Talk:Mahidevran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Origin[edit]

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)

If the modifiers of this page can identify this reference, then please update. This woman could be Mahidevran or could also be Gulfem or the first unknown wife of Suleiman. "She was said to have been the most beautiful girl in the dynasty and out-stood in beauty in a land which was known for it. These princesses, were destined to be gifted (in other words sold) by their ruling fathers to their higher or equivalent ranking rulers, kings and grand Vazirs (ministers). As Mulkhurub Bahar Idarovna blossomed into an eye dazzling beauty, her father saw this as an opportunity to strengthen the political relationship between the Caucasus and Ottoman Dynasty. During the start of 15th century, the Ottoman dynasty was taking over the territories of its rivals more rapidly than before. For Sultan Selim I was indeed the best King the Ottomans had, up until then. This King (Sultan) did not have many successors left by 1511, for his only surviving son was Prince Sulieman (who later became Suleiman the Magnificent). Prince Idar took this as an opportunity to make a good relationship with their rapidly spending neighboring dynasty, as young Prince Sulieman was only a few year older (if not the same age) than his most beautiful daughter. Not hesitating for a second thought, he offered his beautiful daughter, as a gift, to the young prince." I got this text from this reference if anyone have an actual book name to cite then please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.190.128 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2 Hi, I am Worldandhistory. About the recently revived edit war on the Origins of Mahidevran, I would like to clear that I am not a descendant of Mahidevran, I just came across the Genealogy document and thought it was rather convincing one. However, if you feel otherwise, you could always simply revert the changes or add the "unreliable source" template with reasoning. Adding something as controversial as ""she was a slave"" as can be seen here would only draw unnecessary attention of the fans and/or may or may not be alleged descendants, as your content was more like a statement rather than a neutral point of view. This section is full of "possible" origin theories, so mentioning any ""possible theory"" is no violation of any principal. However, I added ""the most convincing theory"" was wrong I admit, therefore, I have changed that. An extra piece of information, in 15th century, the Tatars, Caucasians, Albanians, and Russians were all considered part of ""Circassia"". Worldandhistory (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't suppose you are a descendant of M, but all this Kabardian theory relies on personal theories of alleged descendants of her - if it seems to you convincing just because someone wrote it on a sheet of paper, that's up to you, but note that the informations about her on this genealogy (date of death etc) are derived from what is known about Mahidevran, so there is no wonder that these informations match. Your reasoning - that the "daughter of Idar" on one side and "Mahidevran" on the other side are characters of their own that can be identified because they match the same informations - is flawed and circular : the "daughter" is plainly presented as Mahidevran hasseki, consort of Suleyman and mother of Mustafa, not as an independant character whose informations can be compared to Mahidevran's.
That she was a slave is not controversial except to fans, and it is not something shameful to be a slave concubine to a sultan since the overwhelming majority of Sultans mothers were slave concubines. Since the source says she was a slave concubine (as were her fellow consorts of sultans), this is not my POV. "mentioning any ""possible theory"" is NOT the aim of wikipedia : it must rely on reliable sources.--Phso2 (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Phso2 You made a plausible point. I don't about how fans would feel about their 500 years old dead heroine but even if there is a 'slightest possibility' of her being married to Suleiman (which there is - slightest possibility I say), then mentioning that "she was a slave" violates the neutral point of view policy. And if it must be mentioned, then mention it on all other royal consorts of ottoman's articles as well. Because like you agree, even a lawful wedded wife was considered a slave to her master. And if you say that some consorts, like Hurrem, was freed later, then please remember M died as a free woman as well, When Mustafa died, she was freed traditionally, however, when Suleiman died, she was freed officially. So mentioning the word slave like I said would only draw unnecessary attention of her "fans" and alleged descendants. And we can't keep the page protected forever. @Doug Weller Please advise sir. Thank you. Worldandhistory (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering if this can be considered a reliable source since it comes from odatv.com, it's not a blog or a forum but an online news site, they have published the interview with an alleged descendant. Worldandhistory (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
We are supposed to write an encyclopedy here, not fairytales. If historians say she entered Topkapı as a slave, we do not have to invent her a prestigious family just to protect the sensitive ears of her modern fans, do we? Or do we have to "neutralize" William the Conqueror because he's described as a bastard?
Anyway, thank you for having deleted the unsourced part. I will try to reformulate to avoid the taboo-word "slave" while keeping the core of the information.

