Talk:Battle of Vaslui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review Battle of Vaslui has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articles Battle of Vaslui has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.

Contents

[edit] Merge?

What exactly does merging mean, as in this case? And what exactly could we merge? I mean, the [Battle of Vaslui]] is a somehow complete Encylopedia article, while the other article is a stub. The little info that you find in the stub, you can find in the article.

I think the name "Battle of Vaslui" is a better choice for Wikipedia in English. I mean, if someone reads the title "Podul Inalt", what would it tell them? Not much. They would be as confused as the Turks in that fog...

A redirection from the Podul Inalt-article to the Battle of Vaslui-article, would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anittas (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC).

I thought I had it signed and you unsigned it. Ignore my question... --Anittas 23:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suleyman versus Suleiman versus Sulejman versus Soliman

You persist on using the other two version of the names; so far, you have used:

1. Suleiman; and 2. Sulejman

Both of these personas lived in the 19th century, respectively, 17th century. Your anachronistic sources could mislead people. The Suleyman that we are talking about, in this article, lived in the 15th century. Do you understand the difference between the 15th-, 17th-, and 19th century?

I admit that they might have shared the exact, similar name, and I could speculate that scholars made a distinguishment in their spelling in order to not cause confusion on who is who; and as you can see from the articles that I've posted, they usually use my version of the name, namely with the letter 'Y'.

Another version of the name is Soliman. Either way, at least I have something to back up my claims with - I have the articles that I have posted - and you could argue that they cannot be taken in consideration, but if you do that, I expect you to present your case on why we shouldn't use Suleyman, and why we should use your version, instead. I mean, really: I don't care how we spell his name, so long we get the message across. But don't you agree that it's silly to link this persona to different personas that lived many centuries after the initial death of the first one?

--Anittas 22:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in the Battle of Vaslui (which I had never heard of) or in this mysterious general (whom I had never heard of either). My only interest in the article was because of some English which needed to be tidied. I'd like to move on now, and take this Battle of Vaslui off my watchlist.
I think the problem is that there is no article for Suleyman Pasha; the link is currently a dead one. According to Wikipedia, which of course is not infallible, the Battle of Vaslui took place in 1475, Sulejman Pasha was around in 1614, and Suleiman Pasha was around in 1877.
I suppose the solution is to agree on a spelling – I don't suppose there is a "correct" version of the spelling – and then either to create an article for this Suleyman, or simply to leave it unlinked. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I got no issues with you. I was replying to your good friend, Mr. Oxford. Of course you have no interest in the subject of this article - neither does he. He's here to break me down, bit by bit. Either way, if he's the philosopher that he claims to be, then he'll be playing by the 'rules' and he will present his case on why we should use his version of the name.

I already presented mine by showing that the popularity of my version is used a lot more, than his version of the name. In fact, I've never seen his version of the name being used anywhere. What is he basing it on? I will now await his reply. --Anittas 22:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside Anittas' customary aggression and melodramatics, the point is that "Suleyman" is a somewhat old-fashioned transliteration, the usual modern preference being "Suleiman" (I didn't use "Sulejman" in the article; I mistakenly linked to it). I've asked for a citation for Anittas' version, and he's declined to produce one (except for other articles that he's written). If he were an editor who had shown himself to be careful, knowledgeable, and trustworthy in the past, I'd probably give him the befit of the doubt, but he has consistently been none of those things, and I'm disinclined to switch from the normal modern form on his say so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to check my article that you have successfully managed to terrorize into pieces; I told you to check the articles that I've used as references. Scroll down and see the links. I ask you for your citation. My back up are in those references. And you justify your abuse by reverting the article by saying that Suleyman is an old fashioned style of transliteration? First of all, even if it were old fashioned, it would still be good. Secondly, prove to me that it's old fashioned and that your version is more acceptable.

Before you ask someone else to prove his case, you should be able to prove yours - and so far, you haven't done that. You're not even knowledgeable in this subject. You're here to give me a hard time. That's so pathetic. Seriously, that's pathetic. --Anittas 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Süleyman vs. Suleiman

  • Süleyman is the current Turkish spelling, not an "old-fashioned" spelling, like Mel claims. There was a president of Turkey named Süleyman Demirel.
  • Suleiman is indeed an older English spelling.

bogdan | Talk 09:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nice to have an adult contributing to the discussion. Thanks for the help. As we're talking about a fifteenth-century person, what should the spelling be? Do you know anything about him, in fact? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! --Anittas 09:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish lake

Saying that the Ottomans wanted to "turn the Black Sea into a Turkish lake", sounds pretty clear to me. The term has been used in similar contexts, such as when saying that the Mediterranean was a "Roman Lake" (Mare Nostrum).

