Talk:Turhan Sultan

Place of birth

Referencing this edit by IP User, since they raise a fair point about "Rus'" not being the equivalent of modern day Russia. However, Rus' is also not modern day Ukraine, that's why I changed the place of birth to Ruthenia to be historically more accurate. If someone wants to add the modern day location of her birth place like was done in case of her place of death, I'm ok with it. The English sources don't seem to mention it? But on the Ukrainian wiki I found the following information:

Place of birth:

Чернівецька область, місто Хотин, Украина.
(Khotyn, Chernivtsi Oblast, Ukraine)

Was Khotyn part of Ruthenia?

The Ukrainian wiki references the following source for the place of birth:

Gazeta.ua (30 жовтня 2012). Дві українські наложниці досягали вищої влади в Османській імперії. Gazeta.ua (рос.). Архів оригіналу за 2 травня 2021. Процитовано 2 травня 2021.
(Gazeta.ua (30 October 2012). Two Ukrainian concubines reached the highest power in the Ottoman Empire. Gazeta.ua (ros.[?]) Archived from the original from 2 May 2021. Accessed on 2 May 2021.) Nakonana (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Note, however, that there appear to be different accounts of her place of birth. Quote from the Russian wiki:

"Турхан Хатидже-султан родилась приблизительно в 1627 или 1628 году и, по одной из версий, была русского происхождения. По словам современного украинского историка Тараса Чухлиба она «родилась на Украине». По версии французского купца Жан-Батиста Тавернье, посетившего Стамбул в 1668 году, Мехмед IV был «сыном Ибрагима и кавказской (черкесской) женщины». Турецкий историк и писатель Решат Экрем Кочу [=Reşat Ekrem Koçu] в романе «Кёсем Султан» изложил версию происхождения Турхан, согласно которой она была девушкой из украинской деревни, похищенной татарами. Турецкий историк Ахмет Рефик Алтынай [=Ahmet Refik Altınay] описывал её как «русскую девушку»."

Google translation of the above:

"Turhan Hatice Sultan was born around 1627 or 1628 and, according to one version, was of Russian origin. According to modern Ukrainian historian Taras Chukhlib, she was "born in Ukraine". According to the French merchant Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, who visited Istanbul in 1668, Mehmed IV was "the son of Ibrahim and a Caucasian (Circassian) woman." The Turkish historian and writer Reşat Ekrem Koçu in the novel "Kösem Sultan" outlined the version of Turhan's origin, according to which she was a girl from a Ukrainian village, abducted by the Tatars. Turkish historian Ahmet Refik Altınay described her as a "Russian girl"."

Nakonana (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian Wiki has a tendency to call everything "Russian" for East Slavic lands. Can someone please double-check what exactly sources cited say about the place of birth? - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, Karaca, Filiz (2012). "Turhan Sultan". Islam Ansiklopedisi sayss "Rus asıllı olup 1627’de doğduğu ve on iki yaşında" Clearly, Rus is not the same as Russia (Turkish: Rusya) even in Turkish regardless what Google Translate say. - Altenmann >talk 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! We also had disputes about the origin of Turhan in the Russian-language Wikipedia. Some Western and Turkish historians say that she is of Russian origin. Some claim Ukrainian roots, there is a source where it is written about Circassian ones. What further complicates the situation is that Ukrainians and Russians at that time used the same self-name Rusyns, so if the word Rus is used in Old Turkish sources, this does not necessarily indicate a person of Russian nationality. Sources indicate that Turhan's place of birth is Ruthenia. Ruthenia was an exonym of all East Slavic lands. Ruthenia was also often called the Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic lands within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Anastasia magnificent (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In Turkish "Rus" just means "Russian" (person). Turkish Men, Ottoman Women: Popular Turkish Historians and the Writing of Ottoman Women's History for example says Russian origin but there are also Ukrainian historians who say she was Ukrainian. I think it makes more sense to explain the different views rather than just settling on one. Mellk (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can write down versions of different origins with sources, as Nakonana wrote earlier? There is something about Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Circassian origin. Anastasia magnificent (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Mellk (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I described versions of origin with sources and removed Turhan's birth name. Because only one source, which is not based on anything, says about the name Nadya. Anastasia magnificent (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it’s better to protect the current version of the page from non-consensus edits. Anastasia magnificent (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in writing she was from Ruthenia if you gave three versions of her orginis its more logical to put that she was either from Russia or Ukraine Carsten,F.L.(1961) The new Cambridge Modern History.Vol.V The Ascendancy of France,1648-88 says she was from Russia so does Karaca,Filiz (2012). “Turhah Sultan”.vol 41 islam Araştırmaları Merkezi at p.423-425,so i recommend to let it stay as it is currently Cecac (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Anastasia magnificent (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense to say that she was Ruthenian because in the 17th century there was neither a country called "Russia" nor a country called "Ukraine", therefore saying she was Russian/Ukrainian would be historicaly incorrect. It's a little bit like saying that Angela Merkel was born in Prussia (iirc the place she was born in was on the territory of Prussia) - - - you can see how this is historicaly incorrect, right? If anything, we should write something along the lines of "born in Ruthenian (probably on the territory of modern day Russia or Ukraine)". Nakonana (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually the infobox mentions the state. If it is disputed then it is best to leave this out. Mellk (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Place of birth

