Talk:Mehmed II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Mehmed II as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Source for "caesar"

What is the source for Mehmed II was called "caesar"? Filanca 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In every book about the reign of Mehmet II, there is a detail about the title "caesar". Actually, It was himself who claimed to be the new caesar. To reach his goal, he conquered all Byzantine Empire (simply the exiting Roman Empire) and then he started the invasion of Italy by the conquest of Otranto but his unexpected death put an end to his plans about "uniting the Roman Empire again". Also, his huge effort to capture Constantinople (the centre of the Roman world) and making the city his capital are all can be seen as his projects about being the supreme leader of the western world. According to Giàcomo de Languschi, Mehmet once said "In the old times the west attacked to the east but thesedays the world has changed so I will invade the west from the east to form a single empire, a single religion and a single rule over the world". Franz Babinger construes these words as a clear evidence for Mehmet's ambition to rule the west. With respect, Deliogul 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
He did not called himself Ceaser, but the derivation Kaiser-i Roum(Meaning Ceaser of Roum).
"Kayzer" is the Ottoman version of the world Caesar and "Rüm" basically means Roman/Byzantine Domain. Therefore Kayzer-i Rüm ends up meaning the "Caesar of Roman Lands". I guess you confused because of all this translation business. Deliogul 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mehmed II's Firman on the Freedom of the Bosnian Franciscans

None of the references mention Mehmed II's Firman. Neither Norwich nor Kinross mention anything about Mehmed's oath.

That part of the page needs a reference or it should be removed. Also, Magna Carta was in 1215 which makes it older than Mehmet's undocumented "oath". Kansas Bear 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

The Conqueror's oath is not undocumented, actually it is a well known document both for IR and History students. Whatever, I added the reference you wanted. Deliogul 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


The Magna Carta was issued in 1215, actually it is a well known document for History students. Which means this sentence; "This document, is the oldest human rights declaration, since the Cyrus cylinder.", is incorrect. Although, according to UN investigators it is one of the oldest documents on religious freedoms. Kansas Bear 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear


Deliogul, I found the minutes from a UN tribual which makes reference to the Conqueror's oath and it's existance at Fojnica. Here's the link if you wish to add it as a reference: http://www.un.org/icty/transe21/970319IT.htm Kansas Bear 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

[edit] Mehmet or Mehmed

In Turkish, a word or a name can not end with "D", it ends with "T". Arabs can use Mehmed but the article itself should be Mehmet II, as he is a Turkish man and name. This is not about modern or etc. This is also the same for Murad. It should be Murat. Those are all Turkish people. Yet, we are talking about Ottoman Turkish, not Arabic.

"Mehmet" is the Turkish translation for "Muhammed". The name passed to the English speaking world as "Mehmed" and since we are in the English Wikipedia, the true version is "Mehmed". Deliogul 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is definetly not about the language of Wikipedia. (Atatürk not Ataturk; Cüneyt Arkın not Cuneyt Arkin...) You can not change the original name while changing from language to language. Yet, we can not say Mehmet is the Turkish translation of Muhammed. We can say it is a variation of Arabic name Muhammed but it is Mehmet, and it is Turkish. Those variations are usual in the Western world as well. Example: Louis in French, Lewis in English, Ludivici in Italian.. Article should be changed from Mehmed II to Mehmet II.

Words can not end with the soft consonants - b, c, d, g
Word must end in the equivalent hard forms p, ç, t, k in order to finish the pronounciation without continuity thus helping the listener to determine word breaks in conversation.
http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/conmut01.htm

In the English Wikipedia, we use the name (or spelling) under which a person is known in English language culture. Wikipedia is not alone in this. The Encyclopedia Britannica spells it "Mehmed" also. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051807/Mehmed-V . And we're not picking on just one language or group. The person "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson" is found in wikipedia under his much more famous pen name Lewis Carroll, the person "Theodosia Burr Goodman" is listed under her stage name Theda Bara, the Persian "Šahrzād" is under Scheherazade, and "Gaius Julias Caesar" is listed under Julius Caesar, which is actually just the name of his branch of his "gens" (his clan or tribe, loosely speaking). Other examples: we use modern English Jacob for the Biblical character, and not the ancient Hebrew spelling "יַעֲקֹב " (or a modern Hebrew version such as "Ya'akov"), Pocahontas is actually a knickname for the woman whose real names were "Matoaka", "Amonute", and "Rebecca Rolfe", and "Eiríkr Þorvaldsson" is listed as we know him, Eric the Red. Studerby 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, examples you give can not be exactly compared with this. We are talking about d or t. If Britannica spells it as Mehmed it does not mean that it is the absolute truth. Yet, Wikipedia can not be the absolute truth. But the aim of Wikipedia should be to host things that are closest to truth. Mehmet II, Fatih Sultan Mehmet is not Arab. He is a Turkish man. The name is Turkish. His name can not end with "d". You can check www.tdk.gov.tr and you will not find a word "Mehmed or Murad or whatever..". Go ask 100million Turks about how it should be written, you will end up with "T" 99.99%. If someone started this false when writing down Britannica maybe its time to change it in Wikipedia. Some years later, it is obvious that no one will care about Britannica but Wikipedia will be the number one source to know about things. And the truth is Mehmet but not Mehmed. Mehmed can redirect to Mehmet. Giving the facts, one should be open minded.

