Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serbian Orthodox

Mehmed Pasha was not of Bosnian origin, because in that time there were no Bosnian ethnicity, there were however Serbs and Croats. The funny thing is that his brother Makarije Sokolović was Serb, then how is it possible that Mehmed-Pasha wasn't Serb? It says that he was born in an Orthodox Family, yeah, and back then: a Serbian Orthodox family! The Sokolovic family was Serb and Serbian Orthodox! Is it so hard to understand? // User:Nexm0d

The bosnian ethnicity was formed from serbo-croats who accepted Islam, so in modern times Mehmed Pasha would be called a bosnian. by the way up to now I thought that he was croat. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Deleted outdated discussion I added --Shoka 22:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Further comments: some dates would put this article into context somewhat, particularly Sokolović's birthdate and the date he assumed control of his homeland.

Should the title pasha be capitalised (Pasha)?

Yes, it's a title, but as it is used as a name it can be capitalised. Nikola 03:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hope the comments are useful

Is there consensus that the above are improvements on the original ?

I don't think that there are enough people interested in this article to form a concensus :) As far as I am concerned, I like your version. In future, Be bold and don't be afraid to insert your changes directly into the article, especially if they are not controversial and just grammar fixes. Nikola 20:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate article

It's the same entry as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_Sokollu

Thanks for noticing, I'm joining the articles right now. I will join them under this title because there are more Google hits for this name in English ([1] vs [2] - 418 vs 252) and Sokolović is original last name while Sokollu is its variant. Nikola 08:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Improved English phrasing and grammer --Shoka 22:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic is Orthodox (Serbian) born. And he helped restore the Serb Orthodox Patriarchate. Why did you delete those facts? HolyRomanEmperor 14:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone needs proof, he/she could find here: Everything on Sokolović, were it mentions his brother Makarios, the Serb Patriarch. HolyRomanEmperor 15:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And for his Serbian descent: here HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This however happens to be an older copy of this article. Nikola 10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

recent deletions

This text recently deleted from this artice, at least, is entirely appropriate to an article about Mehmed Sokolovic, since it describes his actions and the environment that he operated in.

- After Suleyman died, his sons, Selim and Bayezid, fought for the throne. Mehmed led Selim's army and won. He then married Sultan Selim's daughter in 1562.

- Selim II was the first Sultan devoid of military virtues and willing to abandon all power to his ministers, provided he was left free in his personal life. This was not bad for the empire however as Mehmed proved to be quite capable in leading it. Two years after Selim's accession he succeeded in concluding at Constantinople an honourable treaty with Emperor Maximilian II, whereby the emperor agreed to pay an annual "present" of 30,000 ducats (February 17, 1568)

and this section describes his eventual fate...

Mehmed, however, suceeded in restoring the empire's shattered fleets and stared preparing for a fresh attack on Venice, when the Sultan's death cut short his plans. After it he was left with almost no power and was soon assassinated in 1579 by a mad dervish.

Can someone give a reaon why this text should not be restored? If not I'll re include it. It is not simply a copy of the material in the article on Selim II, though it reports the same events, and neither article is complete or consistant without this detail --Shoka 21:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the deletion. (I restored it for now.) The text nearly 100% duplicates the Selim II article and copied from "Selim II" article of Encyclopedia Britannica.

To have two absolutely identical copies of the same text in two articles leads to numerous problems.

Initially I thought that in wikipedia the main article about the history of the period is always in the article about the corresonding sultan. Now I see it is not always so.

Please let us think how to fix the situation here.

I see two reasonable solutions: one is to keep this text only in Mehmed Pasha Sokolović article, since it is said Mehmed was main figure. The second one is to create a third article, Ottoman Empire under Selim II. Surely, there were other events in this time.

What do you think? Mukadderat 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is considerable overlap between the two articles, one being a history or the Sultan the other the history of his chief minister. To a degree that is unavoidable if either article is to make sense as a stand alone potted history. However I also agree that too much general history had been embedded in this article. I suggest that we retain the material that refers to Mehmed Sokolovic explicitly in this article, (roughley the text above), and refer to the Selim II article for the general background.

How about this for a replacement for the text you originally removed?

After Suleyman died, his sons, Selim and Bayezid, fought for the throne. Mehmed led Selim's army and won. He then married Sultan Selim's daughter in 1562.

Selim II was a Sultan happy to deligate all power to his ministers, provided he was free to continue his self indulgent personal life. This was not bad for the empire however as Mehmed proved quite capable of leading it. Two years after Selim's accession Mehemet succeeded in concluding in Selim's name a favourable treaty with Emperor Maximilian IIin Constantinople, whereby the emperor agreed to pay an annual "present" of 30,000 ducats (February 17, 1568)

Memed continued as the power behind the throne through the sucesses and setbacks of Selim's reign, steadily and relativly peacefully expanding the Ottoman sphere of influance. He survived the setbacks of his unsucessfull expedition against the russians, and gained the Yeman and Cyprus for Selim.

The failure of the Siege of Malta, and the disaster of the Battle of Lepanto did not bring his downfall and he was restoring the empire's shattered fleets and preparing for a fresh attack on Venice, when the Sultan's death cut short his plans.

Though he retained his title and appearance of power, he was without influence with the new reigmn, and was conveniently assassinated in 1579 by a mad dervish.

--Shoka 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You are more knowledgeable than me. Please update as you see it. Mukadderat 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nikola?? are you happy with this abbreviated version? I believe you wrote one of the original articles, and did the merge between the two competing versions of this page?--Shoka 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user wrote the article, I wikified it and marged it (I didn't knew it's from EB then).

I like your version, feel free to insert it in the article, I only found several typos in it (Memed, reigmn...). When you write that he was "conviniently" assassinated, do you know something that I don't? Are there indications that the assassination was ordered by the new regime? Nikola 07:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak?

An Orthodox Bosniak? That's usually the term used by Bosniaks to deny Serbs in Bosnia-Hercegovina their identity. This is the first time I've heard this conterversial claim, so please give some sources. The article itself seems to contradict it anyway, how can he be an "Orthodox Bosniak" and his brother the Patriarch of the Serb Orthodox Church? It seems to me that this type of thing is no better than saying that Bosniaks are Serb/Croat Muslims ;) --estavisti 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article as a whole is a mess, seeing as his "brother" was not the patriarch of any Orthodox Church, nor are there any original Ottoman records that specify his family's original religion. Live Forever 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say with presice that Makarije was his brother; but we can presicely say that he was his relative. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, Serbs in Bosnia did not exist at that time. Everybody identified as Bosniak, but Serbian historiography refered to all orthodox people as Serbs and they also incorrectly translated Latin teksts to serve their pre-conceived ultra-nationalist conclussions. Mehmed-pasa Sokolovic was not Serb and Makarije Sokolovic was also not Serb. Give me hard evidence that Makarije Sokolovic was Serb? There is none! Bosniak (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the most recent edit

User:Emir_Arven has made some edits that are slightly unappropriate. I will testify about them here:

• the cyrillic name of Mehmed-paša Sokolović is no longer present

How is his name in cyrillic relevant? --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the Latin was unpresent in the real sence of the word in the Ottoman Empire. The main diplomatic language among the Ottomans was the Serbian dialect of the Church Slavonic (which Bajica/Mehmed spoke). It used only cyrillic.

• the original name (before the kidnapping and conversion) - Ivan Sokolović - is no longer present

Now, was it Bajica or Ivan?

• Emir Arven added according to Serb authers and On the other hand Bosniak historians consider that above thesis is never proven. They think it is another Serb myth mixed with nationalism and anachronism. Both of these statements brake wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Especially is interesting another Serb myth which brakes wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to the highest point. It presents superiority of Bosniak historians to the inferior Serbian sources (by the way - sources that state his Serbdom are not even Serbian; see below)

That is your POV. Serb myths are well known for all people in the Balkans. Even for Serb hard-core nationalists like Kilibarda.--Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My WP:POV is wikipedia's standard policy... Interesting... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To note, there is no Serb auther that claims this. Most authers are foreigners:

• Stepahn Gerlach, a German traveler that described that Mehmed-Pasa was the brother of Makarije Sokolovic in 1575.
• The same claims the chronicle of the Monastery of Tronoša near Loznica in the 19th century.
• A Venetian by the name of M. Cavalli testemonied a similiar thing in 1558.

Can you provide us with the whole text about that? Where is the context?--Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What is also interesting, is that the greatest biographers of Mehmed-Pasa Sokoli were a Croat - Ivo Andrić - nobel prize winner and a Bosniak - Meša Selimović. Especially Ivan, who explained almost the entire life, running into the deepest bits of the Pasha's life. You might want to read The Bridge on Drina (Na Drini ćuprija), and all will be clear. Now, I have no idea how could a "Serb myth denied by Bosniak historians" be a creation of the greatest Croatian and one of the greatest Bosniak writers in the world; or the earlier-mentioned foreign sources. :D

Are you kidding me? "Na Drini ćuprija" is a story not a history. --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right on this one. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, you said Ivo Andrić,was a Croat. You should correct article about Andrić, and write it, to show your honesty :) --Emir Arven 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? See his article if you don't know about him... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The note on Orthodox Bosniak is unendingly disputable. Firstly, the source that Emir put - [3] - is nationalist propaganda, unlike.

Who says? You? The one always ready for making things up? --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a Personal Attack. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondly - the main difference between Bosniaks and Serbs is that Bosniaks are Muslims and Serbs Orthodox Christians. Next to that, there are no sources that present Mehmet as a Bosniak (like can be seen on that site - it just blantly puts him as a Bosniak)

Now, now, you are steping over the line there. The problem is, you see, that nations arise, exist and some of them decline, but they keep shanging all the time. At any point in history there is only indirect connection with past. Today's Bosniak are descendants from ancient Bosniaks, ancient Croats, ancient Serbs, ancient Turks and other constituent nations of Ottoman Empire and you CANNOT simplify things like you do. Same or similar goes for today's Serbs and Croats to, they are not straightforward and exclusive or intrinsic heirs of medieval people of same names. I have to add that even ancient Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, although perhaps of the same or similar origins where mixes of even older nations. In the end it boils down that you ARE who You believe you are and you and I are brothers only if we BOTH agree on that (and only WHILE we do so). This unawereness (not only at Serbs) is source of most of historical disputes and bad feelings (and last but not least, bad deeds).

Anachronism. --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Explaination needed here. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I might also be interesting that one of the greatest sites regarding Mehmed-Pasa Sokolovich - is this one (in Bosnian). It is a Bosniak source and it states that Makarije Sokolović - the first Serb Orthodox Patriarch of the renown Serb Orthodox Christian Church - was indeed Mehmed's brother. You might also note that it talks about the damages conducted by the Serbian Army - and that it is a NPOV source, unlike the one that User:Emir_Arven presented (and is also a Bosniak one, not a Serbian one).

Irrelevant source. It is just a Web page, not a book, or some relevant reference. --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But it states it's sources to the bottom... :D --HolyRomanEmperor 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Emir also deleted the See also section of the article, and the mention of Meša Selimović from the article.

You can put it back.--Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

HolyRoman deleted the source (book called "The History of Bosniaks" by Mustafa Imamovic) that I provided. It was very rude by him. But I am not surprised because he showed earlier that he was capable of spreading Serb propaganda. He wrote for instance that Husein Gradaščević was a Serb, which was nonsense. Also, he lied few times about my contribution. Now he deleted the source that I provided. This Vojislav Šešelj radical and nationalistic behaviour becomes really pathetic. In Serb political tradition, propaganda and lies are very common mean for achiving political goals according to Novak Kilibarda, former Serb nationalist.--Emir Arven 14:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you always draw political conotations to everything. I apologize for the deletion, it was most unfortunate collataral damage done by my edits. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars and grumpy editors

Consider me a neutral observer and seeker after truth.--Shoka 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I enumerate some key statements about Mehmed Pasha that I hope we can clarify, agree on and reflect in this article.

• 1) Mehmed pasha was born of Christian parents.

Can we confirm Bajica Sokolovic as his birth name?

The article has aquired some extra information that clarifies this. Is that clarification uncontentious?--Shoka 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (Fat chance)--Shoka 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot. A search for "Bajica Sokolovic" online finds a grand total of four results. I myself have never seen the name come up, even in the most comprehensive recounts of his life in history books, and I don't know what the source is. As far as I know, Mehmed-paša's original name is unknown. Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some sources to support the suggestion have been put forward. I'm not clear as to their authority. Would it be reasonable to add something like:-

Some sources give his birth name as "Bajica Sokolovic" and report that his early education was provided by the monks of Mileševa?.

Questions that arise for me are, have we evidence that a monestry school existed at that time? Would such a school have taken students under 10? Geographically, how far is Mileševa from Mehmed Pasha's birthplace?--Shoka 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• 2) He was gathered up under the Ottoman Janissary program, converted to Islam, rose through the Janissary ranks to become one of the senior generals and advisor's (Grand Vizier) to Suleiman I ( Suleiman the Lawgiver, Suleiman the Magnificent).

A source on the Internet gives "Mehmed Pasha Sokolou (Sokolovic) who excelled in battles and during the Siege of Vienna, ascended through the ranks, and in 1546 was promoted to High Admiral of the fleet. He became the governor-general of Rumelia (the European part of the Ottoman empire). Can we confirm that and the date?

In around 1551 he was (at least) a senior leader in the Ottoman assault on Hungary. In 1552 he was in command of the Ottoman forces that captured Banat. Again confirmation please.

According to famous historian Mustafa Imamović, Sokolović career went like this. He was a succesful janissary soldier and rose through the ranks quickly, becoming the commander of the royal guard in 1543. In 1546 he became the High Admiral of the freet upon the death of Khair ad Din. Following futher military successes and out of need for his leadership on the eastern-front with Persia, Mehmed-paša became "Third vizier" of the empire in 1555. He became the grand vizier in 1565, after ten years on the imperial council. There is no mention of him governing Rumelia at all, although another person with the same surname did so in the first half of the 16th century. Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting text from another Internet article:-

"he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier".

These posts look suspiciously like similar tales told of a predecessor Damat Ibrahim Pasha. Is this chance, confusion, or the normal progression of a promising janissary?

I'd say confusion. It would also explain where the idea that he was governor of Rumelia arises from. Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• 3) That under the Ottoman empire, the Turkish leadership and the Islamic elite were very much the minority in much of the conquered territory.

Management of the empire and thus it's effective leadership was provided by high ranking Janissary's. Stability of the conquered territory was their prime objective and the Janissary governors had considerable freedom to arrange government and religious matters to achieve that stability. Mehmed Pasha seems to have retained considerable affection for his birthplace and community, and despite his conversion to Islam, supported measures to restore the stability and independence of the local Christian community, to the extent of restoring the authority of the Serbian Orthodox Church, under control of a close relative. One source gives this restoration as 1557? Can we agree that the office was vested in Makarije Sokolovic?

But here is where the problem is. Mehmed-paša's role in the renewal of the Serbian Orthodox Church had absolutely nothing to do with any feelings of "considerable affection for his birthplace and community", and the person put in control of the rejuvenated Serbian Orthodox Church was NOT a close relative. Please look here for more information on the matter - I wrote a long explanation on much of this there. Live Forever 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Taking that into account, its pretty absurd to push Sokolović forward as being primarily Bosniak or primarily Serb, seeing as with his upbringing he would best be described as an "Ottoman vizier of soandso heritage".

I would agree entirely. If you see my first question, it is framed simply as a child of a Christian community. Associating this family with one of two cultures it pre dates by some centuries seems to an outsider both POV and inaccurate.

Yep. I feel that you phrased that well. I think a good compromise would be to describe him as an "Ottoman vizier" and then later note that he was born to "Christian parents in Southeastern Bosnia."Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Further questions though. Was the blood tax imposed on non christian communities? That he was taken up as a Janissary suggets that at the time he was taken, his family were from a Christian community?.

No, the blood tax was only imposed on non Christian communities (Although it is worth noting that many Muslim families voluntarily gave their kids up to the blood tax). Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That he was a devout convert to Islam is undoubted, he is credited with endowing two significant mosques.

That In no way militates against his retaining affection for the community of his birth, and his considerable contributions in the form of water supply and bridge to that community support that view, as does his purported support of a restored Orthodox Christian revival. The closeness of his kinship the the restored patriarch is questionable I grant. Given that appointing a relative would give him more control over that office, that would be consistant with normal style of government for those times. That there is a simple collision of names, and an assumption by later commentators that a blood relationship existed because such would be the norm, (or would have been the norm in the Christian community that the commentators came from) is also very possible. Its hardly a critical point, appointing a random Christian cleric to the position is still strong evidence that he was advancing the interests of that community, (and the interest of the Ottonam state)

Nobody disputes that he had retaining affection for the community of his birth - merely that he had retaining affection for an allegedly Orthodox background. Sokolovic didn't make the decision himself - he made it as the third vizier and as part of the imperial council. To say that "he" renewed the Serbian Orthodox church out of personal affections makes way too many assumptions - that he was originally Orthodox, that he was the chief propagator of the idea, etc. As for Makarije, its worth noting that surnames weren't standardized then. Mehmed-paša obtained his surname from the name of the village of his birth. All that Makarije's surname suggests is that they both came from a village named "Sokolovići". Sokolović comes from the root Sokol - hawk, so Sokolović just means "Hawkton" or "Hawkson". This is hardly a rare name, and numerous slavic villages with the same name in the west Balkans are not an uncommon phenomenon. Visoko is a good example - there are dozens of places throughout Bosnia named Visoko. Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to arrive at a reasonable profile of the offices he held. The date for the restoration of the patriarch given in the internet sources I have located is 1557, seven years before he is credited as Grand Vizier. I presume that this restoration occured while he was the governor-general of Rumelia, well before he became the effective ruler of the whole Ottoman empire.

Close. The restoration occured before he became the effective ruler of the whole Ottoman empire, but not while he was the governor of Rumelia. It came while he was the third vizier. He didn't make the decision single-handedly, but as part of the council of viziers. Live Forever 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review the other points mentioned here, since you clearly have an interest and a viewpoint, and I would very much like to regain a NPOV history of an important force in the formation of the Ottoman Empire--Shoka 01:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• 4) In 1559, prior to the death of Suleiman in 1566, he supported Selim in the internal battles between Suleiman's sons. His support secured Selim ascendancy in that conflict, leading Suleiman to have Bayezid eliminated, thus securing the the Sultanate for Selim.

