User talk:AkEd21

Alderson, A.D.: Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty is an outdated source in his book he mentions Gulfem as consort of Suleiman when she was in fact a servant in the harem. 62.4.44.167 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention other issues with the book itself 62.4.44.167 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the names of children from Öztuna too, his recent book. The years have an issue, but not the names and you are deleting that as well? AkEd21 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raziye Sultan was born in princely years of Suleiman and was definitely not daughter of Roxelana but unknown concubine, secondly Peirce, Leslie P debunked idea of Hurrem having an unnamed daughter which Alderson listed-The Imperial Harem Women And Sovereignty In The Ottoman Empire p. 302 62.4.44.167 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't mention that Raziye is definitely not Roxelana's daughter. In her book as in her 1993 book, she always says "perhaps" Raziye. And even Mihrümah was ignored by Bragadin's report of 1526, read Peirce's 2017 book. Also, the Old Palace harem records of Süleyman's reign only start from 1555-56 (Peirce's 2017 book). Again, Öztuna's recent book has an issue with the years, because he is himself doubtful about the years and puts them in ? Question marks but not with the names of children. You also deleted another source which was from a highly authentic Islamic Encyclopedisi (Turkish). You're not even reading the edits properly. These are not fictional resources at all. Many sources didn't even cite Abdullah because he died young and he was a prince. AkEd21 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned anything about Mihrimah 62.4.44.167 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Mihrümah, read the rest lol. Many sources ignore Abdullah, who was a prince, who were more politically consequential because he died young. Peirce always referred to "Raziye" as "perhaps" being the name of the daughter who died in 1521 and remained unnamed by the ambassador Marco Minio and no other sources were found for the name of the daughter who died in 1521. The Old Palace harem records as I said were only available from 1555-56, as per Peirce (specifically 2017 book). You also deleted the source of Islamic Encyclopedisi which said that the mausoleum of Yahya Efendi where Raziye was buried was only built after 1571 on the orders of Selim II. AkEd21 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Selim I)

added a link pointing to Suleiman I

Roxelana

added a link pointing to Ibrahim I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in reference to a point made with the concerned figures. AkEd21 (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Suleyman's known hasekis were Mahidevran/Gulbahar, Hurrem Sultan and Gulfem Hatun. His sons were Mahmud, Mustafa, Murad, Mehmed, Abdullah, Selim, Bayezid and Cihangir.

Mihrimah, the daughter born to Hurrem, was married to Rustem Pasha. Another daughter named Raziye died at a young age.” Sakaoğlu Necdet here states Raziye as “another daugther” and doesn’t say or confirm that she was daughter of Hürrem he only mentions “Mihrima as daughter of Hürrem. Again this is outdated source since it was published nearly 3 decades ago a lot has changed for example he list here Mahidevran and Gulfem as “Hasekis of Suleiman” when in fact Hürrem was only haseki the title was created only for her in c.1533 to 1534 and again Gulfem is now regarded as trusted servant rather than concubine of Suleiman. 62.4.44.167 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For book KANUNİ SULTAN SÜLEYMAN by Öztuna is missing page number which you didnt add as far as i saw make sure to add page numbers for verification of the source. 62.4.44.167 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see you didn't read my resource, of Islamic Incyclopediasi. Mausoleum of Yahya Effendi was built nearly half a century later. YILMAZ himself refers to Raziye as having died at a young age. If she was born during Sultanate, she would be Hürrem's as countlessly has been said, sourced through ambassadorial reports and authors old and new. I just started that in case Raziye was born during Süleyman's sultanate, her mother is Hürrem. You deleted that source again and again. Even Peirce and Sahin books are unsure of the unknown daughter who was reported by Minio to have died with Mahmud and Murad, they say "perhaps Raziye". I updated it all and you keep vandalising. Same thing I updated the Alderson claim to by supplmenting it with Peirce's doubts. You should read the edit before deleting it again and again. Again, Oztuna is himself confused with the dates but he mentions the name of his children, that is what I mentioned. Again READ the updated edits I made after your suggestions and my own research. Thank you! AkEd21 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following my suggestions have a nice day 62.4.45.237 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again its not vandalism when i pointed out valid mistakes in sources 🤷🏼, and im reminding you to add page numbers for your source on alleged children of Hürrem, Fatma and Orhan 62.4.45.237 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AkEd21! Your additions to Selim I and Ismihan Sultan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ahmed I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Gülfem Hatun has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referred your edit because apparently you are unable to read sources. This is what Kumrular writes (translations to English, from Polish edition): Sobek2000 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumrular's claims about Kösem are not credible, she herself remarks that Kösem falsified her marriage to boost up her claim to power. Her work is disappointingly assumptive rather than what should read like thoroughly researched academia. You can refer to the bibliography provided by her instead, if you want to educate yourself. AkEd21 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid my translation was cut down. Here it is. This is translation of exact fragment from my Polish edition, page 140: "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". [Jeśli to naprawdę sułtanka zleciła napisanie tego listu, to nie sądzę, aby odważyła się aż tak ryzykować i brać na siebie odpowiedzialność za tak poważne kłamstwo tylko po to, aby usankcjonować swoje prawa. Wenecja znała każdy ruch Osmanów, śledziła każdy ich oddech, nie zajęłoby więc im wiele czasu wykazanie, że treść  tego pisma jest kłamstwem. Co więcej, gdyby Wenecjanie, których było wszędzie pełno, narobili szumu, niewątpliwie wybuchłby skandal dyplomatyczny. Dlatego możemy uwierzyć, że Kosem naprawdę była ślubną żoną sułtana Ahmeda. ] Sobek2000 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'she herself remarks that Kösem falsified' - Quite opposite - she presents evidence why Kosem could NOT falsify marriage.

