Jump to content

Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Dimadick's Large Revert

@Dimadick: I assume you will explain your need to remove various sources and sourced material. ParthikS8 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely. For some editors homosexuality is an awkward issue they can't deal with in a mature manner. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The sourced material seems widely irrelevant to Mehmed's sexuality: "This created an association to the contemporary Christians and Greeks of the Turks as lustful people." ... "Historical fact however describes a generous man who after capturing Constantinople, worked to restore economic, social and religious stability (both Islamic and Orthodox Christian) to the city." How does generocity contradict his sexual activities, and why the scare quotes on the "serious" in reference to the history books that discuss it? Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick, I see that tampering with the source is your method to recharacterise it as having nothing to do with the claims of his sexuality. Let's read the entire page, shall we?

widely believed - as shown in pseudo-historical accounts of the event, in oral histories passed down through generations, and even in modern fictional renditions of the fall of Constantinople - that Mehmet the Conqueror slept with Constantine's daughters. Whatever the truth, such a conjecture echoes an Oedipal theme wherein the father (Constantine in this case) having been killed, the son (young Mehmet) sleeps with his women. Since detailed information about young Mehmet's internal world is not available, we cannot speak of Mehmet's Oedipus complex with a sense of certainty. Obviously, his preoccupation with Constantinople and seizure of the city should not be attributed solely to his unresolved Oedipal strivings. One can assume, however, that his internal motivations might have found some expression in his political and military activities. And, what is important here is not the accuracy of Mehmet's Oedipal strivings and his possible wish to surpass his father, but rather the fact that Oedipal fantasies are reflected in the image of this Turkish victory (especially among Greeks) that have been passed down through generations to the present.

The seizure of Constantinople by the youthful and virile sultan through the opening of a hole in the city wall was perceived as a rape, which created an image, especially among the Greeks and other Christians, of Turks as lustful people. What was difficult to assimilate was the fact that the 'rape' was performed not by the father, but by the son, who had achieved an Oedipal triumph. A noted nineteenth-century historian, von Hammer-Purgstall, even wrote that the young sultan lusted after the younger son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, who had led the Byzantine fleet in defence of Constantinople (von Hammer-Purgstall 1835-43). Other Christian writes later repeated similar characterizations in 'serious' history books. Thus, a kind of boundless lust was assigned to Mehmet the Conqueror. Historical fact, however, describes Mehmet as a highly educated man who had been taught by special tutors in his youth. He spoke several languages, including Greek, was familiar with Greek mythology, and loved to have discussion on religious and metaphysical topics. He was known as a generous person and after capturing Constantinople worked to restore economic, social, and religious (both Islamic and Orthodox Christian) stability over the city. Nevertheless, the image of Mehmet as lustful prevailed. Over time, Constantinople, later named Istanbul, became symbolized as a fallen or grieving woman, by both Christians and Turks, and was celebrated as such in folk songs and poems throughout many centuries (Volkan and Itzkowitz 1984, 1994; Halman 1992).

The two waves of massive externalizations and projections by the

— Cultures Under Siege: Collective Violence and Trauma, p.236, Antonius C. G. M. Robben, Marcelo Su'arez-Orozco
By the way, for other editors who are interested, the source in question is:
Volkan; Itzkowitz (2000). Robben; Su'arez-Orozco (eds.). Cultures Under Siege: Collective Violence and Trauma. Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 236. ISBN 0521784352. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I will now go through two of the edits made recently and comment on the problems and errors I find with them.

First edit

[1]

So this edit made by Contaldo80 was to split the first sentence off from the rest of the section and to rename the second section 'Sexuality'.

Does the naming of the section have any basis in the sources? The source above characterises the homosexual description as an attempt by Greeks to impose a 'lustful image' onto Mehmet, relating this to the story of Oedipus. By the way, I note that my source is a more modern secondary source whereas the sources currently used in the section are primary sources of these Greek figures and what they have said (as well as other Christian european historians backing them up - with perhaps the sole exception of "Asian Homosexuality"). So Contaldo80, you've made a unverifiable edit due to your own thoughts and feelings and one that is not reflected in the source. The only source that in any way states the analysis that Mehmet is homosexual is the book, "Asian Homosexuality" edited by Wayne R. Dynes, Stephen Donaldson, which even states from the beginning, in page 13:

We must stress this point from the outset, because so much that we know in the West about boy-love in Turkey has been written about the Turks by their Greek enemies.

and

The Greeks were therefore motivated to write horror stories about the Turks in order to rouse Western support for their hopes of liberation from Turkish masters.

So really the characterisation that Mehmed was a homosexual was from a Greek viewpoint - as mentioned in my source - and so the section should be suitably named Greek views (or perhaps more accurately, Greek and Christian views). The view of him as a homosexual is, like the view he raped the Emperors daughter, a polemical claim made by Greek sources.

One will note that my source, Cultures Under Siege, mentions these Christian historians, effectively making it a secondary source, commenting on the milleu of primary sources present in the section. Also my source is of an academic nature, being published by the Cambridge University Press and being edited by Antonio Robben of Utrecht University and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco of Harvard University. It is listed under, "Publications of the Society for Psychological Anthropology". Why am I stating all of this? I anticipate that someone somewhere down the line will question the reliability of the source and try to characterise it non-academic, self-published or unreliable. I am preempting any attempt to do so.

