Talk:Mahfiruz Hatun

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan

She was a circassian descendant of Mahidevran sultan and Halime Sultan

The Ottoman Dynasty didn't married there own cousins at this Time, but Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan was the great grand-daughter of Mustafa Pasha, Mahidevran's brother.

Nonsense

I see there is a person retrivertalk who made false statemants about the Ottman Sultans Mothers and consorts. Always this person wrote that some Valides and other wifes are related together. Nonsense. In the Harem the woman was not related, because this was the reason that the Ottoman Sultans invited slave girls without noble background and not native born Muslims. Mahidevran, Mahfiruz, Handan, Hatice etc, had nothing to do together no relatives. Only since the last Ottoman Sultans, circassian and other caucasian noble girls was married with Sultans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what the sources say

[1] Can you be more precise? Shaw stated she was Greek, which is refuted by Tezcan (probably among others) which says the only thing we know about Osman's mother is that she seems to have died by 1610 and her probable name. The exhibition catalog is not a reliable source and is redondant as it only reproduces Meram.--Phso2 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me the quote from Shaw (1976)? Turcica (2007) refutes it. How do you know it "reproduces" Meram?--Zoupan 15:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Turcica (2007)=Tezcan refutes Shaw's account (seemingly ultimately based on the novel cited by Tezcan, but Shaw doesn't cite his source) that she was Greek, that is what I said. The quotation is "...Trained in Latin, Greek, and Italian by his Greek mother...". The exhibition catalog makes the same strange claims that the controversial and non-academic "Padişah anaları" by Meram (among others, that Suleyman's mother was a Polish Jew name Helga and other fringe theories e.g.), therefore it is very likely based on it; anyway this catalog is not a reliable source.--Phso2 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. I've added a secondary source about Shaw.--Zoupan 20:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear who you are citing and how you identify the sources. You are also adding unwanted annotations. You misidentified at least one reference. Please list the references you want to add here, with quotes.--Zoupan 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you just added Shaw, which is refuted.--Zoupan 21:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What reference did I "misidentified"? I didn't "add Shaw", I gave the reference where this outdated view is to be found (your or KB's reverts readded the "quotation needed" for Shaw that I filled, by the way). You are yourself citing Shaw as a reference for the sentence "The earlier theory of her being Greek has been refuted".--Phso2 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2)You also re-added the painting exhibition catalogue as a source. Do you really take this as a RS?
3)You deleted the references to Peirce (about the privy purse registers e.g.) although they are accessible online. Did you read the relevant page?
4)What exactly do you call "unwanted annotations"?
I propose :

Her date of death and role during her son's reign have been progressively reassessed by scholars. Earlier accounts including Stanford J. Shaw's History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1[1] described her as teaching Latin, Greek, and Italian to her son and to have assumed the role of Valide Sultan for him. This was challenged by Leslie Peirce (1993) who, while assuming Mahfiruz was alive when her son Osman was finally enthroned in 1618, asserted that she did not live in the imperial palace during his reign nor acted as a Valide Sultan;[2] this was deduced from the absence of the mention of a Valide Sultan in privy purse registers during Osman's reign,[2] and from the indication that from the middle of 1620, Osman's governess[b] began to receive an extraordinary large stipend[c], an indication that she was now the official stand-in for the Valide Sultan.[2] According to Peirce it seemed likely that Mahfiruz fell into disfavour, was banished from the palace at some point before Osman's accession, and never recovered her status as a royal consort.[2] Howewer according to Baki Tezcan (2007) there are evidences that strongly suggests that she died at latest by 1610, while Osman was about five years old, thus making these hypothesis unnecessary.[3]

Please point clearly what part seems problematic to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phso2 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) First you misidentified Meram, and tagged him dubious without backing it up. You also claimed that Semiramis is an exhibition catalogue and dubious without backing it up, removing it. Shaw was there before, not added by me, I added the quotation needed, then the secondary source. You then moved the statement about evidence on -1610 death to the bottom. The annotations are unneeded.--Zoupan 22:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done some changes. There was direct copyvio from Peirce. It is now clear that there are two main views, that she died before 1610, and 1620. If you have Tezcan elaborating on this, add more, and properly cite Peirce.--Zoupan 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To explain my edit, I restored this source; Günseli İnal and Semiramis Arşivi, Semiramis: Sultan'ın gözünden şenlik, since it was removed without explanation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meram is a journalist/author, not an academic scholar, this is not misidentification. The name "Öz Yayınları" which looks like a publishing house for his books means..."self published" in Turkish. What is your backing up to identify him as a reliable source? It's too simple to patch up snippets from anywhere and then call others "problematic". You didn't add this source, nor "Semiramis", but you revert again and again when I search to give to present the sources with the weight they deserve and you put again the Shaw reference at a place where it contradicts itself. This is not specifically constructive. The date of death statement should be placed where her death is discussed, this is not something so strange, is it?--Phso2 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus??

@Zoupan We needed consensus if I had removed a reliable source or a well-sourced paragraph or sentence without any discussion. But as you can see, all of those sentences are tagged with "unreliable source" template and as none of the other users were able to find a single source for them, thus they must be removed as we can't provide information that are possibly wrong on Wikipedia and they can't stay there forever. Keivan.fTalk 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive addition of unsourced content

Today's changes by the current avatar of "the dynamic ip editing Ottoman harem related articles" will be reverted because:

  • some parts are unsourced
  • some parts are sourced with a personal blog, i.e. not a reliable source
  • some parts are both unsourced or poorly sourced AND contradict reliable sources
  • some parts have seen their content viciously changed while the reliable source was kept, giving the illusion of a properly sourced content when it is not.--Phso2 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shaw1976 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Leslie P., Peirce (1993). "Wives and Concubines: The Exercise of Political Power". The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016-4314: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508677-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) p.233
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Turcica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Her full name is Valide Mahfiruz Sultan. This page's name is wrong. Her reign is 26 Şubat 1618 - 28 Ekim 1620 as Valide Sultan. She isnt Hatun. She is cassasian princess. Source http://ahmetsimsirgil.com/ii-osman-hanin-sahsiyeti/ 5.47.211.115 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Marking this as answered as the IP editor posted a duplicate request below with a registered account. st170e 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mahfiruz was never Valide Sultan and there are many proofs of this, one of them is at least that Sultan Osman did not take his mother from the old palace. In general, Mahfiruz could already be dead by this time. 109.252.220.135 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

I reported earlier. She is Valide Mahfiruz Sultan. not mahfiruz hatun. Page's name is absolutely wrong. You can look other language of this page. Sulmerruhtan (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I can't read Turkish but I've read your source and I did see the name that you sourced, but I'm going to reject this edit request. I've checked other languages on Wikipedia and they seem to have variations of this name but I can't see one with 'Valide'. The sources on this page backup the name that is used, so what I would recommend is for you to have a discussion on the talk page and invite other editors to discuss it with you (who are experts in the area). Best regards, st170e 12:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e I just wanted to say thank you as you absolutely did the right thing. The fact that she was a Valide Sultan is disputed. Unfortunately many IPs and newcomers are interested in creating fictional stories about Ottoman women rather than presenting the historical facts. If anyone wants to move the page, he must give a request. I think you also agree with me. Keivan.fTalk 12:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfiruz's title

Wasn't her title Kadin, not Hatun? 83.28.230.71 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How she died

It will sound crazy, but I was this woman in a past life. I didn’t know anything about her or the Ottomans until I did some research to find out about her and Sultan Ahmed after a crazy dream I had in November, 2023.

In the dream vision, I was told about her as she walked happily to the Imperial Room of Topkapi Palace down an arched walkway. She was blonde, blue eyed and “rare.” She was “young”, a Favorite of the Sultan. She was in love and loved. She felt so happy. I could feel her joy. She “got away with things other’s didn’t get away with.” She was “very well trained.” She was a confident and beautiful young woman. She was wearing a light colored outfit. A dress, I believe. It seemed like her face and head were covered as she walked.

When ahe entered the beautiful Imperial Room, she was quite surprised to find it full of men. She was confused. Sultan Ahmed sat on the stage area with other people. He wore a bright yellow turbin. Everyone was dressed richly. It was beautiful, but he was the only one in the bright yellow turbin.

He starts asking her questions of a sexual nature — something like “So you like sex?” She was confused and tried to say something appropriate to talk up the sultan and that of course she thought he was a great lover or something like that. She was working hard to entertain the crowd thinking that this was some kind of joke. He pushed further and she looked at him and said something like “honey, what is this?” I think he said if she liked it so much she could have it with four men or something like that. I couldn’t really understand what he was saying. Mostly I could feel her understanding and feelings so that’s how I comprehended as a witness to the scene.

Them there was an altercation as some guards tried to grab her. Again, the room was crowded with a lot of men and she was NOT comfortable. She fell to the floor and as she got up, she screamed “Fine, I will just enjoy it!” She was shocked and confused, but once she realized it was real, she was furious.

The next scene was ugly. Four men took her to a small room nearby to the imperial Room and were clearly going to have their way with her. I did not have to relive this scene, she was in a state of extreme dread laying down knowing they were going to hurt her a lot. She knew there would be no mercy.

