Jump to content

Talk:Ottoman music

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ottoman classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Türk Sanat Müzi" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Türk Sanat Müzi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Türk Sanat Müzi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Comment: I'm below 5 DYK credits, so QPQ shouldn't be necessary.

5x expanded by Uness232 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Impressive work. The article was recently expanded 5x; it's carefully sourced and neutrally written. Earwig finds no copyright issues, and the nominator is exempt from the QPQ requirement. I've approved ALT0, which I think is the most interesting. Do consider nominating this at WP:GAN: I doubt you'd encounter any serious problems. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P3

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman music/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I will be reviewing this article. It's big enough, so I will add comments in a few chunks, not altogether.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments/questions:


  • it would also be great if some music (audio files) were added. I don't know whether it's possible to find any in public domain, though it would be nice to have.


  • according to Owen Wright, - who he is? needs better introduction. the ref to this sentence is not to Owen Wright, but to a book: Writing the History of "Ottoman Music". Ergon. pp. 87–138.. the quote is from page 93, and attributed to (Wright 1992: 285). so maybe it could at least be the proper page, if the original source is not available.
    •  Question: I'm not sure how I would fit an introduction into prose this dense: do I simply mention that he is a professor of musicology? I'm also confused by this requirement, pages like the Great Divergence regularly cite academics without describing them, and I'm not sure which policy or guideline you are referring to. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably my mistake. By 'introduce' I mean something like 'Historian John Doe, known for his works on Ottoman music' or as you proposed 'professor of musicology'. And it's not a requirement, it's more about an understanding. When I was reading the article, I was a bit confused about all these surnames, and I think that it helps if it's clear who is the author of a quote or a hypothesis you mention. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



  • Numerous studies have also pointed out - this sentence have only one ref but says 'numerous', seems a bit strange
    •  Will fix, the "numerous" there refers not to the ref directly, but 18th to 20th century works by Kiltzanidis and others. It might be better to call them comparative works rather than studies, though. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • called "mythologies" by Feldman, - he was not introduced before, please use full name at first mention and write who he is.



  • Pre-Ottoman and Early Ottoman music (until c. 1533) - why such precision in dates? why not 1550s, for example? It's hard for me to grasp, but maybe I just missing smth. Same for Classical Age (c. 1533 – c. 1650)
    •  Will fix. These are, in some way or form, mentioned in the articles in forms such as (paraphrasing): "Mecmua-ı Saz ü Söz, published in 1650, was a turning point in Ottoman music." However, I do understand how this could be considered borderline WP:OR, and therefore I will be deleting the dates. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]







  • Shlomo Mazal Tov, compiler of the Sefer shirim u-zemirot ve tishbahot, - it would be great to translate the name into English


  • The "New Synthesis" (c. 1650 – c. 1839) and Decline (c. 1839 – c. 1923) - same. the dates used in headings appear nowhere in text


  • started to attend Mevlevi ceremonies - 'mevlevi' used several times in text, but without any explanation of who they were and why they are important



  • One of the most notable composers of "New Synthesis" Ottoman classical music is Kasımpaşalı Osman Effendi - name should not be italised
  • Hafız Post ; Meanwhile, other students of Osman Effendi, such as Mustafa Itri; etc - same


  • "The art of musick almost forgot, not only re-viv’d, but was rendered more perfect by Osman Effendi, a noble Constantinopolitan.” - it would be great to source it to Cantemir's writings, if possible


  • Despite the acknowledgement of a break in musical tradition that is hard to find in earlier Ottoman sources, however, Cantemir asserts the supremacy of many aspects of Ottoman music; both the nearly forgotten form, and the newer one, over that of Western music at numerous points during his Edvar, and his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire - very long, maybe can be splitted into two?
    •  Will fix, by changing it to: "Despite the acknowledgement of a break in the Ottomans' musical tradition, Cantemir asserts the supremacy of many aspects of Ottoman music over that of Western music at numerous points during his Edvar." Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