--Phso2 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my removal of unreliable sourced content. It's not only about protecting the sensitive ears of M's fans it's about us (you and me and others who look after this page) as well. How long are we going to keep track here and keep reverting. Like I said we can't keep protecting this page forever and apparently, some people don't want to hear the word slave, more after the alleged descendant came up with an interview. We cannot completely rule out the possibility of the interview source being totally incorrect. But since it does not match the Wiki criteria, it's OK if you don't want it there. But be as neutral as possible. Because this page in in watch of many users with unregistered accounts and from time to time they bring in more family members I've noticed like more children of M's who I also believe are not true. Worldandhistory (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry I noticed now you added "suggests she was a cariye, thus of non-notable family" I will have to remove it because the source only called her Cariye and did not specifically says that she was of non-notable family. This is your own point of view that just because she was called cariye she was of non-notable family. Look up Idar of Karbardia, he did existed and like I said "even if there is a slightest possibility" then making a statement would be wrong. Just Skip that Cariye part as everyone knows even the princesses who were lawfully wedded to Sultans of Ottoman dynasty, Shah Jehans of Mughal emperors and Sheikhs of Arab, were all considered slave to their husbands. Hope you understand. Worldandhistory (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You are desperately twisting the source. It clearly says her patronymic means she was a slave concubine, which is a indication of her origins (at least indication that she was not a scion of a high born Muslim family). You can't simply erase the information just because you worry it could hurt the feelings of her fans.--Phso2 (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Go to main article's page and see section "Origin and early life", nowhere will you find that her being a scion is mentioned but you would like to mention otherwise to prove your own opinion. (Please bear the word 'slightedt possibility' I mentioned earlier) Prince Idar was known by many names, 3 of which are Abdullah, Abdulrehman and Abdulmennan.[1] Unless you are sure THAT the name your cited sources tells isn't of Idar of Karbardia then do not waste your and my time. Worldandhistory (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The reference you provide is a nude url without page number, and simple search with Idar, Kabardia or any of the 3 alleged secondary names doesn't return any answer. This story about Idar of Kabardia's "secondary names" is only there to safeguard his fictitious relationship with Mahidevran ; the connection is not made by any scholar, and you still have to provide a source for these secondary names (and to explain why he would be named by these secondary names and not his principal name on votive inscriptions and legal records, specifically when Abdullah is the generic patronymic for slaves [1] [2] [3] etc). The conclusion of historians is that she was one of the so-many slaves in Ottoman history - the conclusion of her alleged modern relatives is that her father's name was replaced in legal documents by a all-purpose "secondary name" : which possibility does really seems the more likely (besides the second one is unsourced)? The world (and especially genealogy) is full of people who earnestly believe they are related to glorious ancestors, there is no reliable sign that these grand-grand nephews of M don't belong to the innumerable lot.--Phso2 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my first point, no where in the article does it say she belonged to a noble family, the article is now free from any claims of her being scion, the article simply focuses on her origins. If you want you may mention an unnecessary word "slave" to the totally irrelevant section of "Origin and early life" but trust me you'll spent your whole life (and next one as well if you're a monk) reverting the changes made by those who have problem with this piece of word. If, however, you can get an admin to permanently block the page from any further editing you may do so. Best R. - Worldandhistory (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2, your provided sources does not particularly points at M's father. While every other converted slave might be called Abdullah, we can't simply consider every person with the name of Abdullah to be a slave, for example, you say "Abdullah as a generic name for slave converts" then again I don't suppose that Şehzade Abdullah was a slave, this contradicts your claim that evry man with this name was a slave. I shall wait for your response until few days then revert your changes, if you are unable to prove that this "Abdullah" was indeed a slave and not a free person, in which case, M would have been a "gifted wife" (married to S not legally but rather tough Nikah 'urfi). You are not helping in maintaining the neutrality, rather imposing your opinions extracted from your sources. I was wrong I admitted that and removed the contents sourced from the blog. I even request the deletion of dubious page of her alleged father but you are not admitting that you may be wrong here. Best. - Worldandhistory (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The name Abdullah has nothing to do with the slaves. It was a custom to name the converts Abdullah. But this does not mean that all Abdullah's were converts. One thing more. Slave girls were non-Muslim origin girls. If Mahidevran's father was a convert than the chances of Mahidevran being a slave is slim. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Check again the sources I provided. It was the custom to use the name "Abdullah" as the converts' father's name (instead of the converts' fathers' real name). So a slave wath named "XXX son of Abdullah" whatever his father's real name--Phso2 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
PS For further explanations check also this pp. 112sq, this is the reference given in Babinger's book.
To summarize : almost every convert is named "X son of Abdallah" in legal or commemorative document ; it doesn't mean that the convert is named Abdallah (as you two misunderstood) nor that the real name of the father is Abdallah, it is just a conventional father's name for a (new) Muslim whose father is a infidel. Ulucay and his source concludes logically that Mahidevran was a slave convert ; the possibility exists that M. was in fact a Muslim born from a Muslim named Abdallah, but since it were against the customs of Ottoman sultans to marry freeborn Muslims, this possibility is implicitly discarded as too implausible.--Phso2 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(and in the diff I should have written "about Abdullah as a generic patronymic (father's name) for slave converts", my bad.
@Phso2, as an experienced user/editor, you should realize it yourself what you presented is clearly OR(Original research), the same way you have rejected the notion that during 16th century, while Valide and Fav/Chief consorts were carrying the titles Sultan, M. also carried it, you should be wise in selecting the words in describing something as controversial as the Origin too. Most of the time in history, every wife of an Ottoman Sultan, Egypt Sultan, Arab sheikh, Mughal Emperors, were considered slaves in front of their husbands, so Ulucay mentioning M. as "cariye" doesn't prove anything. Please bring an actual source calling M's father a convert or a slave to make your point plausible. You mentioned "it were against the customs of Ottoman sultans to marry freeborn Muslims" but bear in mind that this Sultan freed a slave, and then legally married her, it is a fact, hence when you talk about "possibility", let there be room for this next possibility as well that she wasn't an actual slave and that the Sultan might have engaged himself with a free woman via Nikah 'urfi, while I am not asking you to mention this possibility, I insist you to not mention the other possibility as well. Because (I repeat) this violates Wiki's neutral point of view policy to write something "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", then again if you fail to make sense of this, I bring up Mr. Nedim Ardoğa's plausible point, I quote "If Mahidevran's father was a convert than the chances of Mahidevran being a slave is slim". Therefore please refrain from implementing your point of view/logic when you have no clear source to back your claim. I am reverting your changes. Please note. Thanks - Worldandhistory (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You simply contradict a reliable source. When Ulucay writes she was a slave because she bears some different variations of the generic father's name used for slaves, he doesn't mean it was in the figurative sense ; he is not the only one either, Peirce has the same view (p.301 "...since Mahidevran herself was a slave") and Colin Imber too ([4]). This is not a problem of NPOV, NPOV doesn't mean we have to erase every content that some people might resent. Nedim Ardoğa's point is flawed : Abdullah is not a generic name for converts, it's a generic fictitious name used instead of the real father's name of the converts. You say I produced no clear source when I produced three; where are your sources to contradict them?--Phso2 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2: Two of your sources are at stake (Colin Iber's and Peirce's), please read page 136 of Colin's book, this gives definition of Slave in general term, so calling any member of Sultan's family a slave does not necessarily makes them a slave by origin, and P simply used a text from Alberi, P herself only called M a concubine. Concubine by definition is not a slave. You completely twisted the question and answered what I didn't ask. I asked you to provide a source calling M's father Abdullah a Slave. While "XXX son of Abdullah" maybe a son of a convert slave, you cannot say that Khalid son of Abdullah or Hussein son of Abdullah are also slaves. Likewise Abdullah Frères's children were not slaves by nature. The name Abdullah may be used as a generic patronymic (father's name) for slave converts but this name was and is very common for any royal family as well as a common family in any Islamic dynasty. - Worldandhistory (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To end the discussion, I would say you may add the word slave to Origins if you are still convinced but must also use the term "possibly" along with it to maintain a NPOV. Nice Day! - Worldandhistory (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get it and you have to read or re-read the sources ([5] [6] [7] [8]): no one calls M's father Abdullah a slave. Abdullah (and its variants) is the generic fictitious father's name attributed to converts, whic implies in palace context that they were slaves (janissaries, servants, concubines etc). So "XXX son of Abdullah" does NOT denote a son of a convert slave, it suggests either "XXX is a convert whose real father's name is unknown or omitted" or "XXX is a Muslim son of a Muslim father names Abdullah" depending on the context: in the context of Ottoman administration and palace the only plausible option is that it is the first case, furthermore in M.'s case the fact that her father's name is variouly given in documents as "Abdullah, Abdürrahman or Abdülmennan" (all three variants with the same meaning, but not the same names) can leave no doubt, as if her father's real name was Abdullah there is no reason to use Abdürrahman or Abdülmennan instead. The link between the father's names and the slaveship is is not my deduction but the source's. For Imber the page you mention only reminds that being legally a slave doesn't imply a low status (as it is the case for viziers and sultanas, who enter the palace as slaves but in the end belng to the highest circles); Peirce is calling M. a slave on her own words, this is not a quotation from Alberi. The two last authors (and Uluçay) write in black and white that she was a slave, so why do you want to erase the information? This is absolutely not a matter of NPOV, NPOV doesn't mean one is supposed to distort a plain sourced statement on the sole motive that it could be resented by her fans for strange sentimental anachronistic reasons.--Phso2 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, it seems you desperately did some personal research, you have all the time in the world don't you? :P Well, like I said, all these efforts prove nothing but if you are convinced read may latest comments on my last reply; "you may add the word slave to Origins if you are still convinced but must also use the term "possibly" along with it to maintain a NPOV." You did not saw that did you? And with all this research you are only proving yourself wrong because NONE OF YOUR SOURCES say that M was a Muslim Convert, rather, they say, Mahidevran, daughter of Abdullah. All these authors could've have used this phrase simply because they didn't know what the real father's name was, like I said "this name was and is very common for any royal family as well as a common family in any Islamic dynasty." Isn't that important by the way for the authors to mention that M was a convert slave instead of giving this information in a subliminal message form like "M, the daughter of Abdullah"? I guess the authors were inspired by Illuminatis ;) (just a joke, no offense) Anyway, I can't argue with you, I can only simply ask for an admin's attention to all of your WP:OR. Best :) - Worldandhistory (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious to any good-faith reader that when Uluçay writes that she is considered to have been a slave concubine because her father's name is variously given as Abdullah, Abdurrhaman etc, he implies that she was a convert (do I have to remind you that it was forbidden to enslave Muslims?). He doesn't state either that she was a woman, that she had two eyes and a nose, but you won't contest this, will you?--Phso2 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{reply|Phso2} My dear, like I said before, (you don't go through every point is your problem); authors could have simply used the most commonly used names to refer to her father simply because they didn't know the real name. Suleyman Shah is also considered "son of Abdullah", please do the research you will find it I just can't right now, but no chance he was a Slave or a convert. Wiki does NOT require a source for any human's article to proof that the person had 2 eyes, 1 nose and a mouth. But it does require a solid source for something as important as Origin. This is the most ridiculous rebuttal I've ever heard. Anyways, you're again imposing your OR into what Ulucay meant to imply. Since no source had actually said clearly that M was a convert, no matter how many sources we bring saying Abdullah is a patronymic father's name for converts, we will be throwing out the possibility that M might have been a free woman before being presented to Suleiman, it was forbidden to enslave Muslim women but not forbidden to take them as concubines (kadin was their titles - they were equivalent to wives) with their (the women's) consent (again, I am not saying this was the case with M, I am just stating a possibility). Hence the WP:NPOV. When nothing is clear by/with source, then it's best to be neutral. The rest is your wish I had given you a go signal please don't keep busy with this talk page as I won't just simply ignore your questions I'll have to come back here to answer them, because it's rude not to respond. Have a good time! - :) Worldandhistory (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This is your reasoning based on your assumptions that sultans might have taken free Muslims as cariye (the term used by Uluçay) at this period and that scribes would have thrown different names on legal documents because they would'nt know her real father's name. The conclusion of the source beeing the other way there is no reason to erase it.--Phso2 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Phso2 is of course right that the name Abdullah is an indication of convert status. Historians use this logic all the time in determining the origin of otherwise obscure individuals, for instance that of Kanuni Süleyman's mother Hafsa.
Anyway, I'm wondering why Andre Clot's opinion on Mahidevran's origins is given any space in this article. He wasn't an academic historian, and we should obviously limit "theories" on her origins to actual historians. Removing it from the list. Chamboz (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