The next scene was her in the afterlife. She was surrounded by heavenly beings who told her that she did nothing wrong and there was nothing she could have done differently. It was going to happen. They comforted her. I was told that she/I “dissociated” and then I woke up.

I had this dream a day or two after meeting a man whom I was told in the dream was Sultan Ahmed.

I am now obsessed with finding out about Mahfiruz Hatun’s life and that of her son, Osman 2, who was left motherless. Ahmed had her violently killed. She did NOT deserve it. Seems like it was probably due to Kosem’s undermining influence, although I think the mother in law didn’t like me either based on another dream I had.

I think Mahfiruz underestimated the threat she posed as the mother of the oldest son. I have read about the ambassador who wrote home that he witnessed a harem girl get beaten for insulting Kosem. There was an altercation before she was dragged out of the Imperial Room. He very well could have been there as a witness.

She did NOT look at all like the painting on this Wikipedia page. That is definitely NOT her!

she was really cute. Had a heart shaped face and light blue eyes. Big smile! And she wore a veil in public. Kind of like a small triangle type with her eyes showing.

Ahmed came to me recently as a spirit and surprisingly he showed up with long hair which I never would have expected. He was a wild man! Like a lion! And he was kind of funny!

Anyway, that’s my weird story. Maybe it helps those who study this stuff! 2603:8080:E00:10A6:1D22:6409:2416:B120 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay in the head? 79.143.107.59 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her true title and urgent changes

Hello everyone. This page is in dire need of constructive and authoritative editing, but it is not present.

Why do I say this? Because Mahfiruz appears - in most authoritative sources - to have died after 1620, if not in 1630 even. One thing that is certain is that she did not die in 1610 or before Osman's accession to the throne, just look in any authoritative book.

Her title is the only thing in doubt: it is not certain that she was Valide Sultan during the reign of her son, but why do you exclude this hypothesis? Since there is no certainty, a neutral tone would be preferred in the edit, without stating "she was never Valide Sultan" (without reporting any kind of source), or "she died before her son ascended the throne" (reporting 2 unverifiable sources).

I am here to warn you that I have done a lot of research on the character of Mahfiruz, I have found many authoritative sources that deal with her life and even the cause of death (she died due to a respiratory disease, tuberculosis - most likely - while looking for a location favorable to her declining health, see this link for the informations: https://jinepsgazetesi.com/2016/01/unutulmus-bir-cerkes-prensesi-mahfiruz-sultan/).

Obviously, some sources report that she was Valide Sultan and others not, and for this reason I will insert in the Template the title with the wording "disputed" immediately below, just to not give certainty of his appointment, but not even to exclude it and according to one's wishes, because it is certain that she died after 1620.

I bring you some sources that I consulted and that are certainly authoritative:

- "The Imperial Harem" by Leslie P. Peirce (Mahfiruz was never Valide Sultan but died in 1620, disgraced and dismissed due to the intrigues of Kösem Sultan)

- "The Women Who Built the Ottoman World" by Muzaffer Özgüles (Mahfiruz died in 1620; her title of Valide is not mentioned but she is cited as Mahfiruz Sultan; she had some public works built)

- "Inside the Seraglio" by John Freely (Mahfiruz is only Sultan; she never left the Old Saray after her son's accession to the throne; she died in 1620)

- "A Short History of the Ottoman Empire" by Renée Worringer (Mahfiruz was alive at the time of her son's coronation bur wasn't allowed to come to the Imperial Palace)

- "Living in the Ottoman Realm" by Christine Isom-Verhaaren and Kent F. Schull (Mahfiruz was banished during her son's reign by Kösem Sultan to avoid her power's increase)

- "Storia dell'harem" [The Harem' history] by Gabriele Mandel (Mahfiruz served as Valide Sultan and was a strong adviser to her son, dying on 26 October 1620/1622)

- "Harem'den taşanlar" by Nazım Tektaş (Mahfiruz served as Valide Sultan at the Imperial Palace, but she was not a woman who liked intrigue and power)

- "İstanbul il yıllığı 1967" (Mahfiruz is titled as Sultan. She had public works built)

- "Türkiye halkının Ortaçağ tarihi" by Bilge Umar (Mahfiruz is titled as Valide Sultan. She was of Greece origin)

- "Ketokohan wanita Islam" by ? (Mahfiruz served as Valide Sultan and took the opportunity to govern the state with her son)

- "Yaşamları ve yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar ansiklopedisi" by Ekrem Çakıroğlu (Mahfiruz as Valide Sultan died on 28 October 1620 in Istanbul)

- "Osmanlı padişahlarının yaşamlarından kesitler" by Y. İzzettin Barış (Mahfiruz as Hatun was of Greece origin under the name of Evdoksia)

- "Osmanlı" - Volume number 12 (1999) (Mahfiruz Sultan as one of the Hasekis of Ahmed I)

- "Cariyeler saltanatı" by Ertuğrul Burak (Mahfiruz is titles as Sultan)

- "Osmanlı sultanları tarihi" by Enver Behnan Şapolyo (Mahfiruz is titled as Sultan and described as a mother who cared for and educated her son well)

- "Ottoman Sultans (Yeditepe Yayınevi)" by Erhan Afyoncu (2022) (Mahfiruz is titled as Sultan)

Some publications claim that Mahfiruz was – if not totally – at least partially influential in politics: in 1618, under her mother's influence, Sultan Osman issued an edict establishing a agreement with Iran, at the time under the rule of Abbas I the Great, to whom a tax on silk and fabric was imposed. (page 133, "Osmanlı tarihi: cilt. Uzunçarşılı, İ.H. 1. kısım. II.", 1954). Others claim that she made political agreements (with Kizlar Aghasi, the Chief of the Black Eunuchs, and the mufti, Es'ad Efendi, who reached an agreement with Mahfiruz to bring her son to the throne) (The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 4; page 623; 1979).

Her death date, wedding and titles

Pietro Della Valle's 1614 letter cited in the book "La porta d'Oriente: lettere di Pietro della Valle : Istanbul 1614" [The Gateway to the East: letters of Pietro della Valle : Istanbul 1614] states that Sultan Osman's mother is dead, but in a note at the bottom of the page, it is instead stated "Hadice Mah-firuz, first wife of Ahmet I and mother of his eldest son Osman, was actually still alive in 1615, so much so that three years later, when her son was appointed sultan, she reached the highest rank of female power as Validè, i.e. Queen-Mother, thus holding the position of one of the most powerful figures in the Empire". (https://books.google.it/books?id=LeZ9Cf2UfH8C&pg=PA127&dq=Osman+Mahfiruz&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj88K-wkrmLAxVw9LsIHZI7FJg4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=Osman%20Mahfiruz&f=false)

I'm doing further research on her background and title. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed 79.143.107.59 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nothing was discussed. I only see a page full of errors and deleted information according to personal wishes. Since no one responds, I will proceed with the editing of the page. And frankly, after reporting 200 sources claiming the opposite about her life, such an answer does not represent anything to me.

