Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 2

Mehmed II's Firman on the Freedom of the Bosnian Franciscans
None of the references mention Mehmed II's Firman. Neither Norwich nor Kinross mention anything about Mehmed's oath.

That part of the page needs a reference or it should be removed. Also, Magna Carta was in 1215 which makes it older than Mehmet's undocumented "oath". Kansas Bear 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear


 * The Conqueror's oath is not undocumented, actually it is a well known document both for IR and History students. Whatever, I added the reference you wanted. Deliogul 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Magna Carta was issued in 1215, actually it is a well known document for History students. Which means this sentence; "This document, is the oldest human rights declaration, since the Cyrus cylinder.", is incorrect. Although, according to UN investigators it is one of the oldest documents on religious freedoms. Kansas Bear 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

Deliogul, I found the minutes from a UN tribual which makes reference to the Conqueror's oath and it's existance at Fojnica. Here's the link if you wish to add it as a reference: http://www.un.org/icty/transe21/970319IT.htm Kansas Bear 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

Source for "caesar"
What is the source for Mehmed II was called "caesar"? Filanca 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In every book about the reign of Mehmet II, there is a detail about the title "caesar". Actually, It was himself who claimed to be the new caesar. To reach his goal, he conquered all Byzantine Empire (simply the exiting Roman Empire) and then he started the invasion of Italy by the conquest of Otranto but his unexpected death put an end to his plans about "uniting the Roman Empire again". Also, his huge effort to capture Constantinople (the centre of the Roman world) and making the city his capital are all can be seen as his projects about being the supreme leader of the western world. According to Giàcomo de Languschi, Mehmet once said "In the old times the west attacked to the east but thesedays the world has changed so I will invade the west from the east to form a single empire, a single religion and a single rule over the world". Franz Babinger construes these words as a clear evidence for Mehmet's ambition to rule the west. With respect, Deliogul 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He did not called himself Ceaser, but the derivation Kaiser-i Roum(Meaning Ceaser of Roum).


 * "Kayzer" is the Ottoman version of the world Caesar and "Rüm" basically means Roman/Byzantine Domain. Therefore Kayzer-i Rüm ends up meaning the "Caesar of Roman Lands". I guess you confused because of all this translation business. Deliogul 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Term?!
What a wrong word to use. "Term" is generally used to refer the elected or appointed bodies in republics. However, in empires, we use "reign" or "rule" because nobody elects or appoints the emperor, "to rule" is an opportunity that is given to the royal house by the God and nobody can take from the hands of the emperor before he dies or he does things against the order of the religion (Fatwā by Sheikh ul-Islam). Therefore, please change the structure of the new succession box according to this detail. Deliogul 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Conquests In Europe
In the conquests in Europe, something is said about Dracula returning from exile with 30,000 men. Did someone put that name in trying to be funny, or is it actual fact? Either way, it shouldn't just be thrown in there without previous mention. Can someone who knows more on the subject fix please? Baseballbaker23 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vlad Tepes, aka Dracula, was Prince of Wallachia on three occasions between 1448 and 1476, and an opponent of Mehmed II. Obviously some explanation is in order, though, and I'm not really equipped to do it. john k (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the paragraph just before the one with the sentence about Dracula marching with a 30,000-strong army, it should all be clear (or if not, just follow the wikilinks). --Lambiam 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. I had skipped over the Dracula part and didn't notice it when reading back before adding this. Thanks. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, even if we have to use nicknames for monarchs, in this case, we can call Tepes as Vlad Dracula at most informal way. Simply referring him as Dracula would just be taking pop culture references more seriously than the academic references. Deliogul (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

THE FAMOUS BYZANTİNE HİSTORİAN DUKAS
Dukas was a little child when constantinople conquered by turks.and he is the claimer of the famous kerkoporta (the story about a open gate under the connstantinople city walls so the turks seized this pass and entered the city by this place.)The biggest paradox of this theory ,it cant give a logical explanation why the turks needed that kind of a gate while the whole of the city walls ruined and as Sultan Mehmed said to his soldiers before the grand attack at 29 th may night ; i dont show you a hard target instead of this you are going to pass from a valley with small obstacles.As it happens in every western byzantine lovers mind structure;they just dont want to give this honour to turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.145.211 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several things wrong with you argument: First, change your letter case - CAPITALIZATIONs are not necessary; Second, spell his name right and link it. His link is at Michael Doukas; Third, he was in his fifties during the event, which meant that he was not a "little child", but an adult. Forth, even after six weeks of continuous bombardment, the walls were still major obstacles to deal with.  Even today, you can still see parts of the wall that were not destroyed during the siege. The walls were repaired continuously during the siege thanks to Johannes Grant; Fifth, why would taking/stealing the City be an "honor" in your words? Dinkytown 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mehmet or Mehmed
In Turkish, a word or a name can not end with "D", it ends with "T". Arabs can use Mehmed but the article itself should be Mehmet II, as he is a Turkish man and name. This is not about modern or etc. This is also the same for Murad. It should be Murat. Those are all Turkish people. Yet, we are talking about Ottoman Turkish, not Arabic.


 * "Mehmet" is the Turkish translation for "Muhammed". The name passed to the English speaking world as "Mehmed" and since we are in the English Wikipedia, the true version is "Mehmed". Deliogul 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish isn't nonsense TDK Turkish. Mehmed is right. --Ispartatalk 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is definetly not about the language of Wikipedia. (Atatürk not Ataturk; Cüneyt Arkın not Cuneyt Arkin...) You can not change the original name while changing from language to language. Yet, we can not say Mehmet is the Turkish translation of Muhammed. We can say it is a variation of Arabic name Muhammed but it is Mehmet, and it is Turkish. Those variations are usual in the Western world as well. Example: Louis in French, Lewis in English, Ludivici in Italian.. Article should be changed from Mehmed II to Mehmet II.

Words can not end with the soft consonants - b, c, d, g

Word must end in the equivalent hard forms p, ç, t, k in order to finish the pronounciation without continuity thus helping the listener to determine word breaks in conversation.

http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/conmut01.htm


 * In the English Wikipedia, we use the name (or spelling) under which a person is known in English language culture. Wikipedia is not alone in this. The Encyclopedia Britannica spells it "Mehmed" also. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051807/Mehmed-V . And we're not picking on just one language or group. The person "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson" is found in wikipedia under his much more famous pen name Lewis Carroll, the person "Theodosia Burr Goodman" is listed under her stage name Theda Bara, the Persian "Šahrzād" is under Scheherazade, and "Gaius Julias Caesar" is listed under Julius Caesar, which is actually just the name of his branch of his "gens" (his clan or tribe, loosely speaking). Other examples: we use modern English Jacob for the Biblical character, and not the ancient Hebrew spelling "יַעֲקֹב " (or a modern Hebrew version such as "Ya'akov"), Pocahontas is actually a knickname for the woman whose real names were "Matoaka", "Amonute", and "Rebecca Rolfe", and "Eiríkr Þorvaldsson" is listed as we know him, Eric the Red. Studerby 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, examples you give can not be exactly compared with this. We are talking about d or t. If Britannica spells it as Mehmed it does not mean that it is the absolute truth. Yet, Wikipedia can not be the absolute truth. But the aim of Wikipedia should be to host things that are closest to truth. Mehmet II, Fatih Sultan Mehmet is not Arab. He is a Turkish man. The name is Turkish. His name can not end with "d". You can check www.tdk.gov.tr and you will not find a word "Mehmed or Murad or whatever..". Go ask 100million Turks about how it should be written, you will end up with "T" 99.99%. If someone started this false when writing down Britannica maybe its time to change it in Wikipedia. Some years later, it is obvious that no one will care about Britannica but Wikipedia will be the number one source to know about things. And the truth is Mehmet but not Mehmed. Mehmed can redirect to Mehmet. Giving the facts, one should be open minded.

