Talk:Abdul Hamid II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Abdul Hamid II: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
[edit] An event
An event in this article is a April 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML commment)
[edit] 209.158.161.194 nuisance
user (209.158.161.194) that was really cheap act of removing my added text.. it took me hours to make the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hameed_II). You cannot remove the article like that without good reason.. I have placed my sources very well. You should be banned for such stupid act. I didnt remove this article (Abdul_Hamid_II) but placed my article on another name (Abdul_Hameed_II).. so that ALL VIEWS SHOULD BE KNOWN.. Be Fair Enuf.
[edit] The Last True Emperor
Abdul Hamit II was the last good leader of the Ottoman Empire. After his reign, you can easily realize how fast the country lost power in the world arena. Also after his death, the Ottoman Dynasty became a puppet for military and political leaders. Abdul Hamid II tried every way to save the country. They argue that he destroyed all the navy power of the empire because he was afraid of navy generals to betray him. For example this was a good example for the lies that was made up to show that Abdul Hamit II was a bad person. The reality was different. Seapower of the empire was too old and ships were too powerless against new ships of the navies such as English ships. Also it was too expensive too keep them so Abdul Hamit Khan gave order to stop paying the bills of the ships. Only because of this fact, many people hated him but in reality he was a great leader. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please identify Image:Abdul Hamid Zia Pasha.jpg
Hi. The Image Image:Abdul Hamid Zia Pasha.jpg popped up on the commons with insufficient source. The Source says "Abdul Hamid Zia Pasha. 1825-1881", but we at the commons could not yet find such a guy. Could this be Abdul Hamid II? The birth dates and death dates do not match, but they look mightily similiar. Does anybody know? -- Chris 73 Talk 08:43, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, it seems that the image belongs to "Ziya Paşa (Ziya Pasha)", who was exiled by Abdülhamid, so the mismatch in the identification of the picture. Please check: http://www.geocities.com/tirnakli/ZIYA.html CeeGee 10:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] How about some de-Orientalizing of Abdul Hamid II ?
I mean cmone, the source for this is partialy Britanica from 1911 ? Boy, they sure dont have any prejudicial views on Abdulhamid.
[edit] Britanica from 1911
ABD-UL-HAMID II. (1842- ), sultan of Turkey, son of Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid, was born on the 21st of September 1842, and succeeded to the throne on the deposition of his brother Murad V., on the 31st of August 1876. He accompanied his uncle Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz on his visit to England and France in 1867. At his accession spectators were struck by the fearless manner in which he rode, practically unattended, on his way to be girt with the sword of Eyub. He was supposed to be of liberal principles, and the more conservative of his subjects were for some years after his accession inclined to regard him with suspicion as a too ardent reformer. But the circumstances of the country at his accession were ill adapted for liberal developments. Default in the public funds and an empty treasury, the insurrection in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, the war with Serbia and Montenegro, the feeling aroused throughout Europe by the methods adopted in stamping out the Bulgarian rebellion, all combined to prove to the new sultan that he could expect little aid from the Powers. But, still clinging to the groundless belief, for which British statesmen had, of late at least, afforded Turkey no justification, that Great Britain at all events would support him, he obstinately refused to give ear to the pressing requests of the Powers that the necessary reforms should be instituted. The international Conference which met at Constantinople towards the end of 1876 was, indeed, startled by the salvo of guns heralding the promulgation of a constitution, but the demands of the Conference were rejected, in spite of the solemn warnings addressed to the sultan by the Powers; Midhat Pasha, the author of the constitution, was exiled; and soon afterwards his work was suspended, though figuring to this day on the Statute-Book. Early in 1877 the disastrous war with Russia followed. The hard terms, embodied in the treaty of San Stefano, to which Abd-ul-Hamid was forced to consent, were to some extent amended at Berlin, thanks in the main to British diplomacy (see EUROPE, History); but by this time the sultan had lost all confidence in England, and thought that he discerned in Germany, whose supremacy was evidenced in his eyes by her capital being selected as the meeting-place of the Congress, the future friend of Turkey. He hastened to employ Germans for the reorganization of his finances and his army, and set to work in the determination to maintain his empire in spite of the difficulties surrounding him, to resist the encroachments of foreigners, and to take gradually the reins of absolute power into his own hands, being animated by a profound distrust, not unmerited, of his ministers. Financial embarrassments forced him to consent to a foreign control over the Debt, and the decree of December 1881, whereby many of