See google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-18%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=mediterranean+roman+lake

But, whatever... --Anittas 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's generally best to avoid flowery language in favour of straightforward, plain English; aside from anything else, we can't assume that everyone will be familiar with the cognate uses. Incidentally, thought the English phrase has been used, doesn't "Mare Nostrum" just mean "our sea"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Mare Nostrum" means "our sea", but in English, they seem to say the "Roman Lake"; probably because people wouldn't know what "our sea" would refer to. It's all cool. --Anittas 18:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Which Suleyman?

Suluyman Pasha was a great warrior, but unlucky (may Allah be merciful to him), and dust from his feet was swept away from history in Turkey. So I understand it is difficult now to find out detais about him. The first external link says he was "Beylerbey of Rumelia", and I corrected the article accordingly. But Anittas reverted this pointing out that this wikipedia's article says they were two different persons.

I trust Allah will help someone to figure out this contradiction. Mukadderat 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Suleyman, as far as I know, was the general who was preoccupied with the siege in Albania, and Beylesbey of Rumelia was the governer of Rumelia. Two different people, no? Stefan was victorious in 24 of his 36 battles against the Turks, so it couldn't all have been badluck for you. --Anittas 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Allah will give you more wisdom in due time, meanwhile other may think over a possibility that beylerbeys were great warriors (I trust you don't think that "Beylerbey" is a personal name). For example, Jegen Pasha fought even against Sultan himself. So I see no reason why a beylerbey could not besiege Scutari. Please be advised that "beylerbey ("bey of beys") of Rumelia" was a governor of the whole European part of the Ottoman Empire, and I find it very improbable that in such a great battle some "general" was superior in command to the beylerbey.

I still trust Allah will help someone to figure out this contradiction. Mukadderat 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, correct it, but don't make it confusing. --Anittas 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I was not clear enough. I simply noticed a contradiction between two sources. I am seeking an advice from men of knowledge and not saying that I am right. I have suspicions here, but not knowledge. Mukadderat 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When I read articles about the battle, I read that Suleyman joined the Beylesbey of Rumelia in Sofia and advanced towards Moldavia. Perhaps I misread, or perhaps they were wrong. I really don't know. The sources that I've read didn't mention about this. --Anittas 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for an explanation. I never said that a wikipedian invented this. All I am saying is that two texts say different things. My own attempts to figure it out failed. For example I failed to find who was beylerbey at this time using all reasonable spellings in several languages. Anyway, this is not really a life-and-death question, so I will not pursue the issue further and leave it in Allah's hands. Mukadderat 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sa's ed-Din

The article says:

"The Ottoman chronicler Sa's ed-Din wrote that the majority of the Turkish army was killed."

I don't know sa's ed-din (or "sa'as ed-din", or "... ad-din" or "saseddin", etc. or variants of "Saad-Din" ) chronicler. May be the name is misspelt more strongly. In this case, please provide reference where this information came from. Mukadderat 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he's reffering to Sa'd al-Din b. Hasan Djan b. Hafiz Muhammad Isfahani Khodja Efendi aka Hoca Sadeddin Efendi , the author of Tadj al-tawarikh (Tac-üt-Tevarih) . Anonimu 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. I'm going to re-add it. --Anittas 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mara

Also "According to Mara, a widow of..." truly looks like a text added by troll, ignorant of Muslim traditions: a "widow" saying such things will be quickly impaled, not to say that her word would be of any historical record. Mukadderat 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very cute, but I think (tho I'm not sure) that she was Serb and she returned to Serbia. I don't know if she was a Muslim. Are you an Arab or something? I don't think that Turks impaled or stoned women. --Anittas 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I stay corrected here. It was Maryam, younger wife of Mehmet II. Mukadderat 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it was Mara Branković, who after her husband's death, returned to Serbia. I am making research as we speak. Btw., it's not nice to stone/impale women for speaking out, writing history, or whatever. It's kind of gay, actually. --Anittas 05:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I already restored. If you are making research, you may want to write a small article about her. Indeed, she was notable. Mukadderat 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Everybody was summarily killed in Ottoman Empire for speaking out, so it was rather bisex than gay. Mukadderat 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, but I still say she was widow of Murad II, not Mehmed II. Mehmed was still alive, so she couldn't have been his widow. --Anittas 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course Murad. I just got confused because she played her woman tricks during Mehmet II rule. A lesson to me: not to write out of memory. Mukadderat 05:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I followed your advice and started an article about her. Check it out. --Anittas 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldavian-Romanian