The page on Sultan Muhammad al Fatih has a wrong section of Sexuality.Muhammad al fatih was a straight man . The section should be removed as it has no authentic source and is just straight lie. AdnanPatel17 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If the paragraph is in fact verified in several publications, apart from those written by Christian and Byzantine authors, then those sources should be published as well. Hiding behind this cowardly excuse that, 'many credible sources say this,' prove it by publishing a verified and respected source that would not be biased against Mehmed the Conqueror. You're literally defending history written by Mehmed's enemies. In what world can that be considered the truth? Wolfdragon44 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Second edit

[2]

Now in this edit Dimadick tries to do something interesting. As well as fixing a capitalisation error (something I will commend him for) he removes the "scare quotes".

Now one might ask why I included them in the first place. The reason is simple: It is as they appear in the source. Read again the source, "Other Christian writes later repeated similar characterizations in 'serious' history books." The scare quotes are not mine they are from the reliable source. By removing them you have removed something that was found in the source, and you have no source backing you up to remove those quotes. Nothing except your own feelings. By the way there is no WP policy saying we should remove scare quotes if they appear in the source.

Now I will come on to the responses made by Dimadick above:

The sourced material seems widely irrelevant to Mehmed's sexuality: "This created an association to the contemporary Christians and Greeks of the Turks as lustful people." ... "Historical fact however describes a generous man who after capturing Constantinople, worked to restore economic, social and religious stability (both Islamic and Orthodox Christian) to the city." How does generocity contradict his sexual activities, and why the scare quotes on the "serious" in reference to the history books that discuss it? Dimadick

Really?? It seems to me like you haven't bothered to read the source!

What was difficult to assimilate was the fact that the 'rape' was performed not by the father, but by the son, who had achieved an Oedipal triumph. A noted nineteenth-century historian, von Hammer-Purgstall, even wrote that the young sultan lusted after the younger son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, who had led the Byzantine fleet in defence of Constantinople (von Hammer-Purgstall 1835-43). Other Christian writes later repeated similar characterizations in 'serious' history books. Thus, a kind of boundless lust was assigned to Mehmet the Conqueror. Historical fact, however, describes Mehmet as a highly educated man who had been taught by special tutors in his youth.

They characterise the Greek claims of his sexuality as being Greek polemical material forwarding the view that Mehmet's actions (fictious or not) somehow mirrors the actions of Oedipus. He further states other Christian historians repeated this viewpoint, which doesn't necessarily have any basis, and now we see from the source, Asian Homosexuality, these historians biased views coallesce to give sketchy evidence to the idea he was a homosexual. In reality the source states, historical fact paints a very different view of him. In Asian Homosexuality we read that apparently he kidnapped little kids to feed his insatiable appetite - but this is in contrast to what the more modern source of him that states: He was a hard-working well educated man who attempted to better both Orthodox Christian and Islamic religious stability - i.e. he was a religious, well-versed man who was not a brute kidnapping children. The source is arguing against the view of him as lustful (or by extension a homosexual) and is making a comment on the literature that espouses this claim. The source is making it clear that we have no idea if he even carried out these activities in the first place and attributes the repetition of this view as an attempt by Christian authors to defame him.

So your claim that his generocity doesn't contradict his sexual activities, is your own viewpoint and not the viewpoint suggested by the source which clearly contrasts the two.

So I will be reverting Contaldo80's edit as I see no reason to rename the section "Sexuality". The section is putting forward greek views on his "sexuality" which are clearly of a polemical nature. This change will also allow the section to be expanded on with other polemical greek views e.g. his claimed rape of the Emperor's daughter etc. It allows for a broader category of information to be included.

I will also be readding the scare quotes as they are found in the source.

ParthikS8 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"They characterise the Greek claims of his sexuality as being Greek polemical material forwarding the view that Mehmet's actions (fictious or not) somehow mirrors the actions of Oedipus." You are quite mistaken here, though I am not certain whether that has to do with your familiarity with Sigmund Freud or not.

Oedipus committed patricide (killing his father), married his father's widow (his own mother), and had children with his mother. The Oedipus complex which your source mentions is one of Freud's key concepts:

  • "The positive Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent and hatred for the same-sex parent. The negative Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the same-sex parent and hatred for the opposite-sex parent ... Freud considered that the child's identification with the same-sex parent is the successful outcome of the complex and that unsuccessful outcome of the complex might lead to neurosis, pedophilia, and homosexuality."

The passage you quote above contains speculation that Mehmed experienced the Oedipus complex, and was possibly motivated by the "wish to surpass his father". Said father being Murad II.

"The seizure of Constantinople by the youthful and virile sultan through the opening of a hole in the city wall was perceived as a rape, which created an image, especially among the Greeks and other Christians, of Turks as lustful people. What was difficult to assimilate was the fact that the 'rape' was performed not by the father, but by the son, who had achieved an Oedipal triumph." Your source apparently sees sexual symbolism in the Conquest of Constantinople, and emphasizes the personification of Constantinople as a woman.

"his claimed rape of the Emperor's daughter etc." The emperor never had a daughter. Constantine XI Palaiologos was famously childless, after having survived both of his wives. This lack of heirs caused a conflict between two of his ambitious brothers in the Despotate of the Morea.

