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.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Romania-
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
The United States technically participated in the Crimean War, since I read on
this website that "Some Americans supported the European and Ottoman Allies. Others lined up behind Russia, as memory of the British attack on the United States capitol in 1814 remained all too fresh." They also sent future Union General George McClellan to Sevastopol.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 12:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I am unsure that is an RS, but even if it was I a unsure that (for example) individuals or observers are enough to add the US as a participant (and if so on what side)?
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well,
the Royal Family got visited by "a group of injured
Grenadier Guards" according to
this website, and they visited them at
Buckingham Palace. In
John Gilbert's painting called "The Queen inspecting wounded Coldstream Guardsmen in the Hall of Buckingham Palace", it specifically refers to the visiting soldiers as "Coldstream Guardsmen" aka members of the
Coldstream Guard, who participated at the battles of
Alma,
Inkerman, and
Sevastopol. As for the participation of the United States, technically, a Russian escorted them, and his name is Lieutenant Colonel Obrescoff and
Samuel Colt sold weapons to
the Russians. But I think that
the War of 1812 had faded within the minds of the American People, and they are calm with allying with the British, French, Sardinians, and Turks. Also, America teamed up with Britain in
the First Opium War with signing
the Treaty of Wanghia in 1844. Not only that, but one of its first millionaires,
John Jacob Astor, got rich from smuggling Opium from the states to
China. If you want to learn about an American transport ship in the Crimean War, then, read
this book.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 12:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Last time I checked (I could be wrong) the Coldstream guards were not a regiment in the US army, so am unsure what relevance they have e to this question.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, the Coldstream Guards are a regiment of the British Army, not the US Army.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 13:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, so what relevance does this have to US participation?
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, the British and Americans are friends at this point in history, so it will make since for the Americans to aid the rest of the pro-Ottoman crew.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 20:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
wp:or (original research). 13:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
"Supported by" in the infobox is deprecated. It has been removed. There would need to be a specific consensus (ie RfC) to re-add Austria (or any others) in face of the broader community consensus to deprecate its usage. The line above Greece and the
Caucasian Imamate in the infobox are unclear as to the meaning. They have been removed for now subject to further discussion. Regarding commanders: the template documentation limits the number populating this field and
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that information in the infobox should be supported by the article. Additional commanders that were added exceeds the template documentation guidance and I doubt that any of those added are supported by the article. As the infobox is basically full of its allocation of commanders, we would need to reach a consensus on any changes to this.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
You can't just delete the "Supported by" information. That's not how it works. You know Prussia, Austria, Greece, and the Caucasian Imamate got involved too.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 03:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Umm yes it does and yes I can. See the template documentation at
Template:infobox military conflict under the belligerent parameter. "Supported by" is deprecated. This means that entries of "supported by" can be deleted because of the broader community consensus that its use is deprecated.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 03:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Listen. I'm sorry for what happened. Can you add back Austria, and the Caucasian Imamate? And add Prussia too.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 04:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If "supported by" is deprecated, why would we do that? Where is the affirmative consensus for readding supporters?
Cinderella157 (
talk) 04:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Because Austria and Prussia technically got involved. And the Caucasian Imamate helped until 1854.
Historyfan300 (
talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Collage image
Vbbanaz05, would add a collage in place of the present image. This has been challenged. A consensus is needed for such a change.
MOS:LEADIMAGE would tell us the image should be representative and give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.WP:MONTAGE tels us: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. [emphasis added] I don't see that the condition of necessity is met. While other articles might use collages,
WP:OTHERTHINGS applies. This is only a valid argument if it conforms with
WP:P&G and represents best practice as evidenced by our articles of the best quality (eg
WP:FA). Generally, collage images tend to be too busy to effectively fulfill the requirements of
MOS:LEADIMAGE - as in this case. Per
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Collages that are not necessary per
WP:MONTAGE are ostensibly decorative. They might be characterised as trying to visually write the article in the infobox an would therefore fail in respect to
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay then thank you
Vbbanaz05 (
talk) 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I am very successful. Can you let me?
Elanoraga (
talk) 04:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a big war. And this has to happen please let me I don't think I have failed.
Elanoraga (
talk) 04:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Answer me sir please.
Elanoraga (
talk) 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not up to me to let you but a consensus to let you or not.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay then we can start talking.
Elanoraga (
talk) 09:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Elanoraga, you have sought to add a different collage image to the lead without consensus. When this was reverted, you reinstated it with the edit summary: This is just your opinion and a lot of effort has been put into this picture. It will not be given up easily. Let the edit war begin [emphasis added]. An ANI discussion has been initiated
here in consequence of your conduct as evidenced by your edit summary.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 11:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry Elanoraga that collage is very blurry due to its low resolution, it's very much worse than the image that proceeded it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«
@» °
∆t° 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
How bad could it be? I even used an application that improves image quality.
