Talk:Vlad the Impaler/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Conversion to Roman Catholicism

This whole (new) section is based on two (new) unreliable sources (currently listed as 11 and 12). I have removed the sources, inserted a 'Citation Needed' marker and unless the statements in the new section can be substantiated I will remove the whole section by end September 2013. Jens sn (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources in question are:

http://www.nndb.com/people/439/000113100 and http://www.e-scoala.ro/istorie/vlad.html neither of which have any credibility as per reliable source Jens sn (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New reference has been added (http://ufodigest.com/dracula2.html). It is not credible. The section and the new reference has been removed in its entirety as per the above warning. Jens sn (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

References Clean Up

I have for some time now tried to keep the list of references tidy in terms of credibility. I am now doing a sanitization as there are several references which appear more than once and there a still a few loose ends in terms of credibility.

Over and above cleaning up I thus intent to remove two references to "Andreescu; McNally & Florescu" and "Andreescu, McNally". as I write references 19 and 22. Neither of these references contain but the names of already references authors of other works. These references will be replaced by "citation missing" templates. All other changes will be documented herein.Jens sn (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The two non-existing references deleted as per above. Multiple references to Florescu/McNally unified into a single reference. Jens sn (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New reference "James Craig Holte (1 January 1997). Dracula in the Dark: The Dracula Film Adaptations. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-0-313-29215-6." is not a credible source for the historic Vlad Dracula. It is probably credible when it comes to Vampire movies. It has been removed and a Citation Missing template inserted. Jens sn (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

New reference 'Porter, Ray. "The Historical Dracula". Retrieved 1 January 2014.' is not credible. It has been removed. Jens sn (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Vlad Tepes

I know this has sort of been covered but why does the title use his cognomen at all? I know he's most commonly known as "The Impaler" but what's wrong with using his actual name and having Vlad The Impaler redirect to it? This seems kind of unacademic, Ted Kaczynski's article isn't titled "Ted Kaczynski The Unabomber", Reinhard Heydrich's isn't "Reinhard Heydrich The Butcher of Prague". In my opinion it should be "Vlad Tepes III, Prince of Wallachia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Some historical rulers are more widely known through their cognomen than through their “real” name. I would say that Vlad is more widely known as Vlad the Impaler than as Vlad III and therefore should be called with that name. Naming the article Vlad Tepes doesn’t really make sense, since “Tepes” means the Impaler in Romanian and as long as this is an English page, the title/name should be in English. Just like Ivan the Terrible is just that and not Ivan Grozny or even Ivan IV. One could argue that the name should be Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, but again Vlad the Impaler is more widely known and/or used.Laurukainen (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I thought "Tepes" was the family name. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to revisit an old subject, but I also feel Vlad the Impaler is nonacademic. I'm a historian myself, and would greatly prefer his actual name of Vlad III of Wallachia, as we do with many other nobles. We could keep the redirect for Vlad the Impaler and reference his cognomen in the lede, but I see no reason to title the article something he was never called in his lifetime. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested name change: Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia

I believe that "Vlad the Impaler" shows a geographic bias, as this is how he's better known in English speaking countries but not Eastern Europe. The name "Impaler" I believe also violates neutrality as it seems to be giving a judgement on him. I suggest instead the article's name be changed to "Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I second this change; "Impaler" is not his actual or contemporary name. While it should be immediately referenced in the lead, it should not be the article title. If we don't see any debate on this, I'll change the title. The Cap'n (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change. Although Vlad did not call himself the Impaler, the name was used during his lifetime by the Turks and it has been used in Romania since the 16th Century. Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia has never been used by Vlad himself or his contemporaries and is therefore not valid in my opinion. There are countless rulers throughout history who are known by their cognomen, like for example two of Vlad’s brothers: Radu the Handsome and Vlad the Monk. I also don’t believe the name violates neutrality or shows a geographic bias. He was known by that name in Romania and is also referred as such in many Romanian history books and older documents. This is also an English Wikipedia page, so English versions of names of historical rulers should be used. Besides, even the Romanian Wikipedia page refers to him as “the Impaler”. Because of these arguments, I’m strongly against the changing of the name of this article.Laurukainen (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You bring up some excellent points, Laurukainen (talk), and I agree that Vlad the Impaler (and Vlad Tepes) should redirect here, and that the first sentence should clearly identify him as such for the common reader. However, an encyclopedia is first and foremost an academic compendium, and it seems appropriate for an historical figure to have their historical name (as modern historians regard him) as the actual title of the article. If the concern is for what name he went by in life, we could compromise with Vlad Dracula/Draculea, which he did use in life and still is an obviously connection to the popular conception of him. What do you think? It's based on the man's actual life, rather than his posthumous reputation, but still acknowledges the common knowledge base. The Cap'n (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this one. At issue, Wikipedia articles tend to prefer the "popular" name, rather than the historic one. Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and so forth. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I might actually backtrack my opinion a little bit. It seems that some articles about historical rulers tend to use the "popular" name like menitioned above and some use the "historical" name like for example Mircea I of Wallachia and not Mircea the Elder or even Stephen III of Moldavia and not Stephen the Great. Then again a name like Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia is not, at least to my knowledge widely used in history books. So that's why I don't really see where that name would come from. Agreed, he was the third ruler called Vlad to rule Wallachia but I have not found that name to be widely used. Then again Vlad Dracula/Draculea is also not without it's problems, mainly because of the connotation with the name of the vampire Dracula, although Vlad did use that name a couple of times during his third reign. I still don't see the problem with the name "Vlad the Impaler" because that is how he is and was widely known. But if the majority wants to change the name of the article to something more fitting, I wont "fight" it. In that case I would actually prefer Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia even if it is a later and somewhat artifical creation. I however would still rather stick with the name Vlad the Impaler.Laurukainen (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points all around, and I appreciate the honest, reasoned consensus-building (it's becoming too rare these days). Given the posts above, I agree that Vlad III is not in keeping with WP norms. I can tolerate Vlad the Impaler, but I'd really rather have a title that's both popularly known and used by the actual historical figure. Vlad Dracula/Draculea (sp?) seems to be that. I understand the confusion with the fictional vampire, but encyclopedia's exist to clear up just that sort of misunderstanding. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not only allowed to have an English language bias, it is supposed to have an English language bias. That’s why it’s English Wikipedia. If English speakers call him “Vlad the Impaler” then we should follow suit. It’s not our place to try to set a new precedent, and it’s not our place to advise the readers of what they should call him. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Surprised to see you here, 76.107.171.90, but welcome regardless. English bias is not really something that is at issue here (as far as I've seen), it's more an issue of what is most historically appropriate to refer to him by. It's not as clear cut as "what English speakers call him," unfortunately, as there are many things different groups call him. Popular conception often refers to him as Vlad the Impaler, though he's almost as frequently called Vlad Tepes, while historians may use either names or Vlad III of Wallachia. It's not pushing a POV to try to advise readers about his actual name, and I would argue that having a civil discussion that culminates in consensus as we've done sets an excellent precedent. The Cap'n (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

Some of the following information is incorrect please let me correct some.of the context Giokublakahn (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Describe what you want changed, and provide sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. It is also not the place to request increased userrights and autoconfirmed will come in time with a few edits... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What were the requested edits?

@Giokublakahn, even if we don't reduce the limits, I'm curious about what you felt was inaccurate on the page. Please let us know, with sources if you have them. The Cap'n (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Convert to or from?

At the bottom of the article are links "Converts for Orthodoxy to Catholicism" and "Converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" and Vlad appears on both lists.

BUT there's nothing about this in the article.

So what's the story behind this? Did he convert from one to the other, and then back again?

Montalban (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

First reign

In December 1447, boyars in league with the Hungarian regent John Hunyadi rebelled against Vlad II Dracul and killed him in the marshes near Bălteni. Mircea II of Wallachia, Dracul's eldest son and heir, was blinded and buried alive at Târgoviște. To prevent Wallachia from falling into the Hungarian fold, the Ottomans invaded Wallachia and put young Vlad III on the throne. However, this rule was short-lived as Hunyadi himself now invaded Wallachia and restored his ally Vladislav II, of the Dănești clan, to the throne.

Exile
==Exile== Vlad fled to Moldavia, where he lived under the protection of his uncle, Bogdan II. In October 1451, Bogdan was assassinated and Vlad fled to Hungary. Impressed by Vlad's vast knowledge of the mindset and inner workings of the Ottoman Empire as well as his hatred of the new sultan Mehmed II, Hunyadi reconciled with his former rival and tried to make Vlad his advisor, but Vlad refused.

Raids into Transylvania
=== Raids into Transylvania === Since the Wallachian nobility was allied with the Transylvanian Saxons, Vlad also acted against them by eliminating their trade privileges and raiding their resident castles. In 1459, he had several Saxon settlers of Brașov (Kronstadt) impaled.

Internal policy

=== Internal policy === Vlad found Wallachia in a wretched state: constant war had resulted in rampant crime, falling agricultural production, and the virtual disappearance of trade. Regarding a stable economy essential to resisting external enemies, he used severe methods to restore order and prosperity. Vlad had three aims for Wallachia: to strengthen the country's economy, its defense, and his own political power. He took measures to help the peasants' well-being by building new villages and raising agricultural output. He understood the importance of trade for the development of Wallachia. He helped the Wallachian merchants by limiting foreign merchant trade to three market towns: Târgșor, Câmpulung and Târgoviște. Vlad considered the boyars the chief cause of the constant strife as well as of the death of his father and brother. To secure his rule he had many leading nobles killed. He also gave positions in his council which had traditionally belonged to the greatest boyars to persons of obscure or foreign origin who would be loyal to him alone. For lower offices, Vlad preferred knights and free peasants to boyars. In his aim of fixing up Wallachia, Vlad issued new laws punishing thieves. Vlad treated the boyars with the same harshness, believing them guilty of weakening Wallachia through their personal struggles for power. The army was also strengthened. He had a small personal guard, mostly made of mercenaries, who were rewarded with loot and promotions. He also established a militia or ‘lesser army’ made up of peasants called to fight whenever war came. Vlad Dracula built a church at Târgșor (allegedly in the memory of his father and older brother who were killed nearby), and he contributed with money to the Snagov Monastery.

Second and main reign (1456-62)

In 1456, three years after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II and Ottoman influence that had spread from this base through the Carpathians, threatening mainland Europe, Ottomans had conquered Constantinople. They threatened Hungary by besieging Belgrade. Hunyadi began a concerted counter-attack in Serbia: while he himself moved into Serbia and relieved the siege (before dying of the plague), Vlad led his own contingent into Wallachia, reconquered his native land and killed Vladislav II in hand-to-hand combat.

Birth place dispute

I attempted to insert a compromise between the two sides that are disputing the "birth place" in the infobox. I have no strong position on the phrasing, was just trying to find a middle ground to provide a starting place for discussion. This was blanked out by one of the edit warring parties in such a way that it mangled the formatting of the infobox and messed up the formatting of the page, so I reverted back to the version I had inserted.

I will not take part in the discussion as I have no strong opinion on the wording regardless of which version; but discussion must take place. I strongly encourage all involved parties to discuss and establish the consensus here and to stop edit warring (which will only result in additional blocks and/or page protection). If a discussion already took place and I overlooked it, then please help point that out so all parties can see the established consensus if they wish to dispute that consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this isn't a dispute between two sides. The editor Vlad_Tepes0425 wishes to force incorrect information into the article and several other editors disagree. It's a case of right and wrong and Vlad_Tepes0425 is wrong. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodreads as a source?

Looking at the references section, I noticed a reference listed to Goodreads.com's page "Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: With Various Political Observations Relating to Them by William Wilkinson - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists". In code, that's

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.romaniatourism.com/dracula.html |title=Count Dracula's Legend |publisher=Romaniatourism.com |date= |accessdate=2012-08-17}}</ref>

Why is Goodreads cited as a source rather than the book? Goodreads doesn't say anything about what the source purportedly supports, that Bram Stoker connected the name "Dracula" with vampirism I can trace the existing reference back to User:Tpbradbury in [1], but all he did was standardize it. Nay, the original insertion of the Goodreads URL was [2], by User:ProfessorAM, who is long gone. Does anyone have comment on why that link/reference should or should not be there? If nobody says anything, I wish to remove it and replace it simply with a book citation. --Anon423 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

False translation of the name "Dracula" from Romanian into English

In the introductive part it reads: "Thus, Dracula literally means "Son of the Dragon"."

This is utterly false.

In Romanian the word "dracula" means strictly nothing, it hasn't any meaning at all.

The original Romanian word is "Drăculea", which is a sort of diminutive form of the word "dracul", which means "the devil/the dragon" and "ulea" in Romanian means "son of".

This diminutive Romanian form "drăculea" from "dracul" doesn't indicate the meaning of "son of" by any means at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.6.84 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon IP, but prof's McNally and Florescu state the opposite on page 9 of their seminal work, In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires, revised edition, 1994. These authorities have written two other biographies on Vlad. We must stick to what the Reliable Sources state. Remember, this is the English Wiki, and there may be some issue between English spellings translating in Romanian .... It's also listed on page 15 of the previous paperback edition of their book from 1972, so they didn't deem that it needed correction. It's also in my old 1938 Columbia Dictionary (which is sort of creepy in that the flag representing Germany is the Nazi 'Swastika' flag - current for the time.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I was travelling in Romania in 2000, I was told that "Dracul" meant "dragon" and "Dracula" meant "son of dragon." ChriCom (talk) 3 April 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing / contradictory information

The body of this article says he ruled from 1436-1442, but it doesn't mention anything about a rule in 1448. The infobox at the top right is the other way around.

The article says that after being ousted in 1442, he returned with Ottoman support. But it doesn't say when.

It says he was taken hostage for several years starting at age 13. But it doesn't say when or why he was released.

The infobox says he reigned again starting in 1456, but nothing in the article says how that started.

Someone should fix/add that info. - 173.171.162.145 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It was his father who ruled from 1436-1442, was ousted, then returned with Ottoman support. They have similar names. The other missing pieces of information have now been added. - 68.207.248.247 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information in introduction

I noticed that the introduction carries some seriously incorrect information, which is perhaps not surprising since it is badly referenced. To be precise it says:

"Vlad III is revered as a folk hero in Romania as well as other parts of Europe for his protection of the Romanians both north and south of the Danube. A significant number of Romanian common folk and remaining boyars (nobles) moved north of the Danube to Wallachia, recognized his leadership and settled there following his raids on the Ottomans.[1]"

This is incorrect as there have never been Romanians below the Danube (and indeed at the time of Vlad III there were no Romanians at all - the country is a relatively recent formation under that name. The region which is now Romania was known as Wallachia. South of the Danube lay the Bulgarian Empire until its destruction by the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to state that there were Romanians south of the Danube who could flee north of the Danube - there were and could only be Bulgarians or Ottoman Turks there (Indeed I know that some Bulgarians did flee north of the Danube which is why there were considerable Bulgarian communities in Romania, in places such as Tulca for example). This kind of statement appears geared towards an attempt of historical revisionism with chauvinistic tendencies on the part of the Romanian authors cited in the single reference used. It also constitutes something of a historical theft from the Bulgarian people (or a silly attempt at one anyway). Wikipedia ought to stamp such things out. I could fix it myself but I would prefer to let more experience people edit the page. Since the English language page is the "main" page in many ways, it should be subject to more stringent review and agenda fuelled incorrect information should not be allowed on that page - the Romanian language page can say what it likes if this is what they believe I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.167.10 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced information about marriages

I removed the two marriages section, since they were completely unreferenced. I looked around for a reliable one I could insert (that matched the claims) but I could find none whatsoever. Certainly not that he was ever married to a Bathory. Methinks someone is trying to create their own little subplot to Vlad's life, but that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If you have concerns about the completely unreferenced information I removed, please comment here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Protected

I see endless reverts of unreferenced data asking for references to remove! That is not correct. Unreferenced data is clearly original research and has no place here. I've locked the page for a week for all of you to come to a consensus about this section - and maybe someone can proper supply references for it to stay and not be original research.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

SUGGESTION, based on actual data, and the assumption that Florescu and McNally are good as a reference, I suggest a formulation along the lines of: 'Even though it is safe to assume that Vlad Dracula would have been married, most probably to cement his relationship to one or more noble family, there are few references to Vlad Dracula's wife or wives. The first mention is in Romanian folklore, in which Vlad's wife should have thrown herself from the castle at Poienari on the approach of the Ottomans in 1462. The second reference is from the "Russian Stories" and based on the first-hand experience of Fedor Kuritsyn, a Russian envoy to Hungary, who met Dracula's family after the death of Dracula. According to him Dracula had, in the later years of his imprisonment in Hungary, married "a sister of the [Hungarian] King". On this basis it has been speculated that Dracula must have been married at least twice. The fact that Dracula had several sons is not in itself proof of marriage, as Wallachian succession customs made any son of a ruling house eligible for the throne as long as the father was of a royal house and whether the son was born in or out of marriage. It is thus not possible to positively identify any of Vlad Dracula’s wives'.Jens sn (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no Russia back in XV century. 195.150.224.69 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dealings with the Ottoman Empire

Under the above sub-heading the last line of the first paragraph says "...by agreeing to pay the tribute to the Sultan."

Unless there is some specific kind of tribute, shouldn't that "the" be removed? Solri89 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will add information later

if no one minds, I will use a book as a source of information for more information. The events from 1436 to 1456(his first reign) is quite lacking .

Winterysteppe (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Books that are not self-published or "novelty press" published are usually considered reliable sources. Be sure to include as much information as you can in the reference so someone with access to a good library can verify the source if they are so inclined. {{Cite book}} is your friend. Please include an ISBN number if available. If you can find the exact text you are quoting in Google Books or similar archive, a URL to that link would be useful as well. If you can't, a VERY SHORT (less than a sentence if possible) quote from the book either in the article or in the citation will be helpful for verification purposes. If it's too awkward to put the direct quote in the article, put it in the citation (|quote= in {{cite book}} is your friend). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Hello! In response, i will add provide the most amount of information possible. I just wanted some time to add well-written chunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 January 2016‎

Just curious, what is the book you're citing? Depending on how old/common it is, there might be a digital version publicly available that we can link to. Let me know and I'll look into it. The Cap'n (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

vampirehunters

Real name, Enkil Dracula Valedamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.22 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Name

So far, we have the referenced fact that Vlad in 1475 signed as Dragwlya (variant Dragkwlya). Add to this the ubiquitously repeated statement that this is somehow derived from his father's epithet Dracul "the dragon".

There still are a number of problems here.

• whence the spelling Draculea "in Romanian"? Is this modern Romanian, and if so, where is it first seen?
• the name cannot just said to be "in Romanian", because Romanian isn't even attested in the 15th century. At best, this is Proto-Romanian, or post-Proto but still prehistoric Romanian, so we don't have any contemporary grammar to compare this to
• assuming that Dracul is "pre-Romanian" for "the dragon" (before it changed its meaning to "the devil" in extant Romanian), what is the -ea suffix?

The problem of deriving Drakulya or Draculea from Dracul is glossed over far too often. here is a 2003 cybalist discussion, but it doesn't end in any satisfactory conclusion. Its best part is:

nouns/names such as Drãculea, Tzugulea, Haplea, Burghelea, Delea (this a shorter variant of Todérea < Teodor), Mihele/a, Mihale/a & Corne/a, Aldea, Hage/a, Mihalce/a, Vancea, Oancea, Horea (['ho-ræ] is the initial, Transylvanian pronunciation, ['ho-rea] is the pan-Romanian pronunciation, and Horia ['ho-ri-a] is the latest, modified, name, but which has gotten the most popular variant in the last 100 years or so) -- or locutions such as <de-a binelea>, <d'a'mboulea>, <d'a'mpiciorelea>.

I conclude from this that the idea is that -ea just formed familiar forms (hypocorisms) of given names, in "medieval Romanian". Note that this doesn't necessarily say anything about the suffix surviving into or being productive in modern Romanian. But this needs better sources.

The "Dragolea" thing appears to be a suggestion from 1996 that the name has nothing to do with either dragons or with Romanian and is in fact a Slavic given name meaning "beloved one". I haven't found any decent source on this so far. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the German article. It cites a German book edited by a certain Wilfried Seipel in Vienna in 2008. It reads as if the Dragul hypothesis is from there, but I'm not sure. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fact is that he signed his name "Wladislaus Dragwlya". The -ea ending in the language is a diminutive meaning "of the". Even though Vlad never signed documents "Drăculea", the "ya" ending used by Vlad himself corresponds to the modern "ea" diminutive. Calling him "Dracula" is erroneous, and those who insist on doing so do so ignorantly. Jtclendenen (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

However, we should insist on doing so as per WP:NAME and WP:NOR, because peer-reviewed books published in English prefer the Dracula form. (I refer to the books cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If he signed his name "Wladislaus" shouldn't that be noted on the page? I don't think I can find any reference to it. 11:29, 29 May 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4300:443C:B5B4:D32C:4525:A9B2 (talk)

Sadism

I know that his alleged sadism is often mentioned or emphasized in literature, especially in books published by scholars who want to secure their living based on new and new publications about Dracula's life. However, I think we should avoid stupid, biased theories about the origin of his cruelty such "his experiences in the Ottoman Empire" if we cannot refer to actual events which substantiate these assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources written around the time he was alive spoke of his sadistic nature. The late medieval German scripts write of him as terribly sadistic and even the Slavic scripts that try to write of him in a more favorable light also acknowledge that he was sadisitic and cruel. Just stating the truth. It is not just secondary sources (from the 20th/21st century) that imply he was sadistic, but primary sources written around the time he was alive too. Here are a few passages from the same Wiki article to affirm this: "The stories about Vlad's plundering raids in Transylvania were clearly based on an eyewitness's account because they contain accurate details (including the lists of the churches destroyed by Vlad and the dates of the raids).[150] They describe Vlad as a "demented psychopath, a sadist, a gruesome murderer, a masochist", worse than Caligula and Nero.[149] However, the stories emphasizing Vlad's cruelty are to be treated with caution because his brutal acts were very probably exaggerated (or even invented) by the Saxons.[151]" "... [Vlad] had a big copper cauldron built and put a lid made of wood with holes in it on top. He put the people in the cauldron and put their heads in the holes and fastened them there; then he filled it with water and set a fire under it and let the people cry their eyes out until they were boiled to death. And then he invented frightening, terrible, unheard of tortures. He ordered that women be impaled together with their suckling babies on the same stake. The babies fought for their lives at their mother's breasts until they died. Then he had the women's breasts cut off and put the babies inside headfirst; thus he had them impaled together. — About a mischievous tyrant called Dracula vodă (No. 12–13)[146]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.192.70 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Those primary sources you are talking about were Vlads enemy's at the time. No recollection of his sadistic nature is "factual" since not even Romanian historians can attest to this. Same about his death and the head being sent. The body was never found, so, no matter what you say, you should accept this with a pinch of salt. Facts and myth are often the base for Vlads history, but the cruel reality is that most of his life will always remain a mystery. Please change this as it's only confusing readers. CarlosR87 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Long quote overuse

Per Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex, thank you for your message. I deleted the longest quotes and shortened others. I think, the article is now fully in line with Wikipedia:COPYQUOTE. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jusztina Szilágyi

To avoid a duplicated debate, I suggest that the first name of Vlad's wife, Jusztina Szilágyi, should be discussed on the relevant Talk page, here. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Name

Anon, I think it is an important piece of information that he was named "Wladislaus Dragwlya" in the 15th century. If you want to mention this in the article, please use proper citation formats. However, he is always mentioned as Vlad in peer-reviewed books published in English, even in those which were written by Romanian historians. Consequently, we should prefer this form as per WP:Name. Please, make efforts to write edit summeries without making chauvinistic, biased statements. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I back Anon 100%. It is absolutely, 100% important to acknowledge how a person called themselves when they were alive, not how people foreign to them after their death had called them. The first thing you should learn if you want to write about history is the significance of endonym vs exonym (Matthew Czak vs Matus Cak for example). Vladislav is the endonym. Vlad Tepes is the exonym. Borsoka is totally absurd to claim that just because "books published in English, even those which were written by Romanian historians" say "Vlad" that it should be accepted. That is how false information spreads across more publications. And for Borsoka to make the claims that Anon's edits were "chauvinistic, biased" is just totally malicious and outrageous as there was no bias in Anon's contributions - in fact, acknowledging how a person called themselves is one of the most important facts we can add to the subject. Speaking of bias, perhaps Borsoka should admit why is removing written facts that point to Vlad the Impaler's Slavic name and Slavic background? Perhaps because of her Hungarian nationalism and deep hatred of Slavs? Yes Borsoka, you can admit it ... we know. It isn't hard to piece the puzzle together. I should also point out that (clearly) "Wladislaus" is Vladislav - it is just the Latin spelling of how the name sounds (see Slavic rulers named Rastislav whose names were spelled "Rastislaus" in Latin texts for example). It amazed me the enormous lack of intellectual qualifications that exists amongst people, even PhDs, who feel they should write about history and willfully or unknowingly spread lies and/or ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.192.70 (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you list the books published in English which refer to him as Vladislav Dracula III? Would you refer to reliable sources stating that he was of "Slavic background"? Would you explain why do you think that his common name "Vlad the Impaler" should be deleted? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS regarding citation of English-language sources on English-language Wikipedia. Further, you included a personal attack in this edit summary, in clear violation of WP:NPA, and you have repeated and extended your attacks here. Continued violation of this policy could result in restriction of your editing privileges. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this photographic reproduction of Vlad Dracula's signature count as a reliable source for his full name being Wladislaus Dragwlya? Or this other image of what appears to be a coin bearing his image and an alternate Latinization of his name (Vladislavs Dracvla, or in modern Latin Vladislaus Dracula)? MarqFJA87 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

changing religion, from orthodoxy to catholicism as Vlad Tepez did, was a "merit" to become vampire.

To apostaste from greek orthodoxy to be become a roman catholic, as Vlad Tepez did for political reasons, was according to popular ortxhodox belief "meriting" for becoming a vampire. Hence the tradition that Vlad Tepez was this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.216.242 (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Does his surname still exist

Are there any Descendants of Vlad the Implaer with the surname Dracula alive today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzlemuss McToot (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dracula isn't a surname, it's a patronym. He belonged to the Romanian Basarab dynasty, the Draculesti branch. 91.101.56.52 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede is way too long.

Can somebody please move most of that content into the article proper ? SinisterLefty (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe all of it is already in the article. But I agree, the lede is a bit too long and should probably be shortened quite a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

209.66.221.148 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Vlad III was born in 1431 in what is now Transylvania, the central region of modern-day Romania.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

In February 1462, Vlad III Dracula, massacring twenty of thousands of Turks. ( He did NOT killed Bulgarians ) 84.54.182.113 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

Please add this article to the People from Transylvania category (I don't know how to link to it without adding this talk page to it). Thank you. 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F9E8:AF0F:FC3D:C07C (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. It would be a duplicate of the Sighisoara category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vasilisa Maria Musat

According to Geni.com, Vasilisa Maria Musat was the mother of Vlad the Impaler and she was the daughter of Alexander The Good. [3] 45.138.66.122 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler picture

Please put this improved Vlad The Impaler portrait that i edited. Thank you. This one is plain awful

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banekondic1996 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fall under "own work" licensing, but rather is derivative. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Just make it happen. Banekondic1996 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Vlad the Impaler 2.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

Banekondic1996 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't see this as an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

A simple typo : According to the "most reliable sources", Vlad's army of about 2,000 was corned and destroyed by a Turkish-Basarab force of 4,000 near Snagov. [129]

I believe it should be "cornered" instead of "corned". 71.58.187.203 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the note! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dracula Untold

In the "In popular culture" section, Dracula Untold (2014 film) is not mentioned which Vlad's role is played by Luke Evans. Aminabzz (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The section appears to be focused on historical representations of the actual person. Does that film spend a significant amount of time on the historical individual? I'd note that that section doesn't mention a whole lot of portrayals of Count Dracula, intentionally it seems. DonIago (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The film is fantasy fiction, but it does deal with him as a warlord of Wallachia who makes a deal with a vampire to avert an Ottoman Turkish invasion. So I'd say it's a fictional tale about the person in this article. Korn (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Add a bullet point to the "Historical representations" section under "In popular culture":

• The Historian (2005), a historical novel that blends the history and folklore of Vlad Țepeș and his fictional equivalent Count Dracula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscottf1025 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I found this interesting thing about Vlad (he was in fact called "Dracula", but the site won't allow me to edit.

There are many competing theories for Vlad the Impaler's name. One theory argues that "Dracula" is the genitive form for "son of Dracul" as his father was Vlad Dracul. The nickname "Tepes" was given by the Ottomans, meaning "impaler" in Romanian. However, Vlad the Impaler was called "Dracula" even before his reign began, the Venetians and Greeks also called him "Dracula".

Source: https://research.library.kutztown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=dracula-studies

If you find it interesting, please consider adding it. TrueYaran (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

I want to request that a book series be added to the “popular culture” section. The series is called The Conqueror’s Saga and contains the books “And I Darken”, “Now I Rise”, and “Bright We Burn”, and is based on Vlad the Impaler’s life if he was female. A lot of the history is in it! 72.22.246.108 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide secondary sourcing to show that this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Biomolecular research

Just a note that this study might turn up some interesting evidence when they publish the results. ‑‑Yodin^T 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Putin Disambiguation Link

Vlademere Putin is often derisively referred to as Vlad The Impaler. I think we need to add a disambiguation link to redirect those who may mistakenly come here to the Russian president’s Wikipedia page. 73.28.151.173 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Vlad's First Wife

Several sources I've seen online say Vlad's first wife's name was Anastasia Maria Holszanska (Cneajna Bathory), a niece of the Queen of Poland. 47.34.84.220 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you named the sources. :) DonIago (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Another mention of Vlad in Popular culture

Vlad is portrayed in Rise_of_Empires:_Ottoman, a Netflix series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.119.154 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

Requesting to revert the image used of Vlad the Impaler to the previous one. The current photo was made by someone who ClueBot NG had previously reverted their changes on account of vandalism. The user went back and made the changes again, and those changes have yet to be reverted. Change Line 7 and Line 275 to the revisions made on March 9, 2023 @ 10:36 by ClueBot NG. Rose Morgan 22 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please discuss that with the editor, ClueBot NG does make mistakes. The current image seems fine to me. Lightoil (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Too many Vlads! (minor edit request for clarity in lede )

In the second paragraph of the lede, there are two sentences that read (bolding for emphasis: "He was the second son of Vlad Dracul, who became the ruler of Wallachia in 1436. Vlad and his younger brother, Radu, were held as hostages in the Ottoman Empire in 1442 to secure their father's loyalty." Reading further, it's clear that the Vlad in the second sentence (Vlad and his younger brother) is Vlad III, not his father Vlad Dracul. However, because we just name Vlad Dracul and then make no differentiation, it's unclear at first which Vlad we're talking about. Can someone please change "Vlad and his younger brother" to "Vlad III and his younger brother", or otherwise make it clear?12.11.127.253 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the new map?

Laszlo Panaflex, what's wrong with the new map, is it too big? How do you suggest I fix it? NeimWiki (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It is far too large, sandwiching text down to a few words per line. Please see MOS:IMGSIZE for guidance on image sizing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, text should not be sandwiched between two images, there is no need for AD (WP:BCE) and a caption does not take a period unless it is a complete sentence (MOS:CAPFRAG). Aligning the map with the second paragraph also places it next to the pertinent text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi NeimWiki, that map is incorrect again. We had several discussions before regarding many wrong maps.

Talk:Battle of Posada#Strange map

South Transylvania clearly was not part of Wallachia during the reign of Matthias Corvinus (and never) as it presented on the map.

Here you attach quite obviously South Transylvania to Wallachia

User:NeimWiki#/media/File:1457VOIVODATE.png

User:NeimWiki#/media/File:1461VOIVODATE.png

At the above link I showed many international academic maps. Please fix that map! OrionNimrod (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

How about you read the page we're on before claiming a map is incorrect? NeimWiki (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

South Transylvania clearly was not part of Wallachia as it is your maps, 1390s, 1450s, 1460s. Where do you get this? Also I do not know what is the small yellow and red patches inside Hungary, what is the source for that patches?

Do you deny the international academic maps? Even on all academic Hungarian history maps that region is part of Hungary. We should follow academic maps not our fantasy painting. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @NeimWiki, It seems you have understanding problem what the medieval feudal fief means. If Romanian voivodes got Transylvanian fiefs in the 14th century from the Hungarian king it does not mean that region became part of Wallachia. The Hungarian king donated his land which belonged to the Hungarian crown = the Hungarian king was the overlord of those people who got properties from him = that land was still part of the Hungarian crown. But in 1464 Matthias Corvinus took it out of their hands and gave it to János Geréb, the later voivode of Transylvania. Which means, we can see again who was the overlord = the region was part of the Hungarian crown.

However it is interesting me, on your medieval maps only Hungary is feudal fragmented but Wallachia and Moldavia not. You want to show that Fogaras was the property of the Wallachian voivode, following your logic Wallachia should colored as Hungary because Hungary was the overlord of Wallachia (many times at that time).

It was also many personal union in history, like King Louis was the king of Poland and Hungary, and it does not mean the 2 countries were united. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, NeimWiki, I see you want to show in any case that regions were Wallachian fiefs: It consisted of a form of property holding or other rights granted by an overlord to a vassal, who held it in fealty or "in fee" in return for a form of feudal allegiance, services, and/or payments. = that land was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and it is a history falsification that you detach clearly that region from Hungary.

If English nobles had fiefs in the land of the French crown in France it does not mean that region was part of England, or if French nobles had fiefs on the land of English crown in England, it does not mean that region was part of France.

Also Hungary was not an Ottoman vassal at that time, it is also incorrect to show territories which was part of the Hungarian crown as Ottoman vassal by thick green line. Do you say the small circle patch (Almas) inside Hungary was an Ottoman vassal land in 1457??? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20230818194557%211457VOIVODATE.png

I suggested a solution, I draw a fast example, you need empasize the state borders, and you colorize fiefs inside Hungary, it would be good to add captions for better understanding, like the other example map the orange region is clearly marked as "fief by Mircea as Hungarian vassal" = fiefs on the Hungarian crown land.

Btw why only Hungary is feudal fragmented on your maps???

OrionNimrod (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Dude, stop removing my maps or I'll have to report you. Your inabilitity to understand how feudalism worked should not be my problem.

As I've previously explained to you, Fagaras and Amlas were Wallachian possessions inside of Transylvania at verious time periods, often given to the Voivode by the King of Hungary. Same goes for the Moldavian possessions of Ciceu and Balta. The Hungarian king exchanged these territories initially as compensation for the Voivode's subordination. This was not the case for Vlad the Impaler, who claimed and exercised his rule in Fagaras and Amlas, and had Matthias, his future ally, ask his Saxon vassals to refrain from antagonising him, which you would have realised had you read the very article of this talk page.

My maps show a clear distinction between Walachia and the Duchy of Fagaras and Amlas, as they're not only labeled separately but also have their own borders, nobody with good eyesight would mistake Fagaras for a Wallachian province.

The regions are outlined as Ottoman vassals in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1457VOIVODATE.png because they were Wallachian holdings, an undeniable fact which I don't see why you would even question.

I do not see the need to continue this discussion, as you refuse to accept anything I'm saying while claiming I don't "recognise international academic maps" and that what I'm showing are "fantasy paintings". If you can actually find written sources, not a map you saw one time (like you've presented me so far), which mention Vlad as a vassal of Matthias Corvinus in 1457 and 1461, I'll happily edit my maps to show it. NeimWiki (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please report me, that I remove your own photoshopped maps which are not matching with academic history maps. It is a clear history falsification that you detach south Transylvania and patches from medieval Hungary to Wallachia. It is a clear history falsification that you show patches inside Hungary as Ottoman vassal area.

"Wallachian possessions inside of Transylvania" = fiefs which was given by the Hungarian king as overlord to their vassals and that regions were part of the Hungarian crown, ie the Kingdom of Hungary

"The regions are outlined as Ottoman vassals in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1457VOIVODATE.png because they were Wallachian holdings," No, the region was part of the Hungarian crown and the lands was given as fief estate to the Wallachian ruler by the Hungarian overlord, that region was not an Ottoman vassal area. Did you not hear about the dual suzerainty? I suggested a solution which show the Wallachian fiefs as part of Hungarian crown as it was. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

delete "Doğrugöz" and correct the name as "Eğrigöz, Emet".

There were two Eğrigöz cities in Turkey. The one mentioned here is not the correct one and it seems that there is a confusion. Vlad the Impaler was kept in the castle of Eğrigöz, Emet. ( More details can be also found here: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C4%9Frig%C3%B6z,_Emet) . The other one does not even have a castle and changed its name later on. Toprak77 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done

— Urro^{[talk][edits]}

17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Language of medieval Slavic work of “The Tale of Dracula the Voievode”

The language of this Tale is undoubtedly Old Russian rather than South Slavic, as some Romanian authors believe and as stated in this article. Moreover, the ideological content of the work corresponds strictly to Russian themes. More information on this can be found here:

Talmazan O. The image of Dracula in the light of the ideological issues of “The Tale of Dracula the Voievode”// Limbaj și context / Speech and Context International Journal of Linguistics, Semiotics and Literary Science, Volume I (XIII) 2021, p.15-30/ ISSN: 1857-4149 https://www.usarb.md/limbaj_context/ap/v25/talmazan.html https://zenodo.org/records/10410564

Талмазан Олег. Авторский вымысел в Сказании о Дракуле воеводе, Философский полилог, журнал Международного центра изучения русской философии, СПб, 2018, №3, ISSN 2587-7283, 196с, стр.151-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31119/phlog.2018.3.10 http://polylogue.jourssa.ru/index.php/polylogue/article/view/20/43

Талмазан О.Н. Притча о двух монахах в «Сказании о Дракуле воеводе», Идентичность на перекрестке культур: язык, литература, образование, СПб.: Алетейя, 2023. – 226 с., ISBN 978-5-00165-634-0, стр. 41-53. https://g.eruditor.one/file/3943346/ https://www.twirpx.com/file/3943346/ Shizmakatahreza (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)