Eric the Red, can you kindly define "English language culture"? Is it opposite to 1=1 is true and 1=0 is false?


 * English speaking world don't call Mehmed instead of Mehmet because they think he was an Arab. If they try to call him Muhammed then you can be against it but this "t-d" business is a transfer between English and Turkish languages, not the Arabic language so first of all eliminate this Arab thing from consideration. Finally, Mehmet is the direct Turkish translation for Muhammed without a doubt. Deliogul 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with translation or ethnicity, Turkish or Arab. "Mehmed" is simply the traditional English spelling for these names. It is the way it's been spelled in English for years. If you look for "mehmet" on Amazon.com, it doesn't return any books about Turkish rulers; the top results are diet books (by Mehmet C. Oz). If you look on Amazon for "Mehmed", you find Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time by Franz Babinger. "Mehmed" is simply how it's spelled in English. Similarly, in English, we spell it MacBeth, even though in Scottish it's "Mac Bethad". It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with tradition and consistency; we do it this way because it's the way it's been done in the past; it's the way English speakers expect it to be. Studerby 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Studerby, I put my signature under your comment. This is what I tried to explain in my first edit. Deliogul 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote in Turkish. It goes like this: A mad man threw a stone in to the well and fourty clever men could not take it out. This "it's the way it's been done in the past" approach makes my efforts and further explanations useless. This is an approach that I hate the most in the World. People used to think that World was flat. If the World was full of people like you (do not take this offensive), then we would be living in a flat world now. And Deliogul, how can you translate "a name" I wonder... That should be interesting! :) Mehmet is a Turkish variation of Muhammed, the Arabic name. There is no name in Turkish as Mehmed. It is obvious that we do not have in English as well. So, where did this Mehmed came from? Not Arabic, not Turkish, not English.. Perhaps it's Martian... :) But go on, keep living with the false. Don't bother.


 * We don't use "d" at the end of words NOW, but just 80 years ago we did. Back in the 1400s, we may have used "d" as well. So if you don't have a reference besides TDK, you better stop this nonsense. You can only refer to TDK for present grammer questions..(this is so funny, no words ever could end with d(nor b c g) in any of modern turkic language as well as now extinct ones (g may becom k or ğ) but about the mehmed subject here, it is only a script difference where english d is not the d we use in turkish infact, consider britain was using some other script (in fact a have to for english language) like kril alphabet would you mind the last symbol of same word? there are many weird writings (like khatun, khan) of turkish words in english but thats because of the script of english which is not sufficient for its language...and if you want a real discussion about Mehmed II here you go, no word about his engineering abilities(usual for western people they care only military performance, On the back of 1000 lira banknotess there was his portrait, which underlines his scientfic knowledge, but on this page you can only find the words abou troy as evidence to his intellectuality) neither his vision of art...


 * For what it's worth, the Turkish Vikipedi uses a final "d". I don't think the English Wikipedia should try to out-Turk the Turks. --Lambiam 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Turkish words can end with "d" for example "ad (name)". After language reform the names end with "d" turn to end with "t". But it has no accuracy from grammatic perseptive. It happend because anti-arap feelings after the Indepence War84.61.67.165 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

historical event infobox

 * See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople#historical_event_infobox

The Infobox Historical Event is used in the WikiProject History to identify important and significant events.

It goes to the section of:
 * In 1451 Mehmed II reclaimed the throne upon his father's death. Two years later he brought an end to the Byzantine Empire by capturing its capital during the siege of Constantinople.

Please answer these: The infobox should be placed on this page. J. D. Redding 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Fall of Constantinople an notable event?
 * Should this infoboxes be added passages notable events?


 * First, this is the third time you are asking the above repetitive questions. The answer has not changed and is still the same - YES, now stop it...
 * Second, you agreed on the Talk:Fall of Constantinople in removing the second infoboxes in that article, yet you were puting it in back here and many other articles. Why is this needed?
 * Third, you are going around and putting these boxes in at least 50+ other articles without and desucssion on the inclusion.
 * Having a second, or third, forth, etc, infobox detracts from the article in which a simple link will do.  As described in WP:IBX


 * Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format...


 * There are two issues here: 1) ...designed to present summary information about an article's subject. It is made to enhance the article's subject.  Second, third, fourth, etc. boxes take away from the subject; 2) ...have a uniform look and in a common format.  You are going around and disrupting the format of all of these articles.  You are the only one (that I could find) that is putting these extra boxes in that are not part of the main article.
 * If you believe these extra boxes are needed, then take it to a WP:RFC Dinkytown (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Still not answering the specific questions. Please state it sufficiently; as I cannot decipher it from your previous passages ... a simple yes or no to "Should this infoboxes be added passages notable events?" would suffice.
 * Second, the "agreed on" thing was the the infobox was not neccesary [redundant] there ... NEVER said that a second infoboxes in other articles was unwarranted ...
 * Why is this needed? event infobox present summary information about events'
 * Third, going around and putting these boxes in at other articles? Yea, it called "article improvement" ...
 * The event infobox present summary information about events, such that events have a uniform look and in a common format ..." ... The event box does this ...
 * 1) The event box does enhances the article's subject, specifically at key events and historical points ...
 * 2) ... have a uniform look and in a common format. I am going around and improving the format of all of these articles.
 * There is no need to waste time at WP:RFC, as it acceptable and needed in improvement of many articles ...
 * Sincerely, J. D. Redding 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed II
old form... Böri (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mehmed II 's saying
"Either Istanbul takes me or I take Istanbul"   why not in text ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.121.212.76 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Our options
These are the three images that have been proposed--I hope I didn't miss any--plus two other possible candidates. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Our arguments
The pic with Gennadios has a story in it, it also suits the article well because Mehmed II is being potrayed on the left side. Redman19 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Gennadios pic contained the subject and was allowed to be used before the anonymous user got angry and replaced it with another. Drmies agreed with me there, he also thought the picture with Gennadions contained the subject, I dont see a problem here. Redman19 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see no agreement from User:Drmies. He reverted the edits of an IP, then he re-instated the original portrait of Mehmed II. The original portrait needs to be re-instated and the other undiscussed change(which was changed on Dec 10th by Anon IP reverted by Charlesdrakew, then reverted by Redman19), discussed this time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The user 79.166.154.63 also agrees with me, here is something what Drmies wrote; ''changed image. see my talk page: editor argued that previous image was irrelevant--i disagree (it contained the subject), but this is a portrait. further changes and commentary on talk page please.'' Redman19 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Redman is wisely right in insisting on that picture. The two men together played a most important, almost inseparable role, as architects in shaping a practical and realistic policy based upon common interests. This policy eventually led to a mutual tolerance between the Muslim and Christian subjects that stood for more than 4 centuries and which, among other results, greatly helped the expansion and stabilization of the Mehmed's empire. For this, both men were later accused for their connivance by both Christians and Muslims mostly (but not only) ignorants or extremists. Traces of these accusations can be found even today, which may be a reason behind reactions as that of the removable of the picture. To many researchers both men constituted key figure for its other's activity and success. If someone agree or not with their activities or deals is part of his point of view, not the history. I think this strange by the today's standards picture crystallizes and reflects very accurately the activities of these personalities. The same goes for the Gennadius Scholarius article which historically correctly shares the same picture.--79.166.154.63 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture with Gennadios was already there before that angry user removed it, he removed it because of racist reasons, Wikipedia shouldnt support such edits, and Im willing to revert it back to its original shape before the angry racist user removed it. Redman19 (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I already got the support of two users and I hope you will join us Kansas Bear Im waiting for a speedy response, thank you. Redman19 (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