"an Oedipal theme wherein the father (Constantine in this case) having been killed, the son (young Mehmet) sleeps with his women." Why would killing Constantine XI be a symbolic act of patricide? They were not closely related, and they had minimal interactions prior to the Siege. Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


I am not putting forward this idea - the source is putting forward the idea that Greek authors are the ones who thought of this. Go read the source again. Again you are twisting the source. With regards to Constantine XI, I agree with you - again its a fictious claim that the source disputes. It is obvious to me now that you haven't bothered to read and understand the source which funnily enough here you are trying to dispute with WP:OR. ParthikS8 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not twisting anything. I read through the entire source and I am far from convinced you even understood its implications. Your source sees Freudian symbolism in the historical narratives, and speaks of a symbolic rape of Constantinople itself by Mehmed. That is why it speaks of "the opening of a hole in the city wall was perceived as a rape" It draws parallells between the gate in the walls of Blachernae and the vagina. Which I can assure you were not part of the 15th century narratives. Dimadick (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
ParthikS8 you have not achieved consensus for changes and this is a requirement under WP:BRD. Furthermore you seem to have introduced ethnic and cultural politics into this. Broadly it goes as follows: "Mehmed wasn't homosexual because he was a great warrior and a muslim. Those nasty greeks try to smear our great hero by suggesting her was immoral and effeminate" etc. Dismount your POV horse; look at the issue objectively and suggest a sensible way forward - and without writing an essay would help. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

The incidents that were mentioned in the 'Sexuality' section are not well proved and has a very high possibility of lies and propaganda to dishonor his (Muhammad/Mehmed al Fatih) personality. Because as a practicing Muslim it is very unlikely for him to do so as in Islam, for a man having a sexual relationship with a boy or man is totally haram and extremely sinful. And no evidence clearly proves those claims on him which are seemed very biased. So, it would be good to add the point that those claims are not proved, and there is no clear evidence to justify them or decisively establish them. Syed.MRH (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done, see comment above. You can suggest alterations to this paragraph if you point to other scholarly sources that call it speculation. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is defamation of character Wikipedia should not allow false content like this sexuality section to be put. This is smearing a righteous man. Mvk5227 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

Sexuality section must be deleted since the reference is dubious. Mehmet the Conqueror cannot be described in such a way. He is not a homosexual. In Islam, homosexual is not tolerable. Please refer to reliable source. Fkwiki9099 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

☒N Not done. Please check WP:MOSISLAM and WP:VER. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't care about the position of Islam about the homosexuality, this has nothing to do with his religion. Leonard of Chios was an eye-witness account of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. His letter to pope Nicholas V about the fall of Constantinople "remains our basic source for the event" to this day (according to Marios Philippides and Walter K. Hanak, "The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies", ISBN 978-1409410645). Leonard of Chios was the one who wrote that Mehmed had sent a eunuch to the house of Notaras, demanding that he supply Jacob Notaras (14 years) for the Sultan's pleasure. --N Jordan (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This page is under attack from a number of new editors who seem to be exhibiting a religious bias. Suggest everyone is vigilant. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and it should be written from a neutral point of view. I see requests coming from newly created accounts, their only contribution to Wikipedia is that request. If you compare text about Mehmet’s conquests in this article with the main articles for each specific war, you will see this article is not critical at all. --N Jordan (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this article is under attack by WP:SPA accounts, i also suggest everybody to be vigilant about it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

False Information Regarding Mehmed's Sexuality

The entire paragraph regarding Mehmed the Conqueror's sexuality is based upon two authors who were both Christian. One is quite literally from Byzantine. There is absolutely no evidence to prove Mehmed was a homosexual, rather the glaring proof that he was a heterosexual in the form of his three sons is present. That paragraph was published for no reason other than slander of his good character, and an effort to get 'revenge' so to speak on Mehmed the Conqueror.

If there is any viable source that verifies that Mehmed carried out these deeds, it should have been posted. As there is no other source, this is completely false and the sexuality paragraph should be removed post haste. Wolfdragon44 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"...rather the glaring proof that he was a heterosexual in the form of his three sons is present". Are you for real? Contaldo80 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

The page on Sultan Muhammad al Fatih has a wrong section of Sexuality.Muhammad al fatih was a straight man . The section should be removed as it has no authentic source and is just straight lie. AdnanPatel17 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:, the paragraph does appear to be quite heavily sourced to several apparently valid historical publications, unless you have more evidence than just your own opinion we aren't going to remove a sourced section. ~ mazca talk 19:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The sexuality section is false and is trying to smear a noble man of God. May those who try such ploys be the objects of them, ameen. Mvk5227 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fingers crossed eh. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality Section is False

May those who practice such ploys be the objects of them. The ones who try to defame a man's character will suffer in this life in the next. These are all false claims. God would never bestow on a man like that the favor of conquering the best of cities in the world and in Islam such a dead would void your religion all together. He was the leader of the faith at the time if this was true they would have personally removed him from all power. Mvk5227 (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussions about the subject. If you think that the section is questionable then go ahead and make helpful edits that are backed up by reliable sources. I added the tags to it because as of right now it is not very reliable at all. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
What's "not reliable" about it? Can you be more specific please. Thanks

