# Talk:Cretan War (1645–1669)

I just began the article around 10 minutes ago so I need time to add info. Kyriakos (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cretan War (1645–1669)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, excellent article, well written, well referenced, everything a good article should be. I have some minor points for clarification (below). There are also some sentences I think should be referenced, not because they are controversial, but because such a good referencing job has been done everywhere else, it would be a shame to leave these ones out! I have used the  marker to indicate these sentences. I will put the article on hold for 7 days, to allow for modifications, but it will definitely pass.
Minor points:

Names of battles - these mostly aren't explicitly named in the text. While I understand that this helps the flow of the text, I wonder if they should be explicitly named somewhere in the article (other than the campaign infobox)? Perhaps you could use the  {{main|Battle name}}  at the start of some of the sections, just for clarity.
Hmmm, that might become ugly. If I were to include the individual battle links directly below the heading, say in "The battles of the Dardanelles", there would be 6 battles to fit in. I'll try to make them a bit more conspicuous (where possible), though. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
On a related point, for Cretan War (1645-1669)#The naval war and Cretan War (1645-1669)#The Siege of Candia begins, I think it might be better to use the  {{main|article name}}  template to link through to the main articles.
Funnily enough, on other reviews I've been encouraged to replace  {{main|article name}}  with  {{details|article name}} . I think I'll keep it the way it is ,especially for the naval war, which doesn't have a dedicated article either way. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The terms 'Serenissima' and 'Most Serene Republic' to (I assume) refer to Venice, but these terms are not explained. Could they be clarified (even just linking them to the 'Republic of Venice' would be fine)?
Done Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Knights loaded their loot on a ship, which docked at a small harbor on the southern coast of Candia for a few days" - Is this supposed to be Candia or Crete? I realise the Venetians might have called both Candia, but I think for the purposes of this article, the island should be referred to as Crete.
Quite right. Fixed. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
At the start of the section "Early operations in crete", we are told that the Venetians were fooled by the Ottomans, but then that they had been preparing for war since the previous year. These two statements are at least partially contradictory - they can't have been that suprised. Could this be clarified?
Well, the Venetians were worried about Ottoman preparations either way, and not quite sure where this massive armada was going, so prudently they shored up their defenses. But, the arrival of the Ottoman fleet at Crete did indeed surprise them. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In the same section "In mid-June however, a small Ottomans routed a larger body of Venetian mercenaries." Needs correcting
Done Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"For 1654, the Ottomans marshaled their strength: the Arsenal produced new warships". The use of "the Arsenal" suggests it is a proper noun referring to a specific location, as opposed to e.g. "their arsenals". If it is supposed to be "the Arsenal", can you provide an explanation of where and what this was?
Done. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox and the lead paragraph, the Venetian gains in Dalmatia are referred to as 'Minor' and 'Small', but in the "The war in Dalmatia" section, they are referred to as 'significant', and the as 'territory tripled'. Could these conflicting statements be reconciled?
You are right. The point is "comparatively minor" to the loss of Crete. Fixed. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up and for a thorough review. A couple of points & questions on the referencing, where I'd also like some advice. The fact of Candia being the second longest siege is nowhere explicitly stated. What is stated in several books is that it was the longest siege in history. However, I did a search to verify this and came up with the case of Ceuta, which, although relatively little known, is longer. I have tried to present the issue in the citation. Do you think it's OK? Also, on the issue of Greece's union with Crete, officially it was in 1913, but de facto, Greece acknowledged and effected the union in October 1912. As this is not really something that can be contested, is a citation necessary? The same goes for the