Talk:Crimean War/Archive 3

Infobox from hell
The infobox claims an allied victory and cites "The History Guy". This is likely a questionable source. The body of the text really isn't helping on "who won" and sources that tell us as much. From reading the article, this appears to have become something of a stalemate ended by treaty, best described as "inconclusive". The rest of the infobox is badly bloated. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The revision of the Paris Treaty of 1856 took place just 14 years later, in 1870. And then more and more. The peaceful settlement was completely ridiculous and, therefore, short-lived. But what do you want? This often happens in history. It's not that the article was poorly written. It was done then, in the 19th century, badly.93.81.219.212 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My biggest issue is just how bloated it is. We don't need to list 700 different officers, and while I haven't read them I really doubt we need all those footnotes as well. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Really 700? 93.81.219.212 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is a hyperbole, I apologize for not including the "/s" if the exaggeration was unclear. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarification on what I mean by it is too bloated, it is currently longer than the lead AND table of contents combined in a laptop screen. You'd get RSI just from trying to read this on mobile /s. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made a proposed change to the infobox then reverted it, so that we can compare here. I am not knowledgeable enough about the war itself to know which commanders should be listed in the infobox, but I strongly believe having more than 3 or 4 per nation is excessive. Please respond with which version you think is better: the current version or my proposed change. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think 3-4 personalities for each participating country is still not enough. The war was going on on many fronts, each front had its own commander. In addition, the war was very fierce. I can say on behalf of the Russian side that many top commanders were killed in the battles. I could, on the contrary, add more, but they are simply less well-known abroad. So I think of course there should be more than 3-4.93.81.219.140 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. See WWII, WWI, and War of the Fifth Coalition for examples of infoboxes for complex wars involving many countries where the officers are summarized. Also whether the fact many officers in battle does not mean there were many officers that must be mentioned in the infobox. The lead and the infobox should be a concise, effective summary of the article. Listing 15 different Russian officers is immensely excessive. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  18:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly experienced in Military History, but I will observe that this particular infobox seems to get a lot of churn. In particular it seems that I remember seeing personnel numbers (Strength, Casualties and losses) changing constantly for a while, often without changes in citation. I also agree that there is a lot of unnecessary bloat when it comes to Commanders and leaders. Perhaps the latter can be handled in relevant sub-articles.
 * I would like it if we can review and consent on the citations that we use in the infobox. In particular, we should explain why any sources are unreliable. That would help experienced editors inexperienced in Military History, like myself, easily revert the addition of an unreliable or inferior source with a comment like Inferior source as per consent discussion on talk page at ... Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like it if we can review and consent on the citations that we use in the infobox. In particular, we should explain why any sources are unreliable. That would help experienced editors inexperienced in Military History, like myself, easily revert the addition of an unreliable or inferior source with a comment like Inferior source as per consent discussion on talk page at ... Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty minor issue. Of course, reading existing text on smartphones can cause some inconvenience. But on the other hand, the shortening of the text has a negative side, there is a danger of missing something important. This, too, should not be forgotten. 93.81.218.236 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. The purpose is to summarise the article, which is itself a summary.  Furthermore, it should be supported by what is written within the body of the main text.  This is an article about the overall war.  It is supported by articles which provide greater detail about particular battles.  They are the place for such greater detail.  Template:Infobox military conflict would advise us: For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended.  Furthermore, their inclusion should be evident from and supported by the body of the article.  This is not the case here.  The section Crimean War is unreferenced.  