Talk:Mahidevran

Origin

In this article the sentence about Mahidevran's origin had been changed several times. Circassian or Albanian ? I badly need a reliable source to back either claim. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

She was an Albanian; her father, Abdullah Recai was a musician and her brother was Nakkashan Adem. In Albenian Gülbahar means Rosne Pravnere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.0.179 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

About sources

Mahidevran Sultan in Türkçe Bilgi = tr:Meahidevran Sultan in Turkish Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the pronunciation

Someone needs to check the pronunciation: stress and vowel length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.124.138 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkish People

It's wondering me about the Turks...

SO many false claimed about Mahidevran and a daughter of Süleyman , who called Raziye

Mahidevran had only one son, it was Mustafa.

Raziye was born 1519, as daughter of süleyman and fülane hatun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.138.199 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me but I can't see what are you wondering about ? Raziye was one of Süleyman's daughters. What does it have to do with the section head ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• raziye was born 1525... her mum's mahidevran... also mahidevran was Circassian noble... that is mahidevran's nephew's interview http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=iste-gercek-mahidevran-0910121200

Image

I removed a painting of Rosne Pranvere from the article. The source is "BBC your paintings". The original caption is only "sultana" and there is no reference to Rosne Pranvere. I called both the contributor and the gallery to show any link to Rosne and so far I get none. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated on the DP of the file on commons, there is no attested connection with Mahidevran nor with Bassano for this picture.--Phso2 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Title

The page Mahidevran Sultan should be moved to Mahidevran Gülbahar Hatun because Mahidevran was never a concubine or a Haseki Sultan and Hürrem Sultan was the first Haseki Sultan.--Retrieverlove 1:09, 22 June 2014

Not all Sultan's consort who held title "Sultan" after their given name were Haseki Sultan. Example: Mahfiruz Hatice. She's not Haseki nor Valide. Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Issue

Mahidevran and Suleiman had five children -- three sons and two daughters.

• Şehzade Mahmud (November 1512 - 29 October 1521);
• Şehzade Mustafa (c. 1515 - 6 October 1553);
• Şehzade Ahmed (c. 1517-18 - ?);
• Fatma Sultan (c. 1521 - c. 1576), married to Mimar Sinan;
• Raziye Sultan (c. 1525 - 1570), married to Taşlıcalı Yahya Efendi--Retrieverlove
• Şehzade Abdullah

References

Mahidevran Hatun

Why is she called Mahidevran Sultan in this article? Before Hürrem Sultan, every consort was called hatun. She's only ever referred to as Mahidevran Khatun or Hatun in sources, see The Imperial Harem, pages 55, 61 and 367. Letempsviendra (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Hurrem was the Haseki Sultan which makes her the principal wife and consort of Suleiman but Mahidevran's situation was also different form other consorts like Gulfem as she was the mother of heir apparent to the throne and the future Vailde Sultan. Keivan.f^Talk 09:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides, I just reverted your move so the other users can also discuss the matter. Then we can decide to use which title. Keivan.f^Talk 09:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(You reverted to a name that was not the original name of the article and you could have waited the end of this discussion to do so). She is called "Mahidevran Khatun" by Leslie Pierce, a scholarly source centered on the subject. Which reliable source explicitly calls her "Mahidevran Sultan"?--Phso2 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phso2 I moved the page back to its previous title. Now do you have any other sources that call her "Mahidevran Hatun" except the book written by Pierce? Keivan.f^Talk 12:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually the original title of this article was Mahidevran. (see History) I chose this title, simply because her name was Mahidevran (and not sultan or hatun). Both sultan and hatun are noble titles rather than her name. Since we don't need to disambiguate the name Mahidevran, the royal title is redundant. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. The royal title is redundant, we should return to the original title "Mahidevran". Anyway, she is also given the title "hatun" and not "sultan" in Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları by Çağatay Uluçay ([1]).--Phso2 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. So many other royals carry noble titles before or after their names and these titles are included in their articles' names. Prince, Duke, Sultan, Khan, etc. So if her royal title was "Hatun" then let it be as it is. Keivan.f^Talk 08:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa Anyway I have a question that you may have its answer. Can we include the title "Sultan" after the name of a Haseki Sultan? Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV) was a Haseki. So I think we should change "Hatun" to "Sultan". Keivan.f^Talk 08:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no established usage of royal titles in WP: See three different examples. Elizabeth I of England, Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II, all referring to the queens of the same country. But you can see that both Elizabeth I and Victoria needs disambiguation whereas Elizabeth II is immensely more notable than the two other Elizabeth IIs (a princess and a ship) . Consequently, no royal titles are used in the article heading. Since there is no other notable Mahidevrans I prefer Mahidevran as the title of this article. `Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa All of the examples you gave here are articles about monarchs. The protocol about the consorts is that their articles' titles should include their royal titles, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Empress Kōjun, Queen Sofía of Spain, Razia Sultana, Mandukhai Khatun, Empress Dowager Cixi, etc. Of course if there was another thing named Mahidevran, a ship for example, its article would be titled Mahidevran (ship) or Mahidevran Hatun (ship) and in my opinion it's not a good reason for changing this article's title as it has nothing to do with this page. Keivan.f^Talk 12:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa @Keivan @Phso2 Please see some references which proves her title to be Sultan. You may also look for Turkish sources like Turkish Philology; Türk dili: dil ve edebiyat dergisi, Issue 454. I want to make one point clear, Peirce simply didn't mentioned her title in her book, instead she added Hatun to her name which was used for every single lady at that time, even maids, and even today, Hatun (or Khatun) literally translates as "Madam" or "Lady". She did that out of respect. But Peirce's not using her title simply doesn't mean that she didn't have that title. For example, Chairman Mao's page in Wikipedia is Mao Zedong and Queen Elizabeth's page is Elizabeth II but it doesn't mean that Queen Elizabeth isn't queen. Mahidevran would have been called Hatun prior to Mustafa's becoming Heir Apparent, but as tradition goes, in entire Ottoman History, the mother of heir apparent was referred as Sultan. But even if that's not the case, the sources I have provide does claim her to be a wife, so it's apparent and obvious her title was Sultan. Worldandhistory (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Her name was Mahidevran. You can add many royal titles and epithets to it. In ancient and medieval times, the royal people used too many epithets. In some cases the number of epithets are so much that they make reading difficult. So it is best not to use royal epithets in the article titles. However one can add a section dedicated solely to the epithets, titles and alternative names (see an example in Tardu) . Thus I oppose both hatun and sultan. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa I agree, the page should only read as Mahidevran. Though you must keep in mind Hatun is not a title. And I would like to present some other sources which referred her title as Sultana. So I would strongly recommend to have it mentioned in her article. We should present all that every source has to offer and simply just doesn't present the history as we please. The sources provided, even if they are "snippet views" contradicts the motion that "Historically, Mahidevran couldn't be called Mahidevran Sultan".Worldandhistory (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Date of death