last sentence in  the "The Siege of Candia begins" section. The Ottomans had conquered the island, and, as the next paragraphs show, they could not be dislodged from their holdings (e.g. Canea). A the same time, they made no large-scale attack on Candia either, until 1666. This sentence is merely a summary of this interval. I'll try to find a direct citation of the statement made here, but it may not be possible. Either way, thanks a lot and cheers, Constantine   ✍  15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, I agree it will be unwieldy to add  {{main}} for all battles, and if you're happy with  {{details}} where you have it, then so am I. As for Ceuta vs. Candia, I think the solution you've used is fine, and presents the point in an appropriate format. I don't think it's wrong to contradict sources when they are obviously wrong!
The two sentences that you mention don't really need referencing – these are non-controversial statements. The only reason I asked for citations there is that I have been advised in the past not to leave the last sentence of a paragraph without a reference. I thought that if you could locate a reference, then add it in; but if not, it didn't really matter! I'll remove the  tags. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. I'll try to find some references anyway. Also, since I intend to ultimately bring this to FA, what would you suggest I add/change? Constantine   ✍  13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm no expert on FA - I haven't spent enough time reading FA articles to see how much better you need to make them than GA. I suspect that GA reviews are quite variable, and that some reviewers treat them more stringently than others, and I therefore suspect that some GA articles are already well on their way to being FA. I 'think that this is the case with this one; the writing is generally very good, everything is well referenced, it's NPOV. I see you previously had a peer-review from the WPMilHist team - they're generally pretty good at spotting problems, so if they didn't give any indications of anything missing/anything extra needed, then there probably isn't much. Maybe the next step is to submit it from an A-class review from MilHist?
The one suggestion I have is to include a '(Historical) Significance' section at the end of the article. I guess this works well for some articles and probably not others, but I think it might work here. Although the war is, as you say, rather neglected nowadays, it seems to have had quite a significant impact internationally at the time. And it is significant in showing the decline of Venice, and the zenith of Ottoman expansion (but at the same time making the beginning of their decline evident??). What was the cultural impact on Crete? and so on. This kind of section helps put the whole of the war in some kind of longer-term context. However, I don't think it is essential, and they can be quite difficult to reference!
Ultimately, I'd like to see this go for FAC, so if you need any help (any proof-reading etc. - I'm probably not going to be able to help with references), just let me know. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When i saw that the author has forgot the state of Crete era, and said that from the ottoman occupation Crete passes directly to greek state, i thought was ignorance, and I corrected it, but when i read below i realize that this article is against the Cretan people. 
At the Early operations in Crete paragraph It say: 
However, the local Greek population was not well-disposed towards the Venetians, something that would prove to be of critical importance. Not only were the Ottomans thus able to quickly establish control over the countryside, but in later years, when the Ottoman forces in the island were practically cut off from seaborne supplies, only the local produce, provided by the Greek population, sustained them.
So i went to check the reference, which was right, George Finlay says that indeed in his book, The history of Greece under Ottoman and Venetian domination
but who was George Finlay?
Was a Brito, for your info, britos are traditionally against Venetians, they even transferred turks to crete with their ships during the siege of Candia...also Finlay hates Cretans, in All his book are spitting poison against the Greeks, and because that little paragraph contains serious  info, you may need to see again how to refer about that matter, because you say that cretans were feed the turks because George Finlay say so, without wondering what happened in Crete after the fall of candia until the expulsion of the turks... you may need to see again this info and its reference before I remove it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idaeananvil (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 