About sources[edit]

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

Check the pronunciation[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Image[edit]

Portrait of a Sultana.jpg

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 of a Sultana.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

References

Teodora Maria Ungureanu Teodora Maria Ungureanu (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Teodora Maria Ungureanu Teodora Maria Ungureanu (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahidevran Hatun[edit]

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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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 ([9]).--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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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.fTalk 12:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nedim Ardoğa @Keivan @Phso2 Please see some references which proves her title to be Sultan. [1] [2] [3] 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. [4] [5] 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[edit]

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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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 watchfulFace-wink.svg.--Phso2 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016[edit]

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)

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

Title of this page[edit]

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 [1] ), 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.[2][3][4][5] She has been known by this title since Nurbano's time. No need to change the title.[6] 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 [7]. 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.) [8] [9] 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?[10] [11] 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[edit]

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 [12]. 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)
@Worldandhistory Hürrem and Mahidevran were in good terms? Interesting! If you have really searched about these two and other sultanas like Kösem then why don't you expand their articles? I'm sure that you can find those books that you had read many years ago again. Keivan.fTalk 00:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I haven't searched about mahidvran but happen to have read about her. Sorry cant find sources now that was about 12 years ago. But like I said I assume that was Mahidevran who accompanied sulieman I am not sure because the book only mentioned his favorite accompanied him in a formal ceremony to Intanbul when he became Sultan. I dont see why someone should expand these articles as seen from the title and the heated discussion on chief consort below that even sources are not enough and I just cant do such long discussions. I think she was chief consort but later lost her position though she remained first wife. As far as I know...Worldandhistory (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected for 2 weeks due to edit warring and content dispute concerning a BLP</>[edit]

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

No idea why I wrote BLP. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Chief consort[edit]

