Talk:Mehmed VI

Wrong Statement

I'm sorry, I missed the Mehmeds, Prince Timur is the descendant of Mehmed VI ...

The problem is, that the son of Mehmed VI, (Prince Mehmed Ertogrul) lives in Cairo with a Turkish Woman in Nikah 'urfi marriage.

She was pregnant by him when he got a heart attack and dead, his son was born posthumously, Prince Mehmed Ertogrul was buried in Cairo.

Wrong Statement

He wasn't the 40th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, he was the 36th. With respect, Deliogul 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Succession Box

In the succession box at the bottom, for titles in pretense, shouldn't the successor of the title in pretense be listed instead of the fact that the Republic was declared? The fact that the Republic was declared would go into the middle as 'reason for succesion failure.' If anyone has any skills dealing with the succession box, please tell me if I'm correct, thanks. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and issue

What does this even mean? The context seems to suggest 'offspring', but I'm a native English speaker and I have never heard that usage before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.217.201 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mehmed VI

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mehmed VI's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EB":

• From Abdul Hamid I: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abdulhamid I". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Abdülmecid I: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abdulmecid I". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Abdülaziz: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abdülaziz". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Abkhaz people: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abkhaz". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Abdülmecid II: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abdümecid II". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Abdul Hamid II: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Abdulhamid II". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Mehmed VI

I wonder, what is your reasonable ground? On one side, a real portrait photo, on the other side an painting? Please before making any changes, you can contact the negotiation. Maurice07 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Sébah & Joaillier - Sultan Mehmed VI.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sébah & Joaillier - Sultan Mehmed VI.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 3, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Mehmed VI (1861–1926) was the 36th and last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. He was girded with the Sword of Osman in June 1918, with his reign beginning the following month after his brother's death. Following the Ottoman defeat in World War I, Mehmed VI was tasked with reconciliation with the Allies. However, his settlements were denounced by Turkish nationalists, and in 1922 the Grand National Assembly of Turkey abolished the sultanate. Mehmed VI spent the rest of his life in exile.Photo: Sébah & Joaillier; restoration: Adam Cuerden

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sultan.jpg.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Early life

It says during his brother's reign "he lived. " Yes of course he did but is this intended to show where he lived or in what style or who with?. Perhaps someone could help.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Exile and Death.

Can anyone improve on the sentence about what his daughter did. Did she pay for the transport of the body to Syria and the funeral? Foreclosure is to do with mortgages. I know of no other meaning or context. No mortgage has been mentioned in the article.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Character

I can't make sense of this paragraph apart from the last sentence. The paragraph seems to have been translated from Turkish but not translated well. This could also be the problem with "exile and death."Spinney Hill (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is "Harington"?

On the section "Exile and death," the page reads:

Harington himself took the last Ottoman ruler from Yıldız Palace.

The page refers to Harington as if we had already established who he was (and his relation to Mehmed), but there is no other mention of Harington in the entire article. The source it cites is in Turkish, and I could only read it by translating it through Google, but it seems like whoever made this edit just transcribed part of the source without proofreading it. The source in question doesn't give much more information on Harington, referring to him as "General Harington." I assume they are talking about Charles Harington Harington, a British general who was active in Turkey during this time, but, as my knowledge on Turkish history is very shallow, I have no way of knowing for sure, so I don't want to edit the page without really knowing if what I'm saying is correct. Can someone with more knowledge than me check the information? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felz1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Found a possible public domain image

From Servet-i Funun https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/524/PFSIF9180711A341%20(1918-07-11).jpg

I wonder if this pic is public domain and/or is eligible for the Commons WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems the publication extensively covered Mehmed VI's ascendancy: https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/544/PFSIF9180718A373%20(1918-07-18).jpg and https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/540/PFSIF9180711B001.jpg, https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/541/PFSIF9180711B002.jpg, https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/542/PFSIF9180711B003.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Intro

I'm concerned about the following statement:

       Mehmed VI left for a European exile after also being declared persona non grata. 

