Talk:Mehmed II/Archive 3

Edit warring
The recent reversions of material are disruptive. Please stop. I've asked an administrator to padlock this article until a consensus version is established on this talk-page, in accordance with wikipedia policies. If editors have a problem with particular claims made by particular sources, or the authority of particular sources, or the weight the article affords to particular issues, sources or points of view, they should be brought to wider and more disinterested attention of other editors at the relevant noticeboard(s). Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT--2001:4CA0:2201:1:D9A:9802:5B67:94A3 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand what this anonymous IP is trying to accomplish. The main problem in the Personal Life section was that it presented Babingers assertion as a fact. According to other sources this is not the case. This should also be emphasized in the article. Out of curiosity I researched Babinger's book, he does not explicitly states where he based this information on, his book does not contain any notes. But we can imagine that he probably based this on several Byzantine Greek and Western sources, most of these persons never were present by the events they described furthermore they were hostile to Ottomans, so the likelyhood of them trying to slander the Ottoman ruler Mehmed is obvious.

On the other hand Ottoman historians of the 15th century, also other contemporary Greek and Western sources do not mention these claimed stories, modern Turkish scholars also reject this claim and criticize Babinger.

Now what must be improved in this article is.
 * Adding that the claim is based on Franz Babingers assertion.
 * Adding that all contemporary Ottoman sources do not mention this and several Western Greek sources also.
 * Adding the criticism of Modern Turkish scholars to Babinger's book and claim.

There is no reason why these sentences should be removed, they are not original research nor are they trying to force a point of view, deleting this information and presenting it as a fact is unneutral. This should be added so readers can see the critism. But now they are removed, why, I had already explained this above in the talk page. I did not delete anything but added new information based on reliable sources. Many Users in the talk above already said what I wrote here.

The article suffers form edits done primarily with only one reason: to add this bisexuality claim. These persons do not contribute to the article nor to wikipedia, probably they did not even read the article. And the Admins always are neglecting these harmfull edits, why? I am asking for unbiased serious Users and admins to come and look at this page and decide themselves.

The entire problem is this: I added sourced sentences which criticize the bisexuality and this is removed because some persons can not accept criticism and they want to present it as a fact.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I also want to say something very important. The suggestion of Doukas is not related to Babinger, they are both different subjects but now they are erroneously merged. Babinger states of bisexuality in general while the story of Doukas is related to the execution of Notaras.

These sentences should be seperated because they are not related to each other, now it seems like Doukas first suggested about bisexuality, which is not the case. Someone has changed this sentence.

The Babinger source is based on the following sentence p.475 in this book: (Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time). "there is ample evidence of Mehmed's leaning to the male sex" online here

This sentence is written in a chapter about Ottoman poetry and in a page where Babinger relates the life of Ahmed Pasha an Ottoman poet. Babinger does not further elaborate about the evidence or what he means with ""there is ample evidence of Mehmed's leaning to the male sex" and the page continues with lifes of other Ottoman poets.

So this bisexuality claim is based on 1 sentence in a book of more than 500 pages. And I also find this sentence too vague to conclude his bisexuality as a fact.

Does everybody now agree with the current version?DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a good chance that the western sources are biased and I have no problem in ensuring the text reflects that uncertainty. But if we do that then we also need to be open to the fact that there is every possibility that Mehmet was indeed sexually attracted to men. Can I confirm please that you are indeed open to that interpretation? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Uncertainty is healthy. We don't really do "true or false", do we? It's just sources. And due weight. DragonTiger's points (directly above) seem a logical place to start:


 * 1) "Adding that the claim is based on Franz Babingers assertion." Agreed, because Babinger's work on Mehmed seems to be used as a standard work. His opinion carries scholarly weight, despite the many and varied criticisms levelled at his book on Mehmet. On the other hand, his assertions are unsourced - I don't know whether we should therefore discount them as arguments based on authority. It worries me that we can't connect his claim to specific primary sources. That said, we shouldn't try to connect it, because that would be editorial guesswork, WP:OR. Nor should we imply that his assertions are misguided or uncritical readings (even if they "really" are, which seems possible but unproven) by placing them next to contemporary Greek claims that have been disputed as propaganda by modern scholarship - DragonTiger has already described the blending of Babinger and Doukas as misuse of sources. Either we use Babinger's claim, thin as it might seem, without editorial comment or undermining by proximity; or we don't use it at all.


 * 2) "Adding that all contemporary Ottoman sources do not mention this and several Western Greek sources also." No, we can't add that, unless it has been pointed out by a reliable secondary source. As I think Surtsicna pointed earlier (some way above), nationality and religion have nothing to do with it. And nothing whatever can be argued from an absence of evidence. Contemporary (or modern) sources would have to specifically address and rebut Babingers claim that "there is ample evidence of Mehmed's leaning to the male sex".


 * 3) "Adding the criticism of Modern Turkish scholars to Babinger's book and claim." That specific claim, yes. But see also 1), above.


 * On the categories business, I'm not too sure; but it seems logical to me that article categories should be based on the topic or subject's inclusion in specialist academic studies - in this case, LGBT studies or similar. Or its categorisation as such by university or other academic libraries. As things stand, the chances for Mehmet's inclusion in such categories seem rather slim. Haploidavey (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I support your arguments, and back your approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So we are going to add the criticism of modern Turkish historians, we must also add that they base this on Ottoman contemporary sources(see Turkish criticism above).

Babinger bases this on several stories, including Doukas story about Notaras execution, but in page 475 he does not specifically mention this.
 * We can add that bisexuality is Franz Babinger's assertion and we can also add that he bases this on several Western and Greek sources who state that there was rape of boys and men.


 * categories should not be added as it is not a fact.

The bisexuality claim is not criticised because bisexuality is wrong. But because he means it as a RAPIST. Babinger asserts this after numerous times he described stories where the sultan tries to RAPE men and boys. It is used as slander by him. His main point in the book is that Mehmed was a terrible ruler, cruel, rapist and so on, to prove this he uses anti-Ottoman sources.

The sources are a few Byzantine and Western, as I already said the writers were anti-Ottoman and got their information from others or invented themselves.

I have partly read the book Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, now I understand the Turkish criticism on this book because I think that the book is purely based on hate. The title should better be Mehmed the Conqueror and My Hate.

The book of Babinger is not a standard work or valuable because of the ideas or opinions of babinger himself. Historians work with sources and Babinger has used numerous contemporary sources, he used valuable Ottoman sources for his campaigns and political information, while he uses lots of Byzantine, Greek, Italian fictional hate stories for Mehmed's personal life and puts these negative rumors as if they were facts. It appears to me that his personal opinion is very negative because he criticizes him in every possible way. He literally criticizes every aspect of his life, from birth, conquests, architecture, poetry to his family life.

For examples of his negative personal opinions. Online

In the section about poetry, page 473,474 he writes that to the Ottomans the poetry of Mehmed is considered as one of the greatest but adds himself. "he is hardly deserving such praise"..."the sultan was quite devoid of originality".. " things that have been said better a thousand time recur in these lines"

Then he relates that according to some sources Mehmed sent gifts of 1,000 aspers monthly to each of thirty Ottoman poets. Babinger then adds his own opinion "this may be taken as evidence of his generosity, but hardly of an overly critical attitude towards poetry"

He uses for his own negative and biased opinion some unreliable western/greek sources which he calls reliable. Only a biased reader can accept these stories as a standard work. I think the example of Saddam Hussein writing the biography of George Bush would be comparable to Babinger's book.

