Talk:Crimean War

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)


 * The authentic quote is presented. 95.25.23.158 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I see no mention of WW1. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. 95.25.23.158 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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".

"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 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" 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". 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * You did not even bother to offer up a source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Related Conflicts
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
@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:
 * 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)


 * 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
@ 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)


 * , 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)