Jacob Historian

Jacob Historian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jacob Historian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Assassination of Kösem Sultan

Hello Jacob Historian,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xx236, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Assassination of Kösem Sultan, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Kösem Sultan. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xx236}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please use a sandbox or Draft space for a test.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kösem Sultan into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jacob Historian! Your additions to Kösem Sultan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

March 2022

Your edit to Kösem Sultan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Kösem Sultan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sehzade Mehmed

Baki Tezcan proved that Mehmed was the son of Kösem in "The Debut of Kösem Sultan's Political Career" in 2007. This is the most recent historical thesis and currently shared by historians, thus surpassing that of Leslie Pierce on which I believe you are based. So the firstborn and first son of Kosem and Ahmed is Mehmed, not Aise. It is correctly indicated on the pages of Ahmed I, on the same page as Mehmed and on wikis in other languages. Unless you can provide further evidence that is more valid or up-to-date than what you state, please stop deletion without explanation whenever I try to refresh the page as if you are the sole holder of knowledge on the subject and please note that there might be something you don't know and that others do. I have provided the source and explanation for my modification, you have not. If you have an incontrovertible source I'm wrong, provide it. I accept the possibility, but I want the source and proof that it is certain beyond doubt. If, on the other hand, you do not have any, they are outdated or simply give another historiographic interpretation but they are not incontrovertible then leave my modification and limit yourself to indicating in a note that the matter is controversial if you not avere with maternity attribution. Wikipedia grows with everyone's contributions, you are not the only owner of the page and deleting all the changes of others or asking for changes to be blocked makes you seem very immature, especially when you have already been reprimanded for violations. Thank you.

Hello, and please accept my apologies for the inconvenience. The issue with Sehzade Mehmed is that he is not mentioned as the son of Kösem in any of the contemporary sources of any traveler or ambassador. Ahmed married Kösem in 1605, and she gave birth to her first daughter, Ayse Sultan, in the same year. In 1616, the Venetian diplomat Bertuccio Valier stated that the sultan refused to allow the two eldest princes (Osman and Mehmed) to converse with Kösem. It would be absurd for Ahmed to refuse her request to communicate with any of her sons, especially given she was close to him at the time and had a lot of influence over how the state was administered.

The second and last reason was that Osman II ordered Sehzade Mehmed's execution. Who, like Ahmed, was deeply devoted to Kösem. If Osman really wanted to kill her sons, he would have murdered Murad, Suleiman, Kash, and Ibrahim as well, but he didn't because he respected her.

I don't consider this page to be "owned" by me; I simply wanted to spread the word about her and her life to as many people as possible. Everyone is invited to make an edit, but please double-check your facts before doing so, and consult reliable sources such as Leslie P. Pierce and other renowned historians and researchers on the subject. We're searching for facts, not assertions.

If you have anymore inquiries, please do keep on contacting me. Thank you very much. Jacob Historian (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the solution is to rearrange the section to show the controversies, which I set out in the Talk section of the article titled Kosem's child and as has already been done for the pages of Ahmed I and Mehmed himself. I guessed you were based on L. Pierce, which I read, but her works are very old. If much remains valid, some of her ideas, theses and conjectures have been overcome, or they are not the only ones considered valid in the historical environment and there are alternative theses of other historian just as possible. Her work is the most famous in the West, but if you turn to material published in Turkish it is not without competition of High level (and there are some other good work in english, too), And her theses do not have universal historical consensus, although I have noticed that many in the West seem to think so. as often happens in historiography, especially in an open field such as the Ottoman genealogy. I have provided a source for my edit, which I refer to you under text. The author, B.Tezcan, is a university professor, he is Turkish, his work is more recent and is well regarded in historical circles. He has worked with many contemporary sources, more than Pierce's, and the reasoning and evidence presented holds up. I don't think it's right to immediately discard it as a source as if I had cited an authorless post on a social network. There are also several indirect references that indicate how, in all likelihood, Kosem may have been Mehmed's mother, such as mentions of her as the mother of Ahmed's second son, but dated before Murad's birth. I have sources for two or three of these references, although not immediately. But if you are interested, I can research them. I think it deserves at least to be taken into consideration. Pierce is a Great valid historian, but she is not the only one, she is not free from possibility of errors or outdated and and I think it needs at least to take into account the updating work.

If you have compelling reasons for rejecting this author as invalid, the sources he presents and his reasoning I'd like to hear them, but if it is simply a matter of preferring a different and older text, then I believe that things are different and should at least be both arguments presented.

Otherwise it would be unfair to present Pierce's works as composed only of incontrovertible facts, even if in reality his works have a lot of the tone of personal statements and the boundary between facts and personal theses is not always clear, and that of another historian titled as simple speculations.

Example: Other evidence used to support the thesis that Mehmed was not Kosem's son is also not incontrovertible, but interpretative. It has been said that Kosem was not her mother because her reaction to Mehmed's death is not mentioned and because Osman only executed Mehmed. But the logical reasoning can easily lead elsewhere: Kosem's reaction may not have been mentioned simply because it was unknown, given that she was isolated in Eski Saray at the time. As for the execution itself, I actually find it more logical to execute a half-brother first than a full brother. Full brothers were a relative novelty in the dynasty. and heirs. Murad III and Mehmed III had only sisters and Ahmed I's brother died of other causes. It is easier to think that a common mother and blood bond served as a deterrent to fraticide than a half-brother who might be hostile and eager to save the mother from segregation. Selim II and Bayezid also did not enter into open conflict until after the death of Mustafa and his mother Hurrem). Apart from that, the danger Mehmed posed was that he was an adult, not his mother. Osman was not popular, but while Mustafa I was insane and all of Ahmed I's other children were children, Mehmed was a prime candidate for a second coup. Probably, the other children were saved because they were still children and Osman had no children at the time. If Osman had lived longer and had grown up sons, perhaps he would have executed Murad and the others as well.

This is my reasoning, yes, but also an example of how, starting from the same sources, it is possible to arrive at different conclusions. I am training as a historian, specializing precisely in the use and interpretation and analysis of sources, and I have often found myself in front of equally prestigious historians who, from the same sources, had drawn very different reasoning and interpretations, but both well argued and valid, and therefore neither of the two was neither eliminable nor to be considered irrefutable at present. I was also taught that it is also necessary to take into account that many documents have not been published and that, assuming you know their existence and location, you must consult in person. This is not always possible, so much information is still unknown or little known, but documents could easily be discovered that debunk the current theses. Not to mention the problem of source selection itself, another thing that separates LP and BT here, as I mentioned earlier.

All this to explain that historical research is a field not only in progress, but also devoid of many certainties, and that the best choice is always to take into consideration as many sources as possible, both contemporary and modern, to have a clear and complete picture. .

Source for Mehmed: Tezcan, Baki (2007). "The Debut of Kösem Sultan's Political Career". Turcica. Éditions Klincksieck. 39–40: 350–351. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.156.255.6 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't use "curly quotes"

Hello, Jacob Historian. This is to let you know that your repeated addition of "curly quotes" to the article Kösem Sultan is disruptive and you should stop it. Wikipedia uses "plain quotes" like this: "elder" - not "curly quotes" like this: “elder”. Another example: it should be 'Visage of the Moon', not ‘Visage of the Moon’. Please see MOS:CURLY. Many people have corrected your punctuation, but you persist in restoring the curly “elder” type of quotation marks. Please stop it. You requested page protection, but you are the one who is "ruining the format". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)