Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

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

He was Serb. Enough is enough[edit]

We can put here various arguments, sources, books and myths. BUT. Was his brother a man who led renewing of Serbian orthodox patriarchat? Yes! Was he the first Patriarch of renewed Serbian orthodox patriarchat? Yes. So please, once for ever, stop those nonsenses. The rest can celebrate those great and famous Serbs coz they do not have such brilliant men in their past, but this should be stopped. No need to mention "myth" and "legend" that he was maybe coming from some Bosniak noble bla bla... Nor to write that his name is in Bosnian (few years ago invented language) or Croatian (when he has nothing with Croats). He was Serb and his name is in Serbian. Dot!109.121.42.43 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

=== this whole article has grammer errors besides being poorly worded! typical wikipedia crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.131.181 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree..Bajo Nenadić surly don't sound as Croat's....so he can't be Croat. He also can't be "Bosniak" becouse they are converted either from Croats either from Serbs.....we can be very confident that he was a Serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And we can be sure that he wasn't serbian, only that his parents were adherents of the eastern orthodox church. He was from Bosnia, therefore, he is Bosnian, not Bosniak. And, because he was takes when he was very young, and grew up in Istanbul and in ottoman empire, we can say he is ottoman, not turkish, but ottoman. No arguments here. 77.77.252.60 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, he was Serbian. You see, some people really confuse "Serb-Serbian" with "Bosniak-Bosnian". A Serb = Serbian, while Bosniak =/= Bosnian. A Bosniak is an "ethnic Bosnian", while a Serb, or a Croat also can be Bosnian if they're the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's why the Sokollu family was NOT Muslim Bosniak. I think none of the original members of this family were born as Muslims, they were all born as Serbian-Orthodox (Christian Orthodox church). They converted to Islam later on, because they were in fact Bosnian Serbs. Moreover, Sokollu comes from Sokolović, which is largely a Serbian surname. Too much evidence. His NATIONALITY could be Bosnian, but he was ETHNICALLY Serbian. Yatzhek (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He was a Serb indeed. An ethnic Serb, raised in Bosnia, who converted to islam. Nothing more to add. Wikipedia lies sometimes while some people try to pust their point of view in the article. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, he is ethnically serb. I dont understand why someone would argue against this, bosniaks were not the only people who converted to islam. Tarmet (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Books[edit]

Encyclopaedic Survey of Islamic Culture by Mohamed Taher, published in 1998, ISBN:8126104031. Page 765:

The encyclopedia of Christianity by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, ISBN:9004145958. Page 88:

the grand vizier section[edit]

i moved this to the bottom because i have learned the importance of always putting posts in chronological order. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the grand vizier section is incredibly long and far too detailed. if people want to read a description of his career, they can search the web or get a biography or something. this article should be an introductory source for the purpose of availing the ignorant of mehmed's importance, not of making them experts on him. all of the paragraphs that are one sentence long need to be incorporated into larger ones for better flow and paragraphs like this one need either to be removed entirely or greatly altered:

besides its problems with grammar and tense, this paragraph is an unnecessary summary that very clearly stretches the bounds of NPOV by picking out what the author considers most important from the subject's entire career, and unnecessarily repeating them when they were all mentioned earlier in the section. i view it's lack of citations as a reason to just delete it altogether, since it indicates that there wasn't very much work put into it in any case. the paragraph above it, describing he and his wife's burial arrangements, seems like a much more proper way to conclude the section, but again seems to me too detailed. the trouble with so much information is that it discourages people from actually reading about mehmed on wikipedia. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i noticed this has been reduced to a single sentence! perhaps an overcompensation, but i do appreciate the breaking-up of his life into various issues of historical import. i think the article is much, much better now! congrats to whoever did that. any further ideas as to how this article could approach featured status (i think it is an important enough one to both western and eastern history for that to be likely)? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
so the paragraph i quoted above has now been restored, and, defying all expectation, the writing in it has actually become worse. the last years is about right now, and need not have a glowing obituary at the end of it. i feel qualified to remove most of this paragraph, since i have kept an eye on it for so long now. please, don't be be bold and restore it, whoever you are. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DISPUTE: Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic was Bosniak, not Serb[edit]

