Talk:Long Turkish War

message: I fixed a couple of words here and there to correct the English.
However:
"The combined Habsburg-Transylvanian force of approximately 45-50,000 troops was defeated by the Ottoman army, due to the fact that at one point of the battle, while considering victorious, the Christian soldiers started to plunder the Turkish camp." [pre-correction]
doesn't make much sense.  The stated reasoning doesn't explain why the Christian allies lost to the Turks.  Can someone modify this to clarify? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar corrected - need clarification? 

message: * This article is highly biased and this must be due to lack of reputable references and of citations. Only German language reference is dated 1596 and even though Austria is the main actor in this War, no other German language source is given.  There is no single Turkish reference. Turkish histories (even contemporary histories) of this period do exist and they are totally ignored. English references on general Ottoman history (say Turnbull or Shaw) and even English references specifically relating to this war exist (some even shown in "Talk" section) and there is no indication that these have been used. It depends on 2 Hungarian language and 1 Rumanian language sources and there is no way of determining how reputable or unbiased these sources are. There are very reputable English language sources of  Hungarian and Romanian history.  Except for just one paragraph of questionable citations, the article lacks totally in citations and, so far, the notices for need of citations that have been put into the text have been ignored. So this article, as it stands, is "not trustworthy", "non-objective" and "incomplete". Noyder (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of references, citations and bias

message: A  discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on major conflict infobox

message: I would be bold and move this to "Long Turkish War" straight off, since this is what English-speaking historians call it (searches on Google Books for the terms "Long Turkish War", "Fifteen Years' War" and "Long War" are revealing in this respect); but I thought I'd check that there are no objections first. Are there? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Long Turkish War]] 

message: There is no such language as Serbo-Croatian.
That was a construct of communist Yugoslavia.
Continuing to use that term is an insult to both the Serbian and Croatian people.
Is this another example of "Western-splaining"? 104.158.48.139 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You should write (Serbian: Дуги рат, Croatian: Dugi rat) 104.158.48.139 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Serbian also written with the Latin script? Also, while the term might be modern and artificial, I know enough to know that it's just a difference in script, and they are in effect fully mutually intelligible varieties of the same language for our purposes here. You needn't cast aspersions on editors in any case. Remsense诉 17:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbo-Croatian