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you go for war-editing since based on your page you love fiction stories 62.4.55.244 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that fictional stories are those of people who deleted information just because they don't like it. I recommend that you write as a registered user, so I can request the block for insults since apparently you are in the mood to insult 😉 Maybe you need to study the topic more, since you respond to the section I created with insults from a person who cannot be here on Wikipedia. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yapping 62.4.45.237 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous user who continues to insult is in the mood apparently. 😉 MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how am i insulting but okay!🙁🙁 62.4.55.244 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Maybe saying that I continue to blather ("Keep yapping" as you say)? By claiming that what I write are invented stories? When there are YEARS of study behind it. What do you call this? If I'm here it's to improve the pages not to invent things, maybe you do this by not accepting the information that others bring. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Improve page same as you did with Safiye Sultan? By trying to force source that she was Venetian? Im guessing this will only do good. 62.4.55.244 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So was it you who deleted information at will just because you only accept your version of things? Regarding Safiye Sultan I can bring all the sources I want to mention her Venetian birth, I don't know if you have looked at the talk page with all the sources I brought (as I always say, there is no single version of the facts, none is unassailable). Do you read when you write? You claim that I forced it, when I never deleted the information about her possible Albanian birth. Anyway you are changing the subject, here we are talking about Mahfiruz Sultan. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never deleted anything? But okay! Anyway Mahfiruz Hatun is not mentioned anywhere during the reign of her son and the fact Osman appointed his wet nurse as head of Topkapi Harem is enough evidence 62.4.55.244 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient proof that she was Valide Sultan were the works she had built and the fact that on the site of the municipality of Eyup she is mentioned as having died in 1628. I can bring as many books as you want as proof. At the same time I don't take for granted the fact that she was Valide, so in the Template I will insert the title with the wording "disputed". I was referring to you because anonymous users continued to delete content without giving me reasons. Are you done? Unlike you who belittle the evidence I bring by giving it as false, I am looking for information on a person I have been studying for years now, so I know very well the topic I am talking about. I repeat and conclude: I have not excluded any version, but since there are doubts, and having much material that names her living until 1628, I would say that it is appropriate to insert her title. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And about the painting showing Osman's coronation ceremony. The painting is from a European traveling artist who came to the Ottoman Empire in the company of the Austrian ambassador, Baron Mollard. This picture shows both Osman, the new Sultan, and Mahfiruze. Mahfiruze is sitting on a golden throne on the left side of the painting, with a golden crown on her head, and among her companions we can also see the Austrian ambassador, whom the artist depicted in the picture. However, there are several problems with this: the first is that Valide could not personally participate in the coronation ceremony, especially not in such European-style clothing, without a scarf. The other is that the Austrian ambassador certainly could not have been Valide's companion, the artist merely envisioned him there. The third and most important problem: a European artist could not even enter the scene of the coronation ceremony, it is quite certain that the artist was not there and did not see what he painted. Mewwwiig (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that the portrait is a proof, but a support for information. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is unreliable support for information Mewwwiig (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom? Do you have sources for this? Apart from the fact that the artist did not attend the coronation? Diplomatic relations also existed at the time, and the artist may well have painted this portrait based on the information he was given. Unfortunately, this is the only portrait of Mahfiruz. There are testimonies of Mahfiruz attending the coronation. I have inserted them. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valide could not personally participate in the coronation ceremony.And again During Osman's reign, the harem lists specifically note that there was no Valide Sultan, the harem was managed by Osman's nanny instead. Mewwwiig (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In one book it is mentioned that she was carried in procession to the Imperial Palace like all the Valide Sultan. Precisely because there are several versions, it is necessary to mention them all: Mahfiruz, as mentioned in the sources, could have fallen into disgrace, or moved to Eyup (most likely) where she had public works built and where she was buried on her orders. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: According to another PDF, she was Valide Sultan for a short time: "Sultan I. Mustafa’nın validesi (ismi bilinmemektedir.) ve II. Osman’ın validesi Mahfiruz Sultankargaşa döneminde kısa süreli valide sultanlık yapmışlardı" [trad: "The Mother of Sultan Mustafa I (name is not known.) and Mahfiruz Sultan, the mother of Osman II, had been sultans for a short period of time during the turmoil period"] (https://eu.docworkspace.com/d/sINfwyrCCAqvVqb0G?sa=601.1094). Regarding her marriage to Ahmed I, a source stated that originally she was a Kadin, but then the Sultan married her she became his Haseki. She also became Valide Sultan after Ahmed's death (she would have died in 1620/21), Kösem Sultan was banished to Eski saray and was allowed to leave only after her son Murad's coronation ("Kösem Sultan was sent to Eski saray (Old Palace) when Ahmet I died in 1617. Mahfiruz Valide Sultan died in 1620...[...]...Osman II had his brother Mehmet bowstringed in 1621 upon an imperial order when he heard that his brother Mehmet had attempted for throne struggle before he had gone to Lehistan Campaign. The throne struggle had reached a head when Mahfiruz Sultan died in the same year") ("Women Leaders in Chaotic Environments" by Prof. Doctor Şefika Şule Erçetin, 2016).

ETA: In most of the books cited above, Mahfiruz is called the "first wife of the Sultan", "Haseki", while in others she is simply the first concubine. I will add to the Template the title Haseki Sultan with the word "disputed" immediately below to remind of the uncertainty of the title brought. (Other books I found are "Osmanlı'da harem" by Meral Altındal, 1993: Mahfiruz is the first wife of the Sultan (so Haseki?) and titled as Sultan)

Regarding Mahfiruz's survival to her son, a recent historiographical work, an essay, "A Woman Leader in Ottoman History: Kösem Sultan (1589-1651)" by Aylin Görgün-Baran (2016) (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-44758-2_7) stated that Kösem, as soon as Osman ascended the throne, hastened to declare her solidarity and support for Mahfiruz and the Sultan, presenting herself as their ally.

Mahfiruz as Valide Sultan (again) ("Osmanlı devletinde kim kimdi" by Mehmet Süreyya Bey; 1969).

ETA: I have found a few other authoritative works that cite Mahfiruz as Sultan, with notes and quotations to verify the veracity. ("Women in Turkish Society" by Ayşe Erkmen, ‎Murat Fi̇dan,‎ Yasemin Karakoç; 2022)

In "Storia dell'Impero Ottomano" by Joseph “von” Hammer-Purgstall (1830), it is stated (in Old Italian) that: "But Osman nevertheless accepted, accompanied by the kizlara-gà, a feast given to him for three or four days, in the old seraglio, by his father's favourite «the form of the moon», and this because she was probably wise enough to keep in good harmony with the sultan's mother, Mah-firuz, that is, «loving to the moon», or at least with the kizlaragà". In "Geschichte der Türkei" [History of Turkey] by Alphonse de Lamartine (1855), it is written that Mahfiruz Sultan maintained a cordial relationship with Kösem Sultan (at the instigation of Ahmed I), for the sake of their children. She authorized her son Osman to visit Kösem at the Old Palace while she was in exile during Osman's reign.

ETA: A study by the University of Istanbul, I repeat, of the University of Istanbul, regarding the cemetery of Eyup where she is buried, mentions her as Mahfiruz Valide Sultan, who died in 1620. (https://eu.docworkspace.com/d/sIMTwyrCCAp_u-74G)

What you emphatically tout as "A study by the University of Istanbul" (x2, because repeating twice the word university is supposed to give it more weight than just once) is in reality nothing more than a simple mention in a PhD thesis on Turkish Folklore Studies. Typical of your method of cherry-picking.--77.131.3.202 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your method called instead? Can I ask? May I know what makes you think you know more than I do? Do you know how much I have studied and known about this character? Before writing and belittling the work of others, it would be better to think, because that is not very intelligent. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My method is not this one, to begin with. 77.131.3.202 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You probably haven't read the article, nor its history. I just insert well-founded information, you may like it or not, but it's not my problem. Also, no, I'm sorry but I don't do this. In fact, your method is to believe what suits you best, excluding what you don't like. And it doesn't work like that. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coronation of Osman

ETA: About her appointment as Valide Sultan: When her son was crowned, Mahfiruz was taken from the Old Palace and carried in procession at Topkapi. She was a discreet Valide Sultan ("Osmanlı Hareminde Üç Haseki Sultan" by Yılmaz Öztuna, 2014). There is also a portrait of the royal procession of Osman II with a woman carried in triumph, almost certainly Mahfiruz. Some more readings on Ottoman history with references to Mahfiruz: Valide Sultan and advisor to her son ("Resimli-haritalı mufassal Osmanlı tarihi" by Server Rifat İskit; 1960).

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:21, 27 Feb 2025 (UTC)

Works built by Mahfiruz

ETA: Regarding her burial, a paragraph of a book (which lists the burials of all the Valide Sultans, Safiye, Handan, Halime...), titles her grave as in the cemetery of Eyüp, and entitled her as Hadice Mahfiruz Valide Sultan, also called as the "Sâhibe-i Hayrât" [for her many services at the tomb of Sultan Ahmed I and for her charitable works, such as the purse next to the "Bâb-ı Kebîr", and of Zeyd Ebû Eyyûb-i Ensari...] ("Medeniyetimizin Mimarları" (regarding Turkish architectural history and religious sites) by Kamil Çakır, 2019)). In "Dördüncü Eyüpsultan Sempozyumu" she built a religious building between 1618 and 1622. On the website of the municipality of Eyüp, there is a paragraph with Mahfiruz's biography: "With the accession to the throne of her son Genç Osman on February 26, 1618, Mahfiruz Sultan became Valide Sultan. She exiled her rival Kösem Sultan from Topkapi Palace to the Old Palace, where Istanbul University is now located. However, these happy days did not last long: on 7 Rajab 1031 (18 May 1622) the incident of the young Osman, known as "Hailei Osmaniye" occurred, and on Friday 9 Rajab (20 May) the sultan was terribly killed in Yedikule. She was sent to the Old Palace after Murad's accession to the throne. She spent her life there shedding tears for the tragic fate of her son and died in 1037 (1628). Her grave is located in the cemetery of Eyüp Sultan. On her unique marble sarcophagus there is an inscription of 16 verses. Mahfiruz Valide Sultan, who was very religious, had the "house of money in the great chapter" built in the Tomb of Eyüp Sultan. That's probably why she was buried in this cemetery. Otherwise she could have been buried in the tomb of her husband Ahmed I." (check here: https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/mahfiruz-valide-sultan/1093).

CLARIFICATION: If she had monuments, places of worship, etc. built in years that are after 1620, evidently she was still alive. And I don't see sources that deny this part of her life. As many claim - most likely erroneously - that she died by 1610, most mention her alive after 1620. And as the website of the municipality of Eyup states, she died in 1628. If this is the date of her death cited by the website of a municipality - where she was buried at her behest - So I don't see what there is to continue discussing. I don't think that the statement "Mahfiruz was never Valide Sultan" can be taken into account, since the site of the municipality where she was buried states otherwise. As it is stated, from 1610 she would have fallen from grace due to Kösem Sultan's intrigues and exiled.

I will proceed with the change.

To support her life after 1620, I found other things that she had built: a funerary urn and a grave also in Eyüp. ("İstanbul il yıllığı 1967" and "İstanbul camileri" by Tahsin Öz).

