Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Szigetvár: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
|action3oldid=417961824
|action3oldid=417961824


|currentstatus=GA
|topic=War and military
|topic=War and military
|otd1date=2016-09-08|otd1oldid=738320700
|otd1date=2016-09-08|otd1oldid=738320700
|otd2date=2020-09-08|otd2oldid=977349741
|otd2date=2020-09-08|otd2oldid=977349741
|otd3date=2022-09-08|otd3oldid=1109225471
|otd3date=2022-09-08|otd3oldid=1109225471

|action4 = GAR
|action4date = 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
|action4link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Szigetvár/1
|action4result = kept
|action4oldid = 1249894948
|currentstatus = GA
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Balkan=yes|old-peer-review=yes|Early-Modern=yes|Ottoman=yes|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Balkan=yes|Early-Modern=yes|Ottoman=yes|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=GA|importance=|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Turkey|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=GA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=GA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=GA|Crusades-task-force=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|Crusades-task-force=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Chaosdruid|date=8 March 2011}}
}}
}}
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|e-e}}
{{GOCE|user=Chaosdruid|date=8 March 2011}}

{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| age=2160
Line 45: Line 51:
| format= %%i
| format= %%i
}}
}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021 ==

{{Edit semi-protected|Siege of Szigetvár|answered=yes}}
My request is to change the part in the summary that says "Result Ottoman victory" to "Result Pyrrhic Ottoman victory".
Pyrrhic means that a battle was won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

Being as Count Nichola Zrinsky inflicted 10 times the casualties as his garrison suffered, Suleiman the Magnificent died during The Siege, and it was aprroximatly a hundred years before the Ottomans tried to invade Europe again, I think this is a much more accurate description of the actual result. Just plain "ottoman victory" sounds like the they won. And while they certainly captured the town, I think most people would argue that count Zrinski succeeded in breaking the Ottoman army at Szigetvár.
Not unlike the way we view the Battle of Thermopylae actually. The Spartans lost, technically, but inflicted so many casualties on the Persians that we consider it a victory.
Minus the Spartans, everything I have said is supported in the Wikipedia article in question, with most of it being taken directly from the summary box (I don't know what else to call it. The thing with the main picture and brief overview). I'm not trying to make any radical changes about facts. I'm just trying to help the description convey what happened better.
Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/107.191.2.62|107.191.2.62]] ([[User talk:107.191.2.62|talk]]) 18:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> The weight of reliable sources must refer to it that way. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> In addition, such request is against [[WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX]]. [[User talk:Melmann|<strong><span style="font-family:Segoe UI Semilight ; background-color: #ffd166; padding: 1px;"><span style="color: #ef476f;">Mel</span><span style="color: #8c8757;">ma</span><span style="color: #118ab2;">nn</span></span></strong>]] 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Many sources say the victory was pyrrhic.
:I do not understand what the problem with that is. [[User:ZidarZ|ZidarZ]] ([[User talk:ZidarZ|talk]]) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::In Hungarian historiography this is a great Hungarian-Croatian defender battle against the Ottomans. The 100,000 Ottoman army was halted for weeks and they lost 20-30,000 men by 2-3000 Hungarian-Croatian defenders, finally the Ottomans won but the planned full Ottoman campaign stopped. The sultan died. Zrínyi ordered a fuse be lit to the powder magazine. After cutting down the last of the defenders the Ottoman Army entered the remains of Szigetvár and fell into the trap. 3,000 Ottomans perished in the explosion. I think these things are sourced in the article.
::I found a great explanation video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SilVXqdffw4 [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree that it was a "pyrrhic" victory.
:::I do not understand why anyone is opposed to calling it a "pyrrhic" victory. [[User:ZidarZ|ZidarZ]] ([[User talk:ZidarZ|talk]]) 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

== Nikola Zrinski's final speech ==

Is anyone interested in the full speech that Nikola Zrinski allegedly gave before the final sally in which Zrinski and his remaining officers were killed. The following version is a compilation from sources in Latin and Hungarian and then translated to English. There is no on accepted speech and this version provides a sense of what may have been said. How much of the speech is worth including?

'''English version of the speech.'''

According to Željko Zidarić, the speech is:

Zrinski steps onto a makeshift podium and addresses the crowd of soldiers.