Eric the Red, can you kindly define "English language culture"? Is it opposite to 1=1 is true and 1=0 is false?

English speaking world don't call Mehmed instead of Mehmet because they think he was an Arab. If they try to call him Muhammed then you can be against it but this "t-d" business is a transfer between English and Turkish languages, not the Arabic language so first of all eliminate this Arab thing from consideration. Finally, Mehmet is the direct Turkish translation for Muhammed without a doubt. Deliogul 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with translation or ethnicity, Turkish or Arab. "Mehmed" is simply the traditional English spelling for these names. It is the way it's been spelled in English for years. If you look for "mehmet" on Amazon.com, it doesn't return any books about Turkish rulers; the top results are diet books (by Mehmet C. Oz). If you look on Amazon for "Mehmed", you find Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time by Franz Babinger. "Mehmed" is simply how it's spelled in English. Similarly, in English, we spell it MacBeth, even though in Scottish it's "Mac Bethad". It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with tradition and consistency; we do it this way because it's the way it's been done in the past; it's the way English speakers expect it to be. Studerby 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Studerby, I put my signature under your comment. This is what I tried to explain in my first edit. Deliogul 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote in Turkish. It goes like this: A mad man threw a stone in to the well and fourty clever men could not take it out. This "it's the way it's been done in the past" approach makes my efforts and further explanations useless. This is an approach that I hate the most in the World. People used to think that World was flat. If the World was full of people like you (do not take this offensive), then we would be living in a flat world now. And Deliogul, how can you translate "a name" I wonder... That should be interesting! :) Mehmet is a Turkish variation of Muhammed, the Arabic name. There is no name in Turkish as Mehmed. It is obvious that we do not have in English as well. So, where did this Mehmed came from? Not Arabic, not Turkish, not English.. Perhaps it's Martian... :) But go on, keep living with the false. Don't bother.


We don't use "d" at the end of words NOW, but just 80 years ago we did. Back in the 1400s, we may have used "d" as well. So if you don't have a reference besides TDK, you better stop this nonsense. You can only refer to TDK for present grammer questions..(this is so funny, no words ever could end with d(nor b c g) in any of modern turkic language as well as now extinct ones (g may becom k or ğ) but about the mehmed subject here, it is only a script difference where english d is not the d we use in turkish infact , consider britain was using some other script (in fact a have to for english language) like kril alphabet would you mind the last symbol of same word? there are many weird writings (like khatun, khan) of turkish words in english but thats because of the script of english which is not sufficient for its language...and if you want a real discussion about Mehmed II here you go, no word about his engineering abilities(usual for western people they care only military performance, On the back of 1000 lira banknotess there was his portrait, which underlines his scientfic knowledge, but on this page you can only find the words abou troy as evidence to his intellectuality) neither his vision of art...
For what it's worth, the Turkish Vikipedi uses a final "d". I don't think the English Wikipedia should try to out-Turk the Turks.  --Lambiam 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Term?!

What a wrong word to use. "Term" is generally used to refer the elected or appointed bodies in republics. However, in empires, we use "reign" or "rule" because nobody elects or appoints the emperor, "to rule" is an opportunity that is given to the royal house by the God and nobody can take from the hands of the emperor before he dies or he does things against the order of the religion (Fatwā by Sheikh ul-Islam). Therefore, please change the structure of the new succession box according to this detail. Deliogul 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conquests In Europe

In the conquests in Europe, something is said about Dracula returning from exile with 30,000 men. Did someone put that name in trying to be funny, or is it actual fact? Either way, it shouldn't just be thrown in there without previous mention. Can someone who knows more on the subject fix please? Baseballbaker23 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vlad Tepes, aka Dracula, was Prince of Wallachia on three occasions between 1448 and 1476, and an opponent of Mehmed II. Obviously some explanation is in order, though, and I'm not really equipped to do it. john k (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paragraph just before the one with the sentence about Dracula marching with a 30,000-strong army, it should all be clear (or if not, just follow the wikilinks).  --Lambiam 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. I had skipped over the Dracula part and didn't notice it when reading back before adding this. Thanks. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, even if we have to use nicknames for monarchs, in this case, we can call Tepes as Vlad Dracula at most informal way. Simply referring him as Dracula would just be taking pop culture references more seriously than the academic references. Deliogul (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)