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:22, 27 Feb 2025 (UTC)

Her children and her role as mother

Mahfiruz, as the Valide Sultan, taught her son Osman foreign languages: "Trained in Latin, Greek, and Italian by his Greek mother". Additionally, Kösem Sultan and her entourage were banished during his tenure. (https://psi424.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Shaw%2C%20History%20of%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire%20and%20Modern%20Turkey_%20Volume%201%2C%20Empire%20of%20the%20Gazis_%20The%20Rise%20and%20Decline%20of%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire%201280-1808%20(1976).pdf).

Regarding her children, it should be mentioned that she was also the mother of another child of Ahmed I, probably Gevherhan Sultan. Bailo Cristoforo Valier (between 1612/1616) stated that Ahmed I had 4 children, 2 by Kösem and another 2 by another Sultana (probably Mahfiruz). Pietro della Valle stated that: "Il giorno seguente alla morte di Nasuh, fu subito assunto al carico di primo visir Muhammed bascià, genero egli ancora del Gran Signore, cioè marito della prima figliuola, che è sorella di madre del principe primogenito..." [trad= "The day following Nasuh's death, Muhammed Basha, son-in-law of the Great Lord, was immediately assumed as first vizier, that is, husband of the first daughter, who is the full sister of the firstborn prince..."]. Others claim that from Mahfiruz Ahmed I had two other princes (Süleymân and Bayezid), but this cannot be confirmed. At the same time, Kösem cannot be their mother. At the same time, the children who are attributed to Kösem Sultan are certainly not all hers.

ETA: Peirce stated that Gevherhan Sultan's mother is uncertain "Gevherhan Sultan (daughter of Ahmed I and (?) Kösem Sultan)". (https://books.google.it/books?id=L6-VRgVzRcUC&pg=PA288&dq=Fatma+Mahfiruz&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrvLqky9eLAxUL6wIHHeO2Ms4Q6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=Gevherhan&f=false)

ETA: It is commonly accepted that she was the mother of Hatice Sultan (born 1609).

Apparently, she had 4 or 5 children (based on certain sources): Sultan Osman (1604), Süleyman (1613?), Gevherhan Sultan (1605/1608), Bayezid (1612), and Hatice Sultan (1609). They are based on certain sources that I will cite all of them in time.

In "Istanbul: City of Majesty at the Crossroads of the World" by Thomas F. Madden (2016), it is stated that "Mahfiruz Sultan bore him four sons".

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:23, 27 Feb 2025 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources

I noticed that on the other Wikipedias, there are other theories and informations about her birth, but I couldn't verify them since I didn't find any evidence in any book or document:

  • Princess Hâdice Alkasovna from a Circassian Noble Family. (cited as present in a book by Tezcan, but which Tezcan? There are many authors with this name)
  • Marija from Rumelia.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude

To conclude:

1. She was of Circassian or Greece (unlikely) origin, born as Evdoksia (uncertain name) in 1587/1590.
2. She may have been member of a Circassian noble family, related to Saçbağı Haseki Sultan (wife of Ibrahim I) or Mahidevran Hatun.
3. She was probably Valide Sultan, dying in 1620/1628. She was also probably Haseki Sultan.
4. She acted as an advisor to her son and was active in the construction of monuments and places of worship.
5. She banished Kösem Sultan after her son's coronation.
6. She was sent to the Old Palace in exile after her son's death.
7. She died in Eyüp, where she was buried at her request.

To prevent some people from being offended, from considering my gesture an affront to their beliefs, I conclude this chapter of discussion by stating that as far as the page is concerned, I will only divide the paragraph on her death like this:

1. Premature Death Theory: Bringing the sources and those who claim that she died young.

2. Rise as Valid, public works and death: Becoming Valid, the works dhe had built, who claims that she died after her son's accession to the throne, in 1628.

3. Exile: She was exiled, never obtained the title of Valide, but died after her son.

(!!) I would like to emphasize that we are talking about a character about whom little is known. As for her there are different versions of death, for Nurbanu (for example) there are different versions of origin and birth, as well as for Safiye, Kösem, etc. But also for death, like Halime, Safiye, and Ayşe Hümaşah. Since various hypotheses are considered regarding the birth and death of these Sultanas, so it will be for Mahfiruz, and those who like to imagine the story differently will have to make it go well.

As you can see, I do not exclude any version, nor do I impose mine as they accused me of doing previously (just check the pages of the interested parties to see that this is not the case).

I am sure of the great understanding of other users, and I remember that all this study, if I can call it that, has cost effort and sweat for me, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from saying that I make things up. Thank you very much.