My earlier contribution to this article:-

"After Suleyman died, his sons, Selim and Bayezid, fought for the throne. Mehmed led Selim's army and won." is likely wrong, since what information I have suggests thet the conflict broke out before Suleiman died, and Suleiman himself resolved it eventually by having the loser Bayezid executed. I'll fix it in due course when the rest of the issues are resolved.

Again can we agree on a preferred spelling of Suleiman, preferably to match the title of the article on him? I'm as guilty as the rest here.--Shoka 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• 5) He wed a daughter of Selim, Princess Esmahan, Ismihan Sultan (in 1562?)

• 6) Selim's lack of interest in affairs of state left Mehmed as effective ruler of the Ottoman empire from 1566 to Selim II's death in 1574.

He also had considerable influence over the empire in Suleiman's later years.

• 7) He remained Grand Vizier to Murad III, though his influence was diminished, the sultanate being much undermined by palace politics.

• 8) He was assassinated in 1579 by a mad dervish.

• 9) He was a statesman of considerable skill, a formidable soldier, patron of arts and architecture, major contributer to if not architect of the finest flowering of the Ottoman Empire and friend and supporter of the community of his birth.

Further Notes.

Two version of the page are still reachable.

Mehmed Pasha Sokolović and Mehmed Paša Sokolović

The latter is a relic of an earlier version of this page. I am by no means sure that the present article is an improvement.

Can we agree on a generally acceptable title to refer to Mehmed Pasha, and stick to it in links, and give his full title, including all variants of it's spelling, in the first lines of this article?

This text from the article on Suleiman contains "Suleyman's Grand Vizier was a Serbian convert from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Suleiman relinquished more power to him as he grew older. After Suleiman's death in 1566, Mehmet continued Ottoman conquests and became the sole ruler of the Ottoman Empire, even while in service of Selim II." But contains no link to either page.

I believe this is because of the variable way this article is referred to.

From my viewpoint his title as Pasha would be something like Mehmet Pasha, as he would have been referred to by the Ottoman Empire at the hight of his power.

Can we find a version of this title that is acceptable to all, and use that in all internal references, put redirects to this page under the various alternative and national spellings, and add his name in all national spellings in the first lines of the article?

I feel like the title of the article should either be "Mehmed Sokolović" or "Mehmed-paša Sokolović", following the Bosnian language standard on Ottoman titles (See Husein Gradaščević). Live Forever 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are political sensitivities vested in this article, and in the "rags to riches, home boy makes good and comes home in triumph" stories, but the subject was also Grand Vizier to three Ottoman Emperors, and effective ruler of the then largest and most powerful empire on the planet for something like fourteen years.

Surely that is the key picture that this article needs to convey. --Shoka 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here completely.

Several notes

1. This is the official database of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo and Sandžak:

The bit defining the Patriarchate of Peć

The renewed Patriarchate of Pec existed for almost two hundred years (1557-1766). By mid 16th century, Balkans, and especially those areas inhabited by Serbs, became a transitory region for conquering Turkish armies going west, and the Ottoman authorities wanted to appease Orthodox Serbs by granting concessions to their Church. It is for this reason that Patriarchate of Pec was renewed with Turkish approval. The Grand Vizier Mehmed (Muhammad) Sokolovic (Sokolovich), a janizary of Serbian stock who became very successful in climbing the Ottoman social and political ladder, played the key role in this affair. It was through his assistance that the Patriarchate was renewed in 1557, its first Patriarch being Vezier’s very brother — Makarije Sokolovic (1557-1571, Macarius). This was a grand occasion for Serbs and their Church, Patriarchate of Pec spiritually united all Serbian ethnic regions into one. Even parts of Bulgaria and Hungary came under its jurisdiction. Old dioceses were renewed and new ones formed: Dioceses of Trebinje (Trebinye) in Herzegovina, Pozega (Pozhega) in Slavonia, Marca, Jenopolis, Vrsac (Vrshats), Budim … All in all there were around 40 dioceses in the wide region covering the area from Budim (Hungary) to the river Drim in Albania, and from Western Bulgaria to the Adriatic Sea.

I have some questions here, particularly the date. As far as I can tell at that date Mehmed Pasa was not yet grand Vizier. I understand that the convention is to refer to someone by their ultimate title when recording their earlier actions. It would be unfortunate to offend the Grand Vizier by reminding him that he was once only a lowley Pasha of of Rumelia. However at the time of the restoration, Suleiman was the still Sultan, and was for a further nine years. Letters addressed to the Grand Vizier would not be convincing. Can we establish what post Mehmed Pasha was actually fulfilling at the time of the restoration of the church?. To be fair, for an article in Wikipedia, simply establishing that reasonable dispute exists on a point, and reflecting that in the article, is the only realistic way to resolve such disputes.--Shoka 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained it to the lower. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

2. This is a little database of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church:

Пећку патријаршију обновио је 1557. године велики везир Турске Империје Мехмед паша Соколовић, поставивши својега брата Макарија за патријарха.

Which in the Montenegrin language translates to:

The Peć Patriarchate was rebuilt in 1557 by Grand Vizier of the Turkish Empire Mehmed Pasha Sokolović, putting his brother Makarije for Patriarch.

3. This is the biography library of all Patriarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Christian Church:

Note the bit on Makarije Sokolović in the part about the reconstrucion of the Peć Patriarchate

Макарије (Соколовић) (1557-1571; +1574) Макарије Соколовић, рођени брат Мехмед-паше Соколовића, молио је свога брата да се заузме код султана Сулејмана II да се Србима дозволи обнова Патријаршије. Бератом султановим 1557. године дозвољена је обнова Српске патријаршије, а за првог патријарха постављен је Макарије Соколовић.

Which roughly translates to:

Makarije (Sokolović) (1557-1571; +1574) Makarije Sokolović, ...brother of Mehmed Pasa Sokollu, begged his brother... (note, the begging is kept in his letterrs to Istanbul!)... to convince the Sultan Sumeyman II to allow the Serbs the reconstruction of the Patriarchate.

Note that there were two more Sokolović Patriarchs: Gerasim and Savatije.

These are all just miscellaneous websites mentioning Sokolović. I don't feel like they're very valid sources. Live Forever 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all of them, Live Forever! --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

4. I noted the Bosniak source because User:Emir_Arven acused it of being just another Serbian nationalistic myth which is impossible, regarding that his Serbian myth was forged by a Croat - Ivo Andrić and endorsed by a Bosniak - Meša Selimović.

There is no proof for that. --Emir Arven 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is stretching the truth a bit. While both Andrić and Selimović came from Serb and Bosniak ethnic backgrounds respectively, mentioning their views on Sokolović is unfair without noting that both these authors personally considered themselves Serbs at one point of their lives. Live Forever 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're possibly right. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also quoting this Bosniak source: Ferhadija - srce krajiške ljepotice

It's in Bosnian, so I'll translate:

...Mehmed-paša Sokolović, who implaced his brother, Makarios, as the Orthodox Achepiscope, and thereby allowed the founding of the Peć Patriarchate...

Note also here:

It talks of a cousin of Mehmed Paša Sokolovic, 'Ferhad-Paša Sokolović'. It calls him a Serb. Additionally, he was always saying Feradija, without the h letter, never getting used to the Islamic Ferhadija (with an h) in his life.

Are you kidding me? Ferhad-pasha was "never used to the Islamic Ferhadija with h in his life"?! You dont even know what the heck you are talking about. First, you dont have to lie. It is pathetic. Second, there is nothing about that in the source. It is not even about Ferhad-pasha, it is about anonymous man who was sad because Serbs destroyed Ferhadija mosque. That anonymous man was a Serb that lived in 20th century (he was not Ferhad-pasha who lived in 16th century), and maybe still alive. Third, some logic wouldnt hurt. The mosque was named after Ferhad-pasha, so he didnt call it by his own name. I'll put the whole quote here in Bosnian, because I am fed up with all these lies produced by Serb nationalists:

S druge strane primjer monologa nepoznatog covjeka, gorstaka koji se tu slucajno zatekao oslikava i njegov odnos prema rusenju dzamije. Kada se o njemu radi nema dvojbe da je rijec o Srbinu. On sa svojim izgovorom rijeci ”Feradija”, tj. bez suglasnika ”h” sto je svojstveno nemuslimanskom stanovnistvu, oslikava jasno ostalim nijemim svjedocima ovog barbarizma, svoje porijeklo, socijalnu grupaciju i kulturolosku pripadnost. Isto tako gorstak sa svojim monologom, (koji je isto tako vrsta komunikacije kao kad dvoje razgovara) podvlaci svoje zajednicke kulturoloske crte sa ostalima. Naime on spominje ”nasu Feradiju”, da on najprije dodje do "Feradije", pa onda zna da je dosao nasred carsije. Takodje se distancira od onih koji su to uradili s rijecima: ”Pa zar im je i ona smetala?” Iako druge vjere, kaze za Ferhadiju da je nasa, tj. svih. Time se uzdize iznad ostalih pripadnika svoje vjere i svog naroda, kojih je sigurno taj dan bilo mnogo u uniformama policije i vojske. Iako niskog obrazovanja (”Mozda je cak sa Manjace”) pokazao je sa svojim rijecima da je bio vise svjestan podneblja kojem pripada, bosanskog multietnickog karaktera nego akademici, i politicari iz redova srpskog naroda. Za njega je Ferhadija bila dio grada Banjaluke...--Emir Arven 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right on this one. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I here note that the source is extreemly NPOV. It talks of the destructions of the Serbian Army and her aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina - but it calls the Sokolovićs Serbs and does not deny the fact that the Serbs were victims too.

Shoka

I will be able to answer on all your questions soon.

For now, take this: Saint Sava Archive

Indeed, we can confirm that his name was Bajica Sokolović - He was scholared with his brother, Makarije in the Mileševa Orthodox Christian monastery at the beginning of the 16th century; tought by the Monastical Order of Saint Sava. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another interesting source claiming the same thing: Koran --HolyRomanEmperor 12:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious that a random peasent boy from Southeast Bosnia and his alleged brother, who would coincidentally become the grand vizier and head of the Serb othodox church, would just happen to have conveniantly attended one of the most famous Serbian monasteries in their youth. As for Mehmed's original name; I touched on the issue above. Live Forever 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But did you see all the sources to the lower too? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Here is a quote in Bosnian which explains how Serb sources and other indirect sources have many contrapositions. On the other hand Turkish sources dont support Serb thesis that Makarije was his brother. They talk about his two brothers, and any of them was not Makarije: [4]--Emir Arven 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ako Mehmed-paša Sokolović nije sam podizao pravoslavne crkvene objekte, sigurno je kao visoki carski dostojanstvenik znatno uticao na odluku osmanske države da 1557. obnovi Pećku patrijaršiju. Za prvog patrijarha postavljen je Makarije Sokolović, po predanju iguman ili arhimandrit svetogorskog manastira Hilandar. Općenito se pogrešno smatra da je Makarije bio Mehmed-pašin brat. To se tvrdi na osnovi posrednih izvora. Tako njemački putopisac Stepahn Gerlach pisao 1575. da je obnovitelj Patrijaršije bio brat velikog vezira. Mnogo kasnije, u XIX stoljeću, zapisao je hroničar manastira Tronoše kod Loznice da je patrijarh makarije bio brat tadašnjeg velikog vezira i da je od njega dobio hatišerif da obnovi "sve manastire crkve." Oba ova kasnija zapisa previđaju činjenicu da u vrijeme obnove Patrijaršije Mehmed-paša nije još bio veliki vezir, nego po rangu treći vezir. Velikim vezirom postat će tek osam godina kasnije. Neposredni svjedok, spomenuti mletački bajlo M. Cavalli, piše u jednom svom izvještaju iz augusta 1558. da mu je jedan svećenik, Dubrovčanin, vikar bosanskog nadbiskupa, rekao kako je nedavno postavljeni "srpski patrijarh grčkog obreda" došao na taj položaj zahvaljujući podršci "svog strica, koji je paša." Patrijarh je dobio od sultana berat da mu "svi kršćani, i latinskog i grčkog obreda, plaćaju jednake namete.

Turski hroničari, koji su bili veoma obaviješteni o užoj porodici velikog vezira, znaju da je imao dva brata i njihov životni put prate sve do sultanova saraja. Odatle se može zaključiti da Makarije nije mogao nikako biti mehmed-pašin sinovac. Nije mu to mogao biti čak ni u prvoj pobočnoj liniji, jer je poznato da je Mehmed-pašin rođeni stric rano primio islam, pa mu se ne zna čak ni za rođeno ime. U izvorima se spominje kao Rustem-beg Sokolović, sa tri sina: Derviš-pašom, Ali-begom i Ferhad-pašom. Prema tome, pravi Mehmed-pašin sinovac bio je Ferhad-paša, kliški i bosanski sandžak-beg i prvi beglerbeg Bosanskog ejaleta. Što se tiče Makarija, on je mogao biti samo neki dalji Mehmed-pašin rođak, s obzirom na činjnicu da je rod Sokolovića bio veoma razgranat."--Emir Arven 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many inconsistancies; discussed to the lower. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

All sources should be stated here:

Sources on Serbian origin

1. This is the official website of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey (note: Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire) (quote of User:Emir_Arven: Turkish sources dont support Serb thesis that Makarije was his brother - appearently, they do)

Famous grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha's brother Makarije was designated as the Patriarch of the Serbian Church and he resurrected the Serb Nation. Remember the sect struggles in Europe, and European massacres in the name of religion. Remember the nations of Far East whose mother tongues were assimilated (Hindus) or remember Africa or South America.

2. Yet another Turkish-related source on Istanbul:

Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with a black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a statesman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat at Lepanto, in 1573.

Certainly some of the sources I have found suggest that the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pec was not popular with the Greek Christian faction in the empire. To what extent the choice was driven by policy, as a means of keeping the Christian faction divided against itself, is not clear. This would certainly have been a consideration. Conversly that may have been the lever that allowed Mehmed Pasha to gain a little more independance for his original community. Something of both I guess.--Shoka 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet he kept links with his Serb roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate: his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for the priesthood when `gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople.

Architecture perpetuates the links between the two worlds of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In Constantinople his wife Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Sultan Selim II, built him a masterpiece from the golden age of Ottoman architecture, the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque by the old Roman hippodrome. Near his birthplace in Bosnia, the Grand Vizier himself commissioned an eleven-arched bridge over the River Drina, `one of the noblest spans you are likely to see'. Damaged in both world wars, twice rebuilt, it was finally destroyed by Croatian bombs in 1994.

3. The following is the official website of the Serb Orthodox Church for the regions of Kosovo and Sandžak:

The bit defyning the Pec Patriarchate.

The renewed Patriarchate of Pec existed for almost two hundred years (1557-1766). By mid 16th century, Balkans, and especially those areas inhabited by Serbs, became a transitory region for conquering Turkish armies going west, and the Ottoman authorities wanted to appease Orthodox Serbs by granting concessions to their Church. It is for this reason that Patriarchate of Pec was renewed with Turkish approval. The Grand Vizier Mehmed (Muhammad) Sokolovic (Sokolovich), a janizary of Serbian stock who became very successful in climbing the Ottoman social and political ladder, played the key role in this affair. It was through his assistance that the Patriarchate was renewed in 1557, its first Patriarch being Vezier’s very brother — Makarije Sokolovic (1557-1571, Macarius). This was a grand occasion for Serbs and their Church, Patriarchate of Pec spiritually united all Serbian ethnic regions into one. Even parts of Bulgaria and Hungary came under its jurisdiction. Old dioceses were renewed and new ones formed: Dioceses of Trebinje (Trebinye) in Herzegovina, Pozega (Pozhega) in Slavonia, Marca, Jenopolis, Vrsac (Vrshats), Budim … All in all there were around 40 dioceses in the wide region covering the area from Budim (Hungary) to the river Drim in Albania, and from Western Bulgaria to the Adriatic Sea.

Explaination on the title

Note that it is also said ...Saint Sava, founder of the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church, was Prince of Zahumlje (Herzegovina) in 1190-1192... which is a bit funny - he didn't take the name Sava until he fled to the Monastery, away from his home in Herzegovina. Also, he created the Serb Orthodox Church in 1219 - almost 3 decades after ruling Zahumlje.

4. This is the little database of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church:

Пећку патријаршију обновио је 1557. године велики везир Турске Империје Мехмед паша Соколовић, поставивши својега брата Макарија за патријарха.

Which translates from the Serbian language/Montenegrin language, roughly to the following:

The Peć Patriarchate was rebuilt in 1557 by Grand Vizier of the Turkish Empire Mehmed Pasha Sokolović, putting his brother Makarije for Patriarch.

5. This is the biography library of all Patriarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Christian Church:

Note the bit on Makarije Sokolović in the part about the reconstrucion of the Peć Patriarchate

Макарије (Соколовић) (1557-1571; +1574) Макарије Соколовић, рођени брат Мехмед-паше Соколовића, молио је свога брата да се заузме код султана Сулејмана II да се Србима дозволи обнова Патријаршије. Бератом султановим 1557. године дозвољена је обнова Српске патријаршије, а за првог патријарха постављен је Макарије Соколовић.

Which roughly translates from the Serbian language to:

Makarije (Sokolović) (1557-1571; +1574) Makarije Sokolović, ...brother of Mehmed Pasa Sokollu, begged his brother... (note, the begging is kept in his letterrs to Istanbul!)... to convince the Sultan Sumeyman II to allow the Serbs the reconstruction of the Patriarchate.

6. Here is a Bosniak source: Ferhadija - srce krajiške ljepotice - so it's not solely a Serbian-German-Polish-Turkish myth, but also a Bosniak one.

It's in Bosnian, so I'll translate

...Mehmed-paša Sokolović, who implaced his brother, Makarios, as the Orthodox Achepiscope, and thereby allowed the founding of the Peć Patriarchate...

7. Here is the Saint Sava archive:

According to it, Mehmed's name wa Bajica Sokolović - He was scholared with his brother, Makarije in the Mileševa Orthodox Christian monastery at the beginning of the 16th century; tought by the Monastical Order of Saint Sava. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I was myself in Mileševa, where an Iguman told me the tale of the two students Bajica and Makarije Sokolović. Now - it is 100% certain that they where indeed scholared in that presice monastery. Don't you think that it is slightly weird that it's all just one big mixup and mistake?

