Talk:Cretan War (1645–1669)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: So was the local population who feed the Turks during the siege?

message: 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, 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First of all Maniots was Cretans, and there are no Maniots in Peloponnesus anymore.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Missing a reference to a valid source

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the chapter Fall of Candia in the first lines say:
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:
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)
thread_title: Is this encyclopedia or a place to hate?

message: Just thought it weird, especially since the wiki specified that it's Venetian's claim. Allslsl (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there no Ottoman source for casualties? 

message: The inclusion of the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli to the infobox was done by a probable WP:BLOCKEVADE IP in August 2023 (). 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)
replies: text: Regarding Algiers, it's more accurate to speak about being part of the an Ottoman commonwealth, 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 or 80 according to Saidouni. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of North African regencies in infobox