Talk:Ottoman conquest of Otranto

message: At the time of the Turkish attack on Otranto cannons could nicht be used to the extent the article describes - meaning that the citadel could not be breached by cannons...
The article repeats the traditional account regarding the 800 martyrs without taking into consideration that during the last 10 years new concepts have come to differing conclusions - see for instance: Hubert Houben (ed.), La conquista turca di Otranto (1480) tra storia e mito. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio Otranto - Muro Leccese, 28-31 marzo 2007", 2 vol., Congedo, Galatina 2008.--Ruggero1 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannons, Christian historiography 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22499327
Martyrs are eligible too, no proof of posthumous miracles required.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/question6191.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.151.38 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update -- were 813 *were* canonized, canonization does not require miracles 

message: this section title doesn't really fit, does it? 212.59.34.21 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're quite right. I've renamed it 'Capture' which seems to fit better. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterattack 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus for alternative Ottoman conquest of Otranto.  (non-admin closure)   (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottoman invasion of Otranto →  – Per commonname. Ottoman invasion of Italy is more frequent than Ottoman invasion of Otranto. The aim was not Otranto, but Italy as whole. Beshogur (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just your very links to Gbooks.  Look under "tools" in your search results, it shows the number. "Italy" 461 vs. "Otranto" 654. All invasions are grander in intention. The point of article titles that they are recognizable, and usually that's the achievement.  The text can go into intention - it should not assumed readers know that (or even that it is correct, I'm sure historians differ in interpretation of what the "real intention" or scope was - was it Apulia? southern Italy? Rome? Venice? All of Italy? Europe?  Was the landing force even large enough for any of these tasks?  If not, then we can doubt the "intention".  Maybe they just intended an advanced station towards controlling and projecting Ottoman power into the western Mediterranean, rather than territorial conquest per se. This is all interpretation, up for debate.)  But we do know the achievement - a landing and capture of Otranto. That's rather clear. So state what it is. The phrase "Ottoman invasion of Italy" is rather vague, and leads me to at least expect multiple simultaneous operations along other points of the the Italian coast.  But there weren't. It was concentrated and limited to Otranto, and that's what readers will recognize the article refers to. Walrasiad (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? How is Italy vague.  Is it to hard maybe for a quick research that other attacks were done as well. Ottoman invasion of Otranto is a misnomer, and maybe a wikipedia terminology, and 2010+ books may have been influenced from that. How is there an invasion of one single city. See also other sources mentioning the same by using some keywords from the article.  and source? I don't run on speculations.  Beshogur (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Babinger  this article is incomplete, and doesn't reflect many information about aims. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. You want to replace a clear descriptive title with murky speculation about intentions. Again, gbook RS numbers contradict you.  Finally, yes, Italy is extremely vague. It's a very large geographic area. Otranto, Taranto and Brindisi are close together in a small corner of just Apulia.  Indeed, the very source you cite limits the intention to these three ex-Byzantine towns, not "Italy". Walrasiad (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has literally "Invasion of Italy" section, and I'm not sure when it is added. What has Byzantines to do with this. Do you know when Byzantine Empire lost Italian peninsula? Do you know what bridgehead means, how military invasions work. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

text:  They didn't take anything else in Apulia. "Ottoman conquest of Otranto" is probably most accurate and certainly more descriptive and recognizable. Akin to hundreds of other conquests of citadels anywhere (e.g. Portuguese conquest of Goa and the like).  This can hardly be described as an invasion and even as the conquest of a citadel it was largely a failure. They took a town and left next year. Not particularly remarkable.  The average Aghlabid emir took more towns in southern Italy, and held them for many more years, without being characterized as an "invasion", much less "of Italy".  The article title should be descriptive.  The Ottoman conquest of Otranto will be clear and recognizable to readers.  Some mysterious "invasion of Italy" that never happened is just obscuring the content of the article and confusing readers for no good reason. Walrasiad (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 June 2023