Talk:Safiye Sultan (mother of Mehmed III)

message: The theory of being Albanian.
"There is a fact that Safiye Sultan wrote some letters to Elizabeth WITH THE SIGNATURE BAFFO. Please add that information. If she's a Baffo and related to her mother-in-law, PLUS, HELPING VENICE, how can be Albanian?? This is a romor spreaded by PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HISTORY. Safiye Sultan was a Baffo, as well as Nurbanu Sultan's cousin. Her full name was Sofia Bellicui Baffo, whereas Nurbanu's was Cecilia Venier-Baffo. Safiye was related to Nurbanu by her mother. Then, Sofia was given the name of Melike Safiye, whereas Cecilia's full name was Afife Nurbanu. It's common in Ottoman that women have 2 names. For example Mahidevran Gülbahar Sultan.
Source: I know because I'm a Turk. Being Sofia Baffo, the daughter of the Corfu lord, Leonardo Baffo, are FACTS and rumors shouldn't change them. Safiye Sultan was Italian, being Albanian is just a RUMOR. There were Albanian sultans but Safiye was not one of them. She was Nurbanu's cousin. 78.182.130.159 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You should give a source where she is defined venetian, in order to start a discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The source I have is "Lessons from the Ottoman Harem on Culture, Religion, and Wars" published in the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change (Uchicago press) has her listed as Venetian genealogy, and is sourced from Shaw(1976) - I checked Shaw and he also says her origin is Venetian. Peirce says "Albanian" - both of these theories and the evidence given by scholars should be included, and the infobox should reflect this - right now it says only Albanian. Seraphim System (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Venetian origin theory originates from the confusion between her and Nurbanu, which sometimes pervades into modern historiography. Shaw is outdated, and is not considered a reliable source on factual details.--Phso2 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is still being cited in secondary sources, so can you tell me what you are basing that on? You also need a source for the claim about Nurbanu, not only Peirce obviously, but other secondary sources. That would be a lot more helpful, all you have told me is your opinion. You have not linked to any previous RSn, and my search has not yielded any RSn discussions on this source. Peirce herself cites Shaw, so I dont think this line of argument is going anywere. Seraphim System (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Besides, I've checked Peirce's sourcing, and it isn't much better. According to her its from an Italian chronicler I will have to research more, but I can't find anything about it in the letters she cites. I have no problem including Peirce's work but I'm not going to throw other scholars out just because Peirce contradicts them in places. Her contribution is valuable but she is only one scholar, and I object to writing the article to duplicate her authoritative tone on issues where she disputes the work of other distinguished scholars - that tone may be appropriate for her work, but is not appropriate in our encyclopedia. This should all be discussed per WP:NPOV, included Peirce's work and the footnotes. Seraphim System (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For your edification about Shaw's trustfulness about details, you should read his article on WP and its source :  "Colin Imber, a scholar on Ottoman history, noted in his review that both volumes were" "so full of errors, half-truths, oversimplifications and inexactitudes that a non-specialist will find them positively misleading....When almost every page is a minefield of misinformation, a detailed review is impossible."--Phso2 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, for future reference it is helpful if you provide the sources you are working out of, I have access to JSTOR. I think the best thing to do is soften the current language to better represent the source and remove birthplace from the infobox. Given the mixed things I have heard about Shaw on other talk pages and the bias some editors have against him I will look into it more myself. Seraphim System (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this article supposed to convince me of something, it doesn't have a single footnote. Seraphim System (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Some days I wish the infobox for Ottoman Women would be amended, because it seems we never know for sure where she was originally from. Contemporary sources should be included in the body with attribution and not given too much weight - the infoboxes seem undue for something that can only be sourced to conflicting medieval sources. Its a big question mark every time. Seraphim System (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: It's hard to make heads or tails of Peirce's citation but her own language in the book is not decisive on this. Our language in the article is decisive, it makes no note of any dispute. The information is presented in the infobox as decisive, it is not. The article in its currents state misrepresents Peirce's statement in the book, which is that contemporary sources say she is Albanian, not that she is Albanian. The evidence for it is weak. There isn't enough here for us to do more then soften the language, and mention that currently there are two conflicting contemporary sources. Does anyone have a second source for Gerlach? Seraphim System (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Skilliter lists several western contemporary references to Safiye in her fundamental article "THREE LETTERS FROM THE OTTOMAN “SULTANA'” SAFTYE TO QUEEN ELIZABETH I"() p. 144, cited by Peirce . The "Albanian theory" is perhaps the less weak, but it can't be presented as a certainty, so you were right in softening the tone. As always the real identity of these women can't be ascertained, since what we know relies on the writings of western diplomats whose sources may sometimes not be very reliable (cf Peirce p31 and 114).--Phso2 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Nurbanus name was thought to be  Cecilia Venier-Baffo while Safiyes was “Agrippina Baffo” as you can see the names arent the same as if that woman in painting was Nurbanu it would most certainly be named “ Cecilia Baffo” and not Agrippina as it was written on top left corner of the painting Naşakara (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: You give the souces of Leslie P. Peirce. You almost add her whole book as a 'reference'. But to what extent does she know? In her book, she bashes Safiye and praises Nurbanu. 