Keivan, do you really have access to the proposed source? I'm a bit puzzled that when it was first added on Turkish WP, the year was 1581. (besides, you don't mention Turkish among the languages you speak)--Phso2 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phso2 First of all most of the parts in Pierce's book are sourced except a few exceptions and death date of Mahidevran is one of them. I can't speak Turkish fluently but I have a basic knowledge of it. Anyway I had a discussion with the user who added this source on Turkish article (albeit in English) and he replied like this: "The empire was using Islamic calendar during that era. The source that your book (Pierce's book) has used may be an Ottoman source that was written in that era. So, if the main source for example says "someone had died in 988", her death year can be 1580 or 1581. The reason of that difference "may be" this." The current source which is used on the article says that she had died in the last month of 987 Hijri on day 16, which is exactly the same with 3 February 1580. Besides there are images taken by a user from her tomb and one of them (this photo) shows a note on her grave including her death year, 1580. Keivan.f^Talk 12:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

But on your talkpage Rapsar doesn't say anything about "the last month of 987 Hijri on day 16" and he actually wrote the date is 3 Şubat 1581. What exactly does the source say?--Phso2 (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phso2 I'll ask him, then I'll inform you. Keivan.f^Talk 08:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You should retry to finally obtain an answer. But anyway, it was a bit too bold from your part to change the sourced date from 1581 to 1580 only on the basis of the mausoleum photograph, isn't it?--Phso2 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2 I'm not running away from answering. Check the Turkish Wikipedia. I have already left a message on that user's talk page. Anyway, the date given on Leslie Pierce's book isn't sourced as well. As you can see all the sentences are sourced in that paragraph except that sentence. Also I didn't change that date based on a grave note, but based on a reliable source used on Turkish Wikipedia. Then you asked for the exact date and I told you to wait for a while. I again left a message on his talk page. Currently I'm waiting for his response. Keivan.f^Talk 17:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Now he has answered. I don't want to argue, but it was indeed you who changed the date from 1581 to 1580 in the Turkish wikipedia, so you lacked carefulness this time; but from now you will be more watchful.--Phso2 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

The Word Birinci Kadin means "First Lady" as in (respected) wife of reigning king, not "First Woman". Please correct that. She is known to be a legal wife before Hurrem Sultan, but not so popular since Hurrem Sultan was the first "slave" to become a legal wife, hence, only Hurrem's being a legal wife is so popular. 113.203.158.58 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Title of this page

