Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 2

message: None of the references mention Mehmed II's Firman. Neither Norwich nor Kinross mention anything about Mehmed's oath.
That part of the page needs a reference or it should be removed. Also, Magna Carta was in 1215 which makes it older than Mehmet's undocumented "oath". Kansas Bear 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conqueror's oath is not undocumented, actually it is a well known document both for IR and History students. Whatever, I added the reference you wanted. Deliogul 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mehmed II's Firman on the Freedom of the Bosnian Franciscans 

message: What a wrong word to use. "Term" is generally used to refer the elected or appointed bodies in republics. However, in empires, we use "reign" or "rule" because nobody elects or appoints the emperor, "to rule" is an opportunity that is given to the royal house by the God and nobody can take from the hands of the emperor before he dies or he does things against the order of the religion (Fatwā by Sheikh ul-Islam). Therefore, please change the structure of the new succession box according to this detail. Deliogul 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term?! 

message: In the conquests in Europe, something is said about Dracula returning from exile with 30,000 men.  Did someone put that name in trying to be funny, or is it actual fact?  Either way, it shouldn't just be thrown in there without previous mention.  Can someone who knows more on the subject fix please? Baseballbaker23 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the paragraph just before the one with the sentence about Dracula marching with a 30,000-strong army, it should all be clear (or if not, just follow the wikilinks).  --Lambiam 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, even if we have to use nicknames for monarchs, in this case, we can call Tepes as Vlad Dracula at most informal way. Simply referring him as Dracula would just be taking pop culture references more seriously than the academic references. Deliogul (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquests In Europe 

message: Dukas was a little child when constantinople conquered by turks.and he is the claimer of the famous kerkoporta (the story about a open gate under the connstantinople city walls so the turks seized this pass and entered the city by this place.)The biggest paradox of this theory ,it cant give a logical explanation why the turks needed that kind of a gate while the whole of the city walls ruined and as Sultan Mehmed said to his soldiers before the grand attack at 29 th may night ; i dont show you a hard target instead of this you are going to pass from a valley with small obstacles.As it happens in every western byzantine lovers mind structure;they just dont want to give this honour to turks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.145.211 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Several things wrong with you argument: First, change your letter case - CAPITALIZATIONs are not necessary; Second, spell his name right and link it.  His link is at Michael Doukas; Third, he was in his fifties during the event, which meant that he was not a "little child", but an adult. Forth, even after six weeks of continuous bombardment, the walls were still major obstacles to deal with.  Even today, you can still see parts of the wall that were not destroyed during the siege. The walls were repaired continuously during the siege thanks to Johannes Grant; Fifth, why would taking/stealing the City be an "honor" in your words? Dinkytown 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE FAMOUS BYZANTİNE HİSTORİAN DUKAS  

message: old form... Böri (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammed II 

message: "Either Istanbul takes me or I take Istanbul"    why not in text ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.121.212.76 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mehmed II 's saying   

message: ===Our options===
These are the three images that have been proposed--I hope I didn't miss any--plus two other possible candidates.
File:Gennadios.jpg|the "Gennadius" pic
File:Fatih II. Mehmet.jpg|the "portrait"
File:Portrait of Mehmed II by Gentile Bellini (Cropped).png|the "hooked nose"
File:Sultan Mehmet II.jpg|Bellini portrait
File:Gennadios II and Mehmed II.jpg|A "better" Gennadius (better colors)
 Drmies (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see no agreement from User:Drmies. He reverted the edits of an IP, then he re-instated the original portrait of Mehmed II. The original portrait needs to be re-instated and the other undiscussed change(which was changed on Dec 10th by Anon IP reverted by Charlesdrakew, then reverted by Redman19), discussed this time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If the image with Gennadios tells a story it can tell it at a suitable place in the body of the article. It is better for the box to have  the most representational single image of the subject that can be found. I do not understand where the accusation of racism has come from and I hope people will stop edit warring and respect the consensus that may be reached here.--Charles (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He had the obligation to notify involved editors? Semi-involved? But you don't have a single edit in the article, what kind of involvement is this? Anyway, you must be right, I am sure that the fact that both of you who received his invitation happened to agree with him is purely coincidental. Please accept my apologies--79.167.7.58 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he is. I prefer to stay with ip for great many reasons, I apologize for any confusion am causing. Obviously both IPs counts for one vote and that is for the Redman's suggestion for the reasons I explained in my 21:36 5 January 2011 msg, same as in the case with the Gennadios' article. Mehmed's greatest achievement was the foundation of a common Muslim-Christian empire in which both ethnicities played active and productive roles cooperating on an almost "constitutional" equality. The picture (representing the delivery of the rights the non-Muslim subjects eventually enjoyed for half a millennium) echoes that creative and ingenious action of him and through this his greatest achievement in found an empire that lasted so long. So for me it's the most appropriate for the infobox. --79.167.7.58 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Any picture that contains only Mehmed. The Gennadius/Mehmed pic to be placed farther down within the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gennadios 

