Talk:Neo-Ottomanism

Turkish → Ottoman

The first sentence says:

Neo-Ottomanism (Turkish: Yeni Osmanlıcılık) is a political ideology that in its broadest sense, promotes greater engagement with formerly Turkish ruled areas of the Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Empire was not Turkish ruled. OE was not a nation state, but empire which included a lot of different nations. There were Greeks, Albanians, Serbs,.... who were highly positioned in Ottoman hierarchy. Also, readers could be mislead that Ottoman Empire was divided on areas controlled by ethnic Turks and areas controlled by non-Turks.

Therefore I propose to replace "with formerly Turkish ruled areas of the Ottoman Empire" with "in territories which once belonged to Ottoman Empire".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But I think we'd better add the sentence: "Turkey sees itself as only heir of the Ottoman Empire." Takabeg (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree if such statement is well sourced. Though, in that case I would say "a political ideology which sees Turkey as the only heir of the Ottoman Empire."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we use this source ? Takabeg (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a policy of verifiability and request which says exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Journal founded by NGO which "holds the conviction that the process of European integration is of crucial importance for Turkey, and that belonging solidly in the transatlantic security and value frameworks" might be seen by somebody as publisher non-neutral from the subject. I don't know much about situation in Turkey. Who is the author of the text in that journal? Are there some additional sources which support such exceptional claim?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Murat Somer, Sustainable Democratization and The Roles of The U.S.and The EU: Political Islam and Kurdish Nationalism in Turkey, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3 - Fall 2006 / The Euro-Atlantic: Fit For Global Action? Takabeg (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In the same vein, Davutoglu argues that Turkey is the natural heir to the Ottoman Empire that once unified the Muslim world and therefore has the potential to become a Muslim regional power. R. Harris, Jerry Harris, The Nation in the Global Era: Conflict and Transformation, BRILL, 2009, p. 394.. Takabeg (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Murat Somer is scholar who is authoritative in this field and can be regarded as RS (reliable source). I think that above mentioned sources can be used to support the claim "political ideology that in its broadest sense, promotes Turkey as the only heir of the Ottoman Empire". The source clearly indicates that Turkey is also perceived by others like the only heir of the Ottoman Empire. Not only by itself. I would avoid statement which say what Turkey thinks or sees despite the expressions used in sources. Turkey is country. A country can not see or think or promote. Political ideology can promote. That is my opinion, but I am very open to hear other opinions of course.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias

In one lie it clearly states the others opinion that the Turkish are aggressive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.115.20.86 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because they are?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.142.220 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing attempt

I have reverted this edit [1] on the grounds that it 1) removed a scholarly source (Middle East Critique), 2) is a pretty obvious attempt to sanitize and whitewash the topic, and 3) introduced the absurdity that Neo-Ottomanism is rejected by the Erdogan government, when it is plain as day that is in fact the Erdogan government that is promoting Neo-Ottomanism. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

1. The source itself is not the problem. The problem is false citing. It's abusing the source to write WP:ORIGINAL text on Wikipedia. The text doesn't match the content of the source. It fails WP:VERIFY. The only way your version will survive is to download the journal as I did, and pinpoint to me the page and text matching the text in Wiki.

2. I can't even take this point seriously. I'm not sure how it is "sanitized" and "whitewashed" here, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion I guess.

3. So what? Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. YOU may think that the government is promoting Neo-Ottomanism. Heck, the government might even (deliberately or undeliberately) really promote Neo-Ottomanism. But this doesn't change the fact that key policy makers of the government expressed rejection of the concept neo-Ottomanism, as provided by the 2 sources. --Randam (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice that the title of the source is "Imperial Grandeur"? Anyway, it's not hard to find additional sources about the imperialist nature of Neo-Ottomanism [2]. More can certainly be added to the article if you'd like. As for "whitewashing", that is a very apt description of what you are attempting. Blandly describing a foreign policy that seeks to grab territory, support jihadis, and redraw the map of the Middle East as "a political, social and economic philosophy that, in its broadest sense, accepts the Ottoman past as a reference point for the present and the future" is whitewashing to put it mildly. And "so what" is not an argument. Btw what is IGI Global? Who is the author of the piece you are citing? Khirurg (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your reply makes 2 things clear. (1) You haven't read the source beyond the title. Because the "Imperial Grandeur and Selective Memory" isn't referring to neo-ottomanism, but about the public. Don't judge a book by its cover. (2) This is the most funny part: You didn't even read the available abstract. As it literally states that the term has "wide range of interpretations". Yet you try to mold it in a single particular interpretation.

What IGI Global is you can read on their website: ... a leading international academic publisher committed to facilitating the discovery of pioneering research that enhances and expands the body of knowledge available to the research community. Working in close collaboration with expert researchers and professionals from leading institutions, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Tsinghua University, and Australian National University...

By saying things like neo-ottomanism is about "supporting jihadis", your molding the term to the recent Erdogan foreign policy (as perceived by some), while neo-ottomanism is larger than that. The term is way older than any Erdogan government policy.

And yes, "so what" is an argument when you fail to prove the relevancy of one thing to another. Government says A, but does B (according to you). This doesn't give you the right to delete A or B. --Randam (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Khirurg, I just had to revert Randam for edits which are contentious and lack the necessary consensus [3]. The editor is urged to refrain from further disruption like this as it appear to be an whitewashing attempt of a doctrine for which the international media report to be nationalist, Islamist and expansionist in its core. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I took the time and updated abit the article by adding more sources from journalists and analysts across the world confirming the doctrine's expansionist and interventionist nature. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased article

I suggest deletion of anything related to Erdogan and AKP without references in this article. Erdogan and his party AKP was completely against the ideology of Nationalism until its coalition at 2018.[4][5][6] BerkBerk68^talk 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources which call Neo-Ottomanism Islamist?

While I have other concerns with this article, I know my opinions on this matter are outside academic consensus in some places, so I will simply be pointing out that "Islamist" has been added without discussion or sourcing. We've had this discussion before in the AKP page, and no one has provided good enough sourcing for a claim like this. If the situation is the same here, I do not see a reason why "Islamist" should stay. Uness232 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing it since there have not been objections. Uness232 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)