| Revision as of 13:12, 6 January 2025 editSobek2000 (talk | contribs)366 editsNo edit summaryTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:12, 6 January 2025 edit undoSobek2000 (talk | contribs)366 editsNo edit summaryTag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| :We should not forget that at that time it was very important for the queens of Europe-who succeeded their sons or husbands to the throne to be the common-law wives of their husbands. | :We should not forget that at that time it was very important for the queens of Europe-who succeeded their sons or husbands to the throne to be the common-law wives of their husbands. | ||
| :Marriage in this period - as in many other periods is an important source of legitimacy for a woman It is clear that Kösem also wanted to remain legitimate in the face of a state like Venice.I read Özlem Kumrular's book. It's a good book, but definitely NOT that good. It seems like a book written very hastily I saw some historical errors in the book. Especially the part about Kösem Sultan's children is wrong ] (]) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | :Marriage in this period - as in many other periods is an important source of legitimacy for a woman It is clear that Kösem also wanted to remain legitimate in the face of a state like Venice.I read Özlem Kumrular's book. It's a good book, but definitely NOT that good. It seems like a book written very hastily I saw some historical errors in the book. Especially the part about Kösem Sultan's children is wrong ] (]) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
::Kulrular adressed this in her book - yes, it would be important fo Kosem to highlight she is legitimate wife, but at the same times Kumrular does thinks it would do her more harm than good if she lied. There are indeed errors in this book - like in some moment authour counts Mehmed among sons of Kosem, and then she writes that Mehmet was full-brother of Osman - but we are not talking about those errors. We are talking about Kosem's marriage. Kumrular is expert on subject. If you have scholar text that specifically disputes her argument, you are free to add it, but do no change content based solely on your opinion. What you present is as of now your unsourced speculation. ] (]) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::Herman Julianna greatly explains the marriage dispute alsoHistorian Erhan Afyoncu belives letter is dictaed by Kosem mainly because of the strange immature diplomatic language ] (]) 13:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | :::Herman Julianna greatly explains the marriage dispute alsoHistorian Erhan Afyoncu belives letter is dictaed by Kosem mainly because of the strange immature diplomatic language ] (]) 13:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Does this author reffers to letter found by Kumrular? Also, you did not provided any source, only name. If this book was written before Kumrular published her book, then your source is outdated. ] (]) 13:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ::::Does this author reffers to letter found by Kumrular? Also, you did not provided any source, only name. If this book was written before Kumrular published her book, then your source is outdated. ] (]) 13:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:12, 6 January 2025
November 2024
Hello, I'm Clyde H. Mapping. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Katica Ivanišević, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma keeps using unreliable sources as their source and keep vandalising page of Safiye Sultan and they are threatening me,i would like to ask for a block 109.228.104.136 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If blocks are handed out, they will be given to everyone in this dispute. The edit warring needs to stop and you need to discuss your dispute, use dispute resolution, or discuss behavior at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- They are showing no interest in discussing the topic but threatening me with a block,they are using tourist sites and blogs as their source,deleting the already sourced content from the page i have asked for block since user is not interested in discussion User19529?! (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Assuming you are this user) You may not edit war to stop edit warring, even if you are correct. Please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- They are showing no interest in discussing the topic but threatening me with a block,they are using tourist sites and blogs as their source,deleting the already sourced content from the page i have asked for block since user is not interested in discussion User19529?! (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If blocks are handed out, they will be given to everyone in this dispute. The edit warring needs to stop and you need to discuss your dispute, use dispute resolution, or discuss behavior at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Ottoman Sultanas
Hi, I'm MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, and I would like to discuss one thing with you:
1. No one has ever threatened you. Action corresponds to reaction, and a consequence for deleting content for no reason, based on your own motivations and beliefs, without listening to or taking into account the sources of others, leads to a block, or a request for it. And these are the rules.
2. Don't allow yourself to come and claim that my edits are vandalism, because I've been studying people like Safiye Sultana and Handan Sultana all my life, I've always brought sources, whether you're okay with it or not. Remember, that THERE IS NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL VERSION of the facts and origins of these people. Given the uncertainty of this and given the sources that state different things, it is only fair to include all possible truthful and source-backed information.
3. I consider it an insult to undo edits by claiming that it is vandalism, and I SHOULD ask for the block for your account, because you allow yourself to delete content based on what you deem appropriate to insert. And who are you to decide that what I insert is fake?
4. It is rude to consider one's own version superior to others. Because on characters like the Ottoman Haseki there is not only one theory about their origins, but multiple and whether you like it or not, one does not exclude the other.
5. Sources that I have brought are verifiable on the web, everywhere. Just inquire and have a full version of things. That's all.