8. Take a look also at this, a rather interesting source on characters found on stampts - Mehmed Paha Sokolovic in this case Koran:

Mehmed Pasha Sokolovic was born in Visegrad in 1505 of Serbian parents; he was named Bajica Sokolovic. He converted to Islam and from 1564 to 1579 he was Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, he built a church for his brother, an Orthodox priest. The stamp of Bosnia and Herzegovina commemorates the 420th anniversary of Dzužovi Mehmed Paša Sokolovića’s death with the cover of a manuscript Koran. No date for the cover is given.

9. Here is the source that puts him as a Bosniak: MEHMED PASA SOKOLOVIC

It states several infos:

• A German by the name of Stephan Gerlach wrote in 1575 that the reconstructor of the Patriarchate was the brother of the Ottoman Grand Vizier
• The same things is stated according to the Chronicle of the Monastery of Tronoša near Loznica

10. The following is an exerpt of the History book for the 3rd grade of high schools, Belgrade, 1993, second edition

The headline is South Slavs and their neighbours under foreign rule from the 16th to the 18th century.

Chapter 15 - Role of the Peć Patriarchate in the history of the Serb people

...Мехмед Паша Соколовић, исламизирани Србин, чији је брат Макарије Соколовић постао први патријарх обновљене Српске цркве.

Which translates from the Serbian language to English language:

...Mehmed Pasha Sokolović, an Islamized Serb, whose brother Makarije Sokolović became the first Patriarch of the renewed Serbian church.

11. Take a look at this rather very interesting historical Polish magazine:

Po dwóch stuleciach klęsk niemal w każdym starciu w 1571 roku chrześcijańska flota Ligi Świętej pokonała tureckie galery pod Lepanto. Zanim jednak chrześcijanie nacieszyli się zwycięstwem, Turcy dokończyli podbój weneckiego Cypru, a w 1574 roku odebrali Hiszpanom Tunis. Przyjmując zachodniego ambasadora, wielki wezyr Mehmed Sokollu (właściwie Sokolović – bośniacki Serb) ironicznie zauważył, że zajmując Cypr "odcięto chrześcijaństwu rękę", a utrata galer pod Lepanto jest dla Turków równoznaczna z "przystrzyżeniem brody i paznokci, które szybko odrosną". Choć dziś wiemy, że odbudowa galer była dla osmańskiego skarbu poważnym obciążeniem, a jeszcze trudniej było zastąpić ich doświadczone załogi, postrzeganie bitwy pod Lepanto jako przełomowej – jak starała się ukazać ją chrześcijańska propaganda – było zdecydowanie przedwczesne.

Disambig

Bosniak throughout many languages and in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina meant citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina instead of Bosniak.

12. This is the SANE = Serbian-American Allience of New England - the Serbian cultural Society in the state of New England, USA - powered by the government of the United States of America.

Supported by Mehmed Pasha Sokolovic (Sokollu), an Islamized Serb from Visegrad in Bosnia, the third vizier at the Porte, the Serbs obtained the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pec. Reestablishment of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1557, whose first patriarch was the brother of vizier Mehmed Pasha the Orthodox monk Makarije Sokolovic, marked a beginning of a strong religious renaissance of the Serbian millet.

13. My nephew plays a game known as Europa Universalis - even there, when playing as the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed is presented as of Serb origin (now, I know that this isn't a credible source - I just point out how "deep" goes this "Serb myth")

14. This article: ARMENIAN ISSUE - ALLEGATIONS-FACTS is a random source that mentions Sokolovic - but it shows the tolerance of the Ottoman Empire:

As a matter of fact, one of the brothers of Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, an Ottoman Grand Vizier, was appointed as the Patriarch of Makarije Serbian Church and led the revival of Serbian national spirit.

15. One of the global Rastko Serbian Cultural Organizations' branches is Project Rastko - Gračanica-Peć which deals with Kosovo-Metohija and the history of the conflict between Albanians and Serbs. Rastko is a very credible source regarding that it has received more international awards than we can count - and it litterally runs the Project Gutenberg's branch for Europe. You may see www.rastko.org.yu

The Serbs were the first in the Balkans to take advantage of the possibility provided by the Ottoman system for various non-Islamic communities: to unite religious and ethnic affiliations through an autonomous, self-governing church organization. Supported by Mehmed Pasha Sokolovic (Sokollu), an Islamized Serb from Visegrad in Bosnia, the third vizier at the Porte, the Serbs obtained the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pec. Reestablishment of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1557, whose first patriarch was the brother of vizier Mehmed Pasha the Orthodox monk Makarije Sokolovic, marked a beginning of a strong religious renaissance of the Serbian millet. The regrouping of the Orthodox Serbs into single religious organization was followed by the revival of old cults and the renewal of churches and monasteries - especially in Kosovo-Metohija which remained the centre of the Patriarchate. The growing religious intolerance from the late 16th century, provoked a series of popular revolts against the Ottomans in the 16th and 17th centuries, led mostly by the church dignitaries in various areas in Herzegovina, Montenegro and Banat.

16. This is an interesting article on the Karabakh problem in Azerbeijan

Famous grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha's brother Makarije was designated as the Patriarch of the Serbian Church and he resurrected the Serb Nation.

17. Another article (a mention, but still - NOT Serbian) of Pavel Baev, Ali Hillal Dessouki, F. Stephen Larrabee, Duygu Bazolu Sezer and Monika Wohlfeld Edited by Mathias Jopp (yet again not concentrating on the subject - but still, mentioning his nationality - and NOT being a Serbian source) [http://iss.europa.eu/chaillot/chai17e.html THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE YUGOSLAV CRISIS FOR WESTERN EUROPE'S FOREIGN RELATIONS]:

Numerous Slav Muslims served in the Ottoman government at the height of its power. Some, like the celebrated Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, of Serbian origin, held the post of Grand Vizier.

18. The 100 Greatest Serbs book by dr Sava Vuković, dr Pavle Ivić, dr Dragoslav Srejanović, dr Dejan Medakopvić, dr Dragomir Vitorović, mr Zvonimir Kostić, dr Vasilije Krestić,dr Miroslav Pantić, dr Danica Petrović

It contains a short biography of each & every one of the 100 most famous Serbs (including Mehmed)

19. Have a look at Suleyman's son: Selim the Sot

Selim the Sot, son of Suleyman: 'a sweet-natured sovereign, but given to pleasure and wine', according to a contemporary chronicler. He spent most of his time in the harem, and inspecting the building of his mosque in Edirne. The real power during his reign was in the hands of two other people: his father's old Grand Vizier, Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, who was a Serb whose original name was Sokolovic, and Selim's wife Nurubanu, who was probably Venetian, and started the so-called 'Sultanate of Women', that was continued by Safiye, the wife of her son Murat III.

20. Someone wanted a Moslem historian? Here's an Islamic historian: Amyn B. Sajoo

According to his Institute of Ismaili Studies

From the The Message of ‘Islamic’ Art

In addition, this allows us to link the pluralism of culture with that of society and politics, to understand the civil society in which life was lived. The Fatimid Ismaili state in a Sunni Mediterranean milieu reached across religious and ethnic lines for administrators, senior advisors and military commanders. Just as the Ottomans’ most renowned grand vizier was the Bosnian Serb, Sokollu Pasha, who rose under Suleyman the Magnificent in the mid-16th century, so his counterpart under the Fatimids was the Jewish convert, Yaqub b. Killis, who rose under the Caliph-Imams al-Mu‘izz and al-Aziz.

21. Want another historical book? Here: Constantinople by Philip Mansel

Chapter One: The Conqueror

Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier.

22. Yet another source: Famous Moslem Serbs - a very detailed one; you'll find out... --HolyRomanEmperor 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

So, if the Turkish goverment (ping: Ottoman Empire's heir) (the City of Istanbul and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism), together with tens of Polish, American, German, Croatian, Serbian, Bosniak and other international mentions (not descriptions - but still - mentions), together with the entire Ministry of Education of Serbia and Montenegro, entire Serbian Orthodox Church - including the entire unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church, as well as the monks of the Order of Saint Sava in Mileševa - and a preserved letter of Makarije's begging to his brother - all make up this grand global "Serb myth" - so powerfully and deceisivly outgunned by a single (commendable - yet quoted in a nationalistic and biased source) Bosniak historian?

Once again - I incline - I do not dispute Mehmed's origin - but I require more sources to "equalize the weight". :) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me the names of Turkish historians who have such claims? Or their books? Maybe names of Polish historians or American historians? Or their books? The number of sites is not relevant. The content of some web page can be false. Everyone can create web page and put his/her thoughts on some subject, based on some other writings (Serbs from Toronto site, Srdja Trifkovic writings, Serb-American friendship site, Rastko Serb Cultural Center etc). As I said Serb historians as well as Serb politicians were capable of making things up. It is not strange. We have all heard/seen in Milosevic trial where number of Serb experts came to explain Serb history and "Serb historical rights". Serb mythology is very important part of it. It is not "Bosnika thesis", it is Serb thesis. Novak Kilibarda, one of Serb nationalists/ideologist talked about it many many times. I have seen that you are capable of similar thing, though you said it was an accident (for instance, "Husein Gradascevic, a Serb"). So, the question is not about the number of links. It is about real historical sources and its value. I have presented very relevant source: The History of Bosniaks, by Mustafa Imamovic, very relevant author. And you deleted it. If you want to discuss about it, first read it.--Emir Arven 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You want a commendable Turk? Here: Amyn B Sajoo. Or another historian: Philip Mansel. Do you want some more international references/sources? What do you want - a thousand more? I can get, but I have no idea how many could even possibly begin to change your mind... --HolyRomanEmperor 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us not enter "your sources are garbage" discussion, but try to analyze their credibility instead.

I trust your assertion that Imamović is a relevant author. So is Bataković. I'll admit first that Bataković is a nationalist, and that his works have a certain POV. I don't know Imamović well, but on superficial reading of the web site you provided it seems to be the case as well. Now, how on Earth can either of them reach what were Mehmed's actual motives in supporting renewal of Peć Patriarchate? Interests of the Empire -- Certainly, but then why was he the first to do it? Local-patriotism -- likely. Affiliation with his Christian past and relatives -- maybe; he apparently had a friendly attitude towards it. Can we just report the facts and not speculate as for his motives?

As for the issue whether he did attend the school Mileševa and went to devsirme at age of 10 or 6, I don't know. I removed the Mileševa stuff as unsourced (unless I missed it), but could you guys please stick to reporting facts about discerning attitudes of historians and common people, instead of placing accusations? Duja 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Duja; he was not the first to do it and the Patriarchate was not re-established under his reign. At the time, Sokolovic was the third vizier and a member of the imperial council - not the governor of Rumelia or in any other such local executive position. We do not know Mehmed-pasha's exact role in the restoration of the Patriarchate, merely that he participated in it among with several other high-ranking officials. To state that this decision was made by the imperial council in the state interests of the Ottoman empire is the only thing we can do with any certainty - any further talk of affections and personal preferences is pure speculation. Occam's razor. Live Forever 15:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

True, my bad. Both sources suggest that he was just the 3rd visier at the time.

However, I reinstated "orthodox christian" links. C'mon, the only possible religon of his family could have been _orthodox_ christianity, specifically, Serbian Orthodox Church, but I won't push further. I must say that Imamović se pravi blesav stating that "Otac Dimitrije [ne zna se tacno vjersko porijeklo ovog Bosnjaka]". A Catholic Dimitrije from Višegrad area perhaps? I don't question your good faith, but let's be specific enough. Duja 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources on Bosniak origin

• An issue that here needs resolving is the Bosniaks article - according to which Bosniaks are followers of Islam, not Orthodox Christianity.

1. History of Bosniaks of prof dr Mustafa Imamović

This book mentions that he was a Bosniak.

2. MEHMED PASA SOKOLOVIC from the Famous Bosniaks archive:

Is the site which sources the book mentioned to the up.

What that website does, and what Bosnian Muslims oftenly do, including here on Wikipedia, is simple logical fallacy of Equivocation (example: a feather is light; what is light cannot be dark; so a feather cannot be dark). The term Bosniak has two meanings: one, primary, which means "a resident of Bosnia" and another, modern, which means "a member of Bosniak nation". So, when someone writes that "Mehmed Pasha was born in a Bosniak family", well of course that his family was Bosniak in the first meaning of the word, but no, it was not in the second meaning, and that is the meaning which anyone who reads the article will actually ascribe to the word, and that is the meaning described in the linked article. Nikola 08:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Radovan Samarcic, Mehmed Pasha was a Bosniak. Look here *this is in Turkish: [5]16. yüzyılın başlarında Bosna'da, Osmanlı tarafından kan vergisi olarak ailesinden koparılıp alınan Bayo Sokoloviç, papaz okulu öğrenciliği ve çobanlıktan Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun hizmetinde hızla yükseleceği bir yola girmiştir.Mohaç zaferi (1526) yeni elde edilmiştir ve Mehmet adını alan Bayo'nun yükselişi ile Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun akıl almaz genişleyişi önemli bir paralellik göstermektedir. Alışılmadık yetenekleri sayesinde Bosnalı bu küçük çoban, imparatorluk hiyerarşisinin basamaklarını baş döndürücü bir hızla çıkarak kendini, Akdeniz'den Hindistan'a, Viyana'dan Mısır'a uzanan bir imparatorluğun veziriazamı olarak bulacaktır.--Emir Arven 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is your sole mission to remove any mention of "Serb" from wikipedia? Of course Mehmed Pasha was a Bosniak in the sense of the word that he was from Bosnia. I don't speak Turkish, but it's quite likely that modern-day words Bosniak and Bosnian are synonymic in Turkish, as they used to be in our language(s) up to 1990s.

Duja, pretpostavljam da si ti napisao ovo, iako se nisi potpisao. Objasnio sam dole da su izvori iliti bajke koje je HRE stavio u clanak, smijesni. Zar da se clanak pise na osnovu bajke i anahronizma? Niste valjda ozbiljni? Nisam mogao vjerovati da je naveden Vukicevic u referencama. To ti je isto kao da si stavio Seselja da prica kako su Bosnjaci zapravo Srbi Muslimani, a Hrvati Srbi Katolici. Sto se tice uklanjanja rijeci Srbin, daj ne budi smijesan. Upravo je rijec o suprotnom. Srpski korisnici idu od clanka do clanka po uzoru na vjekovne falsifikatorske teznje svojih ideologa/historicara da od Rudjera Boskovica i Sokolovica naprave Srbina. (Ima na stotine drugih primjera od Srednjovjekovne Bosne i Hrvatske do danasnjih dana...). Anahrono je tumaciti da je neko Srbin na osnovu religije, koja nije ni potvrdjena, nego je rijec o prepostavci bazirano na imenu, koje opet nije potvrdjeno. Pojam Srbin u 16-vijeku je bio strani pojam za Bosnu. Bez izuzetka se koristio termin Bosnjak. Bez obzira kako se taj pojam tada tumacio. Ne znam zasto si izbrisao tu jednostavnu cinjenicu iz clanka?--Emir Arven 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pomalo je neukusno i djeluje impotentno sa srpske strane, kada se tudje krade.

As for his family's confession, of which confession could possibly be someone named Dimitrije Sokolović from eastern Bosnia? No, we don't have proof either that Saint Peter was a Christian, because no one could possibly have seen his birth certificate. Can we use some common sense? I still hold his original Orthodox religion is relevant to the article.

U Bosni je bilo oko 50 razlicitih religija, tacnije sekti, vjerovanja, nazovi kako hoces u Srednjem vijeku sa dominantnim crkveno-bosanskim (iliti bogumilskim, kako to historicari nekada nazivaju) karakteristikama sto se sacuvalo u obicajima. Cak i danas kod Zenice na Lastavici se svake godine skupljaju ljudi na nekadasnjem zboristu danas muslimanskom dovistu koje je ostalo iza tih bosanskih heretika da upucuju molitve za kisu i sl. Poenta: Porodice u Bosni su uvijek imale miks vjerovanja, religija, svaceg pomalo. Tumaciti porodice iz 16 vijek u Bosni s aspekta "srpske nacionalnosti" je pateticno.--Emir Arven 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

That site is is nationalistic propaganda, as one one occasion it states that there where no Serbs in the Bosnian Frontier before 1918 - a historicly discraceful claim (can be seen here: Serbian lies, mythology and invented history - a rather interesting name for an article), since the Ottomans have populated that region densily with Serbs in what became known as the Serhat - a Turkish Frontier - responce to the opposing Military Frontier. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

C'mon Emir, this is getting ridiculous. There's 17 links above indicating that he was born in Serb Orthodox family. I don't see why you're getting so annoyed at this. I'm trying to WP:AGF, but even you must admit that "Orthodox Bosniak" with link to Bosniaks is an extreme POV? Don't we agree that Bosniak in the past used to denote a citizen of Bosnia, i.e. a Bosnian? The only source you offer is Imamović's book. Now, let me cite few of those:

Skoro pola stoljeća prije pada Bosne na tom se prostoru javljaju prvi muslimani među Bošnjacima.

Apparently, Bošnjak is even here used as "citizen of Bosnia". Now, Imamović also claims that

Općenito se pogrešno smatra da je Makarije bio Mehmed-pašin brat. To se tvrdi na osnovi posrednih izvora. .

Having taken a look at sources, it is apparently not prooved that Makarije was his brother. It is likely that he was merely a relative. Even Bataković, which is a Serb nationalist, admits that [6].

Nacionalno-romantičarska je zabluda da je Mehmed-paša radio na obavljanju Pećke Patrijaršije zato što se sjećao svog porijekla i bio mu privržen...nego isključivo za procjenu osmanskih državnih interesa.

Now, this is the same speculation as Serbian one as to Mehmed-paša's motives. We can't know what his motives were. We can only report the fact that the Patriarchate was renowned during his reign. I think that we can fairly tell that his deeds were, at least to an extent, driven by patriotic motives, in the wide sense of the word. Could you please refrain from phrases like "spreading lies", "nationalistic", "anachronistic", at least to people who offer apparent good faith, like Holy? Duja 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna edit the article to try to reflect the different POVs and calm down the tone. This is supposed to be an article about a person considered a legend among both Bosniaks and Serbs and who make a plenty of good deeds for us both – can we not appreciate that? Duja 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits you've made the article are not bad, but, as noted above, there is no first-hand source that Mehmed-pasha came from an Orthodox family. This assumption was made because it would explain his "romantic" motives for putting up his "brother" as leader of the reinstated patriarchate - NOT the other way around. Live Forever 16:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply referring to his origin as from a Christian family would seem to be sufficent. Personally I'd suggest that reference to the modern communities be avoided everywhere through the article. The present cultural divisions are misleading to say the least in the context of the westward expansion of the Ottoman Empire.--Shoka 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Live Forever 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As for "sources that he came from an Orthodox family", how about common sense? His family clearly wasn't a calvinist one, nor a catholic one. This info is valuable because...