in the far past this article used another starting picture it was the picture i just reverted a few minutes ago, we should just find a side way, the gennadios pic in already in the body, there is no need to put it in the infobox as a potrait and second the current potrait is not the best representation of mehmed II, mehmed II had a funny shaped nose, the potrait i put was the best because he was painted while posing. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many pictures of Gennadios, but his article shares this one and I explained why this is historically justified. Which picture is the older in the infobox is a big meaningless story. As for the funny nose (which at the time wasn't considered funny at all but rather an indication of rare aristocratic origin) is satisfactorily represented also in the common picture, have a closer look.--79.166.154.63 (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the image with Gennadios tells a story it can tell it at a suitable place in the body of the article. It is better for the box to have the most representational single image of the subject that can be found. I do not understand where the accusation of racism has come from and I hope people will stop edit warring and respect the consensus that may be reached here.--Charles (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kansas Bear has started campaigning over the issue. For his edits here and here he can appeal the first para of the wp:canvassing behavioral guideline, but every fellow receiver clearly understands the real meaning of his messages after seeing the ongoing discussion. Everybody knows that to have friends is a good thing in life and surely makes wp:future easier. I say, why to deny a favour?--79.166.154.63 (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't make ridiculous accusations here. Kansas Bear had every right, indeed something of an obligation, to notify involved (or, in my case, semi-involved) editors. Next time you make such an accusation, you deserve a warning for making a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He had the obligation to notify involved editors? Semi-involved? But you don't have a single edit in the article, what kind of involvement is this? Anyway, you must be right, I am sure that the fact that both of you who received his invitation happened to agree with him is purely coincidental. Please accept my apologies--79.167.7.58 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For me it doesnt matter, but this picture right here is just wrong to use as a potrait: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Fatih_II._Mehmet.jpg

I prefer the one with Gennadios or the painted one that was inserted before. Redman19 (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read over all the arguments, I have to say that I think the "portrait" is the best one for the infobox, for two reasons. First, it's the biggest and most clear, and it has this beautiful, ornate border, which I think is very appropriate my problem with the "hooked nose" is that, since it is cropped, it has no border at all, and it is rather dark). Second, regardless of the good reasons offered above about the importance of his relationship with Gennadios, the "Gennadius" image does not really fit an infobox, plus, of course, it has two men--and this is an article primarily about one man. The "Gennadius" image, or what I have called the "better" Gennadius, should of course be in the article. There's something else here that bothers me a bit. We're edit-warring over an image in an infobox when the article itself is of terrible quality. For instance, someone with some knowledge and editing skills ought to proofread the first sentence, and someone ought to add some citations to the article. Moreover, for all this talk of the importance of Gennadius Scholarius, he isn't even mentioned by name in the article. If he's that important, if their teaming up was that important, why aren't some of the editors here not busy working on a new lead? You could start by taking out the entirely irrelevant and unleadworthy claim about his linguistic knowledge, and expand the lead into two or three paragraphs that more adequately summarize his life and achievements. I prefer the "portrait." Drmies (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that the IPs ending in 63 and 58 are the same person, perhaps posting from home and work? If so it would be less confusing if you created an account. I would marginally prefer the "hook nose" to the "portrait" because it seems to be the most representational. Whichever Grennadios is chosen belongs in the body of the article where his importance is covered (or should be).--Charles (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. I prefer to stay with ip for great many reasons, I apologize for any confusion am causing. Obviously both IPs counts for one vote and that is for the Redman's suggestion for the reasons I explained in my 21:36 5 January 2011 msg, same as in the case with the Gennadios' article. Mehmed's greatest achievement was the foundation of a common Muslim-Christian empire in which both ethnicities played active and productive roles cooperating on an almost "constitutional" equality. The picture (representing the delivery of the rights the non-Muslim subjects eventually enjoyed for half a millennium) echoes that creative and ingenious action of him and through this his greatest achievement in found an empire that lasted so long. So for me it's the most appropriate for the infobox. --79.167.7.58 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that Bellini portrait, the more I look at it, the more beautiful I find it. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Our 'vote' (yeah, this is not a democracy...)
Maybe you can add yourself below, in the exact same lay-out, possibly giving a no. 1, 2, and 3, sticking to the names used above. Feel free to add your alternate options and to correct me if I misconstrued your comment. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Drmies: 1: "portrait"; 2: "Bellini portrait"; 3; "hooked nose"
 * 2) 79.167.7.58: 1. the "Gennadios" pic
 * 3) Redman: 1. "hooked nose"
 * 4) Charles: 1. "hooked nose"; 2. "portrait"
 * 5) Kansas Bear: "portrait," "hooked nose", or Bellini portrait

I think the best pic for the infobox is the painting, we can put the Gennadios pic in the body. Redman19 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which painting? We have three--do you mean "the portrait"? Drmies (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Mehmed_II_by_Gentile_Bellini_(Cropped).png Redman19 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's "hooked nose." Drmies (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the end of Gennadios, he became hooked--79.167.7.58 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On hookahs? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any picture that contains only Mehmed. The Gennadius/Mehmed pic to be placed farther down within the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a winner: the hooked nose. In the meantime, Redman has put that in the infobox, and there it should stay unless there's a new discussion and a new consensus. IP 79, above you spoke eloquently about the importance of the cooperation between Mehmed and Gennadios: I propose that you add such a section to the article, since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this topic. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mehmed's doctor dispute
Please describe the debate about Mehmed's doctor here..... Dinky town  talk  14:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you deleting the source I put up here without any clear reason? Redman19 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to me, the section this replaced was not an academic source, not in English, not relevant to any debate, and adding nothing to any dispute. Regarding Mehmed's doctor, please describe the debate here with sources, rather than carrying out a long, slow moving edit war (not just you...).  This is the first step before arbitration. Just stick to the facts please.  Take care... Dinky town   talk  18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who is debating here, but I am the person who entered the Crowley source. It is not possible to know who really killed Mehmet considering it happened centuries ago. However, it seems that Crowley has done a considerable amount of research on the subject and I trust him to know what he is talking about. I have looked for information regarding Jacob Pasha online but have found nothing. But I have no problem with putting both ideas up, because who really knows? Good luck! Arman Z

