Talk:Mehmed II

Patronage of European Art

-- Suggested addition to Personal Life

Mehmed II had been exposed to European art and history from an early age, leading to his subsequent patronage of European artists later in life. As a boy, the young Sultan kept a sketchbook, in which he made a number of drawings in European style. His acquisition of Constantinople brought the growing empire into heavy, direct exposure to the Byzantine culture and legacy of trade and statecraft in the Mediterranean and presented him with an opportunity to indulge in his artistic interests. The Sultan’s first recorded commission of an Italian artist occurred in 1461, when he requested an artist to paint and sculpt from the Lord of Rimini, Sigismondo Malatesta.

More famous is his commission of Venetian artist Gentile Bellini to create a set of medals, and later a portrait in his likeness. Although not known as a medalist, Bellini also created a number of medals depicting the Sultan. One of the medallions designed by Bellini offers a profile of Mehmed on the front, ringed with the text “MAGNI SOULTANI MOHAMETI IMPERATORIS,” Of Great Sultan Mehmed, Emperor. On the reverse are three crowns in a stack, as well as the artist’s signature. Both the medals and the portrait created by Bellini would have communicated suitable titles for Mehmed II to a European audience; historian Antonia Cevizli mentions that it was likely that a Bellini medal was given to Lorenzo de’ Medici by the Ottoman envoy to Florence, and that the triple crown motif alluded to similar designs utilized by European powers, in this case representing Greece, Trebizond, and Asia, the three realms under Ottoman control. Cevizli also makes reference to the Venetian style of the Bellini portrait, aligning Mehmed II with previous doges and thereby providing a reference point for the Sultan in the minds of its viewers. The three crown motif is also present in this portrait.

Historian Julian Raby notes that in addition to these commissions, two sources suggest that the Sultan had also asked Bellini to produce erotica and an image of a Virgin and Child, which would supplement his existing collection of Christian relics and cultural artifacts. The influence of European art and culture was greatest in the Sultan’s private life, where he had the most contact with Byzantium and Europe; a different world from his public patronage of art and architecture, which took form in the mosques and fortresses of Istanbul.

References

Alleged Homosexuality

There are no primary ottoman turkish sources that point to Mehmed's alleged homosexuality, these claims come exclusively from Greek and other Foreign Christian sources at the time. Given that these people rightfully or wrongfully thought of Mehmed as the anti-christ for his conquest of Constantinople should put these sources under increased scrutiny. Historian Halil Inalcik disputes these claims , to say that there is historical consensus of his bi-sexuality is unwarrented. FullMetal234 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) FullMetal234 2020-07-17

References

Inalcik wrote two reviews of the book, one in 1979 (American Historical Review), which I have read and does not mention the sexuality issue at all, and the one that you link above, from 1960. The 1960 one is significantly longer, so it might be a day or two before I have the time to go through it. If what you say is true though, ... Inalcik is a very reliable source, and I would be inclined to take his word for it I think, so thanks for bringing this here.
To be clear, the fact that other accounts come from "foreign" (not just Greek but Italian and others) sources should not by itself cast them into doubt. In the same way that these sources were predisposed to see him negatively, Ottoman sources of the time could easily be predisposed toward hagiography and suppression of things exactly like this (I don't have the expertise to say whether or not this is the case). The interpretation of another scholar (Inalcik) is what matters.--MattMauler (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

" the fact that other accounts come from "foreign" (not just Greek but Italian and others) sources should not by itself cast them into doubt."

At the very least the fact that only foreign sources with a predisposition to see him negatively have said this should be made clear in the article. The absence of refutation doesn't automatically mean all historians agree with it. And if we are going to value the reports of those predisposed to dislike him we should also value the absence of these reports of those predisposed to praise him. Even in more modern biographies of Mehmed that mention the sexuality issue like Babinger for example, only 1 or 2 lines are devoted to this claim. Even if it is true, to devote almost a third of his "personal life" section to it and to pretend its universally accepted is not reflective of actual scholarship of the field. FullMetal234 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)FullMetal234 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) FullMetal234 2020-07-17

Roger Crowley in his book Constantinople the Last Great Siege on page 237 also casts doubt on the story of Doukas' son being taken by Mehmed for his pleasure. FullMetal234 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)FullMetal234 (talk)

If in fact Mehmed's sexuality is in strong doubt by reliable sources, then that needs to be stated clearly in the article. If historians are split then both sides need to have their opinions stated. If Mehmed's supposed homosexuality is totally a fringe theory (as is often the case with many historical figures) then it does NOT need to be mentioned. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have sources that refute what's in the article, but all means add them and discuss the dispute, but we should not simply delete this. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie This edit you made is POV. You acknowledge that alternative viewpoints exist, yet you've only inserted one viewpoint. That goes against WP:NPOV. I think this content should be removed until consensus can material whether to include it and if so, what is the most neutral way of including it.

