Talk:History of the Russo-Turkish wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move[edit]

Page moved to neutral title. Half of wars were started by Turkey, and in fact it was Turkey who was aggressive, until got its ass kicked. mikka (t) 05:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Refering to move from Russian Expansionism and Ottoman Empire to History of Russo-Turkish wars. -- Petri Krohn 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ghirlandajo's deletion attempt[edit]

(On April 8 User:Ghirlandajo redirected this article to Russo-Turkish War(s), thus in fact deleting its content. [1] -- Petri Krohn 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(The above notice is false. The article by Tommiks, as he was told minutes after its "creation", has no original content other than pillaged from other, more neutral articles on Russo-Turkish Wars. Therefore, no content was lost in removing the fork. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get your anti-Turkish POV — this is very incivil, in the other page you assumed bad faith and jumped to the conclusion that the Turkish books obviously organised the wars in a different way because they lost. Obviously. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by plundering from individual articles on Russo-Turkish Wars. Some stuff is taken from EB1911, some was written for other articles by myself, some is pure original research - you\ll never know who contributed what. Even the elastic definition of GFDL doesn't allow for such sort of plundering the contributions of others. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then rewrite it. We need an overview. Copyright problems are easy to fix. How does it not "allow for such" contributions? You realise we do subpages all the time: see WP:SUMMARY. In "World War II", we summarise each theatre and give an overview. At least we have Punic Wars (which is not a disambiguation page). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not simply redirect this to a disambiguation page - this page is needed to explain the context of the disambiguation page. If you disagree, put this up for afd for community consensus, not redirect it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a mechanical compilation of individual articles on Russo-Turkish wars, slightly seasoned with pro-Turkish POV. It is the very definiton of a POV fork. Once the author started compiling these articles into one, he was promptly reminded that his actions were disruptive and that Wikipedia does not allow for forks to propagate one's POV. He went to upload several silly tables, which gave this "article" a semblance of integrity, however. No AfD procedures are needed here, as we delete no original contributions. We just revert the POV fork. Besides, a redirect to Russo-Turkish Wars is the very thing we need. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is grounds for deletion, please post this article for AfD and state these as reasons. (I do not think you would get much support on these grounds though.)
As to the question on POV fork, there is no corresponding article from a Russian or a neutral point-of-view. If there is they should be merged. -- Petri Krohn 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is now a content dispute. Therefore, unilateral reversion is no longer accepted, and for this article to no longer exist, must go through a deletion process as I dispute its removal. If you revert me again, I will revert the blanking and put it up for afd for community consensus. Tag it for cleanup, NPOV, whatever, but we need an overview to work from. "POV forks" are deleted after an afd, not unilaterally before. So what if it was against policy? Let's take it upon ourselves to turn this into a reasonably neutral article. We need an overview. Fact is, these wars have a common thread. They are also sometimes grouped together. It is not merely a collection of different articles, the fact that WP:SUMMARY states that an overview, then having summaries of each section is precisely the thing to do it with. The point of view can be taken out and be replaced with more historical writing. Do not redirect this article without due process. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you have sufficient knowledge of the Russo-Turkish Wars to make claims that the Pruth campaign, Crimean War, and World War I "have a common thread"? For my part (and I wrote articles on three of the wars in question), I fail to see any. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have common thread such that they can be discussed in an article which concerns relations between the two nations. Please see PAP-UMNO relations, Punic Wars (because the Third Punic War were not that heavily with the two previous ones), Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941) (latter being a featured article but the article discusses cooperation over a series of different regimes) et al. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the only NPOV I can detect is in the last section. Of course, source citation is another issue. I do not see any blatant nationalism in either way (if one thinks otherwise, point out specific passages. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting an article does not require an AfD. It is clearly silly to have two separate articles Russo-Turkish Wars and History of Russo-Turkish Wars. Even if we did have the latter article, the correct English title would be History of the Russo-Turkish Wars. I think there is something to be said for Russo-Turkish Wars not being essentially a disambiguation page, and containing a concise discussion of the overall course of the Russo-Turkish Wars and such. This article, though, seems problematic. I'm not sure I fully understand Ghirlandajo's complaints about GFDL violations - the idea that copying and pasting material from one wikipedia article to another constitutes a GFDL violation seems odd to me, and doesn't seem to fit with customary practice. Despite this, though, this article seems to be kind of messy and problematic. But surely some kind of reasonable compromise could be worked out. john k 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect does not normally require an AFD. But if its redirection (and thereby blanking) is disputed, afd allows taking care of the matter. It's not that silly to have two separate articles: the disambig page links to this article, and the disambig page servers its purpose. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page seems to be an important extension to Ottoman Empire Page. It's organization fits to the story line of Ottoman Empire page. Deletion of this article (redirect is also a form of deletion) would break the storyline of Ottoman Empire page. It's design (needs work..) seems to be give a general view of 250 years. It does not generate detailed storylines, and gives direct links to individual campaigns. I strongly reject deletion of this page.--OttomanReference 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is 21th century. There is no single way to look at this part of history. Russian way of organization is only one way among many. Turkish history books gives a continous explanation of this part of history, which would be nice to share with others. This article seems to be intended to give that look, however falls short. Ghirlandajo instead of correcting the mistakes, if any exists, tries to get rid of the article. I could not see an article that has the same scope at wikipedia. I would like to continue with this organization and make it more effective. However, the way to achive this passes cooperation, which does not come along, as it reads from the previous parags. Also I do not see many Turkish authors (names) from the history of this article. May be in the future there will be more. ..--OttomanReference 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continue the good work :-) -- Petri Krohn 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John, the reason why copying and pasting material from one wikipedia article to another MAY constitute a GFDL violation is simple: Wikipedia keeps track of the history of pages so as to better defend itself against charges of copyright violation. Copying and pasting does not copy the history of the passages that are copied. So, if anything happens to the pages where these passages evolved, we have a problem. Do the pasters want/agree to be criminally reponsible and financially liable to the full extent of (the letter of) the law if the text they put up is claimed to be a violation of copyright? I do not think so. Of course as long as Ghirla keeps repeating that these texts were simply copied and pasted and the original page is not deleted, there is no danger of a copyright violation claim. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a trivial issue. When copy-pasting some content from other articles written by other people, simply say so in the edit summary. This restores GFDL transparency and ends the issue as far as the CP is conserned. Not doing so not only violates the GFDL (which in such case may not be a problem since no one would start a lawsuite over this) and not only looses track of how the text came into being, but it is also unethical towards the editors who wrote the content originally. --Irpen 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you used {{main}} templates, then it would not violate the GFDL. It is not needed in the edit summary. If you made hint that the material came from such a link, or such a context, there is no problem. There is no ethics involved however. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I have done the following to clear things up:

I have also removed Ghirlandajo's merge tag ((merge|Ottoman wars in Europe)) from the article. I feel this was added in an attempt to disrupt wikipedia in an attempt to make a point. If you feel that the merge is called for, feel free to add the tag tomorrow, once the current mess is cleared. -- Petri Krohn 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the articles linking to Russo-Turkish Wars. A few articles were about a specific war, I tried to disambiguate these. Most however refer to the history of the wars in general. There is no need to redirect these to a disambiguation page. In fact, disambiguation would be almost impossible. -- Petri Krohn 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petri Krohn, who did not contribute a single article about a Russo-Turkish battle, let alone a war (while I wrote articles on three wars and many battles), attempts to introduce a mess of POV forks into the WP coverage of the topic. He failed to explain his reason for selectively piling up the articles on Azov campaigns, Crimean War, and WWI into a single POV page and changing well-established redirects to link here. It is the same as if I merged the articles on WWI and WWII into a single page on History of the World Wars with occasional POV remarks and then proceeded to turn all the redirects to link here. If Petri Krohn doesn't explain his activities and continues to disrupt this segment of Wikipedia, his clueless edits will be promptly reverted. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We indeed don't need forks. If the view here is that there is a common connection between the Crimean campaigns of 1687 and 1689 and the WWI please cite the refs as such and write an article about those connection not about wars for which articles exist already. In no way this justfies this so called "History..." which is just a bunch of older articles pasted together. If an editor wishes to add info to separate wars, like tables and such, he should do that in the existing war articles. The forks are deleted through an AfD all the time and if someone insists, I can list it there. But that would delete the tables and other small edits from the history and their author will not be able to add them to other articles or will need to recreate them. As such, I will blank it again into a redirect. But if others keep restoring it, than it will go to an AfD. --Irpen 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why we need a separate article on the History of the Russo-Turkish wars... There used to be a nice disambig page, which directed users to each of the wars. Why do we suddenly need a long summary on the history of these wars? What is the purpose? Each article on each of the wars provides enough information on each war without this weird history article. If you feel like expanding articles on each of the wars, then go ahead and do so. I'd vote for the reinstatement of the disambig page without the long history article. KNewman 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It provides context of the antagonism between the two countries. The disambiguation page still exists. After the umpteenth war or so, historians would want to trace the reasons why these countries fought all the time, though seemingly unrelated reasons. Again, this only follows Wikipedia:Summary style, and the individual articles is only satisfactory if you only want information on a specific war, but not if you wanted to study the historical relationship between the two countries. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ottoman wars in Europe[edit]