This is one of Wikipedia's vital articles. With that in mind, the state of the article can only be described as far from satisfactory. As for Mehmed's homosexual tendencies, I do not dispute them; I do question the prominence given to the subject. One can only hope that the article will soon be reorganized if not entirely rewritten. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that this article gives any undue weight to his sexuality. His sexuality influenced his political decisions. He executed Bizantian mega doux because he refused to send his 14-years old son to be sexually abused. The language is very soft, as that was not just homosexuality but pederasty.--N Jordan (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not undue weight if reliable sources (i.e. at least one of the numerous biographies of Mehmed) give it as much prominence as Wikipedia does, which would mean a chapter. Is that the case? Not to my knowledge, but I would love to be corrected. Franz Babinger dedicates merely two sentences to the matter: one for Radu the Fair, saying that Mehmed's "passion for the boy is reliably attested", and one for the beautiful eunuch Suleiman Pasha, who was "abused by Mehmed". Surtsicna (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment : The section is not "undue" or "false", it's reliably supported by sources and has to remain in the article.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Merely saying that it's not undue or false does not cut it. We have sources which satisfy WP:V criteria, but you still have to prove that the section does not violate WP:UNDUE. So, which biographies of Mehmed dedicate a chapter to his sexuality? Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The pedophile episode with Jacob Notaras was described by Leonard of Chios who was an eyewitness of the fall of Constantinople. Franz Babinger's book was published in fifties when homosexuality was a taboo. Dror Zeevi was also writing about him("Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East, 1500-1900") Would you rather include this information into the section about his personality and use modern terminology to describe his sexual preferences? --N Jordan (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I would rather that the article treats each aspect of Mehmed's life "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". This is not a whim but policy. There are plenty of biographies of Mehmed out there to compare. Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you're misusing the WP:UNDUE rule. It's difficult to cut this section down much more without rendering it unintelligible. It's literally eight sentences. The fact that it's as much as eight sentences is because a number of editors who believe that Mehmed was incapable of anything other than sex with his wife (wives?) have previously demanded more material to back up the initial claim. You can't have it both ways. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above posts by N Jordan and Contaldo80. @Surtsicna: could you please tell us what would be your proposal exactly ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
How am I misusing it? I am not getting any counter-arguments here. This is a general biography of Mehmed, isn't it? Per WP:PROPORTION, its content is supposed to reflect the content of peer-reviewed general biographies of Mehmed. Each aspect of Mehmed's life should be given as much weight as it is given in such scholarly works. Now, there are dozens of biographies of Mehmed out there. I have checked the biographies by Franz Babinger and Marios Philippides; in hundreds of pages of their accounts of Mehmed's life, there are fewer sentences about his sexuality than in this single encyclopedic article. Is his sexuality given more prominence by other biographers? Contaldo80, we are not supposed to pander to nationalists who would like this to be a hagiography; nor are we supposed to delve disproportionately into his relations with men and boys. Currently there's more written about him shagging Radu than there is about his legacy. Anyone remotely acquainted with the literature on Mehmed would find it bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent point, Contaldo80, Wikipedia is specific, because we will always have somebody who will ask for additional information to support the claim. I can reduce this entire section in two sentences. Present the fact that Mehmed was a bisexual and a pederast, and that his sexual preferences sometimes influenced his political decisions. However, in no time, we will be in square one, and this section will grow again. So, I would rather leave it as is. As Wikaviani said, let us hear your specific proposal. I would be more interested in changing some other parts of the article and aline them with main articles on subjects. For example, we are missing atrocities during the siege of Consantopole or swearing in bad faith during the conquest of Bosnia. --N Jordan (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
My specific proposal is to reduce the section to what appears in the biographies of Mehmed. Which biographer calls him a bisexual and a pederast whose sexual preferences affected his political decisions? We will not be in "square one" if the article is modeled after published, scholarly biographies of the subject. This talk page is loaded with discussions about Mehmed's sexuality and this will continue to be virtually the only thing discussed here for as long as it is so disproportionately discussed in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I still haven't seen your specific recommendation. If a biographer mentions his sexual preferences towards young teenage boys, he doesn't need to call him a bisexual and pederast, but that is a current qualification of Mehmet's sexual preferences. I assume he was bisexual, not homosexual. Check the article on Radu cel Frumos. According to Ion Grumeza (The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500), the invasion of Wallachia (1461) was influenced by Mehmet's desire to show his recognition of his beloved Radu the Handsome (Radu cel Frumos). Also, the execution of Bizantian mega doux was a political decision. BTW, "Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit" by Franz Babinger was initially published in 1953. --N Jordan (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have stated my recommendation several times. Ion Grumeza does not say that Mehmed was attracted to Radu, and we should not engage in synthesis. Babinger's work is a classic biography of Mehmed; if you can cite another biography of Mehmed that elaborates further on his sexuality, please do. I have rewritten the section to focus on the general practice rather than two incidents (details of which differ from one chronicler to another anyway) and merged it with "Personality". "Personality" itself might be best merged with "Family life" under the title "Personal life". That seems to be the usual layout of biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: May i suggest you to refrain from editing the article while there is an active discussion here on the talk page ? You are far from any consensus yet. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

People asked for my specific recommendation. I went ahead and gave my specific recommendation. It is more concise, more general, more informative, and more encyclopedic. And since nobody has objected to this reasoning, your reversion is unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody said they agree with your "recommendation" ! also, i tried not to make a global revert of all your edits, this is why some part of the content you added was lost in the process. I would suggest you self revert and wait for consensus.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: I restored the status quo ante, please do not revert again, we don't want an edit war. Let's wait for consensus. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Tacit consent is a thing too. But I am asking you now. Do you prefer two cherry-picked accounts to a summary? And why pick Chalkokondyles and Leonard? Other chroniclers give different versions of those stories. Doukas tells one. Kritoboulos tells another. Philippides analyzes them all in his book and I summarized it. What are your reasons for preferring the previous wording? Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any tacit consent here. Also, i did not say i prefer the previous version over your version, i just said that we are far from any consensus here, right ? I would say that even if i agreed with your version, i would have reverted back in order to wait for consensus. For now, i'm trying to find out which sources would represent the mainstream of views about this issue, when we will be able to identify those sources, then we will have to cite them and reword the section accordingly.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You cannot see a tacit consensus. If you could, it would not be tacit. Your decision to revert a well-explained edit without any arguments is lamentable and unhelpful. I have been imploring you and others to examine the biographies and put together a narrative that reflects the literature about Mehmed; and when I do it myself, you revert it. That is not how an encyclopedia is built. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Neither did i see a tacit consent nor did i feel it in the above posts from the two other nvolved editors. Anyway, i think you got me well. I already explained why i reverted and i will be glad to self revert if a consensus is found. You better take a look at your own behavior before labeling others' actions as "lamentable" since as an experienced editor, you know that this encyclopedia works primarily with consensus. I hope we can continue to collaborate in a more constructive manner from now on.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you explained that you reverted not because you objected to the content or because you preferred the old version but because I went ahead and did it. That is lamentable because it discourages users from taking action and prevents the project from moving forward. And please follow the link to tacit consent. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to preserve the quality of the article, as the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. The last thing i want is to discourage you and if it makes you feel better, i'm ready to self revert and restore your version until the two other editors are back here to let us know their opinion (however, i don't know if this is a good practice), but if they disagree with your version, then you'll have to self revert.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Wikaviani. Of course I will self-revert if there are arguments against my edit. But to be honest, there is hardly any quality in the article to preserve. Everything from factual accuracy to basic orthography is abysmal. I think that the brave user who decides to turn this into a GA (lest I say FA) will have to start from scratch. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me add that if N Jordan and Contaldo80 agree with your changes, then it's fine for me since i think that you guys are more knowledgeable than me about this topic. By the way, do you have links for the above sources you mentioned ? this would spare me some time, as i'm trying to find them on the web.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have cited two biographers, Babinger and Philippides. Their works may be available on Google Books. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, i'm gonna try to find these sources.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted that various chroniclers give contradicting accounts of the death of Loukas Notaras, leading Philippides to conclude that "no one could ascertain what had really happened or what was the fate of the survivors". Yet Wikipedia chooses one chronicler, retells his story in detail, and ignores the others. That is not only a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION but also WP:NPOV. An encyclopedia should summarize what the biographers hold to be certain: that Mehmed had a weakness for pretty boys and had them in his seraglio. Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but the quotes are attributed, thus, i don't think that there is any violation here, however, it's possible to add more views to the section to obtain a better balanced section.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
That's the thing: we should not be adding more views. Four chroniclers give four versions. If we were to cite them all, a third of the article would be about the fate of the Notaras family, and very little would be relevant to the issue of Mehmed's sexuality. The gist of it all is that, whatever happened to Loukas Notaras, Mehmed did like boys. That is what the article should say, succinctly and clearly. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I self-reverted, as per our discussion here. Again, please accept my sincere apologies if any of my actions discouraged or offended you. Let's wait for other editors' opinion now. Thank you for your time and the collegial discussion. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
That is very kind of you. Thank you. I must admit that I have grown tired of seeing only one topic discussed on this talk page for years, over and over again. I understand Contaldo80's concern that stating Mehmed's sexual preferences in only a couple of sentences might make some, eh, patriotic editors demand more material but those are the people we will never convince. And delving so deep into it might be counter-productive too. The easiest thing we can do is emulate the biographers; it's also what policy says we should do. Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also be added that Radu stabbed Mehmed and then ran away after Mehmed captured him? One of the main reasons that Vlad the Impaler hated Mehmed is that he kidnapped his brother (Radu) and made sexual advances towards him. This would have only added to Vlad's hatred of Mehmed, Islam, and the Ottoman empire. Vlad was a committed Christian warrior and this supposed "relationship" between Mehmed and Radu disgusted him, especially because it seems that later on Radu became Muslim and allied himself with Mehmed. Because of this, Vlad become enemies with his brother. I do also have some other reservations about the new edits, I am happy with it in some areas and unhappy with it in other areas. I'll talk about those later on in the discussion. Also, Loukas Notaras's and his father/family's fates seem to have different versions by different historians, so the article should probably mention that, or at least imply that the reader should take the story about Notaras with a grain of salt. (Sorry for any errors, I wrote this in a hurry)- TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
But Mehmed did not kidnap Radu. Radu was sent by his father to Mehmed's father. Vlad hating Mehmed for having sex with Radu is also something I would tag with {{citation needed}}. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, thank you very much for your effort. Re Jacob Notaras, I would definitely include Leonard of Chios, as he was an eyewitness. Also, I would mentioned his age. N Jordan (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Leonard was an eyewitness to the conquest, but Philippides says that his story about the fate of Notaras "cannot be considered an eyewitness account" because Leonard was much too busy hiding from the Turks. That means his account is no more noteworthy than those of Doukas or Kritoboulos. (Indeed, Philippides and Hanak say they "do not feel confident with Leonardo's version".) Jacob's age appears to be disputed, 14 and 12 being most commonly reported; I suppose he can safely be described as an adolescent. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a New Section on Mehmed's Patronage of Renaissance Art

As a warning, I'm not very experienced in submitting edits to Wikipedia. I would like to propose a short passage for a new section to be added to Mehmed the Conqueror's page on his patronage of Renaissance artists. I have attached this passage below with citations, let me know what you think and if there are any changes I should make.

Aside from his efforts to expand Ottoman dominion throughout the Eastern Mediterranian, Mehmed II also cultivated a large collection of Western art and literature, many of which were produced by Renaissance artists. From a young age, Mehmed had shown interest in Renaissance art and Classical literature and histories, with his school books having caricaturistic illustrations of ancient coins and portraiture sketched in distinctly European styles. Furthermore, he reportedly had two tutors, one trained in Greek and another in Latin, reading to him Classical histories including those of Laertius, Livy, and Herodotus in the days leading up to the fall of Constantinople[1].

From early on in his reign, Mehmed invested in the patronage of Italian Renaissance artists. His first documented request in 1461 was a commission from artist Matteo de' Pasti, who resided in the court of the lord of Remini, Sigismondo Malatesta. This first attempt was unsuccessful, though, as Pasti was arrested in Crete by Venetian authorities accusing him of being an Ottoman spy. Later attempts would prove more fruitful, with some notable artists including Costanzo da Ferrara and Gentile Bellini both being invited to the Ottoman court[1].

Aside from his patronage of Renaissance artists, Mehmed was also an avid scholar of contemporary and Classical literature and history. This interest culminated in Mehmed’s work on building a massive multilingual library that contained over 8000 manuscripts in Persian, Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, Latin, and Greek, among other languages[2]. Of note in this large collection was Mehmed’s Greek scriptorium, which included copies of Arrians’ Anabasis of Alexander the Great and Homer’s Iliad[1]. His interest in Classical works extended in many directions, including the patronage of the Greek writer Kritiboulos of Imbros, who produced the Greek manuscript History of Mehmed the Conqueror, alongside his efforts to salvage and rebind Greek manuscripts acquired after his conquest of Constantinople[3].

Historians believe that Mehmed’s widespread cultural and artistic tastes, especially those aimed towards the West, served various important diplomatic and administrative functions. His patronage of Renaissance artists has been interpreted as a method of diplomacy with other influential Mediterranian states, importantly many Italian states including the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Florence[2]. Furthermore, historians speculate that his Greek scriptorium was used to educate Greek chancellery officials in an attempt to reintegrate former Byzantine diplomatic channels with several Italian states that conducted their correspondences in Greek[3]. Importantly, historians also assert that Mehmed’s vast collection of art and literature worked towards promoting his imperial authority and legitimacy, especially in his newly conquered lands. This was accomplished through various means, including the invocation of Mehmed’s image as an Oritenal neo-Alexandrian figure, which is seen through shared helmet ornaments in depictions of Mehmed and Alexander on medallion portraits produced during Mehmed’s reign, as well as being a leitmotiv in Kritiboulous’ work[4][5]. Additionally, his commissioning of Renaissance artwork was, itself, possibly an attempt to break down Western-Orietnal cultural binaries in order for Mehmed to present himself as a Western-oriented ruler, among the ranks of contemporary European Christian monarchs[3].

Mehmed’s affinity towards the Renaissance arts, and his strong initiative in its creation and collection, did not have a large base of support within his own court. One of the many opponents to Mehmed’s collection was his own son and future Sultan, Bayezid II, who was backed by powerful religious and Turkish factions in his opposition. Upon his accession, Bayezid II sold Mehmed’s collection of portraits and disposed of his statutory[1].

Citations [1] JULIAN RABY, A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts, Oxford Art Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1982, Pages 3–8, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/5.1.3

[2] Necipoglu, Gulru. "Visual Cosmopolitanism and Creative Translation: Artistic Conversations with Renaissance Italy in Mehmed II’s Constantinople." Muqarnas 29 (2012): 1-81.

[3] Raby, J. (1983). Mehmed the Conqueror's Greek Scriptorium. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 37, 15-34. doi:10.2307/1291474

[4] Necipoğlu, G. (2010). From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 Years of a Capital (pp. 262-277). Istanbul: Sabanci University, Sakip Sabanci Museum.

[5] Rossi, N. (2013). Italian renaissance depictions of the ottoman sultan: Nuances in the function of early modern italian portraiture (Order No. 3560932). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1367591716). Retrieved from http://turing.library.northwestern.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1367591716?accountid=12861

Andrewb24c (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done :Next time when you make an edit request, please have the citation built into your request so we can just copy-paste straight. Otherwise, we have to add the citation one by one. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 23:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

The source provided, by Inalcik, failed verification. I read over it fully and does not support (or even mention) anywhere anything that precedes, namely "But most other scholars such as Halil İnalcık contest these claims as they were exclusively made by Mehmed's Christian enemies who viewed homosexuality as sinful. These accounts contribute to his image in Europe at the time as an anti-Christian tyrant,". Furthermore, on an informal note, that passage is factually false and an anachronism: such relationships were not considered "homosexuality" in Ottoman times. This notion of "homosexuality" did not even exist back then, and opinion of relationships between older men and younger boys was not negative.

Can I remove it and the preceding passage without getting reverted? Furthermore, the remaining "not in any Ottoman sources" part is original research and there are no reliable sources yet support that claim. However, there are multiple reliable sources that support the claims before this and the passage is heavily worded to suggest otherwise. 128.6.36.80 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Homosexuality

There are no primary ottoman turkish sources that point to Mehmed's alleged homosexuality, these claims come exclusively from Greek and other Foreign Christian sources at the time. Given that these people rightfully or wrongfully thought of Mehmed as the anti-christ for his conquest of Constantinople should put these sources under increased scrutiny. Historian Halil Inalcik disputes these claims [1] [2], to say that there is historical consensus of his bi-sexuality is unwarrented. FullMetal234 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) FullMetal234 2020-07-17

References

  1. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2849734?seq=1
  2. ^ https://www.internethaber.com/fatihe-hakaret-eden-densiz-alman-1017418h.htm
Inalcik wrote two reviews of the book, one in 1979 (American Historical Review), which I have read and does not mention the sexuality issue at all, and the one that you link above, from 1960. The 1960 one is significantly longer, so it might be a day or two before I have the time to go through it. If what you say is true though, ... Inalcik is a very reliable source, and I would be inclined to take his word for it I think, so thanks for bringing this here.
To be clear, the fact that other accounts come from "foreign" (not just Greek but Italian and others) sources should not by itself cast them into doubt. In the same way that these sources were predisposed to see him negatively, Ottoman sources of the time could easily be predisposed toward hagiography and suppression of things exactly like this (I don't have the expertise to say whether or not this is the case). The interpretation of another scholar (Inalcik) is what matters.--MattMauler (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

" the fact that other accounts come from "foreign" (not just Greek but Italian and others) sources should not by itself cast them into doubt."

At the very least the fact that only foreign sources with a predisposition to see him negatively have said this should be made clear in the article. The absence of refutation doesn't automatically mean all historians agree with it. And if we are going to value the reports of those predisposed to dislike him we should also value the absence of these reports of those predisposed to praise him. Even in more modern biographies of Mehmed that mention the sexuality issue like Babinger for example, only 1 or 2 lines are devoted to this claim. Even if it is true, to devote almost a third of his "personal life" section to it and to pretend its universally accepted is not reflective of actual scholarship of the field. FullMetal234 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)FullMetal234 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) FullMetal234 2020-07-17

Roger Crowley in his book Constantinople the Last Great Siege on page 237 also casts doubt on the story of Doukas' son being taken by Mehmed for his pleasure. FullMetal234 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)FullMetal234 (talk)

If in fact Mehmed's sexuality is in strong doubt by reliable sources, then that needs to be stated clearly in the article. If historians are split then both sides need to have their opinions stated. If Mehmed's supposed homosexuality is totally a fringe theory (as is often the case with many historical figures) then it does NOT need to be mentioned. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If you have sources that refute what's in the article, but all means add them and discuss the dispute, but we should not simply delete this. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie This edit you made is POV. You acknowledge that alternative viewpoints exist, yet you've only inserted one viewpoint. That goes against WP:NPOV. I think this content should be removed until consensus can material whether to include it and if so, what is the most neutral way of including it.
Also, as was pointed out above, if this is not a notable theory, and reliable sources have cast doubt on its veracity, then it does not need to be mentioned at all.VR talk
Some version of this information has been in this article for years. I haven't 'inserted' anything, I've returned the article to the status quo. If reliable sources have written about this enough to 'cast doubt on its veracity' it is by definition notable. If you have more you'd like to add from those sources, do so, but if you are unwilling that is not a reason to delete.- MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Presentation of a topic in a POV way is sufficient grounds to delete material until it can be presented in an NPOV way.VR talk 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
We can always go back to the version of the content before it was condensed in February: diff. Looking through the talk page archives it seems that version had consensus for a while. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, what's "the consensus"? Again, this is a claim by one writer Babinger, Halil Inalcik refuted these claims. There are also claims Mehmed was secretly Christian. Nothing but WP:Fringe. Beshogur (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Notable fringe should be debunked, not ignored, and the pre-condensing version cites more than Babinger. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

3 Sources have already been cited right here on this talk page, even the source book that is cited on the article states on page 257 that the account mentioned in the article "receives a great deal of elaboration, with folk-tale motifs," and goes on to cite another, earlier version of the story that states "Three days later [after the fall, that is, June 1] he [Mehmed] ordered, with a decree, the decapitation of Notaras' two sons (the third had perished gloriously in the fight) before their father's eyes. And then the father was beheaded." So that is a total of four sources that contest this narrative including the one that was used to establish the story in the first place. FullMetal234 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you take these sources from the talk page and use them to write something in the article. They don't help the readers who have come across this story elsewhere if you list them on the talk page and just delete the whole topic. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No If something is dubious as proved by my various citations (and the fact that even "Anti-Mehmed" biographies such as Babinger's only devote 1 or 2 lines to mentioning Mehmed's alleged homosexuality) then it should not be mentioned at ALL in the article which is simply meant to be general information on the Sultan and the most important points and not a detailed account of the different scholarly opinions on whether or not he was a homosexual. There is absolutely no reason that almost a third of the "personal life" section is devoted to this. If I write a refutation of the claims based on my sources than it will be almost half of that personal life section, this section does not warrant this much discussion on a general article about the sultan, not even actual full 200-500 page biographies on Sultan Mehmed discuss it this much, it doesn't belong on the article and this was accepted by everyone until you decided to vandalize the article.FullMetal234 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this information has been in the article for years, and was not originally added by me. - MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And the Cleveland Indians have been called that since 1915, doesn't make it okay FullMetal234 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My humble opinion is that we don't need to play historians to say that some contemporary sources to that period say that the Sultan had homosexual tendencies. The fact in this instance is that Greeks and Italians affirmed that Mehmed was attracted to men and that is proven by the writings that survived. The reader of the article can then make its own opinion about whether the statement made by those authors were trustworthy or not. This case is completely different from that where we would make a statement that Mehmed was bisexual. They statement i want to make is that some medieval authors said that Medmed had homosexual tendencies. The effect of the latter example is that there existed a reasonable doubt over Mehmed's sexuality. I don't like this censorship, we should give those medieval authors a saying in this article. I think Wikipedia administrators are acting aggressively when such statements come up because of the fear of the retaliation the Turkish Government will have on Wikipedia. My edit was removed and all it said was that Greek medieval author Laonikos Chalkokondyles wrote the story abt the sultan raping Radu the Fair and about Sultan's sexual tendencies. --82.76.0.201 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Use/quotation of primary source re: Radu, etc.