A couple of points
I just removed details of Mehmed's linguistic expertise from the introductory paragraph; they seemed excess to requirements in a summary of his life and achievements. The material (corrected) can be found in the section headed "Personal life" – an editor (or two, or more) had added French and Serbian to his language talents. I checked the two sources cited, and have corrected the entry to conform with both – probably overciting, as Norwich almost certainly relies on Runciman. What seems a little more worrying is the gradual creep of uncited and therefore unreliable unverifiable, possibly imaginative or fanciful material into the article; I must stress that the article topic is outside my usual areas of editing. Would anyone with access to other cited works, used to justify the text, care to check article content against sources? Haploidavey (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a caliph
I deleted the succession box (since 2007) which showed Mehmet II as the caliph. The sultans began to assume the title calip after the campaign of Selim I to Egypt in 1517, long after Mehmet's reign. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. It seems to be an error of myself. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Had Troy's existence been confirmed?
I might be wrong, but wasn't it not until after Heinrich Schliemann's time that Troy was confirmed as anything other than fiction? If so, how is it that "Mehmed II visited the site of Troy" (from the Conquest of Constantinople section) nearly 400 years before Schliemann's time? It's possible that I'm missing something, so I don't want to risk making an unnecessary edit, but are there any ways to shed some light on what happened after the Ottomans' victory? Ismailzali (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. The only reference offered to support that assertion (that Mehmed II visited the site of Troy) is Turks.org - except that it doesn't seem to say that he visited "the site of Troy". It says he believed the Turks to be the descendants of the Trojans, and justified the taking of Constantinople as "revenge" for the sacking of Troy.


 * If he indeed visited Ilium, he'd have had little reason to think that this wasn't the site of ancient Troy. His claim to Trojan ancestry for himself and his people was ingenious and politic; and probably no less shaky than the Romans' claim to ancestry via the Trojan Aeneas. Very few Greeks and Romans - even the most skeptical - saw the Trojan War as other than essentially factual. As for Troy, there it was: the much decayed settlement known as Ilium (see the Iliad), or Troy, atop various accumulated, ruinous layers of previous cities. Somewhere below were the several "Troys" of the distant past, including Schliemann's, and probably Homer's - notwithstanding the former's wishful thinking, the latter's poetic inventiveness and later widespread skepticism about the whole Trojan business. Haploidavey (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some errors
He didn't defeat John Hunyadi in the battle of Verna, it was his father, Seems as if allot of the text written on this article isn't 100% correct, check the Spanish Wikipedia for allot of differences.. Lagonx (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

His Mother
His mother Hüma Hatun not Mara Brankoviç. I understand reason for your grief! (SPH 22:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Italian medal?
This article links to [[Media:Costanzo da ferrara, mehmed II, 1481.jpg|this]] image, and reads in a caption, "Italian medal of Sultan Mehmed as Byzantine Emperor, 1481", however I highly doubt the medal in question dates to 1481. In particular, the medal seems to read "Bizantii Inperatoris" (sic) (Imperatoris?) - yet according to Byzantine Empire "The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources."

The use of modern (Arabic) numerals instead of Roman numerals also seems anachronistic, although according to that article, their adoption in Europe was underway by the fifteenth century.

Seems like this medal's date more likely commemorates his death, which according to the article was 1481. Any thoughts on this from a more knowledgeable editor?

67.161.254.8 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Several similar medals exist, all seemingly based on the same portrait, or one very like; the medal legends vary, and I've not found this one's match. I'm not the more knowledgeable editor you seek, but I think the removal of the date is justified, at least for now. So I've done just that. Haploidavey (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, take a look at the V & A's description of what seems to be the same medal, or a very similar medal which includes Mehmet's title as "Bizantii Inperatoris" and the date 1481; . I've restored the date, and described the medal as commemorative. The image's provenance at Commons could be made more explicit. The Byzantine Empire article might need updating. I've left a message at that article's talk page.Haploidavey (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate material
This is getting out of hand. in the "Conquest of Constantinople" section, there is the following paragraph:

"The Byzantine historian Doukas,[13] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him 'for his pleasure'. When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[14] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought 'for his pleasure'.[15] This story was originally recorded by Doukas, a Byzantine Greek living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, and does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest.[16] Some modern scholars believe that this tale is merely one of a long series of attempts to portray Muslims as morally inferior, and point to the story of Saint Pelagius as its probable inspiration.[16]"

In the "Personal life" section, there is the following paragraph:

"The Byzantine historian Doukas,[24] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him 'for his pleasure'. When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[25] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought 'for his pleasure'.[26]"

When compared, the Personal life paragraph is an exact duplicate of the beginning of the Conquest of Constantinople paragraph.

Starting on September 30, an IP, followed by User:Tevkar, removed the duplicate material from the Personal life section. Each time, until the last, the removals were without edit summaries. User:SudoGhost reverted each time ("Unexplained removal of sourced content"). Finally, Tevkar removed the material yet again, this time with an edit summary explaining the problem. SudoGhost left it alone. I came into the picture because of a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. I declined the request, explained why, and had a short and profitable discussion at SudoGhost's talk page. Now, two editors have again tried to restore the duplicated material. I reverted one with an edit summary. I am about to revert the other.

The next time an editor attempts to reinsert duplicate material into this article, I will revert the editor and lock the article. I am not going to start leaving warnings for every editor who fails to even look at the edit history before reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Personal Life" and "Conquest of Constantinople" sections
I've just restored cited material that another editor deleted from "Personal Life", per diff. Of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut the mustard, but I couldn't help notice that the brief and simple assertion "He was attracted by both women and men", cited to Franz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit, München,1953, p. 512, might jar somewhat with the concluding paragraphs of "Conquest of Constantinople":

"The Byzantine historian Doukas,[13] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[14] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure".[15]

This story was originally recorded by Doukas, a Byzantine Greek living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, and does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest.[16] Some modern scholars believe that this tale is merely one of a long series of attempts to portray Muslims as morally inferior, and point to the story of Saint Pelagius as its probable inspiration.[16]

I wouldn't dream of offering Babinger's en.Wikipedia article as a reliable source, but... "As a result of his reputation, his [Babinger's] magnum opus Mehmed the Conqueror was published without any accompanying notes on source material at all, since the companion volume outlining his extensive and voluminous sources was sadly unfinished at the time of his death. As a result, Mehmed the Conqueror is one of the few academic works available with no cited sources and whose authority rests solely on the reputation of the author's research abilities". If this is so, then we don't and can't know which primary sources he referred to. So, rather than let this bald assertion stand alone and vulnerable, I suggest moving the last two paragraphs of "Conquest of Constantinople" into the "Personal life" section, where Babinger's scholarly opinions can be balanced by those of his fellow scholars. Yes? Haploidavey (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Haploidavey (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the claims regarding his sexual affairs do not have a strong base and could be only allegations the same should not be under the section of personal life, but it could be under some title like allegations, claims, controversy, etc... I might come to fix it soon if you agree186.31.13.81 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No thanks. It's fine as it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.81 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Ottoman sources and historians
It would be interesting if there were also Ottoman sources used in the article. Tursun Beg was an Ottoman bureaucrat present at the siege and wrote a narrative called Tarih-i Ebülfeth (تاريخ ابو الفتح in Ottoman; "The History of the Conqueror"). His narrative also presents a different explanation concerning the death of Constantine XI he states that Constantine fled with his retinue but by chance encountered a group of Ottoman Azab soldiers who killed him. Source = (The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, page 89, 2011) DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neşri
 * Ibn Kemal
 * Aşıkpaşazade

Mehmed and little boys "for his pleasure..."
The following paragraph had been removed several times:


 * Steven Runciman recounts a story by the Byzantine historian Doukas, known for his colorful and dramatic descriptions, in which Mehmed II, upon the conquest of Constantinople, was said to have ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him for his personal pleasure. When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot. Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor or theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14 year old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure" .

