Talk:Christianity in the Ottoman Empire

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DGN5037. Peer reviewers: Creek3, AnthonyG5480.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Joke

Haters of the muslim faith will fabricate the below statements of persecution done by the ottoman empire against christians while the truth is that the ottomans from the very beginning were very tolerant with christians that in some cases christians helped the ottomans take over territories to get rid of the tyranny the faced under the byzantine empire. in the later stages of the ottoman empire there were several injustices done against some ethnicities like the devrisme law and especially armenians in light of certain events of betrayal and conspiracy against the ottoman empire. until this date the ottoman empire in its golden day was the best empire to rule all religions in justice and relative harmony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.245.7.198 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is a joke, right? It is pathetic propaganda at best. Good luck . Gabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.195.170 (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I second the statement above. Christians were called rayah or flock (cattle). Other examples, Christians were not permitted to ride a horse when meeting a muslim who is walking, nor to where specific colors. Muslim rulers were by fact feudal lords of the conquered nations and Christians second class citizens. Turks have heavily favored newly converted Muslims to devide indigenous populations. Some should take a look of the number of churches transformed to mosques. This article is clearly written as way to promote Ottoman empire as a benevolent empire but the facts and history of the Balkans tells another story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.12.132 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beginning

This article seems to start of a little more like a paragraph I'd expect to be further down in the article. Perhaps providing a short summery before the main part of the article would help. ~ Falls End (T, C) 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged

This article states that "the Ottoman Empire was tolerant towards its non-Muslim subjects and it did not attempt to forcibly convert many of them to Islam." This whole thing strikes me like complete WP:OR, so I'd like that bit cited by independent verifiable and reliable sources please. I see there are {{citation needed}} tags in the second heading (probably sitting there for ages). The article is currently tagged, and as a next step I'll move for WP:AfD. NikoSilver 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the added info and sources, I think the intro is NPOV now. I agree to the tag's removal. Please deal with the rest of unsourced statements. NikoSilver 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, Ottoman Reference, actually that second quote is supportive. It says that "oppressive measures ... [were] a deviation from generally established practice". It shouldn't be listed under "Imperfections of tolerance". NikoSilver 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See also

I removed the 'see also' from the sections. I do not see what they have to do with this article... Inquisition is about heresies among the Christian denominations; Witch-hunt was a mostly Catholic practice, related with paganism and affected certain individuals, not population groups. Mission (Christian) refers to colonianism of the New World, and in any case this article is not talking about Muslim missionaries (or anything similar) to justify the inclusion. I am not saying that the Christians were saint or did nothing to be blamed for, but i would like to see links for articles that at least have a mere connection with this one. e.g. a possible article 'State and Religion in the Holy Roman Empire' or 'Status of the Muslims in 11th century Spain'. Hectorian 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

OK, OttomanReference, u are moving way too fast! i do not want to cause a revert war, thus i will say here with what i disagree, and what i consider bias and unsourced statements:

• Ottoman Empire, as a state, was against the anarchy: no state is in favour of anarchy (in fact, these terms are incompatible!).
• There was no instance of Ottoman Sultan interfering with how Christians perceive (perform) their religious activities and personal issues: noone expected the sultan himself to ban baptisms in a specific church or to declare a transfer of property from a specific person as invalid (we are talking about those who did "in the name of the sultan")
• To understand the issues of Religious persecution; it is important to recognize the base point, or compare the policies from the general practice of its time. There is no cases of Inquisition and Witch-hunt under Ottoman Empire. Inquisition and Witch-hunt had never been policy of Ottoman Empire: had there been anything similar, we would be talking about inter-muslim issues. do not compare denominations with religions. the comparison is off, and in fact without base.
• In the past, Christian missionaries sometimes worked hand-in-hand with colonialism, for example during European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia: again, why do u compare Islam with Christianity? the article is about the religious affairs of the Ottoman Empire, not about the a Muslim vs a Christian empire, and which was more tolerant.
• Regarding "conversion accompanied by privileges"; there was no set of Christian converted-Muslim rules or Christian converted-Muslim privileges, which could be classified as a "specific policy for conversion": huh? the one tenth tax applied only to christians... the blood tax was for the most time affecting only the christian subjects... Being exluded by these, was a huge privillege!
• Civil engineering: why are u "hiding" the content under such a title? couldn't the cities be build (quality reassurances and architecture (structural integrity, social needs, etc) and shaped, with these churches been still operating, instead of been converted to mosques and armouries? do not present it as if it was a policy to move ahead... it was a policy of conversion... Hectorian 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: This article seems to be trying to form a POV in the reader. Your edits about the imperfections in the tolerance of the OE are one example, these are another. Your earlier edits were trying to (IMHO) show that the OE was not a paradise. These edits are trying to show (again, IMHO) that in comparison to what was being done minorities at other countries of the time, it was. Who cares? I guess we all do, which is why we are writing about these things, but we really should try to stay away from both extremes. If this continues, I suggest you discuss it in the Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, because I think the underlying issue is not the facts but the way we choose to look at the facts. Regards, --Free smyrnan 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, i made my edits and sourced them after i was requested. when OttomanReference is done with his edits, i will add the requests for facts and i expect the same thing to happen. I know that i may be influenced a lot from by Greek background, but i am willing to see the other POV as well. Thanks for the advice; if things will not work out, i will try to draw some attention in the [[Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board]]. Cheers Hectorian 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Okay... how about a paragraph or so, near the beginning, stating that the main religion (or however you want to put it) of the empire is Islam - since the page seems like it should be about the religions of the Ottoman Empire? It seems pretty far down the page before Islam itself is mentioned for the first time, as if it's assumed knowledge... -- Amorette 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

