Talk:Ottoman Palestine

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era.

Time period

What is the reasoning behind this edit? Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to link to the precise subsection. Isn't that obvious? Debresser (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

@Greyshark09: Regarding redirecting this article to History of Palestine#Ottoman era instead of Ottoman Syria, what's the issue? You didn't leave a reason in your edit summary or here at the talk page. There is much more information that is actually about the region of Palestine during Ottoman rule in History of Palestine/Ottoman era, than in Ottoman Syria, which is basically a list of the administrative divisions of the Syria (region) (including Palestine and Lebanon) during Ottoman rule. Coverage of the Palestine region during Ottoman rule is very detailed and extensive in the History of Palestine/Ottoman era so this is where the redirect should lead. A reader searching "Ottoman Palestine" is most likely looking for information about Palestine under the Ottomans not the administrative divisions of Ottoman Syria. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of potential redirects which we can consider. Your opinion is certainly valid, but you have to consider that in my opinion there are better ones. Here are the option for "Ottoman Palestine":

Ottoman Syria - including all possible Ottoman administrative references, which can be considered as "Palestine"
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem - a specific sub-district of Ottoman Syria, which used to be sometimes named Ottoman Palestine by Westerners
History of Palestine#Ottoman era - your opinion

You should also ask other editors of this page, whether they agree with your proposal - @Debresser and Chesdovi:.GreyShark (dibra) 07:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original link was to Palestine, then to Palestine#Ottoman rule (1516–1831 CE), then to Palestine#Ottoman rule (1841–1917), then to Palestine again. Then I redirected it to Palestine#Ottoman_period, then somebody else to Ottoman Syria, which was then reverted. Then Palestine#Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods, then Ottoman Syria again. Etc. In June I reverted a change with "Per previous discussions and consensus. Want to change? Talk it over." Can't remember where this was discussed. But it does make sense to use the more specific article. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutassarifate of Jerusalem only came about in the 19th century, before that the article only covers information about Jerusalem Sanjak and not the rest of Palestine. @Debresser: To be clear, do you think it should redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era or Palestine (region)#Ottoman era? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had in mind that Ottoman Syria is the more specific article. On the other hand, that article is not very informative, more a list of administrative divisions. Let me think about it a bit. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Palestine (region)#Ottoman era. That article seems to contain more information, and less political allusions. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section is a summary of the far more informative History of Palestine#Ottoman era. If you have issues with the content of the latter, that's a separate discussion. I'm not totally opposed to redirecting it to the Palestine article, but wouldn't that just be an unnecessary middleman (for lack of a better word) to the History of Palestine article-Ottoman era? In any case, it's better than redirecting it to Ottoman Syria. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - currently Ottoman Israel also redirects to Ottoman Syria. I guess if the Ottoman Palestine link is to direct to the proper period of Palestine (region)#Ottoman era or History of Palestine#Ottoman era articles, the same would apply in case of Ottoman Israel - redirecting to Land of Israel#Ottoman era or History of Israel#Ottoman era. right?GreyShark (dibra) 21:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That is a bit of a trick question. After all, Ottoman Israel and Ottoman Palestine are the same. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an Ottoman era section at Land of Israel, but we do have History of Israel#Ottoman rule (1517–1920) and Israel#Ottoman Empire. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same, yet we have separate articles for them. However, this redirect specifically says "Ottoman Palestine" so naturally it would correlate with the "History of Palestine" article. I can't agree with the argument that because the Land of Israel doesn't have an Ottoman era section we shouldn't redirect Ottoman Palestine to the History of Palestine article. After all, you agreed to redirect Ottoman Palestine to the Palestine (region) article, which only summarizes the major events of Ottoman rule, so what's the issue with linking it to the main section on Ottoman rule in Palestine? Again, the main thing we have to consider is that a person who is searching for "Ottoman Palestine" is looking for a comprehensive article on the Ottoman era in Palestine. The redirect is just meant to take the reader who searched the term to the article he was looking for. I don't have a problem with redirecting Ottoman Israel to one of the two links you just mentioned above though, so we might have a two-tiered solution here. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, we have three options. Or keep both Ottoman Israel and Ottoman Palestine as redirects to Ottoman Syria, which is not a very informative article. Or redirect Ottoman Israel to History of Israel#Ottoman rule (1517–1920), and Ottoman Palestine to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. Or redirect Ottoman Israel to Israel#Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman Palestine to Palestine (region)#Ottoman era. Since, as we all agree, these Ottoman Israel and Ottoman Palestine are the same, it makes sense IMHO that they should redirect to the same article, which means keeping the status quo. Even though that article is not very informative, I think that option should be preferred to an option which allows for two different contents for one and the same region. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to expand Ottoman Syria article, since this is quite an important article for the regional history. In any case, Ottoman Israel and Ottoman Palestine both were a part of Ottoman Syria provincial areas, no matter how we define them (whether Land of Israel, modern Israel, Region of Palestine or modern State of Palestine). Besides that, I do not agree that Land of Israel and Region of Palestine are the same: overlapping to some degree - yes, but not the same. GreyShark (dibra) 12:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to expand this article, I think we can all agree that that is the best solution. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to expand the article I'm all for it, obviously. However, I don't agree at all to this proposed solution. It defies common sense. Keep in mind that Ottoman Syria was not an official entity/province (only in the mid-19th century was there a Syria Vilayet and it didn't even include Palestine or the Lebanon). It too is just a geographic region, like Palestine. Also the discussion about Ottoman Israel doesn't have to be roped into this discussion, but like I said above it can also redirect to History of Palestine-Ottoman era, or Land of Israel-Ottoman era. Ottoman Syria is a bad option for both. We're talking about a redirect here. It is supposed to do its simple job by leading the reader to the destination that was most likely sought after. And let's be reasonable, that destination is not Ottoman Syria. I hope you both reconsider based on these considerations. We might be approaching a deadlock though, and I will open an RfC hopefully this week. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I understand that Ottoman Syria simply doesn't have what it takes. Well, if there were no such regions, and the word Ottoman is not an administrative qualifier, but qualifies an epoch, then the redirect to "History of" makes more sense. The only problem is that I am not happy with two different redirects for what obviously is the same region. Perhaps we can just delete these two terms, as being non-existent? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you not liking the two terms linking to separate articles shouldn't be a factor in where we decide to redirect Ottoman Palestine, which is the specific topic of this discussion. I don't see an issue in redirecting them to the same article or separate articles, but the discussion about Ottoman Israel shouldn't hold back a solution for the redirect of "Ottoman Palestine". Deletion is not the solution either since this is just a redirect; it is essentially the lazy version of "History of Palestine during Ottoman rule" (less people would search for the latter than for "Ottoman Palestine"). --Al Ameer (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my not liking has a good reason, I think it is reason to lay off a decision till such time as there is a consensus what to do with both these redirects. We could also turn them into disambiguation pages: for the region, see... ; for the historical era see... Debresser (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting because I was actually thinking along the same lines i.e. a temporary dab page until we find the best solution. I might request an RfC since I feel we're going in circles here and maybe some outside opinion might help, although I still strongly believe that the most logical solution is to redirect it to History of Palestine#Ottoman era (in fact, I might split off the latter into its own article eventually since it has become quite large). For now, I've changed Ottoman Palestine to a dab page. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same for Ottoman Israel, copying your edit and the change I made to it. I don't think there is need to open an Rfc, unless there will be objections to turning these two pages into disambiguation pages. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I (or anyone else) splits off the section "History of Palestine#Ottoman era" to a separate article called "History of Palestine under Ottoman rule" then I believe the already strong (and practically obvious) case for redirecting "Ottoman Palestine" to the epoch will become even stronger. If and when that happens, I'll return here to see if you or Greyshark have reconsidered your current positions. If we're still in a deadlock, then I'll put the discussion up for an RfC. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the changes I just made to this article. As it stands, the proposed page does not respect the guidelines for a dab page. A dab page is about ambiguous titles, being 'one' or 'the other'. That's not the case here. This topic covers a wide historic spectrum which seems to be covered by multiple articles. So there should be an article, whether a broad concept article or not, which reflects just that.

