Talk:Crimean War
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crimean War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Crimean war was copied or moved into Crimean War with this edit on 02:54, 31 July 2002. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 30, 2005, November 30, 2006, November 30, 2007, November 30, 2008, November 30, 2012, November 30, 2013, and November 30, 2016. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Discussion of the text fragment
[edit]The text that they want to discuss is presented for discussion. I immediately point out that the text has authoritative sources. If you have any thoughts, please state your opinions.
The non-Muslim population in the Ottoman Empire had very difficult conditions. "It is estimated that by the early nineteenth century the average Christian farmer and trader in the Ottoman Empire was paying half his earnings in taxes".[1]
"More than any other power, the Russian Empire had religion at its heart (...) Moscow was the last remaining capital of Othodoxy, the ‘Third Rome’, following the fall of Constantinople, the centre of Byzantium, to the Turks in 1453. According to this ideology, it was part of Russia’s divine mission in the world to liberate the Orthodox from the Islamic empire of the Ottomans and restore Constantinople as the seat of Eastern Christianity. The Russian Empire was conceived as an Orthodox crusade [1] In addition to ideological grounds, this direction of Russian foreign policy also reflected the weakness of the economic foundation of Russia at that time "due to the systemic backwardness of the state, the development of which was shackled by the chains of serfdom. Russia was not a sales market for the region's goods, having the same grain sector of agriculture with them" [2] Therefore, it is the religious factor that has become the main lever for Russian foreign policy. There were good reasons for using it. "Osman empire comprising around 35 million people. Muslims were an absolute majority, accounting for about 60 per cent of the population, virtually all of them in Asiatic Turkey, North Africa and the Arabian peninsula; but the Turks themselves were a minority, perhaps 10 million, mostly concentrated in Anatolia". "10 million Orthodox subjects (Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Moldavians, Wallachians and Serbs) in their European territories and something in the region of another 3 to 4 million Christians (Armenians, Georgians and a small number of Abkhazians) in the Caucasus and Anatolia".[3] 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- What does this add, why do we need to know this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will also ask the question - why shouldn't we know this? Reputable historians state this in their works. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- THis is an encyclopedia entry, and can't have everything, we need to really restrict ourselves to only the most significant facts. Otherwise, the page will become too big to read. THis adds a fair few words, that tell us nothing about the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, the volume of the article has limitations. However, it is impossible to understand the situation without specifying the internal reasons for the actions, in this case, of Russia. The theme of "Russian expansionism". 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The conflict with the Ottoman Empire also presented a religious issue of importance, as Russia saw itself as the protector of history of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Orthodox Christians, who were legally treated as second-class citizens.". Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- What you bring is too little. It is impossible to understand how difficult the situation was for the non-Muslim peoples. Therefore, it should be pointed out that only non-Muslims paid taxes, and these taxes were very large, 50% (!!!!!) Without this, it is impossible to understand why the peoples of the Balkans fought so hard for independence. I did not find the figures I provided in the entire article. These figures show the internal fragility of the Ottoman Empire, in which Turks made up 30% of the total population. Without knowing this, it is simply impossible to understand why events developed so unfavorably for the Turks. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The conflict with the Ottoman Empire also presented a religious issue of importance, as Russia saw itself as the protector of history of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Orthodox Christians, who were legally treated as second-class citizens.". Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, the volume of the article has limitations. However, it is impossible to understand the situation without specifying the internal reasons for the actions, in this case, of Russia. The theme of "Russian expansionism". 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- THis is an encyclopedia entry, and can't have everything, we need to really restrict ourselves to only the most significant facts. Otherwise, the page will become too big to read. THis adds a fair few words, that tell us nothing about the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will also ask the question - why shouldn't we know this? Reputable historians state this in their works. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Time for others to chip in, my objection stands until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you didn't know that. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:QUOTE tell us to use quotes sparingly. The text in question is two quotes that form a large block of text and is contrary to MOS:QUOTE. If points from this might be summarised and added to improve the existing text, that is a different question. However, I think that the article is already telling us that Russia saw itself as a protector of orthodox Christians. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are partially right, but a simple indication that Russia claimed to protect the Orthodox population is not enough, I think. The article does not contain figures on the ratio of the population of different faiths in the Ottoman Empire. And therefore the general situation is unclear, why the Ottoman Empire was an unstable state entity. Disintegration processes took place in it, which happened later. With the figures, this becomes clear, and it also becomes clear what Russia's foreign policy was counting on. 95.25.106.126 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is over. My opinion is that it ended almost immediately after the start. It is also obvious that it is difficult to understand the reasons for the instability of the Ottoman Empire from the article in its current state. But it's easy to understand if you know the numbers-figures. I tried to add them, but the interlocutors strongly disagree. In my opinion, this is a strange position. 95.25.105.208 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are partially right, but a simple indication that Russia claimed to protect the Orthodox population is not enough, I think. The article does not contain figures on the ratio of the population of different faiths in the Ottoman Empire. And therefore the general situation is unclear, why the Ottoman Empire was an unstable state entity. Disintegration processes took place in it, which happened later. With the figures, this becomes clear, and it also becomes clear what Russia's foreign policy was counting on. 95.25.106.126 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Figes 2011, pp. 37.