Hello IP. You posted the following in a discussion on my talkpage after I reverted your edit:
You invoked the fact that the quotation was too long, but removed my edit as a whole. I will adjust my edit and cut the quote short since it's true that it's too long. I saw there are many attempts from Turkophiles users to remove my content since it s regarded as offensive. But this is Wikipedia, so truth shall prevail. I suggest enabling an edit protection on the page in the future.
I did not remove the quotation only because it is too long but because it is a quotation of a primary source. I cited the policy WP:PRIMARY, which states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources." It goes on to say that secondary sources are preferred in most cases but that primaries can be used with care. The Greek source that you cite is primary and needs evaluation by secondary sources. Do scholars and historians straightforwardly state that Radu was raped? Or do they question this primary account because of other contemporary sources (or archaeology, etc.)? Babinger makes it clear that he was attracted to some young men (already included in the article), but the added detail in the primary source needs to affirmed by secondary sources.
I am no expert in Ottoman history, and I do not get the "final word" in this discussion (nor do I want it), so I am definitely open to discussion, but I am reverting to the stable version of the article. Finally, please make any further posts related to the article on this talkpage rather than my personal talkpage so that other regular editors can see it and weigh in.--MattMauler (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Some common ground perhaps: It occurs to me that it would be helpful to have access to Babinger and Hanak to see exactly what they say on this subject (I used to have the Babinger book but had to return it). Currently, the wording about his "passion" for young noblemen seems euphemistic and could perhaps be worded more clearly. Any new wording should not rely on only a primary source, though, for a contentious claim such as this.--MattMauler (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit that this rape claims are very little discussed in any secondary sources. At the same time I think the part of WP:PRIMARY that you quoted refers when someone wants to make a factual statement. I didn't intend to say that the rape story is a fact that was checked. Otherwise my edit would've sounded like "Mehmed is known to have raped...", instead I wrote "Some Greek sources suggest". There is a big difference between these 2. In the 1st case the fact that needs to be checked is the alleged rape, in the 2nd case, the fact that needs to be checked is Greek rumours about Mehmed involvement in a rape. I didn't make an assessment on the primary source, I only wrote about it's existence which is proved by the written text itself. To make a parallel I think my case is like quotes from Bible: you don't need to have secondary sources telling you whether what's written in Bible really happened, but rather only quote it not as a fact, but only with the intent of speaking of its existence.--213.233.110.242 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea how wikipedia works. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
It's obvious you're emotionally involved in this matter rather than passing an objective judgement. So I'd like to ask you to refrain from making any baseless edits. Thank you!--JOrb (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mehmed the Conqueror → Mehmed II – Mehmed II is more common. Britannica says Mehmed II Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment/neutral: Mehmed II would be more consistent with other Ottoman sultans. While Mehmet is typically referred to as Mehmet Fatih in Arabic/Turkish, the case for the translated "Mehmet the Conqueror" in English is weaker. It is also arguable that the Anglicized epithet "the Conqueror" is an oversimplification compared to the more layered "Fatih" in Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition to what his religion was

It only generally states that he was a sunni muslim while in other wikipedia pages its stated specifically that he is a maturidi in theological ideology it should be added here. Moreover he was a hanafi in jurisprudence ideology like all the ottomans were that should also be added. In addition to that he was sufi as stated in other non-biased not wahhabi sources who wanted to erase these 3 aspects to fit their agenda. Please add these 3 things in the religious section (maturidi- hanafi- sufi) 178.135.9.63 (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that you can point to for the schools of theology and jurisprudence that he was affiliated to? If a Sufi, he also would have belonged to a Sufi order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, muhammad al fatih asked a sheikh - khader bek- to write a poem called nuniya because all the stanzas end in the letter nun to be written as the explanation of the nasafi creed which was a maturidi creed and he promoted it. Also he was an ottoman all ottomans were maturidis. Also the sheikh of muhammad al fatih who he refused to go to open istanbul without ak bek was a sufi, he took him to the battlefield with him for baraka. Pick up a history book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.11.177 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Today's consensus on the "Personal life" section

Would it be possible to ask your opinion on whether to remove the disputed section in "Personal life"? I am for their removal because it is weakly sourced and not notable information: there is only one source for each statement and that this section is absolutely not relevant to the notability of Mehmed II. Also keep in mind the sources are Western books and the said info is only mentioned in one sentence or so in them. There is no established guideline for such info on a dead figure but the closest we have is WP:GRAPEVINE and this would definitely fail that criteria. Also I think that this goes against WP:BALANCE and Wikipedia:GOSSIP: as it stands now, it is very awkwardly formulated "Some sources blah blah..." and so would better be left off from the encyclopedia. What are your opinions? 128.6.36.157 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

So, your proposal is to whitewash the article? Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
One source per statement is plenty in my opinion, but there are others available. If that is the root of your objection feel free to add more sources. The sources themselves are fine - the guidelines you cite would be more about tabloid sourced rumors. This is sourced to academic works from well-regarded publishers. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Mehmet not Mehmed

The name must follow the modern spelling rules. The name of the sultan was Mehmet, Mehmed is the misspelling of the name. 46.155.32.178 (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The majority of expert secondary sources use "Mehmed," so that is why it is used in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

change to Mehmet

it should change to Mehmet Talk:Abdulmejid I Therealbey (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mehmed_II/Archive_4&oldid=1251305235"