Zrinski [Speaks loudly, with genuine conviction and strength.]

My beloved brethren, true valiant men! We can see how our Lord God harshly punishes us with these flames. Our enemy cannot defeat us by their heroism on the battlefield with a sword in hand, and thus they weaken us with this cowardly but cruel fire and the smoke that chokes us. The punishment that the Almighty Lord sends fits our sins. We must bear this punishment with a grateful spirit for we suffer not only for forgiveness and purification of our sins but also for the sins of our Homeland.
Unfortunately, we can see now that staying here is not possible even if we want to, no matter how heroic we are. For this there are three reasons: first, the fire grows stronger and we will burn; even if we extinguish the fires we are few and will not be able to hold out for long, that is the second reason. The third reason is that we do not have food or water. Look at the women and children, suffering, hungry and thirsty. Do we want to stay and perish in this fire?

Remember now the oath I swore at the start of this siege, how first I pledged allegiance to you and then you pledged allegiance to me. With God as our witness, we swore to live together and die together. Thanks be to God that so far among us there has been no treachery or betrayal and there will not be any now. I advise we reject any shameful and inglorious thoughts of ignominious surrender at the end of our steadfast lives and adhere to our long-standing military honour and fulfill our duties as best we can.

Soldiers, let us go out from here into the Fortress, as only true men can. Let us show the enemy our middle finger and fight valiantly with them face to face, chest to chest, to the death, so that our deaths will be spoken of with good and honourable words. Those of us who fall will be with God, while those who survive will be celebrated with honour. The ages will not forget our heroism and virtuous deeds; they will celebrate them forever.

I have lived free and I will die free! Therefore, I want to be the first to go, in front of you, and you will follow me. What I do, you do the same. Believe me, my beloved brethren, even unto death I will never abandon you!

Source: "As Only True Men Can: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1999232801/ Nikola Zrinski's Last Stand at Sziget]", by Željko Zidarić, 2019, pp 491-492



'''Originals in Latin'''


According to Wechel, the speech, in Latin, is:

Mei fratres, et strenui milites! num re ipsa, et ante oculos simul cernimus omnes, qua ratione nos Deus igne hodie puniat, igne nos hostes nostri superant et vincunt; nec tantum eorum nobis potentia et copiae nocerent, quantum ignis et incendium damni dat, nosque pessundat. Nihilominus tamen hanc poenam a Deo Optimo Maximo immissam, patienti gratoque animo perferre nos decet; hac enim, non solum ob nostra nos peccata, sed etiam ob provinciae huius flagitia, punire voluit.

Quapropter, ignorare vos minime arbitror, quo pacto antea fidem meam vobis dederim, vosque mihi vicissum, sancte, et Deo interposito testo, per iusiurandum promiseritis: nos hic una sumul victuros et morituros esse. Et quidem ad hoc usque temptus, Deo sint gratiae, nihil mali commissum, nec ulla inter nos proditio deprehensa est: quod et nunc nulla penitus ratione accidere debet. Iam cuncti in praesentia videmus, quod hoc in loco longius moram protrahere et perseuerare, etsi vellemus, non possumus; idque tribus de causis.

Prima est, quod hic flammis et incendio consumimur; altera, quod nostrum admodum pauci sunt; tertia, quod commeatu caremus, vobisque infantes et mulieres, fame sitique pereunt. Quapropter, cur igne hic conflagrare volumus?

Sinitote, exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem, strenui milites, mediumque digitum hostibus ostendamus, et cum eis fortiter manus conseramus; ut post interitum et mortem, quisque nostrum famam sibi et gloriam comparet sempiternam. Qui occubuerit, aeuum cum Deo sine omni dubio aget: cui vero ufura vitae longius concessa fuerit, in eaque superstes manferit, is summis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur. Atque hac de causa, ego omnium primus esse volo, vos primo foras praecendere; et quod ego facturus sum, hoc idem et vos facite. Certo mihi credite, fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum usque non esse derelicturum.

Source: "[https://books.google.ca/books?id=7dlEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA529 Rerum Hungaricarum scriptores varii, ..]." Wechel, Marnius, Aubrius, 1600. pp. 529-530


According to Istvanffy, the speech, in Latin, is:

“Quonam in loco res nostrae sint, commilitones, et quam duriter atque improspere nobis fortuna consuluerit, perspicue cernere potestis. En eo deventum est, ut non virtute aut, vera hostium vi, sed intempestivis ignibus ob ruamur.