...I think we need an "Aftermath" section where we could explain modern-day disputes/myths/claims among Serbs and Bosniaks. Compare Prince Lazar#Aftermath and Myth. Note that Holy has provided several references for his edits, which you reverted. Some of those were quite refutable. One might argue that they are biased, but they should not be merely ignored. The problem with at least some of these "romantic" references is that, even if they're false, they're hardly falsifiable. So, I suggest that we add an "Aftermath" section and put unproven stuff there, and add sourced stuff above.

So, the disputed facts are:

• Whether his born name was Bajica. Several sources suggest that, but without entering into details. That should go somewhere in intro (not in the first line, as it is certainly not the name he was known by), but with a disclaimer.
• Whether he went to school in Mileševa monastery. Holy has found a source, but I don't have time to analyze it.

The stuff we agreed so far was:

• His relationship with Makarije. He was not the grand Visier at the time, nor Makarije was his brother.
• His motives for embracing Serbian Orthodox Church renewal. Since they're unreachable, we can only speculate. Some of info from Imamović should go in, though rephrased:

njegovo cjelokupno držanje i djelovanje pokazuje da on u tom pogledu nije imao nikakvih sumnji. Za njega su kršćanstvo i jevrejstvo bile religije Božijeg otkrovenja koje prethode islamu. U skladu sa islamskim učenjem, on je prema jevrejstvu i kršćanstvu, uključujući tu i pravoslavlje, imao jasan stav trpeljivosti i pružanja državnih garancija njihovim sljedbenicima kao zmijama (Dhimmis?), odnosno pripadnicima zaštićenih manjina.

Duja 08:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait. No, it is not sufficient to state that he originates from a Christian family. Vukicevic references two primary sources which confirm that that family was Serbian.

Da je Sokolovi} Srbin, tvrdi i wegov suvremenik Andreja Badoaro (Andrea Badoaro), koji je bio mleta~ki poslanik na Porti 1573. godine, jer veli za Sokolovi}a: "Mehmed, prvi vezir, ima za `enu }erku sultanovu, od koje ima sina od pet do {est godina. On sam ima {ezdeset do sedamdeset godina, po narodnosti je Srbin (di nazione serviano)."4

That Sokolovic is a Serb, claims his contemporary Andrea Badoaro, who was Venetian ambassador at the Porte in year 1573, for he says about Sokolovic: "Mehmed, the first vizier, has for a wife Sultan's daughter, from which he has a son five to six years old. He himself has sixty to seventy years, and by nationality is Serb (di nazione serviano)."4

where 4 is

Alberi Erg. Relazioni de gli ambasciatori veneti, Serie II, vol. I, p. 364.

That ought to be enough for everybody. Further,

Lukari od nekuda saznaje da je Mehmedu kr{teno ime bilo Bajica, tj. Bajo.9

Lucari somehow finds out that Mehmed's baptism name was Bajica, that is Bajo.9

9. Et al battesimo si chiamo Baice. (Lucari, de gli annalli di Ragusa, str. 148, libro quarto).

So, maybe Lucari isn't too reliable himself, we can state "possibly" or something.

Vukicevic also details that he was in Mileseva, I won't translate it now. As for his relationship with Makarije, I recommend a look at [7] which also references primary sources:

Općenito se pogrešno smatra da je Makarije bio Mehmed-pašin brat. To se tvrdi na osnovi posrednih izvora. Tako njemački putopisac Stepahn Gerlach pisao 1575. da je obnovitelj Patrijaršije bio brat velikog vezira.

It is generally wrongly considered that Makarije was Mehmed-pasha's brother. It is claimed on the basis of indirect sources. So did german traveller Stepahn Gerlach wrote in 1575. that renewer of the Patriarchy was brother of the Grand Vizier.

How is travelogue of a contemporary indirect source is beyond me. Also:

Neposredni svjedok, spomenuti mletački bajlo M. Cavalli, piše u jednom svom izvještaju iz augusta 1558. da mu je jedan svećenik, Dubrovčanin, vikar bosanskog nadbiskupa, rekao kako je nedavno postavljeni "srpski patrijarh grčkog obreda" došao na taj položaj zahvaljujući podršci "svog strica, koji je paša."

Direct witness, already mentioned Venetian [?] M. Cavalli, writes in a report from August 1558. that a priest from Dubrovnik, vicar of Bosnian archbishop, told him that recently set "Serbian Patriarch of Greek Rite" came at the position thanks to support of "his uncle, who is pasha."

How could a direct witness be someone who quotes someone who is not a direct witness is again beyond me. Vukicevic also quotes Cavalli directly:

86. Da je zaista Mehmed Sokolovi} pomagao svome bratu Makariju da obnovi prijesto Svetoga Save, da obnovi Pe}ku Patrijar{iju, o tome postoje nesumwive biqe{ke. Vladimir Lamanski u zbirci pisama pod imenom: Secrets d'êtat de Venise, Saint Petersbourg 1884, u dodatku navodi depe{u Marina Kavalija (Marin di Cavali), od 19. avgusta 1558. godine, pisanu iz Filipopoqa, u kojoj stoji: "Jo gionsi poi in Scopia, dove uno sacerdote Raguseo, vicario del Reverendo Arcivescovo d'Antibari mi venne a trovar et disse: ch' uno Patriarcha di Servia, greco nuovamente creato per favor d'uno suo barda che è bassa." A da je brat, a ne stric (kao {to ovde stoji: barbo), vidimo iz jedne druge biqe{ke, koju je zabiqe`io Gerlah 27. novembra 1573. godine u svome pismu, gdje se veli: "Omnes namque supremi bassae, quos Vesirios vocant filii Christianorum sunt. Horum itaque primus Jmperatoris Vicarius (a to je Mehmed Sokolovi}) ex agro Bosnae vicino oriundus, nepotem et fratrem habet Cristianum qui in Graecorum religione institutus superiore anno Archiepus ut dixit factus est." (Archiv fur Slavische Philologie, kw. 10, str. 45). Ovim je potvr|eno ono {to docnije na{ Trono{ac veli: "stajalo do vremene Makarøa patriarha i`e od brata svoega velikagÍ vezira turskagÍ carskimì ati{erifomÅ vse manastiri i crkvi ponovilì" (Glasnik Srpskog U~enog Dru{tva, kwi. V, str. 75).

86. That indeed Mehmed Sokolovic was helping his brother Makarije to renew the throne of Saint Sava, to renew the Pec Patriarchy, about that there are undisputable notes. Vladimir Lamanski in a collection of letters under name: Secrets d'êtat de Venise, Saint Petersbourg 1884, in an addition he quotes a report of Marin di Cavali, of August 19 1558, written from Filipopolje, which says: "Jo gionsi poi in Scopia, dove uno sacerdote Raguseo, vicario del Reverendo Arcivescovo d'Antibari mi venne a trovar et disse: ch' uno Patriarcha di Servia, greco nuovamente creato per favor d'uno suo barda che è bassa." And that he is brother, and not uncle (as is written here: barbo), we see from another note, written by Gerlah on November 27 1573. in his letter, where he says: "Omnes namque supremi bassae, quos Vesirios vocant filii Christianorum sunt. Horum itaque primus Jmperatoris Vicarius (and that is Mehmed Sokolovic) ex agro Bosnae vicino oriundus, nepotem et fratrem habet Cristianum qui in Graecorum religione institutus superiore anno Archiepus ut dixit factus est." (Archiv fur Slavische Philologie, kw. 10, pg. 45). This confirms what later our Tronosian says: "stajalo do vremene Makarøa patriarha i`e od brata svoega velikagÍ vezira turskagÍ carskimì ati{erifomÅ vse manastiri i crkvi ponovilì" (Glasnik Srpskog U~enog Dru{tva, kwi. V, pg. 75)."

So, we have three primary but indirect contemporary sources, two of which claim that he was the brother, one which claims that he was nephew, and one non-contemporary but reliable source which also says that he was the brother.

As for his motives, Imamović is ridiculous, these were not Mehmed's views but are general views of Islam. But let's solve these things first. Nikola 08:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:(

I feel insulted, as I spent two hours amassing 22 sources and I hear ...we cannot confirm the name Bajica... or ...schooling at Milesheva... I don't know what else to do.

Here, I'll put sources... AGAIN. Download this full book: Знаменити Срби Мусломани I asure you that it is NOT biased - and explains everything from the name Bajica, across Milesheva and to every single part of Mehmed's life.

Sorry for reacting with turmoil like this, but I was begining to think that I was talking to brick walls :S Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is a 23rd - yet another Turkish source: [8] I have in preparation some 50 more; just tell me if you need. Regards! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was merely trying to mediate the issue in the sense to provide a non-disputed version to start with; that included several removals. IOW, I removed Mileševa and Bajica (I meant to comment them out instead of removing, but I erred) only because these points were disputed, not because I think they're proven wrong. I really appreciate your effort on the issue, and I still encourage you to ammend the article. I don't dispute your sources – however, I am not overly well versed on the subject and my contributions were based just on reading some (not all) sources provided by you and Emir and cleaning up apparent POVs. As for the bias of the sources, I can't only judge from my viewpoint, just as anyone else. I don't endorse removal of your sources from the article though. Duja 11:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My points

I am trying to remain cool about all this, but some of it is getting a little frustrating. There are so many things on this article after Holy's edits that warrant a "totally disputed" tag. I don't want to start a revert war though, so I'll let them be for now.

1. "Ravanci, Sokolovići district"

I have never before encountered any mention of Sokolovići as a district - only as a village. I'd rather we list it as Sokolovići (seeing as thats what most historical sources say) and then have a small note that some list it as Ravanci.

Done (mostly).Duja 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Bajica Sokolović

All this talk of numerous online sources for his original name is worthless when we take into account that on the entire internet there are no more than five mentions of it.[9] I have no idea where this idea of his original name originated, but considering how dubious it is I honestly don't see any valid reason to include it in an encyclopedic article.

3. Бајица Соколовић

On a related note, the various translations of his name look ridiculous. Where in the world did the idea come up that he went by "Bajo" and how can you possibly justify putting this unsubstantiated 'nickname' in the first line of a biographical article? And why is so much space allotted to a name that, even if truly original (which I doubt - see above), wasn't what he went by for the bulk of his life? And what is a cyrillic transcription of his name doing there?

I removed it from the intro, it's really strange. I left it in the "Birth" section and noted as a speculation.Duja 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

4. House of the Falcon

I don't doubt that there will be some (albeit few) sources which propagate that the Sokolović were descendants of medieval nobility - after all, this was a common myth regarding the famous families of the Muslim land-holding elite - I just doubt they're correct. Careful studies have been done on the pre-Islamic roots of various Bosniak noble families and the Sokolović were not one of them. To quote Mustafa Imamović: "...napokon, treću, također malobrojnu grupu, čine potomci nekadašnje bosanske vlastele. To je svega nekoliko porodica: Kovačevići, Sijerčići, Todorovići, Ljubovići, Brankovići i Staničići, a možda se još u najviše dva-tri slučaja može pretpostaviti predosmansko bosansko vlastelinsko porijeklo." I should add that there are a couple of other reasons why I strongly doubt the Sokolović were an old Bosnian noble family, but I feel this is reason enough.

I added a disclaimer. Duja 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Dimitrije Sokolović

Mehmed-paša was not the fifth child of Dimitrije Sokolović, nor was his uncle a monk at Mileševa. This is simple fact. Like I said earlier, Mehmed-paša's immediate family was closely documented. He had one sister and two brothers; all three of which converted to Islam. His father's only brother was not "one of Mileševa's Monks." In fact, as Imamović notes: "poznato [je] da je Mehmed-pašin rođeni stric rano primio islam, pa mu se ne zna čak ni za rođeno ime."

I added a disclaimer. Duja 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to preposterously suggest an unthinkable-of possibility that Mehmed had more than one uncle. Nikola 08:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Studies at Mileševa and conversion to Islam

I'm not even sure where to begin. Let me just ask why in the world would the Ottomans so carefully document the progress of one miscallenous janissary youth among thousands?

I shortened the section somewhat, but didn't add the disclaimer. Duja

There's more (His fluent speaking of Serbian and Latin, his Governorship of Rumelia, the birthmark on his face, etc.), but I feel these are the major ones. In the end, I'd like to note that sources don't mean anything when the information they present is so dubious and contested. Live Forever 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Bugger lost my comments when I screwed up the conficting edits process. :( I also have to register my opinion that the present article states as facts much that is at the very least disputed. There is also considerable internal inconsistancy in the article. On the plus side, the breakdown into headings is an improvement--Shoka 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I tried to straighten up the article at least a bit, and I must say that I feel exhausted :-(. It's really difficult to dig through layers of superimposed myths and traditions to get the facts straight. I won't remove the POV-tag though. Howerver, someone should copy most relevant external links and references stated in this talk page into the article, and get the reference numbering right... I don't have the energy anymore. Regards to all, Duja 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me express the relevancy of my 23rd source:

It maintains: sokollu Mehmet paşa (Sırp devşirme), but it differs the Bosniak thesis - like can be seen on an example: Derviş paşa (Bosnalı devşirme)

---

"Constantinople" of Philip Mansel

Now, a little source of mine that passed unseen: CONSTANTINOPLE: City of the World's Desire 1453-1924 written by Philip Mansel, Saint Martin's Press, 1995.

Now, the following is an exerpt from Chapter One: The Conqueror

Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with a black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a statesman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat at Lepanto, in 1573.

Yet he kept links with his Serb roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate: his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for the priesthood when `gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople.

Architecture perpetuates the links between the two worlds of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In Constantinople his wife Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Sultan Selim II, built him a masterpiece from the golden age of Ottoman architecture, the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque by the old Roman hippodrome. Near his birthplace in Bosnia, the Grand Vizier himself commissioned an eleven-arched bridge over the River Drina, `one of the noblest spans you are likely to see'. Damaged in both world wars, twice rebuilt, it was finally destroyed by Croatian bombs in 1994.

Read when you have time

Couple of things wrong with this. First of all, as Emir pointed out, this isn't from any detailed study on Mehmed-paša's life, but is an unreferenced passing reference in a larger work. Also, yet again, I remind you that Mehmed-paša's family was well documented. None of Mehmed-paša's direct relatives remained Christians - each and every last one converted to Islam - so it is absurd to talk of how he accompanied his nephews to church. Also worth pointing out is that in the end the author confuses the bridge of Mehmed-paša Sokolović in Višegrad with the Stari most in Mostar. I think this should definitely set off some alarms regarding said author's credibility on the matter. Live Forever 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Now, User:Emir_Arven has acused the Serbian sources as just another "Serb myth" basing solely on the book of Mustafa Imamovich - "History of Bosniaks".

Now, observe: one one side we have the Ministry of Culture & Tourism of the Republic of Turkey, The Institute of Ismaili Studies of Amyn B Sajoo; CONSTANTINOPLE: City of the World's Desire 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel, Saint Martin's Press, 1995; Famous Serbs Muslims by Milenko M. Vukićević, Davidović press, Belgrade, 1906; the Serbian Orthodox Church for Kosovo & Sandžak; the Montenegrin Orthodox Church; the biographies of each & every single Patriarch of the Serb Orthodox Church; the statements of Venetian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Andrea Badoaro from Alberi Eng.'s Relazioni de gli ambasciatori veneti, Serie II, vol. I, page 364; Russian historian Б. Макушев; even one Bosniak source; the Monastical Order of Saint Sava in Mileševa; the Ministry of Education of Serbia and Montenegro; an interesting Polish magazine; the Serbian-American Allience of New England; the Paradox Entertainment company; the 100 Greatest Serbs by dr Sava Vuković, dr Pavle Ivić, dr Dragoslav Srejanović, dr Dejan Medakopvić, dr Dragomir Vitorović, mr Zvonimir Kostić, dr Vasilije Krestić, dr Miroslav Pantić, dr Danica Petrović, 2004; Suleyman the Magnificent's son, Selim the Sot; Project Rastko; Vladimir Lamanski, Secrets d'etat de Venise, Saint Petersbourg, 1884; Marin di Cavali, Filipolis, 19 August 1558; a German by the name of Stephan Gerlach, 27 November 1573; and tens of altogether Western European and Muslim sources (some examples: ARMENIAN ISSUE - ALLEGATIONS-FACTS, Karabakh problem in Azerbeijan, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE YUGOSLAV CRISIS FOR WESTERN EUROPE'S FOREIGN RELATIONS by Pavel Baev, Ali Hillal Dessouki, F. Stephen Larrabee, Duygu Bazolu Sezer and Monika Wohlfeld, edited by Mathias Jopp...).

On the other hand, we have got History of Bosniaks by prof dr Mustafa Imamović. What the historian says:

• He claims that Makarije's brotherhood with Bajica/Mehmed according to Stephan Gerlach cannot be confirmed - since Mehmed wasn't Grand Vizier then. But here is the main problem: Gerlach wrote the letter on 27 November 1573 (Mehmed was Grand Vizier in 1565 - 1579)
• I hear these claims on the goverency over Rumelia - this is contradictory to what most international encyclopedias claim (freely run around Britannica or the Catholic one...)
• Several more issues - contradiciting to all the sources that I stated.

I am sorry - but I see this image:

prof dr Mustafa Imamović vs WORLD

I apologize - but this is very frustrating. Now that I have proven that the Serb myth is actually globally accepted - tell me, please - why cannot I apply User:Emir_Arven's logic - and acuse this of a Bosniak myth?

Disputable bits

Let us solve all disputable parts here:

Bajica

Now, I know that there are little sources on the net that speak of his first name being Bajica - but hey, there are Bold textmuch less sources that speak that he was Bosniak. Better, I haven't seen by now sources that claim that his name wasn't Bajica.