Do not remove the word "Romanian" which is written in paranthesis. Romania as a state did not exist, but the identity of Vlach existed. The language was called "romaneste". --Anittas 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Vlach/Wallachia is not Moldavia. Also unfortunately, Moldavia is neither Romania nor Moldova today. Mukadderat 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Moldavia was also called Vlacho-Moldavia, just like Wallachia was called Ungro-Wallachia. Moldavians called their language "limba romana" and they identified themselves as Vlachs (we know this from Miron Costin, Grigore Ureche, and Dimitrie Cantemir. Stefan was Dracula's cousin. In English, Moldavia is refered to Romanian part of Moldova. --Anittas 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Moldavia link refers to old Principality of Moldavia. Reference to Romania is anachronism. Once again, we don't call Ottoman Empire "Turkey". Grigore Ureche called their land how? "Limba romana" is irrelevant. Americans call their "English language", but the country is USA. Mukadderat 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I said nothing about the name of the land. I said what his ethnicity/herritage was. The Ottoman Empire was the Ottoman Empire, but people still called them Turks. We also called them Turks. It's like saying that Saxons were Germans. --Anittas 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if you speak about ethhicity, you have to speak in terms of these times. And he was born in Moldavia, not in Romania. By the way, I don't see why the ethnicity of a ruler must be discussed in every article he is mentioned. What relevant to this article is that he was ruler or Moldavia, and it would make no difference, even if he was Jew. When we speak about historical Saxonia, we call them "Saxons". And there were, e.g., Transylvanian Saxons, not "Transylvanian Germans". Mukadderat 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course he was born in Moldavia, but Moldavians are Vlachs. See Dragos. I did say he was Moldavian, but I also wrote Romanian in paranthesis because some might not know what Moldavians are. Most will know what Saxons are, but not what Moldavians are. It has nothing to do with the name of the country. --Anittas 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Still, after reading who Vlachs are, I say that to call him "Romanian" is an anachronism. Did Cantemir call him Romanian prince? And people may easily know about Moldavia by clicking the link. And "most" don't know who the heck Saxons are. Mukadderat 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Cantemir said (more or less) that Moldavians are Romanians. --Anittas 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I asked a wrong question and you gave a weasel answer. Of course, Moldavians are Romanians, just like Saxons are Germans. But was it common at these times call everyone "Romanian voivode", rather than "Transylvanian", "Wallahian", "Moldavian"? Mukadderat 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not common. That's why I wrote that he was Moldavian and Romanian in paranthesis. It's just an explanation of what Moldavians are. It's no big deal. It's just an explanation. --Anittas 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the stuff you said about not to be confused with modern Moldova, because in both Romanian and Moldovan, the name is Moldovean and there is no distinguishment between Moldavians on the left side of the Prut and those over the right side of the Prut. Sometimes, we refer to them as Bessarabians, but that's all. In English, however, the name Moldavian and Moldovan are used to make the difference between the Moldavians living in Republic of Moldova, and those in Romania. I also removed what I had said about Suleyman and the beylerby of Rumelia invading together. You were right: Sumeyman was the beylerby. --Anittas 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anittas! You are here defending Romania as well! I am pleasantly surprized with your polite discussion! (Well, not exactly surprized. As you remember, I always saw difference between you and Bonaparte. ) I trust you restore other small useful changes you deleted during revert, like wikilinks and other small things. Please learn to use the version comparison function to check what you are reverting. mikka (t) 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored most of the wikilinks that were lost under the change and I also readded the Sa'd al-Din source. I don't think one needs to repeat the same wikified links. For example, we don't need to wikify Moldavian every time we write it, because the name is repeated quite often in the article. But yeah, there were some useful wikilinks that were lost during the change. I have ordered the complete chronicles of Jan Dlugosz translated into English from Amazon and will be able to read his complete writings on Stefan. It cost me over 70 pounds :(. Anonimu, if you're interested in the text, let me know. I don't think you can find it online - just parts of it - but we'll see. I hope I'm not going to be dissapointed. --Anittas 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, may I ask you, why you restored wikilink to Akinci, but did not for Călăraşi (cavalry), (eee eg Călăraşi (disambiguation)) Viteji, Curten? Do you think these terms do not deserve articles? I thought you were Romanian... 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't think they deserve their own article for the simple fact that our military tradition was not as rich as those of other empires (compare to Byzantine or Western Europe). Calarasi were just a light cavalry as any other light cavalry. I don't see them as a unique unit, but if you persist, you can wikify calarasi and Viteji, etc., however, I don't think much is known about these units. I read that the Moldavian archer cavalry learned Tatar tactics of making hit-and-run attacks and they did great when they fought the Teotonic knights in Poland and in Moldavia, but I'm not sure which of these units used these tactics. There are no articles on this subject and I don't think any articles will be started on this subject. If someone does start an article on these units, it will be a poor stub consisting of one or two sentences. Perhaps Anonimu knows more about the subject at hand and he could tell us more about the units. Either way, I don't care. Wikify them if you must. --Anittas 17:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter whether they were unique units or not. It matters though that (1) moldavian cavalry existed and (2) not described in wikipedia yet. mikka (t) 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I will 'fix' this problem on Thursday or Friday, assuming that I get the book by then. If not, then next week. --Anittas 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
i suppose you bought the annales. sincerely, i wouldn't have paid 70 pounds, even if there are pretty high chances that there are mentions about my ancestors. and i know next to nothing about moldavian units from middle ages Anonimu 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1316.topic