message: These are the three images that have been proposed--I hope I didn't miss any--plus two other possible candidates.
File:Gennadios.jpg|the "Gennadius" pic
File:Fatih II. Mehmet.jpg|the "portrait"
File:Portrait of Mehmed II by Gentile Bellini (Cropped).png|the "hooked nose"
File:Sultan Mehmet II.jpg|Bellini portrait
File:Gennadios II and Mehmed II.jpg|A "better" Gennadius (better colors)
 Drmies (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Our options

message: The pic with Gennadios has a story in it, it also suits the article well because Mehmed II is being potrayed on the left side. Redman19 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see no agreement from User:Drmies. He reverted the edits of an IP, then he re-instated the original portrait of Mehmed II. The original portrait needs to be re-instated and the other undiscussed change(which was changed on Dec 10th by Anon IP reverted by Charlesdrakew, then reverted by Redman19), discussed this time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If the image with Gennadios tells a story it can tell it at a suitable place in the body of the article. It is better for the box to have  the most representational single image of the subject that can be found. I do not understand where the accusation of racism has come from and I hope people will stop edit warring and respect the consensus that may be reached here.--Charles (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He had the obligation to notify involved editors? Semi-involved? But you don't have a single edit in the article, what kind of involvement is this? Anyway, you must be right, I am sure that the fact that both of you who received his invitation happened to agree with him is purely coincidental. Please accept my apologies--79.167.7.58 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he is. I prefer to stay with ip for great many reasons, I apologize for any confusion am causing. Obviously both IPs counts for one vote and that is for the Redman's suggestion for the reasons I explained in my 21:36 5 January 2011 msg, same as in the case with the Gennadios' article. Mehmed's greatest achievement was the foundation of a common Muslim-Christian empire in which both ethnicities played active and productive roles cooperating on an almost "constitutional" equality. The picture (representing the delivery of the rights the non-Muslim subjects eventually enjoyed for half a millennium) echoes that creative and ingenious action of him and through this his greatest achievement in found an empire that lasted so long. So for me it's the most appropriate for the infobox. --79.167.7.58 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Our arguments

message: Maybe you can add yourself below, in the exact same lay-out, possibly giving a no. 1, 2, and 3, sticking to the names used above. Feel free to add your alternate options and to correct me if I misconstrued your comment. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any picture that contains only Mehmed. The Gennadius/Mehmed pic to be placed farther down within the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Our 'vote' (yeah, this is not a democracy...)

message: Please describe the debate about Mehmed's doctor here..... Dinkytown talk 14:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you deleting the source I put up here without any clear reason? Redman19 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to me, the section this replaced was not an academic source, not in English, not relevant to any debate, and adding nothing to any dispute.  Regarding Mehmed's doctor, please describe the debate here with sources, rather than carrying out a long, slow moving edit war (not just you...).  This is the first step before arbitration. Just stick to the facts please.  Take care... Dinkytown talk 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mehmed's doctor dispute 

message: I just removed details of Mehmed's linguistic expertise from the introductory paragraph; they seemed excess to requirements in a summary of his life and achievements. The material (corrected) can be found in the section headed "Personal life" – an editor (or two, or more) had added French and Serbian to his language talents. I checked the two sources cited, and have corrected the entry to conform with both – probably overciting, as Norwich almost certainly relies on Runciman. What seems a little more worrying is the gradual creep of uncited and therefore unreliable unverifiable, possibly imaginative or fanciful material into the article; I must stress that the article topic is outside my usual areas of editing. Would anyone with access to other cited works, used to justify the text, care to check article content against sources? Haploidavey (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of points 

