Talk:Mehmed II

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)

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

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. --Isparta^talk 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)

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)

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 there 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)

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject History to identify important and significant events.

---

{{Infobox Historical Event
  |Event_Name     = Taking of Constantinople
  |Image_Name     = Zonaro GatesofConst.jpg
  |Image_Caption  = [[Mehmed II]] enters Constantinople by Fausto Zonaro
  |AKA            = Fall of Constantinople; Conquest of Constantinople
  |Participants   = [[Ottoman Empire]] ([[Mehmed II]]), [[Byzantine Empire]] ([[Constantine XI]])
  |Location       = [[Constantinople]]
  |Date           = 1453
  |Result         = [[Decline of the  Byzantine Empire|End of the Byzantine Empire]]; Constantinople made Ottoman capital; Began [[Christendom]]'s [[modern age]].
}}

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:

• Is Fall of Constantinople an notable event?
• Should this infoboxes be added passages notable events?

The infobox should be placed on this page. J. D. Redding 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Gennadios

Our options

These are the three images that have been proposed--I hope I didn't miss any--plus two other possible candidates.

• 

  the "Gennadius" pic

• 

  the "portrait"

• 

  the "hooked nose"

• 

  Bellini portrait

• 

  A "better" Gennadius (better colors)

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[1]. The original portrait needs to be re-instated and the other undiscussed change(which was changed on Dec 10th by Anon IP[2] 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..... Dinkytown 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... Dinkytown 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)