For the time of Mehmed only the contemporary sources are important. Especially the Ottomans sources, there are numerous contemporary Ottoman historians. To investigate the life of a Byzantine emperor ( for exampleJustinian I), one can not base his entire source upon some biased hostile Persian/Slav reports who state only fictional negative gossips. One has to know what the Byzantines themselves wrote of their emperor. Can you imagine that the same issues would be claimed on a Byzantine ruler by Persians the result would be a hate book like that of Babinger? But it is happening to a Ottoman ruler here.

But now for an Ottoman Sultan the valuable contemporary Ottoman sources are neglected and instead anti-Ottoman biased Byzantine/Western sources are used as evidence(!).

So there should be criticism added to these assertions (which few other sources) claim because the Ottoman/Turkish sources are disagreeing.

There is no reason to only add an Ottoman source which explicitly denies the claims, that is probably not possible. There is probably not an Ottoman book who states the Sultan was not bisexual. These stories are not mentioned or refuted by the Ottoman historians because these were not relevant issues, they probably were not even aware of the existence of such stories as the claims of Doukas or a Venetian traveller.

I want to add that basically the book of Babinger contains valuable information about the reign of Mehmed II but not of his personal life. DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue's unlikely to be resolved unless we base discussion on particular policies, works and criticisms, and exclude our personal opinions. So in the interests of staying on track, I'll respond pedantically to one thing at a time.


 * On "Mehmed the Conqueror and his time" as a standard work: my own google scholar search for "Mehmed the Conqueror and his time" produces these results. The book is cited by 86. That includes a review by Inalcik (in Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies, 1960 available in what I sincerely hope is a legal replication; and a comment by J. Raby in "A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts", Oxford Art Journal, 1982, available here, for some reason: "The standard biography of Mehmed is F. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time, Bollinger series, XCVI, Princeton, NJ, 1978". So yes, it does seem at least a standard work, certainly by the standards of some Anglophone scholars in 1978. A "standard work" is one that historians and teaching institutions regard as significant; they use it, refer to it; criticise and respond to it. They cite it, even if only to demolish its arguments or "facts". We might not like what such a source says but we can't be dismiss it just because it seems "negative", "hate filled" and "biased".  Colourful rhetoric about Babinger's work on Mehmed being analogous to Saddam Hussein writing a diatribe against George Bush doesn't seem apt or useful in working towards consensus here.


 * What Babinger says on p.475 of "Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time" is "there is ample evidence of Mehmed's leaning to the male sex" online here]. If we're going to use this at all, I think we should quote it as a bald assertion, unchanged. It's a mere "passing mention". On the other hand, if I'm reading DragonTiger correctly, Babinger has based this remark on material already covered in his own book. If that's the same material already dealt with as possible propaganda by more recent modern scholarship, all well and good - we can say so in our footnote. That much, I think we're probably allowed to do. But we certainly can't "demolish" the overall authority of a standard work by pointing out the author's low opinion of his subject, or by saying "hold on though, no-one else mentions this" - indeed why should they mention it? It may well have never happened. (And, contra my own suggestion on keeping clear of personal opinion, I doubt if anyone would have cared overmuch at the time, either way. Actually, the more I look at the issue itself, the more piddlingly small it seems.) Let's keep it in perspective; it's not a case of "true or false". It's not even about "facts" (God forbid). It's just sources, balance and due weight.


 * I'd be very much against the reinterpretation or rewording of Babinger's passing remark - or "assertion" - to justify Mehmed's categorisation as "bisexual" or "gay" - both constructs seem too modern to reasonably impose on one of Babinger's generation, let alone Mehmed's - unless (as I think I said above) he or his life are considered significant in LGBT studies. Haploidavey (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1)His book is valuable and used by many others, but like historians before him he only uses sources from the past. There are also famous Turkish historians who criticize him. I already tried to explain that most parts of the personal life seems to be based on weak, vague, biased, hostile sources and sometimes his own opinion. I think there is no need for this Wikipedia article to go into so much detail about his personal life when there is so much disagreement.

2)But since it is stated there should be a clear explanation of the criticism, if all agree on this.

3)After a consensus we should try get a permanent protection to the personal life section so to prevent hidden changes made by some IP. Because I think there will certainly be edits made by various IP to remove the explanation and they are not always controlled.

5)If you do not agree with the current version write your own here so we could discuss it.DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. I'll take a stab at it over the weekend. Haploidavey (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

his mother
"and his mother Valide Sultan Mara Branković" shouldn't it be Hüma Hatun Lagonx (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that sneaky bit of vandalism. Fixed. Haploidavey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the scrap book graphic that's included? Looks fake to me, probably more vandalism.  I caught this a long time ago, but ironically I typically access the web through Tor, which is unilatterly blocked by Wikipedia, so I was unable to revert the vandalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.208.150 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Scrapbook is not fake, it was found in the Topkapi palace. There are drawings and texts written in Greek and Arabic script. Including Tughras of Mehmed II. Here is link to websites and more images.DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Babinger
(In relation to the above)

Indeed the article on Babinger does not have even one source but exaggerated expressions like "was already an accomplished academic and linguist by the time he had completed his secondary school". Can I put an exclamation mark (!) here? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism to Franz Babinger and his work
'''In the category of work produced by Ottomanist scholars, the most thorough historical account of Mehmed II's life is Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, first published in 1953 for the five-hundredth anniversary of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople?'''

The author, who was a specialist of Ottoman-European relations in the Renaissance, gives a detailed account of the sultan's life, military campaigns, conquests and efforts to build his empire. Babinger weaves his own perception of Mehmed into the historical narrative; Mehmed, he writes "was one of those historical figures presenting the enigma of the so-called demonic personality.,, Such personalities, according to the author, are geniuses who soar above considerations of ethics; they are tyrants to their people, however posthumously are often sanctified, as in the case at hand.

Babinger sees Mehmed as far removed from the idealised image of the Renaissance prince propagated primarily by Julian Raby. He writes, "The only thing that Mehmed II had in common with the Italian princes ofhis time, was the cruelty and the abuse that he made ofhis co-operators, but that is not enough to declare him an man of the Renaissance.,

'''The author's life-Iong commitment to scholarship on this sultan does not inhibit him from positing persistently critical and oftentimes even sarcastic comments. In this manner, Babinger goes against mainstream Ottomanist scholars' portrayals of Mehmed which are for the most part flattering and unscrutinising.'''

Not surprisingly, Mustafa Soykut has recently accused Babinger of either being "excessively influenced by the centuries-old historical material he studied" or complying with "a deeper prejudice that was present untii a few decades ago in European historiographers on the image that they held of the Turks.,,

Soykut insinuates that Babinger is guilty of having written yet another Orientalist work: biased, condescending and, above all, Euro centric.

The critique is not unwarranted, although it is slightly exaggerated and does not account for the time lapse between their works and the consequent historiographical development

Unfortunately Babinger never published the pendant volume to Mehmed the Conqueror containing his bibliographical notes. Inalcik offers a very helpful supplementary review of the work, titled "Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time" in Essays in Ottoman History (Beyoglu, istanbul: ErenYayincilik,  1998),87-110. The review focuses on military, political and fiscal historical facts, citing sources omitted in Babinger's account and using them to complement and occasionally correct the 1atter's chronology. Mehmed's cultural policies are not touched upon, which wou1d argue reflects Inalcik' s academic interests and not a ready acceptance of Babinger's account.DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Source = Mehmed II's Portraits: Patronage, Historiography and the Early Modem Context, Eva Stamoulos, Department of Art History and Communication Studies McGill University, Montreal May 2005

Criticism of Turkish authors on Babinger's claim
I have found an article of Turkey's Zaman from 31.05.2003 about various Turkish historians (including Halil Inalcik) who criticise the claim of Babinger. However the article is written in Turkish and I'm already 100% sure that you will either say ''Turkish sources are not reliable, because we don't understand Turkish (even though it is a Turkey-related article), or you will find other ways to prevent me of writing the criticsm on Mehmed II page next to Babinger's claim.