@Naşakara: The exact place of birth is not known, this should be omitted from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOX. Also, we do not need a fantasy portrait that was found from Google, rather a portrait from the time. The engraving is from the 17th century. Mellk (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Imaginary depictions

So why, @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, should we have in the infobox a Western imaginary portrait of Turhan Sultan? Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It may be a western portrait and I really don't see why we should remove it. Engravings and portraits may have been painted by foreign artists, but they still based themselves on reports, to create a portrait. By the way, this doesn't mean a portrait is false or something like that, but only that it's not painted by a Turkish, but instead by an European. Men at the time were forbidden from painting women of the harem or Sultanas, so it's almost impossible to find Turkish portraits of Sultanas. Thus, we rely on western accounts. Nobody has complained about this up to now, and so it's better to start a discussion, instead of removing a portrait which has been here for a long time. Better to discuss before acting. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

No, the problem is not that they are not Turkish. The problem is that they are entirely imaginary, Western fantasies of Oriental women. This is plain Orientalism. Yes, it does mean that they are false. The author did not even know her name, let alone what she looked like, and wrote the wrong name on the engraving. These depictions are not associated with these women in reliable sources that discuss their lives, and it is absurd for Wikipedia to push them into lead sections. So please tell me, MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, why should they be there? Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Because they were painted or thought to look like the Sultanas they had to represent. And I haven't heard such a justification in a very long time, especially about Orientalism. And there is no evidence for them to be false, nor someone has ever tried to use such a justification. Hopefully other users will comment too, but in the meantime, let's wait. And no, you can't delete portraits this way, they have been here for a while now and a discussion is needed before doing so. Bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence for them to be false? You said yourself that these artists never saw these women. Can you cite any reliable sources that specialize in Ottoman history in which these images appear as true depictions of the sultanas, MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma? Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I have already stated what I needed to state. Painters based themselves on reports. Since you don't agree to keep them on the Sultanas' page, but it's not a decision you can take on your own, you'll have to wait for others to reply here. Especially about such a topic - the paintings -, full consent is required. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources that confirm that the painters based their works on reports? Do you have reliable sources that use these images in the narratives of the women's lives? You are supposed to cite sources, @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma. Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes: the British Museum has an engraved portrait of Turhan titled "Emine Sultane Principale Du Grand Turc Hibraim", very similar to the one here. The only difference is the body position. It is described as an engraving of Turhan. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not asking for the proof that these images exist. Obviously they exist. I am asking for proof that they are used in academic biographies of the sultanas. I am also asking for the proof of your assertion that these fantasy paintings are "based on reprots". Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I already stated that: it is a portrait whose identity has been confirmed by the British Museum. It is confirmed as a portrait of Turhan. So it's probably the name of the Sultana that is wrong. At the time and still nowadays, their identity has been mixed. Hovewer, there is a major source and thus, the portrait is confirmed as depicting Turhan. As for the reports, I was referring not only to Turhan, but also to other Sultanas. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

So you have no sources to cite about the alleged likeness or usage in academic biographies. Do you understand that WP:V is Wikipedia's core policy? Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that evidently that's not what are you searching for. That's not, hovewer, up to me. I stated sources, and that's what it's required for paintings.

