Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mehmet as Roman Emperor?

Was Mehmet crowned Roman Emperor by the Orthodox Patriarch? That is what the Osmanli page claims. If he was in fact crowned, did succeessive Ottoman sultans also officially take the title of Roman Emperor? Cite plz. Thanks. Dec. 15 '05 20:42 EST 129.22.46.197

I'm not sure if later Ottoman Sultans continued Mehmet's claim, but Mehmed DID in fact claim to be "Roman Emperor" and actually believed it- his invasion of Italy was undertaken to "reunite the Roman Empire".

See: Lord Kinross, “The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise And Fall Of The Turkish Empire”, the Estate Of Lord Kinross, London: 1977 -RomeW

Was there ever a coronation ceremony involved? Did the Orthodox Patriarch give him the title? Dec. 26 '05 1629 EST 129.22.46.197

There probably was, since Mehmet believed he was the Roman Emperor and thus would want to do everything he could (short of actually converting to Christianity) to legitimize it. Can't say for certain that there was a ceremony, though. -RomeW

Maybe Orthodox Patriarch just gave that title to him for not to be killed or banished. That's medieval age you know.. --JohnEmerald 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mehmet appointed the patriarch, so he could just as well appoint someone else, more cooperative, if the current one was less than willing. Banish or killed is a bit extreme don't you think? --Kahraman 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Did the Orthodox Patriarch give that title to him at all? - Dec. 19 '05 0:26 EST 129.22.46.197

I do not think he needed to get the Title of Roman emperor from the Orthodox patriarch, because the patriarch had no such authority to give. The Roman emperor was killed by Mehmet's soldiers, so essentially he also did not have any Title left to give. In essence Mehmet took the Eastern Roman Empire by force, a military coup, and he could call himself the Ruler of Rome: his army killed the old emperor. He actually gave the Patriarch more power than before, because he gave him autonomy over all orthodox christians in the Empire, a status the current patriarch still claims and the modern state of Turkey disputes.--Kahraman 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

True that the patriarch has never had authority to give the title, because Greek roman emperors always crowned themselves, with the understanding that only God had authority to give the title. But on the (now defunct) Osmanli page it was claimed that the new patriarch Mehmet appointed crowned the Ottoman sultan a Roman emperor. Did such a coronation take place? Also, did subsequent Ottoman sultans always have the Roman Emperor title? - Dec. 27 '05 1629 EST 129.22.46.197

I really do not know if this happened. It might have, then again it might not have. I did read once how an Ottoman sultan assumes the throne. There is a ceremony, and the new Sultan receives his sword, and this is fastened to his belt. It more a sword fastenening cermony than a coronation with a crown, because they did not get a crown like the Byzantines, but a sword. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a link on this right away.--Kahraman 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There actually is a coin showing Mehmed II as the Roman Emperor. I will try to upload its photo ASAP. Syuksel 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim certainly was a recurrent one among the Ottomans following him (along with the comparison to Alexander the Great and Solomon), but keep in mind that it may have been less a general claim and more a counterclaim to more authenticity as a Roman Empire than the Hapsburgs, especially by the time of Suleyman the Lawgiver. It is notable, however, that the latter had a helmet built for him in Venice featuring 4 crowns that scholars believe to be a response to a ceremony shortly before where the pope (wearing the 3-crown tiara that was worn at the time) crowned the new Hapsburg emperor, I forget who. There was certainly a cosy relationship with the patriarchate, though, since it was imperial policy to favor the Orthodox and Protestant churches and establish them in order to encourage the weakening of the Catholic claim as a universal church. There were also documented longer-term aspirations specifically to conquer Rome in alliance with France, and the Venician Doge's bastard son was in residence in Istanbul (at Pera) waiting to be made king of Italy. The claim was there; the crowning, I don't know.