'Her work is disappointingly assumptive' - That is your opinion. Kumrular was historian and in her opinion evidence is sufficient. You can disagree, but you still need to reffer to relaible source that disputes her claim.

'ou can refer to the bibliography provided by her instead, if you want to educate yourself. ' - Kumrular mentions in intro that she was praised for evidence for Kosem's marriage by historian and professor Halil Inalcik. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In her work, Kumrular consistently doesn't explain her reasoning behind her rather unfounded claims- she cited works that also contradict her theories but doesn't say that in the notes. About her being a legal wife, there is no ambassadorial report to corroborate Kösem's marriage. As you mentioned, her claiming that she is the wife would allegedly cause a diplomatic scandal but these letters were far from a public document at the time?! Point is, a marriage would've been remarked by Ambassadors, travellers, archives, anything, something- Kumrular means that the astutely observant relaziones wouldn't make even a passing reference of the marriage of a woman whose political career began after the birth of Mehmed in 1605 when she became Haseki Sultan?! And spanned decades afterwards when she was Valide Sultan twice and then she was Buyuk Valide Sultan!! Before ofc she was indignantly assassinated. AkEd21 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her authenticity as a historian is further decimated when it comes to ennumerating Kösem's children, she mentions the births of just 3 children, then claims that Gevherhan is her daughter by sourcing Baki Tezcan's essay: "The Debut of Kösem Sultan's Career" where actually, he had mentioned that Gevherhan was Osman's full sister. Kumrular's work has been drawn from the extensive bibliography but if you read it, it's far from how an academician or a historian presents a work of authentic history. That's why her work should be refrained from being cited in case of a significant claim of marriage, unless there is further corroboration by relaziones, ambassadorial reports, travellogues, anything credible. Halil İnalcık may have appreciated her extensive bibliography, which is as I said highly appreciable but she *thinks* rather than *proves* her claims. AkEd21 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how Kumrular presents her thoughts : She firstly herself says that Ottoman sultans didn't get married frequently and that if they did, their marriages would have been reported, but then she *thinks* that Kösem must've married Ahmed I because in a letter sent to Venice to acquaint them of Murad IV's ascension, Kosem is described as: "His generous mother Kösem, for the dead sultan Ahmed, whom Allah took to himself, was a very important person and the sultan loved her so much that he honoured her by marrying her.". Simultaneously, the "historian" says that maybe the letter had been commissioned by Kösem herself and that she was just trying to legitimise her role as regent to Murad IV, because in Europe wives are more esteemed than mere concubines... but then she contradicts her own claim and theorises that, Kosem would have never lied about something so important so she must have truly been Ahmed I's wife. Like, to base the authenticity of an important event as a Sultan's marriage in this fashion is extremely flimsy and anyone with discretion would reject this "thought". AkEd21 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumrular's book indeed has flaws, however please focus on topić - she explains her reason for Ahmed and Kosem marriage cery clear. Just because Kosem knew that mentioning her wedding to Ahmed would make Europeans respect her more, does not meang marriage was invented by her - tego thins can be true at once. Sobek2000 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Wikipedia does not rely upon original research. If you dispute statement that has source to it, you need to provide source that analizes the matter. You cannot rely on your own opinion. For example you cannot write "Kosem was callous woman" but you van write "Kosem is describes as callous by X". Sobek2000 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kumrular herself has disputed her own claims enough, no one has to look far for disputing her *thoughts* lol. And as I said, anyone with discretion and prudence would reject her *thoughts* and then the *contradictions of her own thoughts*. AkEd21 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She does not - I quotes you her. She analizes the matter if marriage, nor disputes it, and comes to conclusion Kosem indeed was married to Ahmed. I am surę that as historian of that period she had good understanding of diplomatic relations between Ottomans and Venice. If she thinks it would be unlikely to Kosem to invent information about marriage, as that would cause diplomatic skandal, then I believe her. You are free to provide some historical book or paper on Kosem that would dispute her claim, but unless you do it, all you presented do far is your subjective - and unreliable - opinion. Sobek2000 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No other historian other than herself has claimed that Ahmed I ever married Kösem- There you go. Again, she herself *disputes* her own *thoughts*. I have found no source of your own claim about Dr. İnalcık. According to Dr. İnalcık, only two marriages were performed in the 17th century: Osman II's and Ibrahim's. AkEd21 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She does not disputes her own claim. She looks critically and comes to conclusion Kosem was indeed married to Ahmed. As for Inalcik from what year is his work?