The one citation that does appear would link to a photo and in no way goes to the "prominence" of the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think if you see flaws in the article, then you should try to correct them. The only thing I want to ask you is that you do not get carried away with reducing the volume of the text to the detriment of the content.93.81.216.236 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Reinstated edit by IP (with indent). See section  for detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this period in any way and so will keep my comment short; I note that at least one officer noted in the infobox, Robert Segercrantz, is not mentioned in the article at all. He also doesn't seem to have an article on the English Wikipedia and if I'm reading his Russian article correctly, was only the commander of an artillery brigade. I think someone with more understanding of the war than me could certainly pare down the list. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I really think the "prominent military commanders" sections is unnecessary trivia. I think a good guide for who to include is the officers who are actually worth mentioning in the main body prose of the article. And if that still results in too many people, trim it down to the leaders of the respective countries (monarch or premier, whoever is applicable) and the top military men involved (chief of the general staff, for instance, or top commander in the theatre for each country). -Indy beetle (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this is the best approach, sadly I am not knowledgeable enough on the conflict (nor time-period as a whole, really) to make the call myself. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) has many of the same issues as this page does in terms of bloated infobox. I think this might be the case with other pages relevant to the war as well. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I find many infoboxes suffer from this problem, that or people listing every single country as a belligerent when they aren't mentioned in the article. Any pruning has my full support. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Casualties
I have simplified the casualty reporting in the infobox IAW previous discussions to reduce bloat. The information has been placed here as a ready reference. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Declaration of war
This edit [] says "and on October 28 Turkey declared war" yet the infobox says the war started on "16 October", which is correct?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that in any case it is important to indicate the actual date of the start of hostilities and who started them. And they were started by the Turks in an attempt to capture the Fort "Shefketil" or "The Post of St.Nicholas"). The fortress was captured on October 25, 1853. That is, the hostilities began earlier. 178.155.64.69 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but we then need to decide what is the official declaration of war. BY the way we do say the Turks declared war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And (again) if you quote a source you need to say it's a quote, and who by.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are confused between different concepts. There is the concept of " declaration of war", and there is the concept of "the beginning of hostilities". It's not the same thing, generally speaking. Therefore, I urge you not to confuse these things and not reproach me for what I am not guilty of. The Turks declared war on October 28, as Marriott writes, but they began fighting on October 15-16, as Badem wrote.178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, they are different things but you still need to say who said what if it is a quote. If you had done that it might have saved a lot of wasted time. Also (according to Dupey and Dupey) war was dedicated on October 4th. So do we have an authoritative date for the declaration of war?Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Date, Dupey and Dupey 4th Ffrench Blake 5th So when was the format declaration of war?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In this case, it was meant by the Turks + 2 weeks for Russia to make a decision on the withdrawal of troops from the Danube principalities. In addition, for 19 century, it takes time to deliver messages. The telegraph was not everywhere then. I think we can agree with the date of October 4th, this date is given by Figes. 178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I will wait for others to chip in as for some reason we have given the wrong date for a while, I assume there is a reason why.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Britanica gives the dates as October 4, 1853 - February 1, 1856. It states: On October 4 the Turks declared war on Russia and in the same month opened an offensive against the Russians in the Danubian principalities. One would think that there would be some consensus in the sources on this. To the end date, Britannica states: After Austria threatened to join the allies, Russia accepted preliminary peace terms on February 1, 1856. The signing of the Treaty of Paris on 30 March formally ended the war. The distinction between the two dates is a matter of semantics. In the absence of a clear consensus in the sources, the latter has merit. Unfortunately, I don't have any reasonable access to sources on the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral language
The introductory paragraphs states "The immediate cause of the war involved the rights of Christian minorities in Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire" this is non-neutral and also contradicts other information presented in Wikipedia. During Ottoman rule, the area of Palestine, was divided into various Elayats or provinces, indeed the Wikipedia article on the history of Palestine in the Ottoman Empire states: "The Ottomans regarded "Filistin" as an abstract term referring to the "Holy Land", and not one consistently applied to a clearly defined area"

