Talk:Mehmed III

message: How to flesh out this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.86.191 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I found no references to Mehmed's having "twenty seven brothers executed", so I replace it with a reference of nineteen brothers executed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fratricide 

message: Mehmed's reign was during one of the most interesting periods in Mediterranean history. It was the height of the Christian "Wars of Religion," as the Catholic Duke of Guise and (then) Protestant Henry of Navarre were fighting over southern France, Protestant England and Catholic Spain were warring in the aftermath to the Armada, Europeans were beginning to seek independent relations with Ottoman Shiite enemy Safavid Persia as a direct route to India, and the power of Venice was on the wane due to piracy and constant warfare and shifting patterns of trade and consumption. At every turn, Jewish and Muslim exiles from Europe were aligning with one or another ruler under the many different identities that their language skills and cultural experience allowed them to assume. Within the Ottoman empire there were battles between those who advocated a strict application of Islamic precepts even to trade and diplomatic relations and those (including the sultan and his court) who advocated the traditionally Mediterranean pragmatic approach to the problem of overlapping legal systems. The end of the Islamic millennium in 1591 had inspired a burst of conspiracies and counter-conspiracies that the Ottoman rulers had to manage along with extreme volatility in currency sources and values, mass migrations, and scheming by resident Europeans that grew up naturally around the conditions just described. Mehmed was actually invited at one point by Henry's emissary to bombard Marseilles in the effort to get its submission.
Whatever Mehmed's personal faults may have been, to describe his reign in such bland and uncompromising terms is bad history. The ruler was a symbolic representation of his era. We have very few sources on his personal character and do not really know how he was involved in these events. It would be reasonable if he leaned on his mother for diplomatic advice. I think the description here borders on caricature. It would be better to say frankly that there is much we do not know, but we do know that he was navigating treacherous waters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.12.182 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of context 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mehmed III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mehmed had a haseki, as noted by historian Mustafa Selaniki, who notes her death in 1597 early in Mehmed's reign. Leslie P. Peirce lists only three archives, and then says that even the names of the princesses of the dynasty are not given, even though they were also like the previous princesses married to prominent statement. Retrieverlove (Retrieverlove) 17:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Selaniki writes about the death of a haseki, Peirce founds no haseki in Topkapi archives. Archival evidence being more reliable than historiographical evidence, there is no reason to take as granted what Selaniki says, and though it can be mentioned in note (it being on the verge of OR) the information given by a (reliable) secondary source (ie, no haseki, at least no evidence-based haseki) must supersede the information deduced from a primary source.--Phso2 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Haseki

message: Handan and Halime were Sultans, not hatuns. For the fact they had sons. When a hatun had a son, she became a Sultan Gfoncz (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comsorts 

message: Handan and Halime had the title of Sultan, not hatun. For the fact both had sons. When a Hatun had a son she became a Sultan Gfoncz (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consorts