There are pleanty of historical sources that support this statement - and they're not modern inventions. I would welcome people to debate this statement without edit warring. Bring your sources and let's get this over with... Dinkytown 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning and request for sources supporting opposite view is lacking logical sense. Do you want us to cite sources that state Mehmed II was straight? You should have known or guessed that Byzantine historians might have manipulated or deliberately produced some stories for an obvious reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.16.231 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be possible that Doukas and Lucas Notaras had negative issues with Mehmed (more like almost certainly). But the sources state whats in the text.  I understand that Mehmed is a national hero in Turkey, and this section has been reverted many times before.  All I could say is that it has been sourced and cited and should be included.


 * However, history is full of 'naughty bits' of facts. Take for example the Empress Theodora, she is a saint in the Orthodox Church, yet the sexual adventurism stories about her are also in Wikipedia.  I'm sure the Orthodox Church is not in a habbit of declaring, in the street vernacular - a slut, to the sainthood. I personally don't believe (too much) about all the details, as she made a lot of enemies during her life, but its been documented and therefore should be in the record.


 * I would suggest that if you can find a source that would question the two above sources that described Mehmed as being biased, we could put that in the article. I reverted your edit.  I would suggest that because it is documented that we keep it there until some more sources could be had that would counter it.  I see that you are new to Wikipedia.  Do you know how what a 'good' source is?  If you are interested in doing some research I can help you with that.  You can contact me on my talk page.  Take care and welcome. Dinkytown (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

there are too many turkish sources considered as biased on wikipedia(for example in the article, battle of nicopolis, behcetullah's sources do not mention(about numbers of combatats) even if he lived those times). such gossips(not sources) of greeks, which are obviously biased as Mehmed is the man who put an end to byzantine legacy so it is natural for them to hate him, considered as reliable. besides, somebody claims something about a subject, and another say i doubt if it is true, and you demand him to find something to disprove that claim, that is completely ridiculus. if you claim something you can find 'objective' resources or evidence to prove your claim. regards.. maeee2003 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.96.13 (talk)


 * This claim contradicts what is reported about mehmed characters and morals in ALL Arabic sources. This is act is inhuman and very cruel. and it is the sort of propaganda that you would expect an defeated nation to raise against their enemies. This is not a reliable source. The citations should refer to the original citation not to a 20th century historian. If you feel that you need to restore the story without the original source you should put a disputed fact label. Also, you should present the opinion of the other side. Borhan0 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are Arabic sources more reliable that Byzantine/European/Christian sources? Mehmed executed many Byzantine nobles and other atrocities after the siege.  At least two fifteenth century sources describe this event described by eye witnesses.  This issue has been discussed in detail (see above).  Please bring sources that will dispute this such as why the Byzantine historian Doukas was not a reliable source, rather than debating the issue because it doesn't fit our heroic view of him. Dinkytown (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This story about the excution of Lukas Notaras is disgusting. But it may be apocryphal. Nicolae Iorga points out that probably this story is fake and the real reason of the execution might be the the rivalry between Byzantine notables. (Geschichte des Osmanischen vol. II ISBN 975-6480-17-3). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is agreeable here that it has been documented that Mehmed II called a boy to his pleasure and so it should be on the page, however there is a high chance that the Byzantines who as any country who had just lost their most important city would feel bitter, so much so that they refused to even consider Mehmet II as their ruler. Thus it should be said in the article that those views are bias! As anyone who reads the page will think that he is a pedophile. And two letters, both from Byzantines who had good reason to insult Mehmed II, is not enough evidence proving that he asked for the boy or even that he was going to do anything to the boy. The phrase ‘’for his pleasure’’ was not well defined. So it should be noted that these are JUST speculations that have just been put on paper with no evidence and it is not know or even very accurate. You should have known or guessed that Byzantine historians might have manipulated or deliberately produced some stories for an obvious reason. well of course, however we did not expect Wikipedia to not exclude a more accurate view of history and instead label the man as a pedophile with very little or no evidence. As such Wikipedia should not be changing history especially when it is called somebody a pedophile, it doesn’t matter who it is! its insulting to the persons name and maybe their nations, and so we can at most say that it was on a note and that there was good reason for people to lie about such a thing. as then the reader will know that its not 100% accurate and thus they will have a more accurate view of history. Wikipedia is great but it or anyone else shouldn’t have the right to change history, even more so when they say insulting things. at most as previously stated ''If you feel that you need to restore the story without the original source you should put a disputed fact label. Also, you should present the opinion of the other side.''

Why are Arabic sources more reliable that Byzantine/European/Christian sources? well its very simple. They are not as bias. Arabia wasn’t in the ottoman empire, they were close to them and knew about them, so they didn’t have much of a reason to lie I mean what difference would it make to them, they weren’t going to get invaded, i mean there are records that Mehmed II was laughed at when he was young for people thinking he was gay for spending a lot of time with his teacher learning. That is an Arabic document by the way, and it also says accurately that they were just rumors. And there are ottoman documents of the nobles they killed. Yes the Ottoman Empire killed nobles.... just like EVERY other empire. and we accept that Mehmet II did kill a lot of people, u cant exactly capture and destroy the Byzantine empire peacefully. And of course it is even documented in ottoman files how they were killed and when happened however they didn’t need to be bias. Although more Christian areas and people didn’t exactly love Muslims or Jews (and the Jews felt the same way, the Muslims welcomed everyone no matter what religion they were) and no socially the easiest way to destroy somebody is propaganda in order for everyone to hate them. Which well they successfully did i mean Turkey isn’t exactly the most loveable country now. The Christians (as most of Europe was) could use documents and writing to make everyone not like the ottomans ( almost the symbol of Islam at that time) and thus seem like the best religion.

and just because historical documents are full of naughty parts, does that mean that EVERY SINGLE ONE is correct? course not.