The actual cause of war did involve the rights of Christians who were mostly located within these Elayats or the Vilayet of Jerusalem. The term "holy land" seems a more appropriate description, or even more accurate, the line should read "the immediate cause of war involved the rights of Christian minorities living under Ottoman rule.

Why choose the call the region Palestine when along these lines, if the text read ....rights of Christian minorities in what is now modern day Israel, would be likewise non-neutral. See the following introduction from History.com

"The spark that set off the war was religious tension between Catholics and the Orthodox believers, including Russians, over access to Jerusalem and other places under Turkish rule that were considered sacred by both Christian sects. After violence in Bethlehem in which Orthodox monks were killed, Nicholas sent an emissary to the Turkish sultan, Abdulmecid I, and demanded not only equal access to religious sites but that the sultan recognize Nicholas as protector of Orthodox Christians throughout the Ottoman empire, as British journalist and author A.N. Wilson has written."

Note how it succinctly avoids the use of language which could be intercepted as non-neutral and still conveys the causes of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3F07:446:38CB:99EF:CA0D:7E10 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * From History of Palestine: The name "Palestine" was no longer used as the official name of an administrative unit under the Ottomans because they typically named provinces after their capitals. Nonetheless, the old name remained in popular and semi-official use, with many examples of its usage in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries surviving. It is the English language common name for the region at that point in time.  Sorry but I am not seeing how this becomes an NPOV issue? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Argument over a key?
Any other sources or references available other then the link attached? 2601:3C2:8200:D490:48FA:3895:103B:432 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What was the result of the war?
The infobox claims an allied victory and cites "The History Guy". The body of the article really doesn't address this. From reading the article, by late 1855, both sides had lost the will to continue the war. It also appears that Austria was threatening to join the Allies (per Britannica but not mentioned in the article). This lead to peace talks and the Treaty of Paris. The result was some territorial losses for Russia but the Crimea was relinquished by the Allies. There are two unconnected almost passing comments in the body of the article.
 * As Fuller notes, "Russia had been beaten on the Crimean peninsula, and the military feared that it would inevitably be beaten again unless steps were taken to surmount its military weakness."[154] To compensate for its defeat in the Crimean War, the Russian Empire then embarked in more intensive expansion in Asia, partially to restore national pride and partially to distract Britain on the world stage, intensifying the Great Game.
 * Tsar Alexander II (Nicholas I's son and successor) saw the military defeat of the Russian serf-army by free troops from Britain and France as proof of the need for emancipation.

If there is a consensus in the sources that this was an allied victory, then there will clearly be better sources than the "The History Guy" to support this. Furthermore, the outcome (result) should be clearly articulated in the body of the article that such a consensus exists. That isn't done. I suspect that the sources would tend to be much more circumspect and the outcome was not "conclusive". While it could be labelled as "inconclusive", I don't think that this would be adequate. Regardless of whether it might be called an allied victory or inconclusive, this is probably a case when we should use the See Aftermath option. The problem is that there is no "Aftermath" section or any section to which we might point our readers for a clear summary. In the absence of a good standard term to place in the result parameter of the infobox, I would propose placing the Treaty of Paris as the result in the interim - until we have a reasonable place to direct our readers to. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * History Guy's about page doesn't suggest they are reliable, there's nothing about who runs it and what their credentials are. Since this isn't some minor war in some obscure corner of the world you'd expect there would be better references than that, I would have to agree. FDW777 (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I would add, that the result parameter isn't there for multiple dot points that contribute to bloat. The template documentation and MOS:MIL are relevant to any discussion here. This discussion has been open for about a week and issue was initially identified in an earlier discussion - the OP at .  Yes, it may have been like that for a while but consensus can change.  But furthermore, any questionable material can be removed at any time. It is not appropriate to revert the material but not participate in an open discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022
Can somebody add a "Clarification needed" tag after the clause, "and the wrong guns in sight are left"? It makes no sense. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4E7:A53C:3FD6:69F4 (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the wording.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I found the edit where that wording was added. It changed "'when in the valley, this view was obstructed, leaving the wrong guns in sight" to "In the valley, that view was obstructed, and the wrong guns in sight are left." So it did not mean the guns were to the left; it was just an attempt to make a sentence clearer that made it unintelligible instead. Having read the previous version, may I suggest the following alternative as being more easily understood:
 * Raglan could see those guns because of his position on the hill, but in the valley, where the view was obscured, only a different group of guns was visible.

2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4E7:A53C:3FD6:69F4 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am unsure it needs changing again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But there's no reason to believe the "wrong" guns were to the left. So the edit you made only compounded the mistake of the previous edit. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4E7:A53C:3FD6:69F4 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well the valley was "the the left" of the causeway hights looking from Raglans position.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Austria's involvement and the infobox
Presently, the article states: Indeed, after attempting to mediate a peaceful settlement between Russia and the Ottomans, the Austrians entered the war on the side of the Ottomans with an attack against the Russians in the Danubian Principalities which threatened to cut off the Russian supply lines. [Figes, 2010, p 185] However, Siege of Silistria: The Russian offensive had not been stopped by Ottoman resistance but by diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action.[Baumgart, 2020, p. 110]

Either Austria did or did not attack Russian forces. There are two conflicting statements on this. If there was an attack, where did this happen? Everywhere else in this article, Austria is referred to as maintaining its neutrality. Could those with better access to sources help resolve this apparent inconsistency. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Circassian involvement
would make these edits for the purpose of justifying the addition of Circassia as a belligerent and Cicrassian commanders in the infobox.