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maria!,European ambassadors were certain that Ahmed had as consorts “the living sultana and the sultana who died”.
the English ambassador George Sandys, who wrote presumably in 1610, or around this time, said about this:
“this also hath married his concubine, the mother of his yonger sonne, (she being dead by whom he had the eldest) who with all the practices of a politicke stepdame endevours to settle the succession on her owne…”
The French ambassador, Achille de Harlay, writing on Osman II’s accession, said the same thing:
“non le fils de la sultane vivante mais l'ainé nommé Osman, orfelin de sa mère des il y a dix ans” // “not the son of the living sultana but the eldest named Osman, who has been motherless for ten years”
De Harlay had reported that Osman’s mother was dead even earlier:
That Osman’s mother is dead is also stated in a relation on the life and death of Nasuh Pasha (d. 1614), written sometime after Nasuh’s execution in 1614 and sent by the same ambassador on March 5, 1616 — Searching for Osman Caracallah (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have second thoughts such as Mahfiruze was in fact alive when Osman became sultan and died in 1620. This is usually said by Turkish historians Öztuna claims that Mahfiruze was valide sultan for two years, when she died on 26 October 1620. As he doesn’t source his claims, we can only speculate who his sources are, but it’s probably Uluçay who says the same thing:
“But these happy days did not last long. She died in the third year of her son’s reign in 1620, and was buried in Eyüp Sultan Mosque”
Even a very recent work of historiography like Aylin Görgün-Baran’s essay titled “A Woman Leader in Ottoman History: Kösem Sultan (1589-1651)” (which you mentioned) reiterates the same thing:
“By the way, the reign of Osman II had caused Kösem Sultan to take action and she had developed strategies to get on with Mahfiruz Sultan and Osman II and established relationships with them for her son Murat IV. She had sent gifts both to Mahfiruz Sultan and Osman II and given messages to them that she had taken their side.”
Apart from the fact that I don’t believe that Kösem was working to put Murad on the throne (how was she supposed to know that Osman II would be childless and deposed and killed? Please), this claim is not sourced.
Osman built a grave for his mother right after he became sultan may mean that he wanted to honour her with a better mausoleum. Also, who builds a grave for someone who is not dead yet and is also fairly young? I mean if Kösem was in her late twenties when Ahmed I died, Mahfiruze must have been around the same age.
I would also like to dismiss the claims of Leslie P. Peirce since Osman not recalling his mother to the Palace after his ascension to the throne is extremely unlikely Caracallah (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is said that Mahfiruz was Greek and that she taught Osman Greek. Tezcan has been able to determine that the source of this claim is not a work of historiography but a novel: Histoire d'Osman premier du nom, XIXe empereur des turcs, et de l'impératrice Aphendina Ashada by Madeleine-Angélique de Gomez published in 1743.
To conclude i agree with you that all reliable
sources should be included but again you would probably face ignorance of other users who would accuse you of edit-warring and vandalising the page
Thank you for your time and good luck with further editing! Caracallah (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your time and for responding, thank you very much. True, many of the sources on her death are conflicting. Precisely for this reason I would like to include the different theories on her death. They probably didn't want to let people know that she was the Sultan's mother, and so cancelled her name from the harem, since she had provoked the wrath of Kösem Sultan and Sultan Ahmed I (it is cited in one of the books above as an explanation). She was probably "persona non grata". That would explain a lot of things. Yes, as you say, many would accuse me of inventing things and modifying them to my liking, not knowing that I have been studying and trying to study the lives of Mahfiruz and other Sultanas for years. Thank you for your understanding, It means a lot to me to know that other people are open to dialogue and are understanding.
A source that I consider very authoritative is that of the municipality of Eyup, which has a section about Mahfiruz's life showing details, and speaks of public works that she had built, as well as giving her date of death to 1628. I think it is very significant that the municipality gives information about her life. I think that if the city where he died, speaks of her life, in a site open to all, it means that it he is sure of what they say (probably). I left the link above. It also explains that Mahfiruz settled in Eyup voluntarily, where she decided to die and be buried. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Ottoman Sultans in this time period rarely married. They used slave concubines for procreation. These concubines were their "consorts" and "consorts" is often intepreted by Westerners as "wives" just as "haseki" has sometimes been viewed as "queens", but concubines were often referred to as wives as an honorary/respectful form of politeness despite them never actually legally marrying the sultan - hence there was a difference between "wife" and "legal wife". That is a complicated matter. But no consort of an ottoman sultan should be called "wife" unless they are explicitly proven to have had an actual wedding ceremony. Normally, the consorts were concubines: actual wives were the exception. --Aciram (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram: Hi, sorry for the late reply. You're right. Very often concubine and legal wife are confused. Among the causes there is probably the lack of reliable sources. The only recognized legal wife, whose title is not disputed, is Hurrem Sultan. As for the possible other Haseki, therefore Nurbanu, Safiye, Mahfiruz and Kösem, the title is not certain. The only other Haseki recognized are the eight wives of Ibrahim I and Rabia, the consort of Muazzez Sultan's son. It is also true that very often the titles of concubines can be prone to confusion due to a wrong translation. So we have to go to hypotheses and take into consideration all the correct or verifiable sources. Of course, I don't take it for sure that Mahfiruz was Ahmed's first legal wife, but some sources report her as the first wife and the first Haseki. She certainly had a prominent position until 1605, as she enjoyed the favor of Handan Sultan, Ahmed's mother, who introduced her to her son. I was waiting for other users with their heads in place to comment in this section, but I think I will proceed with the appropriate changes given the lack of serious interest, because so far those who have commented here have seemed to be fans of fictional TV series.
-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: Thank you. Yes, it is unfurtunate, that so many readers and users are influenced by fiction. The best policy for Wikipedia would be to refer to the consorts of the Ottoman sultans as concubines unless they can be absolutely confirmed to be wives, since concubinage was the norm, and wives was the exception to the rule and should therefore not be assumed unless there is clear confirmation. In particularly debated cases, were there is a greater case for true uncertaintanty (that is; uncertainty in serious sources), we can use the perfectly neutral term "consort", and note that this can refer to both wife and concubine. This is the best and most neutral policy, I believe.--Aciram (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram: You're right. And thank you so much for answering, it means a lot. I think "consort" is perfect, so it's more neutral and so especially some users don't feel personally attacked. I don't understand what is difficult to accept that this woman could have become Valide Sultan and died in 1628. I don't know what drives some users to have to delete content randomly. I put my soul into finding content on Mahfiruz, I have searched heaven and earth to bring evidence and it bothers me a lot that some people delete content based on a TV series or a study superficially. I would like to edit the page, but I always delay doing so because I am afraid that it would open a dispute that would never end. So I don't know what to do, because some of the users who commented on this discussion have been blocked for hidden use of multiple users with whom they edit pages and replied here. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: If I may, I feel I must be honest: some people are very sensitive to the fact that concubinage is a part of Islamic law. Concubinage is in effect sexual slavery. It is sex outside of marriage, but yet, it is still not defined as sex outside of marriage by Islamic law. This is a very sensitive issue, and may in some cases contribute to these difficulties. I am afraid it is not unusual for issues relating to the topic of slavery in Islam to be cause of conflicts in Wikipedia, because it is a sensitive issue; I have seen this in several articles that deal with the topic. It is regrettable, but Wikipedia must of course be factual.--Aciram (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram: It is true, concubinage is a much discussed element and attempts are made to make it forgotten. But unfortunately this is history, and although I know that some users are annoyed to see history for what it really is. But I can't leave this page at the mercy of users who have reduced it to falsehoods and uncertainty. I'm sorry, but I feel that it is my duty as a user to help redeem this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: Maybe You misunderstand me. My point was: I know that there are people who attempt to hide the fact that sexual slavery is a part of Islamic law in the form of concubinage, because of religious sensitivites. In my personal view, this is wrong and goes against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is suppose to present neutral and factual information, and not bend to religious sensitivites and censorship. I myself I have wittnessed this sort of censorship attempts in several articles involving slavery in Islam in wikipedia. I have always oposed it, but it can be a challenge in the cases when users abuse wikipedia regulation to forward their agenda. When I have pointed this out, I have on several occasions been threathened by the users in question. Therefore, I use my words carefully. Be assured that you have my support. --Aciram (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram: Thank you. Unfortunately people are blind when they have to face the truth, but as you say, on Wikipedia we have and must report veritable informations and facts, even if people don't accept it. I was thinking about asking a moderator or anothet user to name the page as a protect one and so to prevent anonymous users or or others who believe in an alternative truth, to vandalize it. I'm really bored and annoyed to continually correct other users who accuse me of vandalism (I swear that my only attempt is to make Wikipedia a better platform where correct sources and informations have to be as all the world can check a page here and read it, and since he do, he has the privilege and the right to read correct informations and not self-made affirmations or sources; examples of this are the page of Kösem Sultan in the issue' section, the page of Safiye Sultan in her origin' section, this one of Mahfiruz who is full of errors, the one about Halime Sultan regarding her children and death date). MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you and sympathise with the fatigue. I have experienced it myself in other articles regarding slavery in Islam. I support your idea to raise the issue to some experienced editor to ask for protection for the pages of Ottoman consorts. I have noticed that they are often vandalised. Why not ask an experienced editor what the options to protect the pages are. I would support such an action. To raise the issue could attract the attention to the difficulties in how these issues are often problematic for many users - not just to Ottoman consorts in particular, but to the issue in general, so it would be of help to wikipedia in many ways. --Aciram (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you cited source from
Edadil Açba who claims that Mahfiruz is relative of Mahidevran even though Mahidevran orgins are disputed and this source alone is unreliable as
Edadil doesn’t give her source of information and you also cited another unreliable book A Woman Leader in Ottoman History: Kösem Sultan (1589-1651)” which doesn’t give source of claim and you cited a fictional novel about Mahfiruz teaching Osman greek so tell me who are you to tell me which sources are unreliable and which are not? 79.143.107.88 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I care about youI am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I believe that I am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I think it is nowI am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I think it's time toI am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I think it's time toI am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I think that it isI am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page, and I believe that I am a person who has been studying this character for years. I am a person who reads and informs himself, I am a person who knows what he writes, I am a person who cares about the validity of the Wikipedia project and I do not tolerate that pages are smeared with falsehoods of people who do not know history. I have not given for certain his relationship with Mahidevran, it is one of the hypotheses I mentioned. The sources I bring are checked, valid, verified by me. I care about this page. I want things to be done right, and last but not least, who are you to belittle my work by declaring it vandalism? Who are you to delete information you don't like? If this is your way of doing it, Wikipedia is not the right place. Here we cite sources, true, and report information from books, not from fans of television series. That's how it works. It has always been like this and it will remain so. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you continue to delete information, and as a source you bring a fan page of the TV series apparently, I will make the right observations to those appropriate and I will ask for the protection of the page. Keep deleting lifelong searches, go go. Keep deleting information because you don't like it. Then don't be surprised by the consequences, you have been warned that deleting random is not allowed. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i cited a source from historian you seem to have little understanding if i cited a fan profile of Tv series they would certainly not call Mahfiruz a hatun but Sultan as you do and by the way you called my source vandalism even though its from verified historian? And alone that harem records say that there was no Valide during Osmans reign is authentic source alone so please stop acting childish. Tubvcak (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And they actually cited their sources so 🤷🏼 Tubvcak (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And i would recommend to do some research on source i gave rather than threatening me calling my source unreliable and calling it fiction-based Tubvcak (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quote @Aciram: who, like me, intervenes in this discussion to find out what he thinks and if perhaps it is me who is wrong?
You give your sources for certain and this is not allowed here. You don't have the absolute truth. On a character like Mahfiruz, whose life is discussed, who are you to decide for a community like Wikipedia? continues to insult me, in the meantime I report everything to those in charge. Then don't be surprised if the page is protected by users like you. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again insulting me and threatening me good for you,you arent open for any debate but for insulting and only agreeing with people you like? The hypocrisy is unbelievable,again the harem records state no VALIDE SULTAN was present during Osman’s reign so im very sorry but if you want to be like that person then Wikipedia is not for you ! Best regards Tubvcak (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not threats, they are warnings that occur when you refuse to adapt to the rules of the platform. Am I not open to debate? But what if I am the one who created this discussion? In any case, don't worry, I won't change anything in such a way as to point out the situation to those in charge. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: I have not studied Mahfiruz Hatun as a particular individual, only the concubinage system in general, so I can't speak of the issue. However, my advise to you is to report this whole dispute to the Wikipedia Dispute resolution noticeboard so that you can get some help from neutral administrators with knowledge of all the rules and regulations, and resolve this dispute once and for all. You can find the page to report this here: [2] This can also be of help to you in future disputes in other articles of the same kind. This discussion seem to have gone on for far too long. (I am not a "he", btw, not that it is a big issue).--Aciram (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram:. Thank you very much, I will ask someone neutral. Personally I am very tired of this situation, and sorry if I disturbed you, but I really don't know who to ask to do justice to a debated figure. I really am with my hands in my hair, I don't know how to end this useless farce full of contradictions and falsehoods. Thank you very much. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: You are welcome. I strongly advise you to use the link I provided and explain everything on that page and ask for assistance rather than to continue editing and trying to discuss with this user, since it will obviously not resolve the issue and simly just continue like this otherwise. I have reported similar conflicts to the Wikipedia Dispute resolution noticeboard many times myself and it has been effective. I would do it imediately if I were you. To ask for page protection would simply postphone a contination of this conflict, it seems. Good luck!--Aciram (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amaliaduchessadiparla's attitude