  • "While this may or may not have been representative of the consensus among Ottoman composers at the time, it was not necessarily surprising, according to Leezenberg, as Western ideas of cultural supremacy were not widespread in Europe until the end of the 18th century, although critiques of the "confused" (microtonal) intervals of Ottoman music were." - to be honest I do not understand what is intended here - how "ideas of cultural supremacy" are connected to "the "confused" (microtonal) intervals"?
    • Red X Won't fix, it is a necessary contrast; the 20th century section talks about how the West and the Westernized saw Ottoman music as Western music's primitive counterpart, rather than a distinct way of looking at music. This explains how, even though Western musicians did critique aspects of Ottoman music in the 18th century, they did not see themselves as the "civilized" musicians compared to the "primitive" Ottoman ones. Uness232 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Two dervishes in particular, Çengi Yusuf Dede and Köçek Mustafa Dede - no need for italics, but dervishes should be briefly explained




Please expect more in the next couple of days. Artem.G (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, will fix all the problems I have tagged with  Will fix over the next 24 hours. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response! Article is nice and interesting to review, I hope you'll find my comments useful. Will proceed with my review tomorrow. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the problems I've tagged with  Will fix, up until this point of course. Uness232 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Some more comments:


  • — Ralf Martin Jäger, Concepts of Western and Ottoman Music History - book title should be in italics, or, if it is an article, journal name would be nice to have


  • it's not a requirement, but I think it can be interesting and valubale addition - are there any modern bands/orchestras/performers exist? I know that there are a lot of collectives who play Western classical/baroque/etc music on a historic instruments, maybe there are similar ones in Turkey? And are people in general interested in the Ottoman music, maybe it's seen now as a cultural heritage? or is it still prohibited and nobody allow to play it?
    •  Unlikely, it's definitely still played, although more so in entertainment contexts (I don't think I need another section to clarify this, the "revival" part of the 20th century section clarifies it I think). I could reference some ensembles, but I think that would be WP:UNDUE. Uness232 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • and it would be nice to have either a section or just a few links in External links to some actual music. Maybe some recording were made in 1920s, or maybe some modern orchestra performed it and issued some discs? (it's also not a requirement, of course).


Besides these comments, everything seems to be good. Sources are good, all quotes are attributed, images seem to be with appropriate licences, no copyvio, no OR (besides the strange dates, but I think it would be addressed). It's broad and focused, though I'd like to see some section about current status of ottoman music - is it played, enjoyed, preserved by someone? Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the article according to your suggestions, but I do have one question on the nature of my external links. Right now, the section I'm preparing looks a bit like this:
Now, I could include more recordings (it would be nice, as neither of these are particularly high quality), as you stated, but while WP:ELNO does not completely ban Youtube from external links, it does make some very cautious points about their inclusion. Now, apparently, videos by official accounts are okay, but are videos by "X Artist - Topic" (like this) considered an official account as those videos are only included with the permission of the label? Uness232 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All links above are fine, Smithsonian is good, data collection seems to be ok, and the last one contains sheets and seems to be ok. About Youtube - yes, I think that the main concern is copyright violation, but if it is an official account of an artist or a label it should be ok. "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." So, if you think some youtube link is important and valubale for the article, it can be added. Artem.G (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the external links, if any of them do not conform to WP:EL, please do not hesitate to delete the link. Uness232 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion all these links are fine, youtube links are to ensemble's channels, so there are no copyright violation there. And as everything else seems to be addressed, I will pass this article as GA. Congrats, and thanks for nice reading! Artem.G (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution and revival section

[edit]

Persecution and revival section is a propaganda text. It focuses on how ottoman music was banned with a highly biased language, but also indicates the reason for ban as 'westernization attempt by elites which did not find support in public'. There is no consensus in literature that there was no public support. Most importantly, it fully ignores the rise and scientific study of turkish folk music and culture happened in same period. 185.134.138.68 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please present modern, reliable secondary sources to support these claims, otherwise your argument cannot be considered. Aza24 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text reflects the sources that I have been able to find and/or that I already knew of. If there are other reliable sources that contradict this information, you are very welcome to suggest improvements.
It’s true that the suppression of Ottoman music happened at the same time as rising interest in folk traditions. Ziya Gökalp thought that Ottoman music was Byzantine and therefore un-Turkish, while he claimed that folk music reflected the true Turkish spirit. Atatürk essentially had the same belief. This led to the events described in the section. Uness232 (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_music&oldid=1235516996"