Itaque ego vobis magis supremae necessitatis index, quam consilii auctor processi; neque enim ut cadentibus rebus nostris, hic manendo pertinacius cum irata fortuna ignibus ustulandi colluctemur, sed neque ut majore animi mollitie, quam Chriftiani nominis viris militibusque conveniat, subita consternatione acti, infamem deditionis conditionem amplectamur, deliberare, aut consulere in animo habeo. Verum sicuti ego nuper vobis, ac deinde vos mihi Sacramentum praestitistis, ut mutuis animis consiliisque egregie et fortiter simul vivendum, et simul moriendum statuamus: ita nunc hortor, et quantum maxime possum suadeo, ut turpi repudiata sententia, anteactae militiae et gloriae constantissimo vitae exitu satisfaciamus.

Adeo fortuna virtuti nostrae invidit, ut jam nihil nobis praeter arma, et animos armorum memores reliqui fecerit: et perpetua ac ignominiosa servitus obeunda sit, si, plus, quam viros decet, ferrum timeamus. Honestiora igitur consilia, et magis decora sequamur, contemta omni degeneris vitae cupidine, et in media arma ruamus: ita ut nos et honeste vixisse et decoris veraeque laudis et constantiae tenaces, e vivis excessisse testemur, atque adeo apud posteros nostros totumque orbem terrarum, gratam et aeternam nostri memoriam relinquamus.

Agite milites, me modo sequimini, sicuti hactenus sequuti estis, et ceu a fronte salutaria a me exempla hauriatis, qui bus nec superbi et fallaces hostes, se nobis vincula, carceres, catenas, quod omnium miserri mum foret, iniecisse gloriabuntur, et facta virtutemque nostram nulla, quin justis laudibus efferant, unquam saecula conticescent.”

Source: "[https://books.google.com/books?id=zNpEAAAAcAAJ&pg=299 Regni Hungarici historia ...] ", by Miklós Istvánffy, 1724.

[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

== Self-published source reverted ==

[[User:Kansas Bear|<bdi>Kansas Bear</bdi>]] reverted an addition that I made based on the fact that the source is "self published". What is wrong with self-published? How does self-published = not good?

This Wiki page does not say that self-published sources cannot be used.

[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works|'''Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works''']]

So, the question is WHY?

Especially when there are few English sources that provide a depth of details and since self-publishing is growing more and more popular.

[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 19:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


:Per [[WP:RS]], "''Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, '''self-published sources are largely not acceptable.''' Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. '''Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter''', whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.''"
:Željko Zidarić, [https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/contact.cfm?FacultyID=680717 does not appear to be an historian].[https://www.linkedin.com/in/zidaric/?originalSubdomain=ca] Feel free to take your concerns to the [[WP:RSN|Reliable Sources Noticeboard]].
:The previous addition was also a [[WP:SELFPUB|self-published source]].
:Ante Mrkonjić,[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ante-mrkonjic-37231474/?originalSubdomain=au does not appear to be an historian], either. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 19:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments are confusing because
::Wikipedia itself says: '''Self-published sources ''can'' be reliable, and they ''can'' be used.'''
::I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people. It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 20:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


*"''I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people.''"
:::LMAO!
*"''It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area.''"
:::Nice [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground comment]]. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::'''So, I continue to be a victim of an aggressive wiki-bully.'''
::''What is YOUR level of credibility in Croatian history?''
::Did you not read the post that I make in this talk section? "Nikola Zrinski's final speech"
::Read the Latin, and then read the English. Is it not a good translation?
::Can you provide a better translation or English language source for the speech?
::It almost seems like you are interested in holding back improvements rather than promoting progress. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Your comment on "Nice [[Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND|battleground comment]]." is silly.
::You attack me, you act like a bully and then I am the "bad guy" because I questioned you about your credibility.
::Wow - what a nice welcome I have received to Wikipedia. TY for that. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 20:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

== Quote with no reference ==

[[User:Siroxo|<bdi>Siroxo</bdi>]] says that "Wikipedia works with verified sources and quotes from some reliable books, you can't just change and delete an existing source, ..."

