Talk:Siege of Szigetvár

Source

There is some text which lacks sources. If anybody can cite it, and move it in the article, that would be great. --Kebeta (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Only four surviving defenders were later ransomed from the Turks. One of them was Zrinsky's nephew Gašpar Alapić (Alapy Gáspár), who later became a Croatian ban himself, and was infamous for having crushed the Croatian-Slovenian peasant revolt. Another survivor was Franjo Črnko (Ferenc), Zrinsky's chamberlain, who later wrote the only first-hand report of the siege. His detailed report, published in Croatian, German and Latin, includes a poignant description of Zrinsky's last hours before the final sortie.

Depictions in art

• Hungarian comics artist Endre Sarlós, made a 90 page comic album, by the title "The siege of Szigeth" (Template:Lang-hu). The comic's approach is neutral, based on historical facts, as seen by non-Ottoman sources and detailed research, rather than the Hungarian epic poem.
• One of the canvases by Czech Art Nouveau painter Alfons Mucha in the 20-painting work, The Slav Epic, is entitled "Defense of Sziget against the Turks by Nicholas Zrinsky."

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Szigetvár/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found in the artcile, but two found in the Ottoman-Hapsburg wars box (Ottoman-Ventian wars & Austro-Ottoman Wars). Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The Siege of Szigetvár or Battle of Szigeth (Hungarian: Szigetvári csata, Croatian: Bitka kod Sigeta or Sigetska bitka, Turkish: Zigetvar Savaşı) was a siege of Szigetvár Fortress in Baranya, which blocked Suleiman's line of advance towards Vienna Needs explanation of where Barayan is. Please remember that the general reader won't necessarily know. Done

   This was followed by a series of conflicts with the Habsburgs and their allies fighting against the Ottoman Empire. In the Little War in Hungary or Campaigns of Suleiman from 1529 to 1552, both sides exhausted themselves sustaining heavy casualties. Confusing - are we talking about Ferdinand fighting the Hapsburgs or what? Done

   In January 1566 Suleiman went to war for the last time.[14] The battle resulted in an Ottoman victory, with heavy losses on both sides. Both commanders died during the battle, Zrinsky in the final charge, and Suleiman in his tent from natural causes. Which battle are we talking about now? Done

   Ok, the lead is a mess and needs rewriting to be a clear succinct summary of the article. please see WP:LEAD. Done

   Zápolya was a supporter of King Louis II whom Suleiman had promised to make the ruler of all Hungary. Confusing - had Suleiman promised this to Zapolya or Louis II? Done

   An assault of Buda was driven off by John Szapolyai, Is this the same person as Zápolya?{{done}}

   where he met with John II Sigismund Zápolya, to whom he confirmed an earlier promise to make him ruler of all Hungary. very poor prose. Done

   Each linked to others by bridges and causeways. needs a verb - "was"? Done

   The fall of the castle appeared inevitable, but the Ottoman high command hesitated, for on September the 6th Suleiman died in his tent,[6] but at great effort his death was kept secret. Again poor prose. Done

   One disputed view[by whom?] by a historian asserts that, before leading the final sortie by the garrison, Zrinsky ordered a fuse lit to the powder magazine. Both the historian and those who dispute the view need attribution. Done

   Over all the prose is rather poor and clarification is needed throughout. Probably needs the assistance of a good copy-editor with some knowledge of the subject. Done by user Chaosdruid

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced with the exception of the attribution noted above, sources appear to be RS, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient detail without unnecessary trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are captioned, licensed and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the prose to be copy-edited and turned into plain English. I will look at it again then. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Well, the prose is much improved. I made a few further copy-edits. It could still do with a lot of work, but I am happy to pass it as reasonably well-written. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, and thank you for your GA Review. As I understood, most of your remarks are related to copyediting. Since I am not a native speaker of English language, I have made a request at WP:GOCE, and asked for help. User Kevin Murray helped on 25 October 2010, but he also added a lot of new content to the article (expanded Background). Anyway, regarding your GA remarks, I have fixed some by myself, but I will made new request at WP:GOCE (and ask user Diannaa personaly for help). Regarding your remark "Well referenced with the exception of the attribution noted above", can you clarify this please, what needs to be fixed regarding references. Anyway, thanks for your help with the article, and I hope that all remarks will be solved. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't make myself clear, I was referrring to the comment in the prose section above: One disputed view[by whom?] by a historian asserts that, before leading the final sortie by the garrison, Zrinsky ordered a fuse lit to the powder magazine. Both the historian and those who dispute the view need attribution. WEE need the name of the historian, also the name(s) of those who dispute this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I deleted first part of the sentence "One disputed view by a historian asserts that". The reason is - I have found several sources which confirm this, and one which state that it may be disputed. None of them which state that the explosion didn't happened. I also added a note, which referes to the "disputed view". I hope this is OK with you. BTW, I left a notice to Diannaa and to WP:GOCE for further help.--Kebeta (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the copyediting by user Chaosdruid is now done. Can you please take a look, and see if all your remarks are resolved. Thanks.--Kebeta (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jezhotwells for your final help with copyediting and for positive GA Review. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pargali Ibrahim

