Talk:Abdul Hamid II

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkasab1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name

Why is it Abdul Hamid but not Abdulhamid or Abdulhamit? When it is written as two names, not only Hamid looks like his family name or his middle name, but also Abdul looks like a stand alone name, which would be rather silly as it means "the slave of". In fact I never heard "Abdul" used as a stand alone name by itself except when Americans shorten a much longer name to something they barely can pronounce. 74.66.233.1 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the English language version of Wikipedia. Abdul Hamid is how he is described in all the English language literature of the time, down to our own times. The problems with transliterating Arabic language into English are real, but outside the scope of this article. Roger Pearse 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

The title must be "Abdulhamid II". That's the true one. Just like as "Abdullah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.125.43 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An event

An event in this article is a April 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML commment)

---

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.

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)

thanks for the quick response. I updated the image on the commons -- Chris 73 Talk 13:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Per si, as it has an article :en:Ziya Pasha, unlisted Abdul_Hamid_Zia_Pasha.jpg from Wikipedia:Images_with_missing_articles/lib.utexas.edu. --Omotecho (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

quote:

He presided over thirty three years of decline. The Ottoman Empire had long been acknowledged as the Sick Man of Europe. While its European neighbours were making railroads, automobiles, electric lights and even airplanes, the Ottoman Empire was unable to develop such advanced industry. The Ottoman subjects rarely saw the benefits of the attempted reforms carried out under the Sultan's reign. The above paragraph is crap and totally inaccurate. Have you heard of the Hejaz Railway??? Try reading the new book:

Winding its way from Damascus through the vast desert wastes of Jordan and into the spectacular barren mountains of northwest Saudi Arabia, the Hejaz Railway was a testament to the fading but still potent power of the Ottomans in Arabia. Planned as a pilgrim line to Makkah, the railway also served the political, strategic, and economic interests of the crumbling Ottoman Empire under Sultan Abdulhamid II. It opened in 1908, but enjoyed only six years of normal service, before war spread eastwards and engulfed the region. In this in-depth history of the Hejaz Railway, James Nicholson examines the motives behind the decision to build the railway and details the massive task of construction and the project's financial background. He describes the years of service from 1908 to 1914, and gives a gripping account of the war years, focusing on T. E. Lawrence's legendary--and ultimately successful--campaign to destroy the railway. VroomanVrooman 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Im getting sick of reading same Armenian copy/pastes in ever article about Turkish history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.98.141 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if these appearances might have something to do with their histories being intertwined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.237.198 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

There are two reasons for his brother's deposition. First, it may sound weird but, Abdülhamid II accepted the formation of an Ottoman constitution and promised new reforms for the state structure and for the minorities back in 1876. Second, his brother had mental problems and was seen by many as an incapable ruler. Of course, when the Ottoman imperial army turned into a ruin during the Ottoman-Russian War and Russian forces came as close as Yeşilköy, the newly adopted constitution was removed by the Sultan via the powers given to him by the constitution. Now that's what I can irony :) Deliogul 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

If you had bothered to read the names on the petition, they were of just about every Mid East scholar active when it was signed, most of whom are neither Turkish nor Justin McCarthy, and all their works support Prof McCarthy's position.

But since you asked:

Roderic Davison: Turkey: A Short History; The Armenian crisis, 1912-1914, Carter Findley: The Turks in World History Stanford Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol II Heath Lowry: The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's story; The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the ArmeniansCaroline Caroline Finkel: Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire Jeremy Salt: Imperialism, Evangelism and the Ottoman Armenians, 1878-1896 Guenter Lewy: The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey

Those are just off the top of my head.

Jpiccone 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

:-D —Khoikhoi 19:12, 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)

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

Contentious Casualty Claims

Since it has been claimed that the figures given for casualties of the massacres are from "subjective propaganda," I have replaced them with figures given by Taner Akçam and noted that they are given by him. Hopefully this will allow the text to be more objective and satisfy those who question the accuracy of the section. -- Augustgrahl 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't claim that the Sultan didn't kill anyone. He wasn't an angel, actually none of us are. Whatever, I'm not against the claims of death figures. I'm against the romantic and Armenian sided writing style of the previous version of the article. You know, old, young, women, men and children were murdered and brave Armenians took action to kill the Sultan. This smells propaganda, no matter it is true or false. Also, if he was Le Sultan Rouge, such bravery wouldn't work. Of course this is the subject of another argument. Take care mate, Deliogul 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While talking about Abdülhamid's way of dealing with revolts, we can't skip the Macedonian uprising, which took place more or less during the same era with the Armenian uprising. In both events, Ottomans used military power. They sent the imperial army to Macedonia (one of the main reasons why the Western press called Abdülhamid Le Sultan Rouge) and they used the Kurdish warlords of the east to deal with Armenian rebels. As Sting says in his song "If blood will flow when flesh and steel are one...", military action causes deaths, everytime it is used. Probably, there wouldn't be a better person than Abdülhamid in the world if he gave away Macedonia and Eastern Anatolia without fighting. For example, will you expect Russia to accept any of her many sub countries to declare independence from her, without firing a single bullet? The answer is possibly "No" and "No" means people will die if such an event happens. Therefore, the issue of revolts in the Ottoman Empire is more complex than just "Ottomans go and kill thousands of people". Deliogul 12:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