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 [13]. 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 ([10]) 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[14]. Pars Tuğlacı also referred her as Bash Kadin particularly in p. 189,315, 359[15], Soner Yalçın also referred to her as Kadin [16], here she is referred as Kadin at the same time referring Gulfem and Fulane as Hatun [17], Kenan Matbaası called her Kadin but called other consorts Hatun [18]. This next book [19] 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 [20]. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
çagatay's book Harem 2 mentioned her explicitly by title Kadin [21] also, Pars Tuğlacı's book also referred her with title Kadin Efendi. [22] 125.209.82.212 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Still you fail to explain why çagatay is calling her also "Hatun"...--Phso2 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In the same book, there is a whole sub section with her name Mahidevran Kadin (p. 35) on several other pages (34, 199, 206) he have mentioned her "TITLE" as Mahidevran Kadin where as for other consorts he have used the title hatun. In his other book as well Harem II he have used the title Kadin for her. (p. 45) You can't just pick one word from the whole book and overlook the whole sub section as well as other numerous mentions of her name title. 113.203.191.185 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
And sir/ma'am, you failed to acknowledge another book I presented as a source.[23] also in çagatay book Harem II he explicitly called her Bash Kadin & Kadin Effendi. Here's another book by Soner Yalçın where her title is used as Kadin at the same time for Gulfem, title Hatun is used.113.203.191.185 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that she's not called Kadin by some authors. But you claim that she can't be called Hatun because according to you there is a fundamental difference between the two terms and Hatun would be used only for concubines. This opinion is blatantly wrong, since çagatay uses Hatun as well as Kadin in the same §; you can't make up a theory just based upon your own interpretation of google search results and misquotes of sources like Navagero.--Phso2 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I also didn't say that she was NOT called Hatun. I keep saying she's been "referred" by all three titles; Hatun, Kadin and Sultan. Hence your assertion that she was only called "Hatun" is wrong. But this isn't about title only, since there are several books who mentioned her title as "Kadin". I say, "being" a kadin (a wife, Gulfem Hatun) and "having" a title as Kadin (Mahidevran Kadin - mother of heir to the throne) are two different things. And you also know that only consorts which were considered as wives carried the title Kadin apart from Hasekis (which were indeed the chief consorts). Though Mahidevran has been called Bash Kadin or Birinci Kadin (sometimes Sultan as well - but forget about Sultan now), I presented you the books which explicitly called her Bash/Birinci Kadin yet you only focus on one book that referred to her as nothing more than a concubine. Even in Peirce's book, before 16th century, you can find that the concubine - mother of apparent heir to the throne (eldest prince or firstborn), enjoyed privileges and elevated ranks in the Harem, then why you think only M was deprived of it. For as long as the wedding didn't take place in 1533, even you admit title Haseki was not invented. Obviously the mother of eldest son was main woman of the Harem after Valide Sultan. Not so hard to figure out. 113.203.215.132 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Finally you admit that there is no harm or disrespect in calling her Hatun (like most of pre 16th century ottoman ladies). I didn't pretend that M. was "deprived of privileges and elevated rank", I just want this article to rest on reliable sources and not on personal interpretations of questionable sources or romanced hypothetical reconstructions of 500 years old events.--Phso2 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You say that while you constantly tried to put Leslie's reference in every sentence of this article, EVERY!! Where as in the whole discussion above, while not denying Leslie's book, I kept emphasizing to let in other books and sources as well. Just because Leslie's book is published through Oxford doesn't make it an expert book on Ottoman history. Other authors are also referable, according to whom she served as Bash/Birinci Kadin. I only said that there's no harm in mentioning something which Leslie didn't mentioned in her book. Simple. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Being an academic scholar specialized in the thema, writing a book based on ottoman archival evidences, published in Oxford University Press, gives your statements more weight that those of semi-commercial websites claiming themselves no reliability. This is also simple, and this is how WP is supposed to work.--Phso2 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, here you come again with Leslie and the website. Get over the website please if you're not convinced (though I don't see a problem with the website). I have also mentioned some history books. Awaiting your rebuttal on those books now. Please enlighten me on how wrong and unreliable those books are I am desperately waiting. :) Though I don't understand why Leslie's book have mentioned Hurrem as "second wife" at some point when there was no such "first wife" present at moment. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, had to say this, but you Sir/Ma'am are not implementing the common sense here. The mother of eldest son was main woman of the Harem after Valide Sultan, to make it more prominent, here's a thing, there was no Haseki for as long as Mahidevran was resident in Imperial palace. So the "first woman" or "main woman" was the mother of eldest son. PLUS according to you this "Bash Kadin" position never existed (because it's not mentioned in Leslie's book) I ask you, if there was no such thing as Bash Kadin, then why she has been mentioned as Bash Kadin and Birinci Kadin many times? Like I said above, I am now waiting for you to enlighten me on how wrong those books are and why we shouldn't refer to other authors and books apart from Leslie's. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who constantly denigrates Peirce's book (going so far as to label it unreliable without having even read the relevant §), I didn't deny some historical books call her some equivalent to "first kadin" and I didn't delete it, while you are making up theories about fundamental differences between kadin and hatun.
That she was a "first concubine" or a "concubine" is not such an important issue as you claim, as Uluçay who calls her baş kadin in 1971 (Harem II) does not consider it sooooo important as to mention it in 1980 (Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları). That there was "no Haseki for as long as Mahidevran was resident in palace" is another unsourced assumption of yours, i don't think we exactly know which year the title came in use.--Phso2 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Phso2 So you mean that Hürrem might have become Haseki Sultan before her marriage? As long as I remember there is some information on Peirce's book about royal titles like Valide Sultan and Haseki Sultan. I think if you check the book again, this discussion can end here. Actually only a part of it. Cause there are other things to be discussed as well. Keivan.fTalk 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't find mention of a precise date in Peirce, and no link with the marriage. Since Suleyman "no longer paid attention to M." as soon as 1526 (according to Bragadin, cf Peirce p.56) one can't assume without further inquiry that the status of haseki is a direct consequence of the marriage.--Phso2 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Phso2 Interesting. So Mahidevran fell out of favor in 1526. I will add it to the articles. Besides, I read your other messages as well. If you think something is unsourced and is based only on some personal theories, remove it by explanation, as I always do. I don't know why but this article has turned to a war scene without a clear reason. Maybe we should inform some administrators about the situation. Keivan.fTalk 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Phso2 Haseki was reserved for chief consorts, you can't assume that a title Haseki was invented while people still referred to M as bash kadin, unless you have a reliable source that both haseki and bash kadins existed in the same time. Because Bash Kadin literally means Head Wife. @Keivan.f I think the issue is somehwat resolved. I also feel stupid over this section. The only point I wanted to implement here was that M served as Bash kadin, and since it will be ridiculous to mention that "Mahidevran was a head woman of Sulieman..." so mentioning chief consort (which is what Bash kadin was) is appropriate. - IMWY6 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Please first of all answer the other user's question about the reliability of the sources that have been added by you. Then, it's just a theory of yours that because Mahidevran was a baş kadın, Hürrem couldn't become a Haseki as long as Mahidevran was at the palace. Do you know the exact dates of using the title baş kadın by Mahidevran or the title Haseki Sultan by Hürrem? Do you have any source to support the thing that you said above? This theory that you mentioned needs sources. You need a source to exactly support those sentences of yours. Maybe as Mahidevran fell out of favor in 1526, she had even lost her position as a chief consort even sooner than you think. And I have a question. What was Mahidevran's title after Hürrem became a Haseki? Still a BAŞ kadın? Did it still mean that she was the first woman? Absolutely not. Because you siad that "you can't assume that a title Haseki was invented while people still referred to M as bash kadin". You mean that when Hürrem was a Haseki Mahidevran wasn't a baş kadın and when Mahidevran was a baş kadın Hürrem wasn't a Haseki? As I had asked before any source to show the exact dates of these titles' usage? Any source to show that because Mahidevran was at the palace Hürrem couldn't become the chief consort? Besides in English language I think when you use the world chief wife it means that that woman was the highest ranking among the king's wives. Imagine someone who has visisted Hürrem and Mahidevran's articles on Wikipedia and isn't familiar with the Ottoman system. Then he sees that both of them are mentioned as chief consorts. Of course he doesn't know anything about the subject and is unaware about the things that we discussed here. So the simple result is that he'll become confused. I think as Hürrem was the main and legal woman for so many years, even more than Mahidevran, she should be mentioned as the chief consort, Mahidevran as a consort, and Gülfem and Fülane as concubines. At last if we discuss something here is because that we want to provide real information on the article. So please stop accusing each other for different reasons. Keivan.fTalk 15:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f, At NO point I asked to mention "my theories" in the main article. This whole time I have been explaining my point to the other user, never for once asking to state "that as long as Mahidevran was in palace she was main consort, or Mahidevran was higher in rank than Hurrem" I honestly don't know for how many years she was a main consort, or when Haseki title was invented, when she lost her chief position in the harem, I just know that M once was a bash kadin, and that position should be mentioned as "chief consort before Hurrem Sultan" to avoid confusion like you said. mentioning "chief consort before Hurrem Sultan" will be more suitable (I added that info but but random IP removed it). And Sir, now even if you are not convinced on the 7 different sources I provided (which explicitly mentioned her as Bash Kadin) then I quit. Make whatever changes you want I am not going to spend my whole life defending this article. I have mentioned the names of Authors, names of Books, number of pages, sometimes publisher as well, now if you ask me biographies of those authors then Sorry I can't provide you that sir. I am the one who has been constantly accused of making my theories and making fundamental difference about titles where as if you do a little search on the internet, it's all there, I did not make a single personalized theory. I have even mentioned ISBN numbers of the book in the articles "Title and status" section. Have a good one! IMWY6 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Alright. I'm tired as well. But you siad something that I want to mention again that you never said "that as long as Mahidevran was in palace she was main consort, or Mahidevran was higher in rank than Hurrem". Good point. I accept that Mahidevran was a baş kadın but Hürrem was a kadın as well, and mother of princes. Thus we can't be sure that Mahidevran was completely higher than Hürrem. I think it should be said in the first paragraph that Mahidevran was a chief consort of Suleiman along with Hürrem during his early reign. Besides I never asked for a biograohy of any of those authors. Just a simple research to show that whether they were accomplished historians or not. Keivan.fTalk 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f I beg to differ Sir. Because I can't find a single source