Jump to content

Talk:Suleiman the Magnificent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 194: Line 194:
::::They were at the court (and posted to the German embassy) at the same time, so it is possible. It does not appear to be confirmed. I found [https://www.academia.edu/1213643/Melchior_Lorcks_Portrait_of_Sultan_S%C3%BCleyman_the_Magnificent_1562_A_Double_Coded_View_2011_ this 2011 assessment] that noted {{tq|"it may – however unlikely – also record an actual session through which Lorck was given a chance to directly portray the sultan, providing a parallel to [[Portrait_of_Mehmet_II_(Bellini)|the way that Gentile Bellini was asked by Mehmet II]] 80 years earlier"}}. A [https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4809066.pdf further 2014 paper] states that it {{tq|"is probably based on some kind of visual encounter."}} [https://www.dailysabah.com/arts-culture/2018/03/23/the-eastern-mystique-turkey-in-danish-art-history This 2018 Daily Sabah piece], albeit a marginal source per [[WP:RSN]], states that such a meeting took place, though based on what I cannot say. {{tq|"In 1559, when Süleyman met Lorck ..."}} {{tq|"... under Sultan Süleyman, who he apparently saw and engraved for a portrait in 1559"}}. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
::::They were at the court (and posted to the German embassy) at the same time, so it is possible. It does not appear to be confirmed. I found [https://www.academia.edu/1213643/Melchior_Lorcks_Portrait_of_Sultan_S%C3%BCleyman_the_Magnificent_1562_A_Double_Coded_View_2011_ this 2011 assessment] that noted {{tq|"it may – however unlikely – also record an actual session through which Lorck was given a chance to directly portray the sultan, providing a parallel to [[Portrait_of_Mehmet_II_(Bellini)|the way that Gentile Bellini was asked by Mehmet II]] 80 years earlier"}}. A [https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4809066.pdf further 2014 paper] states that it {{tq|"is probably based on some kind of visual encounter."}} [https://www.dailysabah.com/arts-culture/2018/03/23/the-eastern-mystique-turkey-in-danish-art-history This 2018 Daily Sabah piece], albeit a marginal source per [[WP:RSN]], states that such a meeting took place, though based on what I cannot say. {{tq|"In 1559, when Süleyman met Lorck ..."}} {{tq|"... under Sultan Süleyman, who he apparently saw and engraved for a portrait in 1559"}}. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Titian's portrait isn't a portrait; it is just the cropped half of a larger painting, and the detail is poor. Added to this it was almost certainly just copied from other images. Melchior Lorck actually stands a chance of having seen the sultan, which for anyone actually interested in the sultan, the man, is infinitely more interesting than another tired knock-off in that same, repetitive Renaissance style that we use far too much already. It looks different because it is a [[woodcut print]], which, honestly, is an incredible art form. Painting is one thing, but etching the negative of a drawing into wood ... just unbelievable. That the artwork might look odd to some is quite subjective, though I would call it intriguing, which is more than I can say for the blurry, generic Renaissance equivalent of a photocopy. Since my attention has been drawn to the image, I have clicked on it repeatedly to admire the detail of the face, the engraving, the calligraphy. It's pretty spectacular. In Titian's, the sultan is almost an inanimate pink blob. I would be happy to see the Busbecq options, but as it states on Lorck's page, he produced the largest ever portraits of the sultan. It is quite hard to imagine the artist producing such a grand piece without having seen the subject. But short of that, being a regular in the court, he would have produced it by crowdsourcing firsthand descriptions and feedback. He still stands infinitely more chance of having produced a realistic piece than Titian, who was a remote and random stranger in Italy. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Titian's portrait isn't a portrait; it is just the cropped half of a larger painting, and the detail is poor. Added to this it was almost certainly just copied from other images. Melchior Lorck actually stands a chance of having seen the sultan, which for anyone actually interested in the sultan, the man, is infinitely more interesting than another tired knock-off in that same, repetitive Renaissance style that we use far too much already. It looks different because it is a [[woodcut print]], which, honestly, is an incredible art form. Painting is one thing, but etching the negative of a drawing into wood ... just unbelievable. That the artwork might look odd to some is quite subjective, though I would call it intriguing, which is more than I can say for the blurry, generic Renaissance equivalent of a photocopy. Since my attention has been drawn to the image, I have clicked on it repeatedly to admire the detail of the face, the engraving, the calligraphy. It's pretty spectacular. In Titian's, the sultan is almost an inanimate pink blob. I would be happy to see the Busbecq options, but as it states on Lorck's page, he produced the largest ever portraits of the sultan. It is quite hard to imagine the artist producing such a grand piece without having seen the subject. But short of that, being a regular in the court, he would have produced it by crowdsourcing firsthand descriptions and feedback. He still stands infinitely more chance of having produced a realistic piece than Titian, who was a remote and random stranger in Italy. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Seems like I missed this. Why has it been deleted ?! Shouldve stood on the page. [[User:Deus vult fratres!|Deus vult fratres!]] ([[User talk:Deus vult fratres!|talk]]) 14:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:42, 17 July 2023