Umm, yeah, it was me who posted that, but I've already included the relevant sources for this article. I also included some of those sources for Republic of Moldova and its history. --Candide, or Optimism 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Battle

The image is from battle of Obertyn of Petru Rares (Halley comet is depicted as in 22 aug 1531) still it is strange that the polish flag seems ottoman.CristianChirita

You're right. I started a new article: Battle of Obertyn. I added the image there, where it rightfully belongs. Thx for the info, Cristian. You guys add the right categories, etc., and anything else that would matter. --Candide, or Optimism 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief apology

In my last edit summary (→Background - I know that it sounds clumsier this way, but JH was only a governor and died in 1956. His son ruled from 1958, his predecessor was Ladislaus V.) there were 2 little errors, that you've probably already noticed - of course, JH died in 1456, and his son ruled from 1458. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, dude. It was just an edit and an honest mistake. --Candide, or Optimism 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References section

In the references section: publisher information would be useful, as would information about original date of publication, plus date of publication of edition used. Also, given that I gather that many of these are older works, I imagine that they are out of copyright and some of them may be available on line, at least in some language; does anyone know if any of them are? - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of people present at the battle

I'm guessing that the many statements of "120,000 Turks" derive from Stephen's contemporaneous letter. Assuming that is true, we might want to footnote a bit differently, with a single footnote first citing Stephen's letter, then indicating the other sources that used the same number. - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] İskenderiye

Does this mean anything else here than Alexandria? That is, is there a place distinct from Alexandria known as İskenderiye? If not, (1) we should say "Alexandria" because that is the normal English name, and it is a well-known place; (2) we should add redirects from both İskenderiye and Iskenderiye to Alexandria. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It means Shkodër, so I replaced the Turkish name with the Albanian name. --Candide, or Optimism 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links and non-links