message: I deleted the succession box (since 2007) which showed Mehmet II as the caliph. The sultans began to assume the title calip after the campaign of Selim I to Egypt in 1517, long after Mehmet's reign.  I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. No problem. It seems to be an error of myself. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a caliph 

message: He didn't defeat John Hunyadi in the battle of Verna, it was his father, Seems as if allot of the text written on this article isn't 100% correct, check the Spanish Wikipedia for allot of differences.. Lagonx (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some errors 

message: His mother Hüma Hatun not Mara Brankoviç. I understand reason for your grief! (SPH 22:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Mother 

message: This article links to  image, and reads in a caption, "Italian medal of Sultan Mehmed as Byzantine Emperor, 1481", however I highly doubt the medal in question dates to 1481. In particular, the medal seems to read "Bizantii Inperatoris" (sic) (Imperatoris?) - yet according to Byzantine Empire "The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources."
The use of modern (Arabic) numerals instead of Roman numerals also seems anachronistic, although according to that article, their adoption in Europe was underway by the fifteenth century.
Seems like this medal's date more likely commemorates his death, which according to the article was 1481. Any thoughts on this from a more knowledgeable editor? 
67.161.254.8 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Several similar medals exist, all seemingly based on the same portrait, or one very like; the medal legends vary, and I've not found this one's match. I'm not the more knowledgeable editor you seek, but I think the removal of the date is justified, at least for now. So I've done just that. Haploidavey (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Hm, take a look at the V & A's description of what seems to be the same medal, or a very similar medal which includes Mehmet's title as "Bizantii Inperatoris" and the date 1481; . I've restored the date, and described the medal as commemorative. The image's provenance at Commons could be made more explicit. The Byzantine Empire article might need updating. I've left a message at that article's talk page.Haploidavey (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian medal? 

message: This is getting out of hand. in the "Conquest of Constantinople" section, there is the following paragraph:
The Byzantine historian Doukas,[13] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[14] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure".[15] This story was originally recorded by Doukas, a Byzantine Greek living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, and does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest.[16] Some modern scholars believe that this tale is merely one of a long series of attempts to portray Muslims as morally inferior, and point to the story of Saint Pelagius as its probable inspiration.[16]
In the "Personal life" section, there is the following paragraph:
The Byzantine historian Doukas,[24] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[25] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure".[26]
When compared, the Personal life paragraph is an exact duplicate of the beginning of the Conquest of Constantinople paragraph.
Starting on September 30, an IP, followed by User:Tevkar, removed the duplicate material from the Personal life section. Each time, until the last, the removals were without edit summaries. User:SudoGhost reverted each time ("Unexplained removal of sourced content"). Finally, Tevkar removed the material yet again, this time with an edit summary explaining the problem. SudoGhost left it alone. I came into the picture because of a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. I declined the request, explained why, and had a short and profitable discussion at SudoGhost's talk page. Now, two editors have again tried to restore the duplicated material. I reverted one with an edit summary. I am about to revert the other.
The next time an editor attempts to reinsert duplicate material into this article, I will revert the editor and lock the article. I am not going to start leaving warnings for every editor who fails to even look at the edit history before reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate material 

message: I've just restored cited material that another editor deleted from "Personal Life", per diff. Of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut the mustard, but I couldn't help notice that the brief and simple assertion "He was attracted by both women and men", cited to Franz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit, München,1953, p. 512, might jar somewhat with the concluding paragraphs of "Conquest of Constantinople": 
"The Byzantine historian Doukas,[13] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[14] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure".[15]
This story was originally recorded by Doukas, a Byzantine Greek living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, and does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest.[16] Some modern scholars believe that this tale is merely one of a long series of attempts to portray Muslims as morally inferior, and point to the story of Saint Pelagius as its probable inspiration.[16]
I wouldn't dream of offering Babinger's en.Wikipedia article as a reliable source, but... "As a result of his reputation, his [Babinger's] magnum opus Mehmed the Conqueror was published without any accompanying notes on source material at all, since the companion volume outlining his extensive and voluminous sources was sadly unfinished at the time of his death. As a result, Mehmed the Conqueror is one of the few academic works available with no cited sources and whose authority rests solely on the reputation of the author's research abilities". If this is so, then we don't and can't know which primary sources he referred to. So, rather than let this bald assertion stand alone and vulnerable, I suggest moving the last two paragraphs of "Conquest of Constantinople" into the "Personal life" section, where Babinger's scholarly opinions can be balanced by those of his fellow scholars.   Yes? Haploidavey (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Haploidavey (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