So, Philip Mansel's Constantinople accepts that fact; the Saint Sava Archive keeps record of Bajica and Makarije being two brothers that were scholared at Mileševa; it is even mentioned in the description of persons found on stamps and most of all, fully explained at Famous Serbs Muslims (pdf). Finally, acording to Lucari, de gli annalli di Ragusa, page 148, libro quarto: Et al battesimo si chiamo Baice. This one and plenty other Turkish sources accept that Bayo (Bajo) was his name/nickname. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your talk of Bosniak Mehmed-paša is frustrating in itself because I never mentioned that on this page and never included any reference of him being a Bosniak in my edits on the article. I think its ahistorical to portray a figure such as Mehmed-paša Sokolović as belonging to modern nations only really forged in the past two centuries.

You shouldn't judge others by yourself, not every nation is created in 1993. Mehmed Pasha's contemporaries described him as a Serb. Nikola 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As for your "sources", lets be honest here: you basically searched online for any vague description of Mehmed-paša Sokolović that fit your view of him and put it up here. Thus your "sources" are, in large part, a collection of passing references to the man within larger works on subjects ranging from Constantinople to the Armenian genocide. Even though Imamović is only one source, his work features a well researched tract dealing specifically with Mehmed-paša Sokolović and acknowledges this exact debate we're having here. This, in my opinion, makes him far superior to nearly all the obscure sources you've dug up with which deal with the issue as if it was like saying that the sky is blue.

I've already raised questions regarding the credibility of the Constantinople source above. The Saint Sava Archive deals with mythology thats already been generally disproven and contested on this very talk page. I don't consider it a very credible source - and as for what I think about the brief paragraph featured on some random web site dealing with national stamps, I think you can discern that easily enough. As for the "Famous Serbs Muslims", calling this an unbiased book is ludicrous - it was published in 1906 and triest to explain that Husein Gradaščević was "really" a Serb too. Regarding the Lucari source, what year is that from? If it is contemporary then perhaps it would justify a brief mention in the early life section. Live Forever 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian origin

I think that this fact needs no longer to be disputed. There are 50:0 sources on Serb-not Serb. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is not even one source for that. I have presented here two relevant books that talks about his Bosniak origin:

• "Sokollu Mehmed Pasha" by Radovan Samarcic.

This book talks of him as a Serbian patriot. Come on, Emir, can't you see where this is going? This is getting not frustrating, but ridiculous, Emir. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• "The History of Bosniaks" by Mustafa Imamovic.--Emir Arven 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A commendable, yet errorous and unclear source as discussed. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand you didnt show me any research on his life. Amyn Sajoo is not historian. He had no research on Mehmed Pasha. He just wrote one sentence. And yes, Turkish historians do not support Serb myth. What are their researches on Mehmed Pasha? You didnt show me. Philip Mansel didnt wrote about Mehmed Pasha. He just mentioned him in his articele without references. You give me just articles, and mentions of Mehmed Pasha, not researches about him and his life.--Emir Arven 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, better than your sources that call him a Serbian patriot, don't you think? Anyways, if you consider M. Vukichevich's, Philip Mansel's and Yilman's researches just mentions - then so is Mustafa Imamovich. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Other sources that you provided are nationalistic and radical sources. And you mentioned Serbian government source? Hello? The government that still protects war criminals? Ten years after the war. Are you serious?--Emir Arven 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is purely stereotypic. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And when we talk about myths, we could see here that Serb users make things up from time to time. For instance Serbophobia article, another Serb myth that you supported.--Emir Arven 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You use the words another Serb myth; but you make several errors. Firstly, I never supported that article, but said that it's bad. Secondly, you say another... where is the first one? :D And thirdly, there are two ways to define Serbian mythology:

1. It's a part of Serbian cultural heritage passed on through tradition, like religion.

2. An insult to something Serbian-related.

You're most certainly not refering to the first, since you didn't state the name of the particular Serbian myth, and there are no more possible meanings than these two... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fairy Tale by Milenko Vukičević

The source that was included in the article, and that was provied by HolyRomanEmperor "Famous Serb Muslims" [10] by Milenko Vukičević is not even myth. It is more a fairy tale, written in 1906. I have just read nonsenses in that "book". It claimes that Bosniaks are Serbs and that Husein Gradaščević was a Serb. (Interestingly the same thing did HolyRomanEmepror). This source was written during Serb nationalistic sentiment. It is based on anachronism, nationalism and fairy tales. The same claimes has Serb Radical Rarty which president Vojislav Šešelj is war criminal, now in ICTY. (He also claimes that Bosniaks and Croats are Serb Muslims, and Serb Catholics.) Juts the title of the book is a joke. Now it is obvious that Rastko Center is place for nationalistic papers based on myths. So, HolyRomanEmperor, your articles should be reviewed because your main source is nationalistic crap.--Emir Arven 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The mere name of this section named by User:Emir_Arven is purely POV and insultive to the historian that dedicated his life to research. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dog barks, wind blows it away. This fairy tale references more than 120 primary and secondary sources about Mehmed Pasha alone. Nikola 08:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I too used the word "myth" for describing the Battle of Kosovo article which was obviously written by a Serb. In fact, most articles written by Serbs lack neutrality and a sense of reality. But Sokollu Mehmed Pasha's ethnicity is Serbian according to Turkish sources, that is true but I don't think his Serbian roots needed to be emphasized as much as it has been here by Serbian nationalists; he was an Ottoman statesman who worked for Ottoman interests, not Serbian--Kagan the Barbarian 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Mehmed pasha identified himself with Bosnia not Serbia. His Christian origin was used by Serb historians to present him as a Serb which was anachronism. Some other sources took that fact interpreted by Serbs, but there is not one serious research that will support this thesis. On the other hand there can be million links (tourist agency sites or nationalistic fairy tales), but based on what researches? Mustafa Imamovic, Yale professor gave very good interpretation not just in a section which was quoted in the Famous Bosniak site. His book is based on his long research and respectable professor career.--Emir Arven 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Mehmed didn't identify him at all in that way. :) And you mean his Serbian Orthodox Christian (religious) origin, ofcourse? Mustafa Imamovich is a very good historian, however he makes several marginal errors, and you shouldn't've mentioned the Famous Bosniaks site, since it's nationalistic propaganda. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mileševa monastery

Now; the Order of Saint Sava confirms Bajica's and Makarije's schooling (as a personal record) and the Famous Moslem Serbs states that Bajica was educated at the monastery. The same is testemonied by a certain Sagredo in 1688. Another Venetian viceroy, at the court during the reign of Mehmed Pasha - Constantino Garzoni - confirmed that in 1573 as well according to Alberi's Relazioni, serie III, vol. I, page 405. There he also testified that Bajica was tought by his uncle, a monk. The latter was also confirmed by Antonio Tiepolo in 1576 according to Relazioni Venete, serie III, vol. II, page 157.

Now, appearently, Bajica was hidden by his uncle within the monastery according to the earlier-mentioned Sagredo as well as by - none other - than the ancestor (father?) of Ivan Dživo Gundulić - Franjo Gundulić/Frano Gondolla: U djetinjstvu ga je bio sakrio stric od janičara, koji su poslani iz Carigrada radi kupljenja djece, ali ga ovi nađu i odvedu sultanu. There are plenty more sources, if you need.

Makarije

I am a little tired of explaining this one - so I'll leave it blank for a while - but this one is even more sourced than the previous. If someone else wants to do this – just skim over my sources.

Peć Patriarchate

For now, we have certain sources that it was patriotism that made him influence the renewal. This one too is very sourced, but I agree that it has a great deal of romantic nationalism in it. But still - it wouldn't be Original research then. :)

Comments

Place comments here. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone read my translations of Vukicevic which include references to primary sources about supposedly disputed things? Nikola 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

bajica?

Live, I usually agree with you; but what you said is really incorrect this time. You said: "modern nations only really forged in the past two centuries". But, what about all the Serbs before those two centuries? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit that. But the only reason why I dug that is to show that in the international world, it is accepted that he was Serbian-originated Ottoman with the name Bajica. Did you see the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism site? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But, a large part of Philip Mansel's Chapter One deals with mehmed pasa sokollu. While, Imamovich's book is the "History of Bosniaks", that also deals with one part on Mehmed's life. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mustafa Imamović says that the letter of Stephan Gerlach was written while he wasn't Grand Vizier and mentioned the year of 1575. Live, how can't you see that he is contradicting himself? :S Additionally, this would matter if the year was correct - not even it is correct. Stephan Gerlach wrote the letter on 27 November 1573! An exerpt from the letter: Omnes namque supremi bassae, quos Vesirios vocant filii Christianorum sunt. Horum itaque primus Jmperatoris Vicarius ex agro Bosnae vicino oriundus, nepotem et fratrem habet Cristianum qui in Graecorum religione institutus superiore anno Archiepus ut dixit factus est. from the Archiv fur Slavische Philologie. Still, even if he said 1573 instead of 1575 as he says, he was still Grand Vizier then... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your discrediting of the Saint Sava Archive is odd. I thought that this page proved that it is correct.

That Znameniti Srbi Muslomani book appearently deals with a lot more research in source/life of Mehmed, so it is far more credible that Mustafa Imamovic's book. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucari's source is from 1599. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

One more Turkish source

Here's yet another source on "Bayo". It also says that he was born in a Serbian village. [11]. This book was written by Yilmaz Dikbas in 2002. There's yet another Turkish book that support that primary thesis. Do you need some more? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Discuss!

User:Emir_Arven has long given up the discussion and resorted to immedate editing. :( I am sad that all these discussions that disaproved his source and 10,000 of my sources mean nothing to him. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dont spread incorrect info. I checked ur sources and I disputed them in the above discussion. Also Live Forever disputed ur sources. --Emir Arven 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't acuse me (or other wikipedians) - especially that aggressivly or unfounded. You didn't discuss my sources. You were just quit about them - on the other hand, I disputed your only source. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving the page

Could we at least agree to move the page? Following conventions (as the Gazi Husrev-beg and Husein-kapetan Gradaščević articles do), this article should be moved to either Mehmed-paša Sokolović or Mehmed Sokolović. Live Forever 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And I disputed your source; now that I showed that my sources are correct, you remained silent (see up). --HolyRomanEmperor 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You didnt even read my sources.--Emir Arven 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And I read a book (fairy tale) by Vukicevic. It was like a joke written in 1906. --Emir Arven 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Live, ol' friend, that was meant for User:Emir_Arven. As always, I agree with you (on the matter for the move) --HolyRomanEmperor 17:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources & Emir

Look, I presented you with a book called Constantinople by Philip Mansel, this book by Yilmaz Dikbas as well as Famous Serbs Muslems by Miljenko M. Vukićević.

Claiming that Vukicevic's book was a joke is practicly an insult to the writer, who obviously did a much more thurrow research on mehmed that Mustafa Imamović and his History of Bosniaks. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I already showed a very big error made by Mustafa Imamovich - he claimed that Stephan Gerlach wrote that in 1575 (even though he didn't even write it back then) when Mehmed wasn't Grand Vizier - the problem is - he was. Doesn't this at least a little show how reliable is Mustafa? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you didnt read it well. I will qoute it in Bosnian: "Tako njemački putopisac Stepahn Gerlach pisao 1575. da je obnovitelj Patrijaršije bio brat velikog vezira. Mnogo kasnije, u XIX stoljeću, zapisao je hroničar manastira Tronoše kod Loznice da je patrijarh makarije bio brat tadašnjeg velikog vezira i da je od njega dobio hatišerif da obnovi "sve manastire crkve." Oba ova kasnija zapisa previđaju činjenicu da u vrijeme obnove Patrijaršije Mehmed-paša nije još bio veliki vezir, nego po rangu treći vezir. Velikim vezirom postat će tek osam godina kasnije."--Emir Arven 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Imamovic is very relevant historian. He was professor in Yale (New Haven).--Emir Arven 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is - Stephan Gerlach wrote what Mehmed's position was when he wrote that - in 1573. Anyway, Mustafa made a mistake - the letter was not written in 1575 as he said, but in 1573. Do you see now what I mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in movie Terminator. So there. Nikola 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 articles about paša

Just to tell you that there are two articles about Mehmed paša on English Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_Pasha_Sokolović
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_Paša_Sokolović

Somebody should first to merge them into one, and only then content should be discussed. PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I've noted this about 100K bytes back in this discussion. They were once the same article, split by a variation in the spelling. As far as I can tell the fossil article is only referred to from the Suliyman article. It should probably be removed. Presuming of course that this version of article has improved since then, not by any means a certainty. --Shoka 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kočan's Article

I urge everyone involved in the discussion to spend some time reading the Kočan's series in Večernje Novosti. It appears to be based on Samardžić's book and looks pretty NPOV to me. Let me quote few paragraphs from it about the disputed issues (emphasis mine):

Život Mehmeda Sokolovića nije lako pratiti, jer su istorijski izvori lišeni opširnijih podataka o njegovom najranijem životu, pogotovo perioda koji je vezan za njegovo odvođenje u carski saraj u Jedrenu i njegovo uspinjanje u dvorskoj službi. Visoki i naočiti Bosanac pao je više u oči turskim istoričarima tek kada je, naprasno, bio naimenovan za vrhovnog kapetana mornarice. Od tada ga prate u korak, a sve ono što se događalo u njegovom najranijem dobu, ostavljeno je da se crpe iz šturih pominjanja turskih istoričara i predanja srpskog naroda, čega se, iz razumljivih razloga, treba prihvatiti sa dužnom rezervom. Zatim iz malobrojnih pisanih dela o njemu na srpskom jeziku i, na kraju, pedantne diplomatske prepiske dubrovačkih i venecijanskih ambasadora na osmanskom dvoru, koji su pomno beležili svake detalje vezane za velikog vezira, od čije je milosti zavisila i sudbina njihove trgovačke moći u Sredozemlju.
Bez sumnje, jedno od najkompletnijih pisanih dela o najvećem osmanskom veziru na srpskom jeziku je knjiga “Mehmed Sokolović” Radovana Samardžića, koja je sa francuskog prevedena na turski, a već više od decenije ne silazi iz vitrina turskih knjižara. U njoj je, između ostalog, zabeleženo upravo ono što nedostaje turskim istoričarima - narodno predanje o odvođenju Baja Sokolovića u Jedrene.

...

Kad je Ješildže Mehmed-beg pao u Sokoloviće, Bajo se, verovatno, zatekao u očevoj kući ili je jaja-baša, doznavši kakvog sina ima domaćin Dimitrije, naredio da tića dovedu iz Mileševe. Ova druga pretpostavka se čini verovatnijom, jer se pored očajnih roditelja pojavio i pomenuti kaluđer, Bajov stric ili ujak, koji je pokušao da dete sačuva. Stari Sokolović se, kažu turski izvori, obratio šuraku da mu pomogne novcem kako bi otkupio sina. Kaluđer je, zaista, svim silama nastojao da pridobije ili potkupi jaja-bašu, ponudivši mu “faraonski novac za dečaka”, ali beg nije dozvolio “da mu se isprljaju skuti”.

...

Na čelo obnovljene Pećke patrijaršije postavljen je Makarije, tadašnji arhimandrit manastira Hilandara, za kojeg, iako je nesporno da je od Sokolovićevog roda, ne postoje nikakvi pouzdani istorijski podaci da mu je bio rođeni brat, kako to beleži predanje. Prema turskim hroničarima, koji sudbinu dvojice Mehmed-pašine braće sa sigurnošću prate do carskog saraja u Carigradu, Makarije je, najverovatnije bio stričevič ili, u najmanju ruku, neki dalji rod iz loze Sokolovića,

Duja 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the series is excellent. I believe we should have the folk tale, noting that it is a tale of course, because it is widely known. Regarding Makarije however, I don't see how there are no historical data, we have three independent references which point that he was brother or nephew (ok, possibly first cousin etc. but it is still a close relative). The series also says I, dok se reka novih i novih Sokolovića, iz rodnog Mehmed-pašinog sela usmeravala ka Carigradu... - further, it is logical that a close relative would be put onto an important position.

While at it, who claims that Mehmed was not Serb (no, not that he was Bosniak, because he was, in contemporary sense of the word, but that he was not Serb), and what are arguments for that? Nikola 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak

To answer Nikola's question - he is present on the List of famous Bosniaks Bosniak geocities website. Prof. dr Mustafa Imamovich has presented him as a Bosniak in his book History of Bosniaks. Although, the book is severely controversal - as I presented to the up. Additionally, it doesn't go deep into Mehmed's life/origin, but rather just calls him a Bosniak. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a famous Turkish wikipedian - User:Ugur_Basak - asked his Ottoman historian friend. She said that Mehmed's origin could've been Serbian.

Additionally, Ugur informed me that his father was a Priest - which overlaps my other sources, claiming that Dimitrije Sokolović was an Orthodox Christian Priest and his brother a monk in Mileševa. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We could add a note that some sources claim his father was a priest. Live Forever 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Emir

...wrote in the Edit summary: Serbian origin means he was born in Serbia; Bosnian origin means he was born in Bosnia please see Serbian article. Serbian origin means born/ancestors born in Serbia or/and born as a Serb - or of Serbian parentage. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

and

...expecially based on disputed sources

However, this talk page dealt with the subject - and showed that some sources are only slightly biased - while most aren't. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian origin?

According to another Turkish wikipedian: User:Adkagansu - this nationality is proven again.

I'm sorry - but I feel a little frustrated - what the entire world says is undermined simply because it doesn't support someone's (in this case Emir's) personal ideology. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish edition of encyclopedia

I am sorry that you became very quiet, when you got an answer from Turkish Wikipedian Ugur Basak, after your "origin" question. Let me quote, what he said: "But i searched it in encyclopedia, in dictionnaire larousse's Turkish editon's it says "Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu" "He was son of a Bosnian priest named Sokolovic"." So according to Turkish encyclopedia he was Bosniak.--Emir Arven 16:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On one side, we have very relevant sources (books and encyclopedia) about his Bosniak origin, on the other side we have Serb links that mention him in a fairy tale manner...So the sources that I provided cannot be compared with the sources that Holy googled.--Emir Arven 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are these encyclopedias and sources? You already know that that can be translated as "Bosnian". I presented you a thousand non-Serbian sources (next to Serbian), and you do not comment them. You also use the word "fairy tale" again insulting and pushing your harsh-driven POV.