that calls Hurrem Bash kadin, she has been referred as Haseki only. Before Haseki the head woman was the main consort and we come back to those sources again, M has been referred as Bash kadin by several authors. Like I explained below, this apparently is an exceptional case because Haseki title started with Hurrem. To answer the question you asked earlier, when Hurrem became Haseki Mahidevran was still Suleiman's Birinci Kadin (first wife) but had lost the position of chief consort. We are talking about dead Turkish authors who weren't so famous, I didn't even know about Peirce's until I came here, but that doesn't mean that I begin to oppose her, we're just taking information from these authors as they have "published" and registered books. IMWY6 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 OK dear. Just please forget the authors for now. My main problem is the timeline now. According to a part of Peirce's book which is again sourced by another author's book, it is mentioned that Mahidevran fell out of favor in 1526. Well as we're not sure that when Haseki came in to use, we can't say on the article that because of her marriage, Hürrem became a Haseki. So that sentence on title section, which says Mahidevran was replaced by Hürrem because she married Suleiman must be removed as we cannot say for sure that when Mahidevran stopped to be considered a chief woman and when Hürrem took the position. Also because the sources call her Hürrem Haseki, it doesn't mean that she wasn't a baş kadın before that. I think both M & H are called by the highest ranking titles they have ever had. I'm sure that if M had become a Haskei she would be called with that title rather than being mentioned as a Baş Kadın in the sources. So considering Mahidevran as the only senior wife even before Hürrem became a haseki, is a little bit doubtful again. That's why the other user said that being a baş kadın can't be equall to being the only chief consort. We have to find a source to tell us Hürrem's exact position before becoming a Haseki. To see that whether she was ranked equally with Mahidevran or not. For now just mentioning baş kadın is enough I think. :) Keivan.fTalk 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Also mentioning Mahidevran as a consort in the first paragraph doesn't mean that she was equall to Gülfem or Fülane. They were concubines, thus were ranked lower than her. The reason that I said we should stop mentioning her as a chief consort in the first paragraph for now is because of the controversial situation that I mentioned above until everything becomes clear. Keivan.fTalk 16:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f Dear sir, like I said above, I rest my case, it does not affect me what you decide to do with this title now, but as far as the discussion is concerned, I would like to continue. Because maybe I am wrong and I'll get to learn something. I have 2 main points here. But please note it's a discussion so don't ask any reliable sources for my own sentences like the other user.
1. Haseki = chief consort, Bash Kadin = chief consort. Both meaning same, hence M & H couldn't have been chief consorts at the same time. Obviously M was senior (not an assumption but fact) and Mustafa was born in 1515 where as Mehmet (Hurrem's first child) was born in 1521. So M was the first chief consort. And if M is called Bash kadin, obviously Hurrem was not sharing this position with her. Because no author in his right mind would write something in the book as stupid as this "calling M with different word for main consort and calling H with different word for main consort). Chief consort (Bash Kadin) is only 1, as the word itself explains (Head Wife). Second, please see here, I never implemented in the article that after the wedding Hurrem became Haseki though I did discuss it over here in the talk page with the possibility but never implemented on it, someone already changed that in article. My only argument, is that M was the chief consort (even if for 1 year or 10 years) the years doesn't not change the meaning of main consort-ship.
2. Hurrem and M's chief consort-ships cannot be compared. Hurrem took the chief consort-ship to new meanings, never before her was an Ottoman consort who was so highlighted in politics as well as Harem dynamics. She was the first consort to have such elevated ranks, whereas for Mahidevran (though she may have been like Hurrem in position), we can't find a source. The only thing we know is that she was chief consort before Hurrem (whether for 1 year or 10) and also I quote John freely; "mahidevran, who was still Suleiman's birinci kadin, though she has been supplanted as Haseki by Roxelana." So logically, Mahidevran was always Sulieman's first wife and the first wife who was also a chief consort can only be replaced as a chief consort once the later consort legally married Suleiman. Hurrem been called Haseki or not, the only possible way to M's chief consort-ship's ending is the marriage; according to ottoman traditions the mother firstborn or eldest child was the head woman of the Harem after Valide, that's what she's been called Bash Kadin, regardless of her relationship with Sulieman. We will never be able to find the exact time as to when Haseki title was started, this is rather obscure matter. And again, it's just my assertion I am not asking you to implement on it and mention the years of her main consort-ship. But if you don't mention the chief consort-ship at all, then it will simply be depriving an article of the accurate information, because one certainty is now proven, that M was a chief consort, a Bash Kadin. What do you think? Also, Gulfem and Fulane were indeed consorts. The very definition of consort is the "partner" of reigning monarch. And their names are very prominent, though not as much as Hurrem's or M's. IMWY6 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Hi dear. Sorry for answering after a few days. Anyway, I possibly agree with you that Mahidevran may had been Suleiman's chief wife. First of all I want to mention that Mahidevran wasn't Suleiman's chief wife in Manisa. As the firstborn son was Mahmud thus Fülane was the chief consort. I'm really curious to know that if Fülane was baş kadın or not. As she was the mother of Mahmud and he nearly lived for 10 years, and was even alive when Suleiman became sultan, thus Fülane can be considered a baş kadın as well. And if we imagine that she had lost her position completely by his son's death, then the same thing must have happened to Mahidevran. I mean after Suleiman and Hürrem's marriage she couldn't be considered a baş kadın. Besides as eveything in the whole empire was based on Sultan's statements, I believe that even without a marriage Hürrem could become Suleiman's senior wife. Just giving the title Haseki was enough to rank her higher than Mahidevran and as we don't know when this title was created this theory can be possible as well. About the reliability of the sources you can continue the discussion with the other user. Of course after a break :) And also a question. What's your mother tongue? Persian (Farsi)? Keivan.fTalk 11:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Keivan.f, first it must be clear that it is not my research that she was a chief consort, historians have mentioned her as baş Kadin, historians and authors back their work with original archives. So it’s definitely not anachronism. These people I cited also could have wrote Mahidevran Sultan, but they wrote Mahidevran baş Kadin. Second, indeed if there was another senior consort who bore Suleiman a son, was a baş Kadin. But we don’t have any source to claim that Fulane or Gulfem or Gulnisah (Gulshah) bore them. In fact the only little info present is ‘’”the same year Suleiman lost his 2 sons 9 year old Mahmud and toddler Murad”’’ so we can’t be certain who or if there was another baş Kadin or not. Indeed if Suleiman had said that “Hurrem is my chief consort now stop considering others as my chief consort” then she definitely was, but there is no such record. Though he bestowed extravagant favors upon her and married her as well, the baş Kadin is only baş Kadin (main woman) because she came first and is a mother of firstborn (or eldest surviving son). We shouldn’t be discussing this in the first place, let’s not judge or guess what happened 500 years ago, let’s just rely on the sources, sources say she was the main consort – there should be period after that. Though some sources weigh less on reliability meter, even the other user and I have come to a common term about a particular author “Chughtai”, unless ofcourse he decides to change his statement. To answer your question, baleh, zaban madri man farsi ast. Wa shoma??? :) IMWY6 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Then as it was previously said, the phrase must be chief consort before Hürrem Sultan as the Haseki Sultan was higher than the Baş Kadın. Also the sentence that says Hürrem became a Haseki because of her marriage should be removed cause there's no source to show when this title was given to Hürrem. And the simple reason that Mahidevran wasn't sentenced to death is that she was the mother of a prince. Besides the fight was between those two women and I'm sure that Hürrem hadn't stayed and watched :) Maybe it was a part of her plans to send Mahidevran out of the palace sooner. And I'm happy that you know Persian cause it's my mother tongue too. Khoshhalam ke mibinam ye Farsi zabane dige gheyr az man ham tu bakhsh Engelisi fa'aliat dare. Movafagh bashin. Keivan.fTalk 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f, khieli mamnoon'am. like I said you may do whatever you want with this section khaste'am... man tark ain behes, you may add "chief consort before Hurrem Sultan" that's what I wrote before. You may also delete the sentence that says "after marriage was replaced as a chief consort". But just for the sake of argument (think carefully now), Haseki is not higher than Baş Kadın (the very meaning of the word is Head Wife), these positions served equally in their respective times. Also, just a suggestion, think, M never stopped being Suleiman's Baş Kadın (otherwise she wouldn't be mentioned as bash kadin), instead remained his Birinci Kadin (first wife), regardless of how many children Hurrem bore or how favorite (haseki) she was of Suleiman, had the position of M be changed, she wouldn't still be referred as bash kadin by the Turkish archives. So Hurrem was the favorite and legally married consort where as M was the senior, first or Head consort. Keep in mind marriage has nothing to do with Haseki as there were unmarried Hasekis as well. During those 2 centuries title Haseki was used, there is not a single woman who is referred as Bash Kadin (only post 17th century women or early 16th century woman (M) has been referred as Bash Kadin), so logically only the wedding can take one chief consort and replace it with other. In case you're wondering why I am interested in this subject and how I know so much; I often visit Turkey for my... let's just say personal purpose and have studied their arts. I seriously have to move to another article now (I go by the rule of one article at a time) so take care of this page now. Be open minded and see all possible sources not just one. movazeb khodet bash! :) -- IMWY6 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 OK. This is my final message (I hope) 'cause I'm becoming sick over this discussion. You're possibly right. As you said there were unmarried Hasekis that's why I said that Hürrem might have become a haseki before her marriage. But once she married, obviously she ranked higher than Mahidevran. She was a sultan while Mahidevran was a kadın. Obviously Mahidevran's rank couldn't be decreased but at the same time we have to find out what was Mahidevran's title after Suleiman's marriage. Still a baş kadın or simply kadın? 'Cause the sources may have reffered to her by her most high ranking title not the one she has used during her whole life. So she was the senior consort before Hürrem and then Hürrem took her place. She wasn't sent with her sons to sanjak, stayed at the palace and acted like an Empress, which shows that she was obviously the main consort. Anyway, I'm currently in Ankara and I'm also familiar with their culture and history. But if you also have any information about Persian kings and their wives please expand their articles as well. Iranian history is also as interesting as the Turkish one. Yekam bad nist be tarikhe ma ham tavajoh she. Hame faghat donbale Osmani hastan va maghalate marbut be zanane padeshahaye Iran ya aslan vojud nadare ya kheili pishe pa oftadas oonam vaghti ke tamam zanaye salatine Osmani inja maghale daran. Keivan.fTalk 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Phso2 I am not making up theories about fundamental differences between kadin and hatun. Please read page 18 on Peirce's book, that may somewhat explain as why Hatun and Kadin as "titles" should be distinguished. Uluçay doest not consider mentioning Bash kadin in his second book the same way Peirce has mentioned Hurrem as a concubine (not referring to her before marriage but even after it) So this point is baseless. The point is she has been referred as Bash kadin by Uluçay, by Pars Tuğlacı and by İbrahim Horoz Basımevi.[note 1] (you may read the note (with 3 different sources) in the article page) Which clearly means that Bash kadin "existed", Leslie's book does not mention as to when exactly Hurrem was started being called Haseki Sultan but have implemented that such power couldn't have been possessed by Hurrem untill Ayşe Hafsa was alive. It is apparent the wedding took place after Valide Sultan's death, thus the title Haseki came to being. Also, I do not denigrate Leslei's book, but when it comes to backing entire Ottoman Related articles (as seen from your contributions list) by just 1(one) book, you can expect some objections. It's a reliable source but the history cannot solely rely on it, I just say other authors are also referable. -IMWY6 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This "bash kadin" title could have existed already in the beginning of the 16th c. or be slightly anachronistic, it's impossible to tell since modern sources are discordant, anyway since there are reliable sources mentionning it i'm not opposed that it's mentioned in the article (it is already so).