Here is a link to the article. http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/2003/05/31/kultur/h5.htm

Turkish-speaking wikipedians your help is more than welcome!
 * Of course Turkish language sources are not less reliable for being in Turkish. If you can present a source that says that Mehmed was not attracted to men, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)
 * Only yesterday I added to the article's "Further reading" section the link to an English text of Prof. İnalcık's review of Babinger's history writing, but you two were so busy edit-fighting on Mehmed II's supposed personal choices in bed that possibly you did not even notice. I have difficulty accepting it, but I understand the "free" encyclopaedia making idea(l) of WP's founders have not resulted in the way -I believe- they hoped: That people would race to make the articles better and better. No sir, they have raced to add the best about their country, nation, autonomous community, favourite football club or preferred actor, actress or singer. What is even more regrettable, if I may say openly, is people (some of them of course) have entered a competition to throw mud on the competing singer, the "other" football club, the country that won a war against theirs in the XVth Century! et al. (I added something in Latin to look intellectual... :-) So this is where we are: Look at our Mehmed II article; is it about an Ottoman Sultan who transformed a small beylik (something around a principality) to an Empire? Where are all the scientific, literature etc developments of his age? Is this the same guy who brought Leonardo to make projects of bridges in Constantinople or opened the first university (medrese is not what some like to show; Ali Kuşçu was also educated in one of those medieval universities called medrese, not in Harvard) in Istanbul? Is this the one who opened the first Military Museum or made projects of new fire-arms? The same Emperor that formed a council of wise men of all nationalities and religions and asked all the major European literature to be translated? I congratulate ourselves on this success... --E4024 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
 * I did not ask this to you, but are you giving permission really?

This source is all about that subject, they are all Turkish historians criticizing Babingers claim. Do you give permission to add their criticism?DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally support E4024 and DragonTiger23 in this long and senseless discussion, which wouldn't be needed if you people just could resist the temptation and not insult figures, in this case historical, of another nation with whom you are not related. I am not saying you shouldn't edit pages belonging to another nation, but it is obvious that you people only make insulting edits and do not contribute to the article in a way you should i.e. writing more about what the man really did in his reign. It seems that Mehmed is regarded as a national hero in Turkey, a muslim country, so it is clearly an insulting provocation to call their national hero a raping pedophile (this is what Babinger basically implies) or something else their religion disapproves.

If the same or any other kind of insults were written on another countries' national hero page, people would have reacted in a same way as DragonTiger23 and other people who got offended did.

So in my opinion it would be much better for wikipedia if these kind of offensive sentences would not be written at all and in this case this weak source (the source is clearly weak, it doesn't come up with any evidence and one should also take into account that the book of Franz Babinger doesn't have any references, so he may have added, and in my opinion did, come up with his own inventions.) However the book does have very valuable content in some places, which have been referenced in the English translated version of the book.

Asking for sources that explicitly state that Mehmed is straight is completely irrelevant, because one could use the same excuse to claim another as whatever one would like, and if these sources do not exist, it doesn't make them the opposite.

Anyway, I want to conclude that the whole part should either be completely deleted, because the claim is very weak and insulting (see above), or it should be a seperate article like the one of Alexander the Great : Personal relationships of Alexander the Great

Let us try to focus on ending this dispute instead of making a long and useless discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.228.249.18 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * No justification nor need for Babinger's personal POV in this article, neither for an article on Mehmed II's personal life. --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP which "forgot" to sign its comment is probably a sock puppet of E4024 or DragonTiger to support their nationalistic POV.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Says the one who edits himself with constantly changing anonymous ip.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Having an anonymous IP does not mean having sock puppets. E4024 (or maybe you) uses IPs as sock puppets. Why do you ignore our answers? Consider Neutrality of an Article and give answers to our answers.--129.187.240.132 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Turkish historians on Babinger's assertions
I have translated the criticism of Turkish historians on Babingers assertions: I think this or a shorter sentence which I had added but was reverted by an anonymous IP |see here should be added.

Turkish historian Halil Inalcik responded to these assertions by stating that Babinger wrote his book with "an anti-Turkish and orientalist view."[|1] Inalcik, one of the foremost scholars on Ottoman history, said that "Babinger was falsifying history by stating that Mehmed was gay, destructive, murderous and a sultan sympathetic to christianity".[|2] He also notes that Babingers work does not provide enough evidence, contains errors in place names and that Babinger is unaware of the work of Tursun, Enveri, Ruhi, Idris and Kemal Paşazade, Ottoman historians and Mehmed's contemporaries.[|3] "Instead he based most of his information on erroneous Italian and Venetian sources."[|4] According to Turkish historian Erhan Afyoncu "he didn't use Turkish sources because he might be have been an anti-Turkish catholic."[|5]

According to professor Abdülkadir Özcan, "Mehmed was a man who did not knew pleasure and the last thing to call Mehmed is him being gay."[|6]

According to professor Feridun Emecan, the original work of Babinger wrote that the above-mentioned characteristics were based on rumors, but now they are presented as if they are facts.[|7] He also says that "it is unnecessary to respond to these unsourced claims, because it is obvious that the Byzantines came up with this to slander the man who had just brought an end to their empire."[|8]

In 1960 Halil Inalcik wrote a 20-page article in which he rejects and undermines Babinger's claims and corrects errors in his work.[|9] He finds it weird that Babinger neglects Ottoman sources.[|10]

Turkish historian Erhan Afyoncu states that Babinger misunderstood the concept of 'İçoğlanlar teşkilatı' who were children raised and educated in the Palace to become state executives later and not children who were brought for the sultans pleasures.[|11]
 * It is not only Turkish sources. You have to use NEUTRAL sources. Stop pushing your own revisionist POV. It is not funny. The bisexuality of Mehmet is well-known among historians. The Byzantine historian Doukas is acknowledged and had reliable ources. Please consider WP:IDONTLIKEIT; the "ban" of homosexuality in Islam does not mean that there are no gay muslims.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Inserted comment. No, sources themselves needn't be neutral. Just a reminder that Wikipedia's policies on neutrality apply to editing and articles. From WP:NPOV - "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."  Haploidavey (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes we know but I mean that the sources have to be non-biased (can you prove that that?), reliable and well-balanced.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misreading policy. Nowhere does it say that sources have to be non-biased; "bias" in this case is simply equivalent to "point of view". Editors should simply represent the spectrum of mainstream, reliable sources, whatever the point of view of that source, without favouring one over another - objectively, by any other name. Haploidavey (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the changes made by DragonTiger the "spectrum of mainstream" then? We reached consensus above and now he is comign and changing it without any real explanation. He and his friend E4024 are just posshing their point of view... Please read the Discussions and look at their edits.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These people are well-known Turkish historians, please stop this biased nonsense.
 * You ignored my answer and forgot (like the IP above) to sign your comment. You don't have to use only turkish sources. You have to use both western, contemporary turkish and NEUTRAL sources. You didn't either. Biased nonsense is what you are trysing to do (removing sourced content and changing it by means of your nationalistic and revisionistic POV).--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do Wikipedia Users have to be accused of being Turkish nationalist every time when they try to dispute the Turcophobia on Wikipedia?? I am not a Turkish nationalist at all but you seem to be a ????? nationalist yourself.... can you explain perhaps what your reason is to add raping of Children to this article?DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. The only thing I did was adding criticism to this claim from historians. I didn't deny western sources. I don't want to discuss this all over again. It is already written above. Go read that and please do not personally attack me.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was discussed thousand times (see above) and stood there as consensus. Now you came and push your islamic and neo-ottoman POV. And E4024 is heping you with his sock puppet IPs.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Babinger and İnalcık

 * I needed to bring this reading piece of Prof. İnalcık; Halil, Review of Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time from the "Further reading" section of the article, where I had added it, as I see that -although I had announced it in these talk pages- it did not attract enough attention. Do we have some resistance to important Turkish scholars on the Ottoman history, such as Prof. İnalcık and İlber Ortaylı? If not, using those minor academic names is really awkward... --E4024 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal relationships
This section has become an absolute mess so I'm going to re-write it. I don't suggest we get into a long-drawn out discussion about Byzantines hating Ottomans (and their modern day equivalents) but just present the facts in a neutral way. Several contemporary chroniclers noted that Mehmed often sequestered the sons of enemy noblemen in his seraglio, with the suggestion that this was done for sexual purposes. But I accept we also need to make clear the potential for bias in that the sources are mainly Byzantine. That does NOT, however, make them untrue. We should leave it to the reader to judge. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I found the old version better compared to your rewriting, there is absolutely no reason to go into so much detail about so called LGBT issues based on hostile Byzantine rumors "fantasies" lies. All these stories are already present in Babingers's book. Every other Western source is based on that. The article lacks real important facts/issues like the history section of his reign.The only "contribution" to this page is done by so called users who only add LGBT issues to discredit him. This must be one of the most non neutral violated articles in Wikipedia.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly I am fed up with your edits on this. You're clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/Ottoman bias and believe any discussion of sexual mattters reflects a personal "weakness". I haven't described this material as LGBT - you have. This is not LGBT, this is just presenting the facts. The new text I have is balanced and neutral, quotes primary sources and academic works. If you have a problem then argue your case line by line. Your argument that contemporary sources are 'lies' reflects a shocking bias. You simply do not know, so please don't pretend that you have a special hotline to Mehmed II. You don't. If you want to add to the rest of the argument then fine, I don't care. I am only personally interested in this issue. This article must NOT be used for propaganda purposes.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You've also added in huge chunks of text with highly questionable sources. 4 or 5 of the sources cited are not properly set out in the reference section. A good 4 or 5 of them are in Turkish script (can't we at least have an english translation), and one of them is from travel website! You're going to have to do better. Focus less on propaganda and more on creating a quality article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody forces you to edit an historical personality of whom you do not have any knowledge about. You have very few information about this sultan and your only goal is to add dubious LGBT claims. I have added information based on existing pages of Wikipedia and further improved the article but you are so ignorant and claim that I added " huge chunks of text with highly questionable sources". You have no knowledge about the historical events and persist on adding a detailed accounts of medieval Byzantine anti Ottoman stories. This was already discussed above read it again. This article main subject is the reign of Sultan Mehmed II, not dubious relationships and accounts of rape claimed on weak sources and hostile rumors. I am not pushing an pro Ottoman/ Turkish bias at all, I am neutralizing the article from pro Byzantine anti Ottoman propaganda. All those Byzantine sources are very negative and claim that there was RAPE of people/children not "normal relationships". Your own addition is very non neutral unnecessary hostile sentences which also changes the sources related to the sentences. I have already added criticism to these rumors but there is no reason that the article includes huge amount detailed discussion with pro and anti sources. Your version presents it like it was a fact and a small chance it was not. However according to the historical sources the article must emphasize that it was not. And also Babinger's book already summarized all these stories/rumors from Venetian and Byzantine sources. The sentence that Babinger asserted this and based this on Byzantine sources is sufficient and so there is no need to elaborate on these claims. I will always remove these LGBT lies here and I explained it on pages of text. I will try to improve the "huge chunks of text".DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me "ignorant". It has been noted. This is a violation of the WP rule to remain courteous at all times. You also say I have no knowledge of the subject. I have a university degree in early moden history. Do you? The text I have put in will remain unless and until you demonstrate convincingly that WP rules have been violated - the more specific you are then the better. Your insistence that contemporary primary sources are "LGBT lies" is breathtaking. How on earth you know that? I have also stated previously that this is not a debate about LGBT. It is simply an inclusion of sourced material. I don't care if it makes Mehmed look good or bad - that isn't my objective, and nor should it be yours. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of false things, so cheap ways to discredit people, I never personally attack anyone's user. You began with accusing my user of Turkish Ottoman bias/ pro Ottoman agenda. writing chunks of text without sources. That already shows you are hostile to me so do not pretend that I am. And you are ignorant of this history because you claim that I wrote "chunks of text" while in fact I am improving the article, which I already planned to do but useless wast of time with biased users adding LGBT issues prevented me doing. I will not let your rewriting in your own words be added, it is non neutral and unnecessary addition and so on it was already discussed before and you ignore that. And making arguments "I own history degree" talk does not convince anyone and does not work here. If you are objective do not insist on adding hostile detailed Byzantine propaganda and which is totally not relevant to the article and is already summarized in the assertion of Babinger.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to have an entire discussion on every irrelevant claim made by Byzantine authors? You are insisting on adding a very detailed version of a section of a history book written in the 15th century, which is absolutely not relevant to the article. The fictional story about Radu, this was claimed by the Byzantine author probably because he was a loyal Muslim to Mehmed II, in contrast to his brother Vlad III. Besides this story is not mentioned in any other contemporary author. Furthermore Chalcocondylas was an biased anti Ottoman Byzantine historian (Doukas describing him as a tyrant, blood thirsty beast, and probably worse if we would have a translation of these Byzantine historians original text in Greek) Who lived in the Morea hundreds of miles away from Mehmed II, probably never saw him personally or we do not even know on what he based this story. It is nor credible enough to deserve to be mentioned.

So a dubious claim of one Byzantine author should not be added to the article, like it is some kind of authority or the event actually happened. Read Neutral point of view

Besides during Sultan Mehmed II reign, thousands of people were killed, executed or made slaves. And thousands of young boys became part of the Janissaries. So the article does not mention all of their lifes in details so why Radu?The Byzantine authors probably misunderstood the Devshirme system by taking young boys as LGBT but in reality, they were trained as elite Ottoman soldiers the best of whom became leading Ottoman officaisl. And these LGBT issues are nowhere suggested by contemporary Ottoman authors. Taking of royal children as hostages was common throughout the world, but manipulating when Ottomans do it into LGBT relationships is distortion of history.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

