Talk:Battle of Zenta

Editing sourced content

@Qaayush529 Please do not edit a citation to make it say something not supported by the source. It is important to maintain text–source WP:INTEGRITY and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The citation from the source says: "The victory ultimately led to the 1699 Treaty of Karlowitz, which signalled the end of Ottoman dominance in Europe." not the end of Ottoman threat in central Europe. The content in the article as been edited to reflect the source used. Please follow WP guidelines and discus on TP if you wish, thank you. Aeengath (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I did provided the reasoning for the edit and the current underlying problem in that statement. Oh well anyways 103.81.215.214 (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You did and your reasoning made sense but articles on WP cannot contain original research and the material presented needs to be directly supported by sources. Aeengath (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Casualty figures in Infobox

Hello @Woxic1589, I’ve removed the label "Western claim / Turkish claim" as it constitutes editorial synthesis and implies a false balance. All major modern academic works: Faroqhi (Cambridge History of Turkey III), Clodfelter (2008), Grant (2017), Parker (1996) and Chandler (1990) give approximately 30,000 Ottoman losses, which represents the prevailing scholarly consensus.

A single tertiary Ottoman reference, Afyoncu (TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi), summarising older chronicles (Nusretnâme, Kantemir), notes that "some Ottoman sources" put the figure at around 7–8,000. This is a minority historiographical view, already reflected in the existing efn note, not an alternative consensus. If additional modern sources supported it, it could of course be reconsidered.

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION, that minority estimate belongs in a footnote rather than being presented as a co-equal figure in the infobox. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

‘’This is a minority historiographical view’’, no, its not, or at least, that should not be the point. Just because ‘’Western sources’’ outnumber the Ottoman/Turkish ones, doesn’t mean we should ignore it on the infobox. And considering the fact that this page, like many other pages that involve the Ottomans and other eastern Empires, is heavily western sourced, doesn’t mean that they should get the priority. Its heavily one sided by just mentioning Western Sourced figures/numbers on the infobox and on the rest of the page. Just a note that many won’t even see, is in my opinion not enough. With this logic, we should just mention only western sourced figures on any battle page that involves the Ottomans, considering they all outnumber the Ottoman/Turkish sources. Woxic1589 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Woxic1589, I actually work quite a bit on Ottoman-era subjects (lately expanding Lala Shahin Pasha), so I completely understand the need to represent Ottoman historiography fairly. The footnote placement wasn’t meant to hide the Ottoman estimate only to avoid implying that both figures carry equal scholarly weight.

The modern 30k range isn’t simply a repetition of Austrian reports, historians such as Faroqhi, Finkel, Wheatcroft, and Parker have revisited the campaign using both Ottoman and European archival sources. Their work represents modern, international scholarship rather than "Western" bias. Labelling these studies as "Western" overlooks the fact that this field today is collaborative and draws heavily on Ottoman materials and perspectives. If we were comparing contemporary reports from 1697, that distinction might be relevant but not with modern peer-reviewed studies.

That said, I hear your point about "a note that many won’t even see" so maybe a version like below would work, what do you think?

Casualties (Ottoman): ≈ 30 000 killed, wounded or drowned (majority of modern studies); 7–8 000 losses (Ottoman chronicles)

Aeengath (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That last one makes more sense indeed, so I agree on that. My point was not necessarily about western sources not being reliable or anything like that, but just to make sure that sources from both sides, even if outnumbered, are represented on Wikipedia. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean about wanting sources from both sides to be represented that’s a fair goal. It’s just important to remember that Wikipedia weighs views by their prominence in reliable scholarship, not by the number or nationality of sources. So while all significant perspectives should be included, giving "both sides" equal space when one is much less represented in modern research can lead to what WP:FALSEBALANCE calls a misleading impression of parity (see also WP:DUE). Glad we’re agreed on that version, appreciate the constructive discussion. I'll update the article accordingly. Aeengath (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Woxic1589 I’ve slightly adjusted the wording to align more closely with what the source (TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi) actually says namely that "some Ottoman sources" report around 7–8 000 losses. The revised line now reads:

30,000 killed, wounded, or drowned (according to most modern studies; 7,000–8,000 losses (according to some Ottoman chronicles.

This keeps the balance we agreed on but makes the attribution fully accurate to the source text per WP:TSI. Aeengath (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Woxic1589 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)