  1. Why not link Barnaba and Racovica? (I added links, Anittas removed.) Conversely, if we are going to bold them (if this is all there is to say about them), then those names should redirect here. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Should Humor Monastery link to Gura Humorului? Or is there a more appropriate link? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't like to link to non-existing articles. The red link makes it look ugly. And no, the name of the monastary is Humor, while Gura Humorului is the name of a region. --Candide, or Optimism 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you may not like to do it, but if you are going for FA status, which I understand was the point of asking me to help, it's what we're supposed to do: it indicates articles that need to be written. Similar issue on Isaac Bey: either he deserves an article, or he doesn't & should redirect to this article.
As for Humor Monastery: either it deserves an article and should have a link, or it should be mentioned in the article on the most relevant geographic location and that should be linked. If that is something other than Gura Humorului, fine; I don't know the geography of this region at all well, so I have no other suggestion. - Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Similarly, if Ţepeluş ruled a country for a time, he probably deserves an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not every name and place must have an article. Just look at how Jimbo deleted my article about Jeremy Rosenfeld two times, yet that guy is mentioned in several articles. Tepelus could have his own article, but not even he did a big deal. Other encyclopedias mention names and places without giving them their own articles; take EB for example: they mention Henri Coanda in an article about fluids, but they don't have an article about him. Those settlements were probably some village that existed back then, which now no-one cares about. I don't know it my self. What could we write in an article about them, except the fact that a battle occurred near their location? I'm not going to write an article about every tree, village, and puddle from Moldavia, as you guys do to that city you call Bucharest. Yes, the Moldavian monastaries deserve their own article. I might make one. Too bad we have no photos of them, but the Bucharestneans are too busy writing about some street or alley. --Candide, or Optimism 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Amazing not to have an article about Coandă. Not that our article on him is a prize article, but that just shows that Britannica has holes. It is generally Wikipedia's policy that any city, town, or village, past or present, is a legitimate topic; within cities, we often get down to neighborhoods. Hence, the red link serves as an appropriate reminder of an unwritten article. I'm not going to fight it out further: just remarking that probably that is the right way to go if you want the article featured.
I don't get why you feel that the Bucharesters should get out to Moldavia and take photos. Why not take them yourself, or try to recruit people who live near there to do so? People mostly write about what intersects their own lives. How could one expect it to be otherwise? - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly confusing sentence

"The Ottoman army consisted of Janissaries and heavy infantry, which were supported by the heavy cavalry sipahis and light cavalry — known as Akinci, which would scout ahead…" A few things: (1) probably should be "who" instead of "which" (2) is there a reason "sipahis" is lower case and "Akinci" upper case? (3) are we saying both cavalries would scout ahead, or (as I'm guessing) only the light cavalry? If the latter, the punctuation should be "…light cavalry—known as Akinci—who would scout ahead…" - Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the light cavalry would scout ahead. --Candide, or Optimism 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. And the thing about capitalization? - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And another: "Each piece of artillery was prepared to fire at least 7 times." Meaning ammunition was available to fire at least seven times? or what? - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's what it means. --Candide, or Optimism 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another: "…which all able-bodied free males over the age of 14 had to join." Meaning "…into which all able-bodied free males over the age of 14 were conscripted"? Or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, dude. That's what it means. Lol... --Candide, or Optimism 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"…harassing their advance…" is (slightly) ambiguous: "…harassing their advance guard…" (the troops in front) or "…interfering with the process of their advance…" (their forward motion). - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how make it sound. "Interfering with the progress of their advance" sounds as if Bill Gates was competing with AoL. It was war and it should sound like it. The Moldavians wanted to delay their advance so that they would inflict fatigue on the Ottomans. They didn't want to interfere with the progress of their march, because that couldn't be stopped. I'll be back in 3-4h. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "…harassing the Ottoman army's advance…"? Less likely to be read the other way. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I went for "Troops who specialised in setting ambushes harassed the advancing Ottomans." - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Those Ottoman soldiers who managed to survive the attacks from the artillery and the archers, and who did not get caught in the marshes, had to confront the Moldavian army, together with the Szekely soldiers further up the valley." Are we saying they first had to confront the Moldavian army, then, further up the valley the Szekely soldiers? Or that further up the valley, they confronted both? In the former case this should be "…had to confront the Moldavian army and, further up the valley, the Szekely soldiers." In the latter case it should be "Further up the valley those Ottoman soldiers … had to confront the Moldavian army and the Szekely soldiers." - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Still unaddressed. Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm, it's supposed to read that they had to confront both the Szekely's and the Moldavian pro army. --Candide, or Optimism 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Ottoman casualties were counted as 45,000…" Casualties is always a bit ambiguous: dead, or dead and wounded? - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one survived except the guy whose life was spared and the trophies that were sent to the Pope, Matthias and the Polish king. That means that everyone that was captured, was killed. The article is very specific on this; therefore, the captured is included as part of the casualties. The sources don't mention how many were captured, except a German chronicle which was confused and said the Turks invaded with 20,000. LOL! --Candide, or Optimism 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "captured". The question is, does casualties here mean "dead" or "dead plus wounded"? I suspect the former, in which case "casualties" is an ill-chosen word. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The sources are not very specific on this, but let's say that it's the former. --Candide, or Optimism 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just so I don't seem like I have nothing but quibbles...