the revenues of the empire were handed over to the Public Debt Administration for the benefit of the bondholders, was a sacrifice of principle to which he could only have consented with the greatest reluctance. Trouble in Egypt, where a discredited khedive had to be deposed, trouble on the Greek frontier and in Montenegro, where the Powers were determined that the decisions of the Berlin Congress should be carried into effect, were more or less satisfactorily got over. In his attitude towards Arabi, the would-be saviour of Egypt, Abd-ul-Hamid showed less than his usual astuteness, and the resulting consolidation of England's hold over the country contributed still further to his estrangement from Turkey's old ally. The union in 1885 of Bulgaria with Eastern Rumelia, the severance of which had been the great triumph of the Berlin Congress, was another blow. Few people south of the Balkans dreamed that Bulgaria could be anything but a Russian province, and apprehension was entertained of the results of the union until it was seen that Russia really and entirely disapproved of it. Then the best was made of it, and for some years the sultan preserved towards Bulgaria an attitude skilfully calculated so as to avoid running counter either to Russian or to German wishes. Germany's friendship was not entirely disinterested, and had to be fostered with a railway or loan concession from time to time, until in 1899 the great object aimed at, the Bagdad railway, was conceded. Meanwhile, aided by docile instruments, the sultan had succeeded in reducing his ministers to the position of secretaries, and in concentrating the mhole administration of the country into his own hands at Yildiz. But internal dissension was not thereby lessened. Crete was constantly in turmoil, the Greeks were dissatisfied, and from about 1890 the Armenians began a violent agitation with a view to obtaining the reforms promised them at Berlin. Minor troubles had occurred in 1892 and 1893 at Marsovan and Tokat. In 1894 a more serious rebellion in the mountainous region of Sassun was ruthlessly stamped out; the Powers insistently demanded reforms, the eventual grant of which in the autumn of 1895 was the signal for a series of massacres, brought on in part by the injudicious and threatening acts of the victims, and extending over many months and throughout Asia Minor, as well as in the capital itself. The reforms became more or less a dead letter. Crete indeed profited by the grant of extended privileges, but these did not satisfy its turbulent population, and early in 1897 a Greek expedition salled to unite the island to Greece. War followed, in which Turkey was easily successful and gained a small rectification of frontier; then .a few months later Crete was taken over "en depot" by the Four Powers---Germany and Austria not participating,---and Prince George of Greece was appointed their mandatory. In the next year the sultan received the visit of the German emperor and empress.
Abd-ul-Hamid had always resisted the pressure of the European Powers to the last moment, in order to seem to yield only to overwhelming force, while posing as the champion of Islam against aggressive Christendom. The Panislamic propaganda was encouraged; the privileges of foreigners in the Ottoman Empire-often an obstacle to government--were curtailed; the new railway to the Holy Places was pressed on, and emissaries were sent to distant countries preaching Islam and the caliph's supremacy. This appeal to Moslem sentiment was, however, powerless against the disaffection due to perennial misgovernment. In Mesopotamia and Yemen disturbance was endemic; nearer home, a semblance of loyalty was maintained in the army and among the Mussulman population by a system of delation and espionage, and by wholesale arrests; while, obsessed by terror of assassination, the sultan withdrew himself into fortified seclusion in the palace of Yildiz.
The national humiliation of the situation in Macedonia (q.v.), together with the resentment in the army against the palace spies and informers, at last brought matters to a crisis. The remarkable revolution associated with the names of Niazi Bey and Enver Bey, the young Turk leaders, and the Committee of Union and Progress is described elsewhere (see TURKEY, History); here it must suffice to say that Abd-ul-Hamid, on learning of the threat of the Salonica troops to march on Constantinople (July 23), at once capitulated. On the 24th an irade announced the restoration of the suspended constitution of 1875; next day, further irades abolished espionage and the censorship, and ordered the release of political prisoners. On the 10th of December the sultan opened the Turkish parliament with a speech from the throne in which he said that the first parliament had been "temporarily dissolved until the education of the people had been brought to a sufficiently high level by the extension of instruction throughout the empire."
The correct attitude of the sultan did not save him from the suspicion of intriguing with the powerful reactionary elements in the state, a suspicion confirmed by his attitude towards the counter-revolution of the 13th of April, when an insurrection of the soldiers and the Moslem populace of the capital overthrew the committee and the ministry. The comittee, restored by the Salonica troops, now decided on Abdul-Hamid's deposition, and on the 27th of April his brother Reshid Effendi was proclaimed sultan as Mahommed V. The ex-sultan was conveyed into dignified captivity at Salonica.