I would like to know why my tag proposing to move tables (and other small edits from this article which were not pillaged from articles on individual wars) to Ottoman wars in Europe was summarily deleted. The latter article lacks informations on Russo-Turkish conflict. WTF? How many forks on the same subject do we need? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll[edit]

Lets have a straw poll and see what is considered preferable by the editors. I could protect the article on the period of poll (I would prefer to protect the full version of the article to simplify its comparison with the articles on individual wars) but it may stop the authors on improving the article. abakharev 14:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make the article to be a redirect to a disambig list of the wars[edit]

We can move the material not present in the articles on the individual wars into the Ottoman wars in Europe.

  1. Support The material here is mostly duplicated with the articles on the individual wars and the Ottoman wars in Europe, this constitute a POV-fork. Any error found would have to be fixed in at least two places. abakharev 14:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplication is not a criteria for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no deletion, because there are no original contributions. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad logic. The contribution has been organising them into one article, summarising them, giving it context, and stringing them together. That is an original contribution. The ideal parent article should in fact not have much information that is not already mentioned in the subpages, because the subpages will elaborate on the information already existing in the parent article. This is normal Wikipedia tradition. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. It is not mere duplication, and thus is deletion if you redirect it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Ghirla -трёп- 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support, not in general, but for the current content, which is just a fork, see discussion. --Irpen 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support --User:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. support --Alextalk 03:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. KNewman 05:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. —Khoikhoi 06:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the article[edit]

Keep and make it conform wikipedia traditions in format[edit]

The article must have a clear sectioning in correspondence with major conflicts, listed in the disambig page Russo-Turkish War, and interbellum periods (to cover political moves and possibly occasional skirmishes).

  1. Support. `'mikka (t) 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, why not delete links to Russo-Swedish War the way links to Russo-Turkish War were deleted and merge all the articles on individual Russo-Swedish wars into a gigantic hodge-podge fork on the model of History of Russo-Turkish wars, sprucing it up with POV statements and incomprehensible tables? Should we do the same for all the English-French Wars in history? Why not merge WWI with WWII? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not merging articles, we're covering a summary of them. Oh by the way, we have a separate article on World War. Your examples are destruction, so are your proposals. The idea is to reform. If it is POV, then that can be corrected, unless you think that the scope of the topic is inherently POV. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Yakudza 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. ----OttomanReference 16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. -- There are over 200 articles covering the Russo-Turkish wars. We need an article summarising not just the battles but "geopolitical motives" behind the wars. Also, there are multiple references to the wars in general. -- Petri Krohn 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't mind that either but I am not voting for it because the vote is about the current article, not a generally good idea to have a review of RU-TK relationship. To develop such a useful hypothetical article, the current article is useless, and that rather has to be done from scratch than from a bunch of existing articles pasted together and called a Review of those. --Irpen 20:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with Irpen here - I read though the article and I found so many problems (Turkey changing its sex, "Russions", incomplete sentences, paragraphs obviously written from the Ottoman viewpoint only) I would not like to be the one who re-writes this. This needs to be re-written from scratch.User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions[edit]

  • Turn it into a general Russo-Ottoman relations (or Russo-Turkish relations, but that might be even wider in scope) that would be a summary of both the military and diplomatic aspects of their relationship. Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this is a keep vote but remove all unsourced material. It shouldn't be too difficult to place information in from the specific wars and battles. And that information can be sourced easy enough. I oppose a redirect because this topic should exist, and I oppose a merge because this is a NPOV title. Falphin 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Making order[edit]

As I see, the History of Russo-Turkish wars article already mentions battles with other countries. It makes sense to make an order with Turkish wars. Am I correct in assuming there were two major and independent theatres, Ottoman wars in Europe and Ottoman wars in Middle East and Africa? At least this is what I see from Category:Wars of the Ottoman Empire. Were there any ottomans wars to the east of the empire?

Also, History of Russo-Turkish wars has rights for existence, but as a summary, not as an independent article.

As I understand the intentions of Tommiks, he started with collecting raw material into one place for further processing (which emotional Ghira called "pillaging"). Unfortunatrely Tommiks put upon himself a very huge job. He started quite a few very big articles about Ottoman Empire and probably overestimated his free time. In any case, the discussed article was basically left in half-cooked state half a year ago. No big deal; this happens in wikipedia all the time..

So what we need is to mold the article into a logical structure by:

  • sectioning it properly. Sectioning by centuries is arbitrary and pointless. It must be by major events/epochs
  • moving unnecessary details into existing individual articles.
  • filling (or at least identifying) the gaps in the historical summary.
  • etc.

`'mikka (t) 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to rework this as a general Russo-Ottoman relations article, then, if we're going to be including the interbellum periods. In any case, the funny tables really need to go: "Home"? "Guest"? "Müttefikler"?. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an veven better suggestion. By the way, "Müttefikler" is not "motherfker" :-) it means "Allies" in Turkish. Allah akbar! `'mikka (t) 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wonder if the tables have been copied here from the Turkish Wikipedia; that might explain the unusual structure. Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To rework it into what's suggested would be not a bad idea, but that would be a totally different article, not a bunch of wars pasted together, and such should be written from scratch based on different sources and with different approaches. Let me try to make an analogy. History of the World Wars is an interesting subject and belongs to the realm of the Political scientists, while the separate WW1, WW2 and hypothetical WW3 articles belong to the Mitiary history.

In no way history of RU-TU relationship is the bunch of the detailed accounts of the wars pasted together. By all means, start writing such article but this one is just useless for that. If it is blanked, the enthusiasts of the battles and military details would add the info and tables to the war articles where they belong, rather than here. I would rather see this blanked into a redirect then deleted because whatever useful was done to it after the suff was initially pasted would be preserved in article's history to be copied to the respective article. That's why my first action was blanking it into a redirect rather than AfDing. --Irpen 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it's quite possible that none of the present material is worth salvaging. I do think it will be helpful to make clear that there is a general intent to have a Russo-Turkish relations article; that might answer the concerns of some people who are worried about information disapearing. Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept too important to disappear.[edit]

There is no reason, on my side, not to express my disappointment. Russo-Ottoman history that extends beyond 300 years is constructed under a "Disambiguation" page. I would be in a very difficult position to explain why a page that is "2 years old" is disappearing to many people I know. They would ask what is the motivation behind this? I think it is very insufficient to tell them that user User:Ghirlandajo did not like the content, or the page is not deep enough. Ottomans belived that Russions wanted to reach to "hot waters". Russions did everything they could, even ignite civil unrest under ottoman empire. Today many Turks belive that this desire is part of their policy. Is there a page besides this page better to express this side of the history. I could not see how one could use a "fancy but useless" side bar to cover this part (or not cover?) of the history.--OttomanReference 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OttomanReference, please understand the position here. The problem is not in dislilikng the content. The problem is that the content is duplitious. The consept is important and you are welcome to start writing an article on Ottoman-Russian relationship from scratch, fist as a stub, but not a mechanical pasting together of the existing articles of the wars. Please read above on the differences between the two. Finally, the debate about really deletion only came into existence by your (ant others') restoring of the fork article from several attempts to blank it by a redirect. In the latter case the history would still be there and no one would prevent you from adding tables and other data from here to individual war articles. If, due to your persistence, the article ends up deleted, all the hsitory will be lost as well. Please note, that usually, forks get easily deleted when posted to AfD. That it wasn't posted there and rather blanked, was a courtesy, not an attempt to circumvent the process. So, I suggest you consider:
  • When you want to improve the coverage of individual wars, add info to those wars' articles,
  • If you want a review of the RU/TK relationship, start writing a stub, rather than pasting the wars together. Wars are the realm of the Military historians. History of the relationship is the realm of the Political scientists. The mechanical sum of wars is no more useful for the relation article than the number of already existing articles. --Irpen 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I have had done; When I reached this article to add the Ottoman Empire template; there was no redirect. After I added the template, the redirect was attached. I tried to paste the content, but redirect put me into another page. I first reverted my mistake from the redirect page and recognized that someone reverted the original page before I can. This document dates back more many other links which the added redirect points to. It might be that this document pulled some info, or they may moved some from here. Just the date information proves that this is not a "FORK".--OttomanReference 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are defending that these 11 individual pages that covers Russ-Turko wars are "Military Article", than they have one hell of a political and social information contained in them. They have NPOV issues from Turkish perspective, which I would not bring if you classify them political history. Especially ones belong to 19th century. You have come with arguments, but I have hard time to balancing your arguments with the lost of content when you get rid of this page. I believe bringing the NPOV related content to this page and making those pages really military history pages would have been a better solution, which none of you willing to do. But you should not claim that they are military history, where some of them even do not include basic military info.--OttomanReference 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of pages is in fact far greater than the 11 on the disambiguation page. The Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 alone has an additional 11 articles covering the individual battles of the wars.
The Crimean War has an additional 14 articles (not all of them related to the Turkish front) plus a total of 3 subcategories: Battles of the Crimean War (13 articles), Crimean War people and People of the Crimean War (39 articles). This has yet another subcategory: Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients with 112 articles... (Well you get the point.)
-- Petri Krohn 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the Battle of Shipka Pass (1877-78) is in fact yet another disambiguation page to four more battle articles. -- Petri Krohn 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home vs guest ? Bad choice[edit]