In the history of the article I found out where that anticretan spirit of the article came from, and why uses such antiCretan historians as reference like George Finlay a British antigreek and Caroline Finkel also British-Turkish drafted historian, And not just neutral historians like Kenneth Setton where the major and serious  info of this article came form.
In a 2008 edit of the article by a Greek (non Cretan) user named Kyriakos i found this:

The Cretan War (1645-1669) was fought between the Republic of Venice and her allies, the Knights of Malta, the Papal States and pirates from Mani against the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States. The war was fought on Crete and in the Mediterranean Sea and ended as an Ottoman victory.

Of course pirates from Mani Peninsula never involved in the cretan war, and be doubt if they ever existed. or their flag in the info box.
However in the present article at the paragraph Stalemate, 1658–1666 it said this:

In August 1658 failed, but in 1659, the Venetians, aided by the Maniots, sacked Kalamata in the Peloponnese, followed by Torone in the Chalcidice, Karystos in Euboea, and Çeşme. However, since Venice could not spare forces to occupy these places, these raids gained the Republic nothing of substance.
And has a refereanse for the page 189 of the book:
Setton, Kenneth Meyer (1991), Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century, DIANE Publishing, ISBN 0-87169-192-2
Which i read and indeed talk about the peloponesian events...
but Setton never refers Maniots...
It's a regionalist problem only from the side of the nowadays maniots and other peloponesians, against Crete, it has to do with their inferiority complex, It ain't worth to refer at all.
Of course I will clean all this things later, if no one has anything to say.Idaeananvil (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am watching all this spilling of contemporary Cretan nationalist pride and bias against the Greeks and the British here, and I will be watching very carefully any edits that are done to this page. Any change you eventually decide to make, you better have it very clearly referred to the current historical sources that are quoted, or you better have other clearly spelled reliable sources that make a different point. Otherwise, any changes that are not referenced to reliable sources will be reverted back to the currently very well documented and referenced (not to mention articulated in good and clean encyclopedic syntax), long established and stable text. warshy (¥¥) 18:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually I now also see that this was, as it is now, once declared a Good Article, and any changes to it need to meet even stricter sourcing and writing criteria... warshy (¥¥) 18:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I referred in books and specific details, but you saw spilling. You better watch this article closely, I will watch too.
Any change you eventually decide to make, you better have it very clearly referred to the current historical sources that are quoted Idaeananvil (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

From the paragraph Fall of Candia:

and cost the lives of 70,000 Turks, 38,000 Cretans and slaves who labored in the siege works and 29,088 of the city's Christian defenders.[38]

So if I understand well the spirit of this article the Cretans wasn't included in the christians defenders of the island of Crete, but in the slaves...
The author or someone must make clear here how define Cretans.
Do you have any clue what language the 100% of the Cretan population of that period spoke? which was the religion of that people? by who started the revolt of Saint Titus? 
Also check its references, no comments.