Pargali Ibrahim is mentioned multiple times throughout this article, even though he has been dead for 30 years. Szigetvar was n 1566 yet the article makes various mentions of an Ibrahim Pasha which links me to the article Pargali Ibrahim, who died in 1536. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whataboutery

I couldn't care less what other articles do or don't do, per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "Pyrrhic victory" is not used in infoboxes. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read anywhere there that Pyrrhic victory can't go to the info box, those are some of your rules.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've alreedy refuted that other strawman here. It says In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcome. You can deny it says that if you like, I wouldn't recommend it though. FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a consensus, that's why it's in the guideline. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Which we will all change and delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the world. Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. That references say it was is not relevant, it doesn't go in the infobox according to the MOS. Saying See article Battle of Vukovar for example is just more whataboutery, and is of no relevance. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes in WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes" but they are not forbidden, it is not written. Here we have two sources where it is strictly written "Pyrrhic victory". First source [[1]] , second source [[2]].Without Pyrrhic this battle gives the impression that it was easily won by the Ottomans. That is why Pyrrhic is written in books and this should be taken into account what is written in the source. As in the other battles written above. "Whataboutery" is not a reason and argument for deletion.93.136.115.120 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is the reason for removal, since it doesn't matter if reference says it the manual of style says it doesn't go in the infobox. Nothing to counter is has been presented except whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

But on WP: MILMOS # INFOBOX it doesn't say it's forbidden to write a Pyrrhic victory. Explain to me why this exception is deletion only on this battle and not on other battles? It’s not okay to make exceptions and let it be just this battle, because something bothers you. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need to say something is forbidden using that exact word, since saying it's inappropriate is more than enough. See WP:LAWYER. FDW777 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Not inappropriate more than enough. It is not 100 percent that it does not have to be written or banned. Look at other battles where it says Pyrrhic victory so they are not erased. You avoid the second question, why only in this battle must it be erased and nowhere else?93.136.115.120 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you've no argument except more whataboutery ("Look at other battles" and "why only in this battle" are textbook examples) to the guideline that says it's inappropriate, it's not going in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have arguments, and you don't, you didn't write anything, you repeat the same thing, I showed you the sources and proved that "nappropriate for outcomes" is not a ban in the infobox. Stop repeating like a parrot “whataboutery,” and you haven’t answered the questions of why only in this battle must the Pyrrhic victory be erased, and in the others not. And the sources say Pyrrhic victory. The question is simple to which you have no answer. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, your only arguments are whataboutery. You insist this article can't be changed becuase others say Pyrrhic victory. But if you stopped wasting everyone's fucking time on this article maybe people would be able to move on to other articles and change those too. FDW777 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Again you didn't say anything, you're just selling fog here93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439#User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned). FDW777 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you showing me now that the other IP wrote. What does it matter now, you're bypassing my questions again. Of course you need to get a consensus to delete something that was written 10-15 years here, and you didn’t say anything to make it so. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to claim you are a totally different editor to the similar IP in the similar location making the same non-arguments while making the same disruptive edits. Nobody will believe it. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop falsely accusing me and sending messages, just because you don’t have arguments on the talk page. What you do is forbidden on Wikipedia. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You opened an account 2 years ago and you're already acting like you're some kind of boss here, and you can falsely accuse me just because you don't have arguments on the talk page. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, this is your single and final warning: stop personalising this dispute. The only person whose conduct here is abrasive is yours, and if you keep attacking editors instead of discussing the article content, both A) others will be unwilling to listen to you even if you are right and B) you may get blocked because of it; are plausible outcomes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is important that he did not personally attack me by falsely accusing me, but you do not see this because I am unimportant to you IP. That’s why you exercise your muscles on me because you can’t on others ,but on some irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You're clearly the same person as the other IP. You editing style is similar; you've immediately focused on this page; and, even more tellingly, both IPs geolocate to the same area (Croatia) and to the same ISP. So basically this is a case of WP:DUCK, which is additionally confirmed by technical evidence. If you keep persisting, and refusing to listen to the concerns of others, then you are clearly not here to contribute to a collaborative project (which this is). Now as I said, that was a single and final warning. Feel free to disregard it as much as you want if you think I'm wrong; but I'm afraid that's going to do you no good. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

93.136.115.120 and 93.138.63.81 not same, the rest are the conspiracy theories you are now using. So anyone can blame anyone. But you are right here, I am some irrelevant ip address so you can do whatever you want. But I will never tell you any conspiracy theory, because that is not right, nor is it true. I have given arguments here and I know I am right, but I know that no one will accept it, because I am irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Lol, I just saw you made an account 1 year ago and you're playing the boss here, you're really funny93.136.115.120 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)