I request a change of title, to revert it back to its original name (which was only "Mahidevran") and maintain its protected status. Why does she have sultan next to her name? The information given in this page reveals that despite being called addressed as a sultana she wasn't one, and before that edit came to be the page addressed her as hatun (and many others too ), which is also a title she's been given in other sources. She was not a sultana, she was a Birinci Kadin , therefore if any "royal title" should be used to her name it should be that; this is highly misleading and causes conflict with Ottoman history. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I second it. In fact the matter has already been discussed above (See section Mahidevran Hatun) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ, in many books (arts, literature whatever you may call) she has been known as Sultana. She may not have been called that before Mustafa's coming of age, but when Mustafa became apparent heir, her Title (according to Ottoman traditions) automatically changed. Also, a Sultana was a woman in Sultan's family, being a mother of heir apparent living in the Harem at the same time the title Haseki was used for Hurrem, it can be asserted that she was also called Sultana, due to the fact that in her time (when Hurrem came along) Sultana title was already started being used for royal consorts regardless if they were haseki or not, see example of Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, who was niether haseki nor Valide. Give me one name of the mother of potential heir to the throne (like mustafa) who wasn't called Sultana after 1500. Depriving someone of their last name or title for your own satisfaction is NOT just, it's highly misleading and causes conflict with Ottoman history. Also, she became an important symbol of how ottoman consorts never had a permanent position in Harem and politics as it was only after Mahidevran with whom the Ottoman started respecting their royal consorts, it is obvious, that when Hurrem Sultan was given such elevation the same time the mother of heir apparent was alive and living in the Harem, that Mahidevran was also considered as Sultan's family member and hence the title. Also please keep the recent source in mind about an interview with her alleged descendant. If interviews can be cited in Wikipedia for every living or dead person, why there is so much debate in this one? I do NOT understand. Here are some sources (regardless of their nature) they contradicts the motion that she wasn't called Sultan. She has been known by this title since Nurbano's time. No need to change the title. 113.203.150.188 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture and Ottoman court etiquette are two different things. Also, the rules are clear: no woman other than the sultan's own female blood relatives and main wife use the title of sultan . The references you've cited present a clear inconsistency with defined Ottoman titles and therefore they are invalid.190.218.117.86 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the point, whether she was a main wife or not. Whatever sources we can find, half of them supports the Hatun theory, the other half supports Sultan theory. Popular culture is defined from what had actually happened in the past, the existence of this woman wasn't thousand of years ago that we can assume the popular culture has adopted "myths". Also I would like to repeat a point I made earlier, the interview with her alleged descendant cannot be overlooked. Interviews are constantly being used in Wikipedia for every notable person, why neglect this one? If that is wrong, Wikipedia should never ever cite an interview source in any other article as well. Above all, her being mother of heir apparent is not a popular culture but a fact. While she was serving as the mother to heir apparent she was considered a Sultan's family member (Ottoman court etiquette), hence the title. 113.203.156.141 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, those references you've cited are: 1) popular culture based books 2) recent and based on art and theatrical depictions; as such, these references are unfounded and misinformed when it comes to Ottoman history. Therefore they can't be used. And for your information, she wasn't the mother, sister, aunt or main wife of the sultan: she wasn't a sultana, even when a theatre play calls her that. On the case of Roxelana, it was a nickname she was given that didn't elevate or lowered her status and wasn't a direct reflection of Ottoman culture but more of the influence she had on history. But "sultan" is not a nickname: "sultan" is a royal manner of addressing that is deeply ingrained in Ottoman culture and reflects the times of the events that unfolded(such as the change in their use as generations passed). "Sultan" had many meanings throughout history and did reflect the status and the way of interacting of the times; if we want to accurately depict history then, at last, she's a "hatun". One of the alledged theories points to her mother being addressed in that manner. In the times of Suleyman, not everyone could be addressed that way. The reason I call for a page title is to respect Ottoman customs and history, nothing more. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that many of those artistic/theatrical depictions are based on rumors and fictitious creations for the sake of entertainment. If you treat Ottoman history as merely entertainment, you're not doing your job to inform people. The title of this page has to be changed and needs to be protected from any form of cultural erasure. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me one more time. It is explicitly explained that the title "Haseki Sultan" was created when Hürrem married Suleyman. It is also stated that before "Haseki Sultan" all concubines used the title hatun. If "Haseki Sultan" was created solely for Hurrem when they legally married, breaking a 200 hundred tradition of not marrying, why should anyone assume that other concubines of the sultan would start using "sultan" if they didn't marry him? The change of titles was to differentiate a legal wife from a concubine/consort/unrecognized wife or however you want to call it. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A few sources does claim she was a wife. Specially every Circassion origin theory. We cannot overlook them. Hurrem and Mahidevran were 2 main consorts. Please see meaning of "Birinci Kadin" in whatever Ottoman Dictionary you like. Birinci Kadin was used for wives only, Brinici Kadin was not used for concubines or ordinary consorts, Birinci Kadin meant First Wife/Senior Consort. Although Sultans didn't used to lawfully wed their wives, Birinci Kadins were considered and treated just like lawfully wedded wives. Even so, a Sultan was NOT allowed to have more than 4 Kadins at a time (Brinci Kadin, Baş Kadın or Sultan Kadin was the first ranking wife), but can have as much concubines as he liked. This tells how important and high ranking Birinci Kadins were (see any ottoman dictionary you like to see what Birinci Kadin means and what was their positions in early history of Ottoman.) Though Hurrem was more favored, Mahidevran was still a wife and mother of heir apparent. I think it is obvious that the exception would have been made at that time for a non-Haseki consort to be called a Sultan. Hatun is not a Title at all. Hatun is used for every other lady in Turkish and Persian language. Even lowest ranking maids of the Harem were called Hatun out of respect. If Sultana cannot be used for a "Birinci Kadin" then Hatun should also not be used. People have done a great job depicting fake ottoman culture. Please consider all sources available. Everyone is emphasizing on only one source for the subjected woman that is of Leslie P. Peirce's and simply ignoring those sources/references/theories they don't like. Please be fair. I oppose changing the title from Sultan to Hatun. If you must, then make the title read as "Mahidevran" only. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We see that Birinci Kadin is what a woman who has bore a first child; you're overlooking what I said: it was Hurrem who married legally Suleyman and broke the 200 hundred tradition, not Mahidevran; in any case, she can't be called a sultana. It is clear by your statement that you're being subjective about this: you're looking for an excuse rather than solid facts to call Mahidevran a sultana. Mahidevran was: theoretically, the daughter of a hatun, a birinci kadin, but never a sultana: she didn't legally marry Suleyman. The problem with the sources you cite is that they're recent and are rooted in speculation, just as all of your post above. Please, change the title to simply "Mahidevran"; all the other speculation can remain in the biography part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.117.86 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The other wives, also not legally married to the sultan, were called "kadin" or "hatun". The first person of non-royal blood to be addressed as sultan was Suleyman's mother who the title "Valide Sultan" was created for; then "Haseki Sultan" was created for Hurrem when they married. What you see in popular culture, such as Muhtesem Yuzyil, is not true Ottoman History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.117.86 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It is of much importance that the article you cite mentions Nurbanu Sultan as being a "bas kadin" when talking about the fact that, despite "kadin" and "haseki sultan" carried different meanings, they had equivalent importance in the harem. What matters is, as Nurbanu wasn't a legal wife, she was still a kadin; she is