Talk:Mehmed V

message: I don't understand why Istanbul isn't used instead. That's what the Ottomans, and now Turks, have called it for about 700 years. Using the word Constantinople makes it seem like an article about a Byzantine, it just makes no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.174.162.110 (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantinople

message: The dates at the beginning of the article imply that Mehmed died on 7/3/18; the text though says that he "stepped down" on that date?  Which is correct?  The absence of biographical data in the article after that date seems to me to imply that he died, but the article is so short, I'm not sure. --Jfruh 22:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The birth/death dates seem correct in the code but they do not show correctly in the page. Could someone else try to fix it. My attempts didn't work. --Bernardd 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you see. There's some sort of weird interaction going on between the Ottoman Turkish language stuff immediately preceeding. With my date settings, I get: "(Ottoman: محمد الخامس) (2 November 1844 – 3 July 1918)", with the date being split around the Ottoman script. I guess wildly that Ottoman is a right-to-left script and there's a subtle bug somewhere. I'll try a few things, but we might need some expert help... studerby 23:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. It was in fact the adjacency of the Ottoman script and the date. Moving the Ottoman text away did the trick. studerby 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch studerby. --Bernardd 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth and death are inverted 

message: Is it really necessary to have the 1915 travel guide quotation in this article? It adds nothing to a historical appreciation of the Sultan, and smacks of racism in its characterisation of him by (presumably) a European observer. Unless anyone leaps to its defence I will excise it from the article. --Iacobus 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist quotation 

message: Is the comment that Mehmed V issued the last Jihad in history correct? I am no expert, but recent history has seen a host of Jihad declarations. WillWilliam
:Perhaps the idea has to do with the fact that Mehmed V, as the man generally considered to be Caliph by Sunni Muslims, was the last man to have the authority to  call a Jihad, and to have done so (his successors Mehmed VI and Abdul Mejid II presumably did  not call for any holy wars against the unbeliever). john k 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Part of the article: 
"...His Mother was Valide Sultan Gülcemal, (Caucasus, 1826 - Constantinople, Ortaköy, Ortaköy Palace, 16 November 1851), originally named Sofiya, an Albanian."
If she were born in Caucasus, how could it be true that she was Albanian? or vice versa, if she were Albanian, how could it be true that she was born in the Caucasus. 
But I understood the  case. I observe this a lot here. If an important Ottoman person's ethnicity is not exactly known, (sometimes, even though we even know the person's ethnicity e.g. Hayreddin Barbarossa, Turkish admiral) he/she is usually labeled as Albanian or Greek by ultra-nationalist and/or Anti-Turkish Wikipedians. I condemn this. Somebody must stop these kind of edits, please. -F.Mehmet (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of making accusations of nationalism and racism, calmly add a citation(which I have done) to "Albanian" and wait about a week. If no one responds with a reliable source, then remove the "Albanian" part. crimina qui cernunt aliorum, non sua cernunt; hi sapiunt aliis, desipiuntque sibi --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ridiculous statement about Sultan's mother 

message: This should stand in Wikipedia: Mohammed V, born Reshad, who was installed by the Young Turks in place of his older brother Abd-ul Hamid II in 1909. He played no role in the government, confined to issuing Young Turk fetvas and ulemas in his own name. Mohammed V is generally regarded by history as being a moronic imbecile, with a tendency to drool. According to The Near East from Within: "The very appearance of Mahomet V suggests nonentity. Small and bent, with sunken eyes and deeply lined face, an obesity savoring of disease, and a yellow, oily complexion, it certainly is not prepossessing. There is little or no intelligence in his countenance, and he never lost a haunted, frightening look, as if dreading to find an assassin lurking in some dark corner ready to strike and kill him ... Abdul Hamid hated and despised him, but was afraid to have him killed, perhaps through fear that a stronger man might take his place." A story goes that shortly after Abd-ul Hamid II was confirmed Sultan, all his brothers were imprisoned in the traditional Ottoman way [soft palaces and seraglios], to stifle rival claimants to the throne. This was the traditional way of the house of Osman. Originally, the brothers of the Sultan were executed, this being performed from the time of Mohammed the Conqueror in 1451 up to Selim the Grim in the 1590s. However, from the XVII. Century, Sultans preferred to imprison their siblings. Being locked away for decades had the tendency of weakening the mind, and indeed, the Ottoman history is rife with crazed and insane Sultans who were simply the puppets of the Janissaries. Thus, this tradition was quite a reasonable explanation for the downfall of the Ottomans. By 1909, the Janissaries were long gone, but Mohammed V remained. He had been imprisoned for 30 years in the imperial harem, which might have seemed a most desirable prison. However, it had the effect of making him quite effeminate and weak. Thus, his rule was of such a state that when Ambassador Morgenthau was leaving, the Sultan lamented to him that "had it not been for the Russians attacking us, we would never be in this war." Morgenthau was saddened at how the Young Turks had misguided the old Sultan into believing the Russians had wronged him, when in fact Turkish-owned cruisers had been the aggressors. Simple though the Sultan might have been in political affairs, he was recognized as a brilliant poet of the old Persian style. In fact, much news was made of the Sultan's formal poetic presentation to Enver Pasha of a poem celebrating the Turks' brilliant victories in Gallipoli. Surely, it was a talent he perfected during his years of imprisonment in the harems. The Sultan was not the complete drooling imbecile that many observers relished describing. His confinement of thirty years, nine of them alone in the harems, had given him the opportunity to study not only Persian poetry but also many other subjects, and it happened that the Sultan was well-read even in science and imbued with knowledge and wisdom that unfortunately served nobody while he was the pawn of the Young Turks.
In this text there are much more interesting facts of this Sultan.  
--Najdiarabian (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mehmed V.

message: I found Mehmed V's autograph in this https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/508/PFSIF9170823A083.jpg
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autograph