Mehmet II and his successors claimed to be the "Roman Emperor". This title was so important that, later on it caused a great series of battles between Suleiman the Magnificent and the Habsburgs (who claimed to be the roman emperor as well). This dispute was "solved" after decisive battles, which ended with Ottoman victory. Ferdinand I of Holy Roman Empire accepted the superiority of the Ottoman Empire, he accepted to leave using the title "emperor", and he accepted to be the diplomatic equivalent of the grand vizirei (not the Sultan), and call Sultan as the "father" in official letters. This is the peak of the power of Ottoman Empire, where the Sultan was officially accepted as the only Roman Emperor. Later on, after the death of Suleiman, Habsburgs began using the title "emperor" again, which eventually led to never-ending wars/battles lasted for hundrdes of years. Both dynasties claim to bear the title "roman emperor". We should search the cause of this dispute on seperation of churches, and the rivalry between the Pope and the Roman Emperor (Byzantine emperor) in 9th century. Pope declared another ruler in europe as the roman emperor in 800s, where there was a REAL emperor in Constantinopolis. This act caused a strange situation, where there was the real emperor in Constantinopolis, and another emperor crowned by the Pope. Mehmet II and other sultans bear the title by succeeding the REAL Roman Emperor in Constantinopolis, while Habsburgs claim the same title because of Pope's declaration. That is why, Mehmet II wanted to conquer Italy, to unite the Roman Empire under single rule. However, rivalries in Asia Minor, and Persia did not allow him to carry his plans. Mehmet II died at a very young age, and he might be poisoned by the Pope's spies. Note: His famous painting was completed by an italian artist, Bellini. Mehmet II was a great admirer of artists and scientists. Bellini was only one of the western artists, who were invited to to Istanbul to perform arts and science studies. likewise, during his son's rule (Bayezid II), Leonardo da Vinci presented his project to sultan about a bridge to be constructed accross the Gold Horn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.184.11 (talk • contribs) .

The prophetic saying

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: [1](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)

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)

- The prophetic saying is authentic, and one can find them in multiple independent hadith (prophetic saying) sources. I will give those sources below. However, a remark on those prophetic sayings: their compilation dates back to at least 150-200 years after the demise of the prophet. I mean these are sources much older than Mehmed II's time. Now, you may believe there is no way Muhammad could have known that, but if you look at these religious sources, the hadith is there (not in just one, but many sources). Now, why is it important to include this hadith in this article? Well, if you study the history of Islam, starting from the prophet's time, the conquest of Constantinople was a major goal for the Muslim world. In fact, he was the one who ordered the first such expedition. He instructed his followers the importance of this conquest. This is the reason why many Muslim rulers attempted to conquer Constantinople, hoping to be the commander and soldiers mentioned so admirably in the hadith. Mehmed II was no exception. As a devout Muslim, he wanted to be that commended commander. Therefore, it is only natural to include this background together with that hadith. Here are the Arabic sources of the hadith:(I accessed the names of these sources from sunnah.org) Ahmad, al-Musnad 14:331 #18859 [sahih chain according to Hamza al-Zayn] al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak 4:421-422 [sahih according to him and al-Dhahabi concurred] al-Tabarani, al-Mu`jam al-Kabir 2:38 #1216 [sahih chain according to al-Haythami 6:218-219] al-Bukhari, al-Tarikh al-Kabir 2:81 and al-Saghir 1:306 Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Isti`ab 8:170 [hasan chain according to him] al-Suyuti, al-Jami` al-Saghir [sahih according to him] -Lugalbanda

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)

Habits of MehmedII

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)

an ottoman sultan raised with christian customs. that is a new one. after all the opinions written with the influence of nationalism as the facts under the titles about ottomans(not all of them), this is a really different one, but again at least this is under the discussion page.

interesting.. but not to strange to be true. Like any genius, Mehmed II had some weird habits. --Kahraman 14:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

he was a deeply religious man with intelligent battle tactics and endless knowledge... he knew 7 foreign languages...

the painting

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)

We need a photo of Mehmed!!!

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)

• Is Mehmed Khan your friend? We have to be polite and respectful to the noble memory of the Khan of Turks, Mehmet II. With respect, Deliogul 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material

If nobody does it first, I intend to restore this recently (and persistently) deleted material, based on its notability and citation in an important volume by an eminent historian:

According to Steven Runciman, During the siege of Constantinople he promised his men "the women and boys of the city." Upon its conquest, he ordered the 14 year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras be brought to him for his personal pleasure. When the father refused to render his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot. (Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press, 1965)

The behavior of a conquering army and its leader five hundred years ago says nothing at all about anyone today. That we can study history and record what happened without either white-washing it or judging people by today's standards says a lot about us. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I can cite Bush is gay, this does not make it historical fact. The Byzantines also claimed the Ottomans walked on water during the Siege, although the Ottomans had built a low bridge, which they could not see. Caliming Muhammed II was gay, and killed a man because he was denied intercourse is completley bull, so I will delete it once more. Muhammed II was a very piuos person, both in Islamic and christian sources. How could a pious person commit a mortal sin in public, and still be considered pious by fervently religious scholars? This is not logical.This is most likely fabricated pov, So deserves to be deleted once more--Kahraman 11:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite that Bush is gay from a source, then you may do so, but do not delete material from this article which is cited from Byzantine historians! --Anittas 12:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I will delete it once more. Muhammed II was not gay or bisexual, he did not have gay lovers, his harem contained women only, and he had many children, and he was considered a very pious person who refrained from sinful behaviour, this is also in christian sources as well as in Muslim sources. If he was gay or bisexual, don't you think this would have been used against him and he would have never achieved his accomplishments. His political rivals were constantly searching for weakness, and any sinfull behaviour would have been exploited fully.