deleting opening description

deleted the parts about being "ulu hakan" and his nicknames in the West. If only one book refers to him as such, it doesn't show the whole population's perspective. The West is not 1 book, we'd need more books to add his nicknames to the entry. For now, I have deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.184.2 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Von der Goltz.jpg

Image:Von der Goltz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Implausible statement

The statement "Abdul Hamid II, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to rule with absolute power, was overthrown by Mehmed V." is implausible. Abdul Hamid II was NOT overthrown by Mehmed V. Abdul Hamid was overthrown by a clique of generals, who then placed Mehmed on the throne as a puppet. Thats not the same thing, at all. Eregli bob (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

incomprehensible

Some parts of this article are grammatically incomprehensible. I have removed the following from the 1st constitutional section:

"making the disharmony in the empire did prove a different view, at least in the eyes of the Sultan" Hgilbert (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

His mother, Tirimujgan

The article and many sources says she is Circassian, but I've come across several sources (some in Turkish) that say her name was Virjin and she was Armenian. Others say she was an "Armenian convert." I don't read Turkish, but I think this article from Bursa Haber says she was Armenian. Hakob (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Between 1909 and 1918

There doesn't seem to be anything in the article between those years.

--iFaqeer (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced quote

• This article includes an unsourced quotation of questionable authenticity, which I tagged: "to have the scalpel cut my body is less painful than to witness Palestine being detached from the Khilafah state and this is not going to happen ...let the Jews keep their millions and once the Khilafah is torn apart one day, then they can take Palestine without a price." This quote is widely circulated on Islamic Internet forums, but I could not find any reliable source for this. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No response was given, so I am removing the tagged quotation. Marokwitz (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Descendents

I don't see the reason for listing all of the subject's living descendents. See WP:BLP. I'll remove the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are the King in Wiki? HAHA HAHH... Your Meaning is the Law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Baksheesh (bribary)

Somehow baksheesh is not discussed, but it was one of the famous notions of the Ottoman empire. There is no a book about the time, not mentioning it. There are hundreds of jokes about it, and sad stories as well. Under his reign Baksheesh became an art. Can anyone find some online (English) sources and post it?

I was now subject to a video about the Armenian massacre for the first time (I saw fading images in the Armenian quarter of Jerusalem, but never saw anything about the real scale of it), after reading about it a few days ago in a book by Antek Zuckerman deputy head of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and later on head of the Ghetto Warriors museum. He found out about someone who tried to convince Morgentau to forget cover up the Armenian massacre, and wrote how despicable that was. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abd Al-Hamid II Khan Ghazi?

How come Abdulhamid II has this title but the majority of the Sultans are just 'Mehmet II' or 'Murat V'? I think Osman I, Selim III and others had the same title. Why is that? 96.55.183.132 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Hamid II's aid to Americans regarding the Moro Muslims

Sultan Abdul Hamid II, after being approached by American minister to Turkey, Oscar Straus (politician), sent a letter to the Moros of the Sulu Sultanate telling them not to resist American takeover and cooperate with the Americans at the start of the Moro Rebellion.. The Sulu Moros complied with the order.

John Hay, the American Secretary of State, asked the Jewish American ambassador to Ottoman Turkey, Oscar Straus (politician) in 1889 to approach Sultan Abdul Hamid II to request that the Sultan write a letter to the Muslims of the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines telling them to submit to American suzerainty and American military rule, the Sultan oblidged them and wrote the letter which was sent to Sulu via Mecca where 2 Sulu chiefs brought it home to Sulu and it was succesful, since the Sulu Mohammedans . . . refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty. The Ottoman Sultan used his position as caliph to order the Sulu Sultan not to resist and not fight the Americans when they came subjected to American control. President McKinley did not mention Turkey's role in the pacification of the Sulu Moros in his address to the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress in December 1899 since the agreement with the Sultan of Sulu was not submitted to the Senate until December 18. Despite Sultan Abdulhamid's "pan-Islamic" ideology, he readily acceded to Oscar S. Straus' request for help in telling the Sulu Muslims to not resist America since he felt no need to cause hostilities between the West and Muslims. Collabration between the American military and Sulu sultanate was due to the Sulu Sultan being persuaded by the Ottoman Sultan. John P. Finley wrote that: After due consideration of these facts, the Sultan, as Caliph caused a message to be sent to the Mohammedans of the Philippine Islands forbidding them to enter into any hostilities against the Americans, inasmuch as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule. As the Moros have never asked more than that, it is not surprising, that they refused all overtures made, by Aguinaldo's agents, at the time of the Filipino insurrection. President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Mr. Straus for the excellent work he had done, and said, its accomplishment had saved the United States at least twenty thousand troops in the field. If the reader will pause to consider what this means in men and also the millions in money, he will appreciate this wonderful piece of diplomacy, in averting a holy war. Abdulhamid in his position as Caliph was approached by the Americans to help them deal with Muslims during their war in the Philippines and the Muslim people of the area obeyed the order to help the Americans which was sent by Abdulhamid.

