Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 1

message: A decent article overall, though I'm confused by the last sentence, especially the part about the prophet of Islam having a quote about the conqueror of Istanbul. If anyone can clarify, please do, if not it should probably be deleted. Does anyone agree?  
: 1. the prophetic saying concerning constantinople is well known in Turkey, but outside it most people are unaware.  Source of the hadith accoriding to the Diyanet the Turkish directorate of religious affairs: (139) in with they reference  Câmiu's-Sağîr.  On the page most Kuran verses and prophetic sayings which may be associated with Turks are compiled.2. You should alwas sign your comments  --Kahraman 30 June 2005 11:15 (UTC)
::Well, we cannot pass that as a fact. There is obviously no way Mohammed could know about Mehmet II, and this is probably the usual royalist propaganda to legitimate or deify sovereigns. It is however interesting to write the claim down. --Orzetto 15:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it is political. Muhammed II (Turkish spelling =Mehmet) was named Muhammed because his father Murad II thought his son might me able to take Istanbul . There are prophetic saying about Persia, Egypt and the Roman empire, which were used for justification later on.--Kahraman 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hadith about the fall of Constantinople can be seen on the sword of Mehmet II (the gold arabic writing on the sword is that hadith). With respect, Deliogul 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prophetic saying 

message: His mother was a Christian princess and he was raised with Christian customs as well. He could not slaughter the Christian folk of the Constantineapolis due to his mother's words. He used to visit orthodox churces and join the rites and this was not approved by the citizens. 
He always felt close to the Christian people but could not betray the Islamic foundations of his ancestor's empire. This is the reason he tried to vitalize the eastern Roman empire.
--JohnEmerald 16:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  interesting.. but not to strange to be true. Like any genius, Mehmed II had some weird habits. --Kahraman 14:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read today an article by Mustafa Armagan, a Turkish Historian. He stated that there were 4 possible women: Huma, Hundi, Halime or Hatice and Mara (a Serbian princess). 1) Hatice or Halime, a Turkish princess daughter of İsfendiyaroğlu İbrahim,and muslim 2) Hundi, father of unknown nationality, died 1486, 3)  Hüma, her father is of unknown nationality, died  1449  4) Mara daughter of the king of Serbia, christian, died 1487. 
However, Mara was sent to Murad II in 1435, when Mehmed II was 3 years old, so she cant be the mother, unless she had come with child.
Aslo, after Mehmet became Sultan, Mara returned back to Serbia
Who might the mother be: alhough the mothers of other kings during mehmets reign are mentioned in historical accounts, his is not, so it is very likey she died before mehmet was famous. the only one on the list who is not famous and who died very early on (1449) is Huma, and indeed she is mentioned as Mehmet's mother in the Bursa registratory office documents.--Kahraman 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habits of MehmedII 

message: Just wondering, is that painting of Mehmed II a turkish painting or a european artist's represantation of him?-user:khanearl
:The Topkapi web page says, "attributed to Italian painter Bellini." Tom Harrison (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the painting 

message: Some retarded bot removed the photo of Mehmed, stating that it had no copyright info, etc. We need a damn photo of Mehmed! It's not essential for this article only, but also for my article. Please, someone, fix this!
Restored (see history) 203.214.112.124 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a photo of Mehmed!!! 

message: The links under See also are not particularly well-chosen. I just wanted to get some in there as kind of a place holder for the section. The article could use some external links to informative material, especially on cultural and religious topics. I think the page needs more information on Mehmed's legacy, if someone is more qualified than I to write about that. Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying 

message: I cannot find any story of Saint Pelagius that is similar. Is it maybe another saint, or am I overlooking something? Tom Harrison Talk 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrews and Kalpakli, in "The Age of Beloveds" mention the story, that of a "beautiful and pious" thirteen year old boy who refused the sexual advances of Cordoban caliph Abdur' Rahman III. As punishment, the boy was tortured and dismembered. The cult provided inspiration for many centuries to the Spanish reconquista. Haiduc 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see; Some information is online here. Tom Harrison Talk 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care about the reason for his, or any, edits. I care about them being relevant and well-supported by citation. These are both. Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Pelagius 

message: Every serious historyan knows that skanderbeg wase albanian and not greek or slavic origin,you can see that on the documents from his time, vatican documents,venice documents even greek and ottoman ones.Miloti-2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miloti-2  (talk • contribs) .
User:Metb82 added a tag saying, "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." What assertion is disputed? Tom Harrison Talk 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not tale-telling, it's the work of an emminent historian. It begins with "Steven Runciman recounts...", ends with a citation to the work in which it appears and a disclaimer about Runciman's source, apparently intended in mitigation. It is immediately followed by another explanation of the incident that casts Mehmed in a favorable light. If that were not enough, the whole thing is preceded by "Some modern scholars believe..." it's a lie anyway, without citation to those modern scholars. The anectdote is relevant, presented in context, and well supported by citation to a reliable source. It is preceded and followed by presentation of a contrary viewpoint. I see no basis for removing it, or for saying that what Wikipedia has presented (that "Runciman says..."; that "others say...") is not factual. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how one aspect of recounting previous writings about Mehmet is "tale-telling" and another is not. It is all tale-telling, and as long as the material is relevant, properly sourced and placed in context it enriches the discussion. You have brought no reasoned argument against the inclusion of this material; the fact that others have deleted it is no reason to remove it. Haiduc 13:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: "After Murad II made peace with the Karaman Emirate in Anatolia in August 1444, he resigned the throne to his 12-year-old son Mehmed II." This seems to be an odd thing to do. Any possible reason why he did this? Cwiki 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  he resigned the throne to his 12-year-old son 

message: I believe the discussion in the article focuses too much on disputable and irrelevant issues. This is a huge event in the history of Europe, and I'm sure there are more important things that can be said than the allaged fantasies of Mehmed II. Deepblue06 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of Constantinopolis 

message: Didn't Mehmed and later Ottomans claimed the Caliph title ?  I could't find any refrence to it in the article. Mehrdad 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mehmed II , as the Caliph of Islam 

message: The material contributed by the anon is not implausible and comes with a source. Should it be deleted without a chance for locating a more accurate reference? Haiduc 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by  88.105.82.9 to Conquest of the Byzantine Empire