File talk:An ottoman miniature from the book Sawaqub al-Manaquib depicting Homosexuality.jpg
Please see
[edit]
Please see the talk page of the redirect page "[File:TurkishWineLarge.jpg]". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sawaqub al-Manaquib
[edit]
Is Sawaqub al-Manaquib Ottoman? Everything found in Ottoman Turkey (the Bohemian glassware in Dolmabahçe palace for instance) is Ottoman? If the name is not given in bad faith, find reliable sources and show us. If not, please change the title. --E4024 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, as hardly anyone will notice a discussion here, perhaps you could raise the issue of naming and explain any associated historiography/geopolitics at Commons:Help desk. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sources
Sources say that a copy of this book is at the Topkapı Palace Museum; but that does not mean that it was an Ottoman book. There are also many Bibles in that Museum which came from various parts of the world. Please notice the Ottomanophobic approach; not everything is homophobic, there is also Turcophobia. Please rename this file or convince me, with several reliable sources, not a superficial "Ottoman" reference here or there. Who is the writer? Who is the illustrator? --E4024 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The site this originally was taken from described the miniature as "Ottoman" and as the uploader I have no particular reason to question it. Considering the Ottoman Empire and culture existed for more than 7 centuries and spanned many countries, it would be hard to imagine there was never a time or place in the empire where this never went on, or that it was never depicted in artworks. The source you refer to (Islamic Homosexualities) includes evidence for Mehmed the Conqueror being a practising homosexual. You may wish to add that same source to the English Wikipedia article for him.
- By all means create a consensus, however I would like to put the case that saying this has been claimed to be an Ottoman miniature is not "Ottomanophobic", and scrubbing that claim off Commons is suppression of a well documented cultural practice, as established in many respectable academic sources. Commons need not establish the facts, we just need to provide images that represent all points of view in context. --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- (We are discussing the name of a file here.) We are not discussing homosexuality in any society. The Ottomans learned it from Rome (Eastern Rome). The page of Mehmed the Conqueor is already full of absurd discussions -that you may join if it is so important- instead of discussing his ability in administration, consultations with experts from many nations, innovations in warfare, use of various languages not only in his court but also in his written orders (legislation, something that the EU may have learned from etc :-) I am saying that I do not need a source that says "this is an Ottoman miniature"; but I need various independent serious (A.K.A. "reliable") sources that tell me wrote the book, when, where, who illustrated it and so on. That may convince me that it is an Ottoman miniature. Let me add something else Dear Fae, I never -ever- looked who loaded this file, now I read it was you. I only looked at the (f)act not the contributor. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