 * 81.214.38.204 - the Byzantine source would be more reliable than Arab sources, because the Byzantine were eye witnesses and very close to the event.  You say that the Byzantines were not a reliable source because they were bias against the Turks.  The same thing could be said that the present-day Turks have a motivation in preserving Mehmed's national hero status and his good name - and denounce the sources.  Mehmed took many concubines/wives during war - that seems to be okay (raping woman increases his matchesmo...), but if its a little boy, its scandalous...  Read the above discussion on the subject.  The sources have been well documented and have been discussed for years with nothing new added.  Leave it alone. Dinkytown (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all false and over the years this stuff was deleted many times.. it just keeps coming back. greeks are obsessed with sexual deviance and it says more about them than about Mehmet II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.45.156 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC) This is all false. Wikipedia is turning into a biased source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahraman (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think the sources are incorrect, find other reliable sources that dispute the information, but you cannot remove information from an article simply because you do not like the information. - SudoGhost 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This article also conveniently ignores his close relationship with Radu, who is only briefly mentioned as an "ally" ... who then goes on to defeat the enemy "in mehmet's name" after mehmet retreats. Very nice of Radu. They must have been VERY close allies. My question is, what's wrong with having a gay hero?? Mehmet to this day is revered for his conquests, etc; Whoever he loved, or chose to have sex with, is incidental. If anything, the fact that he was gay makes him much more likeable. The problem lies in this misconception that Mehmet could not have been both gay AND brave. Turks just need to do something to honor his gayness, the way they have honored his bravery by erecting a giant, rock-hard bridge, and naming it after him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.84.83 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually true that Mehmed was gay and had pedophile feelings to some extent. Should we mention it in the article? Above is listed a lot of souces for that.--77.4.250.136 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly it is anachronistic to say that Mehmed was 'gay'. A better description (if true) was that he was attracted to the same sex or may have had either a homosexual or bisexual orientation. More disturbingly you seem to use the terms 'ga' and 'paedophile' interchangeably. They are NOT the same thing. Male paedophiles can be sexually attracted to both boys and girls - the over-riding point being that they are children. Gay people are NOT sexually attracted to children. I would avoid attaching labels to Mehmed, the evidence is patchy and we don't really know what was on his mind.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because you have so called sources about sultan's possible actions with the little kid you've talked about then I ask this question: Were the owners or publishers of such sources there when the sultan asked for the child ? Let's please not forget the fact that history can never be %100 sure about such stories therefore it's too crucial and wrong to accuse someone in this way. Moreover sultan had his own harem and children and the religion that he follows strictly forbids homosexuality therefore I believe it's absolutely impossible for such an event to take place. If you believe this then you must believe the story that I'm going to tell right now too. There are sources saying that Mehmed II had conquered Istanbul due to his feeling towards the princess of byzantines because. it was impossible for them to be together so he just conquered and empire. What I emphasize is you can not blindly accept and idea just because it's written on a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.71.116 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well known among historians that Mehmed also loved men in general, not only this child.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CA:276E:7FFC:6948 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The neutral and consistent way of putting this is to change it to "may have been attracted to men as well as women". If allegations that he had some bisexual leanings rest on only two sources about one incident (and these two sources are not shown to be independent, and then the article says that the story may be a fabrication - as it does - it is not consistent to start the passage stating it as fact rather than possible fact. I realise that this will satisfy nobody, but it is better than what's there at the moment.

The personal life section needs cleaning up in other ways too. The piece about Sultan Cem suggests that there was a passage about other children which has got deleted. The titles of his wives are inconsistently spelt and come from : what appears here as "Khatun" and other variants is simply Kadın, meaning married woman. (And anyone who thought the "a" was long had a pretty bad ear!).

And while we are on the subject of alleged homosexuality, it is interesting to see the allegation that Demetrios Palaiologos had a daughter with the Despot of Morea! The passage should of course read "Demetrios Palaiologos, Despot of Morea"

Markd999 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

proposal of new section for claims regarding his sexual orientation
there should be a section called "allegations regarding his sexual orientation" or "controversy over his sexual orientation" since putting the episode of the boys in his life section makes it as a fact while we all know that it could have been a byzantine defamation. We all know as well that sharia condemns homosexuality and most jurists (fuqaha) punish it with death, didn't it happen in ottoman history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.81 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No thanks, it's fine where it is. It doesn't establish it as a fact (any more than anything else about Mehmed is a fac); it just sets the background. In any case who cares what sharia law says - it hardly means that everyone obeyed it all times. Although I accept that enforcement at different times led to people living in fear from vicious religious intolerance. But the king is often above the law in this historical period. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To all IPs and Trolls: Please stop removing content without discussion or reference. It is well known among historians that Mehmed also loved men in general, not only this child.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CA:276E:7FFC:6948 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes made by Personal Life by DragonTiger23 and Surtnica
1)This was the version before I added the explanation in the Personal Life section.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

''Mehmet was attracted to both women and men.[26] The Byzantine historian Doukas,[27] stated that after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered the 14-year old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[28] Another contemporary Greek source, Leonard of Chios, professor of theology and Archbishop of Mytilene, tells the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. He describes Mehmed II requesting for the 14-year-old handsome youth to be brought "for his pleasure".[29] This story was originally recorded by Doukas, a Byzantine Greek who was not living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, and does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest.[30] Some modern scholars believe that this tale is merely one of a long series of attempts to portray Muslims as morally inferior, and point to the story of Saint Pelagius as its probable inspiration.[30]''

It stated: Mehmet was attracted to both women and men.[26] without an explanation and presented it like it was a fact.

Then I added an explanation with sources:


 * According to very few non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors, (The sources who claim this and babinger uses are all Christian and non Ottoman.
 * No Ottoman sources mention this (They do not) and it is very unlikely as it is prohibited in Islam.(Ruler was surrounded by Islamic scholars) Furthermore he had 4 sons and one daughter.
 * Doukas[27] whose writings contain many insults to the Ottoman ruler (Who was not present at any of the events he wrote but still wrote one of the most fictional detailled account of events)
 * Doukas story, does not appear in accounts of Ottoman historians (There were severel famous Ottoman historians who wrote works)
 * Furthermore according to Ottoman sources Notaras and all the other Christian dignitaries in the city were executed for purely political reasons[32]According to Michael Critobulus the sultan first planned to make Notaras prefect of the city but later Notaras was accused of treachery and trying to bribe the sultan with his hidden wealth.[33][34][35]

But I knew that biased people would try to change it by using fake arguments to still try to present it as a fact and so these edits were made.

2)Ip 77.4.254.87 removed this by saying (NPOV) and deleted: No Ottoman sources mention this and it is very unlikely as it is prohibited in Islam. Furthermore he had 4 sons and one daughter

3)Haploidavey wrote:. We should be less assertive either way. Yes, it's prohibited, and yes he had children; but neither determines his sexuality by default, or by logic. Rmv as uncited synthesis or editorialising)

And added this back: No Ottoman sources mention this and changed sentence into: Mehmed may have been attracted to both women and men.

4)Then I added this back by giving the logical argument: Deleting necessary explanation is POV. The sources who claim this are all hostile non-Ottoman/Muslim not eyewitnesses and contemporary 15th century Ottoman historians do not mention these stories at all. Don't start a useless edit war.

And added: According to some non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors, No Ottoman sources mention this and it is important to note that it is prohibited in Islam. Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike.(Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston and Bruce Masters, 2009, page 577-578) Furthermore, it is also mentioned worthy to add that he had 4 sons; Bayezid II, Sultan Cem, Korkud and Mustafa, and one daughter; Gevherhan.

5)Then Surtnica came and deleted these sentences by saying these irrelevant things:

''Firstly, homosexual relations are forbidden in Islam. No one can forbid a person to be attracted to another person. Secondly, so what? Why is it important to note? Furthermore, this is ungrammatical and irrelevant. Bisexual men obviously reproduce easily.)''

Deleting: and it is important to note that it is prohibited in Islam (This is the truth and is not a synthesis but statement of a fact how society was then, its not pushing pov but explaining the unlikeliness of the event in such a society)

Furthermore, it is also mentioned worthy to add that he had 4 sons; Bayezid II, Sultan Cem, Korkud and Mustafa, and one daughter; Gevherhan.(This was also deleted for thinking its synthesis.)