Amaliaduchessadiparma persists to erase sourced information from the article just because she doesn't agree with it. She may have the right to personnaly believe things, because she has read them a dozen times in general litterature based on outdated historiography (the ultimate source for these claims being the century old Ahmed Refik), but she doesn't have the right to erase reliably sourced information just basing herself on her personal opinion (and lack of proper historical methodology) 77.130.249.14 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion, it referred to the fact that a discussion is in progress, and that it would be better to avoid inserting information based on a small part of sources, when many other sources say other information. As you can see, I don't delete content based on personal thoughts, but as far as the good of the page is concerned. I have no other purpose.
And if someone doesn't like to read sources that can contradict their thoughts, then Wikipedia is not for these people. If you are on Wikipedia you have to have an open mind to dialogue, which I have not seen with regard to this page and many others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. You say I delete based on my personal thoughts. I ask you, have you read the discussion I started and the sources I brought? Did you read that I would have accepted very well to include all versions of Mahfiruz's life? Simply, inserting information about his death, when his death is not certain and is debated, is very unintelligent. Taking one's own source for granted is not good, and just as I don't do it, no one should do it. Regarding the information that you say that I deleted at will: I formulated it in a way that did not influence the discussion and all the other sources brought, because it makes no sense to declare a date and make those who read the page believe it, when that same date is not certain and is debated. Before accusing someone because it is convenient, first you have to examine your conscience and think "what I do is productive for Wikipedia?", certainly what I do yes, because I do not take my sources for certain and I do not belittle the others, but I request the neutrality of the page and it is not acceptable for a person to insert material based on thoughts. If what you do is not productive, like accusing a person of something and constantly giving up on what they do, then maybe you need to change, for the good of the project. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"just basing herself on her personal opinion (and lack of proper historical methodology)". I'm sorry, but I don't accept this, and I think it is reductive. Just take a look at the discussion I started. I have known users who based their edits on their sources and that's it and did not accept interference. Every time you try to talk to them, they make you feel like you don't know anything and they know everything. That you are only telling falsehoods and they are only telling the truth. And this must not happen.
You can check for yourself, I have never deleted information based on my conventions, unlike others, and one thing would be enough for me: the acceptance of the fact that you do not have the absolute truth in your hands and the possibility of making mistakes. As a person and as a user, I think this is important. And thinking about the good of the page, I think it is right to open one's mind to the different, because taking information based on 10 of the (for example) 200 available sources as true is reductive. A lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For all your protests of civility, this was a plain unjustified removal of sourced content. You complain about people disagreeing with you "make you feel like you don't know anything and they know everything" but you always make authoritative statements ("just open a book", "I've researched this subject for years" etc) when in the end you prefer to believe the website of the municipality instead of academic work based on documentary evidence. All the hundreds of books listing the children of M don't give any source for this claim (because they all ultimately rely on Ahmed Refik's book which was written at a time when Ottoman and Venetian archives weren't available), Tezcan may be or may not be right but his demonstration is based on archivial evidence, so it carries more weight than simple repetitions of traditional unfounded historiography. 77.131.3.202 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this is your thought. And no, none of my edits are unfounded. I rely on the municipality's website ALSO. It is still an authoritative source. And in addition, I know the subject very well and I know how to distinguish from true and false sources. I would appreciate respect for my own edits, as I do for those of others. Just as I don't dare come to you and moralize about your sources and paint them as false, you should do the same and avoid claiming that my sources are wrong. You should know your place, as I don't dare come to you and belittle your sources. That is not constructive.MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the same person that complains about "Every time you try to talk to them, they make you feel like you don't know anything and they know everything" and just afterwards warns others to "know their place" because they "know the subject very well and I know how to distinguish from true and false sources"...Very constructive, indeed. 77.131.3.202 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really constructive. Because unlike these people I don't come to someone and try to convince them that only my sources are valid, because this is not the attitude of a person who can be on Wikipedia. If a theory is valid, it is cited. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello may i ask why they cant say that you’r sources are false when you also come for other users calling their sources false or fictional? frankly good part of sources you gave are outdated and have been debunked, i will not go into detail since users before me has already pointed them out but it looks to me its pointless to mention it since you are acting ignorant. Naşakara (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems useless to me to talk to people who try to convince you of their truth. Unfortunately you do not have the truth in your hands, and unfortunately for you, this is a platform open to information, and therefore everyone can bring their sources. But as I don't delete other people's sources, I expect the same. It is a community, not a dictatorship. If you don't like it, Wikipedia is not for you. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt answer my question but okay, you just did delete a sourced information from a valid author without giving reason continue like this and i will ask for admin to look at this case. Naşakara (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I have defined as false is an article by an anonymous person brought as a theory about his death, by a historian who does not exist, probably a fan of a show. This is not source. Am I accountable to you? I don't think so.
1. You said "delete a sourced information". No, I have modified the structure of the statement so that it is in line with the discussion I have created.
2. "continue like this and i will ask for admin to look at this case". Maybe one thing is not clear to you. Perhaps it is still unclear. Maybe the person who will be controlled by an administrator will be you, because unlike you I don't try to change people's minds, and unlike you I don't belittle other people's sources. This is respect. This is Wikipedia. And unlike you, I don't think I have the truth in my hands. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have “truth in your hands” then why mention poorly written sources and unreliable authors AND novels? Please you acted like this when we debated about Safiye Sultans origin but we know how that ended.This is not a threat or a insult simply im stating the obvious how you act with other editors who dont agree with you, you tried to edit page of Kösem Sultan to your liking but again that failed so stop acting like a “all knowing person” because your attitude is very very rude. Naşakara (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Listing sources about the birth of Safiye Sultan is legitimate. It is legitimate to quote what is written in other authoritative books. And what do you know about how it ended? I finished it, because when you open a discussion, which I did on Safiye, no one answers. And then you come to tell me that I make things up to my liking.
2. I don't change anything to my liking. What I edit I do to make the page real, without false information.
3. No one said I have the truth in my hands. I said that no one has it.
4. Rude behavior is the way you are dealing with me. Reread what you write.
5. Omniscient person? But please. Have you read what I wrote? I wrote that no one has the absolute truth, not even me. And then you come to say that I am the omniscient person. But please, let's not tell falsehoods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You didnt answer my question but okay, you just did delete a sourced information from a valid author...". Here, here is the mistake: he is a valid author, all the others which I mentioned no. You say well and I say badly, because this transpires from the way you write. I understand that all the sources I have cited are valid, I will never tire of saying it, because I have checked them. To say that they are false, which I do not do with the sources that others bring, is rude. I don't really know who you think you are to come to me and think you're telling me that everything I put in is false, that everything I write is nonsense. I don't accept that a person comes to me and allows himself to tell me certain things, about my sources. I have never dared to say that the other sources are false (except for those obviously false). To say otherwise is to fool yourself. I remind you, I have been studying this character for a very long time until now. So be more cautious with what you say. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You been studying this character for long time so you are immediately right? And i have never claimed your sources are false but as you as “expect for those obviously false” so dont take what i say personally just simple observation of sources you gave😃. Naşakara (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Did I say I was right? No. Mine is a precision about the fact that I do not enter information that I find without verifying it. A person who studies a subject is believed to be able to distinguish the true from the false and modestly I consider myself able to do so.
2. The sources I have provided are valid. You may or may not like it. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, since you didn't say mine are fake. Don't question them as I don't do it with yours. Like you I want to contribute to the project, and like you I want to make a page better. But to do so it is necessary to accept the other versions as well. And unfortunately there is no certain information on certain historical figures. I would never allow myself to delete other people's information, because I know I could be wrong, but I know that I could also tell the truth with the sources I bring. Like all sources about the Ottoman royals of this era. I'm sorry that we don't have certainty with these characters, but unfortunately we don't have certainty, so we owe the versions we all carry. I, for my part, assure you that I will never delete information that states about her life that you carry, but please, do the same. As I said, we will divide the section of death into two, one declaring her dead by 1610, and the other declaring her Valide Sultan and her death in 1628.Unfortunately there is no certainty and this seems to me the only acceptable way to bring the information and make the page neutral. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-Edadil Açba the author you sourced didnt gave from where she got her information from or from what source does she base her statements from
-"Mahfiruz, as the Valide Sultan, taught her son Osman foreign languages: Trained in Latin, Greek, and Italian by his Greek mother" this source is based on novel which is already debunked and even mentioned in the article
- “A Woman Leader in Ottoman History: Kösem Sultan (1589-1651)” unreliable book the reason is user before me already mentioned why
Im only mentioning these sources because you said “The sources i have provided are valid” again some of them are not valid i mentioned them here i didnt mention any other source you gave but these ones dont take this personally im just pointing out invalid/poorly sourced information you gave this is with best intentions for you to fix these little mistakes, i wish you good luck with solving this issue and i will not involve myself with this dispute anymore. Best regards Naşakara (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amaliaduchessadiparma's canvassing of the article and sourcing problems

Amaliaduchessadiparma tricked the system again by a clever deception, disguising an editorial dispute as "ip vandalism" in order to impose her version, so the article was locked by user:Ymblanter for a year for no valid reason.

