Talk:Ottoman Empire

I see some editors are putting double dates in their edits- specifically, the Hijri year calendar. Is this against the Wikipedia rules of standard formatting, or is double dates in isolation (aka, in that specific line but nowhere else) fine?

The prime example I'm referring to is the second map of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox, below which has a description that refers to the Islamic Hijri calendar as well as the standard Western calendar date.

Crazynyancat (talk) 12:49 PM 4 June 2021 (PST)

@Khirurg: The problem, ignoring the sockpuppet edit that just happened, is twofold.

The first, and more important, is that overall, this is a minority, borderline WP:FRINGE position. The breadth of historical consensus in Ottoman studies on the relationship between Ottomans and genocide is that genocidal violence in the lands of the Ottoman Empire is a largely 19th-20th century phenomenon. Whether you take the more common approach that conceptualizes genocidal violence through the ideological commitments of the Committee of Union and Progress (in the manner of Hans-Lukas Kieser in Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide) or as the retaliation of religious-reactionary forces after the loss of territory and influence in the 19th century (as in The Thirty-Year Genocide), what most authors at the end of the day agree on, is that genocide in these lands stated due to the breakdown, not success, of the Ottomans' traditional systems of power (and therefore oppression, including the Devşirme). If anything is a sign of consensus in this matter, it is after all assumed in the words of Ronald Suny that genocide is a novel phenomenon in the region: "neither Dadrian nor Balakian explain why religion should have led to genocidal violence in the first year of the World War but not throughout Ottoman and Islamic history". Also, none of our sources in the Devshirme article (at least that I've read) support this position, and I think it is fair to say that WP:EXTRAORDINARY also applies here.

The second, less important one that in a sense I regret making now, is that Baer's claim is a bit more complicated than is presented here. Baer simultaneously tries to point out an Ottoman Empire that "in the nineteenth century, (...) embraced exclusivity, leading to ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the empire’s demise after the First World War", posit "genocide" as a modern event almost by definition, while also trying to point out parallels between European and Ottoman histories (the main point of his book) by interpreting earlier events as genocide-like, which is criticized as confusing here. You can probably see the logical complications of adding this claim based on this book. Uness232 (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Marc David Baer is a top notch scholar of the Ottoman Empire and high quality source. Your claim that it is WP:FRINGE is completely unsubstantiated. I cannot accept second-guessing a reliable source in this manner. With this kind of argumentation, it is possible to declare just about anything WP:FRINGE and remove it. In order to convince me of your position, you would need to provide sources that explicitly contradict Baer, either by specifically providing a source that says the the Devshirme was not a form of genocide, or that mentions Baer's position and criticizes it as minority or fringe. Anything else is hand-waving. You will also note that it's not just sourced to Baer, and Baer himself is quite clear in stating that it falls within the modern definition of genocide, in other words, he is well-aware that it is a modern definition applied retroactively, yet he still endorses it. In any case, the material is reliably sourced and has been in the article for a long time, if you want to remove it, the burden of consensus falls on you. Khirurg (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in this tone and topic of discussion, but as I've noticed you've added this line of text back, I feel obligated to at least undo what I consider to be a grave inversion of current consensus.

Your version of the text is unacceptable to me, and I think, would be to anyone who knows about genocide studies. It's not that Baer is a WP:FRINGE scholar; that is clearly not what I said. It is simply that his opinion, that devshirme is genocide, finds very little acceptance in mainstream scholarship. You are expecting me to find specific articles that target this position made by Baer, but this is not yet a topic that has received mainstream academic attention in this way outside of this position taken by Baer (and in a general sweep of genocide history, it is actively not included, more on that below). Again, no other contemporary, mainstream scholar that I could find other than Baer makes this claim, and the in the only other fairly recent article I could find about this position, it is actively criticized as nationalist propaganda.