You have again cited a source without having any real knowledge of its author nor title, only from a snippet view : who is this author, "İbrahim Horoz Basımevi", you pretend to quote?
You have again falsely accused me of filling the article with Peirce when i barely added anything to it and almost only reverted unsourced modifications or source falsifications. Now besides making false accusations, inventing imagined references to Venetian sources etc, have you any concrete proposal for the article?--Phso2 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Phso2, Bash Kadin is not a title but a position. I am tired of this long discussion now, seriously. You accused me of quoting from snippet views just because you don't approve of the books I quoted, I have mentioned the page numbers as well so this blame does not have a solid base. İbrahim Horoz Basımevi was a Turkish author and later publisher, it's work mainly focuses on Ottoman laws and notable people and Islamic Sharieh law. Many authors related to this subject have quoted him and referred to his work. I am sorry if I have wrongly accused you of anything, I just saw several of your edits, eg,. "Before Hurrem Sultan, all ottoman consorts carried a less prestigious title Hatun. You have also removed the possibility of Abdullah being bore by Mahidevran while it's not up to us to research and implement our findings, we can simply put in the article whatever sources have to offer. For your last question, I do Not have any other proposal for now, I rest. if I have any in future I will call you in. Just one last thing, the section "M contributed in charity and renovation of mosque build by Ayse Hafsa" need a citation. If you find any then please add it. Or simply insert citation needed mark. Thank you. IMWY6 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
PS; concubines were not intimate partners of Sultan, Cariye (bought or captured slaves) were. If a Sultan wants to engage in intimacy with a woman except a slave, he must perform Nikah 'urfi with them. Just like Ayşe Hafsa Sultan had a Nikah with Selim I, since she was never a slave, but Peirce's not mentioning that simply doesn't mean that Suleiman was an illegitimate child.
İbrahim Horoz Basımevi is not the name of the author, it's the name of the publication house (Basımevi). The publication is freely available on the net ([11]) so you could have checked by yourself the real name of he author and the name of the article, but you prefer to pseudo-quote high sounding names. I don't question the reliability of the article itself, but this shows how superficial your way of contributing is and how you don't even try to ascertain the reliability of a source when you google-find one. That "hatun" is less prestigious than "sultan" is not disputed, is it? You don't show where i am supposed to have removed Abdullah, anyway he is mentionned in the article so what's the point?--Phso2 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Phso2, I mentioned clearly that Ibrahim was an author and later publisher, read above. do you even know who Ibrahim Horoz was? And why this publication house is named after him? I feel no shame in admitting I know nothing about authors, of course we have to google things in order for us to find sources. What else are we suppose to do? Go to Instanbul library? You are being so rude to me, constantly denying and opposing every book I mentioned. That "hatun" is less prestigious than "sultan" is your translation, where does any author mentioned this particular sentence? Obviously it's your assertion, and I don't deny it, but if assertions can be used, then why you constantly fight that M was not a bash kadin whereas there are published books who mention that she was. My point is same, you only want to cite Leslie and whatever other book or author I bring in, you start your pitch with the reliability of a source. Why can't these published book be reliable? Specially since written by Turkish people? Regardless of how infamous they were, their books are published.IMWY6 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, you have to re-read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, a text is not reliable per se just by having been printed; the real value comes from the quality of the author who's speaking, so if you don't know who is the author you must ascertain it, in order to know if what you are reading is the (printed) account of some non-specialist writing for a large audience (Freely, e.g.) or some scholar specialized in the field (çagatay, peirce) whose account has much more weight than the former. Therefore, for each book or author you bring in, you must beforehand have wondered yourself if it is reliable or not.
Besides, can you tell what knowledge of Turkish you have? (since taking Basımevi and Matbaası as personal names shows that it's not your mothertongue)--Phso2 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You can't be serious when you say I am taking Basımevi and Matbaası as personal names. Please quote my exact words from this page's history where I mentioned them as personal names. As irrelevant as my mother tongue is in this subject, just FYI it's qashqai, (farsi). I was only confused by Matbaası as a similar name exist for a person. Nonetheless, even if I didn't know what Basımevi meant I'm not stupid enough to have brought it up without using "google translator". Books by Ibrahim Horoz Basimevi can be trusted for their contents as to large number of "specialized" authors quote them. Since you admit çagatay can be considered reliable source I would really want this discussion to end here. As I don't have enough energy left to prove now whether Basimevi can be cited or not. At least not for now. As for çagatai, when you stop considering it as a reliable source let me know, I have dug up some other "reliable" authors through googling to back my claim. Bye for a week. - IMWY6 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
When you write "İbrahim Horoz Basımevi was a Turkish author and later publisher" (which is like writing "Harper Collins Publishers was an American author" or "Frances Lincoln Publishers was a British author") or "whether Basimevi can be cited or not", do you seriouly deny that you take it as the name of the author? I remind you that you didn't "cite Basimevi" nor "cite Ibrahim Horoz", you provided a snippet from an author whose name you didn't bother to enquiry.--Phso2 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
My honest mistake I wanted the text to appear in Turkish style therefore I copied entire title, hence the Basimevi also appeared in my sentence. Though I won't deny you're right I didn't investigate at that time about the source which I should have, nonetheless I came across many books afterwards by this publication based on Ottomans and Shariah mainly. I am traveling so give me a few more days until I get to my pc like I said I have researched some more authors to cite. Though you said Wikipedia do not consider itself a reliable source I would like to say MANY people comes to Wikipedia right away if they want to know about anyone or anything, so I only want them to read as much and accurate info available as possible, and I know for sure M was not just a concubine, and her position was definitely more than just a mother of a prince as seen from the fact that she's considered a rival to Hurrem, a Haseki. Not only that, after beating her up she remained in the palace, an offense worthy of death penalty (as you can assume by Gulfam's death whose only crime was not to show up at Sulieman's room) and only left the palace when the customs required her to accompany her son in Manisa. And she possessed much influence and power through which she maintained a network of informants within Turkey and from Imperial palace even after being a resident in Manisa and then Amasya. Let's not guess or judge now, if sources say she was baş kadin then who are we to decide that it's worthy or not, appropriate or not to mention in the article, since WP forbids personal research. Let the sources be present please. ttyl :) IMWY6 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Keivan.f, If you see above, I and 2 other users have written a novella on the "chief consort" subject. And you Sir, just decided to crash in and make an edit. :) There is no harm in mentioning "cheif consort", specially since Sulieman have had 3 other consorts. She did served as a "cheif consort" (bash Kadin) before Haseki Hurrem Sultan. And there is no problem in distinguishing the difference between her, Gulfem Hatun and Fulane Hatun. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When I saw your message above I temporarily reverted my edit. First of all I want to explain something. Literally, Hatun and Kadin's meanings are the same. Kadin in Turkish means woman and Hatun or Khatun was at first a title given to the senior consorts of Mongolian emperors (Khans or Khaghans). Khan and Khatun are also used in old Persian when referring to honourable men and women. So your arguement means nothing. As the sources mention Mahidevran by both of these titles, mention both of them in titles' section on the article. But at the same time having the title Kadin didn't actually mean that Mahidevran was higher than the other consorts. Gülfem was also mentioned as a kadin but forget her. The principal fellow consort and influential rival of Mahidevran was Hürrem who had given birth to 4 or 5 princes, obviously more than Mahidevran who had only one son. As we know, the princes were important to save the dynasty's future and not always the eldest one became sultan. So all of them had the same value. Thus mentioning Mahidevran as a chief consort even before Hürrem's marriage is meaningless as they shared an equall place in the harem as the mother of princes and highter than lower consorts like Gülfem and Fülane who had no surviving child. Based on this I think as Hürrem married Suleiman she ascended the position of chief wife which was a new thing in Ottoman history and remained in this position for near 30 years. So she must be mentioned as a chief wife or consort but Mahidevran, no, because she never had such place in the harem, at least not solely. Keivan.fTalk 11:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Keivan.f, it's exhausting going over the same point over and over again, so I'll be very brief. Somewhere between 1521 and 1533, when Mahidevran was resident in imperial palace, she did hold the position of Baş kadin (main woman). During this time, Suleiman was not married to Hurrem, and the mother of eldest son, came after Valide Sultan in rank. For pre 16th century consorts, if we don't mention "chief", that is acceptable because there is no such report of competition in consort ship before Mahidevran and Hurrem. Also, in sources mentioned above, you may find the event of marriage described as "replacing Mahidevran as a chief consort", "mustafanin annesi, Padişahın kadınları ve kızları - Mustafa's mother, King's "wife" and slave", "Mahidevran bas kadin efendi",[24] "Şehzade Mustafa'nın annesi ve Kanunî'nin baş kadını olan Mahidevran Hatun",[25] and other books mentioned earlier in this discussion, calling her main woman - or first wife. Though she remained main/first woman till Mustafa's death, this position never changed before 16th century since there was no such consort like Hurrem before that time, who was given such elevated rank. Bash kadins never stopped being main consorts before Mahidevran, thus Mahidevran was the first Birinci Kadin to have lost the position of being the chief consort even after being the mother of eldest son. Both Mahidevran and Hurrem served as chief consorts in their own times respectively. So I don't see what's the problem here mentioning her 10 to 11 year service as a main woman and later on after losing the chief position while still remaining the Bas/Birinci Kadin. This is an exceptional case because one position ended and another position (Haseki) started. If you don't agree, you may make an edit and remove "chief consort". But that will be not fair since we will be neglecting the positions of Bas Kadins. In English encyclopedia, we cannot mention word "Bash kadin" as most readers simply doesn't know what it means and what positions were held by Bash kadins. When legal marriages were not taking place with Sultans and their consorts, nonetheless the consort ship have always been present as this is fundamental thing. 125.209.82.212 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bas kadin literally means "Head Woman", and if this "head woman" status didn't exist at that time then why she has been referred as "Baş kadin" or Birinci kadin by numerous books? Including those of John Freely. The motion that all these history books are dramatized or contain anachronism can't be true.