Anyway she ignores Wikipedia:UNDUE by presenting her opinion about the children as a fact, cherry-picking google snippets of books she didn't read, and often not even correctly mentionning the authors (because she did'nt actually read the papers or the books).

She misrepresents Thomas Madden (a medievalist specialist of the crusades), Mandel (a psychologist and artist) or the real author of the paper in the collection of essays "Women Leaders in Chaotic Environments" (a sociologist) as "specialists in Turkish imperial history", just because they conform to her outdated views, but they are clearly not, despite her anointment.--77.131.3.18 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I answer and that I think should be said is that I have read all the books I have mentioned. And all the authors who have written about it, have not invented anything. The request for page protection was more than predictable, since as soon as the first protection ended, the page began to be modified again based on personal thoughts, which are not relevant here. I assure you that the protection procedures look at the editing history of the page, and choose based on what is presented in front of them. Nothing more. I'm sorry but I don't have the power to manipulate people's minds and their decisions. If a decision is made, you go and look at the procedure, and protection takes place if the page is judged to be vandalized. P.S. = Before saying that the books are not verified, do we want to talk about it? (Thomas Madden is an American historian, the summary of the book, according to Amazon, is "The first single-volume history of Istanbul in decades: a biography of the city at the center of civilizations past and present". Gabriele Mendel was an Italian Islamist, historian, art historian. His book's tags are also Islamic History and history of Turkey. Kemal Çiçek is a Turkish Historian, his book is authoritative. Şefika Şule Erçetin is a Turkish writer, and her book is about the power of women.) Bailo Contarini himself wrote in 1618 that "there are three full blood siblings of sultan Osman, they are Sezhade Bayezid, Sezhade Suleyman and a sister. The youngest of them is Suleyman. […] The Sultan's mother is a very beautiful woman, and she was the first wife of the deceased Sultan" (In one of the books on Ottoman history this writing is reported). Don't talk about things you don't know, do you know by any chance if I've read these books or not? To avoid embarrassments, avoid these comments that demonstrate for the umpteenth time that protection for this page is necessary. I assure you that I know how to do my job of researching authoritative sources and I definitely don't need you to come and tell me how to do it. This will be the last time I respond to people like you who judge without knowing. Bye! MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your fulminations we stay at the same point: Madden is still a scholar specialized in the crusades and not the Ottoman dynasty, Mandel is still a popularizer, not a scholar and not a specialist of Ottoman dynasty, Şefika Şule Erçetin is still not the real author of the text but the editor of the collection of essays (something you should have noted if you had really thoroughly read the book, as you pretend...), and Çiçek is also "only" the editor of the text (that you miscited because you merely copied the information from the google snippet, there is no book titled "Osmanlı: Kültür ve sanat. 10" ).
You plainly confessed you added inverified (and eventually fictitious) references on another article, so you definitely need someone to correct your job of researching authoritative sources, notwithstanding your misplaced self-confidence. 77.131.3.253 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its best to report her as she will continue to do this. 62.4.55.244 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you by any chance the anonymous user who made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia? And who received warnings to stop and as a response gave "stop vandalizing the page. Thank you"? You are not the user who edited Turhan Sultan's page, right? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turhan_Sultan&diff=prev&oldid=1279226198) and you are not the user who wrote that she was from Rus' without providing sources and when it was pointed out to you you said "stop vandalizing" and you continued to edit it? Have you ever replied to the discussion in progress on her page to justify yourself? (no). You know, this is behavior to report. On the Haseki page, isn't it you who continues to insert portraits of dubious origin and delete things as you please? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ottoman_imperial_consorts&diff=prev&oldid=1286504236). You didn't delete information because you didn't like it from the pages of Halime Sultan, and others like Emetullah Rabia Sultan? Here is the difference. I insert sources. Consequently, proving them, I don't receive any request to insert sources. On the contrary, you edit justifying as "vandalism". Do you know that this behavior is probably against the rules and you could receive a block if you persist in continuing? Do you know that you have come to lecture me by talking about reporting when your situation is completely compromised and does not allow you to make these kinds of accusations? MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are same person who vandalised page of Safiye Sultan using blogs and hotel sites as your source so i dont get your point 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selimiye Hatun doesn’t exist her name is based on mosque which Selim II built Semişah Sultan’s name doesn’t appear anywhere and isnt sourced so i dont get why are you attacking me when you are the one who vandalised pages of Safiye used unreliable sources on page of Saçbağı Sultan first this is wikipedia and is used to provide users with accurate information and not your little fantasies! 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So keep your negative attitude home! 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" i dont get your point". I see this, because of your answer. Precisely, the sources for this information of yours? I don't see any.
"first this is wikipedia" Note. Act accordingly and provide evidence. Something that has been pointed out to you by several people, but you have never responded. Because? MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You plainly confessed you added inverified (and eventually fictitious) references on another article 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem not to respond to users who point out your wrongdoings and keep ignoring them, because? 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize what you write? The latest warnings are warnings of redirects to incorrect links. You don't need to respond to those kinds of alerts. Check the talk page better before telling falsehoods because you are continuing to avoid replying. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Are you referring to Saçbağli? Yes, as I have already said, I have taken the information in her article in Spanish as good. Evidently it was a mistake. Did I deny it? No, it is simply a Must for me and a trick that I will certainly avoid in the future. Evidently they were not acceptable sources and I know that, but I don't think I denied anything, and I think I have remedied it. Now, this answer is out of the context of this discussion and evidently you continue to avoid answering. Why don't you compare yourself with those who point out your mistakes, your shortcomings and send you warnings that you eliminate? Can you answer or is it a state secret? MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
State secret obviously 79.143.107.122 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title dispute

Regarding title dispute which happened months ago i thought to include myself, since most of arguments i will state in below are already stated in some of the comments i will again include them more detailed, after doing research about the topic regarding if she was Valide or not.

  • Ambasaddor Reports
  • between 1612 to 1615 Cristoforo Valier reports:
  • “Sultan had four sons two from living sultana two from dead sultana"
  • 1612 Simone Contarini writes:
  • "Osman goes on carriage rides with mother of second born son (Kösem)"
  • Pietro della Valle writes on Osmans ascension
  • "Othman figliuolo primogenito di Sultan Ahmed, ma non figliuolo della sultana Chiosemè vivente." / "Osman, Sultan Ahmed's firstborn son, but not son of the living sultana Kösem"
  • Achille de Harlay writing on Osman’s accession.
  • "non le fils de la sultane vivante mais l'ainé nommé Osman, orfelin de sa mère des il y a dix ans" / "not the son of the living sultana but the eldest named Osman, who has been motherless for ten years"
  • Baki Tezcan-Searching For Osman (2001) page 96
  • "Thus the available evidence strongly suggests that Osman's mother had died by 1610 at the latest, if not earlier."
  • Günhan Börekçi-A Queen-Mother at Work: On Handan Sultan and Her Regency During the Early Reign of Ahmed I (2020)" supports this claim by citing Tezcan at page 5
  • According to Tezcan, for Osman's mother Mahfiruz had passed away before he took the throne at the age of fourteen, his tutor Omer Efendi, formerly a madrasa professor and a preacher, functioned as de facto regent of the teenage sultan, in a similar way Mustafa Efendi had
  • Sources that support this claim?
  • M. Çağatay Uluçay, turkish historian refers to Mahfiruz as Valide Sultan based on chronogram on Mahfiruz's grave but, Baki Tezcan argues in his book-The Debut of Kosem Sultans Political Career pages 349-350

It is correct that she is buried in Eyüb, yet the chronogram marking the construction of her tomb suggests that she must have died before 1618. So M. Çağatay Uluçay claim is debunked.

That would mean she was a muslim woman and we known for a fact free-born muslim women do not enter harems of Ottoman Sultans, she also goes to state that she is relative of Mahidevran Hatun whos own origins are disputed (albanian,montenegrin etc..) she doesn’t source her claim also.

  • Leslie P. Peirce-Imeprial Harem (1993) page 233

She states that Mahfiruz was alive when Osman took the throne but was not Valide Sultan? This claim makes no sense again, woman becomes automatically Valide Sultan when her son ascends the throne she doesn’t need to be appointed to that position by her son so this claim doesn’t make sense.

  • Muzaffer Özgüles-The Women Who Built the Ottoman World (2017) page 51
  • He says that Mahfiruz died in third year of her sons rule (likely citing Yilmaz Oztuna) and that she built "only a modest Qur'an recitation lodge"// which is not sourced.
  • John Freely-Inside the Seraglio" (1999) page 107 & 117

Also has same claim as Peirce (most probably referencing her) that she didnt had title of Valide Sultan and that she stayed in the Old Palace banished. I already said why this claim makes no sense.

  • Renee Worringer-A short history of Ottoman Empire page 410"

He states that Mahfiruz was not allowed to reside in Topkapi Palace when her son became sultan in 1618, why? Reason is not stated again he is probably referring to Peirce’s claim which again doesn’t make sense as what she had done not to be present in Topkapi Palace during her own sons rule?.