Two ethnic groups, Bosniaks and Serbs, celebrate Sokollu Mehmet Paşa as their own. It is utterly unfair to refer to him as being of Bosnian Serb descent when this is clearly disputed. He is one of the most celebrated characters in the Bosniak history. You cannot assign him to Serbs when other nation celebrates him as their own. According to Prof. Mustafa Imamovic (History of Bosniaks, page 158-163 [1], Sokollu Mehmet Pasa was Bosniak. Serb sources listing as Serb are weak and self-serving. I suggest we modify the article by mentioning that two ethnic groups celebrate him as their own, but there is no strong indication that he was Serb apart from Serb sources using weak and clearly not academic estimates.Bosniak (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest to introduce the separate section, "Ethnicity dispute", with both Serb and Bosniak points of view. There must be clear arguments (not just claims "yes he was") coted from references to prominent researchers, not random websies, politicians or journalists.
In discussion, please avoid statements like "weak and self-serving". Please speak facts from printed sources, not your opinions. Otherwise this dispute will always turn into a religious war here, with no improvement of the artycle. Mukadderat (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that many talks about the ethnicity are in the talk archive, Talk:Sokollu Mehmet Paşa/Archive 1. Mukadderat (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a rather extensive search through google books and amazon.com, and found about an equal number of sources stating that he was either Bosnian or Serb. I myself don't have a preference to his ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's the whole my point: there should be a separate section to present both sides.
I agree! Bosniak (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that even the fact he was born in Bosnian lands does not resolve the controversy whether he was of bosnian nationality, not saying about ethnicity:

  • Some say, he is of bosnian nationality, since he was born in Bosnian land;
  • Other say it is illegitimate to call him Bosnian nationality, since there was no Bosnia at his birth: he is from what was Kingdom of Bosnia 40 years before his birth, but the interim status of Bosnian lands was unclear. If I am not mistaken, Bosna Sancağı of Rumelia was established around 1530-40.

And so on. Mukadderat (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Actually, all three ethnic groups; Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs (all three of them still present in today's Bosnia), celebrate Sokollu Mehmet Paşa as their own. All three of them wrote books and songs about him. Good example is Ivo Andrić. Some, both Wester and Ottoman sources claim that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was a Croat. For example, in book

  • "Suleiman the Magnificent - Sultan of the East" by Harold Lamb, it is clearly stated on pages 53, 117, 303, 311...that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was Croat (ISBN=978-1-40677-271-5). Also in
  • "Lieber, Francis (1845). Encyclopædia Americana: A popular dictionary of arts, sciences,... Vol 13. Philadelphia: Columbia University Library." on page 345, Sokollu Mehmet Paşa is called renegade of Croatia.

To make a long story short, I think that in the lead section it should be written that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was from Bosnia. And I agree to make a new section "Ethnicity dispute", where all aspects should be noticed. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I never heard that Croat's think Mehmed is their own...maybe in wider pro-Yugoslav or pan-Slavic sentence, but Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic is alway been a Serb. If Harold Lamb stated different hr id wrong...Croatian wiki also state that he was of Serb origin from Visegrad. Ok, there is good reason why historican can see Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic as Croat, becouse he himself in his letter's considered all Slavic people between Budim and Dubrovnik as Croat's. But, his name is too Serbian like in combination with his originaly ortodox religion it too much for Croat's to accept him.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


Please find some compromise here. Even Turkish politicians consider him a Serb : http://www.islamskazajednica.org/index.php?option=com_ezine&task=read&page=2&category=11&article=3076 ... So either correct it or avoid referencing his ethnicity. Serbian sources might be "weak and self-serving" but Bosniak sources are not any better when it comes to this matter. Otherwise we are entering one of these vigorous cycle of disputes... Lets end this and add part on ethnic dispute as proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.8.238 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was Bosniak !!!!!!!!!!

