User talk:Chamboz

she was the first lady in ottoman dynasty who took the title of valide sultan .... she was leader of ottoman imperial harem and had huge influence on her son .... and I think she was one of the powerful sultans in sultanate of women Drpsadeghi (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

She was a relatively powerful Ottoman woman, but she didn't live during the "Sultanate of Women", which is said to have begun at the very earliest with Hürrem Sultan. Chamboz (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello; The 1683 map you have made does not show the broadest borders of the Ottoman state. 1683 map, there is no logical explanation you can add to other pages. It is so misleading in this way. So if it is corrected with a map showing the broad boundaries of the state, it will be correct. Good works.Gündoğdu (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Your maps ignore the fact that Yemen Vilayet was recovered by the Ottomans in 1872 and kept until the end of World War I (the last Turkish forces departed from Yemen between January and February 1919, long after the Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October 1918.) You should also see the section Ottoman return in the Yemen article. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

My maps don't cover the 19th century. If they did, they would show the recovery of Yemen, as well as other territorial gains the Ottomans made, such as colonial expansion in Africa. Chamboz (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chamboz! I noticed that you have done alot of great work in articles especially pertaining to the Ottoman Empire, hence I decided to hop by. I was wondering whether you could say what the Ottoman Turkish transliteration is for the word Süvari. Thanks alot in advance. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon. Süvari is spelled سوارى in Ottoman Turkish, and it means 'cavalryman'. Chamboz (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the Latin transliteration, it is süvārī. Chamboz (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks alot. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chamboz. You seem to be an expert in Ottoman history that's why I want to ask you to take a look at Hürrem Sultan's article. Recently you have improved some articles related to the Ottoman royal figures. I believe you can improve this one and remove its unsourced material as well. Keivan.f^Talk 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of free time at the moment but I'll be sure to put it on my to-do list for the future. Chamboz (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 09:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it really help the people pronounce her name? And is it even correct? (Ḫadīce Sulṭān) Well as long as I know the "t" in Hatice isn't pronounced "d". I'm not really familiar with transliteration or things like that, that's why I'm asking you. Keivan.f^Talk 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's the correct transliteration. As for how it would have been pronounced in the 16th century - that's something of a mystery. It's very hard for historians to get insight into historical pronunciation and I couldn't tell you whether they would have pronounced it Hatice or Hadice. But I think there's no harm in demonstrating how the Ottoman version of her name is rendered in the Latin alphabet, instead of showing only the modern Turkish version. Chamboz (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the explanation. I just know the way it's pronounced by Turkish people nowadays including my grandma. Although, as the alphabet used by the Ottoman Turks is the same as the one that is used in Persian, fortunately I'm able to read it and I think the way this name was pronounced in the past probably could be the same way Persian speakers pronounce it, so I think I understand what you say. It probably could be Hadice as well. Keivan.f^Talk 09:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

While fixing up Forced conversion, my eyebrow was raised by the 500K-1M estimate of the total head count. The sources (which I can't check) seem reasonably reliable, but I can't help suspecting a bit of "patriotic history" here. Do you know if this is in line with mainstream thinking? Eperoton (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any studies dedicated to determining the total number of children recruited in the devşirme, but the standard article on it (V. L. Menage's article 'devshirme' in the Encyclopaedia of Islam) cites an estimate of 200,000 recruits and notes that the actual number was likely somewhat higher - but I doubt he had in mind anything as high as a million! Chamboz (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Eperoton (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

uhm devshirme was not forced conversion it was merely a boarding school each and every STUDENT had an option to continue military service after 18 or return to their village and lead a christian life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.106.12 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in learning from where it was that you got that idea. Please don't respond by googling for sources, because I'm interested in hearing where you originally learned this. Was it actually taught to you in school somewhere? Chamboz (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

granted the word devshirme means to change, however it refers to changing the culture of the natives not their religion. keep in mind they were cultured by church leader to be anti-education/ even anti-cleanliness (considered the devils work by the church leaders) muslims from eastern europe would regularly claim Christianity on census because it meant their son would get state of the art education(pretty secular too)...bc the ottomans only provided muslims with madrasa not devshirme style schooling. you probably already know a typical madrass is all about religion not secular education.

the terrible thing about devshirme was that in some cases (not always)once the kid turned 18 they felt out of place living a christian life...many converted. but many went back to their village and became founders of a school & became teachers.

by the late 1800s devshirme served as inspiration for waldorf schools as well as Montessori schools. fun fact: in 2018 the state will forcefully take your children away if theyre not being educated. we can call it indoctrination but it is what it is people need to be educated not left to wander in ignorance.

lets just step back and consider the centuries of relentless propaganda against muslims and turks in general. these are the same folks who claim turks raped and pillaged europe for 500 years. yet with the advent of dna testing we can safely assume it was not so bc most eastern europeans have less than .05 modern turkic dna this includes the folks like albanians, macedons, & bosnians who have been into islam since 1200's +/-

So, not going to answer the question. Alright. Chamboz (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

im eastern european theyre systematically destroying ottoman architecture and history what makes you think they'll teach ottoman history in its proper context? here in the u.s. my university has a class on ottoman history taught by a greek guy... but there is oral history within the the muslim community in eastern europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.106.12 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC) keep in mind 500 years of forced conversion has left all of latin america speaking spanish and same with aboriginals their language and culture is just about dead...its not so in eastern europe we all have our language in tact along with our culture & heritage...its a matter of math...do it. middle eastern history has seen very little peace time in the last 6000 years however under turkish rule the holy land saw an unprecedented 300 years of peace. can not keep 300 years of peace by the sword can you? historically most nations, even the most homogeneous has devolved into civil war within 50-100years we can safely assume the agenda of revisionist historians isnt to bring to light actual turkish history just to demonize turks as theyve done for centuries going back to a time before turks converted to islam. for the first time since the great schism the vatican & orthodox church worked tirelessly to destroy the fledgling church of the east founded by a mix of mongols & turks. when that didnt work they egged them on to invade baghdad and we know how that turned out. moral of the story DONT SCHEME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.106.12 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC) you might be interested in researching torbesh history(their conversion to islam)and compare it to what macedonians write about ottoman empire you'll quickly notice a stark difference. macedonians willfully lie and mistranslate words... rather than using the term millet they choose the word subjugated and then they define subjugated as enslaved. turcophobia is rampant

Hi! As a major expert on Ottoman history, you might be interested in the page move request at Menteşe (beylik). I'd love to have your input! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't add my source and if I added wrong details in other articles but if you search Hareem al sultan in Wikipedia you will find down characters go down slowly until you reach supporting characters you'll find Gülfem hatun it says she was a wife for Suleiman the Magnificent if you find it reasonable to change it tell me to change it or you can do it as you like. Thanks Faris murad (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A television show is not a historical source. Chamboz (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chamboz. I would like to invite you to vote at this article's entry which I have nominated for deletion. It seems to be a fabricated article about a fictional Ottoman figure. Keivan.f^Talk 22:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Could you give us your advice about this problem. Nedim Ardoğa think these two persons are the same (without solid reasons), I don't think so because the source doesn't say so (and it is chronologically problematic). Thanks in advance.--Phso2 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chamboz, I have found multiple sources in Russian which state Sufism as the main language though not a single source in English. Isn't that strange? --Lingveno (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, Sufism isn't a branch of Islam as such, it's an extremely broad term referring to a mode of religious practice. It doesn't make sense to call it the state religion of the Timurid Empire. I left a comment on the talk page of the article, that's where the discussion should be so it can include other people, potentially. Chamboz (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)