Nevertheless, accepting the pre-eminent position of Baer in Ottoman studies, I understand the weight his opinion carries. As you have insisted upon its inclusion, perhaps a compromise can be reached by counter-balancing his opinion. While most genocide scholars on the Ottoman Empire do not actively cover the devshirme as to reject a genocidal nature, many have attempted to reconstruct what led to the beginning of genocidal violence in the Ottoman Empire -- here people mostly gravitate toward the late 19th century -- through Westernization (in the form of social Darwinism, according to studies on the CUP, also cf. Kiefer's work on Talaat), a coalescence of religious-reactionary ideology (Ze'evi in Thirty Year Genocide), the loss of territory and the ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims (Robson), and as the culmination of nationalist pressure and the creation of a new world of nation-states (Levene in Rimlands and also basically his entire work). All of these probably contributed to some extent or another, but again, there is an assumption here: that genocidal violence in the Ottoman Empire must be seen as a novel development associated with the 19th-century. All in all, often, scholars tie the start of genocidal violence in the European mainland to the emerging of nation-states (again, on this, read Levene's Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, Volume 2: The Rise of the West and the Coming of Genocide).

Baer flips the script upside-down here, with much at stake for the historiography of the pre-modern world. Beyond incoming layman's arguments about the 'barbarity of the Turks', there is a fundamental argument on genocide in the lands of the Ottoman lands being challenged here: and most scholars don't agree with him on this. Uness232 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. If you want to claim that there are scholars that disagree with Baer on the devsirme being a form of genocide (which it very much is), you will need to find sources that explicitly mention Baer's thesis and criticize it - not a bunch of unrelated sources that have nothing to do with the devsirme or Baer. At the very minimum, you will need sources that directly state that the devsirme is not a form of genocide. None of the sources you added do so. If what you're saying is true, that there is a scholarly consensus that the devsirme was not a form of genocide, then it shouldn't be hard to find such sources. The fact that you haven't found any such sources tells me there is no such scholarly consensus. And what's with that random 1988 article about Cyprus? What does that have to do with anything? It looks an awful lot like the old guilt by association canard. Khirurg (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Khirurg

Your insistence to knowledge of devshirme's status as genocide "(which it very much is)", seems to precede Baer's opinion. I do not know how fair this framing is in an argument on Wikipedia.

Our goal on Wikipedia is the promotion of the scholarly consensus (or at least I believe it is?). As far as I understand, you are claiming that this text represents this consensus, as you have plopped that claim there without attribution or counter-balancing. I am saying that it does not. There is also no scholarly consensus that devshirme was not a genocide. The devshirme is simply not discussed in mainstream academia as such. Again, I have searched around books and articles, and I believe I have a passing knowledge of genocide studies. I can not find a single mainstream source that says it is other than Baer.

If what you're saying is true, that there is a scholarly consensus that the devsirme was not a form of genocide, then it shouldn't be hard to find such sources.

This is a logical fallacy. There are no counter-arguments to this because over the last 50 years his has been a singular argument for its inclusion as genocide in mainstream academia. There are no other contemporary scholars that I can find that endorse his position, and he even relegates it to a footnote about the practice. So how would there be robust counter-arguments? How am I supposed to find a counter-argument to something that is basically a hapax legomenon of arguments? Again, the full weight of current genocide studies would descend on Baer here: no other author has traced the nature of genocidal violence in the Ottoman Empire to the 15th-century, which is what my previous sourcing clearly puts forward.

It looks an awful lot like the old guilt by association canard.

I am not calling you a nationalist. Neither am I saying that the association of the practice with genocide in Greek nationalist circles necessarily means it is not true. I am pointing out something: this is the only other article in which I have seen it being discussed, and it dismisses the argument as nationalist propaganda, and that I have not been able to find any other sources arguing in one way or the other. The associations made in the article are not mine but theirs, and I do not agree with the totality of the article.

I am tired of this patronizing tone and the imposition of standards to me as if they are "rules" or policy. My intent is not to shield the Ottoman state, and neither is it to police the word genocide. I am aware of the current consensus rejecting the "social mobility" model of devshirme so promoted by the Turkish state and its allies and I am not disputing the extractive, dehumanizing nature of the practice. But I ask this in good-faith, are there any other modern, independent scholars that argue this case? If not, I am perplexed at its inclusion as consensus or historical fact. Uness232 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not make any claims of consensus, I just added a source. There is no requirement for academic consensus for something to be added, only that it solidly sourced, which is very much the case here. Regarding claims of consensus, you are the one that formerly did that, although I now see you are no longer claiming that. Now, I would be open to some form of attribution, e.g. "According to David Baer, the devishirme falls within modern definitions of genocide", but the problem is, this is also according to Lemkin's original definition of genocide, not just Baer. Khirurg (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You say: I did not make any claims of consensus

However, I would argue, implicitly, that a non-attributed, non-counter-balanced addition of historical material would communicate (per policies such as WP:BALANCE) that it is a consensus reading.