I find this strange because the quote that is on the page has no reference to a verified source.

The quote on this page<blockquote>...Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies – he will be with God. Who dies not – his name will be honoured. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness – I will never leave you, my brothers and knights!...</blockquote>According to [[User:Siroxo|<bdi>Siroxo</bdi>]] , this quote with NO references is more credible than a better translation of a quote originally in Latin.

If quotes need to be from verified sources, then this quote should be deleted. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 09:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:I have self-reverted after mistakenly reverting what looked like content removal. The quote you reference is from a different editor's edit summary. I have no input into this content discussion. Apologies once again. &mdash;[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''&chi;'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 09:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you look at what happened, you will see that
::# I posted a better quote but with a reference that [[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] did not like and so he removed my quote
::# I posted the better quote with references to old sources in Latin. The veracity of the translations can be easily ascertained as I posted the source quotes in Latin in the Talk section.
::# You deleted my second post with the credible sources
::Now the article has a quote with no references being "credible" but the quote that I placed, which has references is not credible.
::By Wikipedia rules, should the present unreferenced quote be allowed to stay? [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Question for [[User:Siroxo|<bdi>Siroxo</bdi>]].
:You protect a quote that has no reference. It appears to be a popular "Internet" quote but there are no academic references for it.
:Is the web blog "[https://www.badassoftheweek.com/zrinski BadAssoftheWeek]" a credible source? "[https://www.historynet.com/szigetvar-hungary/ HistoryNet]" but there is no source. Maybe "[https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?449436-Tsardoms-Total-War-Suggestions-(Gameplay)/page26 Total War Center]" is the credible source this is from?
:According to the wikipedia "credibility" rules, this quote should be deleted. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 10:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:: I returned it because you deleted this source [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Szigetv%C3%A1r&diff=prev&oldid=1176838060]] , and what is written before. Which you say has no source may be written in Shelton 1867, page 82-83 the source below the quote. Put sources where it says so that everyone can read what you wrote just has to be a source to read. Please {{ping|Silverije}} I hope that you will get into editing the page, you understand history. I won't edit anymore when I don't really know it.Bye[[Special:Contributions/83.131.65.132|83.131.65.132]] ([[User talk:83.131.65.132|talk]]) 10:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I have to tell you that I was wrong back. He put the sources, but I don't know what exactly is written in those sources, let someone check it with a historian, I just made a mistake. My mistake. Please {{ping|Silverije}} {{ping|Joy}} edit the page. I don't know, I won't mess around anymore, do what you want and check the sources, Bye[[Special:Contributions/83.131.65.132|83.131.65.132]] ([[User talk:83.131.65.132|talk]]) 11:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::If you look at the page from a few days ago you will see that the original quote does not have a reference, If you read the reference for Shelton you will see that it is not a source for the original quote. It is appreciated that you admit you made a mistake, but why make such a "mistake" when you do not read references (talking about Shelton) or understanding other languages? For verifying quotes in other languages, Google Translate will give you a reasonable translation to check the veracity of the translation presented.
:::If you do not like the quote that I placed, maybe you prefer this quote
:::… Sinitote exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem ſtrenui milites, mediumq̃; digitū hoſtibus oſtendamus, & cū eo fortiter manus conſeramus, vt poſt interitū & mortem quiſque noſtrûm famam ſibi & gloriam comparet ſempiternam, qui occubuerit, euum cum DEO ſine omni dubio aget: cui vero vſura vitæ longius conceſſa fuerit, in eaq̃; ſuperſtes manferit, is fummis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur.  Atq̃; hac de cauſa, ego omniū primus eſſe volo, vos primo foras præcedere.  Et quod ego facturus ſum, hoc idem & vos facite.  Certo mihi credite fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum vsq; non eſſe derelicturum.  Pofthæc ter IESVS exclamat, atq; …
:::Source: Historia Sigethi: Totius Sclavoniae Fortissimi Propugnaculi quod a Solymano Turcarum Imperatore nuper captum Christianisque ereptum est, ex Croatico serone in Latinum conversa, by Ferenc Crnko, translated to Latin by M. Samuelem Budiman Labacensem, 1568.
:::This is a translation to Latin of the original work by Ferenc Črnko, who was a participant in the defense of the siege. Črnko's book was "Posjedanje i osvajanje Sigeta"
:::The modern Croatian version is:
:::»Hodimo, vitezi, van iz toga grada u veliki grad i ondi se pobimo na lice (prsa o prsa) s našimi neprijatelji i ondi pomrimo da nam bude po našoj smrti dobar i pošten glas! Ki umre, oće z Bogom biti, a ki ostane, oće vazda dobar glas imati. Zato ja oću biti prvi i ja oću najprvo pred vami pojti. Ča ja budem činil, to i vi činite! Verujte mi, moja bratjo i vitezi, da vas do smrti nigdar neću ostaviti«.
:::Source “Podsjedanje i osvojenje Sigeta i popratni tekstovi” by Ferenc Črnko, 1971
:::English translation
:::Freely (by our consent), let us go out into the outer citadel, strong soldiers, and show the middle finger to the enemy, and join hands with them with strength; so that after destruction and death, each of us may have everlasting fame and glory for himself.  He who has died will live forever with God without any doubt; but he who has been granted a longer life, and remains alive in it, will be celebrated with the highest praises of all times.  And for this reason, I want to be the first of all, to precede you first outside; and what I am about to do, you do the same. Be assured of me, my beloved brethren, that I will not forsake you even at the end.
:::The information has been presented and I will let the experienced editors do what they want. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I put back what I removed because I deleted the sources and that the user Siroxo is not his fault but mine. Let more experienced historians check this, that's why I invited them to join the conversation and edit the page. I don't want to comment on the rest of what you wrote, I don't know.[[Special:Contributions/83.131.65.132|83.131.65.132]] ([[User talk:83.131.65.132|talk]]) 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