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleSuleiman the Magnificent is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 22, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
April 12, 2017Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Metrboom13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really worth a GA status? - not really

Referring to this old but justified comment written by Nedim Ardoğa, in 2013. This article is currently still, some three years after said user placed his remark, in a state that does not merit for its GA status, in my humble opinion. It lacks significant amount of depth and content quality, I have to say. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with that - this article is a good example of Turkish self-promotion at a time when the supreme ruler of Turkey - Erdogan - is pushing for a Suleiman-like empire. It lacks a critical stance towards the information, it provides. Somebody: Please correct it and lock it. A very good example of why Wikipedia should not be recommended students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievhistories (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and Decline

I'm removing the final paragraph of the "Legacy" section since it's nothing but an encapsulation of old and outdated stereotypes about Ottoman Decline. However it's very well attested that modern historians of the Ottoman Empire do not believe that the empire declined after the the death of Süleyman the Magnificent, and thus that paragraph needed to be removed. Chamboz (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman's Mother

Hafsa Sultan wasn't the daughter of a Crimean Khan, this myth apparently originated from an uninformed sixteenth-century European writer but is disproven by archival evidence, as Alan Fisher notes in his essay on Suleiman's early life, which I have cited in the article. Chamboz (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies on some bad sources

Two sources which are used frequently throughout this article - Kinross' The Ottoman Centuries and Clot's Suleiman the Magnificent, are not reliable. Both of these authors were not professional historians, and even if they had been their books are now very much outdated. All citations of Kinross and Clot should be replaced with citations of modern academic historians, and the information in the article updated accordingly. Chamboz (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article still an FA?

Adding to Chamboz's comment above, I think it pertinent to raise an obvious question: why is this still rated as a Featured Article? It achieved that status in 2007, at a time when Wikipedia's standards for promoting articles to FA were a great deal more lax than they are now. Frankly, if I were reviewing this article (in its current state) at GAN, I would probably fail it; it does not easily meet the criteria for a Good Article, let alone a Featured one. There are unreferenced statements throughout, and as Chamboz points out, even some of the sources used may not be ideal. There are multiple problems in the formatting of the citations, and some of the copyright explanations on many of the images could do with some work (with particular reference paid to Turkish copyright law). Perhaps it is time to think about sending this one off for a Featured Article reassessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would contact A. Garnet, the editor who was responsible for originally nominating this as an FA, to see if they could make some improvements, but it seems that they ceased their involvement with Wikipedia in 2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article has a decent foundation, but needs a lot of work and source verification to really be considered high quality. Chamboz (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New information about Suleiman's wives

In the following source, on Academia.edu new information about the wives of Suleiman is mentioned. Sultan Suleyman I. und seine Frauen by Salomé Woronzow-Daschkow Retrieverlove (talk) 5:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is merely unpublished OR. You must stop using this kind of fringe sources on wikipedia and use reliable sources instead, for everyone' sake.--Phso2 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Lamb

Despite the cultural significance of Harold Lamb's novels, my understanding is that it is a (good) historical fiction - as it is fiction I don't think it should be used as a source. It seems the unreferenced anecdote about Suleyman being "influenced" by Alexander the Great is also from the novel, so I would like to remove that also. There are much stronger sources for the claim that Suleyman admired Alexander the Great (Royal Historical Society) Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Suleiman the Magnificent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suleiman the Magnificent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suleiman the Magnificent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Suleiman" mean?

It says at the start of the article that a writer called him "appropriately named" even in his early 20s. It's not clear whether this refers to his name "Suleiman" (as would seem likely after such a short time in power) or the other moniker "The Magnificent". If it refers to "The Magnificant", it needs to make this clear. If it refers to Suleiman, we need a translation of "Suleiman" so we know why this is "appropriate" for him. I also added a few words to the sentence about him adopting a slave as a friend and later advisor...this is all true, but he later had the same man strangled to death. I don't have a reference to add, but it clearly says this right on the page about the ex-slave. Not mentioning this part seems like someone is going out of their way to paint an overly-kind picture of a progressive and kind ruler. The fact that the man was his friend and advisor and he had him executed later is just as important as the fact that he adopted a slave as a friend and advisor in the first place.