Setton wrote in the page 148 of his book:
Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century, DIANE Publishing, ISBN 0-87169-192-2
that the 40% of the cretan population died the first 2 years of the war.
Miller, William wrote in the page 196 of his book:
Essays on the Latin Orient, Cambridge University Press Archive
that from the start of the war untill the year 1677
the cretan population drops from 260.000 to 80.000 due the presence of the Ottomans.
doesn't looks this info contrasted with the Finlay's opinions?
I mean if the Cretans feed the turks why thy killed the 40% in the first 2 years of the war? and why the kill and send away 200.000 people till 1677?
As we said keep an eye on this article.Idaeananvil (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that Candia was not defended solely by Cretans, but also by Italians, French etc? This is what is meant by "the city's Christian defenders". The death toll of the rural population is also acknowledged, but this does not mean, as you write, that they were killed outright by the Turks. As the article makes quite clear, the siege was hard and a breeding-ground of disease. Of course, having a war going on on the island for 25 years, with requisition of food, famine, disease, as well as corvee labour in the siege works is also not the best way to maintain the civilian population in its peace-time numbers. Constantine   ✍  21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually with the common sense in that sentence says clearly beyond doubt that Cretans wasn't christians and wasn't defenders of the city of Chandakas. If you don't realize that you may have a logic issue, which is your problem.
If  you insists that Cretans died by diseases, while trying to feed the Turks... I'm afraid you going to need more sources other then Caroline Finkel  and George Finlay, which they represents only the turko-brito view, Or can be used just Setton and Miller which are neutral.Idaeananvil (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, that is clearly not what "common sense" says, it is what a surprisingly ill-tempered and prejudiced individual ″And what are you? are you not individual? are you authority? just keep your head cool.Idaeananvil (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)″ says. I know (and am related to) quite a few Cretans, who among many others have read this article, and have found no problem with it. So please, take your rants elsewhere... Constantine   ✍  17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a public place, you can't tell to anyone to be here or not, if you want to write whatever you like, then you go in a private place. The article contains inaccuracies and subjective opinions that I mention above, which insults Cretans in a way that your supposedly ″Cretan″ friends may can't understand. That means nothing. The article will be corrected with info by neutral sources.Idaeananvil (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In the paragraph ″Aftermath″ the sentence ″The island continued under Ottoman suzerainty until the Balkan Wars″ has no reference to a valid source. Please give a reference to a valid source or the sentence will be removed.Idaeananvil (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be translated, https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AC%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7_(1897-1898)
I will do it soon. Read it before you make edits please.
You know what is the most funny here? That you -and others like you- are nor Turks neither British or Germans, but ″greeks″, that's why we may like you so muchIdaeananvil (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you need to know the difference between a state that is autonomous, under Ottoman suzerainty, under international guarantee by the Great Powers and a state that is independent. The Κρητική Πολιτεία was αυτόνομος, not ανεξάρτητος. The Ottoman flag remained flying until 1913, and it was not until the Treaty of Athens in November 1913 that the Sultan relinquished his rights. If you, as a self-proclaimed proud Cretan, don't know this, then it is you who needs to stop writing Cretan-interest articles and read up on your history before coming back here. Otherwise your additions will be inaccurate as well as biased. Constantine   ✍  19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The citation that I put yesterday, is the very source of the matter we discussed here... why you removing it? It was not in the reference paragraph, but to the end of the citations paragraph, do you see it? do you check it?Idaeananvil (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. I removed it for several reasons. It is a primary source from 1901 which adds little of substance, since the relevant facts about Cretan autonomy and eventual union are already cited in the main article. Generally, if the relevant information is cited elsewhere, the lead section should not have citations of its own. Then, you write about an "independent" Cretan state, and at the same time obliterate any reference to the union with Greece. That is unacceptable for the following reasons: a) as said above, the Cretan State was not independent, and b) the whole issue of the Cretan revolts and autonomy was not about setting up an independent Cretan state but exactly achieving this union with Greece, and removing mention of it warps the context for the uninitiated reader. Finally, this article is about a war fought in the 17th century, not about the details of what happened in Crete in the 1897-1913 period, so let's not put too much detail on that into the article. You were right in so far as a reference was missing for the article's last couple of phrases, this has now been rectified, but if there is some point your are trying to make about Crete and Cretans, this is not the place to do it. I am open to suggestions on improving the article, as well as to clarify wording where and if necessary, but I will not respond to the declamatory/defamatory style you have used so far. Constantine   ✍  20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