The second paragraph of this article is in the complete wrong style, so I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcduggan (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman law redirects here?

How very very bizarre. I clicked on Ottoman law hoping to see if there is an entry on the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, and found that it redirects to Religion in the Ottoman Empire? The laws of the Tanzimat had little to do with religion! LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

I would think it should go without saying that "Religion in the Ottoman Empire" is an inappopriate title for an article that does not discuss the Empire's main religion. Perhaps "Christianity and Judaism in the Ottoman Empire" is more appropriate? --Mcorazao (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Religion in the Ottoman Empire → Christianity and Judaism in the Ottoman Empire — Article discusses Christianity and Judaism but is explicitly not about Ottoman religion in general. Mcorazao (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Possibly Minority religions in the Ottoman Empire or Non-Islamic religion in the Ottoman Empire? City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 22:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In general I am ok with those names, although the article currently claims to be restricting itself to Christianity and Judaism. Renaming it with these proposed names technically means changing the scope, though even with the changed scope these two religions would still be what the article is mostly about. --Mcorazao (talk)

• Oppose References to the importance of Islam and the Islamic populations should be added instead. The topic isn't currently covered by any other article. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect, the article explicit states that this is not its scope. It would be inappropriate to add such references without explicitly changing the scope of the article. Are you volunteering to propose a change in scope (meaning leading rewriting it)? --Mcorazao (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I simply believe it should match the other articles in Category:Religion by country which cover the wide religious spectrum in each country. Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, this is not a theoretical discussion. You cannot oppose based on what you hope somebody else might some day volunteer to do. I agree that a broad article on religion in the OE would be a good thing but unless you are volunteering to create that article (i.e. turn this one into that article) you are in essence just discussing an article that does not exist. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The current article does not deal with Islam, the most important Ottoman religion. Revise the article if you will but, based on the current scope, some new title is warranted. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin monitoring this? I doesn't appear that there are going to be any more opinions registered. I don't feel that Dimadick has given sufficient explanation of the opposition but I shouldn't be the one to make that judgement. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I find the supporting arguments based on the existing scope of the article more convincing than the argument based on the belief that someone else should someday expand the scope to include other topics. Propaniac (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Privileges on conversion?

Prior to the start of my ongoing overhaul, in one place, it stated "Voluntary conversion to Islam was greeted by the Ottoman authorities, accompanied by privileges." However, this is contradicted by "Regarding 'conversion accompanied by privileges'; a social group or millet such as 'Christian converted-Muslim rules' or 'Christian converted-Muslim privileges', which could be applied to a 'specific policy for conversion' did not exist." Which is it? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Split

Looking at the article it should have been called "Christianity in the Ottoman Empire"; and a seperate article written for "Judaism in the Ottoman Empire" Hugo999 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is already a History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire. I proposed moving whatever content about Judaism from this article to that one and moving this article to "Christianity in the Ottoman Empire".--Cattus ^talk 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Page has been moved. There was only a small amount of jewish content. What duplicated History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire I removed and the rest was left since it was only a passing mention that made more sense if left than if removed. Op47 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire more religiously tolerant than the Byzantine Empire??