[edit] new chapter: Armenian Massacres
Isn't the death toll of 100 - 300'000 people justifying a separate chapter? Or was that a minor reform failure?--Apocolocynthosis 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for biased political opinions and made-up numbers. Next time when you write something here, support it with references, otherwise it is just another propaganda.
- I beg your pardon!
- Who are you? - There is no signature but plenty of rude language...You don't really welcome people this way....
- You should better read the article's text instead of harshly critizising my discussion title: Between 1894 and 1897, massacres of the Armenian populace began, resulting in the deaths of between 100 000 and 300 000 Armenians including men, women and children. This kind of death toll would not to be seen again until the Armenian Genocide in 1915. Some of the worst bloodshed was seen the province of Sasun. If necessary I can deliver references for my future contributions. But the article had been wrtitten long before my appearence here.--Apocolocynthosis 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Look, If now I decide to create a made-up massacre and if I have the power and money to publish and transfer my views, believe me in fifty years of time people like you will start to use my books as "sources". Russians funded some people, British also did. Then those people write articles about "massacres" to use them against the cracking Turkish empire. Deliogul 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rating: B-class
I rated this as B-class due to the fact that it has good pictures, and seems to have decent coverage of the time that he was Sultan, but it doesn't cover anything between his birth and becoming Sultan, not even the REASON his brother was deposed. Mdotley 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rationale for using "Ottoman Turkish" to introduce "عبد الحميد ثانی"
Formerly, the template {{ArB}} was being used to introduce "عبد الحميد ثانی", which was Abdülhamîd's name as written in the Ottoman version of the Arabic abjad. This is a mistake in two ways:
- For those just arriving at the page, they see this: عبد الحميد ثانی. This links to Arabic alphabet, which is roughly accurate insofar as a Persian-derived version of the Arabic abjad was used to write Ottoman Turkish. However, it is highly misleading: only the word "Arabic" appears as a link, giving the impression at a glance that the man was of Arabic origin in some way. Of course, reading the article should quickly dispel that impression, but there is no need to be initially misleading when accuracy is very easy to obtain.
- The bigger problem is the following: "عبد الحميد ثانی" (roughly, Abdülhamîd-i sânî) is not Arabic; that would be "عبد الحميد الشان" (roughly, ‘Abdu’l-Hamid as-sānī). The original insertion of the Arabic script was made by a user whose native language was Arabic, and who seemingly has no knowledge of Ottoman Turkish. While that user's efforts are to be commended, they are also incorrect insofar as the Arabic definite article "ال" was not used for enumerating rulers in Ottoman Turkish. Thus, putting the word "Arabic" before the name "عبد الحميد ثانی"—as the name would be written in the language that Abdülhamîd used—is fundamentally wrong.
Given these points, I think that—rather than using the {{ArB}} template, which presents information wrongly—the link to the Ottoman Turkish language (wherein the Ottoman version of the Arabic abjad is outlined) should stay. Any thoughts on this issue? —Saposcat 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think you missed the ی in the Arabic version. It should be "عبد الحميد الشانی". And the only difference is that the Arabic version adds the definite article, and the Persian/Turkish version leaves it out, quite a long-shot from insinuating that it's an entirely different language. The reason for the different scripts in the intro is to give useful information, and since most people would want to know the Arabic script and the modern Turkish transliteration, that's what should be there. Claiming that it's Ottoman Turkish just confuses the issue, and I suspect there is some kind of political motivation. I suggest the following intro:
- ‘Abdu’l-Ḥamīd II (عبد الحميد الشانى Turkish: İkinci Abdülhamid) (September 21, 1842 – February 10, 1918)
- And the same goes for ‘Abdu’l-Hamid I. Peace Cuñado
- Talk 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The paragraph
This source for example, is definately verifiable. It also seems pretty neutral to me. If there are sources that contradict it, they can be added. However, removing sourced material is not OK. —Khoikhoi 04:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see how that source is "verifiable" or neutral. Not only does it reproduce the usual propaganda but it introduces a demonstrably false fabrication, that Abdul Hamid settled refugees from the Balkans in Armenian lands. This is a blatant attempt to obscure the fact that Muslims were a huge majority in every area in which Armenians lived in an attempt to lend legitimacy to Armenian claims over these lands - and to call into question the Ottoman Empire's legitimacy, and by association, Turkey's. The vast majority of Balkan refugees were settled in areas of the Balkans that remained in the Ottoman Empire. Very, very few were settled in Armenia, which was mountainous, had poor communications, and was totally incapable of absorbing any number of immigrants.