"No other historian other than herself has claimed that Ahmed I ever married Kösem" -That is straightforward lie. For example this source also referrs to Kosem as wife: Karaduman, Alev (2014). "THE OTTOMAN SERAGLIO: AN INSTITUTION OF POWER AND EDUCATION". Hacettepe University Journal of Turkish Studies. 11 (21): 109–120.

Kumrular was the one who discovered dokmcument, so of course none before her made specific claim. Again, in Wikipedia you need to make referencje to someone who disputes her claim, not someone who is silent. Sobek2000 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you quote Karduman's claim if it really proves Kösem's marriage? I don't have this book so I am taking your word for it but has he proven Kösem's marriage by credible documents? Besides ,yes, Dr. İnalcık died some months after Kumrular's book was published and I haven't found a source that suggests that İnalcık upheld her *thought* of Kösem's marriage? Since you're this invested, maybe you should make instead a section on her page about "speculation on her alleged marriage" which is what Kumrular herself put forth in her book which unfortunately has many loopholes to be considered an authentic biography. Thank you! I won't reply further as it's of no use, you're clearly a fan of Kösem and scratching bottom of the barrel to satisfy your fantasy. Bye! AkEd21 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karaduman presumed Kosem was wife, it was before Kumrular made her discovery. Karaduman claim was made of assumption, Kumrular's discovery was what made assumption correct. I never said Karaduman claim was more reliable - you claimed that no historian except Kumrular refferred to Kosem as Ahmed's wife, so I showed you that someone indeed had done it, even before Kumrular found letter. So people were presuming Kosem was married to Ahmed, even without letter - letter is simply additional evidence

And Kumrular did not speculate - she presented evidence and explained why she considers it reliable. Inalcik hardly had time to adresem this, if he died so soon after her book was published; he simply did not have time enough to update. But Kumrular clearly says that he recognized her discovery. If you have problem with her claim, you need to find source that disputes her. Sobek2000 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked - Kumrular's book was released in 2015, and Inalcik died in 2016. Most books he wrote were before 2015, so his statement most likelt predates Kumrular's discovery. Sobek2000 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]