Talk:Osman II

Re: Changes
I have added back the paragraph on Osman II's military exploits—which was moved by OttomanReference to another article—on the grounds that this article, Osman II, should not neglect information relevant to the subject/person covered. The article is (at least at the current time) short enough that it is not overwhelming the reader, which is the general reason to start shunting information off to other articles (v. Long article layout), and any reader coming to this page and wishing to find here any information directly relevant to Osman II should—I believe—be able to find it here. —Saposcat 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no historical basis for the statement that Mustafa I's mother had anything to do with the janissary revolt against Osman II. I removed that statement. During Osman II's and Mustafa I's reign, their mothers were not very influential.  The great Valide Sultan Safiye (Mustafa I's grandmother, Osman II's great grandmother) was still alive.  She exerted a lot of power.  There is no record in history that Mustafa I's mother got involved with any janissary revolt.  Even after Mustafa I was crowned, his mother remained very obscure, so much so that her name is not even known in history (the only Queen mother of the Ottoman's whose name remains unknown).  ---Vikiyazar 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken away the reference by J.Goodwin stating that Evliya Celebi had purported written that "compression of testicles" was a "mode of execution reserved by custom to the Ottoman sultans". J.Goodwin is more journalistic in his approach and not a proper historian giving correct and real references. This is clear from his bibliography which contains not a single Turkish reference. Mind boggles when he claims that "compression of testicles" is a "custom of killing Ottoman Sultans". The only single case of regicide in the whole of history of Ottoman dynasty, starting from 1300 to 1924 involving 36 reigning Sultans, was the killing of Osman II in 1622. So how could one make a claim that there is a "custom of killing Ottoman Sultans"? Obviously, this statement is again an example of Orientalist journalistic approach to Ottoman history.  -


 * Osman II was not the only reigning Ottoman monarch to be killed, Ibrahim I was also killed in office. There are also other Ottoman Sultans who were killed within a year or two after they were deposed: Selim III and Mustafa IV to name a couple.  ‘Abdu’l-‘Aziz may also have been killed the same way, although officially he committed a suicide.  There are of course many members of the Ottoman dynasty, mostly contenders to the throne, who were killed due to dynastic struggles.  The mode of execution reserved by custom to the Ottoman dynasty was strangling by a silk rope because royal blood could not be spilled.  One must keep in mind that Ottomans had great respect and reverence for the institution of the Sultanate.  Even when a member of the dynasty killed another member, a full state funeral was held in honor of the deceased and the perpetrating member of the dynasty often wept at the ceremony.  The dynastic killing was often seen as a necessary evil.  It was deemed necessary to preserve the dynastic institution and the Ottoman state, whose esteem was viewed to be much greater than any individual member of the dynasty.  Compression of testicles may have been a method of killing men at the Ottoman court at the time (I seem to recall something like that) but it was definitely not used for the members of the Ottoman dynasty.  Evliya Chelebi could not have possibly made this mistake.  If J. Goodwin indeed states that, then he must not be very well versed in the Ottoman history. ---Vikiyazar 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuği's Account
You can't just paste a translation of Tuği's primary source account into the article as if it's fact to be relied upon. Tuği was a janissary, and thus a partisan of the group which killed Osman II. Posting a primary source like this means encouraging the reader of the article to do Original Research, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. The rules say you can't post long quotes from primary sources. Tuği has been analyzed by numerous modern historians, it would be more appropriate to provide an analysis of his account based on modern historians. See for instance Gabriel Piterberg's 2003 study, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play. Chamboz (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tuği's Account
This has been directly translated and not copied and pasted as accused. Secondly, this account is unbiased and an actual eye witnessing account, whilst the accounts written by western sources are based on " what they have heard ". This is a Turkish account and it should be included on the page so a different account is also read. Various Turkish historians have used this account in their works of Sultan Osman. I do not understand how you can continue to delete such a historical account very easily! Allow people to read a variety of accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baburhan 1 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

ok boomer

luigi says n-word in 18CE and Jesus gets crucified

"I contend that the purpose of Tuği’s text as speech was not only to entertain but also to establish a narrative of the Haile-i Osmaniye that would depict the kul favorably, justify the role they had played in the event, and render intolerable what was consequently inflicted upon them in Anatolia, especially in Erzurum and its vicinity."


 * From Gabriel Piterberg, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play, (2003), 67. Chamboz (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan
I cannot understand why it is not admitted that Osman II's mother was "Valide Sultan" during his reign. His enthronement portrait also features Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, her son ascending the throne in 1618, and Mahfiruz dying in 1620 or 1622. 2A04:2411:300:9800:CBA:6744:59C2:9090 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)