Talk:Haseki Sultan Imaret

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haseki Sultan Imaret. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525054813/http://archnet.org/library/images/thumbnails.jsp?location_id=11754 to http://archnet.org/library/images/thumbnails.jsp?location_id=11754

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tunshuk Palace vs Haseki Sultan Imaret
It looks as if before Roxelana made it an "Imaret", the building was built for a Mamluk lady, Tunshuk, in the late 1300. She was close to the Qalandariyya (Burgoyne p. 485), and at one point owned most of Beit Safafa.(Burgoyne p. 486). Tunshuk died in 1398 and was buried in a mausoleum she had prepared across the street from the main building.(Burgoyne p. 486)

We have 2 categories on commons, basically about the same structure:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunshuk_Palace
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hasseki_Sultan_Imaret

See also:
 * Dar al-Sitt Tunshuq al-Muzaffariya, Mansion
 * Qasr wa-Turbat al-Sitt Tunshuq al-Muzaffariyya, archnet [Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1398]

So now is the question, 'should we have two articles; one about the structure and one about the Imaret''? Or should we have one article? If so, what should it be named?'''

Other sources:
 * (pp. 310−312)
 * Bourgoin, J. Les Arts Arabes, Paris,1876, pl.51


 * (pp. 485−504)
 * St. H. Stephan, ‘An endowment deed of Khasseki Sultan etc.’,QDAP, x, 1944, 173 n. 3.

Comments wanted! Huldra (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Btw, we have a much similar situation on the Khalidi Library page, any thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (OK, so I feel I'm talking to myself, here.....) but, if there are no objections, I will have this in two articles, the old one on the Imaret (soup kitchen), and a new one on Tunshuk Palace, as the palace existed both before and after the Imaret. The https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunshuk_Palace should probably be decided into the palace proper, and the "turba" (=mausoleum) on the other side of the street.
 * On Khalidi Library I think they should stay in one article, ie, present article should be expanded with the "turba" bit. Huldra (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , hi, I know the feeling perfectly well :)))
 * These were Muslim foundations, with multiple purposes and housed in several buildings, which with time were repurposed (if they survived). Waqfs are intended to be forever, but most aren't. The imaret complex lost the mosque and another building, I forgot now which. I think the old Mamluk palace was indeed used by Roxelane's foundation for a while, but not anymore, as the orphanage it now houses is a different animal from the soup kitchen surviving next door.
 * Regarding Khalidiye: (I have moved these comments to that talk-page, please go there.)
 * Anyway, back to Tunshuq and Roxelane: the palace facade is much more "in your face", even if the interior looks very modest, and the Sitt Tunshuq turba/mausoleum is still there across the street, they're both Mamluk-period, therefore more venerable than the royal Ottoman complex, so if you still want to write about them, I'd say they certainly do deserve their own article. The buildings are a different matter from the institutions, which move, expand or decrease. Arminden (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Arminden: Thank you for your interest! And who is E. Wager (1988)? If you have it, can you please email me? I have the Burgoyne (and all the Khalidi Library-stuff should really go on that talk-page...: this page is messy enough as it is)
 * As for this page; note that he.wp has an article on the Tunshuk Palace. I guess  we one day should have 3 articles: 1 The turba, 2. The palace, 3: the imaret. But starting an article on en.wp about the palace is more important than the turba, me thinks, (Alas, it is not on the top of my priorites at the moment) (I spent some time back in 2019 trying to sort the pictures into those 3 categories; of course there are big overlaps) Huldra (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pleasure, I was always intrigued and curious to know more about Mamluk architecture, so I'd be among the beneficiaries if things were sorted out here. I'll move the Khalidiye comments to that page, but I thought that that can be sorted out in one move and then it's just water under the bridge. Here is the book, I have it "in the flesh", sorry, I'd be happy to share it if I had a PDF. They have several editions, but saved on ISBN fees, and I see now that it's almost impossible to find online. The Madain Project quotes him a lot. Amazon asks a lot of money for a copy, and it used to be easily available. Here is what I know: - actually JPH together with Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem. I can only subscribe to the characterisation from the CHURCH & ISRAEL FORUM: "Eliyahu Wager's guide is the one indispensable book for a walk around Jerusalem or even for a deep study of the city. It is compact, extremely well organized, and crammed with needed facts and information." I don't know anything about him, but he seems to have been one of those old-school professors with a great capacity for synthesis. Ruth Kark thanked him for his help in one of her books, which makes me believe that he wasn't just a smart compiler of data collected by others. Arminden (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wager is listed at the National Library of Israel, the life years are as I thought, 1920-2004. Quite possibly a good old Yekke. May he RIP. One can see he wanted to know and understand the city stone by stone, person by person. It's the watchmaker's approach, you take every little wheel apart, and when you put it back together again, you're part of it and it's part of you. A different type of dilligence than most. Arminden (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks; but do you have the Burgoyne-book? Most of the question you ask are answered there Huldra (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't.Arminden (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)