Elanoraga (
talk) 17:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I will use the best pictures I can. Just tell me if this is unnecessary. I just want to improve this page image
Elanoraga (
talk) 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Use of Ironclads
At the very end of the "Black Sea Theater" sub section the use of ironclads is referenced.
This is contradicted elsewhere, the article for
Ironclad warship states they weren't even built until 1859, and not used until the American Civil War in the 1860s.
The statement also appears to have no reference attached.
It seems likely that the section is referring to iron skinned ships. A slightly different thing, and probably worth clarifying.
ButterscotchPuffin (
talk) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Hello. I'm perplexed why my edit was reverted. Can you please spell out what the problem is? I can point to several ways in which I think it improves the existing prose, but I won't do that until I can understand what the objections are. Thank you.
Ikuzaf (
talk) 01:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Nikolai Pirogov,
Can this claim be verified, it is both A extraordianry and B not even implied in our article about him. The fact the source is a range, and not a specific page rings alarms bells. So can we have a quote that says he techniques were not used untill the first world war?
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The authentic quote is presented.
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Another quote in addition (Orlando Figes):
"Pirogov’s contribution to battlefield medicine is as significant as anything achieved by Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War, if not more so".
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 13:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have now managed to find the quote, it needs atribation as it is only one historians claim.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It is an extraordinary claim that his techniques were not used for another 60 years. Thus the claim needs attribution unless other sources can be found to verify this claim.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the opinion of one of the authoritative sources, the author Orlando Figes, who has been quoted many times and to the greatest extent in this article.
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 13:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I can walk about 20 feet and find half a dozen books on this war, you need more than one source to say this is true in out voice.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You have a strange logic. With this logic, I suggest that you try to challenge the remaining 48 quotes from Figes' books (48 quotes from Figes' books out of a total of 180 in an article about the Crimean War).
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 13:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Do they say anything no one else has said? First use "The Ottoman vassal states of Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent. Christians in the Ottoman Empire gained a degree of official equality, and the Orthodox Church regained control of the Christian churches in dispute", I can find any number of sources supporting that such as Lapidus, Ira M. (Ira Marvin) (2002). A history of Islamic societies (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. But it is time for others to chip in.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe you have some reason to consider a quote from Figes' book insufficiently authoritative. Although Figes' book is an authoritative source and the article about the Crimean War is based largely on quotations from Figes' books. But then you have to give arguments why you think the source of Figes is not authoritative enough for you. For some reason, you decided to demand this from me. That's a strange logic.
95.25.23.158 (
talk) 14:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:VNOT and
WP:EXCEPTIONAL reasonably apply and the issue here is the assertion: that other nations only came to use his field surgery system in WWI. We know that Pirogov was a delegate of the Red Cross during the Franco-Prussian War and visited field hospitals. It would be disingenuous to assert that he did not advise of his method or that such advice was ignored. It is approprite to add mention of Pirogov but avoid that which is controversial/exceptional from Figes. Just because we can verify that somebody said something doesn't mean we are obliged to repeat it. We could say something like: Nikolai Pirogov pioneered a system of
field surgery that came to be widely used through the First World War.Cinderella157 (
talk) 00:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It is necessary to understand the following. Figes is one of the modern Western historians whose historical works represent a significant achievement of historical science. Many of his assessments are new and unusual for Western historiography. For example, as you can see here, Pirogov's scientific and practical achievements are highly appreciated by Figes. It can be noted with satisfaction that his works is widely used in the article on the Crimean War. This increases the scientific level of the article. Of course, it is possible to require verification of Figes' statements. But here I see (as in this case) just a conservative reaction, an attempt to deny a new view of history, to stay in line with the usual ideas. The Crimean War as an opposition of "we are good, and they are bad", "Western civilization against Russian barbarism". Of course, if Figes appreciates Pirogov highly, then this somewhat contradicts such a simple and primitive approach.
95.25.14.73 (
talk) 05:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Cinderella157, I think it is necessary to preserve the general meaning of Figes' statement. He says that the system of battle surgery was organized (by Pirogov) at such a high level, which was achieved in other countries only by World War 1. It is also possible to expand and add a quote with an assessment of Figes (given above).
95.25.14.73 (
talk) 07:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion of the text fragment
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)reply
What does this add, why do we need to know this?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
Time for others to chip in, my objection stands until I say otherwise.
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand you didn't know that.
95.25.108.45 (
talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
References
^
abFiges 2011, pp. 37. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFiges2011 (
help)
^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. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFiges2011 (
help)
LOL
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)reply
You did not even bother to offer up a source.
Slatersteven (
talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply