Talk:Siege of Candia

Longest siege in history?
Another candidate for the longest siege in history is described here as follows (click "Search in this book"): "The Moors often beseiged Ceuta. one such investment beginning in 1674 lasting 26 years." Art LaPella (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. I knew that Ceuta was a contender for the record, but had not found a source giving the exact duration. Candia then slips to second place. Cplakidas (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations?
The "Siege" section could be improved by providing in-line citations for the claims made there. Kraken7 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion
The Knights of Malta are identified as belligerents in the infobox but appear nowhere in the article's text. Conversely, the French are identified as major participants in the article's text but appear nowhere in the infobox as belligerents. Kraken7 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, Merge, or Improve?
At present, this really isn't a very good article. It has a great deal of unsourced assertions (e.g. fault of Knights Hospitaller), factual inaccuracies ("longest siege ever" claim), and confusing aspects (infobox versus article); in fact, it lacks necessary inline citations entirely. Also, the much better Cretan War (1645-1669) article seems to cover the siege pretty well. So what's the best option?

-Delete - Just get rid of it as redundant and low-quality.

-Merge - Use what's available here and elsewhere to provide fuller detail in the aforementioned Cretan War article.

-Improve - Keep the independent Siege of Candia article and bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

I'll leave the article as is for now. If there's not much interest or consensus in the next couple weeks I'll just try to clean it up a little for the short term. Milhisfan (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The siege is distinct from the war. The article is indeed not up to scratch, but it deserved a separate existence. I have long wanted to work on it using the sources I used in the Cretan War article, but other commitments have come first, so far. If you can clean the article up and expand it, go ahead! Constantine  ✍  10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
The Ottomans have 60,000 soldiers, but the number of casualties is 118,754. Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokva26 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fact that the siege lasted for over twenty years? The strength in the infobox is for the final phase of the siege. Constantine  ✍  12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)