'''Adding detailed and large amounts of claims of LGBT raping to this article is disproportional and not improving this article but distorting into some kind of anti Mehmed II page. One sentence in the personality is already is enough so there should not be more written about this subject.'''DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore WP rules and processes, and you are clearly showing a bias and lack of objectivity (violating NPOV). Much of what you set out above is original research. I will state again that the text I have added is properly sourced. If you want to challenge the sources then please go ahead; but it is not relevant to give your personal opinion of who did what in the 16th century. Your ramblings about "LGBT rape" show a worrying failure to grasp the issue at hand. If you continue to violate the rules then I suggest we get an administrator involved. Incidentally I think the rest of the article is a complete mess now following you additions; but I'm going to focus my attention just on this section fo now. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You ignore everything what I wrote. After I edited some LGBT issues regarding to Western royalty where you not yourself the person who immediately threatened me on my talk page and then aggressively went on undoing all my edits related to Western royalty and ancient Assyrian culture. You did not even discuss it but removed it all by saying "weak source" (They were not but it shows your hypocrisy) but somehow you do not understand that your "properly based sources" are weak and biased and should not be included.' So it seems you have become so hateful and hostile against my user that you are considering all my edits as mess. Be neutral yourself and do not overly react when your original research that you have added was removed. There was no reason that you rewrote and added more claims toward LGBT only to refute it again. Also in the refuting sentences you falsely changed the sources according to their sentences. Your version is presenting it as a fact. DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I have not made myself clear enough. I don't know if perhaps English is not your first language, so I will try and clarify to be as helpful as possible. The text I have under the section dealing with the fall of Constantinople is sourced with mainstream, and reputable academic sources. It does not matter whether personally I agree with them or not. If you have a problem with the text then either (i) you challenge the academic sources quoted - ie by arguing that they are not as robust as they need to be; or (ii) you add another robust academic source which makes the point that the events described are only mentioned by byzantine observers and so presents a risk of bias. I'm afraid your argument that they are biased alone is original research. I could equally argue that local muslim observors covered up the sexual activities as they wanted to present an image of a successful muslim warrior. I don't make that point as it is my opinion and I don't have the sources to back it up. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrators - please note that I have been described as a 'hypocrite', 'liar', and 'hateful' as above. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not know on which talk page you are but try reading the discussions above^^^^ Here Here Here Here Here Here Here HereDragonTiger23 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read it thanks. And none of this changes the points made. This is not simply about Babinger. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you did not read it good, the discussion is about the Byzantine historians not only Babinger, your account is based on Byzantine historian do you not realize that? So short story, it is disputed and claimed by few sources so there is no need to add detailed text about child rape. It is disproportional and not neutral towards the article personality.DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Risk of polemic
I am worried that this article is dangerously shifting into the area of polemic. The chapter headings essentially list 'conquest of this, 'conqest of that'. The article seems to be designed to present the figure as great conquering military hero. I don't dispute that Mehmed II may have been an important military leader. But I would not want to see the article being served to promote nationalist interests, which is my current fear. We deserve something better and more nuanced. Could I ask other editors please to be vigilant. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me guess you had no information or ever heard of sultan Mehmed II. Most of your edits are related to LGBT, mine to Ottoman history. I regularly edit Ottoman related pages but you would probably never come to the article if the following would not have happened. You saw an LGBT category removed on a personality and so because you believe this was wrong, you became very concerned and try to add it back. But maybe you do not understand that the sources for this LGBT claim were weak and disputed. This was already discussed on the talk page and it seems there was consensus. But if you are so eager adding LGBT claims when it is disputed and based on hostile weak sources. Then this page can be included to the numerous distorted history pages of Wikipedia. Well I have to say the numerous watchdogs of this page are for some reason not commenting.


 * About the rewrite of the page, yes Mehmed II was a very successful military leader, could you still not figure that out when even the title of the page is Mehmed the Conqueror? Your accusations of me promoting pro Turkish/Ottoman agenda are worthless cheap accusations which many made against me when I tried to improve other biased nationalist anti Ottoman sections.


 * On the other hand Mehmed II was the conqueror of Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire and other Balkan countries so it is not a coincidence that people can hate him because of this and try to present a negative picture of him. That was also the reason why those Byzantine authors wrote those accusations about children rape in the first place.
 * So the writers of the sources were biased, the historians who used them as facts were biased and finally the persons who added it to this page were also biased.


 * This biased behavior was also the reason that the LGBT claims of rape were added in the first place, the amount of hostility to the Ottomans can already be understand that for the addition of only one sentence "Turkish historians criticize LGBT" there had to be pages of discussion on the talk page, several edit wars and complaints to the administration noticeboard. Finally this sentence was "allowed" to be added, only to be removed by vandalism afterward without any of the numerous watchdogs undoing it. So you see unfortunately the page is frequently visited by biased haters and watched by users who for some reason never undo their NPOV edits.


 * So we all have to know that to edit a page being biased is not enough or necessary, having knowledge about the subject is sufficient. DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that if you think the violent rape of children falls under the category of "LGBT issues", then you have no place editing on this version wikipedia. Perhaps Turkish wikipedia might better enjoy your talents. You should also void making your attacks personal. I am also not a "biased hater". I am in fact indifferent to a historical figure who died over 500 years ago and has little relevance for the modern world, beyond an evident legacy of nationalist hostility. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You really have to stop accusing Wikipedia users and being so hostile to them, why are you trying to discredit me by using false accusations., is somebody here accusing you of promoting pro LGBT propoganda?DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A rather disingenuous response I feel. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fall of constantinople - removal of text
Future Perfect at Sunrise - perhaps you'll generously beg the indulgence of us mere mortals and enlighten us with your thinking on why the text relating to fall of Constantinople does not meet the rigorous requirements of WP. Not wanting of course to prejudice the dispute resolution, I'm sure we'd all benefit from properly understanding where we went wrong so that we avoid making the same mistake in future - particularly important for the "historically ignorant" among us.

The text you have removed uses material from the following sources:


 * (i) Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton University Press, 1992;
 * (ii) Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press, 1965;
 * (iii) Roger Crowley, Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, Oxford, 2006;
 * (iv) Walter G. Andrews, The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society, Duke University Press, 2005;
 * (v) Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies, 2011;
 * (vi)John R. Melville-Jone], "The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts.

I wasn't clear which of them caused the difficulty? Or perhaps it was all of them? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I note the page has now been protected. However, the question of material to include and use of sources has not been resolved. I would like to find an acceptable outcome and I call on those editors previously engaged in the discussion to show maturity and engage in a proper discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All in all, another example of crass, reckless source distortion and source abuse, on a block-worthy scale. This is not an isolated incidence, as Contaldo's earlier campaign of identical agenda-pushing on Talk:Ali Pasha demonstrates. Contaldo needs to stop projecting his own salacious orientalist phantasies onto historical sources he is evidently not willing or not qualified to understand correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Contaldo writes that "Several contemporary chroniclers have also written that following the fall, Mehmed deliberately spared the sons of certain noblemen from execution. These youths had apparently caught his eye and were subsequently sent to his seraglio, supposedly to be seduced. Most notable was the youngest son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras". This is supposedly sourced to Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time, p. 475 and 426–428.
 * p.475 in Babinger has nothing at all about this. (It does have a passing remark about him "leaning towards the male sex" though). There is also nothing on p.426 (which only says that "little light can be thrown on the Conqueror's private life", and that next to nothing is known about his women. I cannot see p.427 on Google preview, but there is again nothing on p.428 either, and the context suggests that the intermediate page is probably talking about his relationships with women. What we do find in Babinger, however, is a quite extensive discussion of the Notaras incident on pp.95–97, which bears no similarity to Contaldo's account at all.
 * Contaldo continues with citing Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, without a page number. Runciman has the Notaras incident on p.151. Again, there is no similarity with Contaldo's account at all; in particular, there is nothing about boys being "deliberately spared" who would otherwise have been slated for "execution" (it's just the opposite: Mehmed first treats the family with great favours and respect, and then makes a U-turn to execute them). There is also nothing about youths being "sent to seraglios".
 * Contaldo then claims that "The young Notares later escaped the harem and fled overseas". This is in contradiction to the account in Runciman, who says that the boy was killed together with his father. None of the sources that I've seen says anything about these boys being sent to the "harem" (a concept whose historical meaning in the context of Ottoman culture Contaldo evidently still doesn't even understand, confusing it with the modern notion.)
 * The passage goes on to say "Nor did this seem to be an isolated case [...] Nor were the detainees confined to Constantinople" This is unsourced editorializing (WP:SYNTH).
 * Contaldo then attempts to disparage critical accounts by ascribing them exclusively to the "fierce" (i.e. presumably ideology-driven) resistance of "modern-day Turkish historians". This is in blatant contradiction to the actual sources cited in the next sentence, which are all from non-Turkish authors.


