# Talk:Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573)

It has been suggested that Cyprus massacre be merged into this article. The massacre, which is already mentioned in this article, appears to be independently notable, there seems to be significant detail about it in various reliable sources. Whether it should be merged is probably a judgement call based on whether there is likely to be enough information available about the massacre by itself to create a full-length article. Another option would be for this article to summarise the massacre and link to Cyprus massacre as the main article on the subject. As a side-note, the massacre article is subject to periodic challenges from editors who deny its historicity and/or claim it is an Armenian invention. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The massacres are certainly not an Armenian (or anyone else's) invention. However, the point in merging the two is simple: the massacres did not happen independently, they were part of the war, and occurred within the context of military operations. The most notable case, the 20,000 people killed at Nicosia, was a direct result of the city's siege. Furthermore, the "massacre" is not a single event, but a series of events that occurred as cities fell, after prolonged resistance, to the Ottomans. It is therefore not really possible to separate the massacres from the military events that led to them, and since relevant information is rather scant, an article solely about the massacre would make little sense and provide no additional information, but rather be an invitation for interminable POV fighting. Constantine   ✍  13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My concerns with the general argument that "a massacre should not have its own article when it was an aspect of an ongoing war" are that it equates war with civilian massacres, and could be used by some editors as an excuse to hide historically notable and politically or culturally embarassing massacres away within war articles. We do suffer from a lot of nationalistic editing, and it may get subtler as Wikipedia becomes progressively resistent to it. For this reason, I think the standard we should be using is whether any massacre was notable independantly of a war. The question thus becomes whether there is significant coverage of the massacre in independant reliable sources, per notability. The same applies to any event that occurs in the context of a war - assassinations, human rights violations, anti-war protests, economic war-footings, specific battles, etc. They should have (and in practice usually do have have) separate articles from the war if they are notable in their own right. Also, just as there might be a single article on protest against a war, even though in practice there were multiple protests events at different times and places, a massacre that is somewhat spread across time and space but clearly part of a single movement can be covered in one article. If you agree with this principle, then we could move to examining whether there is significant coverage of this massacre, in other words the width and depth of coverage of the massacre in independant reliable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the equation of war with civilian massacres is factually wrong. Historical experience shows that the two were always closely intertwined, especially during sieges (as in Cyprus), and in historical periods before the establishment of formal rules of war, civilians were very much legitimate prey. However, I do understand and support your second concern, namely that the event itself would be buried beneath the other facts of this (and any other) war. Perhaps if we create separate articles on the sieges of Nicosia and Famagusta, the massacres will feature more prominently (e.g. the Tripoli Massacre). However, if a separate article on the massacre remains, there are two things to note: a) it will be very short and reliant for context upon either this article or dedicated ones for the sieges, and b) it will have to be renamed to be accurate, e.g. 1571 Cyprus massacres. Constantine   ✍  21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If the massacres were all associated with specific seiges, then having an article for each seige that describes the related massacres in whatever detail is available in sources could be appropriate. That should give the massacres appropriate weight (for their notability) within the articles, as opposed to within the war article where they would be a side-note. There should not be a separate article just for the massacres if it will be "very short" forever, because that indicates a lack of significant coverage in sources. However, if there is significant coverage of the massacres, and especially if they were not solely related to seiges, then a single article on the massacres may be the most appropriate. The naming issue should be discussed separately from this merging discussion. The question here comes down to whether there is significant detail about the massacres in reliable sources, enough to write a dedicated article. Do you have access to the sources cited in the article to see what level of detail they have? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points. However, I don't have access to these sources. You can find a number of sources in Lardayn's talk page however, including a first-hand account. Personally, I don't think there is sufficient coverage for a separate article about the massacres, and the other reason I am reluctant to support it is because when massacres start being lumped together, one might get the impression that they were part of an organized scheme, which, AFAIK, is not the case. Constantine   ✍  19:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I'll have a look through the sources you've listed on his talk page. They should be added to the article if they are RS. I'm not concerned about having an article that groups a set of historically related massacres, because the article itself can make it clear that they were not an "organised scheme", if that's what the sources say. The article could have a section for each massacre within the group, if there's sufficient detail on each. But it all depends on whether there is significant enough coverage for a full article. You seem more knowledgeable than me regarding what sources are available, but I'd like to look thoroughly at the sources before we reach a conclusion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through your sources now. I'm inclined to agree that based on the sources we have, there may not be enough material to ever write a full-length article on the massacre(s). Of course, it's always hard to know whether other sources are available that may give more detail. For example, one of your sources refers to a Cyprian source, and that source may contain more detailed information. However, if more detailed sources come to light later then the massacre article could be re-created, perhaps with a more appropriate name. Based on the sources currently available, I'm satisfied that merging the massacre article into this article is probably the best course of action. The massacre article could perhaps be redirected here. I believe it would be appropriate for the massacres to be given a little more weight here, given their gravity, perhaps including a mention in the lead. If individual articles for the seiges are ever created, then even more weight could be given to the ensuing massacres. This article is very impressive, by the way. Well written, detailed, and very easy to follow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Peace and aftermath: "...and Venice paid an indemnity of 300,000 ducats."
I'm sure it's a lot (it's a deal between nations after all), but the scale of what this much money means is completely lost on me.
ls it normal for the losing side to pay this much? Is it enough to cover the cost the Ottomans made to rebuild their fleet? Does the Venitian diplomat deserve praise for reducing it to that amount, or is he terrible for allowing it go through? Etc etc.
So I think expanding this part could really improve readers' ability to understand the story  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allslsl (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) 

What is a ducat is the first question? Tripolilegend (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@R PrazeresIt seem from 1570 both ottoman And barbary pirates were threatening the Christian fleet (https://books.google.com.ly/books?id=_GlJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=Barbary+Pirates+Raid+Adriatic+sea+1570&hl=ar&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW6d2py5CFAxU9hP0HHQSLAc0Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Barbary%20Pirates%20Raid%20Adriatic%20sea%201570&f=false). Also is this what i should do be fore editing ? Tripolilegend (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)