Talk:Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

comments[edit]

Although "Hatt-ı Humayun" is typically associated with the 1856 Imperial Reform Edict, it is actually a generic term that refers to any written imperial edict [1]. For example the 1839 Hatt-i Sharif is also known as the "Gülhane Hatt-ı Humayun". This article should be renamed accordingly and a separate article on Ottoman imperial edicts needs to be created.--İnfoCan (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reform Decree of 1856" - 90 hits.
"1856 Imperial Reform Edict" - 1 hit.

(I think) "Reform Decree of 1856" is accepted usage in English. Takabeg (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reform Edict of 1856" - 141 hist. Takabeg (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hatt-i Humayun of 1856" has 404 Google hits. There may well have been other hatt-ı hümayuns written in that year but none of the would be "the" Hatt-i Humayun of that year. It is the most recognizable name so I'll go with it. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]