Until recently this said he left for Malta. If that is true there wasn't any reason to change it. If It was wrong the present version is inadequate as he was ruler of Turkey with a capital at Constantinople and a country that was partly in Europe. That city was and is in Europe and Europe is a big place. We need to be more specific. If he didn't. go to Malta (also in Europe) did he go to Britain or Norway or Switzerland or any of the other European countries. Presumably if he was persona non grata in Turkey internal exile in European Turkey was not a possibility. Spinney Hill (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Signature vs Tughra

I propose we add Mehmed VI's signature to the infobox. Since a tughra is akin to a royal cypher, it would be more appropriate to place that in the honours, titles, etc section. Wikipedia articles of royals of other countries do this, cyphers are not placed in their infoboxes. If we can find signatures of other Ottoman Sultans it should be appropriate to do the same.

File:Vahdettin signature.png

Benlittlewiki (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Tughra is a signature. This is probably post sultanate signature. Therefore has no place in the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This signature was signed on a telegram to the British government in April 1922, therefore, during his reign. If you read the wikipedia articles Tughra and royal cypher, you will indeed find their descriptions and uses practically the same, to the point there is sentence in the Tughra article noting this. Tughras were regal monograms affixed to official documents, correspondence, laws, and buildings; they were not their personal signatures, that is the intention of that category of the infobox.

You will see the convention in articles of other royals will display their personal signatures in their infobox, cyphers are placed later in the article in the Honors, Emblems, etc. Therefore if we have the choice of displaying a signature versus a Tughra in the infobox, we should choose the signature, but if not, we can choose the next most similar thing to a signature, which is a Tughra. Since we have Vahdettin's, it should put it there. Benlittlewiki (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

"Mehmed VI Vahideddin"

I don't get this @Benlittlewiki:. It's not the article name. He is either known as Mehmed or Vahideddin, not Mehmed Vahideddin, rather "Sultan Vahdeddin/Vahideddin". But this is English wiki. Beshogur (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right, have seen English histories call him Mehmed VI or Vahdeddin. I think it makes more sense to call him Vahdeddin in the article, despite Mehmed VI being his regal name. So this is an attempt to combine the two names. This is already done in the lede's intro, might not be necessary in infobox. Appreciate the input. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds weird. Should be Mehmed VI, also known as Vahideddin. Beshogur (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The article does not explain why he is called Vahideddin. I think it ought to if we are to include this name rather than Mehmed throughout and we may need a source. Spinney Hill (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

OP did the same with Mehmed V. OP this isn't your personal sandbox. Beshogur (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I have done a survey of the English language books on late Ottoman history I have on hand on what they call Mehmed VI Vahdeddin:

Ryan Gingeras' 2023 The Last Days of the Ottoman Empire introduces him as Mehmed VI Vahdeddin, but prefers Mehmed VI.

Eugene Rogan's 2015 The Fall of the Ottomans introduces him the same, but does 70% Mehmed VI 30% Vahdeddin.

Sean McMeekin's 2016 The Ottoman Endgame introduces him as Mehmed VI Vahdeddin, but generally prefers calling him Vahdeddin.

Andrew Mango's Atatürk, Stamford Shaw's History of the Ottoman Empire, Kieser's Talaat Pasha, and Akçam's A Shameful Act, all call him Sultan Vahdettin/Vahdeddin/Vahideddin exclusively. I can do another survey for Mehmed V Reşad.

Based on this, there doesn't seem to be a standard convention on what English language literature calls him, though there seems to be a preference in calling him Vahdeddin. I think introducing him as Mehmed VI Vahideddin makes sense in the lede, and calling him Vahdeddin for the rest of the article save for info on his Cülûs. If we want to better reflect the source material, and for variety's sake, we can throw in a couple Mehmeds or Mehmed VIs in the article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This can give you an idea. Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Beshogur: for this tool. Seems when you add up the variations of Vahdeddin, the preference between Mehmed VI and Vahdeddin come to about 50/50 . Then I added "Vahdettin" (with two 't's instead of two 'd's) to the query and it firmly tips the scale to Vahdeddin. Link to the new query Benlittlewiki (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Therefore we should use Vahdeddin because that name is more common in English language histories, though we can certainly sprinkle around Mehmed sometimes. To be frank, I also prefer calling him Vahdeddin in the article because it's a very distinct name compared to Mehmed.