On the Bosniak side, we have only the book of Mustafa Imamovich - a disputable controversy. I beg you to stop searching only for sources that correspond to your personal ideology - it's once again breaking WP:NPOV. Your mere words prove that you simply do not care. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty clear in earlier discussion, dont want to repeat myself. I asked Ugur to give me information about encyclopedia, Turkish edition, where he found that fact, of course you became very quiet after his answer, because you asked him that.--Emir Arven 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Very quit? Like you said, it is me who asked him that. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And of course I dont intend to discuss with a man, who is trying to justify, convicted fascist from WWII, and war criminal, Draza Mihailovic. I was ready to forgive all lies that you told before, but when I saw that you were trying to justify a fascist, saying (and blaming others) that Theodore Roosvelt and Winston Churchill committed much heavier crimes, I was shocked. [12] --Emir Arven 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussed to the lower. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to repeat the same sources. We are not stupid. It is about their relevance. I disputed them, not just me, Live Forever also. --Emir Arven 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You disputed some and on the basis like He's not a historian, it's not a thurrow work etc. However, I disputed your only source. Isn't this at least a bit one-sided. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Let's start over: 1. Here: Constantinople by Philip Mansel:

Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with a black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a statesman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat at Lepanto, in 1573.

Yet he kept links with his Serb roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate: his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for the priesthood when `gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople.

Architecture perpetuates the links between the two worlds of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In Constantinople his wife Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Sultan Selim II, built him a masterpiece from the golden age of Ottoman architecture, the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque by the old Roman hippodrome. Near his birthplace in Bosnia, the Grand Vizier himself commissioned an eleven-arched bridge over the River Drina, `one of the noblest spans you are likely to see'. Damaged in both world wars, twice rebuilt, it was finally destroyed by Croatian bombs in 1994.

Let me quote Live Forever (I also explained it well in earlier discussion):--Emir Arven 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC) "Couple of things wrong with this. First of all, as Emir pointed out, this isn't from any detailed study on Mehmed-paša's life, but is an unreferenced passing reference in a larger work. Also, yet again, I remind you that Mehmed-paša's family was well documented. None of Mehmed-paša's direct relatives remained Christians - each and every last one converted to Islam - so it is absurd to talk of how he accompanied his nephews to church. Also worth pointing out is that in the end the author confuses the bridge of Mehmed-paša Sokolović in Višegrad with the Stari most in Mostar. I think this should definitely set off some alarms regarding said author's credibility on the matter. Live Forever 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

Sources.. this is getting a little frustrating...

Serbian: CONSTANTINOPLE: City of the World's Desire 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel, List of devsirms, Famous Serbian Muslims by M. Vukicevic, this book by Turk Yilmaz Dikbas, Order of Saint Sava, Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Turkey, biographies of Orthodox Serb Patriarchs, the Institute of Ismaili studies by Amyn B. Sajoo, Serbian Orthodox Church for Kosovo and Sanjak, 100 Greatest Serbs, Project Rastko, Selim the Sot, Yugoslav Crisis, a Polish magazine, Montenegrin Orthodox Church, Vladimir Lamanski, Secrets d'etat de Venise, Saint Petersbourg, 1884; Marin di Cavali, Filipolis, 19 August 1558; a German by the name of Stephan Gerlach, 27 November 1573; Serbian-American Allience of New England; Russian historian Б. Макушев; the statements of Venetian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Andrea Badoaro from Alberi Eng.'s Relazioni de gli ambasciatori veneti, Serie II, vol. I, page 364; Ministry of Education of Serbia and Montenegro; there's also an abundance of other sources (like Turkish encyclopedias) - if this isn't enough, do tell me. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, the Bosniak source: History of Bosniaks by Mustafa Imamovich - already 'proven that it's disputed' since it makes clear errors and non-clear claims. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one more source on Serbian origin: Kosovo by William Dorich It's the Serbs and Albanians Under Turkish Rule part by Alex Dragnich and Slavko Todorovich. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Emir and Serbian nationality

User:Emir_Arven said And of course I dont intend to discuss with a man, who is trying to justify, convicted fascist from WWII, and war criminal, Draza Mihailovic. I was ready to forgive all lies that you told before, but when I saw that you were trying to justify a fascist, saying (and blaming others) that Theodore Roosvelt and Winston Churchill committed much heavier crimes, I was shocked. [12] --Emir Arven 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Could please insert some proofs that Draza was a fascist? I won't use your logic and acuse you of lying, ofcourse, just put sources. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Winston Churchill approved the Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II - even though the Allies new that it was a refugee camp - resulting in the murder of 35,000 innocent civilians

President_of_the_United_States Harry_S._Truman (not Roosvelt) approced the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a result which brought to death over 500,000 innocent civilians and radiation effects still last until today.

Joseph Stalin dispatched sumbarines to sink specifically German refugee boats that were sailing to hide in Scandinavia.

You feel strange that I consider that that committed heavier war crimes? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway - I disputed your only source and you disputed only some (or better - one or two) of my sources on rather scetchy acusations.

Now - you presented this book: Mehmed-pasha Sokolović of Radovan Samardžić. It turned out that you were wrong (I'm not going to follow your aggressive steps and acuse you of lying) claiming that it put him as a Bosniak - it claims that he was a Serb. Or is this source now invalid too?

No it didnt turn, according to summary that is available on-line and that I presented from the very beginning, because I always provide source and base my statement on it (I dont make things up).--Emir Arven 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Look here *this is in Turkish: [13]16. yüzyılın başlarında Bosna'da, Osmanlı tarafından kan vergisi olarak ailesinden koparılıp alınan Bayo Sokoloviç, papaz okulu öğrenciliği ve çobanlıktan Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun hizmetinde hızla yükseleceği bir yola girmiştir.Mohaç zaferi (1526) yeni elde edilmiştir ve Mehmet adını alan Bayo'nun yükselişi ile Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun akıl almaz genişleyişi önemli bir paralellik göstermektedir. Alışılmadık yetenekleri sayesinde Bosnalı bu küçük çoban, imparatorluk hiyerarşisinin basamaklarını baş döndürücü bir hızla çıkarak kendini, Akdeniz'den Hindistan'a, Viyana'dan Mısır'a uzanan bir imparatorluğun veziriazamı olarak bulacaktır.--Emir Arven 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, can you tell me the page (and edition of the book) about that claim? --Emir Arven 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have concluded here that it would be more than fare enough to put him as of Serbian origin. If there are no more opposes - I am going to add it. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevant sources

There are relevant sources that talk about him as Bosniak:

• Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish editon volume 6 page 2165 "Sokullu Mehmet Paşa". About print date, (orginal edition) Larousse 1993 and (turkish edition) Milliyet 1993-1994.

• History of Bosniaks, Mustafa Imamovic (Yale professor)

• Sokollu Mehmet Pasa, Radovan Samarcic

On the other hand, your sources are not about his life, nor him as a person, but just mention him.--Emir Arven 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish edition: is there a way using which you can display the actual source for us all to see (as you have insisted that on my place - so I insist that you do that)? Additionally - does it go into Mehmed's life, or just mentions him - without deeper explainations? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2. I already said about this source: it's impresice. It doesn't state sources - unlike the Famous Serbs Muslims of Vukichevich that has basicly every sentence on Mehmed sourced. And - it makes POV arguements - claiming that something is rather incorrect - not stating what is (and why) correct. For instance - it mentions that Stephan Gerlach wrote the letter in 1575 - when he wrote that on 27 November 1573. How can this be considered credible? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

3. OK - firstly - his name is Radovan Samardžić. He is a famous Serbian (modern) historian. He wrote books regarding Serbian history - especially interested in migrations of Serbs under the Ottomans - one of his two famous books is Mehmed Sokolović - Belgrade: Serbian Litteral Society - 1975. The book has 584 pages with some illustrations and is dedicated to one of the greatest Serbs that managed to climb in the Ottoman infrastructure.

Quote - directly from Radovan's book:

In Serbian: Naocit, pametan momak pocetkom XVI veka, kada se za potrebe ocuvanja prosirenih granica turske carevine pojavila potreda za svezim snagama u Armiji, Osmanlije su jos vise pribegle ranije vec oprobanoj praksi popune vojnog podmlatka putem tzv. devsirme koja je kod nas poznata kao "danak u krvi".

Pet-sest godina posto je hercegovacki sandzak-beg Skender Ornosovic "dobio zapovest iz Carigrada da po Bosni i Hercegovini pokupi hiljadu adzemioglana i dovede ih u saraje ", u Bosnu se iza 1520. uputio Jesildze Mehmed-beg, trazeci kao i njegov prethodnik, sposobne mladice za carsku sluzbu. Posle dugog obilazenja Bosne i susednih krajeva, Jesildze-bega put je naneo u selo Sokolovici kod Ruda u visegradskom kadiluku, gde je docuo pricu o naocitom i pametnom momku Baji koji je bio dat u monasku sluzbu kod njegovog ujaka u Milesevi.

In English (last part): Bajo... ...who was sent to serve as a Monk at his uncle in Mileševa.

Do you need more? The info presented by Radovan Samardzic perfectly overlaps what Milenko M. Vukichevich said in his Famous Moslem Serbs.

It appears that Radovan deals with the "Serb myth and fairy tales" that you mentioned earlier. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that in Turkish, Bosnalı means Bosnian, while Boşnak meant Bosnian - but also Bosniak. Radovan mentioned "Bosnalı" --HolyRomanEmperor 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now - what I presented is a quote from his book on Mehmed - what you presented was a description of his book in Turkish, that quitte possibly meant Bosnian - and not contemporary Bosniak.

For instance - I found another Turkish description of the book:

Bayo Sokoloviç, 16. yüzyılın başlarında Bosna'da Türkler tarafından kan vergisi olarak Sokoloviçi köyünde yaşayan ailesinden koparılıp alınır. Mehmed adını alan küçük çoban Bayo'nun başdöndürücü bir hızla sadrazamlığa yükselişi ile Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun akıl almaz genişleyişi arasında büyük paralellikler vardır. "Dünyayı Avuçlarında Tutan" bu adamın düşünceleri, düşleri nelerdi? Sırp kökeni ve devşirme ruhu onun dünya görüşünü, özel ve siyasi ilişkilerini nasıl etkiliyordu? Tarih filozofu Samarcic, dönemle ilgili tüm kaynakları bir araya getirerek bize Sokollu Mehmed Paşa'nın çarpıcı öyküsünü anlatıyor. Gazeteci Cengiz Çandar'ın sunuş yazısıyla. Serbian here - like I said, it varies across descriptions on the book (Serb, Bosnian,...) - but the book itself follows this "Serb myth". --HolyRomanEmperor 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and not to make you demand to see with your own eyes the actual source: [14] --HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Radovan also wrote about other serbian history: [15] He wrote about Kosovo, 1991-1993 crimes in the yugoslav civil war etc. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

and...

User:Emir_Arven wrote: On the other hand, your sources are not about his life, nor him as a person, but just mention him. I do not know if this is intentional misinformation: but I've displayed numerius detailed sources (constantinople, famous islamic serbs, 100 greatest serbs among them, ...); but Emir expects to counter what the World says with three sources: one that is just an encyclopedic mention that can be understood in different ways, a Bosniak historian that makes clear errors and is unsourced and a book by Radovan Samardzic that counters everything what Emir said.

Emir, this is getting ridiculous. Why are you enforcing this that way? I'm going to put that he was of Serbian origin - or do you want to continue arguing (silence will be accepted as an approval)? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bajo in intro

Holy would you please stop inserting Bajo as his first name in the intro paragraph? Even if we established that this is likely his born name, he himself did not use it throughout his life, nor he was known under it anywhere. It seems that you're doing that for WP:POINT? Duja 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right; sorry, Duja, ol' friend. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish edition

Dictionnaire Larousse's Turkish edition: is there a way using which you can display the actual source for us all to see (as you have insisted that on my place - so I insist that you do that)? Additionally - does it go into Mehmed's life, or just mentions him - without deeper explainations? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you asked Ugur Basak to give you information so he searched it and found: Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu, volume 6 page 2165 "Sokullu Mehmet Paşa". About print date, (orginal edition) Larousse 1993 and (turkish edition) Milliyet 1993-1994.--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He also explained to you that Boşnak means Bosniak (ethnicity).--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I will quote it here:[16]

Tell me, please, is there a difference between Boşnak and Bosnalı? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

About Boşnak and Bosnalı. In Turkish we use both words for every nation. Türk and Türkiyeli etc. Boşnak means Bosnian people (mostly for ethnically) and Bosnalı has two meanings; one who is living in Bosnia (Bosnian citizen) and other Bosnian people.--Ugur Basak 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Tell me, in that ecyclopedia that you mentioned earlier, what of the two was it reffering to (ethnicity or inhabitant)? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu in this text writer uses Boşnak, as explanied above. Sentence is about Bosnian ethnicity--Ugur Basak 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, my answer is the same as you got it from Ugur Basak.--Emir Arven 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; and I am glad (on my side) that we (finally) found a suitable source. How about now that we place Serbian (and cite sources) or Bosniak (and cite sources). Emir, shall you have the honor to do that? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But I am still confused by one li'l' thingy. Ugur wrote: In Turkish we use both words for every nation - so how can we be sure that it was refering to ethnicity? Is there a side indication for the interpretation?

Emir, don't get insulted by this - but don't you think that you're rather drawing straws and searching the tip of every side-source to support your claim? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Boşnak is used mostly about ethnic Bosnian and Bosnalı has two meanings one for citizen of Bosna other is ethnic Bosnian but if someone uses Bosnalı he mostly want to say Bosnian citizen. In Turkish for most countries (most of them are historically or culturally related to Turkey/Ottoman Empire) we use both forms, like Alman and Almanyalı for Germans. But this sentence Sokoloviç adlı Boşnak bir papazın oğluydu means He was son of a Bosnian priest named Sokolovic.

I've found one more resource, its a conservative online dictionary but i just write for a referance [17]

Bosna�nın Sokol kasabasından, Şahinoğulları âilesine mensuptur -> He is Şahinoğulları family form From Sokol town of Bosna. In this referance there is nothing about ethnicity but says Bosna�daki âilesini de İstanbul�a getirip, onların İslâm dînini kabul etmelerine sebep oldu -> He brings his family form Bosnia, and help them to be Muslims --Ugur Basak 23:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Imamovic in his "History of Bosniaks", also explained that Mehmed was a Bosniak. --Emir Arven 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When we speak about Bosniak or Bosnian, we should use it in correct historical context. --Emir Arven 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

People of that day in Bosnia called themselves Bosniaks no matter of religion. They identified themselves with Bosnia.--Emir Arven 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy, your logic is based on anachronism, because you want to connect him with Serbia based on his Christian background. I think this is not serious for a historian.--Emir Arven 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Connect him to Serbia How can I connect him to Serbia - when he had nothing to do with it, since it didn't exist back than. :D

Exactly.--Emir Arven 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what did you mean then? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please search up for the word anachronism. It seems that you're using it the wrong way for quitte a while. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think you didnt understand the point here.--Emir Arven 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that I misunderstood too. Could you clarify a bit? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Emir,

That's the problem. You said: Mustafa Imamovic in his "History of Bosniaks", also explained that Mehmed was a Bosniak. --Emir Arven 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC), however, it didn't. It explains what he is not, rather than what he is. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Read it again.--Emir Arven 17:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I did. But it simply calls him a Bosniak. And, regarding the fact that he calls his Orthodox Serb priest Dimitrije a Bosniak - even more incinuates that he refers to inhabitants of Bosnia, rather than ethnicity. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You forget one important fact - He was an Orthodox Christian, and when he was born, in 1506, the Serbian Orthodox Church still existed (it was finally abolished in 1532 by Прохор Пчињски) - which means that he was an adherent of the Serb Orthodox Chruch. 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt mean that. That's your POV.--Emir Arven 17:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But look, from 1217 to 1532 the Serb Orthodox Church existed in Bosnia, the Serbian Lands, Hungary, the Croatian Lands, etc... What other Church could it possibly be (now that we even have a Serbian Medieval Monastery: Mileševa)? Bulgarian... Romanian, Russian? Hardly, don't you think? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, his father Dimitrije was and Orthodox Serb priest and he himself was scholared at Mileševa - one of the greatest Serbian Monasteries. You object because of...? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And the proof is...--Emir Arven 17:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And this sentence is a proof that you don't care/didn't read these sources. Knock yourself out and read this page; as you said, we're not dumb, so I don't need to repeat myself for the n-th time. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This last one was a bit harsh, sorry. But I feel insulted that you ask proofs for something already repeated. My apologeez. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, guys, you will be unable to resolve your difference of opinion for the simple reason that the two nation's definitions of what a 'nation' is vary significantly - the Serbian one is based on the religion-nation continuum, and the Bosnian one is based on the shared LIVED culture/language/geography-nation continuum. They are not complementary or reconcilable.

Now, you can go on like this until cows come home. Or you can just use some common sense and ask yourselves questions like: was Queen Teuta Ilyrian? Or was she Croatian, since she lived in Sucuraj and 37% of Croatian genetic code is Illyrian? was Caesar a Roman Emperor? Or did he become Italian under Vittorio Emanuel? I would tend to think that Teuta was an Illyrian queen since she lived in Illiricum, worshipped penises, like all good Illyrians, and spoke Illyrian. I'd say Ceasar was a Roman emperor, since he made himself one without a note to posterity that, should the Roman Empire become Italy -- he can become Italian too.

Now, this Bajica, or Bajrica -- depending on whom you listen to, was also known as one of the most powerful men of his time, and I'd say that his defining identity was Ottoman. If he happened to be born in Bosnia, which was known as such within the Ottoman Empire of the time, and whose people were known as Bosnians to the Ottomans, then he was born Bosnian. If his religion was Orthodox, then - as it was the case during the Ottoman rule, he would have been known as a Christian from Bosnia.

You may appreciate that despite all good and silly and passionate and malicious intentions to prove otherwise, Bosnia was a place with a strong regional and cultural identity at the time in which religion was mostly a multi-directional phenomenon - each family had so many instances of intermarriage and conversion (Mehmed-pasa being case in point), that it is silly to speak of some sort of pure-blooded belonging to such and such religion and such and such nation, especially in contemporary terms. Being Bosnian during Ottoman times was really a sub-citizenship definition and a designation for the people coming from the region.

From the contemporary perspective, Visegrad is very much a Bosnian Serb town these days, Dimitrije is very much a Serbian name, so if you want to apply the religion-nation principle backwards, then call him Serbian. Though to do so would be a bit of a recent concept to those born and bred in Bosnia (19th century at best). But if you're going to start WWIII over this, it's really not worth it. Just cite all of his possible 'origins' if they are so vital to his magnificence. Otherwise, it is probably wise to look at any sources that talk of what he considered himself to be (he was living at and presiding over the centre of the universe at the time, an identity that was obviously very close to his heart). So, multiple identities are encouraged. Best Fomafomich 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All disputes

Now, let's peacefully solve them all... again... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputes, let's solve 'em

So, are these facts generally acceptable?