== According to Miki Filigranski, primary sources are " outdated sources" ==

I have been on Wikipedia for a mere few days, trying to contribute, but am blow away by the absurdity of this place.

Seeing how "editors" willy-nilly" delete contributions that require much time and effort with simplistic reasons for deleting things. I do not want to waste time and effort making improvements and so I placed into the talk section old resources that provide a wealth of information. The value is that they are translations from old books that are in either Croatian, Hungarian or Latin.

After placing resources that can be used to improve the story of the Siege of Sziget, which can be so much better, editor Miki Filigranski deleted the work claiming " '''outdated sources'''". Mind blown - the siege happened in 1566. An eye-witness to the event writes a book and that is called a PRIMARY SOURCE. How can two 450 year old primary source, by participants in the siege, be deemed to be OUTDATED? That is just absurd.

Then I look at the approved sources and some of them are pathetic sources.

It seems that the editors are spending more time using their power to delete the work of others and these editors have done very little to add to the story. Why is that? Why is this story not being built up to reach its potential?

[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 21:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]], when I started edit Wikipedia I also did not understand why old primarly sources was not good for a medieval history event. But now I understand. Wikipedia based on modern reliable academic secondary sources. For example 1000 years old source says “500,000 enemy attacked” but modern respected historian say it is exaggeration and the real number can be 50,000 of the enemy army so we use that modern academic source. Of course we could mention old sources what those claimed but if modern academic sources are refering to them like “chronicle from 1500 claimed this” and mark the modern source, which should be reliable academic historian source not a facebook post by random user. Also it was many propaganda by many old regimes (for example communist) in the past, so it is better to use modern academic sources of certain events than exclusively the narrative of those old sources. [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 22:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::I am a subject matter expert in Nikola Zrinski and the siege of Szigetvar, having researched Zrinski during the last decade. I do agree that some of the old numbers about how many soldiers were involved and how many were killed are exaggerated but the facts of the event are valid and valuable. Now think of this - if the numbers given in old books are all exaggerated, then the present day numbers are merely SPECULATION on how big the armies might have been. Ponder this, when a source says that the Ottoman army was almost 200,000 people, while it might sound too big it could in fact be true. The regular army might have been about 40,000, the provincial army might have been 60,000, the supply train might have had 30,000 and then there could have been up to 70,000 opportunists that were only there to raid and plunder.
::The books I presented in "Further Reading" is just a resource for those that are interested in learning more. Why did I add them? Because this article on the Siege of Szigetvar is merely acceptable but not great. Many of the modern day books have lost a lot of the interesting details available in the old books. I disagree with you that old sources are not useful. For example, is the eyewitness account by a participant in the siege not a valuable resource? Are you saying the Hungarian historian Istvanffy is "useless"? Are you aware that Istvanffy is considered on of Hungary's greatest historians?
::I have also seen that modern day historian lose a lot and sometimes even corrupt facts. Using only modern day sources can lead to historical revisionism.
::The mass deletion by Miki Filigranski is absurd and does not lead to the development of trust. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 00:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]], my example was a general not about the Szigetvar battle. For example the personal story writer of Suleiman wrote the Hungarian army was 300,000 at the battle of Mohacs which is very irrealistic, so modern historians use them with their critical analysis. I did not say that old sources are bad or Istvanffy is bad. But Istvanffy lived in the 16th century, clearly not a modern academic source. All modern academic historians use that old sources but with their modern interpretations (you can call it speculation) Many reliable historians have many different opinions, in this case we can list historian A claims this and historian B claims this. This is the Wiki rule, that we need use secondary reliable academic sources. If you are expert in the topic as you said, I bet you will have modern historians who are referring or use those old sources what you like, in this way you can add them to the article through by modern historians who had many modern tools, archeogenetic, tons of sources from many countries, archehology, etc. [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 12:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::So, you are saying that an eye-witness account by Ferenc Crnko, who was at the siege of Szigetvar in 1566 and wrote a story about the events is "outdated"?