text: No thanks. It's fine as it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No It is not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.81 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal Life" and "Conquest of Constantinople" sections 

message: It would be interesting if there were also Ottoman sources used in the article. Tursun Beg was an Ottoman bureaucrat present at the siege and wrote  a narrative called Tarih-i Ebülfeth (تاريخ ابو الفتح in Ottoman; "The History of the Conqueror").
His narrative also presents a different explanation concerning the death of Constantine XI he states that Constantine fled with his retinue but by chance encountered a group of Ottoman Azab soldiers who killed him.
Source = (The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, page 89, 2011)
DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Ottoman sources and historians 

message: there should be a section called "allegations regarding his sexual orientation" or "controversy over his sexual orientation" since putting the episode of the boys in his life section makes it as a fact while we all know that it could have been a byzantine defamation. We all know as well that sharia condemns homosexuality and most jurists (fuqaha) punish it with death, didn't it happen in ottoman history?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.81 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks, it's fine where it is. It doesn't establish it as a fact (any more than anything else about Mehmed is a fac); it just sets the background. In any case who cares what sharia law says - it hardly means that everyone obeyed it all times. Although I accept that enforcement at different times led to people living in fear from vicious religious intolerance. But the king is often above the law in this historical period. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal of new section for claims regarding his sexual orientation 

message: 1)This was the version before I added the explanation in the Personal Life section.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really expect anyone to read all this rant? I am not a native speaker either, but the grammar of the preceding comment is bad enough to put me off. Anyway, you clearly don't understand or don't want to understand what synthesis is. Could you please read it and then try to explain how your version is not a textbook example of synthesis? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I really don't want to enter this mess of a dispute, but:
# whatever Babinger's views on Mehmed, he was one of the foremost scholars on Mehmed II and his time, and his research trumps your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's unless it can be demonstrated to be either false or overwhelmingly regarded as false/biased/outdated by publications from other credible scholars. Mehmed being a "demonical personality" would be his opinion and we are not bound by it, but if his research shows Mehmed's sexual preferences to be "both ways", then that is a matter of what sources report. It is not our job to do the research or to pick among the sources, our job is to report what the scholars say.
#  "2 Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike ", sorry, but this is complete nonsense. A ruler, whether Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, may be surrounded by priests, but what he does for his pleasure is up to him. Religious prohibitions have never ever stopped vices from being practiced, from sexual ones to more harmless ones, such as drinking coffee or alcohol. This is true for the common people, let alone for rulers. I am pretty sure that Selim the Sot was also "surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike", and he was merely drunk on piousness... Constantine   ✍  15:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Don't you have any sensible thing to say? Why on Earth are you mentioning Constantine or Tvrtko? Where did you even find those names? As for Alexander, your comment is ridiculous, as there is a whole article about personal relationships of Alexander the Great. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made by Personal Life by DragonTiger23 and Surtnica 

message: According to Steven Runciman only one Greek historian was present at the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and that was George Sphrantzes. 
Source= (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Steven Runciman, page 192, 1990)DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doukas was not present at the fall of Constantinople in 1453 

message: I've relocked the article because clearly when the previous lock expired, editors started warring again. At first glance, this appears to be mainly a content dispute, and it should be resolvable without resort to accusations of POV-pushing or sock puppetry. Focus on the material ONLY, and if you can't resolve it, then you MUST use the usual dispute resolution forums available to you. If when this lock expires, you haven't reached a consensus as to how the article should be worded, then you can't insist on your version. If you do, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article locked