Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is an important historical topic. There are a lot of good sources and suggestions for expansion on the talk page, and I believe this could be a good article. But I need some more editor input and peer review to suggest concrete improvements to the article.

Thanks, GnocchiFan (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have time to look at this article by tomorrow. Uness232 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll organize separate points in bullet list form here, and generally start with the sections, and then move onto the lede. I think the article in general is not in the best shape, but the problem is largely focus and coherence related. It also does not always present local and temporal variance. I'll likely get to recommending sources for that soon. (I'll also be signing individual comments to make it easier for you to respond to things individually.) Uness232 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First thing that catches my attention is the terminology section; it needs to be better integrated into the text, it does feel like an assortment of words without context right now. As far as sourcing is concerned, the Hürriyet/Bardakçı cite is to some extent acceptable as it is written by a credible historian, but it is not exactly academic. Uness232 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you; I have tried to integrate this into the text - hopefully it makes sense now. I've removed some terminology which doesn't seem particularly helpful here. I agree that the Hürriyet cite isn't ideal, but as you say it is written by a credible historian so I don't seem any reason to remove it (and is used on the Turkish Wikipedia version of this article). GnocchiFan (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is just a general problem with structure; it does not help the coherence problems. Western perceptions should not be at the top, and generally speaking History (within that, Legal status) --> Literature and art --> Western (or foreign) perceptions, seems to me like a more coherent order. Uness232 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I've tried to re-arrange this now so hopefully it reads better. I greatly appreciate the help you've given by reviewing this article, thank you so much! GnocchiFan (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick edits, and apologies for the delay in response. I will be talking more about content this time, hopefully that is okay.

• In general, I agree with CMD that the term LGBT is not wholly accurate for this context. Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I've made some suggestions below, but I fear they may also be too anachronistic. What would you suggest as an alternative? GnocchiFan (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in general, "Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire" is okay, although for many reasons it's also not ideal; perhaps a later RM could resolve the issue. Uness232 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, partially in dialogue with @Chipmunkdavis; zenpâre (or its modern equivalent, zampara) would actually be a very rough equivalent of heterosexual, particularly referring to a man with a supposedly unhealthy amount of sexual desire for women. The term for a woman-loving-woman would be zürefâ (lit. the delicate ones). Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, totally a misunderstanding / typo on my part. I've reworded that now. --GnocchiFan (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is important to cover variation. As Stephen Murray points out in both his "Homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire", as well as his "Islamic Homosexualities", pederastic norms were often flouted for same-sex attraction of people in similar age groups, though this was often viewed as more deviant; and there were also definitely periods where "homosexuality was not a taboo subject" would not apply as well, even before the 19th century. Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the lateness in reply here): I agree - I've tried to expand on this a bit, but has been difficult to find any concrete examples to use in this article. However, I've tried to add in information that pederasty was not the only form of understood homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Therefore, choice of a partner was merely based on taste and not on sexual identity. However, marriage between a man and a woman was the only acceptable form of a legitimized relationship. Thus making it illegal for people to openly have relationships with partners of the same sex." is, again, too general. There is evidence against this, that Murray and Schick present. Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree; I have removed this as too vague. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "During this time, some Ottoman men were executed for sodomy including two boys in Damascus in 1807." looks a little strange without context; does the source refer to it in any context? Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using this specific date seems odd in the context; I've re-worded this to make the point that executions happened. Source doesn't seem to go into too much detail, but I seem to be struggling accessing the full source for some reason. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be related to later Salafi influence (LGBT people and Islam goes into this, I believe)? It still looks strange considering legal sanctions were altogether very rare, and this does not give that impression. It might be better to remove it entirely. Uness232 (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing this and clarifying the position as well as other edits to the article, I really appreciate it! GnocchiFan (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The literature and art section needs a serious rewrite for tone; I can't point to every single unencylopedic sentence, but at least partial reorganization seems necessary. A few examples include, but are not limited to: "Contrary to popular belief, the homosexual relationships in these poems is not just between two different generations." (kind of hard to understand, is it talking about pederasty?), "This poet frequently writes about his homosexuality and he is not ashamed of this." (I think the issue here is obvious.), "is an interesting example of this" (characterization not needed). Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the unencyclopedic phrasing; hopefully it reads better now. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your fixes. A few more problems remain with the section in my opinion:

  Perhaps an oversight, but Saadi Shirazi was not an Ottoman subject, so while he definitely merits a discussion somewhere, it's not here.