::::The problem with modern day historians is that they do not include, or have forgotten, many of the old books and a lot of detail has been lost in present day books. When I compare the old stories to present day stories - the old ones are far more interesting when it comes to Croatian and Hungarian history.
::::By your philosophy, what is the age of "outdated" books? 50 years? 100 years? [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 14:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I am talking only about the rules in the Wikipedia to help you understand the situtation, other users are follow that rules, it is not about the content. It is not my philosophy, I personally like very much the old medieval sources, but I used modern sources to create article like this: [[Epitome rerum Hungarorum]]. Usually many modern sources show old quotes, so you can use them through them. [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. I have read the guidelines on credibility and they are very vague but that is not the problem. The problem is with editors who have widely differing opinions on what is and what is not credible. Such subjectivity and diversity in opinions does not build an environment of trust. Especially when some editors act like jerks.
::::::I am a bit of an amateur subject matter expert on Zrinski. I would love to contribute but find that it is a waste of time. Why should I spend an hour writing something that would be more than credible for a university report but here, anonymous people with unknown levels of expertise can delete the contribution. The most ocnfusing aspect is when one editor deletes, then another reverts, and then another editor deletes.
::::::This article about the Siege of Szigetvar could be so much better but the editors hold back progress. I look at this article for example, and over the last five years I have not seen any notable improvements. I do see people shuffling things around to boost their edit rankings and debating/arguing but not improving the information base.
::::::To me, it is unbelievable that the definitive biography about Nikola Zrinski by Matija Mesic is not once referenced, either here or on the article for Nikola Zrinski. How do you explain that?
::::::The strangest thing is when non-Croats try to tell Croats they know Croatian history better than Croats.
::::::I can now understand why Wikipedia has a low level of respect [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::I forgot to mention the "[[Telephone game (game theory)|Telephone Game]]". I see the same concept in history books where over generations translation and interpretation corrupts the information. It is rather silly, IMHO, to reference a 21st century historian who writes about Ferenc Crnko, a participant in the siege, rather than reference him directly. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 16:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You can use academic Croatian historian sources. Use them. I use many Hungarian historian sources written in Hungarian because not everything is in English, but I also use many foreign historian sources for Hungarian topics and works from Hungarian historians who published in English. [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::If only it could be that easy. I have already been told by an "editor" that personal translations do not have credibility because I am not a professional translator and my translation is not referenced in an academic work.
::::::::I use more Hungarian sources than Croatian for Croatian history from the 1500s because you folks had more and better historians - ha ha ha - sadly, all online translation services do a poor job translating the Hungarian language.
::::::::It is very frustrating when I am new and passionate to contribute but there are so many obstacles - that inconsistencies in how editors operate and for some reason the one that deletes seems to have higher authority. It is almost as if some editors acting as bureaucrats hold back progress. Is there a culture problem here? So so frustrating. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I think personal translation mean if you want translate exactly a quote.
:::::::::It could be also a copyright issue here in Wiki if you copy paste full English text (not a quote) from a source, or even if you translate a Croatian text to English (my experience). So you need say the same thing what is in the sources by your own words. I know it is really hard and need experience.
:::::::::I suggest you start edit small things then you get experience as you can see there are many articles so it is not impossible. Also you can check the Croatian wiki and if certain things are sourced well there you can copy to the English wiki. (Wiki itself is not copyrigthed). [[User:OrionNimrod|OrionNimrod]] ([[User talk:OrionNimrod|talk]]) 22:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