 * Oh you are appalling. You are just so rude! What is wrong with you? "Crass", "reckless", "source distortion", "unqualified". As a native speaker, I find your use of the English languge provocative and nasty. Are you able to write or present an argument without directing personal abuse? Or do you think that as an administrator you are free to do as you please? Really shocking standards. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the tone I use towards disruptive agenda-pushers. If you don't want to be talked to like a disruptive agenda-pusher, there's a simple solution: don't behave like one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are pompous and arrogant. The siege and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 by Marios Philippides and Walter Hanak (2011) says on p.255: Notaras son did not witness the execution of his parents but was taken to the seraglio." Page 256 it says: other young men that aroused the erotic attention of the sultan escaped the executioner's axe. Sphrante's son included; nor was it just for Constantinople noblemen; but other vassals including Radu. Page 257 sets out the story of Radu's attempted resistance; it also describes how Notaras's son eventually escaped. Your previous references to a "sexualisation agenda", your discrediting of gay-themed journals as "not real history", and your claims of me harbouring a deliberate POV-pushing agenda lead me to have a genuine concern that you are uncomfortable with discussion of homosexuality. Why not stop trying to be so smart-assed. I'm interested in improving this article, not destroying it. You should try helping rather than launching personal bitter attack and personal bitter attack. When are they holding new elections for administrators by the way? Do I get a vote?! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, my user name is "Contaldo80" and not "Contaldo". I realise, of course, that for some editors English is not their first language - so I am always willing to be understanding. However, the user name shouldn't generally present a problem. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation about the Byzantine sources
Hi, I want to give here a short explanation about the stories concerning Mehmed relations. These are based on the following contemporary Byzantine historians, Doukas (historian), Chalcocondylas, Sphrantzes, Critoboulos(who was cooperating with the Ottomans and is pro-Ottoman) and a catholic priest named Leonard of Chios. The only Byzantine historian eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople was Sphrantzes. These are some contemporary Ottoman historians: Aşıkpaşazade, Enveri, Ibn Kemal, Neşri, Tursun Beg, Şükrullah. The book Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time, by historian Franz Babinger, summarizes most of these sources and stories and discusses them.

The subject about raping boys is based mostly on the following event: the execution of Loukas Notaras and some of his children, he was the highest Byzantine official after the emperor. After the siege, Notaras was first released and offered to serve the sultan but a short time later he was executed. The contemporary sources give different explanations about his execution.


 * Doukas, Chalcocondylas and Leonard of Chios state that he was killed for refusing to hand over his son to be raped by Mehmed.


 * Critoboulos states that Notaras was slandered by his adversaries (that he tried to plot against the sultan or bribe him) and so was executed but the sultan later learnt about the slanders and punished the guilty ones. Sphrantzes relates a similar story.


 * The contemporary Ottoman sources do not give specific information about the death of Notaras, they state that there was a execution of Byzantine/western leaders for political reasons.

Babinger relates this in page 97 (Online) and later adds himself "Notaras was believed to be enourmosly wealthy this perhaps largely accounted for the total extermination of his family". I think that the origin of "taking of boys" by the Ottomans may describe the devshirme system and was misinterpret as a sexual relationship by some Byzantine/western sources.

The second event was Radu's relationship with Mehmed.


 * According to Chalcocondylas Mehmed tried to rape Radu, who wounded him with his sword and then hid in a tree, Mehmed went off with his army but later returned and they became lovers.

Babinger in page 207(online) "Chalcocondylas describes at length an incident which allegedly took between them" but then states "Mehmed's passion for the boy is reliably attested" but does not name on what this is attested but I did not find other contemporary historians who describes this, so it seems that Chalcocondylas is the only one narrating this. Ottoman historians do not mention this story at all, neither does Critoboulos and so probably the other Byzantine writers.

The death of the son of Sphrantzes, (who was probably taken in the devshirme) is described by Sphrantzes himself as that he was accused of plotting to assasinate the sultan, there is nothing related to sexual abuse.

So the conclusions is that from numerous contemporary sources there is a dispute on most of the events. Everyone mostly wrote according to his own bias. As it seems that there is further really no evidence in Ottoman historiography about Mehmed's supposedly sexual relationships with boys. The likelihood is that the few sources who describe this are written as slander. Having homosexual relationships was seen in contemporary Ottoman, Byzantine, Western societies as very negative. So it is possible that the anti-Ottoman authors who describe these stories did it with an intention to slander, as they also further portray Mehmed as a evil bloodthirsty ruler.

So except for these brief stories there seems to be absolutely no evidence of Mehmed having homosexual relationships or raping boys. So the article must not present it as a fact. So adding dozens of LGBT categories as well as describing execution of Notaras in detail in the article is not necessary.

Combining the stories of Notaras's execution, Radu and the son of Sphrantzes in one piece without mentioning the above criticism and neglecting that they are very different subjects, only to prove that Mehmed was actually doing this seems to be a farfetched interpretation, manipulation of sources and distortion of history. I hope the admins will read this, thanks. DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting and clear and thanks for setting it out. But isn't the problem in trying to interpret what the primary sources do and don't say, that we're wandering into the territory of orginal research? Certainly that's a problem with your thoughts that there is a misunderstanding of the devshirme) system. The fact is that we have good mainstream academic sources, including Babinger but also Philippides/ Hanak that do cover the stories in an open way. The paragraph that I rewrote didn't actually alter substantially from what was written in the article previously (and indeed remains that now). My intention was simply to make clearer what was going on behind the statement that Mehmed was 'attracted to both men and women' (despite ongoing insinuations of my having a mysetrious "agenda"). We could have had a constructive discussion about where to improve the language in the paragraph to ensure it was balanced and to make the point that the evidence is not clear cut; but we sadly didn't. The paragraph didn't say the stories were true, and indeed maintained the argument that Ottoman contemporaries and Turkish historians disagreed. I could make the claim that Ottoman contemporaries covered up the actions of Mehmed for fear of embarassment, or that modern day Turkish historians feel uncomfortable dealing with issues of sexuality. But I haven't done this because do so would be original research, and I have no evidence to back it up. So again I return to the points made by Philippides/ Hanak and suggest we cover them, without commentary. If we have a modern source that says outright "these byzantine historians were biased" then let's use it!! Incidentally the point about my inclusion of "fierce" opposition is a mistake - that was simply a retention of the earlier wording which I tried to retain as mucha s possible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

More reference issues
Incidentally, I have to say that the other side of the story, i.e. the refs cited as critical of the pederasty story, suffer from some abominably poor sourcing too. Severe case of Google-snippets abuse. Just checked the following (fn. 20 in the disputed version [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmed_the_Conqueror&oldid=550796023#cite_note-20], cited as "Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Volume 88, Karl Krumbacher, page 281, 1995". First, Krumbacher is not the author of that piece. Karl Krumbacher was long dead when this was published. He is merely named in the Google bibliographic entry as the original editor and founder of the journal. The passage cited is only a brief bibliographical summary (written by Apostolos Karpozelos) of an article published elsewhere. The original work referred to is: Zachariadu, Elisavet, "Τα λόγια κι ο θάνατος του Λουκά Νοταρά" ["The words and death of Loukas Notaras"]. In: Ροδωνιά: Τιμή στον Μ. Ι. Μανούσακα [i.e. Festschrift I. Manousakas]. Rethymno: University of Crete, 1994. Vol. I, p.135–146. It seems we have it at our library, so if a need arises, I could go and check it, but probably not before next week.