  Furthermore, on "There was a long-standing belief that these poems were pederastic," reads like in actuality there was no pederasty; the practice was definitely normative. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "exclusively pederastic".

  "It is also possible that some literary scenes of a homosexual nature were removed by censors at a later date, when homosexuality became more normative in Ottoman society." I believe it should be "less normative" not more.

  Uness232 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input.

  I've removed Saadi Shirazi from this section; total oversight on my part, apologies.

  I've clarified the issue re pederasty being the norm for these poems, so hopefully it reads better now. If you disagree with the current wording please let me know.

  And yes, I meant to say that heterosexuality was becoming the norm, not the other way around(!) I've changed that now.

  Thank you again for your patience, much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The information on the lit. and art section could also be better organized. Further information could be added about miniature painting, with an article such as "Ottomanizing Pornotopia". Uness232 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the suggestion, I have tried to add some more on miniature painting from the source!

  @Uness232: thank you for the suggestions and your patience here. I will be trying to make some more edits to this article to improve it, but I've tried to address your points as good I can; please let me know what you think of the article now. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GnocchiFan I think the remaining problems are about things that we have already agreed-upon; less content and more style related; and things that I have time to change right now. we can discuss here if you object to the remaining changes in any way. Thank you for your edits, again. Uness232 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing though; a longer lede would be great. I don't have time to write one right now, but maybe I can add one later. Uness232 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uness232: Thank you so much for your edits to this article, I greatly appreciate them as well as your patience with me throughout. I've tried to expand on the lead now; if you think it needs editing please let me know, as well as any other outstanding issues with the article. Sorry I haven't been as quick as I'd like to have been getting back to editing this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've re-read the article and I think it's in good shape now; I've only made one new substantive edit, which you can revert if I'm simply misinformed and haven't read enough of the source. Thank you for your edits. Uness232 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that your edits better reflect the source(s), thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for taking on this article.

• First of all, is "LGBT in the Ottoman Empire" the best title for the article? As the article says, this is anachronistically projecting modern concepts backwards. "Sexuality" seems to be a common word in the source titles (as well as Homosexuality, but that may be more restrictive than the article scope), "sexual role" and "identity" are words used in the article body.
• The lead is quite short, it should summarise the article. As a rule of thumb, it should cover in some way (even if only a brief half-sentence) each body section.
• I'm not seeing how the sentence "Homosexuality was culturally associated with love." is linked to the sentence after it, which seems purely to be about sexual desire (and includes heterosexuality).
• "For men...zenpare to mean "woman-lover" (women loving women)"?
• The "History" section (up until the Pre-decriminalization (pre-1858) subsection) seems to not be too much about history, but more about definitions/legality.
• On that subsection, "pre-1858" is a huge length of time for the Ottoman Empire, is there any information on when this cultural conception began to emerge, or was it carried over from pre-Ottoman times? (The later "time of the Crusades" mention suggests it is older than the Empire.)
• Unclear why Hamse-yi ‘Atā’ī merits its own subsection compared to the other content in Literature.

I haven't looked at the sources myself, but the article feels quite short. A quick google finds extensive coverage, including what appears from the abstract to be an interesting paper on the 1858 legal changes. Best, CMD (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for taking on the review - much appreciated! I've tried to respond to the issues.

• I agree that "LGBT in the Ottoman Empire" may not be the best title for this. Dubious about "Sexuality" (too broad) as well as "homosexuality" (too narrow): Are Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire or Sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire equally anachronistic? I'm unsure.
• I've tried to expand the lead somewhat, hopefully it makes sense / covers all aspects now. Let me know if there is any glaring omission.
• I've removed "Homosexuality was culturally associated with love" as too vague.
• This was a typo (see above comments); fixed now.
• That's a fair point; I've changed the title of this section to "Definitions and legal status" to reflect this
• I've tried to move some sources around in order to cover more information pre-1858, and will have another read through sources later on. Hopefully it is an improvement for the time being. (I've also reworded the Crusades mention for clarity, which seemed to be an issue on the talk page too).
• Agreed; merged Hamse-yi ‘Atā’ī into the rest of this section.

Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated! GnocchiFan (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]