The more pressing issue is that this page has more than one hundred links hanging off it. So unless you can propose a solution to deal with those, this page shouldn't be tagged as a dab page. --Midas02 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midas, you will establish consensus first, or risk being reported. Now that you are aware that this was discussed, you have no right to enforce your point of view without establishing consensus first. Your claim that there are a hundred incoming links has absolutely no bearing on the issue.

The WP:DAB page say clearly that there are two scenarios for a DAB page, the second being "Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." That one for sure applies. In addition, the first one applies as well, since the term "Ottoman Palestine" may refer to either the administrative division of the Ottoman Empire, or the region in the time of Ottoman rule.

I realize the current situation is not the best one, and my strong opinion as to where Ottoman Palestine should redirect is known (see above). I've decided to hold off from further discussions about this (since I'm tired of repeating what I believe to be common sense reasoning over and over for nothing) or opening an RfC until an article about Palestine's history under the Ottomans is created. If the current situation is simply unacceptable from a technical standpoint then that's another story. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct Al Ameer. From a policy standpoint, this page is not a dab page. It's more of a "it's a bit of this, and also a bit of that" page, and therefore cannot carry a disambiguation tag, apart from not respecting the dab page conventions. But more worryingly, it's now shining high and dry on the list of links to dab pages to be cleaned up [1], and it's only a matter of days before people will start tearing those links apart, believing this needs to be cleaned up. So until this page can be sorted out, I'll stick a tag on it so it doesn't get disambiguated. --Midas02 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are a normal thing, so why would there be a problem? Debresser (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here through the quickly closed ANI report. While making this a DAB page is not the best ultimate solution it looks to be reasonable and the best solution for now. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser it is a problem as a dab, as others have said. I tagged for cleanup. Superficially History of Palestine#Ottoman_era (History of Palestine during Ottoman rule) seems the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If so, with only two entries the dab additionally fails WP:TWODABS so should redirect to that with a hatnote for the second entry. Widefox; talk 10:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with people who work at dab that 1. they can't read the discussion above 2. they feel they just have to make an edit to this page, making a third attempt to add yet another template? There is no dispute about the fact that Ottoman Palestine can refer equally to two things, and that is why this page exists and should exist precisely the way it is. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main issues regarding the disambiguation-cleanup tag are 1) there should be only one ~~redlink~~ blue link per entry and the first entry at present fails this; 2) the ambiguous term should appear explicitly in the linked articles, all the linked articles at present fail this (well, Palestine (region) has some mentions of the term as titles of cited reference works, but nothing in the article itself that explicitly describes the ambiguity and Ottoman Syria is categorized with Category:Ottoman Palestine, but likewise nothing in the article itself that explicitly describes the ambiguity--and it is doubly odd that the other articles here are not in that category). older ≠ wiser 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser keep your discussion to the topic and consensus (per wise words of User:Bkonrad) rather than discussing editors. This edit [2] is rubbish - multiple links on a line are basics of dab pages per WP:MOSDAB. Considering the edit warring having some dab project people stabilise this mess that's been edit warred over is the cavalry. Widefox; talk 19:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ottoman Israel in the discussion as well. Same issues. --Midas02 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox Sorry, Widefox, but no can do. If editors think they can come in from some WikiProject and make edits that contradict consensus without explanation, that is a behavioral issue, that should be addressed. However, that has been done now, so we're good on the behavioral issue now. By the way, calling an edit "rubbish" is not precisely the best way to make sure editors' comments will address the issue only...

