Talk:Ottoman Arabia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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 to the following: Ottoman Arabia, Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottoman Bulgaria, Ottoman Kosovo, Ottoman Serbia and Ottoman Tunis. If any of these need to be tweaked, feel free to open up single-article move discussions. Clearly, Ottoman era in the history of Saudi Arabia is an anachronism. Several editors appeal to consistency and other virtues per WP:CRITERIA. They believe that 'Ottoman X' is a better naming system even though some of the details have to be mashed to fit. There may not be a complete way to answer User:DeCausa's objections. There was even stronger support in previous discussions for Ottoman Albania and Ottoman Hungary. Per the detailed comments it appears that 'Ottoman Tunis' and 'Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina' are preferred over the names originally requested by Article editor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– The current titles are long and varied. I propose to move them to concise, but still precise titles. Note the discussions at Ottoman Albania and Ottoman Hungary. Article editor (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and other outcomes, which would fall under the Consistency criterion of WP:CRITERIA. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Serbia should be moved to Ottoman Serbia (disambiguation). --Article editor (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, Ottoman Tunisia may have suffered a cut-and-paste move by User:Elfelix to the current title. The mover will have to perform a history merge when renaming the title. --Article editor (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a sensible and value adding set of moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Ottoman era in the history of Saudi Arabia → Ottoman Arabia. "Ottoman Arabia" is not coterminous with this article. The Ottoman territories in Arabia fluctuated over time, but were at most parts of the western and eastern seaboards and immediate hinterland only. Most of the territories described in this article were not in "Ottoman Arabia" and indeed some of "Ottoman Arabia" is not covered by this article. I think this is different to the other articles, the name change for which seem sensible. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There was no such thing as "Saudi Arabia" during the Ottoman period -- it is a modern creation. If finer distinctions than Ottoman Arabia are needed, there could be Ottoman Hejaz, Ottoman Nejd, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "Saudi Arabia" would be an anachronism, since it only means an Arabian state ruled by the Sauds. --Article editor (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I made earlier is that whilst there was an Ottoman Hejaz, there was no Ottoman Nejd. It was not part of the Ottoman Empire - there's a reason why one is a blue link and the other is a red link. It would also not conform to WP:COMMONNAME either. Unlike the other articles to which this move request applied, Ottoman penetration into the Arabian Peninsula was very limited and most of Arabia remained outside the Empire. Calling this article "Ottoman Arabia" is like calling an article on the entirety of China in the 1930s to 1945 Japanese China. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any contradiction between what you say and the title "Ottoman Arabia". Ottoman Arabia is simply the places in the geographic region called Arabia which were at various times ruled by the Ottomans. This is like Category:Byzantine Italy, Roman Britain, or American Samoa. There is no implication that all of Italy, Britain, or Samoa was once controlled by the Byzantines, Romans, or Americans. For other parts of Arabia, it doesn't make sense to include them in this article, any more than it makes sense to talk about 2nd-century Ireland in the Roman Britain article or to have an article on the "Roman era in the history of the Republic of Ireland". --Macrakis (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point: these non-Ottoman areas are dealt with in this article currently. Referring to "Ottoman era [Saudi] Arabia" is akin to referring to "Europe in the Napoleonic era". There isn't an implication that the territory is part of the Ottoman Empire. It's the dominant, defining cultural/political/military entity in the region without all of the region necessarily being part of the political entity itself. The proposed name change would, therefore, require a change of scope. If an article on the Ottoman territories in Arabia is desired, then that's fine - but it's not this article. If the hang up is about the "Saudi" element in the name, it would make more sense to simply delete the Saudi part of the title, but otherwise leave as is. (Although it's a well trodden WP path using the current state name to talk about the history of a region before the state's formation.) DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the article as it currently stands really seems to be about the formation of the Saudi dynasty, and talks only incidentally about the Ottoman Hejaz or for that matter about other rulers such as the Shammar. But the title is still not great. There are really three articles mixed together here: the early history of the House of Saud (which mostly belongs in that article), Ottoman Arabia, and Arabian Peninsula#History. --Macrakis (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I give up! This results in the following sequence: the current situation is the Article title = X and the content = X; let's change the article title to Y; ah, but then there's a mismatch because title is Y but the content is X. Answer, change the content to Y so it matches the article title of Y. There seems to be almost complete support for this. But all it means is that someone at some later date will say: we're missing an article on X, let's create one. Waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I initially proposed "Bosnia" since I wasn't sure if Bosnia and Herzegovina were conflated or not. Also, would you prefer moving Ottoman Algeria to Ottoman Algiers? I considered proposing Tunis instead of Tunisia before I saw the title "Ottoman Algeria". --Article editor (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ottoman Algiers is preferable. The article states that the territory "was an Ottoman territory centered on Algiers, in modern Algeria" (my emphasis) and, indeed, Ottoman Algiers was only a small fraction of the current territory of Algeria. Contemporary English sources typically use "Algiers" up to 1830 (e.g., Invasion of Algiers in 1830) and "Algeria" thereafter (e.g., French conquest of Algeria of 1830–47). —  AjaxSmack  23:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should Ottoman Tripolitania be named Ottoman Tripoli, or does the argument not apply to Tripolitania? --Article editor (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it could be confused with the Ottoman Tripoli Eyalet in the Levant. —  AjaxSmack  21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Tripoli, Lebanon get priority over Tripoli, Libya. Also, I now think the city and country duality is a quirk of English. There isn't one in Turkish/Arabic: Algiers and Algeria is Cezayir/al-Jazair, Tripoli and Tripolitania is Trablus (or Trablusgarp/Trablus al-Gharb, "Tripoli (West)" as opposed to Trablusşam/Trablus ash-Sham, "Tripoli (Levant)"), and Tunis and Tunisia is Tunus/Tunis. --Article editor (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think English usage followed the French/Italian in these cases. We also used just one name for each until the Romance speakers got involved. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re History of Ottoman-era Tunisia. The short answer is that this article forms part of a multi-article History of Tunisia, which itself enjoys a stylistic uniformity for eras of foreign control. Hence the rationale of "uniformity" fails, and instead s rather a "point of view" imposition on preexisting articles. I would imagine that this issue is similar for other country articles mentioned. For an analogous situation consult the differently-styled titles to the provinces of the Roman Empire. Also, although "Tunis" would be historically accurate, see the long-standing uniformity described in the first History of Tunisia article, despite the many historical names used for what is now called "Tunisia" in English. Please contact me for further information before making any changes in the title here. Elfelix (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current organization of the History of Tunisia is problematic, and doesn't take advantage of the structure of Wikipedia, where related material can be only a hyperlink away. For example, the article History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology seems to cover much more than territory of the modern state of Tunisia -- it is really about the broader Carthaginian Empire and to a lesser extent the city of Carthage. Similarly, the History of Ottoman-era Tunisia includes much material outside the modern state of Tunisia. I think it would make more sense if this article were separated into both smaller units (the Eyalet of Tunis) and broader ones (Ottoman Maghreb). --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's problematic to talk about the history of "Tunisia" during the Carthaginian times since "Tunisia" as a geographic and political entity did not exist during then. The same argument goes to having an article that talks about the territory of what is now Saudi Arabia during the Ottoman times—it didn't exist. --Article editor (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two prior comments avoid addressing the difference between "uniformity" and point of view, and foreign control. Also both wander off the declared subject here, the Ottoman era. Elfelix (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all for the sake of clarity and recognizability.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Arabia&oldid=1209559789"