Chamboz (talk) , 3 September 2018 (UTC) An editor has recently dropped a huge amount of text into this article from a different page (increasing its size by almost 30%), apparently in an attempt to merge the two articles.
Merging some sections of the articles may be a good idea, but I think the way this was done was problematic: the new text isn't integrated into the article at all and most of it doesn't even address the actual topic (the decline thesis as a historiographical concept within Ottoman history).
But who is actually talking (or still talking) about the decline of the Ottoman Empire on its own?
There was no decline of the empire itself, but there definitely was a decline compared to the countries of Europe who continued to improve (in technology, economy, science, military etc.) while the Ottoman empire did not.
This article was written to reflect the secondary sources.
It's imperfect, of course, there are plenty of ways in which the article could be improved, but you can't contest the existence of an "Ottoman decline thesis" or claim that Ottoman decline "is a fact of history" without ignoring actual historical scholarship.
On the eve of the American Revolution, slavery was recognized and accepted throughout the New World.
All of the major European powers at one time or another entered the Atlantic slave trade, just as most of them possessed slave colonies.
Without claiming to have an extensive knowledge of the question, I think you are using a lot of argumentative strategies that are reminiscent of other elaborate contre-argumentative/apologetics strategies (such as conveying a false feeling of unity from a dissassembled set of thinkers i.e.
the abovementioned strawman argument, claiming that the history of thought goes one way i.e.