6. Have I ever deleted the information related to the possible Albanian birth of Safiye? No, I never had the presumption to do so. Never. You, on the other hand, took the liberty of deleting the information relating to his possible Venetian birth. Well, just as some theories claim that it is unlikely that it was Venetian, others inform that it is unlikely that it was Albanian.
7. I would like to emphasize that I have never threatened a block, but have simply expressed my concern about how your edits are affecting the quality of the page. A constructive and consensus-based attitude is key to maintaining a collaborative environment.
8. If you consider other people's information not authoritative, I don't know from what point of view then, Misplaced Pages is not the right place for your edits: here anyone who brings sources can collaborate, because it is a 💕. If this bothers you, and you don't like other people's statements, write a book, where you can enter all the information you want without having to compare yourself with other people's information that you apparently can't accept.
I invite you to reread Misplaced Pages's guidelines on user conduct. Respecting these rules is essential to maintain a collaborative and constructive environment. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Kosem Sultan was wife of Ahmed I.
I would kindly ask you to stop reverting informations about Kosem and Ahmed' marital status. It appears they married at some point in his reign, as it is attested by letter to Venetians during Murad IV's reign, found in Venetians archive by Turkish researcher Özlem Kumrular. Letter says Ahmed married Kosem during his reign, though it does not sayd when exactly and in what circumstances. I had added this information in text, see reference 21: "The pair apparently married at some point, as a letter to the Venetians written during Murad IV's reign states that Ahmed had wed Kösem; nevertheless surviving contemporary evidence surrounding the exact circumstances of their marriage is scarce." Source: Kumrular, Özlem (2016). Sułtanka Kösem. Władza i intrygi w haremie (in Polish). Laurum. pp. 137–140. ISBN 978-83-8087-451-0.
Kumrular does consider letter to be credible source (here is excerpt from page 40 of cited edition, my manual English translation of Polish edition I used): "If it was really the Sultana who ordered this letter to be written, I don't think she would dare to take such a risk and take responsibility for such a serious lie just to legitimize her rights. Venice knew every move of the Ottomans, watched their every breath, it wouldn't take them long to show that the content of this letter was a lie. Moreover, if the Venetians, who were everywhere, had made a fuss, a diplomatic scandal would undoubtedly have broken out. Therefore, we can believe that Kosem really was the legal wife of Sultan Ahmed".
If you disagree with Kumrular's assesment, that is your right, but you should then add source that explains why you do think so. As for now we have written record that states clear as day she was wife of the sultan.
Sobek2000 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should not forget that at that time it was very important for the queens of Europe-who succeeded their sons or husbands to the throne to be the common-law wives of their husbands.
- Marriage in this period - as in many other periods is an important source of legitimacy for a woman It is clear that Kösem also wanted to remain legitimate in the face of a state like Venice.I read Özlem Kumrular's book. It's a good book, but definitely NOT that good. It seems like a book written very hastily I saw some historical errors in the book. Especially the part about Kösem Sultan's children is wrong 109.228.104.136 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kulrular adressed this in her book - yes, it would be important fo Kosem to highlight she is legitimate wife, but at the same times Kumrular does thinks it would do her more harm than good if she lied. There are indeed errors in this book - like in some moment authour counts Mehmed among sons of Kosem, and then she writes that Mehmet was full-brother of Osman - but we are not talking about those errors. We are talking about Kosem's marriage. Kumrular is expert on subject. If you have scholar text that specifically disputes her argument, you are free to add it, but do no change content based solely on your opinion. What you present is as of now your unsourced speculation. Sobek2000 (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Herman Julianna greatly explains the marriage dispute alsoHistorian Erhan Afyoncu belives letter is dictaed by Kosem mainly because of the strange immature diplomatic language 109.228.104.136 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does this author reffers to letter found by Kumrular? Also, you did not provided any source, only name. If this book was written before Kumrular published her book, then your source is outdated. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- ' Erhan Afyoncu belives letter is dictaed by Kosem mainly because of the strange immature diplomatic language' - Letter being dictated by Kosem does not make it content automatically untrue. Kumrular does believe letter was written by Kosem - but she also thinks Kosem written truth. I added excerpt where she explained why she thinks so. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Herman Julianna greatly explains the marriage dispute alsoHistorian Erhan Afyoncu belives letter is dictaed by Kosem mainly because of the strange immature diplomatic language 109.228.104.136 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kulrular adressed this in her book - yes, it would be important fo Kosem to highlight she is legitimate wife, but at the same times Kumrular does thinks it would do her more harm than good if she lied. There are indeed errors in this book - like in some moment authour counts Mehmed among sons of Kosem, and then she writes that Mehmet was full-brother of Osman - but we are not talking about those errors. We are talking about Kosem's marriage. Kumrular is expert on subject. If you have scholar text that specifically disputes her argument, you are free to add it, but do no change content based solely on your opinion. What you present is as of now your unsourced speculation. Sobek2000 (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)