Talk:Bayezid I

Wallachia invasion
I made a minor correction, there were no "Romanians" back then. Is a common mistake in history to identify old people with modern nations. There was no national conciousness of this kind in the middle ages.
 * depends on what you are talking about - both Hungarian and Wallachian had very strong attitudes of their national identity and defending their 'motherlands' 50.111.63.192 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments
In the section on Beyazid in Ottoman Empire, i've NPOVed the portion on nature of Murad's death and outcome of the battle of Nicopolis (AKA Nikopol, Bulgaria). I edited only that article, for the moment, since it is clearly in progress (and the contributor may be about to review transcriptions or wording for reconsideration) and since there are two articles at hand that contradict the battle part.

I am also adding this note to talk pages of Ottoman Empire, Beyazid I, and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor.

If the Ottoman Empire contributor defends her/his version with sources, IMO others should also bring forward sources, and there should be discussion, in case the factual dispute is not resolved, about how to lessen the burden of NPOVing the various articles affected - e.g., could all three articles say "see Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis for controversial matters relevant to this section"? -- Jerzy 20:40, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Beyazid I didn't conquer Constantinople, did he? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Phoenix (talk • contribs).

No. He besieged it after the Byzanyine Emperor Manuel II escaped from semi-captivity at the Ottoman court in Edirne (or Adrianople, depending on whether you use the Turkish or Greek name). Mehmed II actually took the city in 1453 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.153.95.101 (talk • contribs).

Info-less box
Such a very big box! So little information in all that blank space! And not even a caption to tell the reader who painted the (Venetian?) portrait, which dates long after Bayazid's time, apparently. Is it not actually of Bayazid II, patron of Western culture?--Wetman 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a real problem, Wetman, that some editors deem it helpful to illustrate articles about medieval rulers with modern images, without providing any credits. Those who want an authentic portrait of a 15th-century sultan ought to check Gentile's painting of Mehmed II. The info-box is supremely redundant. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bajazet.jpg
Image:Bajazet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1391, wrong
No this is wrong, bayezid di not lay siege in 1391, I have this book:

Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002

To prove otherwise.Tourskin 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?
"and prevented Bayezid from conquering the country" - What citation is needed for that ? Did Wallachia get conquered by Bayezid ? Isn't that common knowledge ? --Venatoreng 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Two sons named Süleyman
In the section Marriages and progeny there are two sons named Süleyman. I think both refer to the same person namely Çelebi Süleyman who was the de facto ruler of Rumelia and and was killed in 1411. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the two Süleymen's delated. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
What is the word "false" supposed to mean/imply/suggest in this sentence?

( False ) Mustafa Çelebi, Sultan of Rumelia (d. 1422) - son of Devlet Shah Hatun.

A clarification is needed. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In Fiction section
Shouldn't the "In Fiction" section be located at the very end of the article, especially after the legacy and Marriages section? --Defensor Ursa 22:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Captive painting is not truthful
Bayezid is about 30 years younger than Timur but in this painting he seems wide older than Timur.  --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Date of Birth
Why is the date of birth 1354 while on the wikis of other languages (e.g. Greek) the date of birth is 1360? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.131.148 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

lost material? incomplete?
" Constantine of Ostrovica wrote neither about the cell, nor about the nudity of Bayezid's wife ..." - where did this come from? There was no earlier statement about any nudity. Has something been lost inadvertently through copyediting? 50.111.63.192 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of the illustrations, the earliest before 1561, show this, & it is certainly part of the legend. It should be added, with refs. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire Bayezid in Captivity section is confusing, irrelevant, and lacks any authenticity, and does not deserve to remain on the page which is only a general overview of his rule. It does not deserve to go into so much detail on one specific event which repeatedly contradicts itself. 67.237.189.189 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be improved by rewriting, but should not just be cut. The "event" lasted over a year, the last of his life. It would be useful if the consensus view of modern historians was made clearer, but the legend needs to be here either way. It was pretty much the most famous aspect of his life in Europe. It is not surprising if Turkish writers downplay or deny this humiliating episode. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with discussing in depth Bayezid's time in captivity, or even saying that he was treated poorly. However, at the very least the explicitness of the details can be toned down slightly and the image can be removed. There is no need for this article to be so explicit for no real reason, and it could just as easily say that Timur treated him poorly without a few small details which, I must stress, have no authenticity. Fine, keep the narratives themselves, but those certain details should be removed. 67.237.189.189 (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Date of birhts
you edit a lot below. Are those date of birhts of sehzades based on the article or on your sources? TDV doesn't mention these birth dates. Beshogur (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)