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.
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.
The empire conquered Muslim countries which previously were at the forefront of science and technology, but stopped inventing new science and technology and was late to adopt ideas coming from the west (even such monumental ideas as the printing press and clock technology).
Also, the empire, by giving the Sultan absolute power to seize anyone's property or life (a power that did not exist in Europe at the time), made Capitalism impossible and hurt the economy and the military of the empire.
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.
Instead it's just a collection of musings on various aspects of Ottoman history post-16th century.
I think most of it would need to be removed or heavily reworked in order to fit into the article.