Talk:Ottoman miniature

please provide source

I changed Arab-Persian miniature to Persian miniature. The reason is that there is no notion called 'Arab-Persian miniature'. Check the wikipedia. If you believe there is such a thing, then provide source. Moreover the rest of the article has no source. In its present form, the article can be challenged for removal according to Template:Fact.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman miniature is also Turkish miniature

This is not only Ottoman miniature but also part of the Turkish culture and it is still practised in Turkey. Almost everything what is Turkish culture now was formerly known as Ottoman culture so in reality Ottoman culture = Turkish culture. So I am going to add to Ottoman miniature that it is also named as Turkish miniature. Because otherwise it seems like Turkish miniature painting does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:NoahsarkminiatureNusretColpan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NoahsarkminiatureNusretColpan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What was the Ottoman Turkish name of "miniature" ?

Böri (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottomans named miniature "Nakış", "Tasvir" and the painter "Nakkaş", "Musavvar". According to this source [1]. They are Arabic words.DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Trenecito.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent reverts of homoerotic material

@Mercresis, as is best practice before seeking conflict resolution, I am going to start this conversation for the last time here on the talk page.

Wikipedia runs on the basis of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which content is supposed to conform to. You have, on multiple occasions, reverted material which you claimed was forgery, on a largely spurious basis that Ancient Greek homoerotic art had been mostly fabrication, which I have yet to see a source about.

And checking your 'unsourced' and 'not well-known' claim, I will admit that one of the sources fail verification, and if you had only removed that on the basis of sourcing, I think your edit would have been acceptable. However, at least two of these miniatures seem to be perfectly genuine, at least according to said reliable sources. For example, Sotheby's confirms that Tuhfet-Ul Mulk is a genuine document, so does Sheffield Museums. Sawaqub-al Manaquib is also mentioned in several sources, here and here (the latter in a different but interesting context). Also, on your edits you have steadily claimed that these homoerotic miniatures are "fabrications" as well. Such claims also require sources, and sources actually indicate the opposite, that this process of normalization and tolerance was reversed by Western modernity, not created by it, and therefore this history was usually hidden to, say, appear more Western.[2][3] (In Turkish, but Google Translate does a pretty good job)[4] (these, as well as some of the sources I have cited previously)

If you do not respond, I will be bringing dispute resolution into this. Uness232 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether the texts the illustrations illustrate exist is hardly the point. The question is, are the miniatures actually what the captions claim, in terms of date & origin, and are they representative of the subject of Ottoman miniature, and of sufficiently high quality? Erotic manuscripts may have existed, but I'd think were hardly common enough to require inclusion in a small selection of illustrations of Ottoman miniatures. The 18th-century one in particular is very mediocre in quality. I'd happily lose both, even if they are what they say they are, which remains uncertain, as the pictures have no WP:RS sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that erotic manuscripts were one of the most common types in the 18th century Ottoman Empire, I think I see your point. I've been slow to realize that the sources on the pictures themselves are in fact very weak. However, the one from Tuhfet-ul Mulk can actually be found in a Telegraph article, which according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is reliable, and was linked to in another version uploaded to the Commons. So a good middle-ground might be removing the Sawaqub-al Manaquib one, and replacing the Tuhfet-ul Mulk one with the sourced picture.

Despite this, I strongly disagree with you and @Mercresis in your assertions that these are 'not representative', or that they are most likely 'fabrications', respectively: erotic manuscripts are a vital part of Ottoman miniature in both Şehrengiz and Bahnâme collections, and should feature in this article in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The text currently doesn't mention erotic miniatures at all (nor do the books on the subject I've read). The text says, conventionally enough, that the miniature tradition dwindled hugely after the early 18th century. It might be that erotica was all that was left. There are no heterosexual erotic images illustrated - surely these existed too? If you collect erotic images, then they will be a "vital part" of your collection - that doesn't prove much. I note we only have 3-4 images on Commons, not suggesting it was a huge thing. WP:UNDUE is a big issue here. Most post-Renaissance artistic traditions have an erotic component but, following RS, we generally give minimal coverage of this in broad topical articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I see, not much I can say here I guess. I still disagree on the importance of erotic material in Ottoman miniature, but if Wikipedia conventions dictate as such, I would not want to prolong this discussion. If you want the remaining erotic miniature deleted, I would not disagree.