- ^ V. N. Vinogradov, Was there a connection between the triuph of France in the Crimean war and her catastrophe under Sedan? Journal "New and Recent History|ru|Новая и новейшая история" (№5. 2005)
- ^ Figes 2011, pp. 6–7.
LOL
[edit]Oh the irony... Talk about eating the pudding and ascertaining its proof. Of course, the regime is literally blocking access to sites that could otherwise be used as sources at the DNS level, for pol-POV reasons, and you wouldn't believe how much money and man-hours go into ensuring "consensus", so such sources, where yet accessible, still get smeared and barred as "not reliable". And I agree, they're not. Ideologically reliable, that is. "Worldwide" Nightingale boosterism in the Crimean War article? A-OK! The local heroine? Nah. Justifications can always be found, and with enough censorship synergy and ethnic hatred, it doesn't even get too obvious to the benightingaled. 'Nothing to do with neutrality, of course... 'not even pretending anymore. Suddenly the regime is no longer concerned about "invisibilizing women". Good laugh. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- You did not even bother to offer up a source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Related Conflicts
[edit]Some people might mistake this with the Russian annexation of Crimea. There should be a Not to be confused with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation at the top. 172.79.78.69 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- nuh uh 172.79.69.201 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Short description
[edit]@Slatersteven the short description on this article currently reads as
1853–1856 war between the Russian Empire and thei...
getting cut off. Remember, a short description is mostly used to disambiguate and doesn't have the requirements of the lead sentence. For context, some articles have titles so descriptive that they don't need any SD. And because people mostly see the SD in the search bar, the distinction is mostly between similarly-titled articles, not similarly-themed articles. Typing "Crimean" into the search bar shows only one article about a war.
I believe "1853–1856 war" would do most of the work for this purpose, but because you are engaged on this topic I will trust your judgement on how to shorten the SD. Wizmut (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see no issue with what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's too long. I linked the wrong guideline page earlier but here's the correct one: [1]
- Under purposes:
- >Short descriptions provide:
- a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
- a short descriptive annotation
- a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields
- An SD that gets cut off isn't short and is a bad SD. Wizmut (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a short description. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- At 100 characters, it's the longest such on Wikipedia right now.
- Question: where do you personally see short descriptions? Wizmut (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a short description. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- A long short-description is a bit like military intelligence. If the title is sufficiently clear, do we need an SD? Is the title is sufficiently clear (no similar titles) that it also serves as the SD? If we really need something different, "1853–1856 war" seem suitable. But arguing over an SD is a bit like arguing over the toilet seat (IMO). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Losses
[edit]@ SlaterstevenI don't really understand why my edits are being canceled without explanation, I pointed out a fairly authoritative source, from an author who wrote just a giant study about this war Dushnilkin (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I told you why I reverted them, do not edit war, I was not the only one. You should have asked this when first reverted. I shall do it for you, so IP what was your objection? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that after the first rollback, no one would remove my additions, and I did not see a answer anywhere about canceling the data that I added, please repeat Dushnilkin (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is still a violation of wp:brd, I can imagine they might have had a reason, but it is not for me to actually give it, its down to them. So leave it a few days, and if no one objects you can have your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is still a violation of wp:brd, I can imagine they might have had a reason, but it is not for me to actually give it, its down to them. So leave it a few days, and if no one objects you can have your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that after the first rollback, no one would remove my additions, and I did not see a answer anywhere about canceling the data that I added, please repeat Dushnilkin (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Dushnilkin, your edit is a change to casualties in the infobox that would result in a glaringly wide range for the Russian casualties without the addition to the article of any supporting prose. I would suspect that the difference in these figures is not an inherently large discrepancy but more a matter of nuance as to what is actually being reported by different authors. I would think that we need to examine the sources more critically to see where the difference lies, with a view to creating appropriate supporting prose and how we should ultimately report this in the infobox. While the article doesn't have an actual casualty section, the nearest most appropriate section would be Aftermath in Russia? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this, because even in Russia there are many sources indicating higher losses than 148,000. However, I do not have English sources to indicate the data from their point of view Dushnilkin (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I created a window where I indicated all the sources of swinging losses that I have, if you have any additional work on this, then specify them Dushnilkin (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I reverted your edits adding a new section and readding to the infobox with the edit summary:
We are discussing this. There is another section with nearly the same title. Edits screw with the infobox formatting
. The addition was premature and there are many issues with the text added. The last sentence questions the higher figures. Does the source cited do this or is it your conclusion because of the lower figure. If the latter, it falls to WP:OR. Wars of the World does not appear to be an RS. We can see Clodfelter here. Clodfelter distinguishes between deaths in the Crimean war v deaths in Crimea - "a great many of them before reaching the Crimea" (attributed to Russian writers). We still need to work through this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- The source that I have indicated does not dispute your data, the words "however, this data can be confirmed by doubt," I added on my own. Here is a quote from a source: "our troops improved their sanitary provision, only a few formations in the Crimea suffered from typhus or fever (Oryol, Tula and Kaluga squad). The total number of cases in our army is 183.5 thousand people, of which 101.5 thousand it accounted for typhus and fever patients, and 19 thousand for cholera patients» Dushnilkin (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your own doubt would be OR. The distinction in the figures would appear to be in Crimea v in the Crimean War. This is nuance that needs the clarification of prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Zayonchkovski apparently reports 143,000 Russian dead and (per above) 183,000 cases of disease. But cases is not equal to mortality. Here is another source. The non-combat deaths reported in the infobox are actually died of disease (for France and UK at least) according to the source - Clodfelter. This is at odds with the source I just gave by about 28,000. I am beginning to suspect that there is way too much nuance (variation) for us to put anything in the infobox and confine our writing to prose (and/or a table) with a dedicated casualty section. Everyone appears to be counting different types of fruit (apples, oranges bananas etc) so that there may be no reliable comparison between figures. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in this case it is necessary to create a separate page where you can specify all possible loss options (which we currently have) and leave the infobox window empty Dushnilkin (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need a page to sandbox this but not a separate article, just a separate section in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's basically what I suggested. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need a page to sandbox this but not a separate article, just a separate section in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in this case it is necessary to create a separate page where you can specify all possible loss options (which we currently have) and leave the infobox window empty Dushnilkin (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The source that I have indicated does not dispute your data, the words "however, this data can be confirmed by doubt," I added on my own. Here is a quote from a source: "our troops improved their sanitary provision, only a few formations in the Crimea suffered from typhus or fever (Oryol, Tula and Kaluga squad). The total number of cases in our army is 183.5 thousand people, of which 101.5 thousand it accounted for typhus and fever patients, and 19 thousand for cholera patients» Dushnilkin (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I reverted your edits adding a new section and readding to the infobox with the edit summary:
Lead length
[edit]Admittedly a complex topic, but I think the lead needs to be condensed. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The Crimean War
[edit]Dear Sir Slatersteven,
I noticed you reverted my edit that added the line about the significant Irish contribution to the British military during the Crimean War. Your comment indicating 'UNure we need this undo' suggests you may have had some uncertainty about undoing this edit.
Notably, History Ireland is a reputable publication that provides well-researched articles on historical topics, often written by historians and experts in the field. It is considered a reliable secondary source, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards for citations.
I believe this detail is relevant and important to include, as it highlights the substantial Irish participation and role in the conflict. Could you please reconsider adding this line back in? I'm happy to discuss further and provide any additional context or justification for including this information.
Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk • contribs) 08:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:VNOT applies. There is nothing to establish it is significant in the context of the article. It is presented as a random factoid that does not enhance the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- This. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Crimean War page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Crimean War" page.
- Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2013)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2016)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- C-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- C-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- C-Class European history articles
- Mid-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Mid-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- C-Class Romania articles
- Mid-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- C-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class former country articles
- C-Class Ottoman Empire articles
- Mid-importance Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- Mid-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- Mid-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report