Talk:Siege of Szigetvár: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:10, 4 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Szigetvár article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Siege 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
July 14, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept
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

Military history: Balkan / European / Ottoman / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia High‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary High‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 March 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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?

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

Siege of Szigetvár

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]

There are a couple of unsourced notes, if these are fixed I don't oppose keeping it, although I am far from an expert on this area of history and don't feel I can offer a full review. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, should be addressed now. Perhaps @AirshipJungleman29 can do a full review if needed? Matarisvan (talk) 11:44, 7 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

^ Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1] Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 |action3oldid=417961824
-|currentstatus=GA
 |topic=War and military
 |otd1date=2016-09-08|otd1oldid=738320700
 |otd2date=2020-09-08|otd2oldid=977349741
 |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|
@@ Line 34: / Line 40: @@
 {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Chaosdruid|date=8 March 2011}}
 }}
+{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|e-e}}
 {{Archives|bot=ClueBot III}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
 | age=2160
@@ Line 45: / Line 51: @@
 | format= %%i
 }}
-== 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)
-::::::::::Most of the references and translations that I contribute are from old sources that are not copyrighted. - TY for your help - and for being a decent person. [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
-== Structure of the article ==
-The article is about 3,500 words long
-Intro - 400 words  (12%)
-Background = 820 (23%)
-Campaign of 1566 = 1,800 (51%) words, of this, the siege is 1,200 (34%) words
-Legacy is 520 (15%)
-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".
-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.
-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.
-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.
-[[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 01:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 == Where can I put a lot of information that is useful for this article? ==
@@ Line 121: / Line 65: @@
 https://koszeg1532.blogspot.com/2023/09/zivot-nikole-zrinjskoga-sigetskoga.html [[User:NikolaZrinski|NikolaZrinski]] ([[User talk:NikolaZrinski|talk]]) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 :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? ==
+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)
+==GA Reassessment==
+{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Szigetvár/1}}
+== Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2024 ==
+{{edit semi-protected|Siege of Szigetvár|answered=yes}}
+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)