There is no requirement for academic consensus for something to be added, only that it solidly sourced, which is very much the case here.

There can be, due to policies of WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. This is especially true for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, which this claim obviously meets: "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;" and "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people." I have, I believe, shown that this would "significantly alter mainstream assumptions". Theories of 19th-century rupture (whatever the reason that drove it) dominate Ottoman genocide studies; I believe I have shown that using many sources. Göçek, for example, subtitles her section on the (denial of the) origins of genocidal violence "1789-1908": this is for good reason.

What Baer is doing is functionally not that different from identifying a "steam engine" in 15th-century Anatolia (being the only one to do so in contemporary scholarship), and you saying it is not a minority position because no scholar actively said that there was no steam engine in 15th-century Anatolia. That may be the case; but if most scholars claim the "steam engine" arrived in Anatolia during the 19th century, that is effectively a broader consensus that makes his position impossible. The "steam engine" here, represents the concentration of state power and exterminative logics that can result in genocide.

Regarding claims of consensus, you are the one that formerly did that, although I now see you are no longer claiming that.

I am not backtracking, though I admit I have been clumsy in my wording of what are technically two slightly different consensuses. One is the specific claim about devshirme: that it is, or is not, a form of genocide. There is no consensus on this either way; Baer is effectively the first scholar of his magnitude to make this claim in a very long time. There is however another, broader consensus. Genocide in the lands of the Ottoman Empire is explained through the political processes of the 19th-20th century, and that earlier events must be looked at through an extractive lens: remember Suny's words, "neither Dadrian nor Balakian explain why religion should have led to genocidal violence in the first year of the World War but not throughout Ottoman and Islamic history." This is not a position but a core assumption of Ottoman genocide studies. If indeed he believed there was a two-three centuries-long genocide in the middle of Ottoman history, how could he have said this?

This is a problem for Baer's claim because while he targets one consensus he runs into the other one. To say "devshirme is genocide" is also to say "the exterminative logics that enabled genocide existed in 15th-century Ottoman governance". This second point is where he would fall into WP:FRINGE position.

"According to David Baer, the devishirme falls within modern definitions of genocide"

This is not enough. On its own, it misrepresents the state of the field. Beyond the broader conceptual problems here, there is an issue: in none of the sources in the Devshirme article (and beyond, on the internet) that I could access was there any mention of the word "genocide" in relation to it. No one writes "this wasn't genocide" in a vacuum; that much is assumed, most things, even most brutal things, are not genocide. This is only said in relation a genuine contemporary debate. Because of this, at most I am willing to accept is "While most scholars, including Levene, Göçek, and Suny, trace the beginnings of genocidal violence in the Ottoman Empire to the end of the 19th-century, some scholars, including Baer and Lemkin, argue that the Devshirme also falls within definitions of genocide." Anything more than that is blatant WP:FALSEBALANCE. Uness232 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What you are proposing is misleading to readers and highly POV. The claim that the "beginnings of genocidal violence in the Ottoman Empire to the end of the 19th-century" refers strictly to the familiar genocides of the late 19th and early 20th century. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Devshirme, which ended centuries earlier. Your wording misleadingly implies that these scholars do not consider the desvhsirme a type of genocide, when in fact they do not concern themselves with it at all. Also, please stop claiming Baer is WP:FRNGE, it is impossible to take that seriously. Khirurg (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Khirurg I never said Baer is a "fringe scholar" (whatever that would even mean for a widely-acclaimed mainstream voice), or that his work is WP:FRINGE in totality, you keep making that point but I never said that. What I am saying is that his claim is singular in contemporary scholarship, and is implicitly denied by the vast, VAST, majority of scholars in the field. Call that WP:FRINGE, call it something else; in my reading, it violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE.

It seems this problem is amplified by you reading the field differently than me, but I don't believe your reading stands up to scrutiny: Ottoman genocide studies hasn't just built descriptions of Ottoman genocides, but also genealogies of it: its reasons are clearly stated with logics that previously did not exist and when coalesced lead to "dolus specialis". Without dolus specialis genocide can not happen per definition: this is the "steam engine" I am talking about. What Baer is doing is a major challenge to all of this: and it is a major undertaking not yet taken up by mainstream scholarship.