Another debate we can have is how to render the name: the modern Turkish Vahdettin, the more orthographically accurate Vahideddin, or Vahdeddin which is in the middle, and what I prefer. Benlittlewiki (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I little thought about this and you might be right since his tughra read this way. But I wonder. Sultan Reshad or Sultan Vahideddin are more common names than their respective orders. Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Harem

"Even though Vahdeddin was far in the succession" The meaning of that sentence is obscure and it appears to be a not very good translation from Turkish. Can anyone assist? Spinney Hill (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarified this to be the line of succession. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Obscure meanings

I have tried to make some of the srticle more understandable to English (and US) readers. Two pieces defeat me: 1) "and defection of Istanbul was punishable by death." This meass literraly defection by Istanbul (the city) Being a city it cannot be be put to death of course. I don't think it means destruction of the city. Defection by who to wheer or who please 2) "The Sultan ordered the Chamber of Deputies shuttered and the Constitution retracted as well," doesn't mean a great deal. "Shuttered" and "retracted " look wrong and need to be replaced but with what? "Shuttered might mean "closed" ," prorogued", "suspended" or"dismissed" or something else. "Retracted " might mean "suspended" or "abolished." Can Benlittlewiki or anybody else assist?. This may be a fault with machine translation.which I have necver thought a good idea. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Spinney Hill,

1) This should be "...defection from Istanbul...". I am not guilty of machine translation, but actually the common typo.

2) The words I used are deliberate, I could not determine whether Mehmed VI's actions in spring 1920 were made on a temporary or permanent basis, which I think is the key tension here. Both words are commonly used in these contexts. These words are often used in English language literature to describe Mehmed VI's actions in spring 1920. Perhaps someone else can later determine on what basis he ...did away with these institutions. Benlittlewiki (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have problems with looking at the literature as the books in my possession don't deal with this particular part of the history,They deal with the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne and the Deposition of the Sultan and establishment of the republic, but not the Sulytyan's attempts to reassert his power. I can't believe a native English writer would use the word "shuttering" in this context (I apologise if I'm wrong. The only internet sourceI have found is https://worldhistoryedu.com/mehmed-vi-last-ottoman-sultan/ which is vague but it may help. So far as "shuttering " is concerned it refers to "dissolving" Parliament. This is uncommittal as to whether it was permanent or not. In modern Britain, dissolution of parliament is common and will lead to a new General Election but the word might be used for something more permanent as happened in the 1640s and 1650s. "Retracting" the constitution seems more difficult but this source talks of "adopting personal rule." This may be a clue .Instead of

"The Sultan ordered the Chamber of Deputies shuttered and the Constitution retracted as well......."

we could write "The Sultan dissolved the Chamber of Deputies and suspended the constitution, adopting personal rule...."

Is this something we could agree on? Spinney Hill (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That should work. Benlittlewiki (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

In Italy

This section deals with the non-selection of a new caliph. It is stated "..since no Muslim country other than Turkey was independent," This I think is not strictly true. Do we need to change this? Can any one suggest a way to chjange it? There were I think five other countries which claimed to be independent:

a) Hejaz-newly independent and possibly struggling and about to be subsumed in the next country, but prominent

b) Saudi Arabia - even newer than Hejaz but not yet pre-eminennt in the Arabian area.

c) Yemen-isolated and minor

d) Persia/Iran -its independence compromised partly as being a battleground in the First World War in which it was not a party. Also Shi-ite I think and therefore unable to command support from much of the Islamic world

e) Afghanistan- isolated and also Shi-ite I think

Perhaps " since no independent Muslim country ,apart possibly from Turkey was prominent,willing and strong enough to lead the movement for a new Caliph..." would work but it seems a bit long. Is there a source for te statement and is it wrong any way?

On a different point I have condidered unsplitting the infinitive at " to spiritually unite" but no alternative really fits and I think this is one of the cases where a split infinitive really is the best word order. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

All of these countries were actually under varying degrees of British and other influence. FYI, Afghanistan is a Persianate though majority Sunni country. Open to suggestions to make this a more readable sentence Benlittlewiki (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Death and Funeral

What is the "Green Cross of San Remo" p;lease? There is no wikilink that fits this. I think the article needs to explain this. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Italian language nor Italian social institutions, but the Green Cross of San Remo is mentioned in the Bardakçı biography and also this article published on the website of the commune of San Remo. Benlittlewiki (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no doubt the San Remo Green Cross exists or existed but it would be useful to know what it is or was. Spinney Hill (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)