mentioned as a sultana in wikipedia because she became Valide Sultan. Mahidevran wasn't a legal wife nor became the mother of a reigning sultan; you should read your own sources too, since it specifies the differences between a concubine and a legal wife.190.218.117.86 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am not making excuses I just refuse to believe that a "Brinci Kadin" wasn't called Sultana when she was serving as a mother of heir apparent and living in the Harem the same time title "Sultan" was started being used for Sultan's consorts. Again it's just my opinion to me it looks like a fact. We have not seen another such example after 15th century of a Senior consort being not called Sultana. Not all Haseki married the Sultan, if Hasekis can be called Sultana without marrying the Sultan so can the Bas Kadins. Also note the rank Kadin or Birinci Kadin ended with Mahidevran, this rank changed to Haseki Sultan (logically this is what happened). Though Hurrem must have been called Sultana first, the Ottoman dynamics simply couldn't allow such discrepancy within the Harem that once the title "Sultan" is started being used for favorite wives, that they don't called the first favorite with the same title. Hope you got my point. And you said that her being called Hatun or NOT being called Sultana is a Fact. I am sorry but Facts do NOT leave room for doubts. And there is lots of lots of doubts about the title of this woman. Like mentioned before, popular culture adopts from what has happened in the past. Again, it's just my opinion I still oppose the change of title. Thank you. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It is stated that kadins and hasekis carried equal rights in the harem, so why are you so passionate to call her sultana if she wasn't married to Suleyman? And for your information, if you read all the wikipedia articles, all women that didn't marry the sultan stayed as hatun unless they became Valide (as Nurbanu). I already gave you all evidence, but you insist on calling her a sultana because you "assume" Birinci Kadin and Sultan mean the same: they are applied to concubine and legal wife accordingly and therefore don't mean the same. It is clear you don't have the intention to make this wikipedia page historically accurate. And for your info, they all married the sultan and were legal wives, and those that weren't married were called hatun. This article is literally the ONLY one in wikipedia to call a hatun a sultana. Please stop making assumptions and accept the facts, this article needs to be changed to only Mahidevran, and all the theories and speculations, and doubted accounts can remain in an subtitle, because "doubt" and "speculation" do nothing to educate and help people. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Like I said it's just my opinion. As a contributor I put my vote out in opposition to your suggested theory. You don't have to get into the debate with me. For your point, to educate and help people, one must use their own mind, every subject needs it's teacher (interpretative). If you would only read what I wrote with the intention of understanding you would understand my point, but it seems you only read to reply back with a negative comment each time. Please tell me why is she the ONLY "Hatun" that has been called "Sultana" anachronistically in Arts, popular culture and literature? Why didn't the popular culture or popular history books mentioned any other Hatun ranked consort a "Sultan"? why only this woman have both Hatun and Sultan theory? It's simple, in her time when she was living in the HAREM as a Bash Kadin and mother of heir apparent, (between 1500 to 1533) the title Sultana was started being used for Hurrem Sultan, a new title was created as "Haseki" hence it can be asserted a new title was also created for the Birinci Kadin. Ottoman Court Etiquette doesn't allow the discrimination as suggested by you to a Senior consort of Sultan who is also the most potential future Valide Sultan. Give me one source apart from Leslie P. Peirce's book that says only lawfully wedded consorts carried the title Sultana. And once again, why didn't popular culture ever mentioned another Hatun ranked consort a Sultan? It's because popular culture is adopted from the actual events. I do NOT say she was indeed called Sultana, I say there are more chances of her being called Sultana and very little chances of her being called Hatun, after all to date she is referred by Sultan title by many. That is my point. Thank you. 113.203.190.165 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, unlike yours, I'm not fabricating a theory! If it was up to people making subjective propositions for every wikipedia page, then there would be millions of the same subject; there can't be 6 billion wikipedia pages of the sun, there can't be 6 billion pages wikipedia pages of earth, and of course there can't be 6 billion pages of Mahidevran. There must be only one, with correct facts that inform people with the necessary information, and the reader, not the editor, is the one who makes the interpretation. You can infer and speculate and theorize all you want, but history is history and I find it highly disrespectful and arrogant that you think your abstractions are worth more than the reality of events. I request moderators to change the title of this page to "Mahidevran" only and if they find it pertinent as well, to retain the speculations in a subtopic within the page. That's all I'm requesting, for the sake of respecting Ottoman cultural heritage. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually you are the one making subjective propositions here. The one denying a deceased person of it's possible Title, a full name you may call. I asked a simple question and you failed to answer because you cant. Let me repeat it; why didn't popular culture ever mentioned another Hatun ranked consort a Sultan? Also, why does these History Books (not popular history books) referred her as Sultan? Find a sensible answer please and then come back with your personal comments. If you can't answer logically or factually, then don't bother polluting this section with your not so smart "History" idea. It seems you consider a Talk page as a comment war section, well it's not. 113.203.190.165 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did popular culture assume, for example, that Hurrem was participant in the executions of Ibrahim Pasha and Mustafa? Why popular theatre plays describe her character despite strangers of all types being forbidden into the harem? All the facts have been laid out but you still want to call Mahidevran a sultana when she wasn't: she didn't legally marry Suleyman, nor was the mother of a sultan. Popular culture calls her that way because in some theatre plays she's erroneously addressed like that, just as any work of FICTION. Where are the administrators of this page anyway? Please, if there's someone who can review this and make a decision quickly. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Denying a deceased person of its possible title" you just put yourself in evidence here. It's not her possible title and you think this is a joke. She's a hatun, not a legal wife, still had similar privilege as a haseki, her son didn't become sultan: all the facts point to her not being officially a sultana. You can cite thousands of pop culture books with erronous facts, rumours and misconceptions. But at the end of the day, that's all irrelevant. And it's not "my" idea of history, I'm respecting the facts; if anyone's fabricating their own fantasy is you with your admitted speculations and possibilities.. Don't even start to talk about facts when the come from a theatre play. 190.218.117.86 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your yet another personal comment attack proves that it's not the History you're worried about but your own opinion. For the record, The books I referred are History books, recalled by actual accounts, I didn't cite a popular history book or a theater play. In official account, not all consorts who was referred as SULTANA was legally married to Sultan nor was the Valide Sultan. Yet they were called Sultana for being Sultan's Kadins (Wives) You have a very little knowledge you are only referring to a few (if not one) online source and claiming that was it. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. This has to stop, no factual person will buy your theory. Theories I presented are with facts of ottoman etiquette and evidence from History books. Please don't get personal here it's just a talk page. Everyone has a right to put their opinion and I just put mine. For the record, you still failed to answer my question, rephrasing; why in some theatre plays she's the only Hatun ranked consort who is erroneously addressed like Sultana? Why not any other Hatun has that article differences. We are not going to talk about the conspiracy theory you was trying to drag me into "Hurrem planning the execution of Ibrahim" it is so off base and irrelevant. Thank you.113.203.163.165 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think both theories are correct, general logic can be used in Wikipedia IF the sources available contradicts each other, but even if she was called Sultan there is no need to mention it in the Title. Simply putting Mahidevran in the title will be better. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the latest proposal. The title of this page should read as Mahidevran or Mahidevran Gulbahar. No title is suitable for this page, niether Sultan nor Hatun since users can't agree. There is a possibility of both titles therefore no title should be put in. Worldandhistory (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC) ((reftalk))

