Talk:Fall of Constantinople

Unit conversion

> weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) over 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi)

If you do not have data that those projectiles which broke the Theodosian Walls were thrown for 1.497km (or so), and weighed 498.9kg (or so), then those "500 kilograms" are "1000 pounds", and "1.5 kilometres" are "1 mile" - because "500 kilograms" and "1.5 kilometres" clearly look like approximations

Serbians

There are no valid sources talking about 1500 imaginary Serbian Cavalry helping in the battle. Why has it still not been removed? Even if there were Serbs taking part in the battle they were taking part as Ottoman Janissaries.

Byzantien Rump States at the infobox.

I would appreciate it if User:Beshogur could explain here the reason why he keeps deleting this information from the infobox. All these small states were successors to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire and are thus mentioned here as having survived a bit longer until their own conquests. Deleting this just because you claim that ‘’no one cares about it’’ is not a valid argument. Highly recommend you to first discuss this intead of edit warring. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

So you find it appropriate to put conquests in 1460, 1461, 1475 and 1479 about a conflict in 1453? The page is about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, not Ottoman conquest of Byzantine Empire and its rump states. Beshogur (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My point was that these were all the remnants/successor states of the Byzantines themselves. Its not a ‘‘irrelevant’’ thing at all to mention on this page/infobox. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant in that way since the page is only about the siege. 1460 is 7 years later. It's like calling WW1 is ended, but fighting continues in Anatolia. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It is quite typical to have sections for "aftermath" or "legacy" (as in this article) or otherwise touch on later events that provide context even if they are decades or centuries later. Many articles on Byzantine history link to this page as a sort of coda, so it may also be appropriate to discuss remnants and successor states here lest we put too fine a point on things. 1453 is the date people remember, but it wasn't quite the end of the story.

In any case, you should think twice and preferably have a discussion before removing an infobox or similar content someone else worked hard on based on your personal assessment of whether it's relevant or not. If something is error-free, appropriately cited, and broadly on-topic (ie. Byzantine history) it's not really appropriate to delete it outright without giving others a chance to explain its inclusion as you might simply not understand why it really does belong there. Unilaterally deleting things as off-topic or not notable can cause more problems than it solves, makes wikipedia a less welcoming place for new voices, and can even be considered vandalism. And, of course, edit warring to preserve contested changes rather than seeking consensus is never acceptable. Duxbag (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Tone problems and anti-Turkish bias.

This is a long article on an unusually complex and sensitive historical topic and I don't think some sections have been handled with appropriate care. It represents a watershed moment in European history, particularly Eastern Orthodoxy, which had its identity, institutional structure and relationship with Islam and "the Turks" permanently affected. Even after five centuries, the aftershocks reverberate and can reflect legitimate ongoing disputes but also have served as fodder for propagandist stoking ethnic and religious hatred and a "clash of civilizations" narrative. This article is not immune. Consider the following passage:

"By noon, the city streets were filled with blood. The Turks looted houses, raped and impaled women and children, destroyed churches, tore icons from their frames and books from their bindings. All that remained of the imperial palace in Blachernae were the walls; Byzantium's most sacred icon, the Hodegetria, was cut into four pieces and destroyed. The most monstrous events took place in the Church of Hagia Sophia. There, the morning service was already underway when the parishioners heard the maddened conquerors approaching. The huge bronze doors immediately slammed shut, but soon the Turks smashed them and entered the temple. The poorer and less attractive looking parishioners were killed on the spot, the rest were taken to a Turkish camp, where they remained to await the decision of their fate."

All of this is cited back to a single source, presumably Russian, about which I can say little as even the citation is in untranslated Cyrillic. We are left to guess whether such unencyclopedic language as "monstrous events" and "maddened conquerors" is original or the result of an overzealous translator, but either way, the tone is clearly not neutral and it is hard to read salacious and hyperbolic claims about rape-happy Turks slaughtering all the "less attractive" parishioners as anything other than regurgitation of racist tropes with the intent of stoking ethnic grievance.

Issues like the rightful ownership of the Hagia Sophia are contemporary disputes and need to be treated as such. Wikipedia must not allow itself to be weaponized to serve such agendas, yet that is exactly what happens when, for instance, an article frequently refers to Mehmed's soldiers as "the Turks" (despite many Ottoman troops not being Turkish) and seems eager to conflate the brutality and oppression of that empire with the modern Turkish republic and peoples.

Maybe the POV problems with this writing merely reflect the reality of a mostly European Christian user base reiterating old invective without adequate care. Maybe it wasn't intended to pursue a specifically anti-Turkish political agenda, reinforce prejudice, or rally the aggrieved faithful in defense of the Orthodox Church, or "Christendom" more broadly. But then, it wouldn't be the first time racists and Islamophobes tried to peddle such hate on Wikipedia. The intent doesn't really matter. What matters is that this kind of language doesn't belong here.

I welcome everyone's thoughts. This is a major article and I'd like more experienced editors to weigh in. Duxbag (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)