--92.225.33.15 (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Sokollu Mehmet Paşa he was a Bosniak he is Bosniak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.71.80 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC) LOL

Mehmed Pasha Sokolovich

I think that the problem with Yugoslav history is that since Austro-Hungarian occupation, Hungarian hegemony was ever so present among slavs in the hapsburg empire. Hungarian hegemony led to several uprisings including Croatian Ban Yosip Yelachich. The Hungarians insisted that all slavs in the empire declare themselves as Hungarians and this was done to consolidate the empire's hold on provinces that were not ethnically Hungarian or Austrian. There was a decree by the Austro-Hungarian empire during its occupation of Bosnia that the Bosnian language was not allowed to be called Bosnian any longer and that the Bosnians were to be called Croatians. Bosnia was divided into three parts, lika and dalmatia, Von Bismarck's Bosnia, and the Sancak of Yeni Pazar and what they call Montenegro today. Lika and Dalmatia were completely cleansed of the absolute majority Bosnians and forced somewhere around 3 million people to leave lika and dalmatia and the other 2 parts of bosnia. When the Yugoslav rule of Bosnia came, the Hungarian hegemonial practices were continued by the ruling serbs and croats. Bosnians were forced to declare themselves as serbs or croats. During the time of yugoslav rule from 1917 to 1967(1971 for the first time on a census and 1974 for the first time in the yugoslav constitution but they were written in as Muslims with a capital M instead of as Bosnians to protect Serb and Croat settlers in Bosnia that arrived during yugoslav rule and agrarian reforms)(excluding 1941 to 1945 Independent State of Croatia where Bosnians were incorporated like the French into a fascist state and were declared as Croats), Bosnians did not exist as a nation and were written in in the history books as either serb or croat. This is where the confusion sets in and this is why some people refer to Sokolovich as Serb and others as Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.44.248 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why Bosnians were to be named Croats was the fact that Hapsburgs needed peace and stability in the region. Renaming them Croats (and consequently pressuring them religiously to convert to Catholicism) would mean that they would eventually be obedient citizens of the never-ending Hapsburg empire. Another thing is that the language was never Bosnian but Illyrian or Serbian or Slavian/Slavonic (if the decree actually states so it is yet another propaganda from the Austro-Hungarians in order to distance them from Serbia). Bosnia as a country and its populace was Serbian (of course like in any country there are other minorities that coexist, in this case Croats who migrated during the Austro-Hungarian rule to Bosnia). Finally, there is no doubt as to what ethnos he belonged to, and that is Serbian. Sokolovic was a Serb born in Bosnia. He was educated at the Mileseva Monastery (a Serbian Orthodox Christian monastery in Serbia). His brother (or cousin or nephew, it is not known for sure) was the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Mehmed Pasa helped reestablish autonomy of the Patriarchy of Pec (Serbian Orthodox Patriarchy). So where in the world is his Croatian heritage and since a Bosnian nationality didn't exist he can't be called a Bosnian or Bosniak (Bosniak is specifically a name of the Bosnian MUSLIMS). To call him Bosnian is to call a German, a Bavarian and deny his/her German ethnicity and nationality. The terms Bosnia and Bosnian were used for a long time but NEVER as an ethnicity and nationality but a GEOGRAPHIC notion and as to where that person was born. So the only thing that stands to reason is his Serbian origins and heritage - everyone goes for the throat the moment a Serb is born on the lands of PRESENT Bosnia or Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.25.80 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What you writed here is lot's of nonsene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha born a Serb, became a Bosniak[edit]

He was born a Serb, however through forceful conversion into Islam, he became what one may today call a Bosniak. He is in the line of the first progenitors of the Bosniak ethnos.

In other words; Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was a Serb by ethnicity, however a founding father of what the Bosniak ethnos is going to mean one day.