Reliability of an Interview

There is no consensus to add the interview of an "alleged descendant" of Mahidevran to this article. Interviews of "alleged descendant" are not reliable sources for an history article, and the burden of demonstrating their reliability falls upon the editor who want to introduce them, as is written at WP:INTERVIEWS. If he still insists, he can bring the source at the reliable sources noticeboard and ask for an opinion there. Alex2006 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alex2006 I read the Interview Policy and you made a fair point. But here the interview is presented NOT as a reliable source, but as a possibility. In other words, the interview is suppose to be (only) mentioned in the article, but not to rely on it's content. I do not recommend extracting information from the interview or citing it as a reference, but the interview itself should be mentioned; a historical personal have been claimed to be the ancestor of someone, is just a minor information update. I don't think there's any policy violation in it. For example, the article didn't change it's content based on the interview but simply put the information that for the said person an interview have been published.113.203.145.252 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP, thanks for writing. On an encyclopedia everything must be cited, also hypotheses or possibilities. What was reported here is still a gossip (the interviewee is described as "alleged" in the paragraph: this means that we don't even know whether she is a true descendant or a pretender), and so remains until it has been reported by some professional historian. If you are still not convinced, I advise you to bring this source to the Reliable sources Noticeboard and ask for an opinion there. Alex2006 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alex2006 I really don't know who added the word "alleged" into the section, if you can read Turkish you can read the interview here . It's of Saide Perizat, a man living in US fighting with cancer. I suppose by now he's also dead. Even if not, I don't think a dying person would lie about something like this, I mean if somebody wanted to gain popularity before dying in US he could have claimed to be descendant of Elinor Roosevelt. He also posted a 500 year old sketch of Mahidevran signed by Al-Asaf (a known artist from 16th century in Turky, France and Egypt. I don't want to go to the notice board thing because it's not that important to me besides I don't know how to use it, but as a fair user you should talk and discuss with others on talk page before jumping into conclusion. I suppose you just didn't like that someone wasn't agreeing to your edits so you bought an admin with a frankly smile and humor and decided to lock the page. This is unfair. That's all I am saying.113.203.218.212 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear ip, yes, I know some Turkish, so I read it. The content of the article is apodictic, the web site where it appeared ("kültür mafyasi") does not appear to be an academic source, the interviewer is not a historian, the fact that this guy was sick (a most disgraceful thing) is uncorrelated with the reliability of what he said. For me it fails completely the criteria for reliability, according to WP:RS. If you want to go to the RSN it is enough to click the link which I put above and present the source. Finally, I have no preconcept about this hypothesis: we just need here a solid source, that's why we are discussing here now. Alex2006 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I’ve listed all possible origins of Mahidevran. I found one more (from a reliable orientalist Nicolae Iorga) But now I am unfortunately unable to add it because Alex has asked an admin to protect the article. How wrong . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa, about what you wrote below and in the talk page: you should not write all the possible origins of Mahidevran, but you should report all the possible origins which are supported by reliable sources. All the rest is WP:OR. This is one of our main tasks here: evaluate the reliability of the sources. About the "compromise" that we should seek, you are wrong again: about sources, there is no compromise: if it is reliable, the edit is valid; if is not reliable, the edit is challenged and removed. After the removal, the burden of showing the reliability falls on the editor who inserted it. BTW, this is wikipedia 100. A last remark: I asked the intervention of an admin (not the protection of the article) because my removal has been reverted twice by the ip above, and I don't like edit warring. I think that he acted correctly. Anyway, 2 week go by fast... ;-)Alex2006 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You can try requesting unprotecting at WP:RPP. Can you please share the new information with me here? Just curious. I am really interested knowing I have done a lot of research on this Woman alongside her rival Hurrem, turns out they were also in good terms and the alleged fight between the two never took place. I once went to National Library of France years ago and read about her, she was described as a wife (legal or not) but was presented to Suleiman as a gift (I assume from her father, must be a notable person), also the first woman whom a Sultan allowed interference in political matters. It was also mentioned that when a price Suleiman was entering Imperial palace her main consort accompanied him side by side (I assume that was Mahidevran). Too bad I didn't take notes to cite here that time I was obsessed with Mariam-uz-Zamani, Lisa del Giocondo and Kösem Sultan so I ignored that plus I didn't even knew about Wikipedia back then. I respect Wikipedia's policy therefore I didn't even bother bringing up the topic since I do not have any source to claim. I don't even remember the book's name. But I am trying to make this page as accurate as possible. If I find the sources I will let you know.Worldandhistory (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected for 2 weeks due to edit warring and content dispute concerning a BLP