"The naval operations of the Crimean War commenced with the dispatch in mid-1853 of the French and the British fleets to the Black Sea region, to support the Ottomans and to dissuade the Russians from encroachment. By June 1853, both fleets had been stationed at Besikas Bay, outside the Dardanelles. With the Russian occupation of the Danube Principalities in October, they moved to the Bosphorus, and in November, they entered the Black Sea. Circassian ships sided with the Ottomans in the Black Sea."
 * The first edit would add the following text:


 * By virtue of the context to which this is added, it would imply that the Circassians sided with the Ottomans in late 1853. It also alters the sense of the text to suggest that the Ottomans and Circassians engaged the Russians as they entered the Black Sea. The ref added has no page. See also the next point.


 * Subsequent edits render the following paragraph:

"In the Northwest Caucasus, the Circassians, due to the ongoing Russo-Circassian War, decided to side with the Ottomans. Circassian leader Seferbiy Zaneqo was appointed as the 'Ottoman governor of Circassia' by the Ottomans, receiving the honorary title of pasha. On 29 October, two messengers carrying orders for Muhammad Amin, Imam Shamil's naib in Circassia, were dispatched from Trabzon to recruit fighters in preparation for his arrival. In May, an Ottoman fleet carrying 300 Circassians including Zaneqo, supplies and military advisors sailed to Sukhum Kale. Later same year, Circassian forces under the command of Qerandiqo Berzeg set out to capture Russian forts."


 * The references lack pages. One of the sources cited (Richmond, p. 59) states: When the Crimean War began, the Circassians seemed to be close to establishing a unified state, albeit one that was now under mortal attack. There was no Circassian state and it would be wrong to rewrite history here to represent that it was. The passage added states: Seferbiy Zaneqo was appointed as the "Ottoman governor of Circassia" by the Ottomans.  This implies that he was a vassal of the Ottomans.  Given the section this appears in is headed "1854" the dates of October, then followed by May are inconsistent.


 * These are a series of factoids that tend to confuse rather than add to a readers understanding. They have been added for the purpose of "justifying" edits to the infobox, which were added with the edit summary: Now it is in the body as well. This is a response to my earlier revert that removed material from the infobox because it was not supported. The summary accompanying that revert was: Not supported by body of article. Don't try to write the article in the infobox. Talk is already open.  For discussion, see  discussing infobox bloat.


 * This type of response to the revert could easily be construed as Gaming the system.


 * WP articles are written in summary style. Circassia was occupied by the Russians prior to the start of the war and its importance in leading to the war is covered in the article's background. Anything further must be consistent with summary style and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Introduction and Immediate Cause
The introductory paragraph is misleading as to the direct cause of the Crimean war and what sparked hostilities. While the original issue was a 3 way dispute between Russia Turkey and France over certain holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem associated with the Life of Christ, this was settled by Lord Stratford in April 1853. Russia followed up with a demand to assume protectorate status over the Greek Orthodox in the entire Ottoman Empire which was rejected by Turkey and this lead to the immediate cause of the war which was Russia occupying the Danubian Principalities and then refusing to evacuate.

There is also further background politics involving the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and the long history of wars fought between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, and Russia taking advantage of this (the sick man of Europe).

Compare the actual reasons above, to the introduction paragraph which states "The immediate cause of the war involved the rights of Christian minorities in Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire" As stated above, this was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties by April 1853. Furthermore the rights of Greek Orthodox would be much more relevant to Constantinople as opposed to religions sites in the Holy Land.

It can absolutely be worded better, and a recommendation to refer to the area of the Ottoman Empire that would eventually become the British Mandate for Palestine to be referred to as the Holy Land or the Levant. 97.102.217.229 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a distinction between the overt pretence for the war and the underpinning causes. But I don't disagree that it could be done a lot better.  WP is something anybody can edit. Go ahead. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