…I'm really glad to see a citation for "dark and misty". - Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, you asked for my assessment in terms of possible FA.

  1. It's a good article (and, indeed, I just stuck {{GA}} on it, which I'm pretty sure will remain).
  2. There is is a bit of a POV from the Moldavian / Romanian / Christian side. That will not probably be easy to fix. I've seen (and participated in) articles that are worse in this respect (consider the very title of Disaster of Annual: no Morrocan calls it that! To them, it was a victory!), but if you are going for FA, then this becomes an issue. There is nothing that needs toning down, but you (or someone) will need to find and add more material on what the Turks and their allies were doing and thinking, on what their correspondence was, on how this fits the arc of their history.
  3. The citation style (how each work is mentioned) in the footnotes is a bit non-standard (you might look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, and the list of references could use more on publishers, dates, etc., to make it clear what editions were used and when things were originally published. I see that when this was a FAC before, people really hammered on the references; I gather it's come a long way. I'd be interested to know if someone else would feel that any specific statements that lack citations require them. Nothing leapt out at me, though I may take another look. Offhand, I would not consider the current state of this objectionable, but I suspect others would.
  4. Up above, where you say "I don't like to link to non-existing articles. The red link makes it look ugly." This is your prerogative, but it's not the way to get the article featured. One solution is to write at least solid stubs for the four or five topics involved. Half a dozen or fewer red links, most of them to moderately obscure geographic locations, won't stop the article from being featured. Adamantly refusing to link what should be linked will.
  5. Other than that: my knowledge of the time and place is not vast, but, from what I know, this seems to cover the bases. Other than the three points above, and the few ambiguities we haven't yet addressed, I don't see any active objections to it being a featured article. I'm not sure whhether I'd actively support it (I've only actively supported about 15 articles for FA status in my roughly 2-1/2 years here), but if those issues are addressed, and assuming that there are no glaring omissions that an expert would be aware of but I am not, I can't see any other active objections to FA status.
  6. As for what it would take to get my active support: probably adding a section contextualizing how this fits into the sweep of history for the region and for the various empires and states concerned. - Jmabel | Talk 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, most sources speak of the Moldavians and not so much about the Turks. The Turks are mentioned in the next battle, in 1476, when the Poles sent an envoy, etc. I will try and see if I can fish for more info on the Turks, but it's hard. All their souces on this battle are like, "the evil infidel won."

Yes, they did hammer me for the sources and references. I don't know when some of those other references have been published. I've tried to find out, but so far, no luck. I've asked the Turks, but most Turks know little about their own history. I've answered point number 4 above this subject. I'm waiting for another book to arrive by April 5 and I hope to find more info there. Thanks for your time and contribution. --Candide, or Optimism 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V0.5 review

A very good article; I believe I already made that comment at one point ;-) Unfortunately, it's somewhat too narrow a topic for the very small 0.5 release; I've moved it to the held nominations page, where it will be considered for inclusion in one of the later releases. Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what 0.5 is, or how it affects this article, but this article still awaits another update that will fix some problems. The Night Attack was written in order to cover the background section of this article. The two conflicts relate to each other, as does Battle of Baia, but unfortunatelly, the article doesn't make that very clear. I don't have a lot of time on my hands, now, but before Baia and another article is rewritten, this article will still await the update. When everything will be finished, it will look better, but I'm not sure if it's going to be FA worthy (if we consider the highest standard). However, it doesn't really have to be FA. --Candide, or Optimism 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night Attack

Anittas points out that the Night Attack (1462) is over a decade earlier. If it belongs here at all, it does not belong in "aftermath". - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lacking response, I will remove. - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand this

"The battle lasted for four days where the fleeing Ottoman army was pursued by the Moldavian light cavalry and the 2,000-strong Polish cavalry for three days until they reached the town of Obluciţa (now Isaccea, Romania), in Dobruja." Is that seven days in all, or what? Can someone explain the sentence to me? Metamagician3000 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and I was intending to fix it. Iorga says 3 days; the doc says 4 days. I'll fix it l8r. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Vaslui_6548.html"