Don't know who was responsible for inserting this, but Google snippet abuse is a pretty nasty form of disruptive editing too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was responsible for that source, I could not see the whole page online but I thought that this was correctly describing this and so I used it as a source, I was not trying to do it on purpose. DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

But I have found this source.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am conscious that this dispute remains unresolved. One administrator has suggested we re-list the dispute and they will give an opinion as to the way forward. Is the original lister happy to do that please? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution to Muhammad
The article currently contains the line: "''Reference is made to the prospective conquest of Constantinople in a hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad): "Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"''" I don't agree that this needs to be included. There is no certainty that Muhammad actually said such a thing; and if he did then it is not clear to me what relevance it has to the rest of the story of Mehmed II? Surely there is a risk of WP:SYNTHESIS here? If Mehmed had referred to the hadith during his conquest, then arguably it might have some resonance. Otherwise as we have it, it just implies that Muhammad predicted the fall of Constantinople (a lucky guess if true), and that Mehmed fulfilled a divinely ordained plan (of which there is no evidence to suggest that was the case). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The way it's stated in the article now the quotation indeed doesn't make too much sense, and the source given is certainly not a reliable one. But there does seem to be solid sourceable information to confirm that the existence of the hadith is relevant for the sultan's life, since in his own time Islamic commentators and historians connected the conquest with the hadith, and its existence served as a piece of ideological justification for his conquests. There's something about it in Babinger (p.85); some more here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems reasonable to me to include the quote if indeed there is supporting evidence as you say to suggest that contemporaries had made a clear link betwen the hadith and Mehmed's action. Perhaps someone could please amend the text to address this, otherwise I suggest we simply remove - because at the moment it sits very oddly. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As discussed above I'm going to take this quote out until we are better able to contextualise it. Very happy for it to go back once someone introduces some wider sources to connect the hadith directly to Mehmed. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source
The Adrian Axinte source is just some student paper from a school's Romanian Student Association (and a bad student paper - it doesn't even cite it's own sources). It has to go, per WP:SPS. This quote can surely be sourced from something more reliable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Mehmed the Conqueror. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131005000842/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts15/AH1474.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts15/AH1474.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFIaQq0J to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

His real name was Muhammed
I am not very good at English but i'll try to explain this.
 * The 1st Mehmed was recorded as مُحَمَّدْ in Târîh-i Rûhî (aka Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman) by Edirneli Rûhî (Edirne was the capital city of Ottoman state, Edirneli means "from Edirne"). This is one of the early records which was written in Ottoman Turkish, and the Arabic diacritics were being written in that time. If the 1st Mehmed's real name was 'Muhammed' then the 2nd one would be Muhammed, too.
 * If you search 'Sultan Muhammed II' or 'Sultan Mohammed II' by Google Books you may see there are many results from 18th and 19th centuries       There are even book titles such as 'Gentile Bellini et Sultan Mohammed II' (1888) and 'Djem, Sultan, fils de Mohammed II, frère de Bayezid II, (1459-1495)' (1892).
 * In Greek Wikipedia, the name of this article is Μωάμεθ Β΄ ο Πορθητής, that is, Muhammed the Conqueror. Μωάμεθ is the Greek form of the name 'Muhammed' and Μεχμέτ is the Greek form of the Mehmet, so they are different. I think this also proves that his real name was Muhammed because the Greeks can read the Byzantine archives during the Ottoman times and they know his real name. --88.251.40.49 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. These pieces of evidence together constitute original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia. We need a citation from a modern historian who claims that Mehmed's name was originally pronounced Muhammed. However, it might not be a bad thing to note that he is sometimes referred to as Muhammad the Conqueror in modern times, despite the fact that academic historians pretty much universally refer to him as Mehmed. Chamboz (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just found a result from Google Books: '''Asıl adı “Hz. Fatih Sultan Muhammed Han” olan Fatih' the Conqueror whose real name was Muhammed the Conqueror Han'' (İbrahim Sarı, Çocuklara İstanbul'un Fethi), 2017. The author is an assistant professor in the history field) --88.251.40.49 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that Mehmed/Mehmet/Mehemed is a Turkish variation of the Arabic name Muhammad, right? Variations of the name are common throughout the Islamic world and it is a popular name for boys. In part because Muslims are naming their sons after self-proclaimed prophet and political leader Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (c. 570-632).

Μωάμεθ (Moameth) is the Greek transliteration of the same name. Greeks also traditionally use the term Μωαμεθανοί (Moamethanoi, literally "Mohammedans") for followers of the prophet Muhammad. The term Μουσουλμάνοι (Mousoulmanoi, literally "Musulmans" or "Muslims) is considered more modern and polite, but the difference is often unclear to Greek speakers.

By the way, the Greek term Πορθητής (porthetes) does not exactly translate to English "Conqueror". The term translates to "destroyer" or "ravager". See "An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon" (1889) by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dporqhth%2Fs

His Greek nickname derives from the Greek verb πορθέω (portheo), which means "I destroy", "I ravage", "I plunder". See: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=porqe%2Fw&la=greek&can=porqe%2Fw0&prior=porqhth/s&d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=porqhth/s&i=1 Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mehmed the Conqueror. 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/20070705062303/http://www.bartleby.com/67/538.html to http://www.bartleby.com/67/538.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616144640/http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E7/268.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E7/268.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616144818/http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E7/270.htm to http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/banknote/E7/270.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.inalcik.com/images/pdfs/54847543MEHMEDTHECONQUEROR.pdf

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) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mehmed the Conqueror. 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/20070927092344/http://www.akademia.ro/articole.php?view=26 to http://www.akademia.ro/articole.php?view=26
 * Added tag to http://old.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=2790
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121172919/http://nauplion.net/M2-MEHMED-ElFatih-1.html to http://nauplion.net/M2-MEHMED-ElFatih-1.html

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) 13:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mehmed the Conqueror. 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/20130727041148/http://angiolello.net/ARCHONS.pdf to http://angiolello.net/ARCHONS.pdf

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) 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