Your subsequent and resulting claim that these scholars limit their conceptual framing to "familiar genocides" is problematized by their very writing. Levene specifically claims that genocide in what he calls "the Rimlands" is an aberration caused by the import of nation-state logic (that is the POINT of his books), Suny has said what I have written multiple times on this page (and I will write again: "neither Dadrian nor Balakian explain why religion should have led to genocidal violence in the first year of the World War but not throughout Ottoman and Islamic history."); again, implicit here is the LACK of genocide "throughout Ottoman and Islamic history". While Suny and Levene's works are actually fairly explicit on this, even Göçek and other writers' tying of exterminatory logic to the 19th century is significant: if exterminatory logic existed before the 19th century, their genealogy becomes unnecessary. And the remaining claim that genocide can exist without exterminatory logic is a violation of its definition.

What actually seems to be happening is that you are arguing through claims and I am arguing from frameworks. Consensus, weight and balance may be determined differently through these different filters, and none of these are illegitimate on Wikipedia: but my problem is that this clearly meets WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people." Even if you argue that no specific contradiction exists (though I would argue otherwise), that this would "significantly alter mainstream assumptions" (like those of Suny and Levene) is undeniable. My point isn't that Baer's point contradicts mainstream assumptions so it must be wrong (or necessarily wrong to include in a categorical sense), but I am saying that because this point contradicts mainstream assumptions it must be treated with extraordinary caution.

(Side note: As I mentioned before, Baer's position is also a little strange: yes, he does call devshirme genocide, but he also says that the Armenian Genocide was the “first genocide committed by a European empire in Europe.” Complications of defining Europe aside, this endorses Levene's position, and would mean (highly strangely) that the devshirme was not genocide! One might argue that he is using different definitions of genocide, which is fair, but that complicates, not simplifies its inclusion here. Again, this is the "second point" I was making.) Uness232 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Khirurg Pinging as you haven't responded in a while: I am still not comfortable with the way Baer's claim is presented in this article, and in the absence of any shift in stances -- and lack of any third party -- it seems we are at a standstill. My intuition is that lack of consensus over disputed material would fall under WP:ONUS and should be removed, but you have (I think) implicitly argued that I should achieve consensus for reverting stable material: I am not sure of this statement's policy implications but I defer to you in that understanding, so I am shying away from WP:BOLD here. Either way, I would really want to resolve this dispute rather than let it die out. WP:3O perhaps? Uness232 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, been busy. It would really really help your case if you had one, just one single source on the Baer's level, that claimed that the devshirme was not genocide. Instead all I'm seeing is a lot of hand-waving and appeals to policies that don't really apply. There is no question of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALANCE; it's just a single sentence in the body of the article. That it's WP:EXTRAORDINARY is also false: Lemkin clearly includes taking children away in his definition of genocide. Lastly, claiming WP:ONUS while removing well-sourced material is completely beyond the pale and impossible to take seriously. If you are removing sourced material, the onus is on you to prove why it should be removed. We can seek dispute resolution, however, I should tell you based on experience that the material is extremely unlikely to be removed with sourcing that strong. Khirurg (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It would really really help your case if you had one, just one single source on the Baer's level, that claimed that the devshirme was not genocide.

How could I? Is there any one else over the history post-contemporary consensuses of genocide studies (which are well over 50 years old) that have made the positive claim? Don't the statements and theoretical posture of the vast majority of Ottoman scholars (most directly Suny, also others, and also somewhat Baer himself) sit in implicit but direct tension with this claim? That a singular claim has not generated a refutation is not proof of its strength, but its singularity in a wealth of research is diagnostic.

There is no question of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALANCE; it's just a single sentence in the body of the article.

I genuinely don't understand how there is no question of WEIGHT or BALANCE. Call it WP:BALASP if you want to. We're on the Ottoman Empire page, not even on the Devshirme page, presenting a singular claim that is in strong tension with the rest of the field as undisputed fact.

That it's WP:EXTRAORDINARY is also false: Lemkin clearly includes taking children away in his definition of genocide.