Notaras was a treasury secretary who claimed to have preserved the Byzantine treasury for Muhammed II, and Muhammed II was not gratefull for this, he pointed out this treaury should have been used in the defence of the city, and that God granted him victory in the siege, and that any money he received also came from God..I do not know when and why Notaras was executed afterwards, it is more likley associated with treason than with gay sex.--Kahraman 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying you can keep unverified and uncited inflammatory material like: "Some sources claim that he was murdered by poison given by a Jewish doctor." can stay in an article whereas something authenticated by a respected historian in his field MUST be vandalism. The frequent use of weasel words is also highly suspect. Mehmet did allow the looting of Constantinople for the 'statuatory' 3 days, he also had several of his generals/admirals executed. At the same time he did let the defenders of one of the few remaining towers leave unmolested for putting up a valiant defense. I'm not saying Mehmet was a degenerate but he certainly wasn't a saint. Items that have verifiable sources should be left in an article. Dont forget that victors typically write the history, and that a lot about him could have been produced as propaganda. Most rulers in the Middle Ages and early modern period were not nice people (Christian and Muslim alike). You allege NPOV issues, but your constant removal of the text makes you vulnerable to the same charge. If you assert there is a different reason behind Notaras' execution then include that as well. hellenica 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fatih Muhammed II is seen by most muslim Turks as a muslim Saint, an evliya. I did not put this in the article, because it is clearly POV. Nor did I put any of his miracles in here, because those are also religiuos POV and can be disputed. But I have to put a line somewhere. And from muslim Saint to bisexual pervert pedophile is a leap of very large proportions.--Kahraman 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as long as it's verifiable with a citation, then it's not POV - it's a fact of sorts. I'm not sure if other's would agree with me - but stating that Mehmet was/is a saint/evliya of, I guess the Muslim equivalent of the Turkish Church, is simply stating a fact. Martin Luther is far more appreciated in Lutheran/Protestant circles than he is among Catholic ones. Contemporary Catholics oven portrayed him as a pawn of Satan, but that doesn't decrease his important to Lutheranism. The problem with potentially controversial personalities like Mehmet (devil to some, savior to others - just like Ataturk) is trying to distinguish between verifiable fact and inflammatory material. Runciman is a fairly well-known person in the field of Byzantine history, therefore his information should be retained. If you have a link for Mehmet's 'sainthood' (is there a Turkish 'Church' website perhaps?) then perhaps it should be included. Many national heroes might be considered less than heroic by others - I have Romanian friends that are quite fond of Vlad the Impaler because he defended Wallachia from Turkish conquest, though his excesses are quite egregious. I would also say that being bisexual needent be construed as perversion or pedophilia - I believe sexual relations with much younger individuals wasnt exactly absent from the world, rulers often married spouses younger than 14, so fornicating with one wouldnt necessarily be unlikely. There are a number of sainted Byzantine Emperorors who I'm sure werent all pristine in their personal conduct, but I would describe that as 'political' sainthood, similar to Mehmet II. Disputing Mehmet's evliya-hood(?) would be between two Turkish Muslim clerics not a priest and imam. Perhaps including a reference to him being an evliya but withholding the miracles would be most appropriate? hellenica 14:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For your second piont, actually, the Turkish sources on the conquest of Istanbul are limited at the time, since they thought it was only logical conclusion of years of struggle against the Roman empire. Most of the history on the conquest of Istanbul has been written by christian sources as a propaganda effort, who were, as you might imagine, quite irritated by the actions of Muhammed II, and were trying to start a holy war to drive the muslim Turks out. --Kahraman 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What I meant by history written by the victors was not about the conquest itself, but more about the period afterward. The information I've seen about Mehmet before the conquest isn't 100% positive - his relations with his father Murad for instance. There were a number of people who made it out of Constantinople to the West who were primary sources and told their story. Mehmet did have a vizier, whom others in the court accused of treason, and an admiral, who failed to prevent the resupply ships from making it to Constantinople, killed. hellenica 14:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Turkish version of the Muhhammed II articele, there were 3 possible reason for his death, including the jewish doctor theory. The other theoris should propably also be inserted into the article--Kahraman 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that the English language version would necessarily be completely unbiased, I would imagine Turkish or Arabic versions to be far kinder and perhaps more inflammatory in their content. Providing an unsubstantiated 'conspiracy' theory about a Jewish doctor murdering one of the most popular Turkish/Muslim heroes only serves to fuel the hatred that plagues the world. This is especially true because Jews were rather well treated in the Ottoman Empire, especially after the expulsion of the Sephardic Jews from Spain, so having one murder the Sultan merely helps the view that Jews and Muslims have always been enemies. Also, saying that he was bisexual does not make *me* personally dislike Mehmet any more or less, and anyone reading it in English would have the other facts in the article on which to base their opinions. hellenica 14:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think you read the passages correctly. peacefull muslims do not hate peacefull jews. ordinary muslims love ordinary jews, just like they would any other human being, cause thats what we are. my employers are jews. I have jewish friends, some of whom are doctors. can't jewish doctors do any evil? of course they can. this is not anti semitism. its just history. if a jewish doctor killed fatih in 15th century, it's that guys sin. most muslims believe sin doesn't tricle down from generation to generation. that's another religion. everyone is responsible for their own actions.--Kahraman 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the book "(Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press)" last year and saw NO GAY STUFF in it about Mehmet. People who claim these, are lying to Wikipedia readers. You should prove it when you give references. Shame on you --JohnEmerald 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