• Bajica Sokolović was the birth name with Bajica the nickname. His father was an Orthodox Serbian Christian Priest, whose brother was an influential Monk in Mileševa
• Bajica was baptised as an adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church, but converted to Islam as soon as he was kidnapped (or taken, if more WP:NPOV)
• Bajica was scholared at the Mileševa monastery with his uncle, who tried (and failed) to protect him from the Ottomans
• His brother, Makarije became the first Patriarch of the renewed Serbian Orthodox Church
• His nephews, Savatije and Antonije were important Orthodox Serbian Christian Episcopes and later Patriarchs; his other nephew, Mustafa-beg (Islamic convert) was the Governer of Bosnia

Is all this acceptable, or not? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

svaka čast Şümadiją

I found another source

my 30th or 40th (I really can't remember, I've lost count :D). It's the History of the Serbian people by Vladimir Ćorović.

I have found some more books & other sources. I'll add them soon enough. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I watched Трезор, the old SFRJ show whose main subject was Mehmed-pasa. Although it doesn't call him a Serb, it confirms his studying at Milesheva at his uncle's (and the name Bajica-Bajo). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear now

I will edit the article appropriatly; I think that this talk page says all. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think *the name of the article* says it all. Possible valid *English* names for this historical Ottoman personality include Mehmet Sok[o|u]llu Pasha and Sok[o|u]llu Mehmet Pasha. This is not the Serbian, Bosnian or Croat Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this page stable enough to be worth copy editing?

It badly needs it--Shoka 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to enter into the Serb contra Bosnian debate. One point is important, however: a part of this page is concerned with Hungarian history. Therefore I believe it just and historically absolutely necessary to indicate place names in Hungarian as well. Thus I would like to see Buda instead of or besides Budim, Temesvár instead of what is written, etc. Also a few words about two personalities: Utesenovich was indeed born with that name, but he himslef rather used it as György Martinuzzi (his mother's name) and was also call the Frater also being a monk. He was certainly no viceroy but a chancellor of Transylvania. The other personality is Nicola Zrin better known as Miklós Zrínyi, who was indeed of Croatian origin, but was a member of Hungarian nobility and his great grandson would become the writer of a great Hungarian epic. thus I believe it would be good to also provide the Hungarian spelling of his name. One more remark: in Hungary we have always known the protagonist of this story as Sokrulu Mehmet. Ladamus 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever

I have noticed that you are a little frustrated with me - so I didn't want to show up at your talk page with this issue. You are an honourable person, and I have no desire in getting quarrels with you, but view this issue. These are not scrapped sources from the internet - but hard researched books & literature. On the other hand, where are sources that count him as not being a Serb? As far as I've seen, qe have some rather unclear arguements of Mustafa Imamovich who calls him Bosniak, and some mentions on forums and Turkish translation interpretations that consider him Croatian or Bosniak. I am rm the tag (ok?) but am putting a thing we must all agree - Orthodox Serb. He couldn't've been anything other than an Orthodox Serb - if he was Orthodox born, and he indeed was. What other Orthodox he could be - Russian is one of the only latter alternatives (and he was a Slav, alright). --HolyRomanEmperor 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Now understand your issue - well, "Serbian Orthodox Church" doesn't define his ethnicity (since it's obviously disputed). "Orthodox Serb" signifies his religious affilation.

As for the ethnic issue - I suggest that we do the very same compromise that I orchastrated on a Ragusian astronomer's article - Rudjer Boskovic. I noted that his father was a Croat - put put a footnote stating that he might've been a Serb from the House of Boscovic, and/or a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. My idea is to put here "Serb" and then a footnote stating the "Orthodox Bosniak" controversy to the bottom. Opinions? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Still don't agree. It doesn't matter what "Serb Orthodox" is supposed to mean, because the Serb Orthodox Church was de facto abolished at the time of his birth (and let's not even get into the amount of influence it must've had in the backwater regions of southern Podrinje). To me saying he's "Serb Orthodox" is simply false, and just another attempt to imply his Serb ethnicity. My proposed solution is to have a section at the very bottom about the controversy regarding his "ethnicity". Live Forever 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, you must note that on every single wikipedia, when talking of religion, it is said "Roman Catholic", "Orthodox Serb', etc... And indeed the Serbian Orthodox Church was (at times and now) the main factor(s) of describing who is Serb (regardless of his/her ethnic origin). For instance, it is stated on some articles "Roman Catholic", and not just "Catholic Christian" - not to be mixed with "Greek Catholic". I will agree with making a section on his controversy - but it will not change my opinion that I'm against it. The sections "Controversy" have a tendency of becomming ridiculous and attract edit warring on Wikipedia (did you see my solution on Rudjer Boskovic - that's my suggestion here). Ethnicities of peoples like him are arguable. We should stick to what things are obvious - "Orthodox Serb", "Muslim", "Ottoman". I'm afraid how will a section successfully portray his ethnic controversy - and will it be able to honour Wikipedia:Verifiability (regarding the proportionality of sources that I mentioned)...

I would have to disagree with de facto abolished. Although its Patriarchal seat was indeed empty - the entire Ecclesiastical organization was thoroughly kept alive (even after its subjection to the Ohrid Archepisopate in 1523). The "Serb Orthodox Church" (after its full-scale abolition in 1532) continued to de facto exist since Mehmed's renewal of its old seat in Pec in 1557 - all the way until its final abolition in 1776. After that - the metropolitans of the Cetinje Archepiscopate (Petrovic-Njegos) remained as claimholders of the Serbian Patriarchal Throne (although they were recognized in 1892) - and the Karlovac Archepiscopate continued the SOC's traditions, and restored the Patriarchate in 1832 (but it was not recognized before 1879). The SOC we have now was unified/declared in 1920. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

and let's not even get into the amount of influence it must've had in the backwater regions of southern Podrinje I'm not sure how I can agree here. The Podrinje has been inhabited by Orthodox Serbs since the construction of the Dabro-bosanska episkopija in 1219. It's true that it only had several Orthodox Serb monasteries and Churches (compared to the rich Herzegovina), but it had pretty much none Bosnian Bogumil - and a very small number of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structures. According to verious historians of internation renown (including Noel Malcom), Podrinje was inhabited by Orthodox Serbs throughout the Medieval Ages - it was not before the 16th century that, partially under Mehmed's influence, the region saw mass conversions from Eastern Orthodoxy (note - this differs from "Serbian Orthodoxy") to Islam. Nevertheless, if we consider Bosnia (region) without Herzegovina - Podrinje is the largest concentration of almost 1,000-year old Serbian Orthodox monuments. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You must take into consideration the validity of sources - and notice that, though, the claim that Mehmed-pasa Sokolovic is an ethnic Bosniak (and not Serb), just as Rudjer Boskovic is Serb (and not Croat); Ivo Andric Serb (and not Croat); Mila Jovovic Croat (and not Serb); Ivan Gundulic Serb (and not Croat)... if we draw a line like this: where it's almost obvious that the person in question is Serb, but still some controversy - we place an equal "Controversy agreement", and whereas sources for people being Croats (like the ones I mentioned) are off-limits of any mention of Serbs (even though there is still little controversy). This creates not only a generally Wiki-POV bad image - but also from Your side. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't want Live Forever to portray/see me as a pusher, but I cannot do much with him silent... --HRE 10:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit dispute reopened

Uh... I know not what to say anymore except that anyone who thinks that this version is not good, should re-read this talk page and please, see the tag at the top of this talk page. It seems pointless to reopen the very same argument again. --PaxEquilibrium 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Why do I seem always to be the only person that acts reasonable and wants to discuss? It gets boring fighting against brick walls all the time.

Live, what is wrong now? --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake!

This has gone far enough; I have warned the Users about Edit warring. I will report them as a final resort. --PaxEquilibrium 10:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You consistently and blatantly lie about other users' contributions, regularly force serbocentric historiography on a wide array of articles, habitually write misleading edit summaries, and have even faked your own death on wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned you're practically a vandal, and I don't bother discussing with vandals - especially when I'm reverting to a previously accepted compromise version following nationalist vandalism you're trying to reinforce. For all your faux wiki-ettiquette and appeals to authority, at the end of the day you're still the one trying to push POV. Live Forever 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack (reported); the previous one was not a compromise - You promised to deal with the controversy, but You failed to do it (even after a long time period). As far as I see You abandoned discussions here, rather than attempting to form a compromise. As for "serbocentrism" :D perhaps You're more probably seeing it from a "Bosniocentric" POV? :) --PaxEquilibrium 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing is sure [not Eastern Orthodox, but Orthodox Serb]; he was not born in an Orthodox Rumanian, nor Russian neither Bulgarian family. --PaxEquilibrium 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. And you're studying history? You're pushing the 19th century Balkan fusion of religion and ethnicity onto historical figures that just don't fit into such simplified modern characterizations. There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever to justify labeling Sokolović as a Serb, and the bulk of the "sources" you've dug up are little more than occasional mentions from later historians. Essentially then, you are ahistorically pushing an ethnic label that you have no legitimate basis for. Your insistence on the term "Serbian-Orthodox" also coincides with the much later role religion played in crystallizing Serbian national identity, and simply doesn't run back to a person such as Mehmed-paša Sokolović from several centuries earlier. A compromise was reached, in that neutral language was used in the introduction - though you could debate for days whether Mehmed-paša "was Bosniak or Serb", it is a simple geographical fact that he was a Bosnian (born in Bosnia). Though it's true that I gradually stopped editing this article (largely due to the vandalism of your "istomišljenika") and thus never got around to fully addressing the debate, it's notable that you haven't done a damn thing besides repeatedly trying to ruin the one thing everyone did agree on (i.e. an introduction free of contentious ethnic labels). Live Forever 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm just citing sources (WP:CITE).

Please re-read this whole talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Remark-Architecture

In Lüleburgaz (currently a small city in the county of Kırklareli in the Turkish Thrace) there is a mosque and a "külliye" built for Sokollu Mehmet Paşa. I esteem that it is worth integrating into the article. The mosque is called "Sokollu Camii" and the foundation is called "Sokollu Mehmet Paşa Külliyesi". Anyone specializing on the subject is welcome to undertake the necessary additions.

Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic was Bosniak

You can read more about Mehmed Pasa's origins in History of Bosniaks, pg. 158-163 here. Bosniaks (also spelled: Bosniacs; sometimes incorrectly refered to as Bosnian Muslims) are autochtone Slavic peoples of Bosnia. Up until the mid 19th century, the term Bosniak was used for all inhabitants of Bosnia regardles of faith. In medieval Bosnia, Bosniaks were largely members of an indigenous Bosnian Church and were considered heretics by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. As a result, some Bosniaks were forced to convert to Caholicism and Eastern Orthodox religions. During the Ottoman period (15th-19th century) mostly heretic Bosniaks in large numbers converted to Islam. During the 19th century (Austro-Hungarian period), the Bosniaks of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths acquired Croatian and Serbian national identites and came to be known as Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. Even though today's Bosniaks are overhelmingly Sunni Muslims, they are one of the most secular peoples in the Balkans and Europe. Their mother tongue is bosnian, one of three official languages of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniaks are proud of their unique history, tradition, and European roots. You don't have to be Muslim to be Bosniak. I am NOT MUSLIM and I am Bosniak. And you don't have to be Orthodox to be Serb. I have three other friends, one is Catholic, the other is Orthodox, and third is from mixed marriage. They all identify as Bosniaks. Mehmed Pasa Sokollu was Bosniak! Bosniak 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

However, he's not Serb because he was Orthodox - but because he was Serb. Read this whole page. --PaxEquilibrium 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Letter of Sokolovic

Here's one more source, directly documented from Bajica Sokolovic.

Sokollu Mehmet Pasa wrote in 1551 to the commander of Temeswar Andrew Battori in Serbian language: "i što mi pošilaš listova i sve mi srbskim jezikom pošilaj, a ne fruški". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name

This article name ought to be written without special characters, per WP:NAME. Korossyl (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars

The 'Talk' here is much like following already known propaganda approach prior, during and after the Yugoslav wars, which could be briefly read in the article: Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars. Therefore, it is expected that the nationalists (unfortunately mainly Serbians) are trying to conceive the reality by providing false information and misguidance to the readers, which makes the Wikipedia unreliable source of information, what nowadays is utterly known.

He was Serb. Enough is enough

We can put here various arguments, sources, books and myths. BUT. Was his brother a man who led renewing of Serbian orthodox patriarchat? Yes! Was he the first Patriarch of renewed Serbian orthodox patriarchat? Yes. So please, once for ever, stop those nonsenses. The rest can celebrate those great and famous Serbs coz they do not have such brilliant men in their past, but this should be stopped. No need to mention "myth" and "legend" that he was maybe coming from some Bosniak noble bla bla... Nor to write that his name is in Bosnian (few years ago invented language) or Croatian (when he has nothing with Croats). He was Serb and his name is in Serbian. Dot!109.121.42.43 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

=== this whole article has grammer errors besides being poorly worded! typical wikipedia crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.131.181 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree..Bajo Nenadić surly don't sound as Croat's....so he can't be Croat. He also can't be "Bosniak" becouse they are converted either from Croats either from Serbs.....we can be very confident that he was a Serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And we can be sure that he wasn't serbian, only that his parents were adherents of the eastern orthodox church. He was from Bosnia, therefore, he is Bosnian, not Bosniak. And, because he was takes when he was very young, and grew up in Istanbul and in ottoman empire, we can say he is ottoman, not turkish, but ottoman. No arguments here. 77.77.252.60 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, he was Serbian. You see, some people really confuse "Serb-Serbian" with "Bosniak-Bosnian". A Serb = Serbian, while Bosniak =/= Bosnian. A Bosniak is an "ethnic Bosnian", while a Serb, or a Croat also can be Bosnian if they're the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's why the Sokollu family was NOT Muslim Bosniak. I think none of the original members of this family were born as Muslims, they were all born as Serbian-Orthodox (Christian Orthodox church). They converted to Islam later on, because they were in fact Bosnian Serbs. Moreover, Sokollu comes from Sokolović, which is largely a Serbian surname. Too much evidence. His NATIONALITY could be Bosnian, but he was ETHNICALLY Serbian. Yatzhek (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He was a Serb indeed. An ethnic Serb, raised in Bosnia, who converted to islam. Nothing more to add. Wikipedia lies sometimes while some people try to pust their point of view in the article. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, he is ethnically serb. I dont understand why someone would argue against this, bosniaks were not the only people who converted to islam. Tarmet (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Books

Encyclopaedic Survey of Islamic Culture by Mohamed Taher, published in 1998, ISBN:8126104031. Page 765:

“ SOKOLLU MEHMED PASHA

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, called Tawil "the Tall" (ca. 1505-79) was one of the most famous Ottoman Grand Viziers and the only to have held this office uninterruptedly under three successive sultans, from 27 June 1565 to to 12 October 1579.

He was born in Bosnia in the village of Sokolovici (< sokol "falcon") near the little town of Rudo in the kada of Višegrad into a Serbian family of minor rural nobility deriving its name from the village (sc. that of Sokolovic > Tkish. Sokollu), it had several branches branches, one of them supplying the second vizier Deli Khosrew Pasha (dismissed in 1544) through the devshirme [q.v.]. The son of one Dimitriye who eventually converted to Islam, his baptismal name was Bayo, and he had three brothers according to Serbian tradition, two according to the Turkish one. He was educated in the Mileseva monastery where an uncle was a monk.

”

The encyclopedia of Christianity by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, ISBN:9004145958. Page 88:

“ In spite the loss of Serbian independence, the archbishops of Peć could still call themselves patriarchs between 1557 and 1766 through the good offices of the Turkish vizier Mehmed Pasa Sokollu (1505-79), who was of Serbian origin. Under the Hapsburgs the Serbian metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci also took the title from 1848 to 1913 by imperial decree. ”

the grand vizier section

i moved this to the bottom because i have learned the importance of always putting posts in chronological order. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the grand vizier section is incredibly long and far too detailed. if people want to read a description of his career, they can search the web or get a biography or something. this article should be an introductory source for the purpose of availing the ignorant of mehmed's importance, not of making them experts on him. all of the paragraphs that are one sentence long need to be incorporated into larger ones for better flow and paragraphs like this one need either to be removed entirely or greatly altered:

“ Sokollu Mehmed Pasha has had 60 years service in the administration of Ottoman Empire. He holds an unusual distinction that, among all the persons who have reached Grand Vizier rank, he is the only single one who has never been demoted from any administrative job that he had been assigned and had reached the highest rank in Ottoman State always by promotion. Compared to other Ottoman administrators, Mehmed was calm in external affairs[dubious – discuss]. He preferred strategic moves to brutal ones[dubious – discuss]. He conquered only strategic points like Cyprus and Tunis. He started grand canal related works near Istanbul joining Marmara Sea through Izmit Bay, through Sapanca Lake and Sakarya River to the Black Sea. Also he had canal digging work started at the sites of present Suez Canal and Volga-Don Canal. After his death, the religious freedom which he gave to the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire was re-guaranteed. ”

besides its problems with grammar and tense, this paragraph is an unnecessary summary that very clearly stretches the bounds of NPOV by picking out what the author considers most important from the subject's entire career, and unnecessarily repeating them when they were all mentioned earlier in the section. i view it's lack of citations as a reason to just delete it altogether, since it indicates that there wasn't very much work put into it in any case. the paragraph above it, describing he and his wife's burial arrangements, seems like a much more proper way to conclude the section, but again seems to me too detailed. the trouble with so much information is that it discourages people from actually reading about mehmed on wikipedia. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i noticed this has been reduced to a single sentence! perhaps an overcompensation, but i do appreciate the breaking-up of his life into various issues of historical import. i think the article is much, much better now! congrats to whoever did that. any further ideas as to how this article could approach featured status (i think it is an important enough one to both western and eastern history for that to be likely)? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

so the paragraph i quoted above has now been restored, and, defying all expectation, the writing in it has actually become worse. the last years is about right now, and need not have a glowing obituary at the end of it. i feel qualified to remove most of this paragraph, since i have kept an eye on it for so long now. please, don't be be bold and restore it, whoever you are. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DISPUTE: Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic was Bosniak, not Serb

Two ethnic groups, Bosniaks and Serbs, celebrate Sokollu Mehmet Paşa as their own. It is utterly unfair to refer to him as being of Bosnian Serb descent when this is clearly disputed. He is one of the most celebrated characters in the Bosniak history. You cannot assign him to Serbs when other nation celebrates him as their own. According to Prof. Mustafa Imamovic (History of Bosniaks, page 158-163 [18], Sokollu Mehmet Pasa was Bosniak. Serb sources listing as Serb are weak and self-serving. I suggest we modify the article by mentioning that two ethnic groups celebrate him as their own, but there is no strong indication that he was Serb apart from Serb sources using weak and clearly not academic estimates.Bosniak (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest to introduce the separate section, "Ethnicity dispute", with both Serb and Bosniak points of view. There must be clear arguments (not just claims "yes he was") coted from references to prominent researchers, not random websies, politicians or journalists.