@Bkonrad Thank you for reacting to my request on my talkpage and explain a bit what the problems of "Ottoman Palestine" are from a dab point of view. However, I didn't understand you. You said that here should be only one redlink per entry, and the first entry fails this. I didn't see the word "redlink" on WP:DAB, nor do I see redlinks on "Ottoman Palestine" or the article it links to. What did you mean?

Did I understand correctly that you say that the precise word "Ottoman Palestine" should be mentioned on the target pages? In which guideline or help page does it say so? In addition, it seems a bit of an overly strict rule. Based on the likely rationale of such a rule, I think that the present two entries are clearly enough connecting the term "Ottoman Palestine" and their targets, even if those targets would not specifically mention "Ottoman Palestine". Debresser (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mistakenly typed "redlink" when I meant "blue link". For the second point, yes, I expect the term to be clearly mentioned in the linked article. Otherwise it is dependent on interpretation which can easily become indistinguishable from original research. WP:DABMENTION is clearest description in guidelines If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser persisting to complain about other editors isn't helping you build consensus, but in reply...when editing any dab, there's an orange banner that says not to link more than one entry per line, and directs to MOSDAB, which is the consensus. Editors should familiarise themselves with it before editing dab pages (my recollection was some such wording was included, but I can't see it this minute). Editors coming from the dab project are likely to be familiar with that consensus. "no can do", "some WikiProject" do, in fact, indicate a persistent behavioural issue - a complete lack of WP:LISTEN and WP:CLUE, in which "rubbish" is shorthand for "edit warring CLUEless disruption against consensus". The discussion at this dab is largely offtopic - if there's no DABMENTION in the article it will be cut here, and hosting discussion about content issues of the articles here seems "tail wagging the dog". Widefox; talk 10:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, I know that as a rule there should be only one blue link per entry, however, since that is for the stated purpose of clarity (see WP:DABSTYLE and MOS:DABENTRY), exceptions can be made, as also clearly indicated in WP:DABSTYLE and at the top of both WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. I think the second link in the first entry here is a case in point. Alternatively, it could be removed.

Regarding the second point. As for the first entry: the words Ottoman and Palestine are in almost every sentence. That should be enough. Especially after reading the entry here, which explains the connection. The second entry might perhaps better be re-written in reverse order, analogous to MOS:DABMENTION: part of a larger administrative region in the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Syria. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox You continue being confrontational. Also, your condescending attitude towards an editor who has been active on this project for about 8 years is not appreciated. I know all of us have our area of expertise, and mine is not dab. That is why I enjoy the conversation with Bkonrad, who knows what he is saying and how to say it. But please feel free to continue to contribute to this discussion as well. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debresser good, so we all agree having multiple links per entry is against the style guide, and as I see no consensus here for an exception, and no case that I understand either (outside of "clarity")... similar to WP:BURDEN, you must gain consensus here for these exceptions.

The bigger point is this: Ottoman Palestine is not an alternative title (bold) /synonym with Ottoman Syria, or DABMENTIONED in it, and is just a geographical area including it so not a valid dab entry, maybe a valid See also entry. Even if it was (going back to my main point above that's unanswered) the first entry is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so this dab completely fails WP:TWODABS (a primary and one other) so this dab should be reverted to the redirect and a hatnote created at the primary linking to the second entry (as say a see also hatnote). To make this clear, as all I see is WP:IAR / WP:OWN above. As a wider consensus than this is useful as a dab failing the basics I've nommed for deletion. The other dab has exactly the same fundamental flaw, they are not valid dab pages. Several (at least three dab project editors) have voiced similar views. Widefox; talk 13:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not agree that having more than one link is against the guideline, as I showed above. This has not yet been discussed. The issue was just raised.

Nominating this for deletion in the middle of an active discussion is definitely reason to WP:TROUT you, and, if I may add, fits in perfectly with your redheaded bulldozer behavior on this page so far.