History
I would like to know about the Crimean war 41.210.145.103 (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * please read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional Commanders
So Yegor Tolstoy was the primary governor of several governorates that actively saw participation during the war and Ivan Krasnov was a main military leader of the war, being the main Russian commanders during the Siege of Taganrog. Bebutov was the primary commander of the Battle of Kurekdere and the naval officers I've added were naval figures during the Pacific operations of the war. The article's infobox is too short as the commanders primarily focus on the Crimean campaign as it doesn't completely represent the other campaigns as much, especially the Caucasus campaign. Now I could trim down on the commanders list such as the Pacific commanders for example but the current list is too short to represent the entirety of the war. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , we have had similar discussions elsewhere so I don't think I need to reiterate all of the relevant guidance on this. Please see Talk:Crimean War/Archive 3.  The infobox status quo has been arrived at through a combination of explicit discussion and collaborative editing and the general consensus is to avoid bloat.  Tolstoy and Krasnov have a single passing mention in the body of the article and Bebutov (despite your edit comment) appears to have no mention.  Their inclusions are not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to bring up commanders that don't even have a single mention at all and moreso had to do with a uncited section of a list of prominent commanders. Bebutov does actually have a mention but has a different translation of his surname in the following: "General Bebutashvili defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Kurekdere". Not to mention that their omission actually violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE given that the other campaigns of the war are completely neglected in favor of one. Sure, the Crimean Campaign is the most important campaign of the war but that's like only naming military figures of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War and completely sidelining the rest of the years. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: ... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... And no, commanders do not fall to the spirit and intent of the exceptions noted there nor is their omission a violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. At the best, it might indicate scope for improving the article.  We might revisit this when and if the article changes.  We should also note the advice in the template documentation to limit the number of commanders. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, there could be significantly more written about the Caucasus campaign considering it only has a few paragraphs compared to entire sections of specific battles of the Crimean campaign. I could translate content from the French and Russian wikis. Until then though, there's not much else I can really do though SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Question
I noticed that the time the war took place over is tagged as citation needed, is it usually required that there be a specific citation for that separate from the citations in the body of the article relating to the start and end? Frobird (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, I am not seeing any citation that would support the precise date given in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Following some Russian incursions, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia in October 1853; the date in sources varies between 4 and 16 October – the 12 day difference between Julian (old) and Gregorian (new) calendars, so 16 October is correct. This is not mentioned specifically in the article. The Treaty of Paris was signed on 30 March 1856, and the article mentions this date. I suggest it's safe to remove that template. A quick search returns https://www.prlib.ru/en/history/619634 if somebody wants to add a citation to "In October 1853, ... the Ottomans declared war on Russia." and change that to "On 16 October 1853, ... the Ottomans declared war on Russia." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not seeing any mention in the body of the article (with a supporting citation) that war was declared on a specific date in October 1853. Some amendment to the article is reasonably required to the article before removing the template in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian defeat say historians
"Russian defeat" say the many cites at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=5%2C27&sciodt=0%2C27&cites=238879112336298460&scipsc=1&q="Russian+defeat"&oq=