70.105.242.162 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See main article Suleiman. A loanword from the Hebrew language, it means "man of peace". The English equivalent is Solomon. The root term is shalom, Hebrew for "peace" and "harmony". Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for Suleiman, and this slur appeared in instant answers

Suleiman the Magnificent Sultan of my a hole [[

]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyspears (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism appears to have been deleted. Next time, the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit may be helpful. HLHJ (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main pic

Commons claims the guy on the painting would be Suleiman II and that it is not actually a Tizian but a copy. Someone should correct some of the conflicting statements somewhere, probably. Unfortunately, I don't know the subject well enough. --Ehitaja (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehitaja: most probably Suleiman I was regarded as Suleiman II by people at that time saw Süleyman Çelebi a legitimate sultan. There is no way that's Suleiman II, because the full portrait is painted alongside François. Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be very much surprised if the "II" would be just a product of later misidentification due to the portrait being only named "Suleiman" or "Suleiman the Sultan", if it really had any inscribed heading at all. The concept of strict, unchanged headings for paintings is rather modern. --Ehitaja (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What did he die of?

There is no mention of the cause of death, at least not in the Section 'Death'.--79.100.144.23 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to update image in infobox

File:Melchior Lorck - Portrait of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent - WGA13462.jpg

I propose that the image of Suleiman the Magnificent is replaced with the following image: Melchior Lorck - Portrait of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent - WGA13462.jpg

It is more detailed and offers a full frontal profile, thus providing a clearer representation of Suleiman than the image currently being utilised. Sidor0o (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman emperors also have side pictures. That's not a reasoning. Beshogur (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reason, hence why I used it as such. Sidor0o (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So a better argument in favour here is that Titian is not known for even having visited Turkey, while Melchior Lorck is famous for documenting it, and having attended the Ottoman court in person. That makes him a viable witness. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existing image was also not a standalone portrait, but a cropped image from a larger image present elsewhere down the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During this period, Ottoman court doesn't mean seeing the sultan personally. It was generally the grand viziers who received the envoys. Also the drawing looks very unhuman.
Read here for more information. Especially emphasis on "until Suleiman". Is there a proof that Lorck met him in person?
Also Titian's portrait is more iconic amd commonly known today, and a lot of contemporary paintings were based on his. If you really want more accurate depictions, maybe use contemporary miniatures. However they're not detailed. Beshogur (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Busbecq was received personally by the sultan (based on his letters), does this mean Lorck saw the sultan personally as well? Beshogur (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were at the court (and posted to the German embassy) at the same time, so it is possible. It does not appear to be confirmed. I found this 2011 assessment that noted "it may – however unlikely – also record an actual session through which Lorck was given a chance to directly portray the sultan, providing a parallel to the way that Gentile Bellini was asked by Mehmet II 80 years earlier". A further 2014 paper states that it "is probably based on some kind of visual encounter." This 2018 Daily Sabah piece, albeit a marginal source per WP:RSN, states that such a meeting took place, though based on what I cannot say. "In 1559, when Süleyman met Lorck ..." "... under Sultan Süleyman, who he apparently saw and engraved for a portrait in 1559". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titian's portrait isn't a portrait; it is just the cropped half of a larger painting, and the detail is poor. Added to this it was almost certainly just copied from other images. Melchior Lorck actually stands a chance of having seen the sultan, which for anyone actually interested in the sultan, the man, is infinitely more interesting than another tired knock-off in that same, repetitive Renaissance style that we use far too much already. It looks different because it is a woodcut print, which, honestly, is an incredible art form. Painting is one thing, but etching the negative of a drawing into wood ... just unbelievable. That the artwork might look odd to some is quite subjective, though I would call it intriguing, which is more than I can say for the blurry, generic Renaissance equivalent of a photocopy. Since my attention has been drawn to the image, I have clicked on it repeatedly to admire the detail of the face, the engraving, the calligraphy. It's pretty spectacular. In Titian's, the sultan is almost an inanimate pink blob. I would be happy to see the Busbecq options, but as it states on Lorck's page, he produced the largest ever portraits of the sultan. It is quite hard to imagine the artist producing such a grand piece without having seen the subject. But short of that, being a regular in the court, he would have produced it by crowdsourcing firsthand descriptions and feedback. He still stands infinitely more chance of having produced a realistic piece than Titian, who was a remote and random stranger in Italy. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I missed this. Why has it been deleted ?! Shouldve stood on the page. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suleiman_the_Magnificent&oldid=1165805982"