6)Then surtnica wrote these irrelevant sentences:. ''If you are implying that they only said that because they were non-Turkish or non-Muslim, then say so. Otherwise it is completely irrelevant. Why not also say that some of them were blue-eyed?) ''(Ottoman sources do not say this only few Christian who were not eyewitnesses)

and changed: According to some non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors into According to Franz Babinger ( But what Surtnica does not know is that babinger claimed this by using 15th century Christian sources)

and then said:'''o what? Muslims cannot be bisexual? Get real. It's like saying that Muslims cannot be green-eyed. Besides, that is called synthesis and is strongly forbidden.)'Italic text''

Changing: No Ottoman sources mention this. Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike. ( which is necessary background information and not synthesis)

into: Ottoman sources do not mention this

and then put the story of Doukas behind the sentence of the claim but they were different subjects and it should not belong there.

7)So I added everything back saying: Ottoman sources do not mention this only non Ottoman non muslim sources which were hostile to the Ottomans told this, the reason is slander, because LGBT was considered sinful by his enemies. So that is way this must be stated) Now it is important to add that LGBT was also considered sinful in Ottoman society and this LGBT stories were never mentioned in any Ottoman sources of those time, by not giving this infor it seems like it was common and a fact) And finally this is the personal life section giving info about his children, there is absolutely no reason to remove this)

8)And then Surtnica reverted everything except the children part(thinking) and wrote again that it is synthesis: If there is a source that says what you are saying, then add it. If there isn't, don't mention this at all. What you are doing is called synthesis and is explicitly forbidden.)

9)I reverted it back and wrote: it is sourced why are you removng all this information only because you want to push your pov based on weak evidence and you delete the credible info)

10)And then Charlesdrakew reverted it and said: Rv editorialising and unsourced pov. Previous version was better. (TW))

deleting: According to some non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors, No Ottoman sources mention this and it is important to note that it is prohibited in Islam. Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike.Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston and Bruce Masters, 2009, page 577-578

11)'''Then I wrote what babingers thought of Mehmed (babingers entire work is based on negative criticism):  had a demonical personality and was regarded as a bloodthirsty tyrant by the Christian world and by his subjects

13)I reverted it back again saying: don't do original research/ synthesis again. The current place is good to see Babinger's writings about Mehmed. he does call him demonic and explains it later on, dont do original research)

14)And then Surtnica reverted it again saying: No, he doesn't and everyone can see that he doesn't. It is not a good place and I have explained why.)

15)I reverted back and added demonic back and wrote: It has nothing to do with his legacy. These are the views of Babinger about his personal life. Why do u keep insisting to seperate these?)

16)And then surtnica reverted it back again saying: How on Earth does it have anything to do with his personal life when it refers to his reign and the way his subjects and the Christendom perceived him? Please stop making senseless arguments to justify senseless edits.)

17)Then the article was locked by Favonian

So basically it seems surtnica is very obsessed and insists on the bisexuality/rape claim like many others. But according to the facts and sources it is not credible at all. It does not even belong in the article in the first place, it should be removed so there would be no more edit wars on such an unimportant sourceless false claim, which was added with the simple reason to slander by accusing of rape. Me and others trying to explain the unlikeliness of these claims are accused of all kinds of things and our edits are reverted immediately. This article suffers heavily from biased users who seem to hate Mehmed II. Discussion seems not the way t solve as we are talking about hatred. Personal attacks to a historical personality should be removed.

But other harmfull edits done to this article is not controlled at all.

The entire section about the Bosnian Fransiscans was removed. Why? Because it showed Mehmed as a tolerant ruler and the users who vandalize this page only want that negative info is written.

Some examples: It was falsely claimed that Doukas was in the city while the sources disagree, only to give weight to his claims this false information was added by someone and remained on the article for years. I researched it and found it to be false. he was not present.

That other Greek writers did not mention the story of Doukas was also deleted and never anyone questioned this But I searched the older versions found it and put it back.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really expect anyone to read all this rant? I am not a native speaker either, but the grammar of the preceding comment is bad enough to put me off. Anyway, you clearly don't understand or don't want to understand what synthesis is. Could you please read it and then try to explain how your version is not a textbook example of synthesis? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is not totally forbidden in Wikipedia go read it again WP:SYNTH and I did not use it I added explanation.

The point is the LGBT claim is based on unreliable sources and because of the unlikeliness of the claim must be emphasized in the article. That is way I added these 4 points

1 No Ottoman sources mention this Article completely neglects Ottoman sources

2 Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike Background information about the LGBT in Ottoman society

3 According to very few non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors (The sources who claim this and babinger which uses are all Christian and non Ottoman)

4 he had a demonical personality and was regarded as a bloodthirsty tyrant by the Christian world and by his subjects babinger is a biased person against Mehmed II and his views should be emphasized because he repeatedly accuses him of raping men and boys. So it is fine when it is put merged with his claim that shows his real intentions, purely slander. Then I wrote what babingers thought of Mehmed (babingers entire work is based on negative criticism on every aspect of Mehmed's life) DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to enter this mess of a dispute, but:


 * 1) whatever Babinger's views on Mehmed, he was one of the foremost scholars on Mehmed II and his time, and his research trumps your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's unless it can be demonstrated to be either false or overwhelmingly regarded as false/biased/outdated by publications from other credible scholars. Mehmed being a "demonical personality" would be his opinion and we are not bound by it, but if his research shows Mehmed's sexual preferences to be "both ways", then that is a matter of what sources report. It is not our job to do the research or to pick among the sources, our job is to report what the scholars say.
 * 2)  "2 Mehmed was a Muslim ruler surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike ", sorry, but this is complete nonsense. A ruler, whether Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, may be surrounded by priests, but what he does for his pleasure is up to him. Religious prohibitions have never ever stopped vices from being practiced, from sexual ones to more harmless ones, such as drinking coffee or alcohol. This is true for the common people, let alone for rulers. I am pretty sure that Selim the Sot was also "surrounded by the Ulema and the Shaykh al-Islām who ensured that the Sharia Law was implemented in court and country alike", and he was merely drunk on piousness... Constantine   ✍  15:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1) You would not say "one of the foremost scholars on Mehmed II" if he was as anti Greek as he is Anti Ottoman. Huh? There is also lots of criticism on his book. Did any of you read babingers work? Babinger is not a super scholar as his book contains facts he also adds his personal opinion everywhere and it is clearly seen that he is biased. So it becomes obvious why he would try to slander Mehmed, probably for destroying the weak byzantine empire. It is also not forbidden to use other sources or scholars and I will use them. He does call Mehmed a demonic personality and it seems that he wrote hsi book with the intention to prove this, if you read the book and page you can clearly see this.

The sources he claims for Mehmed II LGBT areaccording to many other sources state very weak. A story of Doukas, he writes "there is ample evidence of leaning to the same gender" but does not mention this evidence, also his books does not contain any references. In fact there is no real evidence of his claim, that may dissapoint you, but the truth should be written here and not biased slander. The article must make it clear that the likehood of him being not is greater. That is the whole problem.