On a side note: There are no heterosexual erotic images illustrated - surely these existed too? (TL;DR: Yes, but it wasn't as common because of sexual ideals.)

Basically, yes and no - at least not in the same way. Ottoman sexuality was homonormative, and it practiced a "liberalized" (that is, the age restrictions on how old the 'boy' can be is a little higher than most) form of Greek and Persianate pederasty. This meant that an ideal beloved for a man was a younger man or boy just before he would be able to grow a full beard. There is, of course, deviance from this, more avant-garde poets do talk about women and adult men (see Nedim and Enderunlu Fazıl among others), so people definitely did practice these "less-than-ideal" forms of sexuality for non-reproductive purposes, however the ideal was definitely there.

So yeah, not nearly as many heterosexual miniatures because of that. Here's a nice little starter on that, if you want more information. Uness232 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod: The text has no specific section about sexuality in Ottoman miniature, and if there will be such a section, examples of heterosexual images should also be shared, not just homosexual. Mercresis (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mercresis, while I will not revert your edit per consensus, if there ever would be a section on it I would expect it to mostly cover homoerotic material, the reasons of which I explained and you have not addressed. I hope that you would not repeat this argument if such a section is introduced. Uness232 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I added relevant section in this article so from now on. We can add both images for heterosexual and homosexual couples as a theme in Ottoman Miniature.

This shoouldnt be censored for any reason. since in the Islamic art, nudity and homosexual theme is very rare. This should be included. I added necessary reference to the article with a text. Metuboy (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this doesn’t make sense on multiple ways. “In Islamic art, themes of nudity and homosexuality are very rare.” They are not. See the sources I provided above.

Secondly this change was not made on the basis of censorship, but largely on the basis of sourcing and insufficient coverage in the article. These images were not well-sourced, and we didn’t have enough information about their representativeness, which is why they were removed; and likely won’t be added back. Uness232 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I already added clear source to the topic form a scientific article. The reason of the removal is clearly homohopobic views by @Mercresis. He already states those claims in the comments while removing the images. He cannot cherrypick artwork for no reason. Already most of the themes of miniatures are wars and campaings. Why not add one of the homoerotic scenes. There are many images already available in the Wikipedia Commons. 78.190.56.198 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Homoerotic + Pedophilia" = a big NO, sorry. These images contain scenes in which underaged minors are being "anal raped" (because they are minors). Japanese manga also have "pornographic" varieties, but you won't see them in the "manga" articles of Wikipedia. There's no need for pornographic images in this article, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual in content (it doesn't matter). Keep in mind that children are also accessing Wikipedia. Mercresis (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said above (some two years ago) these images are not shown or talked about in main sources on the subject. They are late, of rather poor artistic quality, and I imagine represent a tradition of private pornography that art historians have not taken much interest in. There is a similar tradition in India, while in the West printing had taken over by this point. Was there an equivalent tradition of heterosexual erotica in Turkey? The images introduced here & on Commons all seem to show homosexual activity. Accusing editors of homohopobic views for wanting these removed is unacceptable, & could well lead to a block. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed there was a tradition of heterosexual erotica. It is not the matter of discussion. Or whether Western art historians consider these pieces as relevant or not. Ottoman miniature is not studied as frequently as Western European art. Hence there are less sources on this topic but especially in Turkish you can find widespread information about erotic miniature and their rise in the later period. I can also include some more sources here. Also It is a well known fact that many homosexual depicting scenes were destroyed in Ottoman archives. These are some of the few left. Why not protect them? and learn and spread those few surviving ones. Also heterosexual ones are welcome. I can also seach for them add. But above all it should not even matter wheather it is gay nor not. But trying to censor it is not for Wikipedia.

Here is an example of a destroyed homosexual scene in Ottoman miniature. There are many mores like this in the archives. Some of the few survived at least requires more study. Instead of censorship.

https://i.cnnturk.com/i/cnnturk/75/0x555/54211d18f493b8034806fe25

Clearly these sources states that indeed homosexual erotic miniatures do exist. These are relevant sources on the issue. And also this is pretty relevant as learning the society of the time and their practises. You need to find scientific publications that says these miniatures are any less relevant or forged to claim that they should be removed.