"Emine Sultane Principale Du Grand Turc Hibraim" is an engraved portrait of Turhan painted when she was alive. The depiction has not been described as "false" and it's used as a portrait of Turhan even by great institutions like Museums etc.

I don't really know what to tell you except that your motivation appears to be personal instead than a general one, given also the fact that this has not been complained about.

I can only say that every Sultana was painted on accounts of Ambassadors/travelers, in this case the painter was Pieter de Jode II.

Back in the centuries, Turhan was wrongly named "Emine/Emina" (the Sultan's first consort and mother of the eldest child) [Biografia ecclesiastica completa; Les Imposteurs démasqués et les Usurpateurs punis/Osman] and thus the portrait was depicted as a representation of Emina, even if her correct name was Turhan. It is even pointed out in the portrait's description.

Subsequently, the portrait has been described as "Emine Sultane Principale Du Grand Turc Hibraim" by great institutions such as the British Museum. It is a mistake in the name.

I wouldn't describe the engraving as "fictional" unless there are proofs of that; nowadays, proofs only show that it is a recognized representation of the Sultana. And that's what is required. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

We have sources explicitly stating that these depictions are Orientalist poppycock. Example:

These drawings included in our study are a reflection of what Westerners thought of the harem/valide sultan. These drawings are generally a reflection of the 'queen' image found in Western monarchies, depicted in the drawings of Ottoman palace women (haseki/valide sultan) ..."

So exactly what I am saying.

"The making of portraits/sculptures of Ottoman women, especially palace women, was restricted by social/cultural norms. The depiction of women was limited to certain frameworks and generally became anonymous, reflecting only in miniature art. For this reason, women, who could not find a place in Turkish depiction art without becoming anonymous, appear before us through these imaginary depictions. Consequently, the drawings of Safiye Sultan are also of an imaginary portrait nature."

What is your source to the contrary? What is your source that says these depictions have anything to do with what these women looked like? What reliable sources specializing in these women use these fantasy portraits to depict them? Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I only said that the portraits were taken on accounts. See Hürrem Sultan's depictions, her daughter Mihrimah, etc. I only stated that this type of portraits were usually painted on reports, accounts. Of course there could be Western Interference - as is plausible (these portraits were based on accounts, reports, so painters had to think about things to insert). This doesn't mean they are false. By the way, Safiye Sultan (in your source) doesn't have a certain portrait.

If the problem is the representation of the Sultanas, then I'm sorry but Wikipedia is free to use the portraits it wants as they are still representation of Sultanas - some more accurate that others, of course, but still depictions of them. And to delete them, there is the need for general acknowledgement, as others have to agree on such a move. Western Princess weren't painted how they really appeared too, usually portraits were embellished or features changed, and this is an alteration of the subject as for the Ottoman ladies. Bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

So you have no sources. Understood. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I stated all I had to state. Then, it's up to you. Bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Engraving by Pieter de Jode II.

Responding to this revert], and attempting to form a consensus through Talk Page discussion. I am usually not in favor of Western depiction of Ottoman rulers, preferring Ottoman depictions by far, but in this case we have a Western depiction as the only available depiction of Turhan Sultan (no Ottoman alternative), and she was a Westerner anyway (Russian or Ukrainian), so I tend to think that the portrayal can be considered as culturally appropriate and a fairly adequate likeness. This very depiction is also used in academic and museum sources as a legitimate depiction of Turhan Sultan:

• Peakman, Julie (15 October 2019). Licentious Worlds: Sex and Exploitation in Global Empires. Reaktion Books. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-78914-173-3. Pieter de Jode II, Portrait of Emina Sultana, Turhan Hatice Sultan (Wife of Sultan Ibrahim), c. 1640-60, engraving.
• "Emine Sultane Principale du Grand Turc Hibraim". British Museum O,2.156. Portrait of Turhan, consort of Sultan Ibrahim I)

