Talk:Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire

Abolition

This paragraph is very awkward: "As long as Turkey is concerned...". The Treaty of Lausanne is agreed to by all parties, not only Turkey, so capitulations are considered to be abolished by all sides that entered the said treaty. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I move to correct the paragraph. Thanks. Todd (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. But what the author was trying to say is that the Treaty of Lausanne applied to capitulations in the territory of the Republic of Turkey, which is somewhat smaller than the former Ottoman Empire. In particular, as the next paragraph states, the capitulations in Egypt were abolished separately and later. A clarification would nevertheless be a good idea. – Justinbb (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Egypt in 1500

The very first sentence in the History section is: France had already signed a first treaty or Capitulations with the Ottoman Empire in 1500, during the rules of Louis XII and Sultan Bajazet II, in which the Sultan of Egypt had made concessions to the French and the Catalans. There is a bit of confusion here. In 1500 Egypt was not a part of Ottoman Empire. How can the Ottoman Sultan act as a sultan of Egypt ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Egypt was not Ottoman until around... 1517? Ottoman Empire should just be replaced by the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo). Thanks for catching this! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 09:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Large addition in 2006

A single edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitulations_of_the_Ottoman_Empire&oldid=92256002 from 2006 doubled the size of this article. These additions have several problems. First, no citations are given – and moreover the text is written in a somewhat archaic style which leads one to believe it was copied with little or no modification from a much older source. Second, the content is not particularly relevant to the article, as it provides great detail on secondary issues, moreover written from a particular European Christian point of view that is not introduced properly. This content should be rewritten and condensed, or deleted. – Justinbb (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Justinbb, the long excerpt was copied almost verbatim from the article "Protectorate of Missions" in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Google Books link in the 1911 edition.
• Wikisource link in the 1913 edition.

I already removed a clause referring to a subject that "will be discussed further below," but wasn't. I agree that this antiquated language and the intense focus on France does not belong in the article. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)