/* Wider sexuality */
Hello, I am here to contribute information to Wikipedia for the world. Can I add more source for different persepective that denying previous stories? Because in Turkish source these claim is denied. Thank you.
 * Hello IP editor! I saw the source you added (before it was removed) and have been trying to find a digital copy - do you know if there is an online version? And is this Muhammad Farid the author? PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mohamed Farid Bey is the author, but I don't have online source. You can find the book in the library though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.72.38.237 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will keep an eye out for it. Do you have a page number where the author argues against the claim about Mehmed in this section? PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I found the book written by Muhammad Farid about Ottoman Empire's History, but it is in arabic. Here 180.253.12.149 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi to both of you. IP editor, please note that an Egyptian nationalist of Turkish ancestry (Muhammad Farid Bey) cannot be considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia. 's revert is therefore perfectly legit. Please do not add this again in the article without providing true reliable sources for your edit. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikaviani, thank you for your reply,could you give me the link for how to provide different perspective and argument that seems to one-sided in the article? Thank you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.72.38.237 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean a link pointing to a Wiki rule about how to write a well-balanced article ? Also, please use four "~" at the end of your messages in order to sign your comments and ":", "::" etc in order to properly indent the thread. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes please, I also mean how to provide contradiction argument in the same page. Because in that page I see that Mehmed II is pious muslim, and lgbt in islam is prohibited, but I don't understand how to provide the information without breaking the rule. Thanks 36.72.38.237 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first thing you need is reliable source(s) to support your edit. However, sometimes, reliable sources are not unanimous, then all sides should be represented with a neutral point of view. To learn more about reliable sources on Wikipedia, take a look at this. For neutral point of view, take a look at this. Do not hesitate if you have any other question, i'll be glad to help you. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the given source could be usable, depending on exactly how it is being used. The Farid reference was being used to back the statement that Turkish historians disagree with the allegations noted. If Farid denies the contentions about Mehmed, and if Farid is considered a representative Turkish historian, then he could be an adequate reference for that statement (i.e. - that disagreement exists, not whether the homosexuality allegations are true or not). But it is hard to say one way or another without actually seeing Farid's specific statement on the matter.PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if Farid Bey was a historian then you would be right, but as far i can see, he was a nationalist politician and therefore unreliable here. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He is cited as a notable historian here in the journal "Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East" from Duke University Press, that's good enough for me. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to proceed. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I took this out. Why are we citing a "historian" who died in 1919?! With the arguments being that Mehmed was a "pious muslim" and "homosexuality is prohibited in islam". These are laughable arguments - being pious doesn't mean that you can have a homosexual orientation. And there have been plenty of gay muslims. Can we be clear what Farid Bey actually wrote? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * : You're drawing my attention on interestings points, the source is quite outdated. thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * & Hmm, I want to ask some questions: 1. Why Farid Bey's source is outdated meanwhile Laonikos Chalkokondyles's source is not outdated? 2. Since Mehmed II in 15th century, and it is said here  that LGBT in ottoman was decriminalized in 1858. Does that mean before that year, LGBT in ottoman empire was criminal act? So does that mean being pious was that Mehmed II did not do something unlawful? 3. Since Byzantine was Ottoman's enemy back then, so if we want to balanced the perspective should we add source from the Ottoman's? (since Egypt was a part of Ottoman) Thank You 180.253.12.149 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello fellow IP Editor, I think they don't want (or can't?) answer your question. It seems there is an agenda to promote LGBT, but I hope I wrong, regards 202.80.214.151 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP editors from Indonesia. Please note that Laonikos Chalkokondyles's source is almost contemporary with Mehmed and probably more reliable than a nationalist "historian". Moreover, the fact that you don't like the current version of the article does not mean that there is "an agenda to promote LGBT".---Wikaviani (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't studied history at university so let me explains as one who has. (i) One is a primary source (contemporary) - the other is a secondary source (long after the event) and so less valuable. (ii) Having a homosexual orientation or engaging in homosexual acts is separate from what the law permits - people are homosexual regardless of the law. Religious observation and secular law are also separate things. (iii) If you have a reliable "ottoman" source than says that Mehmed could not possibly have done the things he was suggested of doing then please go ahead and do it. But a source from 1919 is too old to be reliable - it needs to be recent and it needs to be academically robust. No nationalist or religious apologetics thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK thank you for your answers, I am still learning it. 36.71.235.224 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If there is an agenda to enlighten people about history beyond narrow religious bigotry and ignorance then yes, there is an agenda. And I'm guilty. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wider sexuality
Why is this content in the family section? It has nothing to do with his family. Based on secondary sources, a separate section devoted to this sourced directly to the primary sources seems to be WP:UNDUE. I've only been able to find 2 sources that mention this so far, and those only briefly. One of them is LGBT specific, so it doesn't help to establish weight for his biography. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in this section are questionable. It's based on a primary source and two secondary sources. One of those secondary sources is Kinross (1977), who was a pop-historian and not a reliable academic; the other is Babinger, who was an academic but published his work in 1953. So we've got two very outdated works, one of which wasn't even written by an expert. This topic is worth exploring but it should be done with modern academic sources. As it stands, I don't think the current section is appropriate. Chamboz (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some content from Dynes (1992) but he doesn't mention any particular chronicle or Radu and none of the sources I've seen (except Babinger) that discuss Radu mention a homosexual relationship. I'm still looking around. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A relationship between Radu and Mehmed is mentioned in "In Search of Dracula" by Radu Florescu, but I am unsure of Florescu's sources. Trylia (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing seeing anything about a sexual relationship in Florescu, all I have been able to find on p. 21 is that Radu became a "minion" of Mehmed II and succeeded to the Wallachian throne. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been able to find several more articles and books that reference this relationship, but all point back to Chalkokondyles, as does Babinger. Is there a specific reason that this is considered an illegitimate source? It is possible that this is the only (relatively) contemporary source in existence. Trylia (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to know which sources you are looking at. Babinger does not specify the contemporary source, so it is possible that he is referring to Mehmed's own poems or some other source. Since he doesn't explain what he means by "reliably attested" we don't know. He only provides Chalkokondyles as a source for an alleged attack and then stabbing, but stabbing the Sultan and being forgiven is pretty far fetched. Even Babinger does not treat the source as fully credible. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One source (again, only citing Chalkokondyles) is "Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times", also by Radu Florescu. I'm having a few issues with Google Books at the moment and do not have the page number, my apologies, but you can find it in there via the search option. My earlier citation of the other Florescu book seems to be an unreliable source, as it does not actually cite a source on the material (pg. 20). "Vlad Ţepeş, his military campaign against the Ottoman Empire in 1462, and the forging of a Romanian national identity" (Smith, 2015) also directly cites Chalkokondyles' account of a relationship between Mehmed and Radu. I have found non-scholarly articles (in Romanian) discussing this but they may not count as reliable sources so I have not included them. The translation itself is in The Histories, Volume II (Kaldellis, 2014) but I am having trouble obtaining a copy. Trylia (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the arguments above for whole-scale removal of text which has been in place for a while. The version we had said: "According to the contemporary Byzantine Chronicler, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Mehmet took Radu cel Frumos, Prince of Wallachia, as a lover. As a direct result of this amorous affair, Radu subsequently received the nickname “cel frumos” (the Beautiful); and after the defeat of Vlad the Impaler, Mehmed placed his brother on the throne of Wallachia as a vassal ruler in 1465, demonstrating the closeness between the two. Chalkokondyles writes that "Because he liked the boy, [Mehmed] invited him to parties and raised the cup with lust asking him into his bedchamber. And the boy was taken by surprise to see the Emperor rushing on him for such a thing and stood against it and did not concede to the Emperor’s craving". Mehmed eventually forced himself upon Radu and kissed him, whereupon the latter stabbed the emperor and fled. The two were reconciled and "again he was the Emperor’s favourite." Mehmed also sent a eunuch to the house of Notaras, demanding that he supply his fourteen-year-old son for the Sultan’s pleasure. When he refused, the Sultan instantly ordered the decapitation of Notaras, together with that of his son and his son-in-law; and their three heads "were placed on the banqueting table before him". ". Is someone disputing that Chalkokondyles actually wrote this or is the concern about whether what he wrote is true? I don't accept that either Kinross is not a valid historian and concerned that sources are being dismissed because they are "LGBT specific". Can we absolutely clear please about what the problem is with the text before we take it out. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidently no-one disputes my concerns and therefore suggest we re-insert material relating to Laonikos Chalkokondyles. Happy to reconsider if other editors express a view. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, sorry. Your recent changes are ok for me. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection
Can we protect this page please. We are getting repeated edits from a range of unregistered users to delete the material on sexuality with no discussion and no rationale. This is very disruptive. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Biased formulation
"After the conquest Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire. The claim was only recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church."

This formulation seems slanted against his claim. "Only" among what grouping? Churches? States? Organizations? The League of Nations, at the time?

188.154.206.128 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality
The sexuality section is clearly coming from biased sources and clearly doesn’t state any proper facts or incidents but just rumours. Islamdiaa92 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)