Talk:Fetih 1453

Edit request on 11 March 2012

Hello Wikipedia, i need your help about the article about Fetih 1453... Some people one of them named Meco is coming and changing and putting in words that discriminate a country and people. And not just with that, these guys have also made the article now protected wich means that we are not able anymore to change to the right information. I mailed one of these guys to stop change but he keeps just doing it... It's a guy who hates that the movie got released and showing it by giving wrong information for people who wants to read about it. I also checked this guy named Meco that other people have mailed and told him to stop changes... Its getting more anoyying when you see that he have been commenting thousands of articles probably half of them are discriminated against people. Please be fast by banning ore unlock this article so we can change it back to real information.

Thank you! Waiting for your answer..

Akif.peksen (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to assume good faith and stop attacking your fellow editors. If you feel you have a greivance against another editor, there are other forums in which you can address that problem. I am just another editor like yourself, but I scanned through Meco's edits and I can see incorrect in any way. What is the fact which you are disputing? Please be specific. Celestra (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on Budget

The budget of 17 million dollar could not confirmed from any reliable source and producer claimed that they never told any budget for this movie. A Turkish columnist wrote that movie budget is 8-10 million dollars and he claimed that he got this information from one of the producers of the movie. This information is more reliable currently, and in turkish article for this movie, after discussions 17 million changed to 8 million dollars now. I believe that it is important to change this information from this article too. {{SUBST:KuyumcuS}} 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC) {{SUBST:KuyumcuS}} 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 11:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been edited in IMDB, and wikipedia pages of Turkish, German, Italian and Arabic. But English page still consisting wrong budget. Why?[{{SUBST:KuyumcuS}} 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)06:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Budges is confirmed by Director and producer. It is US$18,200,000 (See here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.226.14 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on entire page

This seems like a good movie. But this wiki page needs someone who is a native English writer to edit it. The English used here is broken, badly written and needs cleaning.

The movie contains sub-optimal acting, spurious visual effects, and historical inaccuracies that paint a false picture of events. Not worth my bother to correct sorry! — comment added by Adamgpope (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

Regarding "Fetih", it is a movie, not a documentary. In an encyclopedic entry, Historical Inaccuracies are redundant. Its not a movie trivia page, it simply talks about the movie.67.137.68.210 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why is there a heading named Historical Accuracy on the page of Fetih 1453? I certainly didn't make this heading and I have put my contribution under this heading, just where it supposed to be. I even added links to sources, by which you can easily check the correctness of my contribution. Furthermore this is a historical movie and therefore historical inaccuracies should be mentioned, otherwise the people watching the movie will get the wrong idea of the history as depicted by the movie. It is just what this Wikipedia page is for, to give background information about the movie.--Gyte75 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely not general practice to ignore historical inaccuracies in movies. We wouldn't just write a synopsis of a movie about Portugal conquering 12th century China with the help of Pope Michael Jordan without mentioning that it may be inaccurate. -- Alyas Grey : talk 02:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The line "In the film, Sultan Mehmet is depicted as the leader of some sort of crusading Islamic, Turkish army. In reality, the Ottoman army was very multinational, there were many Christian levies from the Balkans and the commander of one of his own armies was a former (converted) Christian, Zaganos Pasha." should be removed as it paints a false picture of what the Ottoman army was actually like at this time. As any basic history book on the Ottomans will tell you, Islam was used as a motivating force for the military, through the notion of 'gaza', or holy war. The Ottoman Empire of this period is often referred to as a 'gazi state'. The film depicts this reasonably accurately. It's true that there were Christian timar-holders (provincial cavalrymen) and vassal levies in the Ottoman army at this time, but they served as auxiliaries to the main force, who were Muslims (although not all of them Turks). There were many converts among them, especially the janissaries and as is mentioned, Zaganos Pasha (among others), a devşirme recruit. But this was standard fare for most of the first half of Ottoman history, not some hidden fact that the movie 'got wrong', and it certainly didn't diminish the Islamic nature of the Ottoman establishment. It did, however, diminish its 'Turkish' element, but as everyone in the film speaks Turkish anyway it can't be determined that the people being depicted are all supposed to be ethnic Turks. Therefore it's silly to conclude that the movie was inaccurate as a result. 76.78.59.193 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ottoman army of that time was a multinational army, as mainstream sources confirm. Most of them were just mercenaries. Off course a part was motivated by Islam. The era of the 'gazi' states was over ca. two centuries ago, so please do not remove sourced material from the article. Also, forced Islamization is another fact that contributes to the multinational character of this army and not to a supposed 'Holy war'.Alexikoua (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Multinational army, yeah. Made up of timariot levies (mostly Muslim Turks and converts, some Christians), janissaries (Muslim converts from devşirme) akıncı cavalry (again mostly Turks, some not), Anatolian Muslim, Turkish levies (yaya, müsellem), vassal levies (Turks from Anatolia, many Christians from Rumelia), and Christian auxiliaries like the sappers mentioned in the cited article. They weren't mostly mercenaries, I don't know where you've gotten that idea from. Gazi state period ending two centuries ago? In ~1253? The Ottoman Empire hadn't even begun at that time, you must be thinking of the period of the beylikates. The Ottoman Empire utilized the ideology of 'gaza' and protecting/expanding the borders of Islam throughout this period and beyond, it wasn't until the peace of Karlowitz in 1699 that it began to come into question. The issue isn't whether or not the entire Ottoman army was motivated by Islam, the point is that all of the people depicted in the film (the Sultan and Muslim elements of the army) were people who historically definitely were, so it's wrong to say the film was inaccurate in that regard. It's not like the film showed something which shouldn't have been there, it just didn't show something which whoever wrote that line wishes had been there. That does not constitute a historical inaccuracy.