Also, as was pointed out above, if this is not a notable theory, and reliable sources have cast doubt on its veracity, then it does not need to be mentioned at all.VR _talk

Some version of this information has been in this article for years. I haven't 'inserted' anything, I've returned the article to the status quo. If reliable sources have written about this enough to 'cast doubt on its veracity' it is by definition notable. If you have more you'd like to add from those sources, do so, but if you are unwilling that is not a reason to delete.- MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Presentation of a topic in a POV way is sufficient grounds to delete material until it can be presented in an NPOV way.VR _talk 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We can always go back to the version of the content before it was condensed in February: diff. Looking through the talk page archives it seems that version had consensus for a while. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, what's "the consensus"? Again, this is a claim by one writer Babinger, Halil Inalcik refuted these claims. There are also claims Mehmed was secretly Christian. Nothing but WP:Fringe. Beshogur (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Notable fringe should be debunked, not ignored, and the pre-condensing version cites more than Babinger. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

3 Sources have already been cited right here on this talk page, even the source book that is cited on the article states on page 257 that the account mentioned in the article "receives a great deal of elaboration, with folk-tale motifs," and goes on to cite another, earlier version of the story that states "Three days later [after the fall, that is, June 1] he [Mehmed] ordered, with a decree, the decapitation of Notaras' two sons (the third had perished gloriously in the fight) before their father's eyes. And then the father was beheaded." So that is a total of four sources that contest this narrative including the one that was used to establish the story in the first place. FullMetal234 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you take these sources from the talk page and use them to write something in the article. They don't help the readers who have come across this story elsewhere if you list them on the talk page and just delete the whole topic. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No If something is dubious as proved by my various citations (and the fact that even "Anti-Mehmed" biographies such as Babinger's only devote 1 or 2 lines to mentioning Mehmed's alleged homosexuality) then it should not be mentioned at ALL in the article which is simply meant to be general information on the Sultan and the most important points and not a detailed account of the different scholarly opinions on whether or not he was a homosexual. There is absolutely no reason that almost a third of the "personal life" section is devoted to this. If I write a refutation of the claims based on my sources than it will be almost half of that personal life section, this section does not warrant this much discussion on a general article about the sultan, not even actual full 200-500 page biographies on Sultan Mehmed discuss it this much, it doesn't belong on the article and this was accepted by everyone until you decided to vandalize the article.FullMetal234 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this information has been in the article for years, and was not originally added by me. - MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And the Cleveland Indians have been called that since 1915, doesn't make it okay FullMetal234 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My humble opinion is that we don't need to play historians to say that some contemporary sources to that period say that the Sultan had homosexual tendencies. The fact in this instance is that Greeks and Italians affirmed that Mehmed was attracted to men and that is proven by the writings that survived. The reader of the article can then make its own opinion about whether the statement made by those authors were trustworthy or not. This case is completely different from that where we would make a statement that Mehmed was bisexual. They statement i want to make is that some medieval authors said that Medmed had homosexual tendencies. The effect of the latter example is that there existed a reasonable doubt over Mehmed's sexuality. I don't like this censorship, we should give those medieval authors a saying in this article. I think Wikipedia administrators are acting aggressively when such statements come up because of the fear of the retaliation the Turkish Government will have on Wikipedia. My edit was removed and all it said was that Greek medieval author Laonikos Chalkokondyles wrote the story abt the sultan raping Radu the Fair and about Sultan's sexual tendencies. --82.76.0.201 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification

The source provided, by Inalcik, failed verification. I read over it fully and does not support (or even mention) anywhere anything that precedes, namely "But most other scholars such as Halil İnalcık contest these claims as they were exclusively made by Mehmed's Christian enemies who viewed homosexuality as sinful. These accounts contribute to his image in Europe at the time as an anti-Christian tyrant,". Furthermore, on an informal note, that passage is factually false and an anachronism: such relationships were not considered "homosexuality" in Ottoman times. This notion of "homosexuality" did not even exist back then, and opinion of relationships between older men and younger boys was not negative.

Can I remove it and the preceding passage without getting reverted? Furthermore, the remaining "not in any Ottoman sources" part is original research and there are no reliable sources yet support that claim. However, there are multiple reliable sources that support the claims before this and the passage is heavily worded to suggest otherwise. 128.6.36.80 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)