I already told you why I believe it is EXTRAORDINARY, and your reasoning seems a little strange to me. It "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions." Suny's assumption, the frameworks Ottoman scholars have built, what exists on the Devshirme page, all of it. Also, yes, Lemkin did say that "taking away children" can be an act of genocide: and nobody, not even propagandized Turkish-apologists, claim that the Ottomans did not take away children. But Lemkin does not say that all taking away of children is genocide, and modern scholarship has parameters of what genocide is: it often requires dolus specialis (the intent to eliminate a group's presence, as such). What is -- I want to say debated but there is no real debate yet -- being claimed by Baer, and then subsequently somewhat contradicted by Baer, is that devshirme meets dolus specialis. This is a genuinely singular claim. That doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong: but it does mean it is doing something very radical.

Lastly, claiming WP:ONUS while removing well-sourced material is completely beyond the pale and impossible to take seriously.

Look, I've read WP:ONUS and decided, tentatively, that this is the appropriate response. The text says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." I am open to being corrected but the text seems to say what it says to me. I understand that this exists in tension with other conventions that tend to favor inclusion, but, again: I am not claiming absolute correctness on these policies, I read it and it seemed right to me: your claims of beyond-the-pale-ness seem a little exaggerated.

We can seek dispute resolution, however, I should tell you based on experience that the material is extremely unlikely to be removed with sourcing that strong.

Okay. I mean, I want to attempt dispute resolution (my preference is 3O) not because I have knowledge of whether my formulations will stay intact. I genuinely think the text you included is an inversion of scholarly practice and misrepresents the field as it exists today. Whether that tracks to changes on Wikipedia is, to me, a judgement on the Wikipedia processes, not on substantive improvement, and my commitment is to my understanding of the latter. Uness232 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

How could I? If you don't have a counter-source, the material stands. Any claims about "implicit but direct tension" fall under WP:OR. Baer's book is recent so it could be that in future somewhat might come along and counter Baer's claim (though I doubt it, in fact the opposite is much more likely), but until then, that's just how it is.

But Lemkin does not say that all taking away of children is genocide What are you talking about? Did Baer claim that all taking away of children is genocide? What we have here is a top Ottoman scholar, in agreement with the definition of the term "genocide", stating that the Ottoman practice of taking children from conquered peoples falls within the modern definition of genocide. Clear as day, nothing remotely extraordinary or "unbalanced" about it. As for WP:ONUS, it is not meant to be used by users to WP:STONEWALL against the inclusion of sourced material. Unfortunately, there is nothing new in your above post that would make me reconsider. Khirurg (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't have a counter-source, the material stands. Any claims about "implicit but direct tension" fall under WP:OR.

OR, as I've read it, is about adding content to articles that isn't salvageable by statements to reliable sources. It doesn't seem to touch on this in a weight-survey sense: to survey the field for more general arguments that would preclude a scholar's de novo argument not repeated by anyone else seems like what WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXTRAORDINARY was designed for, not a violation of OR. Per what I believe to be a reasonable reading of WP:NPOV, if a statement is precluded by working assumptions of the field (and this one does) it should be contextualized accordingly. To search for those working assumptions doesn't seem like WP:OR to me.

And I want to make clear that I am not synthesizing these working assumptions or this "implicit but direct tension": Suny says it. Suny says "neither Dadrian nor Balakian explain why religion should have led to genocidal violence in the first year of the World War but not throughout Ottoman and Islamic history". Levene wrote Rimlands arguing that nation-state logic introduced genocidal violence to regions that didn't have the means, need or will to do it beforehand. I do not need you to accept these scholars' claims about what actually caused the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides. It's what their statements very clearly says (not even that, they assume everyone will agree in saying): genocide (not "the familiar genocides", not a specific genocide; Genocide, conceptually) doesn't have an analogue in the period Baer identifies as genocidal. That is implicit but direct contradiction. And no other mainstream scholar, no one else in the source we use in the Devshirme article, not here, not anywhere else (except for that Cyprus article, and that critically) I could find use the term genocide for Devshirme.

One thing I will grant you is that the "while" clause in my compromise wording possibly implies a more direct relationship between the two then supported by the source, which may read as WP:SYNTH in strict readings of policy. But the state-of-the field survey does not read to me as OR at all, but checking for WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, in a hapax legomenon claim.