In Hammer's book (http://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Büyük_Osmanlı_tarihi.html?id=LC-pGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y) you can read Safiye's signature as 'Baffo'. 
85.101.164.145 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You should give a source where she is defined venetian, in order to start a discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The source I have is "Lessons from the Ottoman Harem on Culture, Religion, and Wars" published in the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change (Uchicago press) has her listed as Venetian genealogy, and is sourced from Shaw(1976) - I checked Shaw and he also says her origin is Venetian. Peirce says "Albanian" - both of these theories and the evidence given by scholars should be included, and the infobox should reflect this - right now it says only Albanian. Seraphim System (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Venetian origin theory originates from the confusion between her and Nurbanu, which sometimes pervades into modern historiography. Shaw is outdated, and is not considered a reliable source on factual details.--Phso2 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is still being cited in secondary sources, so can you tell me what you are basing that on? You also need a source for the claim about Nurbanu, not only Peirce obviously, but other secondary sources. That would be a lot more helpful, all you have told me is your opinion. You have not linked to any previous RSn, and my search has not yielded any RSn discussions on this source. Peirce herself cites Shaw, so I dont think this line of argument is going anywere. Seraphim System (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Besides, I've checked Peirce's sourcing, and it isn't much better. According to her its from an Italian chronicler I will have to research more, but I can't find anything about it in the letters she cites. I have no problem including Peirce's work but I'm not going to throw other scholars out just because Peirce contradicts them in places. Her contribution is valuable but she is only one scholar, and I object to writing the article to duplicate her authoritative tone on issues where she disputes the work of other distinguished scholars - that tone may be appropriate for her work, but is not appropriate in our encyclopedia. This should all be discussed per WP:NPOV, included Peirce's work and the footnotes. Seraphim System (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For your edification about Shaw's trustfulness about details, you should read his article on WP and its source :  "Colin Imber, a scholar on Ottoman history, noted in his review that both volumes were" "so full of errors, half-truths, oversimplifications and inexactitudes that a non-specialist will find them positively misleading....When almost every page is a minefield of misinformation, a detailed review is impossible."--Phso2 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, for future reference it is helpful if you provide the sources you are working out of, I have access to JSTOR. I think the best thing to do is soften the current language to better represent the source and remove birthplace from the infobox. Given the mixed things I have heard about Shaw on other talk pages and the bias some editors have against him I will look into it more myself. Seraphim System (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this article supposed to convince me of something, it doesn't have a single footnote. Seraphim System (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Some days I wish the infobox for Ottoman Women would be amended, because it seems we never know for sure where she was originally from. Contemporary sources should be included in the body with attribution and not given too much weight - the infoboxes seem undue for something that can only be sourced to conflicting medieval sources. Its a big question mark every time. Seraphim System (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: It's hard to make heads or tails of Peirce's citation but her own language in the book is not decisive on this. Our language in the article is decisive, it makes no note of any dispute. The information is presented in the infobox as decisive, it is not. The article in its currents state misrepresents Peirce's statement in the book, which is that contemporary sources say she is Albanian, not that she is Albanian. The evidence for it is weak. There isn't enough here for us to do more then soften the language, and mention that currently there are two conflicting contemporary sources. Does anyone have a second source for Gerlach? Seraphim System (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Skilliter lists several western contemporary references to Safiye in her fundamental article "THREE LETTERS FROM THE OTTOMAN “SULTANA'” SAFTYE TO QUEEN ELIZABETH I"() p. 144, cited by Peirce . The "Albanian theory" is perhaps the less weak, but it can't be presented as a certainty, so you were right in softening the tone. As always the real identity of these women can't be ascertained, since what we know relies on the writings of western diplomats whose sources may sometimes not be very reliable (cf Peirce p31 and 114).--Phso2 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safiye was NOT Albanian. 

message: Shouldn't we be talking about their politics?
When it comes to the Ottoman sultans, you can never be sure where they come from... I personally don't think it matters but people have suggested a good deal of theories. Wow!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.226.76 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does where she comes from really matter? 

message: The histories of these women were mixed so it's highly likely that the picture doesn't belong to Safiye but Nurbanu.. Do we have actual.proof that it's Nurbanu's ?
AcemiBalık (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nurbanus name was thought to be  Cecilia Venier-Baffo while Safiyes was “Agrippina Baffo” as you can see the names arent the same as if that woman in painting was Nurbanu it would most certainly be named “ Cecilia Baffo” and not Agrippina as it was written on top left corner of the painting Naşakara (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I guess the picture belongs to Nurbanu Sultan.