  • "La porta d'Oriente” Prefazione di Sergio Bertelli

Mentions Pietro Della Valle According to him she was alive after 1615, he seems to ignore report done by Pietro Della Valle on Osmans as ascension.

  • Yılmaz Öztuna (2014)- "Osmanlı Hareminde Üç Haseki Sultan" (i couldnt find the page as user didnt gave it so im relaying on statement done by user who started the debate)

States "Mahfiruz was taken from the Old Palace and carried in procession at Topkapi" but he seems to ignore reports of French ambassadors about Osmans ascension who state that Osmans mother was dead which for sure they would notice if she was alive, he doesn’t source his claim. -End

  • Reports of Ambassadors

it seems to me that turkish historians with few other western historians seems to ignore french ambassadors reports during the Osman’s ascension which i dont think the ambassadors would lie for whatever reason.

  • Children
    • Osman II-confirmed
    • Şehzade Cihangir-Per reports of Valier (1612-1615) and Ottovaino Bon (1609)
    • Şehzade Bayezid was likely the second son Valier was referring to as Kosem had one son Mehmed before having her second son Murad in July 1612 as Bayezid was born in November 1612 this could only mean that report is done after his birth which can confrim Mahfiruz’s death as before 1614.

Melty love (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osman's mother suffered from an illness that led her to move to Eyüp trying to recover. I stated that with all the sources I cited above. The Daye Hatun started to act as Validè in 1620/1621. And it is in 1620/1621 that Mahfiruz apparently died. She surely stayed some years in that city 'cause in that city there are mentions of her, of her Constructions, and of her life there.
Ambassadors reports were - at the time - very likely erroneous: they often they confused women with others, as well as origins, motherhood, weddings and titles. This is the case of Mahidevran Hatun, Hürrem Sultan herself, Handan Sultan, Safiye Sultan, Nurbanu Sultan, or Imperial Princesses like Fatma Sultan (sister to Suleyman the Magnificent), Hatice Sultan, etc. Ambassador couldn't really met with Sultanas, so they based themselves on hearsay.
Another ambassador reported that Princes Osman and Mehmed were prohibited from travel in a carriage with Kösem on the orders of the Sultan, out of respect for his first wife. Ambassadors could write anything, but who says what they wrote is right? Another ambassador, Vallier, reported a daughter of Mahfiruz. Another two daughters. An Ambassador wrote in 1620 that "Dopo la morte di Valide Sultan, Daye Hatun divenne il capo del Palazzo e, con il permesso di Osman II, le fu assegnato uno stipendio di 3000 Asper." [After the death of Valide Sultan, Daye Hatun became the head of the Palace, and with the permission of Osman II, she was awarded a salary of 3000 Asper]. Ambassador Giorgio Giustiniano wrote: "After the death of the Valide Sultan, the Sultan assigned this task to his nanny. This should not be surprising, because the Sultan's nanny was the sister of the late Valide Sultan and Osman's aunt. This woman's husband was Abaza Mehmet Pasha".
We could listen to the information of all the ambassadors we turn for hours. But unfortunately no one is sure of what they wrote. Ambassadors could not lie or it went against their work. Venetian/Italian ambassadors report at the same time that Mahfiruz was Valide during the reign of her son. Why should they lie too? The ambassadors at the time made many mistakes in speaking of the Sultanas. There's also another variant for her name: Mâhirûze. If search for her under this name, more informations regarding her tenure will come out.
As for her time as Validè, she built also a mosque and other religious buildings. I have already written above. Her constructions were listed by authors Kamil Çakır (who wrote an essay regarding Turkey's architecture and works, so in full theme); and by Tahsin Öz (Specialized in architecture, also in charge of Topkaki Palace as Director and restorer of the complex). She was at the same nicknamed "Sâhibe-i Hayrât" for her work there. She started the construction of a Cüzhane in 1619, as confirmed by Eyüp City.
Obviously I don't give my version as the only right one, which I would never do. I was forced to ask for protection for this page, because there were those who insulted both me and my work in trying to make that page better. As a final decision I decided not to add anything at the moment until I find something very useful as information that can stop other people from insulting others just because they bring information they don't like. I would have liked to at least bring the authoritative sources that call her Valide Sultana, but I gave up when I saw the trend and because I didn't want to have to receive more insults just because I was doing my job. Unfortunately, I say it frankly, there is no certainty about Mahfiruz's role, nor about the date of death. I hoped that it would be possible - as for other figures - to bring the various accredited theories about their fate. I hope that one day this can also be done for this page without receiving insults.
Thanks Mitsy for your contribution here too, you did it without denying the various possible theories. 🙏 MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which ambassador wrote that in 1620? 62.4.45.34 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. It was an anonymous ambassador cited by the Hungarian-German historian Josef Matuz (died 1992). He wrote about the Ottoman Imperial Family. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which book 62.4.43.45 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typical diparma, she presumptuously discusses primary sources (=original research) without giving proper references (=bad original research) so we have to believe her and take her word for it (though she has been proved guilty of misquoting sources) or ask her endlessly for precise citations (who wrote this, in which book, at which page etc etc) 79.83.33.246 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Typical diparma, she presumptuously discusses primary sources (=original research) without giving proper references (=bad original research) so we have to believe her and take her word for it (though she has been proved guilty of misquoting sources) or ask her endlessly for precise citations (who wrote this, in which book, at which page etc etc)". I take this as an insult. You were not the person I was talking with. For your information, I did proper researchs. Why did I not answer him immediately? Cause I don't live for this encyclopedia, and yes, these informations are into books. As for my person, this don't concern you, nor you should judge me. Before answering the user, I need to bring him reliable materials, so I need time and I'm not obligated to have a timer to bring informations. In any case, I'm not supposed to answer you. And that answer of yours is not tolerated. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of using imaginary fantasy sketch?

Just for the record: there is clear consensus that the sketch is not to be used and that melikechimaymuhtesemyuzyil.blogspot.com is NOT a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma Whats the point of using imaginary fantasy sketch provided again by unreliable source, (blogger) who lacks any academic credibility and the origins of the sketch in question are not known? And i dont understand your argument that i need “source” to prove that the blog is unreliable,

(https://melikechimaymuhtesemyuzyil.blogspot.com/2015/09/mahfiruz-sultan-gorunusu.html?m=1) as for example this? No academic sources used for this, her claims do not appear in any reliable academic works by historians, the sketch as far as i found it appeard firstly on her article in February 2016 with caption

  • ” The image depicting Mahfiruz Sultan and her children was kindly sent to us by the historian ‘Ms. Natalie de Fitz-James', for which we extend our sincere thanks. The owner of the image is Princess Tatjana Akçurina.

When searched for this alleged historian nothing pops up, questionable, as for “Princess Tatjana Akçurina” no information is available. The image was uploaded to Wikimedia in May of 2016, and as of today as ive searched, no reliable academic works used this sketch. Mind you, the motherhood of Süleyman is disputed with Kösem, so again its misleading. D3enji (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same as D3enji. This sketch looks modern and has no identified author or origin. It is not useful to the reader.--Phso2 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They still remain your opinions and I don't see any use in talking about opinions without evidence. The given date is 1619. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
provided by unreliable sources that first appeared on persons blog. D3enji (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still your opinion by the way. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
still a unreliable source 🤷🏼 D3enji (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and this still remains your judgment. Not the one of a "reliable" source, so? MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you an example of this blog’s unreliability D3enji (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A blog is not a reliable source, this is not a matter of opinion, this is a Wikipedia policy. If you keep on insisting to use unreliable sources, the discussion will have to continue elsewhere.--Phso2 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain why this portrait is not okay, but the others about other Sultanas, which were based on nothing but assumptions, are okay? Should we apply this judgment to them too or this is your exception? Really curious about this MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The portraits of other sultanas that come from unreliable sources such as blogs and personal websites are not okay either. Thus if you spot a portrait that comes from an unreliable source, you are encouraged to delete it as well.--Phso2 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand what reliable sources are or do you not care? Both cases can be handled. @Phso2 and @D3enji are right, and I too have told you that these doodles make a mockery of articles. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, but you have been deleting portraits with a justification, and also other people have made clear that your removal of paintings is not working if you don't wait for consensus, because they'll be deleted over and over again if you don't provide a good justification. Also, you should be applying this judgment of you towards me on yourself, as what you say I do is the same you do: not caring about others' opinions. I too told you that your way is not working (see discussion page of Turhan Sultan) and you didn't care about that nor you thought about stopping that portraits' deletion. As you see, people continue to add the portrait you remove because you don't provide any justification and this don't work here nor will. Of course I understand what reliable sources are, but I would like to see less teasing and judgments given at the least worst, as well as reasoning that does not work either in heaven or on earth. Bye MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. I have given justifications in my edit summaries and on talk pages. Everyone with Internet access can see that. @Phso2 and @D3enji have also provided justifications. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(I came here via the closed thread at ANI.) I agree that the source is unreliable—or, rather, I see no reason to believe that it is reliable. As mentioned above, per WP:BLOGS sources like this are typically not acceptable. If anyone wants to use the source, it's their responsibility to prove that the source meets WP:REPUTABLE and to build consensus for its inclusion. The same is true for the image. Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahfiruz_Hatun