== One editor approves and another editor deletes ==

I added a quotes by Historian Richard Davenport, from a book published in 1840.

I also added a superior quote about Zrinski's speech at the end of the siege. The quote was based on a book by Samuel Budinam, who translated the work of Ferenc Crnko, written in 1568, and also work by the great Hungarian historian Miklos Istvanffy written in 1685.

The quote was originally deleted by [[User:Siroxo|<bdi>Siroxo</bdi>]] & [[Special:Contributions/83.131.65.132|<bdi>83.131.65.132</bdi>]], then he stated that he made a mistake and put it back. Then [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]] deletes it again because this PRIMARY source is "outdated". When do old primary sources become "outdated"?


The strangest aspect of [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]]'s deletion is that the quote I provided was referenced to credible sources but he leaves an "Internet quote" that has no references as if it is credible.

If you do even a modicum of research you will see that though the quote is all over the Internet, there is no CREDIBLE source for it. The quote in question is:

''...Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies – he will be with God. Who dies not – his name will be honoured. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness – I will never leave you, my brothers and knights!...''

Note that [7], which references a book by Shelton, does not provide a source for the quote.

So why is that poor quality quote with not credible source presented?


Also, why did [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]]' delete 34 books that I posted in "Further Reading"?

This is quite absurd.

[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 22:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:I am starting to wonder if I am the target of "Editor harassment". [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 22:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Please note that [[special:diff/1176838060/1176838322|my two edits]] on this page, a mistaken revert followed by a self revert, ultimately effected zero change to the content. I have no other input into this content discussion. I believe the anon IP editor has also explained this in an above discussion. I don't believe there is further need to involve me in any discussion on this topic. &mdash;[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''&chi;'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 22:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::I was not accusing you of anything.
::I was merely referencing what had happened previously and thus illustrating the inconsistencies between editors, and the confusing deletion by [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]]. His involvement is strange since 1. he is not Croatian and 2. from the work that he has done on the article he does not appear to be a subject matter expert on Nikola IV Zrinski of the siege. He has contributed little of interest to the article. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

== Name: Nicholas VII of Zrin ==


== Where can I put a lot of information that is useful for this article? ==
The name "Nicholas VII of Zrin " is odd. It should be either Nikola VII Zrinski (Croatian) or Miklós Zrínyi (Hungarian). Since he is of a Croatian family (ethnicity), even though he lived in Hungary, using the Croatian variant is more logical. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 00:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


I placed in this talk section a treasure trove of information about Nikola Zrinski and the Siege of Szigetvar. The data was from old books that I translated to English. [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]] deleted it (like he deletes almost everything I post) calling it a "[[Wikipedia:Wall of text|Wall of text]]".
== Structure of the article ==


If this is not the right place to contribute, then where is the right place to post it? It would have been nice if he had moved it to the appropriate place but he merely deleted it. I know that there is a requirement for "good faith" but it does not feel like I am the recipient of good faith from [[User:Miki Filigranski|<bdi>Miki Filigranski</bdi>]].
The article is about 3,500 words long


Intro - 400 words  (12%)


A valuable resource is a biography of Nikola IV Zrinski by Matija Mesic. The biography is in Croatian.
Background = 820 (23%)