1)At the Early operations in Crete paragraph:
However, the local Greek population was not well-disposed towards the Venetians, something that would prove to be of critical importance. Not only were the Ottomans thus able to quickly establish control over the countryside, but in later years, when the Ottoman forces in the island were practically cut off from seaborne supplies, only the local produce, provided by the Greek population, sustained them.
George Finlay -I don't try to judge his morality- is indeed non-neutral, take a look of his books with Greek subject, He was obviously disappointed and angry when he wrote about the situation in Greece -200 years after the Ctetan war- because may wasn't what he expected to find... Anyway he is not good for source if you want to make an encyclopedic and neutral article. 
Caroline Finkel is a product of George Finlay and she obviously writing turkish history, something which is great, but it's not for ″universal″ use with the same way which the most new Greek historians aren't. 
Setton makes references in the populations of the Crete and I suggest -as the major part of the info of this article comes from his book- to replace these Finkel's and Finlay's info, with info from Setton, which I will propose later. He is not flattering Cretans at all, but he is not refers, any support to turks.
And that actually makes sence, because turks wasn’t some unknown newcomers,  Peloponnesus was 300 years since that time, under ottoman occupation… they knew them, and what comes next…  if was any muslims in Crete before the Turkish invasion -something possible because Crete was in an islamic ring for centuries- then those things will make sence, but I can’t find a clue yet.
2) Maniots very possibly fighted the turks in the war of peloponnesus, but better find a source. And please protect that Maniot guy, who added that flag in the info box... from his own bad taste, yet there was no such thing at that period or later. If i don't knew how Maniot he really is, would thought that he is an Arnaout by the way he acting. 
3) From the paragraph Fall of Candia: ‘’and cost the lives of 70,000 Turks, 38,000 Cretans and slaves who labored in the siege works and 29,088 of the city's Christian defenders.’’
If the numbers are accurate, I believe Cretans should not separated from the total deaths of the Christian but only by civilians and soldiers, if you have info. First because I do not accept that they supported the Ottoman as I'm saying above, and second (if you find valid sourses) In that case they should be counted with the Ottoman deaths... (I'm saying this to show you how messy and unreal is the way the article is puted till now)Idaeananvil (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I will consider your arguments and respond here after New Year. Καλή Πρωτοχρονιά! Constantine   ✍  22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Eπίσης.[Was posting in the same moment]
1) Replacing ″However, the local......................population, sustained them.″
with:
However, the local population was not well-disposed towards the Venetians. The old venetian colonists already by the 14th century had largely joined the customs and the language of Crete, along with the corrupt administration of Venice(Setton 107), as the locals looked upon it. eventualy lead in 1363 to the renegade of Saint Titus, and the further alienation of the Venice and the castle from the inhabitants of the island. While in Venice often refered the biblical phrases of Epimenides Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. When Ottomans landen west of Canea in June 1645, Cretans hardly raised a finger to oppose them (Setton 107)Idaeananvil (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's see. First, on Finlay, I know that he has a reputation as an anti-Greek, but I also know his work and the man was a very dedicated historian; if his style and passing of moral judgment is out of favour nowadays, and if he was disappointed with what he found in Greece and lets this shine through at times, that doesn't make him an anti-Greek. What anti-Greek would devote his life to writing the most complete history of Greece to that time? His research was very good, and from anything I have read his history remains a standard work to this day, albeit a bit outdated. Either way, in Wikipedia, or in any serious encyclopedia for that matter, we follow what sources say, and we do not cherry-pick sources to suit our own tastes. The same, to an even greater extent as she is an excellent modern academic, goes for Finkel. I have read her work as well as reviews of it by other historians, and if she has a "pro-Turkish" bias that impairs her impartiality, I have not seen it. I am certainly not going to stop relying on her because you consider her suspect without a shred of evidence. To clarify, if you find a good source that contradicts any statement by Finlay, Finkel or anyone else, then you are justified in challenging it; doubting their academic credentials simply on the basis that you don't like them, is not an argument I am prepared to accept.
On what the Cretans did and how they saw the Turks, I suggest we leave that to the sources, not what you or I think they should have done; I simply remind you that the choice of «κρειττότερον εστίν ειδέναι εν τη μέση τη πόλει φακίολον βασιλεύον Τούρκων ή καλύπτραν Λατινικήν» was rather widespread at the time, that the Cretans hardly liked the Venetians better, and that they could not have foreseen what Turkish rule would bring them. Furthermore, if I understand correctly, the "offending" phrase is "when the Ottoman forces in the island were practically cut off from seaborne supplies, only the local produce, provided by the Greek population, sustained them". You choose to read this as the locals actively aiding the Turks. Rather, what this phrase implies is a) that the local population did not actively resist the Turks or rally to the Venetians, which you yourself admit based on Setton, and b) that they produced food of their own, which also fed the Turkish army. If the locals had actively resisted, then the Turks would hardly have found any food to sustain themselves; but precisely because the Cretans adopted a more or less passive stance, a relative normality returned which allowed the resumption of agriculture etc. This is common sense, rather than anti-Cretan propaganda.
On the Maniots, they did take part in the war, as simple as that. Don't forget, it may be called the "Cretan War", but it was not only fought in Crete. As for comments like "would thought that he is an Arnaout by the way he acting.", I really would prefer if you stopped slurring people. The flag is ahistorical for the time, so it will be removed. On the third note, I don't care what you accept or not. Find me a source to supports your view, and I am all ears. Otherwise, I refer you to the second paragraph above. On the death tolls, again, let me point out that these are three distinct groups: the Turks in the besieging army, the conscripted Cretans and slaves who laboured in the Turkish siege works, and the defenders of the city, who were Cretan, Venetian, French, etc.
Anyhow, over the next weeks, I will rewrite the article incorporating Vakalopoulos, Detorakis et al. I will welcome any constructive criticism, but no name-calling, please. Constantine   ✍  11:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the article since then, but I found something that probably is the source of all this evil. The orthodox christian monks in Crete was encouraging defeatism spirit in favor of the Turks, because orthodox church did the same back at the siege of istanbul at 1453... and the Patriarchs of Constantinople had (and still has) arrangement with the Ottoman rule since 1453!! So the enemy was the Franks as they was calling all the westerners, I'm sorry for this debate we did back then, i didnt know and i didn't expect this. Indicative are the poems of the monk Emmanuel Tzanes are they really better the franks or the turks? he left Crete immediately with the start of the war for kerkyra (and other frankish ruled island... what an irony) at least you can't call all those monks Cretans, they was Polites immigrants from istanbul but the result is still the same.Idaeananvil (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cretan War (1645–1669). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716183557/http://grypas.heraklion.gr/heraklion-site/hp.php?id=1941 to http://grypas.heraklion.gr/heraklion-site/hp.php?id=1941
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In the chapter Fall of Candia in the first lines say:

It would last for 28 months and cost the lives of 70,000 Ottoman soldiers, 38,000 conscripted Cretans and slaves who labored in the Ottoman siege works and 29,088 of the city's Christian defenders.[37]
The citation number [37] leads to this page:
http://www.msc.gr/veniva/uk/main/p2.htm
Approximately in the middle of the text (which has no citation and the credibility of this site is at least questionable) it say:

A siege which was to last 28 months began on 22 May. In the assaults sorties that followed, 108,000 Turks and 29,088 Christians lost their lives. These casualties included 280 Venetian noblemen, a figure equivalent to roughly a quarter of the Grand Council.
It does not refer of any Cretans anywhere in that text, let alone conscripted by the ottomans to labor on the siege works, as the article of wikipedia claims. 
I want to ask, is this encyclopedia or a place to hate on anyone we don't like?
I will keep the citation [37] there, and I will transfer to the article what actually referred on the citation. For start.W5ry3 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just thought it weird, especially since the wiki specified that it's Venetian's claim. Allslsl (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli to the infobox was done by a probable WP:BLOCKEVADE IP in August 2023 ([1]). The infobox should be a summary of the article, but of course the latter doesn't mention any of this. The inclusion is also a little odd given that, notwithstanding their varying levels of local autonomy, these are still part of the Ottoman Empire, the main belligerent. The cited source added by the IP (p.47 here), is a little vague on the issue, mentioning in passing "naval reinforcements to the center". Are there any other sources making this clearer? R Prazeres (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Algiers, it's more accurate to speak about being part of the an Ottoman commonwealth,[2] by the 17th century, it had its own foreign policy, Ali Bitchin refused to join the cretan war when he was asked to by Sultan Ibrahim, after the death of Ali Bitchin, Algiers joined the war with 50 ships[3] or 80 according to Saidouni[4]. Even after the war ended, Algiers still sent its corsairs against Venice since the peace with the Sublime porte didn't really matter for Algiers at this point. So it's reasonable for me to let Algiers in the infobox per sources, It was an autonomous state after all and it did join ottoman wars later on such as here. Dunno about Tripoli though. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Then it would be useful to briefly mention some of this in the article, along with any similar details regarding Tunis and Tripoli. R Prazeres (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)