Bosniaks ethnogenesis starts with the influence of Islam on the Christian Slavic population of Bosnia (Serbs and in the northwest the Croats), meaning that only Muslims may be called Bosniaks. Catholic or Orthodox Bosniaks traditionally do not exist (as it is the case with the Serbs and Croats, which denominate by their Slavic lineage to their respectible Slavic tribes, Croats and Serbs namely, and not by religion). Only in the year 1973 were the 'Muslims', today Bosniaks, recognised as a specific ethnos, and not Serbs of Muslim denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.39.170 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The inhabitants of medieval Bosnia called themselves Bosnjani (meaning Bosnians) and this name was transformed into Bosnjaci (Bosniaks) with the ottoman rule. There is no evidence that medieval Bosnians in any way considered themselves Serb or Croat (British historian Noel Malcolm has covered this extensively). Hence, during the Ottoman rule Bosniaks came in three religions (Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic). US historians Robert Donia and John Fine write: A Bosnian's identity as a Bosnian - even if it originally referred to his geographical homeland or state membership - has roots going back many centuries, whereas the classification of any Christian Bosnian as a Serb or a Croat goes back barely a century. Thus, the recent self-identification of Catholic and Orthodox Bosnians/Bosniaks as Croats and Serbs is the result of 19th century nationalism in neighboring Croatia and Serbia. In Serb-dominated Yugoslavia the Bosniak identity was suppressed for obvious political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.54.125 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Religion of Sokollu Mehmed[edit]

Currently it is as if he was an adherent of the Eastern Orthodox religion, while in fact he was (probably) born into Eastern Orthodox parents. Before reaching adulthood he was taken to Istanbul and raised as an Ottoman and a Muslim and he remained so for the rest of his life. He was famous because he was an Ottoman Muslim Grand Vizier, not because he was born in a certain part of the world to parents of a specific religion which had nothing to do with the rest of his life. The intro of the article represents exactly the opposite of what I wrote. In fact I'm certain that there is almost nothing known about his personal life before him becoming a high ranking Ottoman. I believe everything concerning his origins is an unnecessary nationalist approach. (See discussions above) I'm changing the infobox. DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is being vandalised[edit]

The link to an existing Wikipedia article Serbian Cyrillic in which the name is written in the article is constantly being changed to just Cyrillic even though the last letter used for his name -- ћ -- exists ONLY in the Serbian Cyrillic (and that is why it is used in the spelling).

Moreover, the religion of his ancestors is being changed from Serbian Orthodoxy to Eastern Orthodoxy. The only Orthodoxy that ever existed in Bosnia is Serbian Orthodoxy, not some blanket Eastern Orthodoxy that exists from Japan through China and all of Asia and Europe to Vancouver and San Francisco.

The article should have these two issues fixed and then be locked to prevent vandalism. QueerStudiesRS (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do support emphasizing the Serbian variant of the Cyrillic script. But there was no well-structured or defined religious landscape in 16th century Bosnia, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Bogomil. What prevailed was a form of folk Christianity pervaded by mysticism, and with little or no actual allegiance to any patriarchates based in Serbia or, in the case of Catholics, to archbishops based in Croatia or Dalmatia. Such firm bonds were only formed later, late 18th century and forwards, in parallel with the formation of Serb and Croat ethnic identities among Bosnia's catholic and orthodox communities. Your sense of approaching editing on Wikipedia testifies of an anachronistic POV nationalist agenda much unacceptable. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

stop sabahudin[edit]

User:Sabahudin continues to vandalise this page whit his serbophobic and nationalistic edits. Please stop him.Serb1914 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of issues with historical anachronism, we do not refer to this individual as either "Bosniak" or "Serb". The most accurate approximation we can make is "Bosnian". So, no Bosniak or Serb categories. And that goes for the both of you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Banac, Judah, Tanner[edit]

These three authors were used just to prove that Sokollu was an ethnic Serb. Their books are marginal to the life and rule of the Sokollu and we have seven other sources proving the same already. Instead, I've added Tezcan, Imber, Crowly to the Sources section - the authors who were writing about the Ottoman Empire in a more wide and particular range.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)