Actual scholarly references include Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy, and Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics by Kemal Karpat. Jpiccone 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)jpiccone
- Justin McCarthy is about as reputable a historian as David Irving. If he states a view that the massacres did not happen then you can add in his thoughts, but McCarthy's ideas contradict those of most Western historians and can't be taken as the mainstream opinion. -- Augustgrahl 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Justin McCarthy is quite reputable as a historian except in the minds of Armenian propagandists, who have no interest in actual history in any case. McCarthy does not in any way deny that massacres occurred, and you are quite mistaken, his views are quite in accord with those of the vast majority of Mid East scholars. In fact, there are no scholars of any repute that deny that massacres occurred; the debate is over the reasons why they happened and the scope. The ludicrous figure of 300,000 in the 1890s is more or less drawn out of thin air and has not one single bit of evidence to support it. The consular officals of all the Western powers came up with a figure of 20,000-25,000 in the provinces and 6,000-7,000 in Istanbul, the figure used by Britannica until the 70's. McCarthy draws all the Armenian ire because he's one of the few scholars who wasn't silenced by the Armenian terror campaign in the 80s that saw the bombing of Prof Stanford Shaw's house and death threats to the long list of scholars who signed a petition to Congress that takes a position identical to McCarthy's. I suppose none of these are "reputable" historians either.
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/7124/letter.html
The Armenian petition, in contrast, was signed by a bunch of poets and authors, and Susan Sontag.
http://www.ids.net/~gregan/pet_pb.html
Instead of baseless smears on the reputations of scholars whose works you clearly haven't even read, why don't you try to back up your arguments with actual evidence?
The disingenous use of the word "denialist" that Armenians use to label anyone, anywhere, that hold any opinion contrary to their dogma deliberately obscures the fact that nobody disagrees that the WWI death toll amongst the Armenians was massive. The difference is that the Armenians claim that it was a racially-motivated attempt to purify Anatolia of non-Turkish elements whereas the Turkish position is that it was an attempt to save the state at any cost under desperate circumstances. That millions of Muslims were slaughtered in the wars between 1876-1923, including by Armenians, is conveniently overlooked.Jpiccone 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Jpiccone
- I'm not going to start debating the veracity of the Armenian Genocide here, it's completely irrelevant and wouldn't accomplish much of anything. Please find me one real, non-Turkish, peer-reviewed and reputable scholarly source giving any support to McCarthy's views, not petitions. -- Augustgrahl 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protected
Due to the continous disruption of this page by anonymous users, I'm protecting the article. -- Augustgrahl 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- You can't protect it—you're not an admin. :p Please remove the tag (or list this page on WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 19:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah yes. Well I'm an admin and I have :-) William M. Connolley 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I apologize for my ignorance concerning protecting articles, but my actions were well intended. -- Augustgrahl 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Tir-i Müjgân - Armenian?
I've came across to many uncreditable claims that AH2 was partly an Armenian, but in none of those, Armenianness of the sultan was attributed to this Tirimüjgân Kadınefendi. They instead claimed that actual mother of AH2 was an Armenian dancer (?) at the court, with whom so-called 'casanova' Abdülmecid had some intercourse. The story is like, "A circassian girl in the court (this is Tirimüjgân) was announced to be his mother, however, he was the son of an Armenian dancer." These are told in a rather pejorative manner as you can see. But even those people agree that Tirimüjgân was not an Armenian woman. For the time being, I'll be contented with a citation-nneeded tag, but I am planning to remove that if it is not verified by an appropriate source. Okan 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
–The story that Tirimüjgân was Armenian persists because Abdul Hamid was thought to have Armenian features (whatever that means), being darker than his father or brothers. The name Tirimüjgân is of Persian origin, but that doesn't mean anything as she was likely given a new name in the Harem. "Müjgân" is "eyelashes", but I don't know what the "Tir-i" refers to.
In any case, it doesn't really matter what AH2's ethnicity was, he was the Padişah, which makes him about as Ottoman as Ottoman can get. Jpiccone 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)jpiccone
[edit] Adding category
Added Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#"By-source categories"—DomBot / ChiDom talk 07:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