Sort it out. If you all come to an agreement earlier let me know. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Chief consort

The Haseki Sultan was chief consort, and Hürrem Sultan was Süleyman's. Note that I'm not saying that Mahidevran was not chief consort before the title Haseki came into use, but it's clear that she didn't continue to hold the title. Not to mention that "was a chief consort" doesn't make much sense, because a implies that there is more than one which is a contradiction to the meaning of chief. 2003:6A:6851:3301:2906:2827:AE05:4542 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This was the era when title Birinci Kadin came to an end and Haseki was started (not to mention not all Hasekis were legally married) hence in this case it implies that both Birinci Kadin and Haseki was considered chief consorts, like the note 2 says; as long as Mahidevran was resident in imperial palace, Suleiman and Hurrem's wedding didn't take place (see dates). Adding "chief consort before Hurrem Sultan" according to me is important because even at that time Suleiman had at least 3 other consorts. 113.203.134.17 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have reliable (i.e. academic, not vulgarization like Freely) sources supporting this?--Phso2 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about the claim you want a reliable source for? I assume everything is cited in the article (please see date of Hurrem and Suleiman's wedding) also, the sources are present which tells Gulfem Hatun and Fulane Hatun were also consorts. Birinci Kadin hold the status of chief consorts before Title Haseki came to being, so it is admissible in WP to extract a present reliable source. For instance, you can't ask a source to claim that "Paris is the capital of France". Also I think until 1533 or 1534 (the wedding) there were 4 consorts resident in imperial palace, so there is no harm in mentioning that she served as a main consort. 113.203.134.17 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's begin by "Birinci Kadin hold the status of chief consorts before Title Haseki came to being". Which reliable source does support this?--Phso2 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive me for poorly formatting sources. Here's how I learned. "Kadin's were the Sultan's favourite women. Tradition allowed only four principal Kadins but unlimited number of concubines. Kadins were equivalent in rank to that of a legal wife, and were given apartments, slaves, and eunuchs." "Baş Kadın was the first women of the Palace harem."

All the references can be found here . If you are not convinced we can try to get this on reliable sources noticeboard. As far as I have researched, every Web verifying organization has approved of it. Many books (you may easily google) have also referred to this website for references. Since founded in 2002, no complaint about the unreliability of it's sources has been made by Turkey Govt. I don't think the Turks would have been so quite and this web would have been still available if it wasn't authentic. 113.203.146.216 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I see 2 major problems:

1) What the website provides is only a general description. According to Peirce (pp 108, 118, 312), it was valid only from the end of the seventeenth century on and not to the beginning the the 16th.

2) The site doesn't match the criteria for a RS. It claims to be non-commercial, however it is a showcase for the commercial site ottoman.com. The legal notice itself doesn't claim reliability, as it specifically warns that "LUCKYEYE GROUP MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THIS WEB SITE OR ITS CONTENTS, WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR USE "AS IS." (...) LUCKYEYE GROUP ALSO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO WHETHER THE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE VIA THIS WEB SITE, OR ANY WEB SITE WITH WHICH IT IS LINKED, IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, OR CURRENT. It is your responsibility to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of all information, opinions and other material on this Web Site or any Web Site with which it is linked."--Phso2 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org is an organization, which have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) contributors who create encyclopedia on pretty much everything. They use sources/references and hence it is most reliable form of online information. (Not comparing here though) Web site theottomans.org does the same except it is solely dedicated to the Ottoman's history, with no different opinions of multiple users, Cited work and references can be found as well. So it makes it a reliable source for this subject I think.