What are you talking about? Did Baer claim that all taking away of children is genocide? What we have here is a top Ottoman scholar, in agreement with the definition of the term "genocide", stating that the Ottoman practice of taking children from conquered peoples falls within the modern definition of genocide.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, but this is orthogonal to what I said. I never said that Baer said anything as such. I'm saying "taking away of children" is not what is being discussed here, and you're conflating the two. Everyone agrees the Ottomans took away children. That's not a debate. But Lemkin never said that all taking of children is genocide: and in the subsequent sharpening of Lemkin's definitions, including the Genocide Convention, genocide requires dolus specialis, the intent to eliminate or destroy a group as such. What Baer's claim is then, is not that the Ottomans took away children, nobody disputes that. It is that the Ottomans took away children to eliminate or destroy a group as such. This is the real question you can not common-sense past. And Baer is the only person making this claim (and then...walking it back slightly?) in a wealth of Devshirme research that uses other terms: "elite slavery", "systematic kidnapping", "forced assimilation", "forced child levy", even "crime against humanity" etc. with no mention of genocide; And a general state-of-the-field that reads genocide (not any genocide, genocide) as a 19th-20th century phenomenon in these lands.

Baer's book is recent so it could be that in future somewhat might come along and counter Baer's claim, but until then, that's just how it is.

I want to step back for a moment because I think this is getting out of hand. We obviously differ on our readings on the specificities of Wikipedia policy. But I want to grant you these readings for this specific paragraph. You are stating that any de novo claim, however recent, made by a reliable scholar, can only be checked against other statements of the exact same type, in the negative. All other statements have to brushed aside, not just the decades-long descriptions of the rest of the field using different terms without precluding this one (which is defensible), but also direct, more general claims that preclude it (which is what Levene and Suny are doing). I don't want to know right now if this setup is permitted by WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, or others. I'm giving you all of that for this paragraph. I just want to say that the subsequent reading is genuinely absurd. Any de novo, hapax legomenon claim made by a reliable scholar automatically is granted 100 percent of the field in this framing, and can be treated as a consensus reading, or the main interpretive framework. But that's not at all how claims work in academia, or really, in general. People don't assert the negative claim if the positive was not floated as a claim. Some scholars say "the Harrying of the North was not genocide" exactly because others scholars say "it was genocide". The resulting work, by ignoring this, is a mis-reading of the field: a severe one. And if Wikipedia allows this in your reading, it does. That doesn't change what the text is (a singular scholar making a claim the interpretative frameworks of his field precludes), or what it represents. There are many miracles of the human; literalism is not one of them. If Wikipedia disagrees, it does. Nothing I can do there. That doesn't change what the claim qualitatively is.

(though I doubt it, in fact the opposite is much more likely)

And here you are doing it again. "Which it very much is", and then this. Nothing logically precludes this position in principle: consensus may change, and possibly you may predict the way it will change. This is why I never said "Baer is wrong" or "The question is settled". I said "Baer is radical and marginal" (edit: I want to pre-empt a response about this claim here: what I mean to say that Baer, about the status of devshirme-as-genocide, is radical and marginal. He is a mainstream voice and a perfectly fine scholar.); right now. If/When "the opposite" happens, we should genuinely include it, definitely in the Devshirme article, probably also here. It may even become a consensus reading at some point, at which point Levene and Suny's genealogies must change. But we're not there. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Not that Baer can't be right: he could very well be. It's that the current-state-of-the-field actively organizes itself against the existence of a multi-century genocide in the middle of the Ottoman Empire. That may be a failure of the field: I am no genocide expert. But I do know the field. Uness232 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The map incorrectly labels Upper Hungary (the Principality of Upper Hungary, now mostly Slovakia) as Central Hungary ~2026-25390-28 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It is known as central/middle (orta) in Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

In English it is known as Upper Hungary. The other vassals on the map do not follow the Ottoman naming conventions. It’s misleading to label what is today mostly Slovakia, and was in the north of the Kingdom of Hungary, as Central Hungary. ~2026-26672-33 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Right now the short description says "Turkish empire". I think this is a genuinely problematic description: "Turkish", in a sense, applies to the Ottomans, but in a short description we can not disambiguate "with a Turkish-speaking elite" (undeniably true), "Turkish in ethnic orientation" (untrue in most senses of the word), "Continuous with the modern Turkish polity" (defensible in a 20th century context, but not earlier). The "Turkish" character in the national sense of the Ottomans does not reach beyond the mid-19th century. Uness232 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)