It seems to me they are discussed quite a lot. So it is hard to say that they dont have a significance. Also it is possible to see heterosexual acts. where academics agree on all of these are original and also they should be included to this article. Just like nudity and erotic scenes are represented in European art and all relevant wikipedia pages. There should be no double standards for Ottoman Miniatures. Even arguing this is absurd and saying that why it is only homosexual is indeed homophobic. Well find a source for heterosexual and make the article richer then. Why try to remove it?

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-ottoman-erotica-teaches-us-about-sexual-pluralism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41299403?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/hidden-worlds-an-erotic-manuscript-of-the-ottoman-empire

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5125478

https://as.nyu.edu/research-centers/silsila/events/2022-2023/an-ottoman-erotic-manuscript-from-the-1790s--.html

https://www.academia.edu/4645382/_Ottomanizing_Pornotopia_Changing_Visual_Codes_in_Eighteenth_Century_Ottoman_Erotic_Miniatures_

https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3203854/view Metuboy (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not really a whole lot, if that's all you can find. The quality of the works is not great. As the NYU source rightly says "Received opinion holds that Ottoman miniature painting was moribund by the early eighteenth century, Levnī (d. 1732) being its last great exponent. This is a misconception due in large part to the unwillingness of many art historians to give erotica the attention it deserves." Well, yes. And when the art historians reassess, WP will follow (eventually). Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod here, even if I was the first one to start the conversation. We need to actually cover this in the article before adding these with no context; and that requires some good academic sources and someone to add them. Uness232 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a reason why "nude beaches" exist: It's because not everyone is comfortable about seeing naked people walking around in public beaches. If you'll do that, a policeman will come and tell you to get dressed. Similarly, if you insist on sharing "pornographical images" of Ottoman miniatures (heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't matter), you should create a separate article with a name like "Sexuality in Ottoman and Persian miniatures" or "Sexuality in miniatures", or something similar. These articles are like the "nude beaches" for people who are really interested in seeing such content. People who don't want to see such content will have the option to avoid visiting them. That being said, some of the miniatures show underaged boys being "anal raped" (being minors, we can't talk about "consent" in their case) by older men (such as this one: File:Lining_up_to_use_a_boy.jpg), which is extra problematic (a combination of "homoerotic pornography" and "pedophilia"). Personally, I find it disgusting and would advise you against sharing such material, as you did before in this article (to be honest, I find all such "pornographical" images disgusting and "out of place" in an encyclopedia). I don't know what's the purpose here: Why do you feel the need of pushing to insert such content? Mercresis (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You do have a point in pederastic/pedophilic images. However, two things.

You may not be comfortable with any pornographic imagery on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia often inserts pornographic material into articles when due, which is the argument we're having; is pornography prominent enough in sources to merit its inclusion? And the answer is (for now) no. Your own discomfort is not relevant.

Secondly, none of these pictures are necessarily pederastic in nature. "Lining up to use a boy" is arguable, as although "boy" is used, this is the literal translation of "oğlan", which in this context can refer to anyone in the passive role. The rest are not pederastic in nature at all, and the Tuhfet-ul Mulk one makes fun of the fact that they are all the same age and are "past their prime".

The question is more or less settled anyway, these will not make their way into this article. You do not need to be as defensive as you are about this.

As for why people might want their inclusion, the answer is simple. This really is the cutting-edge of Middle Eastern studies; which is why it's so new. Non-western content about sexuality has often been ignored (and put aside) in the 19th and 20th century, due to anxieties about early modernist European understandings of sexuality and societal development; that societies "progress" from a primitive state where they do not know how to control their desires and therefore participate in diverse sexual acts, before they reach a state where only heterosexual, married sexuality is normative. These conceptualizations no longer exist in Europe, and in fact, those of us in the Western world are now justifying our discriminatory acts to non-Westerners in terms of their now very real homophobia. So there is a very important strand of justified anger here, and therefore the willingness to shoehorn such material. Uness232 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2 1400-present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Berraaozz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Meerkat77 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tactfulsitta82, Bumblebeatrice (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pickwickwoop, Goldfinch12, Livelygoose.

— Assignment last updated by Bumblebeatrice (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What are "toils"?

"From then on, wall paintings or oil paintings on toils were popular."

I only recognise this word as meaning "labours". Is it a typo, or is this a term needing a wikilink? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I imagine it is a poor/non-translation of French toile, meaning cloth. So canvas & perhaps other textiles; huile(s) sur toile is the standard French cataloguing term. Changed to "cloth". Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)