2) And now you are making original research yourself, you can not speculate on the life of Mehmed without evidence, there is simply no evidence of contempory Ottoman historians/ most contemporary Christian sources also do not mention it. The article should make this clear. Trying to manipulate the article with original research and ideas is wrong. Furthermore there should also be research made on Sultan Selim and the other sultans as it seems now that everyone can claim something without real evidence.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." What you are doing is prohibited for obvious reasons. Babinger does not say that Mehmed had a demonic personality. Simply put, you are lying if you are trying to convince me that he does. I have access to the book and everyone who does can clearly see that what you are saying is not true. Then you go around ranting about other nonsense, such as "personal attacks to a historical personality" (there is no such thing and alleging that someone was attracted to the same sex has not been a personal attack in English-speaking world for some time now). Frankly, I am not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to all this nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Spare us the bold and italic text. It only serves to lessen your credibility. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Believe me I only responded to you so others can read the truth and besides you still do not understand my arguments.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to see how you would react when Constantine XI or Tvrtko I of Bosnia would be accused of raping little boys and the sources which would claim this would be very few and all by Ottomans who never were eyewitness.

I am also surprised to see that all the famous Greek LGBT are not mentioned in their articles, for example Alexander the Great nothing about his bisexuality or the pedophilia of Aristotle and Plato and the many others. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia instead of a Mein Kampf of hatefull nationalists.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you have any sensible thing to say? Why on Earth are you mentioning Constantine or Tvrtko? Where did you even find those names? As for Alexander, your comment is ridiculous, as there is a whole article about personal relationships of Alexander the Great. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The word Homosexual and bisexual are not even mentioned 1 time in that article furthermore the article tries to disapprove those claims.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So you do not like it when the articles of Constantine XI or Tvrtko I of Bosnia would contain references that they raped little boys? There is absolutely no evidence that Constantine XI or Tvrtko I of Bosnia were not bisexual, and this may not be recorded because it was whitewashed by christian historians. According to the letter DragonTiger23! wrote to the pope, Tvrtko I of Bosnia raped his own son in the Mileševa monastery while Constantine XI sexually molested his brothers Demetrios Palaiologos and Thomas Palaiologos in his capital in Mistra, and that is why they didn't help him when Constantinople was besieged!DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Doukas was not present at the fall of Constantinople in 1453
According to Steven Runciman only one Greek historian was present at the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and that was George Sphrantzes.

Source= (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Steven Runciman, page 192, 1990)DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Article locked
I've relocked the article because clearly when the previous lock expired, editors started warring again. At first glance, this appears to be mainly a content dispute, and it should be resolvable without resort to accusations of POV-pushing or sock puppetry. Focus on the material ONLY, and if you can't resolve it, then you MUST use the usual dispute resolution forums available to you. If when this lock expires, you haven't reached a consensus as to how the article should be worded, then you can't insist on your version. If you do, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis
Read synthesis. It is strictly forbidden to imply that an historian's ethnicity or religious convictions have anything to do with his work unless there is a source that says so. There is absolutely no reason to say "according to some non-Turkish/Ottoman and non-Muslim authors" instead of "according to Franz Babinger". It is also forbidden to imply something through synthesis. If there are sources that question Babinger's findings, add them. The fact that bisexual relations are forbidden in Islam and that Mehmed was Muslim is completely irrelevant. No one can forbid anyone to be attracted to another person. The fact that he had children is also irrelevant and doesn't even prove anything, as bisexual people normally reproduce without any difficulties. Engaging in original research is not the way to "prove" Mehmed's heterosexuality. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand and I did not make original research.
 * Ottoman sources mention nothing about Mehmed II and LGBT
 * Only few unreliable non eyewitness,non muslim and non Ottoman sources mention this, adding this explains everything.
 * In Ottoman society it was forbidden and so it makes it very unlikely to have ocurred while there were so many eyewitnesses.
 * Mehmed was his entire life surrounded by Ottoman court, none of them mention this only a few non Ottoman persons who hate Ottomans and were never eyewitness invented these stories
 * Childrens are added because this is the personal life section not because to claim anything.

'''And now based on this nonsense a large part of Mehmed II personal life is fulled with this biased crap who are basically attacking a historical person instead of real information. But Wikipedia reflects the quality of its authors and that is sadly very low.'''DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article still says that Ottoman sources do not mention Mehmed's bisexuality.
 * If you have sources that say so, add them.
 * Homosexuality was forbidden in virtually all Christian and Muslim states prior to the 20th century. Nevertheless, there were always prominent homosexual and bisexual women and men. No law can forbid births of homosexuals or bisexuals. Arguing about this is simply silly.
 * Children should be mentioned elsewhere. The paragraph discussing their mothers is, for example, naturally much more appropriate than the paragraph discussing their father's supposed relationships with men.
 * I should also remind you that in 2013, stating that someone is or was attracted to people of the same sex is not slander or "attack" - at least not in English-speaking world. I agree with your last statement, however, which is why I am warning you to avoid synthesis and original research. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

'''I know that everybody can edit wikipedia and that not everyone can think but your arguments are not related to the sentences/arguments I added.

The fact is: There is not at all evidence that Mehmed II ever did these things or was. The most important source of information in the life of Mehmed are the Ottoman historians and people who spent time with him, not Greeks or Venetian travellers who probably never saw him in real life and wrote all their crap on hearsay, furthermore they wrote it with the intention to slander.'''

'''Furthermore the sources of babinger and doukas repeatedly insists on having forced relations with men/children they are not written as love but as rape, their purpose is to slander. These relationships were and are considered as abominable in the entire world.

The problem is that the article tries to present it as a fact. So what I did was adding arguments explaining why it is unlikely but then you came and deleted everything. Do you think you accomplished something now?

So your suggestion that I consider this as an attack is again an misunderstanding and your personal life or preferences do not interest me'''DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not present it as a fact. It clearly says that it's Franz Babinger's assertion and nothing more. In fact, there's a whole charade of arguments against Babinger's conclusion right after it. While Christian historians may have wanted to slander him, Ottoman historians may have wanted to whitewash history. Why don't you consider that possibility? Isn't it possible that Mehmed's contemporaries were afraid to mention it? I am not saying that he was or that he wasn't bisexual. What you did is clearly against the rules. Had you bothered to read them after I linked to them, you would have known why. What I accomplished is the removal of synthesis, and I am proud of that accomplishment. Why are you referring to my "personal life" and "preferences"? Do we know each other? Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

'''What I understand is that you do not have much background information, also your own ideas or thoughts are not relevant. I also did not synthesis you are the one who did this. You removed the explanation to present it like a fact. Historians use sources and do not work with speculations, I will give you an example if you want to speculate so much lets speculate on

Tvrtko I of Bosnia was a bisexual ruler who raped little boys and had a homosexual relationship with Tsar Lazar. Lazar and Tvrtko also sodomized Milos Obilic when he was a boy. Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia also practised bestiality.The reason this is not mentioned is because Christian historians may have wanted to whitewash history. Why don't you consider that possibility? Isn't it possible that Tvrtko's and Lazar's contemporaries were afraid to mention it?'''
 * Your view of sexuality is pretty screwed up. Homosexuality/ bisexuality has nothing to do with paedophilia (the sexual attraction towards children). Nor does homosexuality/ bisexuality have anything to do with bestiality. It also looks like you're turning this into some sort of nationalist/ religious battle between christians and muslims. I don't think we should go down that route. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)