Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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)

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 was wife of Ahmed.

I don't really understand what 'bmk' means or why you had deleted our conversation. I want to reach consensus with you. If you have sourced informations that you wish to add to the paragraph I made in article about Kosem's marital situation, you can write it there and we can reflect how to conflate our versions. I am asking about source that specifically disputes letter as source Kosem's marriage. Sources that identify her as author of letter are NOT dispution of marriage, as her being author of letter does not equal her lying about matter. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Letter is disputed its not my problem you cant understand and vandalising page of Kosem,if the marriage was certain they would be certainly be recorded in harem records i already gave you my source your only argument is thats its “outdated” 109.228.104.136 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You did not bring any source nor quote, only gave names of authors who probably published multiple many books. I did not vandalize anything.

'if the marriage was certain they would be certainly be recorded in harem records ' - Harem records are not complete. Clearly records cannot agree wheter prince Mehmed was son of Kosem or not. It is not surprise to me mention of wedding would disappear.

'your only argument is thats its “outdated” - I did not say such thing. I kindly asked if your source was written before or after Kumrular found letter, because if it was written before, then it would be outdated. Your other source stated Kosem was author of letter, but you did not quoted it, so I have no idea if it disputes her being truthful. Again, her being author of letter is not the same as her lying. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Özlem Kumrular who, in her book Kösem Sultan: İktidar Hırs ve Entrika, dedicates a paragraph to this.

Quoting it all would be just too long so I'm going to make a summary of her theory.

She starts by saying something that is very true:

None of the Ottoman sources available to us say that Ahmed married Kösem. As it has already been mentioned, for obvious reasons, except in exceptional circumstances, the sultans did not marry their women. Foreign sources do not mention the wedding, but treat Kösem as Ahmed's wife and leave the matter unsolved. For example, in 1609, the Venetian Ambassador Bon says that Ahmed had four children with his three kadıns, but that he was not married to any of them. However, Knolles is of the opinion that Ahmed married Kösem.

I'm not sure Knolles can be trusted, because he's not exactly the most accurate author ever, but she doesn't mention a particular book or page so I don't know exactly what he said.

Kumrular alleges that Kösem may have written (dictated, of course) that letter herself to strengthen her role as regent:

Let us not forget that in the case of the European queens of the time, who ruled on behalf of their sons or husbands, the fact that they were lawful wives was of considerable importance. During this period, as in almost all centuries, the wedding was an important source of her legal status for a woman. It is obvious that Kösem, to a state as important as Venice, wanted to legitimize her position. Emphasizing that she was the wife of the deceased ruler and praising her were aimed at elevating her in relations with the Venetian state, gaining respect for her and obedience to her words.

• https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMkyBq1nb/ link to video in which Historian Herman Julianna explains the situation of their marriage

109.228.104.136 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Historian you linked stated that 'Kumrular does not say in orphan word evidnece is convincing to her', where Kumrular literally wrote otherwise in source I quoted.

Once again, from page 40 of my Polish edition: "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".

That directly contradicts what Juliana said, as Kumrular does see source as convincing. She even called chapter of her book "Married wife: Time of Ahmed I".

'For example, in 1609, the Venetian Ambassador Bon says that Ahmed had four children with his three kadıns, but that he was not married to any of them' - Ahmed could marry Kosem AFTER 1609, so this statemnt does not contradict idea of marriage. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)