(enter the search term "Russian defeat" --these are responses to the Figes history. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The war is not over yet, a lot can happen. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess, Rjensen wrote not about modern conflict, but about 1853-1856 war, which is, indeed, a) long over and b) described as resulting in the Russian defeat - even by the Russian sources. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, yes sorry, got confused. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha - I was just going to post before I scrolled down a bit more - I was wondering what year you thought it was.  :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Burning Finnish coastal towns
It might be mentioned that attacking and burning tar warehouses and lumber in Finnish coastal towns during the Baltic campaign cost Her Majesty's government a good deal since most of the tar and lumber was already owned by British merchants who demanded compensation from the government. Most of the tar would also have been destined for the Royal Navy, so talk about shooting one's self in the foot! Death Bredon (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The casualties and losses during Crimean war
The casualties and losses during Crimean war 62.7.226.237 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What about them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Russian losses are overestimated 46.211.99.225 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are they, source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the book of Urlanis, often quoted by military historians, the following data are given on the losses of the parties in the Crimean War:
 * French army: Killed, died of wounds - 20240 Died of disease - 75375
 * English army: Killed, died of wounds - 4602 Died of disease - 17225
 * Turkish army: Killed, died of wounds - 20900 Died of disease - 24500
 * Total in the armies of the allies: Killed, died of wounds - 45742 Died of disease - 117100
 * Russian army: Killed, died of wounds - 46121 Died of diseases - 88755
 * Source: B.Ts.Urlanis. History of military losses.  Wars and the population of Europe.  Human losses of the armed forces of European countries in the wars of the XVII-XX centuries.  (historical and statistical research).  Polygon-AST: SPB-M, page 286, 1998 46.211.99.225 (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to contradict other souces, so we have a range. It seems therefore we need to put the range in, lowest estimate to highest. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Other sources also indicate such figures. The problem is that many Wikipedias in other languages ​​simply copy the contents of the English Wikipedia.  For example, the Czech Wikipedia shows completely different numbers.  But the main problem is the absence of the "Losses" section, where an analysis of various sources would be carried out, as well as the losses themselves (wounded, dead from illness and in battle). Similar sections exist in other articles about wars, but it is missing here. 46.211.99.225 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Our figures are not sourced to any wiki, they are sourced to books as reputable as the source you provide. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven I would suggest supplementing the information about the losses on the Russian side. There are only two references in this article (only one of them I could check).  In general, the figures that were indicated in the book "Warfare and armed conflicts" by M. Clodfelter coincide with other sources (namely, those who died in battles, etc.), but the figure of 377,000 died from diseases and weather conditions is extremely unrealistic.  In other works devoted to this war, I did not find such figures, and indeed, the book (at least in the publishing house in which I looked) does not provide a specific source from where this figure was taken.  She hardly appears anywhere.  It would be better to either remove this figure or supplement the article with other sources for objectivity.  For example, in the same Britannica they write: "The Crimean War led to a total loss of about 500,000 people, with about half of them affected on each side. A disproportionate number of deaths were caused by diseases." 46.211.104.123 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Here are some more numbers I found on the forums on the study of this war. It would be nice to point to the exact sources page.
 * Gaston Bodart, Losses of Life in Modern Wars:
 * Russia: 40,000 KIA + 60,000 disease = 100,000
 * France: 20,240 KIA + 75,375 dis. = 95,615
 * Turkey: ca. 35,000 dead
 * UK: 4,602 KIA + 17,580 dis. = 22,182
 * Piedmont: 28 KIA + 2,166 dis. = 2,194
 * [TOTAL: 277,173]
 * John Sweetman, The Crimean War (Essential Histories, No 2):
 * UK: KIA: 2,755 Died of wounds: 2,019  Died of disease: 16,323
 * [Total: 21,097]
 * France: KIA: 10,240 Died of wounds: 20,000  Died of disease: 75,000
 * [Total: 105,240]
 * Sardinia: 2,050 (all causes)
 * Turkey: unknown
 * Russia: 110,000+
 * 1911 Britannica:
 * Battle deaths: Allies: 70,000  Russians: 128,700
 * [TOTAL: 198,700]
 * Dead from all causes: Allies: 252,600  Russians: 256,000
 * [TOTAL: 508,000]
 * Joel David Singer, The Wages of War:
 * Russia: 100,000
 * France: 95,000
 * Turkey: 45,000
 * UK: 22,000
 * Sardinia: 2,200
 * [Total: 264,200]
 * William Eckhardt, World Military and Social Expenditures:
 * 264,000 military.
 * this has not yet taken into account the calculations of the numerous works of Russian and Soviet scientists, due to access to a large number of sources, it can be suggested that they have a more objective figure of Russian losses. From the above, it is clear that one range cannot be dispensed with; it is required to create a separate section in the article where all sources would be considered, since they differ greatly. 46.211.104.123 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to resolve this, we would probably need to have a casualties section in the article as a place to discuss various reports and a way of easily comparing reports from different sources. In the first instance, I think we need an easily read table so we can see just who is saying what. What I am seeing so far isn't helpful because it isn't doing that. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * On a related note, there should also be a range of Ottoman losses. On the English wikipedia, deaths are listed as 45,400 killed, but on French wikipedia, Ottoman losses are listed as 120,000 dead (using I think Figes as source). So yes, ranges should be put for the losses. 2601:85:C100:46C0:E4BE:FF92:7426:AFBE (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Errors on map
This map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War#/media/File:CrimeanWarBattles.png shows an amusing error with the location of the Battle of Chernaya. The battle actually happened on the Crimean Peninsula, but it looks like the location was confused with another Chernaya/Chornaya river somewhere in southern Russia that shows up if you search it on Google Maps. This should probably be fixed. 198.84.235.131 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

ButterscotchPuffin (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

United States participation
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, the Coldstream Guards are a regiment of the British Army, not the US Army. Historyfan300 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so what relevance does this have to US participation? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * THis looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What does OR mean? Historyfan300 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Because Austria and Prussia technically got involved. And the Caucasian Imamate helped until 1854. Historyfan300 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Collage image
, 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)


 * Okay then thank you Vbbanaz05 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I am very successful. Can you let me? Elanoraga (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Answer me sir please. Elanoraga (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Okay then we can start talking. Elanoraga (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

, 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)


 * 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 A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How bad could it be? I even used an application that improves image quality. Elanoraga (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)