I have posted a part of the book here for easier translation.
Campaign of 1566 = 1,800 (51%) words, of this, the siege is 1,200 (34%) words


https://koszeg1532.blogspot.com/2023/09/zivot-nikole-zrinjskoga-sigetskoga.html [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Legacy is 520 (15%)
:This is not the purpose of the talk page. Maybe Wikiquote, but the source is outdated and not needed. Please slow down on commenting or editing before reading and understanding how editing is done on Wikipedia and gain experience on articles with stub or start level. You're dealing with high quality rated article. Your edits are not constructive here. Sorry, but there's no bad faith by any editor here for reverting your edits or not accepting your advices. --[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 00:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


== GAR needed? ==
The siege of Szigetvar is far far richer than what is presented in this article. Though the article is large, only 1/3 of the article is about the siege. I would recommend shrinking the intro and background sections and adding more detail to the siege. The long intro is repetitive with the rest of the article. Most of the background should be in a separate article about the "Little War".


Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The [https://brill-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/edcollbook/title/54630 2019 book] specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 03:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
By adding more details to the siege, then the human drama and the valour of the defenders can be better illustrated. This will also improve the flow of storytelling because as the story is now, it is rather dull. I assume that the basics of storytelling are not forbidden on Wikipedia. This article truly needs better storytelling.


==GA Reassessment==
For example, the siege can be broken down into phases: the fall of New Town, the fall of Old Town, the fall of the Outer Citadel (fortress) and the fall of the Inner Citadel (final battle). During each phase there are very interesting events. Sadly most modern tales of the siege ignore the wealth of interesting details.
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Szigetvár/1}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2024 ==
So, I wonder, with such a large swarm of editors working on this article, why is the article not better? Or maybe the swarm of editors is the problem.


{{edit semi-protected|Siege of Szigetvár|answered=yes}}
[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 01:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to add a speech by the Hapsburg commander which he made to his troops before charging his enemies outside the walls. [[User:Glockerov|Glockerov]] ([[User talk:Glockerov|talk]]) 14:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:10, 4 December 2024

Good articleSiege of Szigetvár has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
July 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
March 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 8, 2016, September 8, 2020, and September 8, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Where can I put a lot of information that is useful for this article?

[edit]

I placed in this talk section a treasure trove of information about Nikola Zrinski and the Siege of Szigetvar. The data was from old books that I translated to English. Miki Filigranski deleted it (like he deletes almost everything I post) calling it a "Wall of text".

If this is not the right place to contribute, then where is the right place to post it? It would have been nice if he had moved it to the appropriate place but he merely deleted it. I know that there is a requirement for "good faith" but it does not feel like I am the recipient of good faith from Miki Filigranski.


A valuable resource is a biography of Nikola IV Zrinski by Matija Mesic. The biography is in Croatian.

I have posted a part of the book here for easier translation.

https://koszeg1532.blogspot.com/2023/09/zivot-nikole-zrinjskoga-sigetskoga.html NikolaZrinski (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the purpose of the talk page. Maybe Wikiquote, but the source is outdated and not needed. Please slow down on commenting or editing before reading and understanding how editing is done on Wikipedia and gain experience on articles with stub or start level. You're dealing with high quality rated article. Your edits are not constructive here. Sorry, but there's no bad faith by any editor here for reverting your edits or not accepting your advices. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR needed?

[edit]

Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Siege of Szigetvár

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: I am also not an expert, but I believe the issues have been sufficiently addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan why did you remove [[1]] valuable information? Emperor Maximilian and 80,000 soldiers were encamped in the vicinity of Győr but did not attack the Ottomans to take the pressure off Szigetvár. Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press [1] This information is very important for the battle because no one wanted to help, and the army was nearby.78.0.239.162 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@78.0.239.162, this statement along with the source has been added to the article. @AirshipJungleman29, do you think this article passes GAR now? I have removed all pre-1950 sources, converted all refs to sfn, finished biblio formatting and removed cases of MOS:SANDWICH. Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors shows numerous errors you might want to look into. Aside from that, what do you think buidhe? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's looking better, the citations in the lead are a bad sign—some of the content in the lead/infobox is not in the article and/or lacks any citation. I'd be surprised if there weren't different casualty figures from different sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the HarvErrors should be resolved now. @Buidhe, the casualty figures were cited in the body so I didn't cite them in the lead. I have done so now, could you review the rest of the article? Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2024

[edit]

I am trying to add a speech by the Hapsburg commander which he made to his troops before charging his enemies outside the walls. Glockerov (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Szigetvár&oldid=1261169303"