It should therefore be used in the infobox in my opinion. Comments welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason why it should not be in a museum–it is a piece of art. Whether Eastern Europeans are Westerners is debatable; Istanbul is certainly to the west of wherever she was from. As I wrote before, my opinion is that the content of each Wikipedia article should reflect the content of reliable sources specializing in the topic. A book specializing in medieval fashion might discuss at detail a ring that Henry VIII wore at his 1538 Christmas court while no biography of him would even mention it. Not only do we not see this image in works about Turhan or Ottoman sultanas in general, we also have a source saying that images such as this one are "a reflection of what Westerners thought of the harem/valide sultan", "of the 'queen' image found in Western monarchies". Surtsicna (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Portrait of Hatice Turhan Sultan. Attributed to Paul Rycaut, consul in Smyrna, 1660-67

And here is another portrait of Turhan Sultan, attributed to Paul Rycaut, consul in Smyrna, 1660-67. This portrait appears in several academic books related to the Ottomans and the Ottoman court, including one specifically dedicated to Turhan Sultan (Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan Sultan). For example:

• Thys-Senocak, Lucienne (1 October 1998). "The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminonu". Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11084-7.
• Thys-Senocak, Lucienne (2 March 2017). Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan Sultan. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-91315-7.

It may be imaginary (as many portraits of the period), but it is still a highly recognized depiction of the princess used by academic sources, and was made by an artist and diplomat who actually lived in the Ottoman Empire at the time, and is well known for numerous portraits and depictions of the Ottoman court. This largely satisfies the threshhold for illustrating a Wikipedia article. I see from the discussion above that User:MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma was also in favour of using one of these illustrations. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The main problem is not if such or such fictitious portrait is more or less related to the subject, but : how useful is it for the reader to have an imaginary portrait in the infobox?

The presence of a picture is not mandatory and we can live without having a fancy image in the infobox, that will tell nothing about the subject of the article (and may even eventually mislead one reader) and has much more relevance with a "depiction story" section.--~2026-98188-7 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

We simply follow what reliable sources do. If the portrait of Hatice Turhan Sultan by Paul Rycaut is used by academic sources, so can we: this is the way it is done in hundreds of thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia. For historical portraits, there is often no way to prove if a portrait was drawn from life or idealized, or if the depiction has a cultural bias or not: it does not really matter as long as it is used by reliable sources for illustration, and it is all that is needed for an infobox illustration. Among several candidates, we can also try to select the most adequate one (when available we often prefer local artists). Of course, we could also have a separate "depiction story" section, provided in doesn't fall into WP:OR. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

But the printed sources don't have an infobox, the situation is different. They display these pictures in the body of the books like we have them in the article as well. ~2026-10673-26 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

For the infobox, we generally just use the best possible portraiture from published reliable sources. This is it. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but recommandations clearly specify that "Images help readers to understand an article, not merely decorate it." So as in this case the image does nothing to help the reader or to give an information about the subject, it would be better to avoid to put a misleading picture in the infobox, even if you consider it "the best possible"; the best possible is not enough, we need the more useful or at least, the least misleading. ~2026-11060-43 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The image is highly informative, especially the Paul Rycaut one, because he was consul in Smyrna in 1660-67, and therefore had some contemporary and local understanding of the Ottomans, and had met with members of the Ottoman court for his accreditation. He was a high-level eyewitness and therefore had first hand understanding of what Turhan Sultan looked like, or approximately looked like, or must have looked like. Paul Rycaut is also acclaimed for the quality of his depictions of the Ottoman world in general. From an epistemological standpoint, the image is also informative as one of the standard depictions of this Russian/Ukrainian/Circassian queen as accepted by academia. If academia accepts this image, we accept it too.... this is the universal threshold for Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Rycaut had to mean to have an idea of what harem ladies looked like, even as consul in Smyrna. This is a mn imaginary picture whose attribution to Rycaut is even dubious since it only appears on later translations of his works and not on the original editions (the sources you cite, though academic, don't give any precise reference and only reproduce the information of the same generalist encyclopedia, which itself don't give any precise reference; you can't say they "accept this image", they only mention it, as we also mention it in the body of the article and not as an infobox picture). This image is only informative about the representation of the orient by Western artist but does not give any information about the subject of the article. ~2026-13677-59 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)