Talk:Murad II

Mirror

Murad II was the sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1421 to 1451 (except a period in 1444 to 1446). He took back the territories in Anatolia that were lost to Timur Lenk in the Battle of Ankara in 1402, and the territories in Europe that were lost to Serbs and Hungarians during the Ottoman Triumvirate.

Preceded by: Mehmed I 1403-1421

Murad II 1421 to 1451

Succeeded by: Mehmed II 1451-1481

was plagiarized from: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Murad-II

No, nationmaster.com has plagiarized Wikipedia (of course not, since Wikipedia is a free resource...) --The Phoenix 09:21, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A Turk can say these without "plagiarizing" at any time you want. We learn these at primary school. With respect, Deliogul 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to chuckle at the " Mustafa ... then turned his arms against the Greek emperor and declared his resolution to punish the Palaiologos for their unprovoked enmity by the capture of Constantinople." The poor innocent wee lad - this comment does seem a bit off kilter in respect of the long wars between the Byzantines and Turks. Who started it? Hmm ...

86.143.174.141 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabic name

The name given as Arabic in the first paragraph is obviously in Arabic script. But is it in Arabic? Turkish was written in Arabic script until the 20th century. My guess is this is simply his Turkish name written in a different alphabet. Rbraunwa 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its the same, it means murad the second in arabic if the شـ written in شاني was a ثـ and the word would be ثاني, ie, the second, at least in arabic, could someone please make sure if شاني (SHani) means anything in turkish (second maybe ??), if not, its probably a typo.--213.6.8.247 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a typo in the Arabic script as noted (شـ should indeed have been ثـ), which I've corrected, as well as adding a transcription of the Ottoman Turkish, which simply means—appropriately enough—"Murad II". -Saposcat 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Age at beginning of rule

It says in the first paragraph of the Biography section that he began his rule at the age of 18. if he was born in 1404, there is no way he was 18 in 1421. Is one of the dates incorrect, or is the the age wrong? Lord GaleVII (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jalowaz

In Hungarian History, Battle Jalowaz is considered as a major Hungarian victory against Turks. (It was in three months before the battle of Varna) But this battle as well as previous battles in 1443 are not mentioned in the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Two comments

A list of Murat's wifes has been presented. I want to comment on the following:

• Both Tacinüssa and Halime were his wifes and both from Candaroğlu house. Had Murat married to two sisters ? I don't think it was possible. Probably the both names belong to same person.
• According to Prof Yaşar Yücel and Ali Sevim, Murat had married to Melek hatun from Karamanoğlu house. But this name is missing in the list. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121208212614/http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9054316 to http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9054316

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth date

@علاء: well this actually make the problem in the Arabic wikipedia regime clear. This behaviour is not acceptable. You have to write an edit summary while reverting. Everyone here has the right to know what was his mistake and why his edits were reverted. Unfortunately that is not the case in the Arabic Wikipedia regime. Which is why it has very few contributors in it..--SharabSalam (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid witch hunt --Alaa :)..! 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

علاء, I don't want to revert you again. The source you brought first of all is in Arabic and it's offline and you didn't provide the number of the page. A reference to an Arabic offline book without providing the page number is like nothing.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Alaa asked me for my views on this as I'm more familiar with en.wiki policy than he is. I think his compromise of having both dates is acceptable because it shows there is a dispute while giving equal weight to both sides. This is in line with our policy. Additionally, having an offline Arabic sources is not forbidden by the English Wikipedia, in fact, it is likely a better source than online English ones... I think this is a good compromise in line with our policy, and shouldn't be reverted. Also before you bring it up: no, this is not canvassing. I have good relationships with ar.wiki community members who will sometimes ask that I look at things when they are unsure of the en.wiki policy, which is normal and something I would do regularly on a project other than my home project. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, yea but there is no page number and it's offline. How can someone verify? Also please tell Alaa and باسم not to revert without an explanation. This isn't the Arabic Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but now علاء has provided a source and is engaged on this talk page. I think he likely has a page number and text he could provide as well. This is allowed by policy. On en.wiki we try to encourage Wikimedians from other projects to help build our content, and should work with them to understand our norms. I'll leave a talk page message for باسم asking him to reply here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't gonna revert anyway, I guess I have already made 3 reverts and I don't want to make the fourth and break the 3rr with this small issue. I hoped if Alaa and Bassam reverted me with an explanation instead of these unexplained provocative reverts.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @TonyBallioni: I added better source with url and page number. Best --Alaa :)..! 18:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, did you know what was the page of the previous source? Iff you didn't it would be so embarrassing that you reverted me adding a source and changing the content without verifying the source.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

special:diff/905076529 (page= 396). See the source well in the next time --Alaa :)..! 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: seems the issue is resolved. Both Sources added by @علاء: are prime historical sources when it comes to Ottoman history. "تاريخ الدولة العلية العثمانية" is among the major sources in Arabic since it was first written in 1909 by Mohammad Farid bey, an Egyptian Ottoman Turk who was among the first local historian to translate Ottoman Turkish documents to Arabic. The other "كتاب جامع الدول" was written by an Ottoman historian, Ahmed Munajjim Bashi, in both Turkish and Arabic, and the copy used here was edited by a Saudi scholar. Best --باسم (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those seem to be in line with en.wikis policies on reliable source. Thanks for commenting here. I think the current version of the page should work. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ghazi

@Surtsicna: what's your problem with the title Ghazi? There is an entire book (Ghazavatname) about him. If you mean succession, learn the difference. Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a substantive title. The title parameter is for substantive titles. See Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

2.5 million ducats

This text: “ In 1432, the traveller Bertrandon de la Broquière noted that Ottoman annual revenue had increased to 2,500,000 ducats.”

1. Does not belong in the lede as it is not summarizing anything from the article body
2. Is based on a source from 1972
3. Is meaningless without context. There was some context there but it was along the lines of “with that money he could’ve conquered all of Europe if he had only wanted” which was obviously false and sketchy
4. Doesn’t inform the reader of much of anything. Who’s gonna know how much 2.5 million ducats was worth? How did it compare to the treasuries of other kings, sultans, rulers? It’s just a claim someone found and felt compelled to spam into Wikipedia.

Volunteer Marek 15:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is from one source. Is based on a source from 1972 yeah my apologises that Halil Inalcik couldn't write this in 2024, if it would make much difference. with that money he could’ve conquered all of Europe if he had only wanted I removed that statement, you're right. Doesn’t inform the reader of much of anything how so? It says Murad II's reign saw a period of great economic development, with an increase in trade and a considerable expansion of Ottoman cities and it gives about its economy. Maybe reader can click ducat article to read more? How did it compare to the treasuries of other kings, sultans, rulers why should we talk on Murad II article about other rulers? this book is about Ottoman Empire, doesn't talk about other rulers. Also claim? It's a secondary source based on primary source from that period, which makes it WP:RS and stop calling calling reliable sourced contribution spam. Beshogur (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also moved below, you might be right about lead. Beshogur (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, as long as it’s not in the lede, I’m good with it. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)