Rajmaan (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Marriage with "issue"

By the looks of it this is a translation error and it looks like what is meant is "children". Can anybody verify this?

On a side note, I'm not entirely sure that such extensive detail about Abdul Hamid's family is necessary. It's a fairly lengthy section that should probably be cut down to a more manageable size. Also self-contradictory in that it states Abdul Hamid had 13 wives at the top but has 14 in the list.195.171.221.68 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"America and the Philippines

Please remove the duplicate material in the first and second paragraphs of this section. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdul Hamid II. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425170450/http://www.odevara.com:80/odev/197/id.36080.1.html to http://www.odevara.com/odev/197/id.36080.1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abdul Hamid II. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009195434/http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_3b.htm to http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_3b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207103242/http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/English/Tarihce.asp to http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/English/Tarihce.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.odevara.com/odev/197/id.36080.1.html

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) 04:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Whoever constantly removes my edits (Worth Reading section) please contact me and explain how it's considered vandalism. I've stated what's correct and it certainly was WORTH READING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarmonajed (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

11:th marriage

Is missing from the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Maidyouneed is pushing his/her own POV in many articles including this one. It has almost reached the level of vandalism. Dominator1071 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Hamid II's Response to a Theatre Play about Muhammad

This is something which should be added to article:

1:“YOU MUST NOW CONSIDER WHAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ORDER!” : SULTAN ABDÜLHAMID II WROTE A FAIRLY AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE TO THE BRITISH, WHEN COMEDY PLAY ABOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD WAS BEING PERFORMED. by Heritage Times

2:Offensive theater plays against Islam: Sultan Abdülhamid II's endeavors in Europe by Daily Sabah

But I've not yet any idea what should be added. IAmAtHome (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit reversion

@Beshogur:. Here I added a hatnote {{distinguish|Syarif Hamid II of Pontianak}}, and you reverted it with summary "rv not even similar title". I tried again here with hatnote {{distinguish|Sultan Hamid II}} with summary "(It is entirely possible to confuse "Sultan Hamid II" (born Abdul Hamid Alkadrie) with "Sultan Abdul Hamid II", which is why, for ten years, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was a disambiguation page. I'm happy to discuss at Talk if you think such a discussion over a distinguish hatnote is required)", but you declined that opportunity and reverted with: "annual readership shows that Syarif Hamid II of Pontianak (whose name is not "Sultan Hamid II" (title) has avg of 50 views daily, while this has avg of 2000 views daily."

View statistics are irrelevant: it doesn't matter how popular each page is, it is a possibility that "Sultan Hamid II" may be confused with "Sultan Abdul Hamid II". I don't understand "Syarif Hamid II of Pontianak (whose name is not "Sultan Hamid II" (title)": the opening words of the article Syarif Hamid II of Pontianak are "Sultan Hamid II...". A hatnote ultimately does no harm and might help: why do you think two men, both named Abdul Hamid, both who became Sultans, might not be confused? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, these two can be easily confused and page views are more an argument for the title of the pages and redirects, not for a hatnote resolving confusion on reaching a target. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: Who will confuse Abdul Hamid II with a guy having 50 page views avg, while his title name is not even "Sultan Hamid II". The same reason, Sultan Hamid II redirect page has 20 views per avg. This means only 20 persons compared to 2000 daily views here are clicking Sultan Hamid II. @Shhhnotsoloud: yet this article is not "Sultan Abdul Hamid II" but "Abdul Hamid II"! Sultan is not his personal name, nor part of a proper naming. It's his title.

Also if that person is "Sultan Hamid II", where is the "Sultan Hamid I"? Who is that? I couldn't find anything. Beshogur (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur:. His title and name is "Sultan Hamid II" - that's how the article starts! You will find "Sultan Hamid I" at Pontianak Sultanate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I agree much, but ok. Beshogur (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Excessive info in Marriage subheading

The marriage and descendants section looks (sorry editor!) like such an eyesore. Its too long to navigate comfortably, some of the information is contradicting each other, the link in the source doesn't work and most importantly, it contains very trivial and excessive information. Is there any conflict if someone were to significantly trim this section? Danial Bass (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)