Thanks for your expalanations dear. I understood what you said. But I also have a question. What was Hürrem's position before her marriage? Obviously she was a kadın not a hatun cause as the mother of princes she absolutely had a higher position than others like Gülfem or Fülane. You have made me very curious actually about Hürrem's title before becoming Haseki Sultan. Was she ikinci kadın or something like that? Also if Hürrem was given the title Sultan as Suleiman's haseki, then why some say that Mahidevran also may have had this title as well? It's clear that Mahidevran wasn't a haseki sultan, thus I think it's wrong to call her with this title. Isn't it? Keivan.fTalk 19:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Keivan.f, Hurrem was also called "Kadin" before being called Sultan. Being a Kadin (wife or woman) and having a title as "Kadin" are different things. For example Anne Spencer was a lady (a woman) but she hold the title "Lady" with her name. You will find that while Gulfem and Fulane were referred with titles Hatun, Mahidevran has been referred by title "Kadin" several if not many times. Kadin was the title reserved for the wife equivalent consorts, though Hatun was also used for consorts, Hatun is a term to refer to any lady, therefore Kadin distinguished between a wife and a concubine. A sultan didn't have more than 4 Kadins (same law for legal wives in Islam). Mahidevran wasn't a Haseki, hence she couldn't be officially recognized as Sultan. But while Mustafa was in Amasya, people started calling him "Sultan Mustafa" as they were certain that he will ascend the throne. I don't know why she's called Sultana but maybe since her son was called Sultan by his supporters they would have given the same respect to his mother. And note that this was the time when first time in Ottoman history a consort was being called Sultan (Hurrem Sultan) so it can be assumed that people might have started calling Mahidevran Sultan as well, after all to this day, you will find many books (popular history books, biographies, art, literature) which called her Sultana. Hurrem went from cariye to Hatun, from Hatun to Kadin (sometime ikinci Kadin), from Kadin to Haseki Sultana. Wikipedia have an article for the description of Haseki but no article describing Bas Kadin. Hence I request to mention the main consort-ship in this article. IMWY6 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about Hürrem and Mahidevran. You also left a message on my talk page saying that which part of Mahidevran's article I think was removed? Well, as I'm viewing the changes from my mobile it seems that a paragraph is removed and some sentences have changed. Obviously it's really different from using a laptop. Anyway, the main problem is with the citaion of new info that has been added. So many bare urls are used as a source. While sources must inculde the name of the books, their authors, the number of pages that support the material, ISBN, the year of publishing and a link if it's available. So please by looking at other references, make the sources more clear and specific. Keivan.fTalk 20:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the references format as you suggested, I have added the number of pages as well. However, a paragraph was removed by Phso2, and you already asked him/her to revert it. I didn't remove the paragraph you can double check there in history, I am the one who wrote it but the other user have removed it. Sorry if leaving a message on talk page is not appropriate, I didn't know how else to contact you. IMWY6 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Great. Thanks for your attention. Also, as I said, I don't have access to my laptop now so checking the page's history is a little bit difficult. Please send the link from the article's history that shows Phso2 has removed a paragraph. We'll see what it was and we'll discuss it. And just feel free to leave your messages on my talk page. I usually response to users' messages there but as we were also discussing here and the topic was about this article, I prefered to answer you here. Good night. Keivan.fTalk 23:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f I am new at this thing so I don't know I can send you the link from article's history. Phso2 removed the line where I mentioned the year of consort ship, which was my mistake I wrote 16 or 17 years where as it should be 11 to 12 years. It may seem like a paragraph due to number of words (a note backing this claim was also removed) but it was really just a line. IMWY6 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@IMWY6 Well it's so simple. Just go to the page's history. Then tick your edit and Phso2's edit. Press compare. Then the differences between the two changes appear. Copy the url on your browser and then send it here. Keivan.fTalk 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f this is the link. I hope that is the way of doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahidevran_G%C3%BClbahar&type=revision&diff=713103324&oldid=713093101 -IMWY6 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=mahidevran+hatun&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=mahidevran+hatun&tbm=bks
  2. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9SrUAAAAMAAJ&dq
  3. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=JYk-AQAAIAAJ&q
  4. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=ZXUQBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&dq
  5. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=tjFpAAAAMAAJ&dq
  6. ^ https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=mahidevran+sultan&rlz=1C1CHWL_enPK572PK572&oq=mahidevran+sultan&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l2j69i65j69i60j0.3952j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=mahidevran+sultan&tbm=bks
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_titles_and_appellations
  8. ^ http://www.theottomans.org/english/family/harem2.asp
  9. ^ http://www.theottomans.org/english/glossary/index.asp
  10. ^ İnalcık, Halil; Kafadar, Cemal (1993-01-01). Süleymân The Second [i.e. the First] and his time. Isis Press. 
  11. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=5WT1BQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  12. ^ [~ (an interview with Saide Perizat) (in Turkish)]
  13. ^ http://www.theottomans.org/english/references/index.asp
  14. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9VYNAQAAIAAJ&q
  15. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=b48lAQAAMAAJ&q
  16. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=-2MMAQAAMAAJ&q
  17. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=h27sAAAAIAAJ&q
  18. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=4xlIAAAAMAAJ&q
  19. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=4ddqaCdZdZ0C&pg
  20. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=nktpAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=mahidevran
  21. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9VYNAQAAIAAJ&q=mahidevran+kadin&dq=mahidevran+kadin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_pvmNi-nLAhVCNxQKHX11Bx0Q6AEILDAC
  22. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=b48lAQAAMAAJ&q=mahidevran+kadin&dq=mahidevran+kadin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_pvmNi-nLAhVCNxQKHX11Bx0Q6AEIMjAD
  23. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=b48lAQAAMAAJ&dq=mahidevran+kadin&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=mahidevran
  24. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9VYNAQAAIAAJ&q=mahidevran+kadin&dq=mahidevran+kadin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj895vvl_DLAhVFHxoKHWzlD90Q6AEILDAC
  25. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=hCEtAQAAIAAJ&q=mahidevran+Ba%C5%9F+kadin&dq=mahidevran+Ba%C5%9F+kadin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijqeKzmPDLAhVDMhoKHa4wDm0Q6AEINjAE

