From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmed III article.
|
|
|
|
Article policies
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. |
|
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| More information about this article... |
|
|
|
The following comments have been left for this page:
Start - far too short to be anything else. Needs more information. Aboutmovies 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (edit) |
|
[edit] Comments
[edit] Page move
The correct transliteration of this name is Ahmad. See WP:MOS-AR. There is no standard which uses an "E" in transliteration, and there is definitely no primary transliteration for this individual. Cuñado 
- Talk 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Online encyclopedias provide their readers with instant access to information on any number of topics. However, information is a neutral sounding term, connoting impartiality and objectivity. The majority of these articles provide an interpretation of historical persons and events. Even if they are merely listing facts, depending on what they include and exclude, or emphasize and understate, these articles are providing a biased perspective. It is the responsibility of the reader to discern and be mindful of such bias. This article is about Sultan Ahmed III, who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1703 to 1730. The article’s point of view is unfocused and sometimes even contradictory. It tends to portray Ahmed III as a decadent and extravagant ruler whose lavish spending led to an insurrection that deposed him. There is even a picture included, showing a troupe dancing at the Sultan’s 14 day celebration of his son’s circumcision. Yet, the article also praises Ahmed for leaving the financial state of the Ottoman Empire in a “flourishing condition,” and doing so without “excessive taxation or extortion procedure.” The article does not explain why the Ottoman people would join the janissaries and the military in overthrowing Ahmed III if he had managed the finances of the state ably and justly. Moreover, the table in the “References” section divides the duration of the Ottoman Empire into five stages. Ahmed’s reign is listed in the “stagnation” period. Yet beforehand, the article commends the Sultan for being a patron of the arts and literature, setting up the first printing press in Istanbul and using the Phanariotes to better administer the Danubian Prinicipalities. It would appear as if his reign was a period of economic and cultural prosperity, not of stagnation and decline. The article also leaves a tremendous gap in the biography of the ruler, omitting the period of his life between 1711 and 1730. From convincingly defeating the Russians in the Prut Campaign of 1711 and coming closer than any other Ottoman ruler to “breaking the power of his northern rival” to abdicating his throne in a popular rebellion and dying in confinement, Ahmed III undergoes a substantial transformation in these missing 19 years. The article, however, makes no mention of this period nor provides adequate reasoning for the dramatic shift. Later on, the author makes a passing reference to loss of territory in the Balkans after the defeat of the Turkish forces by the Austrians in 1718, but this information is not placed within the proper chronology of Ahmed’s rule and therefore made irrelevant. The factual integrity of the article is also called into question. The author states that Ahmed’s reign was marred by military disasters in the Great Turkish War. Yet the Wikipedia article detailing the said war lists its dates as 1667–1683 and 1683–1699, while Ahmed did not ascend the throne until 1703, four years after the conclusion of the Great Turkish War. Therefore, he could not be held responsible for the Turkish defeats in these military campaigns. Perhaps what the author meant was that Ahmed’s regime was negatively affected by the long-term effects of the Great Turkish War, but that is not made neither clear nor explicit. There is also a sense that the Turkish sultanate during this period of “stagnation” was politically unstable and susceptible to revolution. Ahmed came to power after his brother abdicated the throne, only to be deposed himself later on. There is no peaceful transfer of power. The implication here is that the Sultan was in vulnerable ruler who did not have absolute control over his realm. This is made obvious through Ahmed who was overthrown merely by seventeen janissaries and rumors of a Safavid invasion. The use of a double negative, “not unsuccessful,” to describe Ahmed’s reign is also curious. It is as if the author cannot wholly believe or admit that a Turkish Sultan during this time can have a thriving reign. In addition, there is an implicit assumption that the Ottoman Empire is weak compared to other European states during the period. Ahmed had to establish diplomatic relations with Britain to guard himself against the threat that Russia posed. He also provided refuge to Charles XII of Sweden, perhaps in hopes of ingratiating himself with Sweden (if Charles were to be restored to power) or the other Northern Countries who were also wary of Russia’s power. Ultimately, the author paints a slightly favorable portrait of Sultan Ahmed III. Although he may have been politically weak and was susceptible to “excessive pomp and costly luxury,” he was a competent and fair ruler. He did not levy heavy taxes or extort money from his people while at the same time keeping the country’s finances in good condition. Through his imperial patronage he supported the arts, literature and the printing press. Even when he was deposed, he accepted his fate honorably and pledged allegiance to the new Sultan, his nephew. And although Ahmed lost territory to the Hapsburg Empire in 1718, the author contends that his reign was not unsuccessful because he acquired land from the Persians and provinces from the Russians. Overall, he maitained the territorial integrity of the empire. The majority (perhaps even all) of the article’s weaknesses come from its sources. The author uses two vastly outdated sources: the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1910–1911) and the History of Ottoman Turks (1878). The Wikipedia article concerning the Eleventh Edition states that modern scholars have ceased using its articles as sources and instead are only valued as “cultural artifacts.” The History of Ottoman Turks is even more outdated than the Encyclopædia Britannica, and could contain factually obsolete information. These archaic sources may not take into account new perspectives or theories developed since 1878 to interpret Turkish history, and Ahmed’s role in it. Perhaps the use of late ninetheeth and early twentieth century sources contributed to the underlying orientalists themes in the article. British Orientalism viewed Arabs as decadent and racially inferior, and their rulers as cruel and despotic. Such a backward culture would be in dire need of Western help and guidance. Ahmed III, who lived a life of splendor and decadence, sought help from the West to protect against Russia. In essence, he was a stereotypical orientalist depitction of a Turkish Sultan.
- Firstly, try not to delete information from the talk page: it's simply not a good practice; anyhow, I've readded it.
- Secondly—to give a very brief response to a very long critique—you're basically right (as far as I know, anyhow). The only slight flaw in your critique is the number of times you refer to "the author" of the article: this being Wikipedia, there is no single author of the article. What probably happened was this: originally, when Wikipedia was beginning, someone just dumped everything from the 1911 Britannica into here so as to give a starting point (that sort of thing happened a whole hell of a lot). Then, the article as it stood got tweaked and slightly twisted a bit and was given a bit more from another (outdated) source, but the basic prejudiced Britannica foundation remained ... because—let's be honest—few English-speaking Wikipedians care enough about Ahmed III to try and completely revamp the article. So my suspicion is, the real "author" of the article is probably in fact none other than those two outdated sources, as slightly reworded by others.
- Thirdly, my suggestion is that—since you seem to care and be knowledgable enough about the subject—you take the time and rework the article yourself. That would be a worthwhile change. Cheers. —Saposcat 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