For Peirce's book:

1) She didn't write about the positions and roles of consorts before 16th century (only a "sex slave" or "child producing machine" like image is presented for all the consorts - which really wasn't the case - Though things about Harem women were obscure, such treatment of consorts is not possible in an Islamic dynasty) so if we have a source which is solely dedicated to the relevant subject, then there is no Harm in citing that.

2) In Peirce's book, she wrote about the change of title from "Haseki" to "BAR KADM (although originally it was Kadin Effendi)" not Bash Kadin or Birinci Kadin (totally different). Hence it does not implies that the information was valid only from the end of the seventeenth century on and not to the beginning the the 16th. So I don't think there's any harm in citing theottomans.org. Specially since it's the only source available for the description of consorts before 16th century. However, this topic can always be taken to reliable sources noticeboard. 113.203.138.252 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, I forgot to mention, Bernardo Navagero and John Freely, both have mentioned Mahidevran as Kadin. Plus even Leslie's books' contents themselves contradict each other, for instance, (p. 107) you can find that Sultan Ibrahim had eight Hasekis. The book says Hasekis were chief consorts, hence there couldn't be 8 chief consorts of a Sultan. So my opinion there's no harm or violation of WP in citing from theottomans.org. 113.203.138.252 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You have to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, ottoman.org doesn't meet the criteria; by the way Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Peirce indeed "writes about the positions and roles of consorts before 16th century" and she IS a reliable source along wikipedia's standards. Please tell where Navagero "mentioned Mahidevran as Kadin", i don't think you really read Navagero, did you? That Ibrahim had eight hasekis is not a contradiction, since the title lost its prestige in the 17th century; did you read Peirce's book?--Phso2 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me but no, I didn't read the full book. Honestly I only have access to the online book with some pages missing so I only read the pages that are available. But you are right she indeed wrote about the consorts before 16th century but like I said it only gives a "sex slave" and "child producing machines" like image of them, which is harsh to digest. I do not say theottomans.org is purely reliable source, but I only say that there's no harm in citing it since it is the only source besides Peirce's which gives an overall look inside the Harem life of women with a little more respect. Bernardo was not an author and it's impossible to read his direct publications he died I think in before 1600cc, but in every history book focusing on Sulieman, they have used Bernardo's reference time to time with Bernardo quoting "Kadin" for Mahidevran. Which is not Hatun, used for Gulfem and Fulane, his other wives. And note that he died before title Haseki ended and KADIM was started. I will read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources upon your recommendation again, but so far I think there is no harm in citing theottomans.org. 113.203.149.94 (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read Peirce's book P. 30, "the mother of a child enjoyed a legally and socially enhanced position." Going on next page (p. 31) the book itself admits how elusive it was to find about the consorts and and their children. The book somewhat put a light on the position of prince's mothers at the same time admitting their positions, rank or even quantity to be obscure. So if we have a source (theottomans.org) giving a brief sketch of the controversial subject, then there is nothing wrong in mentioning it. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please state precisely where you found a citation of Navagero "quoting "Kadin" for Mahidevran" in a reliable source. The fact is that Navagero's account is published and freely available on the net, and he doesn't seem to use the word "kadin" (nor does he use the name Mahidevran...); but it is very probable that the unreliable sources you rely on are misquoting their sources and don't give precise references to their writings. Freely for example isn't stricty speaking misquoting the "bailo" he alludes to, but the sentence is misleading the reader because it induce him to understand that the "birinci kadin" part is also from this "bailo", when it isn't.--Phso2 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: That Peirce "only gives a "sex slave" and "child producing machines" like image of them" is both totally unfounded and our own interpretation.

Author Jagatai Uluche has used Navagero's reference in his books Harem, Harem 2 and Manisa tarihi (in last book he referred her as Circassian). It is not Interpretation that the book emphasizes on "concubinage" you can read it yourself, presenting royal consorts as sex slaves and child bearing jobs. "One child and out of bed" this is disturbing and very disrespectful towards Ottoman's history. If you still back her book you can read online reviews of Peirce's book, it's available on internet for free. It shouldn't be difficult to do some research on your favorite author. Coming back to point, she failed to describe the positions and ranks of Harem women before 16th century, so we now have a source theottomans.org giving an overall view we can cite. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: You failed to acknowledge the point about the material present in page 30 and 31 of Peirce's book. (Sorry had to re-edit)