According to google book search, it's on page 151:

Five days after the fall of the city [the Sultan] gave a banquet. In the course of it, when he was well flushed with wine, someone whispered to him that [the Byzantine Megadux] Notara's fourteen-year old son was a boy of exceptional beauty. The Sultan at once sent a eunuch [to] demand that the boy be sent to him for his pleasure. Notaras, whose two elder sons had been killed fighting, refused to sacrifice the boy to such a fate. Police were then sent to bring Notaras with his son and his young son-in-law into the Sultan's presence. When Notaras still defied the Sultan, orders were given for him and the two boys to be decapitated on the spot.

"well flushed with wine". without going further into that story, this part is enough for me. fatih mehmet drinking alcohol. it would have meant the death sentence for mehmet right there and then. the prime minister,chandarli halil, and the admiral, were executed for far less crimes. it reads like a classic orientalist debauchery fest, whcih is how the west imagined the sultans lived, but which was total fabrication. this professor doesnt know the first thing about ottoman law.--Kahraman 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"People who claim these, are lying to Wikipedia readers. You should prove it when you give references. Shame on you"

Well said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

--The claim that Mehmed II was gay can only be authenticated by one-sided "writers" or "historians." These are mainly European writers. The Muslim writers don't agree with such a claim. Just because some historian claims that he was gay does not make it deserve a mention of it here the way it is put (as if it were a fact!), BECAUSE there are others who challange such a claim (there are scores of other historians who don't agree with the claim). This being a contended issue, I suggest we either remove the statement or at least revise it in a way that reflects the other point of view as well. I assume you will agree that the wikipedia readers deserve to know both views. I recommend this be done by the person who wrote it here in the first place, if such a removal and/or revision is not made, I will login and change it myself. -Lugalbanda

If Runciman does indeed include this material (I don't have my copy on hand to check, but I'll do so tomorrow, if I remember), then the appropriate thing to do would be to cite not Runciman, but Runciman's source. That is to say, to mention that some Christian sources on the subject make this claim. john k 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the paragraph. The anecdote begins and ends with 'according to Runciman', and is followed immediately by the counter-claim that Mehmed executed Notaras for treason. Please add a citation to support that version of events. As far as Runciman's credentials, should we include that he was at one time Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University? If we start up a whole thing with 'some Christain sources say' that will be followed by 'some Muslim sources say'. I don't think this is Christians vs. Muslims. To cite a counter-claim, let's just cite the historian who makes it, as an historian. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a professor in Istanbul at one time or another does not make that person more legitimate. for instance, a german professor in Istanbul was in the news lately because his students protested, the map he was teaching from contained a country called kurdistan, taking a great big chunk out of middle and eastern Turkey. I have read more on history of the Ottomans, I have never heard or even imagined that one of them was gay or bisexual. you can imagine that those were the middle ages, and sultans were killed for much less vices than being gay, which would have been a mortal sin , and probably a death sentence by the siyasa, the special court for politicians and state employees. Check what happened to bayezid II, or fatih mehmets father murad II, and even the great suleyman the magnificent even was just this close to get deposed and killed for a couple of small faults. --Kahraman 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the article says "During his first reign, Mehmed asked his father Murad to reclaim the throne in anticipation of the Battle of Varna, but Murad refused. Enraged at his father, who had long since retired to a contemplative life in southwestern Anatolia, Mehmed wrote: "If you are the sultan, come and lead your armies. If I am the sultan I hereby order you to come and lead my armies."" it goes without saying that had murad not returned to the throne, he would have been executed at the spot acording to the siyasa laws.--Kahraman 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--I agree with John k. As for Tom's idea: it sounds fine, but I still think a sentence should follow indicating the fact that there are others who believe such a claim is a fabrication to blemish the sultan of the conquering enemy. -Lugalbanda

