article with the current title to be about imperial harems in general. Whether it a proper noun I don't know; if pressed I would say yes. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ottoman spelling

@Chamboz: Coincidentally, I was just thinking about checking with you regarding the Ottoman spelling of this, as I was looking at the puzzling version at tr:Harem. So, as expected, it follows Persian (حرم‌) rather than Arabic (حريم‎‎). Should it then be transliterated herem? Eperoton (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

These are two different words, though obviously related. حرم (Arabic: Ḥaram, Ottoman: Harem) and حريم (Arabic: Ḥarīm, Ottoman: Harîm). Their meanings overlap but generally speaking the first is used more as a noun while the second is more of an adjective, meaning "sacred, protected." But they're not restricted to that use and can be interchangeable.

The reason why it's harem and not herem is because the letter ح makes the subsequent vowel a back vowel: 'a' instead of 'e'. Chamboz (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Women and Gender in the Middle East

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allpuri9001!, Valery81 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EmPatch (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Lady Mary Montagu

Hello Wikipedia, there are several 17th century figures named Mary Montagu, I added a link to a page with severa; different links. Does anyone know to which page to link her? Thank you. Hummusapiens (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I linked to a disambugation page (Mary Montagu). Hummusapiens (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)