That Çağatay Uluçay cites Navagero is not at stake, but he certainly doesn't claim that Navagero uses the term "birinci kadin". Your assumption that a Western scholar working on Ottoman history is motivated by a wish to be "disrespectful towards Ottoman's history" only show your own prejudices. That she asserts that it is difficult to ascertain the real identity of the mothers of the sultans is a sign of caution, it doesn't imply that websites or authors making unsourced claims are more reliable.--Phso2 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Phso2, this debate seems to be infinitely long, and diverting the focus from this article to Peirce's book. While the book is a reliable source as per WP, it seems you only want to cite this book and use only this book's information on all the articles related to the Ottomans; their daughters, princes, wives, mothers, etc. As we can clearly see from your contribution list. Your stubbornness of using only Peirce's provided information while neglecting other possible sources shows your own prejudice, not anyone else's. Unless we have another source which gives us the sketch of positions of Sultan's consorts in Harem, the WEB SITE can be cited, because there is no mentioning of consort's positions and their status in their master's harem in Leslie's book. If you are, however, still convinced that only Peirce's book is authentic source for the Ottomans, try putting this "concubinage" information in Ottoman Empire in details as explained by Leslie and see the response of Turks and Ottoman followers by yourself. My only request, please don't emphasize Leslie's work on entire Ottoman system, let there be other possible sources as well, specially for a matter like this, when there is little if no information on "consorts' position in harem before 16th century" is present in her book. Thank you 113.203.177.1 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) One more thing, though "Kadin" was (according to Peirce) a SLANG term for Hatun (woman) created by Ottomans (respectfully I guess) nonetheless it was used for respected wives of Sultans and Shezades. Try google, or any other Deep Web search engine, you can see dozens if not hundreds of books, journals and non-commercial websites that refferred to Mahidevran as Kadin or Sultan (sources dating back to 17th century - I say this because you probably would say they have been written by Turkish soap opera's fans) whereas Gulfem, Fulane, and Gulnisa, all consorts are mentioned by title Hatun. 113.203.177.1 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You hide your lack of argumentation by making nonsensical accusations, Peirce doesn't write that Kadin is a slang term for Hatun and I first cited Uluçay in this article. About this accusation of "emphasize on concubinage", the very website you take as a reference states that "Ottoman tradition relied on slave concubinage along with legal marriage for reproduction. Slave concubinage was the taking of slave women for sexual reproduction.(...) Wives were feared to have vested interests in their own family's affairs (...), hence, concubines were preferred (...). This led to the evolution of slave concubinage as an equal form of reproduction that did not carry the risks of marriage..."

You try to demonstrate that there is a radical difference between the terms kadin and hatun, and that M. was titled kadin and the other concubines hatun, however the document cited by Uluçay ([2]) dated hijri 1180 calls her "hatun", too bad. After your fictitious citation from Bernardo Navagero, this is another example of the fact that your personal theories have no solid basis.--Phso2 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2 Kadins were (though not legally married) considered as wives and whereas Hatun was a title used for every other concubine of the imperial harem. In fact, Hatun is not a title at all, it was used to refer to any woman. Though the website does talk about concubinage, it also adds a little respect to the consorts. I feel sorry for you, you have a very small thinking capacity, limited to be dictated by one book and not use your own logic (in which there is no harm). You only want to follow just 1 author and refuse to consider other sources. Bash Kadin were the first wives, period. And until the wedding took place, Haseki title was not invented, hence the Bas' Kadin served as main consort. Exercise your fingers and do a little googling and see for yourself how many sources have referred her Kadin, Sultan as well as Hatun. But according to you the Hatun is accurate because Leslie used it, and poor ottoman consorts were nothing but what Leslie said they were. All other sources winch referred her as Kadin or Sultan are fabricated (an evil plan executed by Mahidevran's fans; John Freely, Andre Clot and Bernardo who referred her as a wife but other consorts as concubines, are all part of this fan group) I politely asked you to consider all possible titles as well as theories about consorts and concubines but you have been implementing Peirce's work on ALL OTTOMAN RELATED articles. And Though you mentioned earlier, by the way Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source then why are you so worried if you're finding the latter theory fabricated? Please broaden your search. Turkish people don't need only Leslie to learn their history, let other sources come in, please and thank you. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see other possible sources, M. Çağatay Uluçay has called her Kadin p.45. Pars Tuğlacı also referred her as Bash Kadin particularly in p. 189,315, 359, Soner Yalçın also referred to her as Kadin , here she is referred as Kadin at the same time referring Gulfem and Fulane as Hatun , Kenan Matbaası called her Kadin but called other consorts Hatun . This next book and many more. My only point, there are more possibilities than that of what Peirce has described. But according to you all these are fabricated and baseless. Please rethink. Thank you.125.209.82.212 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns about my limited thinking capacity.

Again, without having even read him, you fallaciousy quote Bernardo Navagero who doesn't at all say what you want him to say (he describes her as an unmarried woman of Suleyman, the original text is not sooo hard to find on archive.org). çagatay calls her Hatun as well as kadin (probably out of disrespect for ottoman history or complaisance to Peirce even before she wrote her book) and calls Gülfem "Suleyman's kadin", so it doesn't seem there is so much a difference between the 2 terms, despite your personal theory.--Phso2 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

çagatay called her Hatun is not at stake. For Gulfaam, however he used the term Gulfem HATUN, Kanuni Suleiman'in Kadin (literally translate as "lawgiver Sultan Suleiman's woman (wife)") doesn't prove Gulfem's title to be Kadin. He mentioned her by title HATUN but mentioned Mahidevran by title Kadin . 125.209.82.212 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Jorga source

The reference is supposed to support an Euboean origin, however the original book does say she was from Montenegro (p.344)... Does the translation really say she was from Euboea???--Phso2 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the original text. But the translation reads (for süleyman) " he had a son named Mustafa from his Eğriboz-origin wife..." where Eğriboz is the Turkish name of Euboea. (Note that I am not a proponent of any origin. I just list all conflicting theories about her origin.)Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Then this seems to be a translation mistake in the Turkish version. Does it say if it was translated directly from German, or from an English translation? Perhaps a confusion beetween Montenegro and Negroponte, another name for Eğriboz?--Phso2 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)