Nicolae Jorga source[edit]

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)

Rename to Mahidevran Hatun[edit]

The Ottoman archives and privy purse records prove that she was Mahidevran Hatun, regardless that fact that she was the mother of the crown prince or had been once a favorite of Suleiman. She is called "Mahidevran Hatun Valide Sultan Mustafa" which is translated as "Empress Mahidevran mother of Prince Mustafa".

Retrieverlove (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove There has been a long discussion on the TP if you read it's longer than it's supposed to be. No user could prove what her real title was. If 10 authors says "'Sultan'" then other 10 says "'Hatun'" then there are other Turkish historians who says "'Bas Kadin'". For this sole purpose of avoiding dispute and edit wars, a whole new section to the article (Title and Status) has been added, which is entirely dedicated to this issue. Please refrain from adding/removing any unproven Title. I suggest let it be neutral. 113.203.192.60 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"[...] and the Sultan's favorite or chief consorts changed to Sultan [...]. Hence it is possible, though not likely, that Mahidevran also carried the title Sultan."

That's not the correct conclusion, though. The use of "sultan" for a consort came with the title Haseki, because the full title was Haseki Sultan (Devletlû İsmetlu (given name) Haseki Sultân Aliyyetü'ş-Şân Hazretleri)—that is why. Since that title was created for Hürrem, this does not affect Mahidevran, who was important nonetheless as the mother of the oldest prince, but not a Haseki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E8:8BCE:C01:ED43:4385:BB24:1ABE (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This also implies that the Valide (Mother of Sultan) was also given the title Sultan only after Hurrem Sultan was given the title Sultan (which was more likely when she lawfully became Sultan's wife (during 1553-1554, around the same time the Valide died), which does not make a point as the Valide Sultan was more important than Hurrem Sultan and the titles changed during Suleiman's reign (16th century - though not specific date given) hence it IS possible, more because some historians have also called Mahidevran "Mahidevran Sultan", sources can be checked in "Title and status" section. 113.203.138.181 (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).