In discussion, please avoid statements like "weak and self-serving". Please speak facts from printed sources, not your opinions. Otherwise this dispute will always turn into a religious war here, with no improvement of the artycle. Mukadderat (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that many talks about the ethnicity are in the talk archive, Talk:Sokollu Mehmet Paşa/Archive 1. Mukadderat (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a rather extensive search through google books and amazon.com, and found about an equal number of sources stating that he was either Bosnian or Serb. I myself don't have a preference to his ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole my point: there should be a separate section to present both sides.

I agree! Bosniak (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that even the fact he was born in Bosnian lands does not resolve the controversy whether he was of bosnian nationality, not saying about ethnicity:

• Some say, he is of bosnian nationality, since he was born in Bosnian land;
• Other say it is illegitimate to call him Bosnian nationality, since there was no Bosnia at his birth: he is from what was Kingdom of Bosnia 40 years before his birth, but the interim status of Bosnian lands was unclear. If I am not mistaken, Bosna Sancağı of Rumelia was established around 1530-40.

And so on. Mukadderat (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all three ethnic groups; Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs (all three of them still present in today's Bosnia), celebrate Sokollu Mehmet Paşa as their own. All three of them wrote books and songs about him. Good example is Ivo Andrić. Some, both Wester and Ottoman sources claim that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was a Croat. For example, in book

• "Suleiman the Magnificent - Sultan of the East" by Harold Lamb, it is clearly stated on pages 53, 117, 303, 311...that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was Croat (ISBN=978-1-40677-271-5). Also in
• "Lieber, Francis (1845). Encyclopædia Americana: A popular dictionary of arts, sciences,... Vol 13. Philadelphia: Columbia University Library." on page 345, Sokollu Mehmet Paşa is called renegade of Croatia.

To make a long story short, I think that in the lead section it should be written that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was from Bosnia. And I agree to make a new section "Ethnicity dispute", where all aspects should be noticed. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I never heard that Croat's think Mehmed is their own...maybe in wider pro-Yugoslav or pan-Slavic sentence, but Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic is alway been a Serb. If Harold Lamb stated different hr id wrong...Croatian wiki also state that he was of Serb origin from Visegrad. Ok, there is good reason why historican can see Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic as Croat, becouse he himself in his letter's considered all Slavic people between Budim and Dubrovnik as Croat's. But, his name is too Serbian like in combination with his originaly ortodox religion it too much for Croat's to accept him.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please find some compromise here. Even Turkish politicians consider him a Serb : http://www.islamskazajednica.org/index.php?option=com_ezine&task=read&page=2&category=11&article=3076 ... So either correct it or avoid referencing his ethnicity. Serbian sources might be "weak and self-serving" but Bosniak sources are not any better when it comes to this matter. Otherwise we are entering one of these vigorous cycle of disputes... Lets end this and add part on ethnic dispute as proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.8.238 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was Bosniak !!!!!!!!!!

--92.225.33.15 (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmet Paşa he was a Bosniak he is Bosniak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.71.80 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC) LOL

Mehmed Pasha Sokolovich

I think that the problem with Yugoslav history is that since Austro-Hungarian occupation, Hungarian hegemony was ever so present among slavs in the hapsburg empire. Hungarian hegemony led to several uprisings including Croatian Ban Yosip Yelachich. The Hungarians insisted that all slavs in the empire declare themselves as Hungarians and this was done to consolidate the empire's hold on provinces that were not ethnically Hungarian or Austrian. There was a decree by the Austro-Hungarian empire during its occupation of Bosnia that the Bosnian language was not allowed to be called Bosnian any longer and that the Bosnians were to be called Croatians. Bosnia was divided into three parts, lika and dalmatia, Von Bismarck's Bosnia, and the Sancak of Yeni Pazar and what they call Montenegro today. Lika and Dalmatia were completely cleansed of the absolute majority Bosnians and forced somewhere around 3 million people to leave lika and dalmatia and the other 2 parts of bosnia. When the Yugoslav rule of Bosnia came, the Hungarian hegemonial practices were continued by the ruling serbs and croats. Bosnians were forced to declare themselves as serbs or croats. During the time of yugoslav rule from 1917 to 1967(1971 for the first time on a census and 1974 for the first time in the yugoslav constitution but they were written in as Muslims with a capital M instead of as Bosnians to protect Serb and Croat settlers in Bosnia that arrived during yugoslav rule and agrarian reforms)(excluding 1941 to 1945 Independent State of Croatia where Bosnians were incorporated like the French into a fascist state and were declared as Croats), Bosnians did not exist as a nation and were written in in the history books as either serb or croat. This is where the confusion sets in and this is why some people refer to Sokolovich as Serb and others as Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.44.248 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why Bosnians were to be named Croats was the fact that Hapsburgs needed peace and stability in the region. Renaming them Croats (and consequently pressuring them religiously to convert to Catholicism) would mean that they would eventually be obedient citizens of the never-ending Hapsburg empire. Another thing is that the language was never Bosnian but Illyrian or Serbian or Slavian/Slavonic (if the decree actually states so it is yet another propaganda from the Austro-Hungarians in order to distance them from Serbia). Bosnia as a country and its populace was Serbian (of course like in any country there are other minorities that coexist, in this case Croats who migrated during the Austro-Hungarian rule to Bosnia). Finally, there is no doubt as to what ethnos he belonged to, and that is Serbian. Sokolovic was a Serb born in Bosnia. He was educated at the Mileseva Monastery (a Serbian Orthodox Christian monastery in Serbia). His brother (or cousin or nephew, it is not known for sure) was the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Mehmed Pasa helped reestablish autonomy of the Patriarchy of Pec (Serbian Orthodox Patriarchy). So where in the world is his Croatian heritage and since a Bosnian nationality didn't exist he can't be called a Bosnian or Bosniak (Bosniak is specifically a name of the Bosnian MUSLIMS). To call him Bosnian is to call a German, a Bavarian and deny his/her German ethnicity and nationality. The terms Bosnia and Bosnian were used for a long time but NEVER as an ethnicity and nationality but a GEOGRAPHIC notion and as to where that person was born. So the only thing that stands to reason is his Serbian origins and heritage - everyone goes for the throat the moment a Serb is born on the lands of PRESENT Bosnia or Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.25.80 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What you writed here is lot's of nonsene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha born a Serb, became a Bosniak

He was born a Serb, however through forceful conversion into Islam, he became what one may today call a Bosniak. He is in the line of the first progenitors of the Bosniak ethnos.

In other words; Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was a Serb by ethnicity, however a founding father of what the Bosniak ethnos is going to mean one day.

Bosniaks ethnogenesis starts with the influence of Islam on the Christian Slavic population of Bosnia (Serbs and in the northwest the Croats), meaning that only Muslims may be called Bosniaks. Catholic or Orthodox Bosniaks traditionally do not exist (as it is the case with the Serbs and Croats, which denominate by their Slavic lineage to their respectible Slavic tribes, Croats and Serbs namely, and not by religion). Only in the year 1973 were the 'Muslims', today Bosniaks, recognised as a specific ethnos, and not Serbs of Muslim denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.39.170 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The inhabitants of medieval Bosnia called themselves Bosnjani (meaning Bosnians) and this name was transformed into Bosnjaci (Bosniaks) with the ottoman rule. There is no evidence that medieval Bosnians in any way considered themselves Serb or Croat (British historian Noel Malcolm has covered this extensively). Hence, during the Ottoman rule Bosniaks came in three religions (Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic). US historians Robert Donia and John Fine write: A Bosnian's identity as a Bosnian - even if it originally referred to his geographical homeland or state membership - has roots going back many centuries, whereas the classification of any Christian Bosnian as a Serb or a Croat goes back barely a century. Thus, the recent self-identification of Catholic and Orthodox Bosnians/Bosniaks as Croats and Serbs is the result of 19th century nationalism in neighboring Croatia and Serbia. In Serb-dominated Yugoslavia the Bosniak identity was suppressed for obvious political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.54.125 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Religion of Sokollu Mehmed

Currently it is as if he was an adherent of the Eastern Orthodox religion, while in fact he was (probably) born into Eastern Orthodox parents. Before reaching adulthood he was taken to Istanbul and raised as an Ottoman and a Muslim and he remained so for the rest of his life. He was famous because he was an Ottoman Muslim Grand Vizier, not because he was born in a certain part of the world to parents of a specific religion which had nothing to do with the rest of his life. The intro of the article represents exactly the opposite of what I wrote. In fact I'm certain that there is almost nothing known about his personal life before him becoming a high ranking Ottoman. I believe everything concerning his origins is an unnecessary nationalist approach. (See discussions above) I'm changing the infobox. DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is being vandalised

The link to an existing Wikipedia article Serbian Cyrillic in which the name is written in the article is constantly being changed to just Cyrillic even though the last letter used for his name -- ћ -- exists ONLY in the Serbian Cyrillic (and that is why it is used in the spelling).

Moreover, the religion of his ancestors is being changed from Serbian Orthodoxy to Eastern Orthodoxy. The only Orthodoxy that ever existed in Bosnia is Serbian Orthodoxy, not some blanket Eastern Orthodoxy that exists from Japan through China and all of Asia and Europe to Vancouver and San Francisco.

The article should have these two issues fixed and then be locked to prevent vandalism. QueerStudiesRS (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do support emphasizing the Serbian variant of the Cyrillic script. But there was no well-structured or defined religious landscape in 16th century Bosnia, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Bogomil. What prevailed was a form of folk Christianity pervaded by mysticism, and with little or no actual allegiance to any patriarchates based in Serbia or, in the case of Catholics, to archbishops based in Croatia or Dalmatia. Such firm bonds were only formed later, late 18th century and forwards, in parallel with the formation of Serb and Croat ethnic identities among Bosnia's catholic and orthodox communities. Your sense of approaching editing on Wikipedia testifies of an anachronistic POV nationalist agenda much unacceptable. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

stop sabahudin

User:Sabahudin continues to vandalise this page whit his serbophobic and nationalistic edits. Please stop him.Serb1914 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of issues with historical anachronism, we do not refer to this individual as either "Bosniak" or "Serb". The most accurate approximation we can make is "Bosnian". So, no Bosniak or Serb categories. And that goes for the both of you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Banac, Judah, Tanner

These three authors were used just to prove that Sokollu was an ethnic Serb. Their books are marginal to the life and rule of the Sokollu and we have seven other sources proving the same already. Instead, I've added Tezcan, Imber, Crowly to the Sources section - the authors who were writing about the Ottoman Empire in a more wide and particular range.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Višegrad 002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the data concerning the origin of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

Since there is no original historicaL information from his time that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin i suggest that this false fact be deleted from the article. Before debate i want to say that in the area where Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was allegedly born are mentioned Croats, Vlachs and some Bulgarians. Now we go from the irrefutable fact, on this white earth there is no one historical document from the time of life Sokollu Mehmed Pasha that speaks of him as a Serb. For this reason this fact in the article is false and as such should be deleted, I invite everyone for discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What you are saying is just wishful thinking. Nobody is mentioning Bulgarians or Vlachs and maybe one or two soures are making a mistake and calling him a Croat because that's pretty much the same from their perspective. His background is quite clear (which is not that often for Ottoman officials from the Balkans) and we have more than 5 RS confirming it and more can be added to the article. Plus, the Ottoman court in the time of Mehmed's power was full of (mostly) Serbs. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Evliya Çelebi (Sremska) Mitrovica: Bosniak, Serbian and Bulgarian spoken.,Kasaba Pozegajik (Pozega in Serbia): Bosniaks, Serbs and Bulgarians, Prijepolje:… spoken in Bosnian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Latin. Belgrade: Serbian, Bulgarian, Bosnian and Latin, Banatska Palanka: The population dresses in a Rumelian way, speaking Bosnian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Turkish, Serbia: Bulgarian residents in Pirot, Serbian and Bulgarian in Krusevac, the Serbian and Bulgarian villages of Bistrica near Lazarevac, the Bulgarian village Ovcar Banja near Cacak, the Serbian and Bulgarian villages of Čestobrdica near Pozega, Latini, Serbs and Bulgarians in Uzice, Priboj the surrounding inhabitants are Serbs and Bulgarians. Ahmed Alicic - Census of the Bosnian army before the battle of Mohac in 1526 mentions Croats in Podrinje(along the border with Montenegro), southern Serbia(Sandžak), central Montenegro(Nikšić), Serbs are not mentioned in this document. Evliya Çelebi mentions Croats in central Montenegro (Nikšić), eastern Herzegovina and the Bay of Kotor. otherwise he does not mention Serbs in Bosnia except in a couple of cities. In Čemerno he mentions Serbs, Bulgarians, Croatians, Bosnians, Lacman, Latins, Franks, Greeks Jews and Armenians. As far as the origin of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha there is no historical document in which he would call himself a Serb, i.e. there is no historical document which calling him a Serb at that time. Therefore proof for may claim is fact that you did not attach or exposed any documents proving that he was a Serb(It does not exist). Everything is clear but we still have this false information on Wikipedia. what's going on here? Mikola22 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Competely irrelevant. Even if there are no documents written during his life talking about his roots that does not mean a thing. THere is a ton of events and people on which we do not have sources from their life and time. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Now you really said everything. We do not have any original information that he is a Serb, but on Wikipedia he is a Serb. And then you ask me for relevant sources which I have all prove with original historical sources. Congratulations on such Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22 is correct, if we have no RS saying he was of Serbian decent nether can we. I count 6 sources saying he was.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Editorializing

Editorializing and use of loaded words without sources is obviously improper, not to mention that it's evidently emotional reaction to historical phenomenon or event. How we know he was forcibly converted, maybe he was particularly enthusiastic? What it means to say for the state, no matter how it seems backward from the perspective of 20th or 21st century observer (it says more about the observer than about observed), which had rather advanced legal system and was, for its time, probably most tolerant high-culture society on the planet, that it kidnapped its subjects? Is the "kidnapped" a way to suggest this alien other was nothing but barbaric chaos? Sometimes, even the well-read aren't able to shake off prejudicial sentiments, although prejudices often impair interests for the subject, or reading about it. However, we have few policies in place to prevent WP:OR, and "forces" us to produce WP:RS and avoid personal opinions or sentiments to influence content.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article about Devshirme says recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats, if there is no extraordinary evidence he was abducted, there is no need to waste any more time and energy on that. Mhare (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That is only a figure of speech / a way to put politely.

Nobody really means that it was your regular recruiting, like any company does. Sources often recorded incident with parents and cousins while "recruiting" was taking place. It is just political correctness and politeness; kidnapping is much closer to real scale of events (child snatching, destroying his identity, making fanatics out of children through rigorous training program and finally, hypocritically claiming that that's their best chance as poor Christians in the great Ottoman Empire). Very advanced and tolerant indeed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh Sadko, those events were so long ago... was Ottoman Empire tolerant or not, hard do judge. Muslims for sure had better position, but I know some other examples where no other religion was permitted on their soil. Not sure why did you slapped that reply into my face, but maybe you do. Mhare (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to the original poster primarily. They were tolerant compared to Catholic Empires, but OM was pretty much the lesser of two evils for Orthodox Christians and I dislike the historical revision in which snatching of children to become fanatic warriors loyal to the sultan is supposed to be celebrated as an achievement; it's extremely disturbing.

On-topic, recruiting is not a good word and neither is kidnapping. Currently I do not have an alternative proposal. If anybody does, please bring it up. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please leave the native spelling of this person's name

This article is so nationalistic it's pathetic. His name should be written in Bosnian as he was from Bosnia.

Why is this talk page full of people fighting about his ethnicity? Who really cares, focus on his life and what he did. Do not write Serb everywhere because that seems largely irrelevant to who this person was (an Ottoman statesman). For a modern analogy, would you write Boris Johnson is a turk because he is of Turkish ethnicity? His Wikipedia page barely mentions it. Xzpx (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect birthplace?

Is there a reference of Sokolovići village near present town Rudo as Mehmed-pasa's birthplace? Absolutely not a logical location of birthplace for several reasons and I think the confusion has been copied from one wiki language to another:

1. There is a village of the same name in today's municipality Sokolac (after which the town and municipality were probably named, due to the birth of Mehmed-pasha and whole family of Turkish statesmen) through which was the caravan road from Sarajevo to Istanbul. That road led trough Sokolovići village to Visegrad and ferrie over the river Drina where he made a famous bridge after he become Grand Vizier. The village Sokolovići near Rudo is next to river Lim.

2. Sokolovići village (today's municipality of Sokolac) is not far from caravan crossroads that led to town Žepa, where Mehmed-pasa also made another bridge on a small river Žepa.

3. It is stated that his relative Lala Mustafa-pasa, also the Grand Vizier, was born in Glasinac village (today's Sokolac municipality).

5. Around Sokolovic village (municipality of Sokolac) where multiple sagnificant buildings and legacies of Mehmed-pasa (listed on this page):

- The bridge on Žepa

- Višegrad bridge

- A Road of four paces and a castle between Višegrad and Sarajevo, on Glasinac (municipality Sokolac). Of the castle, only a drinking-fountain remains, which is known as the Mehmed Sokolović's han.

6. Sokolovići village near Rudo, which is listed as the place of birth, is on the river Lim and has no close buildings or Mehmed-pasa's legacies. The caravan road from Sarajevo to Istanbul did not pass close or at least not that close as in the case of Sokolovići village from Sokolac municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.223.49 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bruce8777.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Its best to present both views about his ethnicity, not just one. Have respect to everyone's opinions. Thats what i wrote now. Keep it like this. Mrjazz123 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)