Talk:Janissary Corps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Janissary Corps is an object of lasting interest for the historians of the Ottoman empire.[edit]

Since an editor disputes the right of this article to exist independently, I am moving the discussion of it here.

I only note that there are a number of scientific studies of the janissary corps as an institution, and not of the janissary wars. I quote here the beginning of the summary from a special book: "The Janissary Corps is an object of lasting interest for the historians of the Ottoman empire. Its formation and role in the military expansion of the Ottomans and in the home policy of the Empire as well as the long process of its decline are invariably present in all general studies in Ottoman history. The specialized researches on its development or special aspects of this development are not scarce too. With few exceptions, however, they study it as a military formation, an element of the mechanism of Ottoman centralism". Станислав Минков (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please do not create a new page at Janissary Corps, as the topic is identical to Janissary. Please add any new material to the latter. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 05:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the topic is completely different! The article is about the Ottoman institution.

It's like mixing the personality of the presidents with the presidential institution! Станислав Минков (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article. It is exactly about the Janissary institution itself (see sections like 'Organization' or 'Corps strength'. Constantine ✍ 15:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. So those parts of the article should come or go with this article, not the other way around.--Станислав Минков (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The Janissaries and the Janissary Corps refer to the same historical subject. Unlike the categories, where you can have a 'Janissaries' category about individual members, and it makes sense to separate the institutional aspects under 'Janissary Corps', there does not, and can not, exist an article about the Janissaries as anything other than a military unit. This can be very well seen in the Turkish Wikipedia, where the category 'Kategori:Yeniçeri Ocağı' has as main article 'Yeniçeri'. Please move any new/missing information you have into Janissary. And please use references to WP:RS. Constantine ✍ 19:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! You want to merge two topics. There is a separate article on the Ottoman dynasty and another on the List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire.

The characteristic of a janissary or janissaries is a separate topic from that of their military part! --Станислав Минков (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging Janissary Corps into the pre-existing page Janissary, along with possibly a renaming of the latter to 'Janissaries'. The two pages deal in exact the same single topic, namely the Janissary institution, military corps and its history. Constantine ✍ 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support FWIW, I agree that adding a new article would result in two articles about essentially the same institution or group with substantial overlap. It might make the Janissary article a bit longer if some detail in the new article should be added to it, but it appears that it would be not much. If it were to make the article significantly longer, of course, a new article could be considered with "further information" links to the other article, but that doesn't seem to be the situation. The other two titles "Janissary Corps" and either "Janissary" or "Janissaries", whichever is not the remaining article title, should be redirects. Without knowing how readers might usually search for the article, I am indifferent to the change in title, but I suspect there would be little if any searching under the proposed Janissary Corps title. Donner60 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge At the moment, this would probably just mean a redirect (as Janissary Corps redirected before). The new article is so far completely unreferenced and seems much inferior, as well as shorter. The title should stay as Janissary. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging Janissary Corps to Janissary, then renaming to Janissaries, as proposed. - wolf 07:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP tries to avoid plural titles if at all possible - see WP:PLURAL. Also compare Category:18th- and 19th-century warrior types - Lancer, Hussar etc are singular. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really convinced. We have numerous articles with plural titles, (eg: United States Army Rangers, instead of "US Army Ranger", and many, many, many more. I think in each of those cases, the plural form is more appropriate, and I believe the same goes for this page as well. - wolf 14:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before reacting like a football match to the merger, one should look into the semantics and respect the academic tradition. I don't see arguments? Станислав Минков (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORK. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also User talk:Станислав Минков#Janissaries, Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Before reacting like a football match to the merger, one should look into the semantics and respect the academic tradition. I don't see arguments?" - You know how they say you should never be assuming things, because it makes an 'ass' outta 'u' and someone named 'ming'? You shouldn't be assuming that I just "reacted like a football match"(?) to support the merger. I looked at the two articles, their subject matter and their sizes, and of course I considered the OP, but what really convinced me was the the discussion at your talk page. Your comments convinced me that a merger was the best way to proceed here. Thanks - wolf 14:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (incl. renaming to Janissaries). Former article is already dealing with the Janissaries as an institution, no effective rationale has been provided for two separate articles.--Phso2 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soldier and army have never been, are not and never will be the same concept!!Станислав Минков (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting merge above, but the naming question is a separate issue, which can be covered in a later discussion. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the opinion is overwhelming that this is the same topic, that the current version of Janissary Corps contains no new useful material, and as the author of this article has been globally blocked for sockpuppetry, I will simply redirect Janissary Corps to Janissary. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janissary_Corps&oldid=1151213990"