Ottoman Palestine, as the region, is part of Ottoman Syria, so we should have that redirect here, per MOS:DABMENTION. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re multiple links per entry: you know how it works here - the consensus is at MOSDAB. Make your case to reach consensus here, until then it can be removed. I note there's no discussion here about WP:TWODABS despite my repeated attempts, so it should now go to the AfD. Creating a dab without fixing the incoming is a big trout BTW - see WP:FIXDABLINKS - none of that has been addressed here but is a valid reason to revert this mess. Widefox; talk 15:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, local consensus overrides, as long as based on permission explicitly given in the WP:DAB and MOS:DAB guidelines to make exceptions. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To refute that assertion, "Ottoman Palestine" is not mentioned in Ottoman Syria, so as we have repeatedly said, fails MOS:DABMENTION. Even if it were, disambiguation is not what you think it is, it is the same topic as the other entry. The dab page for Earth does not include entries for all countries. Widefox; talk 15:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the first issue above. The second issue is another sneer at an editor with about twice as many edits as you have, so should be avoided per WP:CIVIL. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "we" in "I"... "No, we do not agree that having more than one link is against the guideline" - it is one editor OWNing against the consensus here, and at MOSDAB, and expressed here by 4 other editors. As such, I repeat - unless you gain consensus here, that's not even on the table. (edit count argument ignored) Widefox; talk 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

@Widefox: On what basis do you feel Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem is not a valid target? "During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria"[7] or "Palestine"" . I would argue that the two other component areas should be linked as well. DABMENTION states "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic." (emp mine) The purpose is to aid the reader in finding information about the topic snd the prohibition is on making DAB links that do not do this. Pointing to the component districts which were collectively Ottoman Palestine does that. Jbh ^Talk 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said why not in the inline comments in the dab. The burden is the other way around for adding content, and even if a valid entry (which it currently isn't, but of course has potential to be and is a valid see also - fixed), TWODABs may still apply as the current 2nd entry fails as per inline comment, so would still leave a dab with 2 entries. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widefox; talk 01:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put uber-specific reasons in inline comments why there's only 1, arguably at most 1+1 see also valid entries. Irrelevant - there's a clear primarytopic - the history section is excellent and it should just be reverted and any further WP:RELATED disambiguation done there, not at this dab per WP:TWODABS / WP:RELATED / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widefox; talk 02:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see what you are getting at and I am inclining to thinking this should be a redirect to History of Palestine - Ottoman Rule but I want to read a bit more about DABs.

A suggestion for the future, if you want people to respond in a positive manner make your comments on the talk page and don't make people go hunting around in the wikitext of the article. In particular if you have used an inline comment and you are asked for the same information on the talk page simply put the reason on the talk page do not simply say 'I already said why'. Using inline comments prevents your reason from being easily seen and could be seen as a way of stifling discussion - because that is not how we discuss things on Wikipedia, we use talk pages. This will annoy editors and make them feel you are trying to dictate rather than discuss and that will very quickly lead to conflict where there need not have been. Jbh ^Talk 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Jbhunley, no inconvenience meant. You edited live, so I fixed it live (WP:EDITCONSENSUS style). (I thought I'd said beforehand?) Widefox; talk 02:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No, or if you did I missed it in the mess above - which is certainly a possibility. I think I have a better handle on DABs. Their use seems to be much narrower than I thought - more deconfliction of terms than disambiguation of topic. Jbh ^Talk 03:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's narrow, and strictly styled / cleaned up. You are right that common sense shouldn't remove/ignore something useful - synonyms that aren't in the article are a gray area as is WP:RELATED, and initialisms that aren't in the article (yet) but listed in a dab should ideally be added to the article instead of being removed from the dab, but those are some common exceptions - yes, generally dabs fill with bad redlinks, no links at all, WP:DABACRO fails, and DABMENTION fails so most dab editors are routinely cleaning up by removing those invalid entries and have to rest on put it in the article first for speed, which also minimises OR (it has to be in the article as we have no sources in dabs). Widefox; talk 03:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RCAT

@Debresser: do you think this redirect qualifies for categorization under WP:RCAT? I don't see how the exemptions apply here. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]