Talk:Wahhabi War

message: Ottoman or Egyptian Campaign?
The Ottoman participation in this conflict was nominal; in reality it was Muhammad Ali's project from start to finish.  Vassiliev, for example, consistently refers to the invading forces as "Egyptian."  "Egyptian Occupation of Arabia" might also be suitable, as the Egyptians continued to govern the area until 1840. -- Slacker (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After carefully reading the article about Muhammad Ali of Egypt I think things are not as easy as that. In 1799 the ottoman sultan Selim III sent him to Egypt as member of the ottoman army. In 1805 he was recognized by the Porte and appointed Ottoman viceroy of Egypt. Though technically and de facto he probably was autonom and independant enough to rule as he wished. This was to some extant normal for Turkish governors, Pashas and Agas and maybe others at the time and the very thing the reforms of the ottoman sultan Mahmud II later tried to change. At least until the desaster of the egyptian fleet at the Battle of Navarino in 1827 Muhammad Ali probably saw himself as part of the Ottoman Empire and himself a subject of some sort to the Sultan at Constantinople. The First Turko-Egyptian War may be seen as the official break with the sultan in 1831. The conflict with the Saudis was in 1811-1818 even befor the egyptian campaign in Sudan. The Saudis had taken the Hejaz in 1802 from the Ottoman Empire and if indeed the ottoman Sultan sent Muammad Ali to reconquer Arabia, then I think it should be called an Ottoman affair carried out by their egyptian representives for that is what Muhammad Ali was at the time, though later he may have been an independend sovereign of his own. - But that was later.  --T.woelk (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm - I would agree that the troops involved started from the "ottoman province" of Egypt for this campaign. But how do you define "Egyptian troops". Soldiers who had been born, raised and trained in Egypt? William Facey states in Dir'Iyyah and the first Saudi State, p65, 1997, () that the army of Ibrahim Pasha who had been born in what is today Greece and may have been of albanian heritage, incuded 3000 North African Cavalrymen and North African, Turkish and Albanian Infantry. The medical force seems to have been mostly of Italian origin (Scoto, Gentili, Todeschini and Socio)and the siege engineer Vaissiere was French. He also names the cavalry commanders 'Awzun Ali and Rishwan Agha though not making any reference to their origins. So I conclude that the Turkish and Albanian units in Ibrahim pashas army may have included some of the regular ottoman troops that Muhammad Ali pasha had brought with him when he landed in Egypt in 1799, himself an ottoman officer at that time. --- going to bed now --T.woelk (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he did use a lot of North Africans, but I meant that it was an army raised by Muhammad Ali himself, according to modern standards, and not an army supplied to him by the Porte, at least that was my impression.  But if he was using Ottoman troops that landed with him in Egypt, then that would indeed be different. Since I don't know for sure, I guess we should leave the page as is.  Thanks. -- Slacker (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: for every battle that says Muhammad Ali Pasha I will remove Muhammad Ali since he was not even there for these battles. Or was he? In all the Turkish articles it does not cite Muhammad Ali as a commander. Let me know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move   (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wahhabi War →  – Ottoman–Saudi War is the Real name of the War, not Wahabbi War. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 31 December 2020 

message: There is no term called Wahhabi، it is neither sectarian nor a name for nationality, this term is used by anti-Saudi groups As a kind of criticism or attack, As for the controversy over the use of the name (Saudi), this is the real and common name and it was used by the British in documents in the 19th century, in addition to that (Saudi) represents the name of the ruling family that has been ruling the country since 1744, If you notice that there are articles on Wikipedia named "First Saudi State" and "Second Saudi State" though there is no country called Saudi Arabia at that time, so the real name for the article should be “Saudi-Ottoman” war. Aziz bm (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article’s name 

message: We should change the name to the Ottoman-Wahhabi War, because just "Wahhabi War" is very bland and is probably not the greatest title to this conflict. PanjshirLions (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Elaborate specifically where the article is not neutral and does not correspond with the sources. Both Ottoman and Wahhabite persepctives are represented. A totally pro-Ottoman article regurgitating their anti-Wahhabi themes is not acceptable by the  Neutrality standards. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 
 Represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight, even if you disagree with the view. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Can you tell me what is the reason for adding this phrase "Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, the leader of the Wahhabi Reformation"?!--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Ottoman Empire should be listed above where it says Egypt Eyalet. PanjshirLions (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt Eyalet Suggestion 

message: I’m initiating this discussion to point out that the term Wahhabi has negative connotations and has been used predominantly by the Ottoman and western scholars. It’s also to be noted that Wahhabi is a modern slur used against Saudis; not that it’s offensive to many or them but it certainly isn’t neutral. 2A0E:CB01:24:8D00:69DC:C1D5:5A3F:78C6 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name’s Neutrality 

message: How are the Wahhabis considered victorious when the war resulted in the destruction of the Emirate of Diriyah? The establishment of the Emaryare of Najd is cited in the "results" box here, but that happened 6 years later and it hardly justifies the use of the term "victory" here. The peace treaty is also cited, although the war resumed months after it was signed. Azeezm4r (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to say here that the name Wahhabi war is not very informative. A war against whom? The British? The rival Al-Muntafaq? The name "Ottoman-Egyptian expedition in Arabia" seems better. Azeezm4r (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wahhabis of Nejd Victory?