Tags: Cruel Angel Thesis 2009 VersionProcess Essay How To Lose Weight Without Losing Your MindLouisiana Homework HelpCreative Writing Exercises KidsWalking Essays SidgwickThe Report Card Book ReadFamous Dissertation QuotesSample Questionnaires For Research PaperMy High School Experiences Essay
It's true that İnalcık retained more elements of the decline thesis than most other scholars, but he was also the man who popularized the notion of transformation: İnalcık, Halil."Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700." Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.Chamboz (talk) , 3 September 2018 (UTC) An editor has recently dropped a huge amount of text into this article from a different page (increasing its size by almost 30%), apparently in an attempt to merge the two articles.
Chamboz (talk) , 3 September 2018 (UTC)To build on this - what I encourage you to do is to let me know where the article left you confused and what aspects of it you found to be unclear.
That would give me, and anyone else who happens to be familiar with Ottoman historiography, a better idea of where it's missing the mark when approached by an audience unfamiliar with the field, and thus a sense of what needs the most improving.
On the eve of the American Revolution, slavery was recognized and accepted throughout the New World.
All of the major European powers at one time or another entered the Atlantic slave trade, just as most of them possessed slave colonies.
Even were İnalcık still alive, it would still be fair to say that there is no mainstream scholar who supports the decline thesis.
Chamboz (talk) , 25 August 2017 (UTC) This article reads like a straw man argument, i.e., it suggests a specific formulation of the "decline" hypothesis which is easy to dispute, and then disputes it.
Very one-sided and subjective, sounds more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article.
Is the situation similar in other articles in Wiki Project Ottoman Empire? Nozulani (talk) , 26 December 2016 (UTC) I don't see how it's one-sided and subjective when it's based very thoroughly in the academic literature. Chamboz (talk) , 26 December 2016 (UTC) It's one-sided because it gives impression that the decline has been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars, when in fact several eminent scholars have supported it at least in part, the late Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert to name two. Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline,'" History Compass 1 (2003), 1.
Instead it's just a collection of musings on various aspects of Ottoman history post-16th century.
I think most of it would need to be removed or heavily reworked in order to fit into the article.