Such an addition would improve the article. It should of course be cited, and then we can add another reference at the end of the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying

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)

Saint Pelagius

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)

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)

Yes, I see; Some information is online here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I suggest you examine the reasons for Haiduc's edits. He holds conspiracy theories about a great many things, which all have to do with homosexual behaviour and the people who supposedly partake in it. The motive for a Reconquista was because of the Turks being foreign invaders, Muslim to boot. 68.110.9.62 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

FYI: The novel, "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova (copyright June 2005) is a fictional account of Vlad Tepes (Dracula) and Sultan Mehmed II's relationship as contemporaries.

Disputed?

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)

This part;

Some modern scholars believe that the following 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. Steven Runciman recounts that during the siege of Constantinople Mehmet promised his men "the women and boys of the city." Upon its conquest, he ordered the 14 year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras be brought to him for his personal pleasure. When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot. (Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press, 1965). 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.

It has been erased and re-inserted several times. I think tale-telling should be removed from the article. It does not have its place. --Cretanforever 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I will insert this paragraph in an appropriate place in the article for Jesus (s.a.s.) and then we will discuss about it again.:)

The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University, reported in 1958 that he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter 10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. [2]

There are many stories about Mehmed II. He inspired awe in his lifetime and many of his adversaries tried to belittle him in this way (as the paragraph suggests). There is another one on Bellini having painted a severed head and Mehmed II having reacted by saying that a severed head does not look as he had painted, and would have, purportedly, called one his soldiers and beheaded him and would have said to Bellini; "That's how a severed head looks like!". Except that the story was put into writing some 150 years after both Mehmed II and Bellini had died. It is not in context at all, except if we add a section titled "Mehmed II gossips", and the place accorded is far too large. As I said, I will see if your reasoning holds after having made a try in another page.

--Cretanforever 01:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But this particular story of Mehmed appeared in a contemporary source - that makes it quite different from your other examples. john k 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

he resigned the throne to his 12-year-old son

"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)

Conquest of Constantinopolis

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)

Mehmed II , as the Caliph of Islam

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)

• Selim I and later Ottoman Sultans had the Caliph title. Selim I was grandson of Mehmet II.Ugur Olgun 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed's tolerance

There's one paragraph about Mehmed's tolerance that's grossly irrelevant. Supposedly a Rabbi sent a letter to the jews in Europe in the twentieth century, proclaiming the tolerance in Turkey. However as Mehmed lived in the fifteenth century this has no relevance to Mehmed the conqueror at all. I think this part should be removed.Dunam 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but maybe you should add information opposing points of view instead of removing what you don't like? ZFC21 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is completely irrelevant. An opposing point of view concerning the removed quote would be equally irrelevant. Dunam 05:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How's tolerance toward minorities irrelevant in an article about a ruler? ZFC21 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and for all I know he was very tolerant toward minorities. However, the only thing in it about his tolerance is a letter that is written five hundred years later and is not written about Mehmed's actions, but rather, how tolerant Turkey is at the time of the second world war. In that same time span, a few European countries started grandscale slavery AND stopped. How is a tolerant Turkey in 1940ish relevant to a ruler that lived 500 years earlier? Dunam 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure the letter was written during WWII? Why would someone insert a letter written during WWII to support the tolerance of a leader in the 15th century? ZFC21 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I removed

Mehmed's rule was indeed very tolerant to non-Muslims, a letter from one rabbi to persecuted Jews in Europe read like this;

“ Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the Earth. Everything is cheap and everyone of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us. ”

You might notice how the letter reffers the 'yellow star as a badge of shame', which must be the david star that jews had to wear during the second world war, under the nazi regime. So that's why it was removed. Why WOULD someone insert a letter written during WWII to support the tolerance of a leader in the 15th century? I don't know. But it doesn't make sense to keep it there. Dunam 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

edits by 88.105.82.9 to Conquest of the Byzantine Empire

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)