Really? This article is extremely bias, but may I ask what reference there is for this statement? If none is forthcoming I will delete that piece asap. thanks. Reaper7 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think the Byzantine Empire was religiously tolerant? The article is not making the comparison to the Byzantine Empire, but if your question is specifically about the Byzantine Empire then the Armenian Church was only restored to Istanbul after the fall of Constantinople. They were previously persecuted as heretics. The comparison to the Byzantine Empire should be removed, but if that is the issue, I think you placed the tag in the wrong place. Please clarify which statement you want a source for. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The above comment is actually a response to a tag placed today, unfortunately I see now that it was added without opening a discussion. I will leave the tag in place in case anyone wants to comment, as the section it was added to could use some work. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Forced conversion

Eperoton, yes, when reliable sources disagree, we shouldn't take sides. That's exactly why this sentence needs to be removed. It contradicts a reliable primary source. Display name 99 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Display name 99: WP:NPOV is clear about what it means for us not to take sides: it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. You're welcome to reflect alternative viewpoints if they come from a prominent RS, but removing properly sourced content violates this policy. Also, I'm not sure if you're using "primary" in the way it's used on WP. If so, then we may not be able to use it here, depending on whether its use in this case would violate WP:NOR. Please consult WP:PRIMARY. Eperoton (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Eperoton, I have read Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. It states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." Doukas recounts a story of a Christian official in the Ottoman court who had displeased Sultan Murad II being forced to convert. He also tells of an archbishop being tortured in an attempt to get him to renounce his Christian faith. See Doukas XXVII 1-5 and Doukas XXII 7. Therefore, the statement that the devshirme was the only documented form of forced conversion in the Ottoman state is simply false. A good primary source documents two individual cases. Display name 99 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Per NPOV, our role is not to evaluate whether statements found in RSs are true or false. That said, I just checked the cited source, and there's a nuance in its phrasing which is not accurately reflected in the article. The source says As a part of their education, devşirme children underwent compulsory conversion to Islam, which is the only documented forced form of conversion organized by the Ottoman state (emphasis mine), while the article says "carried out". Isolated instances of forced conversion as the ones you mention would not be described as "organized". I've corrected this in the article, and thanks for prompting this correction.

As for using Doukas as source, the policy doesn't prohibit it, of course, as long as it doesn't involve interpretation on our part. Professional historians evaluate primary sources in various ways, and make statements of fact based on their analysis. Our use of primary sources can only be purely descriptive, and we should be careful not to give undue prominence to episodes taken from primary sources, where historians do not do so. I've just tried to find a secondary source which makes a statement about those episodes from Doukas, and I could not, at least in books that I can preview in Google Books. Given that the generalization has been corrected, it doesn't seem like it would be a matter of due weight to mention the episodes based purely on a primary source, in this section that describes conversion trends at the level of broad historical trends. Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit Eperoton. This is certainly an improvement. The episode of the forced conversion of the Christian official is recounted in a book published by Cambridge University Press called Byzantium Between the Ottomans and the Latins on pp. 142-143 (https://books.google.com/books/about/Byzantium_Between_the_Ottomans_and_the_L.html?id=li2hX2RqSlcC). I have added the word "systematic" to the sentence. Individual cases of forced conversion were still "organized," but they weren't part of a regular system, and I think that having this word best reflects that. I believe that the two cases should be briefly mentioned in one sentence of the article reading something like this: "The Byzantine historian Doukas recounts two individual cases of forced or attempted forced conversion: one of a Christian official who had offended Sultan Murad II, and the other of an archbishop." That would be the end of it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I think adding "systematic" is a reasonable clarification. Mentioning individual instances of forced conversion seems like excessive detail for this particular section, but the sentence you propose would be a good addition to Forced_conversion#Ottoman_Empire. Eperoton (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Eperoton, thank you. That works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Ok, I went ahead and added it there. Eperoton (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Points for article expansion

I think the current article is too largely focused on the golden age of the Ottoman Empire. It's important that it talk a little more about the missionaries, biblical archaeologists, and other busybodies who started poking around the empire in the mid and late 19th century. It certainly occurred and it would be good to have a base pointing out the main players, theaters, and—if any—notable successes or failures. — LlywelynII 03:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)