I am shocked to see the column headings home vs guest in the tables. What are we referring to ? A basketball match or a war ? Wars are not funny with so much human lost and grief. They shouln't be visualised as favorite past time hobbies. I move we should immediatelly find better column headings. My suggestion is defensive vs offensive . I am waiting for even better headings. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, & since it's been nearly a year, I'm changing it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is, it was copied and adapted from a football table by someone who knew next to nothing about Wikitables. Knowing little myself about building tables, I trimmed and adapted the first, smallest table. I'm not entirely sure this information should be tabular at all. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gettin' fragged[edit]

"At the end of the century from Russian perspective; Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and autonomy of Bulgaria was achieved. " Doubtless there was a complete thought intended. I have no idea what it was. Can anybody explain? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict table[edit]

I'd to hear the argument how this table is "manipulative", otherwise I'm going to restore it. --Mttll (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name Result
1 Russo-Turkish War (1568–1570) Russian victory
2 Russo-Turkish War (1571–1574) Turkish victory in the first phase, Russian victory in the second phase
3 Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) Turkish victory
4 Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700) Russian victory
5 Russo-Turkish War (1710–1711) Turkish victory
6 Russo-Austrian-Turkish War (1735–1739) Draw at the Russo-Turkish front, Turkish victory at the Austro-Turkish front
7 Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) Russian victory
8 Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) Russian victory
9 Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812) Russian victory
10 Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829) Russian victory
11 Crimean War (1853–1856) Turkish, British and French victory
12 Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) Russian victory
13 World War I: Caucasus Campaign (1914–1918) Eventual collapse of both empires

"Multiple defeats" in Crimea[edit]

According to the source;

  • Treaty of Nis (1739), Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, ed. Alexander Mikaberidze, (ABC-CLIO, 2011), 647;"Peace treaty signed on October 3, 1739, at Nissa (Serbia) between Russia and the Ottoman Empire to conclude the Russo-Ottoman War of 1736-1739. Druing this conflict Russia was supported by Austria, which, however, suffered defeats and was forced to accept disadvantageous Treaty of Belgrade in September 1739. Although Russia continued the war for a couple more weeks the Austrian pullout forced it to accept the Ottoman conditions. Russia restored portions of Moldavia and Bessarabia, including the city of Khotin, to the Turks, and promised to dismantle the fortifications at Azov, which however, Russian retained as a port. Russia also agreed not to maintain war ships in the Black Sea. The Ottomans agreed to grant Russia certain trading privileges."

