This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 30, 2017, November 30, 2019, November 30, 2021, and November 30, 2022. |
I have completed the expansion and added sources at a industry standar rate. Please note that some of them are not available on Amazon but simply because something is not on Amazon does not mean it doesn't exist, check Worldcat. Enjoy! Jkrefft May 6th, 2014
I am going to take a few days and expand this. Its a god start but we need additional prelude information and analysis. This Battle is really important in the evolution of naval weaponry as it was the first substantial battle to use shell firing guns. Please dont panic if citations and hyperlinks dont appear right away. They will, please note I have a job and needy wives. Jkrefft March 21st, 2014
The description of Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin as having 120 guns conflicts strongly with the page it is linked to. Could they be two different ships of the same name? Kd5mdk 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
yes of course. I'm not sure how to distinguish in terms of page names... perhaps just put the launch date on each? there seems to be several different styles on wikipedia for doing this.
I think Sinop order of battle should be merged here. Thoughts? -- AW 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE MAKE IT STUPID... Just kidding, I merged it. Puddytang 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted a comment about the British ambassador only sending frigates to Sinope possibly in the hope that the Russians would attack Turkey. It's true that there had been some minor fighting before this battle, but nothing that would really "justify" intervention by Britain and France until this battle. So I think it's still a possibility? SpookyMulder ( talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
someone should revise the article, because it contains some funny things like "battle with non-moved turkish ships"? damn, its not a batle. its typical bust-- Orkh ( talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
i agree that its a typical ambush-- 195.174.105.53 ( talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm listening now to a history course by prof. Robert I. Wiener. He says that the Battle was called "the massacre of Sinop" by English press and a propaganda campaing was unleashed to make a pretext for invasion into Crimea. Would be interesting to find sources and add this information. -- CopperKettle ( talk) 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this needs to be in the article, it is the major significance of the battle in the larger world historical context. Issue313 ( talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, added a brief paragraph about it. The propaganda aspect of this battle is fascinating, anyone who has more to contribute should do so. Issue313 ( talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the use of the word battleship to describe some of the Russian ships is the best description. Although it may be technically acurate the word is most often used in association with post Dreadnought ships and that is the umage it conjures up. Ship of the line seems much more appropriate and acurate to me. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It's probably significant that the attack was launched on St. Andrew's Day - can anyone confirm this? Drutt ( talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned in the article that the Russians had 37 killed and 233 wounded and the Turkish had more than 3000 killed and wounded? Corvi cantus ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
how could it be categorized as a "battle"? its not about a naval fight, the article is about an ambush...-- 195.174.105.53 ( talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about this battle; I came here from the Paixhans gun article. That article claims that the Paixhans guns used by the Russians were absolutely decisive in this battle, and not only determined the outcome of the battle but heralded the demise of the wooden warship. Our Ironclad warship article seems to support this, with every major navy starting plans for ironclads within 2 or 3 years of this battle, and the first ironclads launched 6 years later. That article also includes the statement:
It is also notable that the description of the damage to the Turkish ships is similar to the testing of the prototype Paixhans gun against the Pacificateur.
At present, this article doesn't mention Paixhans guns, or the nature of the Russian armament at all. If it is true that the Russians used Paixhans guns, and that this was a signal moment in naval warfare, could a more knowledgeable person please add this to the article? -- 202.63.39.58 ( talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there seems to be little other obvious reason why the battle was so one-sided. 69.151.14.159 ( talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this linking to the right guy? His article says he was in the infantry during 1852-53, makes no mention of this battle. I had thought the commander of the battle was actually English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.133.58 ( talk) 02:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Sinop → 1853 Battle of Sinop – There's been many battles at Sinop, Turkey; including the 1214 Siege of Sinope, so this should move to have a year attached, and Battle of Sinope should become a set index article listing battles at Sinop/Sinope, with the current title "Battle of Sinop" redirecting to it. A prose list of battles currently is found in the city article's history section. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 08:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.This part doesn't sound right to me: "Nakhimov arranged his force between the Ottomans and the shore batteries shielding his own force and exposing the Ottomans to potential friendly fire." I'm in no way an expert in naval tactics, but wouldn't it be against common sense to place yourself between the enemy an the enemy's shore batteries? If Nakhimov kept the anchored turkish fleet between himself and the batteries this would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.221.90 ( talk) 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Found a (possibly nearly contemporary) map of the battle and it would suggest the more logical disposition of Nakhimov to the south of the anchored ottoman fleet instead of between it and the shore batteries: " http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/63682" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.221.90 ( talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If TitaniumCarbide wishes to rewrite the paragraph, which is fine with me, they need to bring something other than a source from 1869. I am not impressed with the current source; http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/immcauses.html, either. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Sinop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement above is supported only by a dubious and undated reference in Russian. According to the article, however, there were steam ships on both sides in the battle. I therefore propose to delete this misleading statistic, the significance of which is unexplained in any case. Until a more reliable reference is found, it does not belong here. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)