And, as I said, the film doesn't intentionally try to hide the multinational nature of the Ottoman army. Everyone in the film speaks Turkish - even the Greeks and Italians. So you can't conclude that the whole Ottoman army in the film is meant to be made up of Turks. Half of those people could be Balkan converts (and many viziers in the film were) and you wouldn't know. Claiming that that means the film was inaccurate basically amounts to complaining that they didn't go out of their way to demonstrate the ethnicity of the characters, which would have been pointless.76.78.59.193 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you need to back your view with reliable source. Personal experience (as state above) off course can't count as such. You also need to explain why 'The Guardian' tells nonsense. If these basic issues aren't answered the removal is still unjustified.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire, by Gabor Agoston. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power 2nd Edition, by Colin Imber. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, by Halil Inalcik. Phoenix Press, 2001.

The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, by Heath Lowry. State University of New York Press, 2003.

The first three of these contain chapters the Ottoman military of this time period in the way I describe, while the fourth examines the role of the Christian elements in particular. Lowry doesn't conclude that the Christians made up a large portion of the military, unlike the article (written by a journalist, not by a historian) which incorrectly states, "Nearly as many of Mehmet's soldiers would have been praying to the Virgin on the morning of the final assault in May 1453, as to Allah." 76.78.59.193 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to present the specific parts that refute The Guardian and as I see the article says that it was a multinational army, i.e. is in accordance with all the decent bibliography. In general by adjusting the paragraph is something we can consider, but going straight to remove everything equals nearly vandalism. Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No need now, I'm satisfied with your rewording of the section. The issue I had with it before was not the multinationality of the army (which is a fact, as I said), but with the claim made in the original statement that the use of Islam as a motivating force was historically inaccurate. I will reword it slightly further so that the emphasis is fully upon the ethnic diversity of the army. 76.78.59.193 (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice, good rewording job.Alexikoua (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I will state what I have said in my edit: The sources brought forth only verify the historical facts stated - none (with the sole exception of the Guardian news article, paragraph 2) actually make an analysis of the movie or refer to events in the movie and contrast them with historical facts - this is something the author of this section has done themselves. That is original research - OR. You cannot use sources to justify a viewpoint/analysis not found in the sources themselves.

Please read WP:OR. I cannot see keeping the bulk of the material in the section as it does simply constitute OR. Even alluding to an analysis not sourced is OR. The fact that some of you started above to search for other sources to prove the movie is historically inaccurate again reinforces the notion to me that you are partaking in OR. Find an article, like the guardian one, that actually states all this about the movie. Hell it could be a critic's review or something (as long as it is from a reputable source, not self published). I would suggest removing the bulk of this. Paragraph 2 can be kept as it actually refers to a source which is making an analysis on the historical accuracy of the movie.

Thank You, ParthikS8 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks, ParthikS8 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fetih 1453. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120806052152/http://www.1453fetih.com:80/eng/index.html to http://www.1453fetih.com/eng/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428071131/http://www.zaman.com.tr:80/haber.do?haberno=1244232&title=fetih-1453-filmine-hollywood-yolu-gorundu to http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=1244232&title=fetih-1453-filmine-hollywood-yolu-gorundu#.TzjOQWzBfDU.twitter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121225234336/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/newsDetail_getNewsById.action? to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=395EEB15411959B05E883A099892BE6B?newsId=268388

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Budget

There's a image of a man's butt on the part of the page that says budget can someone remove it? 2603:6011:6224:1800:9531:335F:D37F:EA4F (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done The problem was with this edit to template:Turkish lira. wp:RfPP request made for permanent protection. Adakiko (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)