I see nothing about the Crimea. Per the article Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39)

  • "On May 20, 1736, the Russian Dnieper Army (62,000 men) under the command of Field Marshal Burkhard Christoph von Munnich took by storm the Turkish fortifications at Perekop and occupied Bakhchisaray on June 17.[3] However, lack of supplies coupled with the outbreak of an epidemic forced Münnich to retreat to Ukraine. On June 19, the Russian Don Army (28,000 men) under the command of General Peter Lacy with the support from the Don Flotilla under the command of Vice Admiral Peter Bredahl seized the fortress of Azov.[3] In July 1737, Münnich's army took by storm the Turkish fortress of Ochakov. Lacy's army (already 40,000 men strong) marched into the Crimea the same month and captured Karasubazar. However, Lacy and his troops had to leave the Crimea due to lack of supplies. The Crimean campaign of 1736 ended in Russian withdrawal into Ukraine, after an estimated 30,000 deaths; only 2,000 died in battle and the rest of hunger, famine and disease.[4]"

I'm not seeing any "defeats" here. Nor does the article state any supposed defeats led to the treaty. Thus that information is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot but agree with you on this matter. Although the Russian army did have problems in the Crimea and had to pull back due to logistical reasons and epidemics, there is virtually no way we can regard it as "multiple defeats"; apparently, the army was not defeated in battle. Also, putting the "victory/defeat" tag above the text is completely unnecessary, since the outcome of the war is already described in the text. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see any source(s) for an Ottoman victory as edit warred into the template section by Nihlus1. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AND, the template listing of wars was to summarize the results not give an indepth report of the war(s), that information should be added to the Conflict begins (1568–1699) section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The army was defeated in the course of its campaign. It does not actually matter what killed them (and a source was posted regarding the campaign's failure and massive casualties, as well as the failure of the follow-up campaign), only that their invasion was repulsed, which it was. 93% of the deaths being due to non-combat factors is actually not too far out of the ordinary for the era (87% of British army deaths in the American Revolutionary War were due to disease/starvation/etc., for example) and by no means proof that they weren't "really" beaten. It is also dishonest to not mention that disastrous campaign when talking about the war's results (while mentioning relatively minor Russian victories), when dominating the Black Sea was Russia's war goal, and their failure to accomplish that goal ended in them accepting Ottoman terms. That it was an Ottoman victory should be obvious by the fact that the Ottoman Empire gained territory at the expense of Austria and repelled Russian invasions of their territory. This is why the books cited on the subject say "Russia was forced to accept Ottoman conditions".

Furthermore, as detailed in "Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", pages 194-210, the Ottomans and Russians did engage in combat many times, and part of the Russian logistical issues were due to Ottoman scorched Earth tactics. Saying that the Russians were not defeated is equivalent to saying Napoleon was never defeated when he invaded Russia. Finally, multiple sources say Russia abandoned its claims to Crimea as a result of the treaty; this for example. --Nihlus1 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The army was defeated in the course of its campaign".
Source?
  • "93% of the deaths being due to non-combat factors is actually not too far out of the ordinary for the era and by no means proof that they weren't "really" beaten."
Which is your opinion, unsupported by any reliable sources.
  • "It is also dishonest to not mention that disastrous campaign when talking about the war's results.."
The wars' results were two separate treaties(sourced), which you decided to mitigate with your own personal opinion(s)(ie. Wikipedia:Original research). Your opinion that the campaign(s) were disastrous are yet again, your opinion. Any sourced information should be added to the article(s). Any sourced result can be added to the template, not someone's personal opinion/interpretation of events.
  • "That it was an Ottoman victory should be obvious by the fact that the Ottoman Empire gained territory at the expense of Austria and repelled Russian invasions of their territory."
Source? Russia's invasions were not "repelled", according to the paragraph(sourced) from the article itself, their invasions were recalled due to disease and lack of supplies. No defeats, not repelled by Ottoman forces.
The result of the Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) was two separate treaties, which if the reader wants to know more, they can click on the link and read them. Anything that would have influenced said treaties does not belong in the template, that sourced information can be placed within the article(s).
"Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", no quote, pages 195,199-200, 204-212 are unviewable. Nothing to see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, personal opinions and changing text supported by sources to your liking are clearly not welcome here. The only thing worth mentioning in the list of Russo-Turkish wars is a short description of the outcome of every conflict, which must be free of unnecessary details listed in other articles. Putting the "victory/defeat" tag is also unnecessary in this context, since the consequences of the war of 1735-39 are already described in the text. As for "Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", this book is available on paper and provides a very detailed description of the war; that's quite a good source on this matter, actually. And one more thing: perhaps we should mention that the threat of a Swedish invasion also contributed to the Treaty of Niš (see: Grinevetsky S., Zonn I., Zhiltsov S., Kosarev A., Kostianoy A. The Black Sea Encyclopedia. Springer. 2014. P. 661; this one is available online. As usual, the book says nothing about the "multiple defeats"). Another source also claims that Sweden played an important role. Somel S. Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire. Scarecrow Press. 2003. P. 169: "Though Russia occupied Khotin, the Austrian withdrawal from the war and Ottoman alliance with Prussia, Poland, and Sweden compelled the Russians to enter peace negotiations" (still no mention of "defeats", of course). Eriba-Marduk (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Source?"
I already posted a source saying half of the army died and they were forced to retreat from Crimea.
"Which is your opinion, unsupported by any reliable sources."
I am simply restating what was said: that the Crimean invasion was a failure and resulted in very high losses. You're the one trying to push the opinion that most deaths being due to non-combat causes means that it doesn't count as a defeat, which I have never heard anyone argue on any military history article. You seem to be basing this on nothing other than the fact that most of the losses were non-combat, even though that was standard for the era.
"The wars' results were two separate treaties(sourced), which you decided to mitigate with your own personal opinion(s)(ie. Wikipedia:Original research). Your opinion that the campaign(s) were disastrous are yet again, your opinion. Any sourced information should be added to the article(s). Any sourced result can be added to the template, not someone's personal opinion/interpretation of events.
It's not an opinion. The Crimean invasion was objectively a huge failure, as it failed to accomplish any of its goals and resulted in 50% losses to the invasion force.
"Source? Russia's invasions were not "repelled", according to the paragraph(sourced) from the article itself, their invasions were recalled due to disease and lack of supplies. No defeats, not repelled by Ottoman forces."
The source (Tucker) doesn't actually say that the invasion failed due to a freak disease epidemic, the author made that up. The source cited after [4] does say that most of the deaths were non-combat, but you're misrepresenting it. In addition to the 2,000 deaths in battle, it says that the 28,000 other deaths due to starvation, disease, etc. were largely caused by Ottoman/Tatar tactics. They raided Russian supply lines and burned fields, contributing to the failure of the campaign. Again, by this logic the French invasion of Russia was not a "French defeat"/"Russian victory". It also notes numerous battles between Ottoman and Russian forces, though a relatively small number. While my exact wording of "multiple defeats" might have been incorrect (there just weren't that many significant engagements), I was correct to say that the campaign was a large Russian defeat and important in the overall outcome of the war.
"Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, no quote, pages 195,199-200, 204-212 are unviewable. Nothing to see here."
I am not going to post the entire 15-page description of the campaign. If you don't have that book, read pages 102-106 in the above source. It makes it clear that A. the Russian invasion was a disaster and B. it was a defeat of the Russians by the Ottomans. The war, overall, had the Ottomans gain much territory from the Austrians while losing none to the Russians, while Russia failed in their largest offensive, had to cede the territory they gained in their other offensives, had to dismantle their Azov fortifications, and had to give up claims to Bessabaria, Moldavia, and Crimea. They failed in almost every single one of their war goals, while losing 100,000 soldiers. I do not see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an Ottoman victory.--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, you are required to provide proof for your edit(s), especially when you have been reverted.
Page 102 is unviewable, the rest appear to be the Russo-Turkish War (1710–11). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stone D. R. A Military History of Russia: From Ivan the Terrible to the War in Chechnya. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2006. P. 66, the problems of the Russian army in the Crimea that forced it to pull back, despite “Münnich's success” and a “string of battlefield victories”, were as follows: “shortages of supplies and fodder, as well as the plague epidemic to the region”, “plague and short supplies” (with “Turkish screening forces”, which didn't defeat them anywhere, looming in the background). He notes that the Russians also applied a scorched earth policy and “carried out the usual ravaging of the countryside”, so it turns out that it weren't only the Tatars who used this “tactics”. That said, I believe that the current description of the outcome is completely correct and in line with the sources. Since the peace treaty “granted Oziv to Russia and consolidated Russia's control over the Zaporizhia” (Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Volume 4. 1993. P. 476; i. e. Russia gained control over certain territories, whereas the Ottomans lost it), the outcome of the war cannot be described as merely an Ottoman victory. Saying that Russia did not achieve its main goal, i. e. that the Russian victory could have been greater, is clearly not enough to conclude that Russia was “defeated”. That is, if a country waged war on another country with a purpose to capture A, B, C, D, but succeeded only in conquering A, it's hardly a “defeat”, rather a kind of limited victory. Otherwise, we'll have to change hundreds of articles about wars and battles, writing in every one of them that every military campaign which didn't result in achieving all major goals was a “defeat”. The best solution is to list the territorial gains and political consequences of this war, without making any unnecessary and childish claims about who “won” or was “defeated”, who was “killed”, how many lives were lost (that is a matter of dispute among historians), etc.
P. S.: Regarding the “multiple defeats”, there is a nice quote from Davies L. B. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774: Catherine II and the Ottoman Empire (2016): “The Russo-Turkish war of 1736-1739 revealed that the khans could no longer defend their own core territory. Three times (1736, 1737, 1738) Russian expeditionary armies managed to break through or circumvent the Or-Kapi Line and push deep into Crimea, driving the Tatar nobility into the hills (and on one occasion forcing Khan Fet’ih Girey to take refuge at sea). The Russians burned Gozlev, Karasubazar, and the khan's palace at Bakhchisarai and took control again of the Ottoman fortress at Azov. The sultan had khans Kaplan Girey and Fat’ih Girey deposed for their incompetence. The Kuban Horde was overwhelmed by the Kalmyks and for a while vassalized to the Kalmyk taishis”. Hence, it were actually the Tatars who suffered all those “multiple defeats” in Crimea during the war. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eriba-Marduk, you should add all of that information and the references to the main article, Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39). Nice work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table removed?[edit]

With over 300 years of warfare, this history of a series of conflicts benefited from having a table outlining and organizing the basic facts of the individual wars. I fail to see how the removal of the table is justified, mainly because I can find no recent documentation of the reasoning process behind it. Would Rottweiler please make a statement regarding the recent removal of the table, as I do not wish to wade through the entire Talk section in search of an explanation.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

New editors should realize that it is vandalism to erase fully sourced statements. If you have a disagreement, please ADD it to the discussion, making sure that you cite your own reliable sources. Disputes have to be taken to the talk pages or you will get in trouble for edit warring. Casting aspersions on the integrity of other editors violates the rule that you must assume good faith. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary on the question of bias in sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources which states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War[edit]

The result must move to Ottoman Victory.

Summary of this war: The 1676-1681 Ottoman-Russian War, or Muscovite Campaign, was the first great war between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Tsardom. During this war, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha became the grand vizier. As a result of the 5-year war, the Russian Tsardom, which could not be strengthened was defeated, and with the Treaty of Bakhchisarai on January 31, 1681, Chyhyryn Fortress and the rest of the Ukraine were left to the Ottomans.


according to the treaty Chyhyryn Fortress and rest of the Ukraine were left to the Ottomans. Aftermath capturing Chyhyryn fortress, in the continuation battle in the near from Chyhyryn Russian Army breakaway and retreat from this battle to Kiev. Ottoman army march 140 km into Russian territory and captured Kaniv


Notes

Davies, Brian L., Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 " page number 172 is written Victory for Ottoman and Moscow loss Chyhyryn.


In Rhoads Murphey "Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700" book is written; "In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678)" page number 9.


Brian Davies, Empire and Military revolution in eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the eighteenth century page number 9.

Sources

Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, Routledge, 2007. 172.

Rhoads Murphey Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, UCL Press 1999. 9, 196.

Brian Davies, Empire and Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 9.

History of the Ottoman Turks,1288-1918, The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868. 506, 507.

Davies, B. ‘The Second Chigirin Campaign (1678): Late Muscovite Power in Transition,’ in The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917, ed E. Lohr and M. Poe (Leiden 2002)

Dimitrie Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire Volume IIIJ. J., and P. Knapton., 1734.

Danishmend, Kronoloji, Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972.

C. Heywood, Kara Mustafa Paşa, In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden, 1954-2004.

John Paxton and John Traynor, Leaders of Russia and the Soviet Union, Taylor & Francis Books Inc, 2004.

Hasan Karaköse, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Merzifon Vakfı, Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.

Blochet, Catalogue, Suppl.,1909.

Яфарова, Мадина (2017). Karakeçi24 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia be like:ha xD[edit]

Russia won 166.192.43.44 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars&oldid=1194751574"