Misplaced Pages

Talk:Crimean War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:04, 10 January 2022 editCinderella157 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers18,638 edits →To the IP that isn't indenting: IP's edits reinstated. There was never an intention to permanently remove them from the record.← Previous edit Revision as of 13:24, 13 January 2022 edit undoSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,787 edits →Declaration of war: new sectionNext edit →
Line 122: Line 122:


::FYI {{U|Peaceray}}, the IP's at ] and the at ] have been reinstated since there was never any intention to permanently remove them from the record. and (at ]) are essentially a duplicate of what has been reinstated. ] (]) 02:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC) ::FYI {{U|Peaceray}}, the IP's at ] and the at ] have been reinstated since there was never any intention to permanently remove them from the record. and (at ]) are essentially a duplicate of what has been reinstated. ] (]) 02:04, 10 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?] (]) 13:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:24, 13 January 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crimean War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

Template:Vital article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Crimean war was copied or moved into Crimean War with this edit on 02:54, 31 July 2002. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 30, 2005, November 30, 2006, November 30, 2007, November 30, 2008, November 30, 2012, November 30, 2013, and November 30, 2016.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European / French / Italian / Ottoman
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
Ottoman military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTurkey Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRomania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Military Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject iconFormer countries (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUkraine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPritzker Military Library Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:


Strenght of the Sardinian corps

The infotable on the right says that the Sardinian troops amounted to 21,000 men, quoting "Clodfelter 2017, p. 180" as a reference.

Section "Piedmontese involvement" talks of "an expeditionary corps of 15,000 soldiers", quoting "Arnold, Guy (2002). Historical Dictionary of the Crimean War. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810866133. pp. 111-12" as a source

Sardinian Expeditionary Corps in the Crimean War article says that "Sardinia committed a total of 18,000 troops", quoting Arnold again; it also speaks of 2,574 men on the Naval Division.

Is it possible to clarify better these numbers in the article(s)? --MassimoDellaPena (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuts to popular culture section

Recent cuts to this section go too far. Impossible to believe that the cultural impact of this major conflict begin and end with Tokstoy and Tennyson. By contrast, the shorter and less significant Falklands war gets this : Cultural impact of the Falklands War Crawiki (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Quotes cleanup

The following sentences are currently whast appear to be direct quotes from references that appear as unattributed quotes in the prose.

  • "The reasons for the Tsar's disquietude are not obscure. Not Turkey alone was threatened by the advance of Ibrahim. The rights secured to Russia by a succession of treaties were also directly jeopardized. The substitution of a virile Albanian dynasty at Constantinople in place of the effete Osmanlis was the last thing desired by the Power which wished, naturallyenough, to command the gate into the Mediterranean"
  • "British exports to the Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and the Danubian principalities, increased nearly threefold from 1840 to 1851 (...) Thus it was very important, from the financial point of view, for Britain to prevent the Ottoman Empire from falling into other hands"
  • "The Tsar Nicholas had always, as we have seen, been England anxious to maintain a cordial understanding with England in regard to the Eastern Question, and early in the spring of 1853 he had a series of interviews with Sir Hamilton Seymour, then British ambassador at St. Petersburg"
  • "By signing the convention, the Russians had given up their privileged position in the Ottoman Empire and their control of the Straits, all in the hope of improving relations with Britain and isolating France"
  • "The fall of the Ottoman Empire was not, however, a requirement of British policy in the East. A weak Ottoman state best suited British interests"
  • "With the help of French infantry, it was possible to overturn Russia's positions with one blow"
  • "All luck depended on whether Muravyov (the Russian commander) would be scared or not"

Due to not much familiarity with the war, I'd prefer to leave any changes to people more familiar with the subject, to avoid any accidental errors being introduced when rephrasing. FDW777 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely wish you to change the direction of your activity and write only in those topics in which you are sufficiently oriented. I assure you that my above quotes are from very authoritative sources, historians, who show a high degree of objectivity in their assessments. I gave quotes only for the reasons that they carry important information and are stylistically successful.93.81.218.236 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
93.81.218.236 wrote: I sincerely wish you to change the direction of your activity and write only in those topics in which you are sufficiently oriented. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. You may have an expertise in history, but that does not necessarily mean you have an expertise in summarizing material (which is the question at hand) or in how to use H:WIKITEXT or what style English Misplaced Pages follows or in structuring citations.
I assure you that you must make a cogent argument about the merits of including a verbatim quote instead of summarizing it. To merely list a bunch a quotes does not do the material justice. A reader can go to the citation source to find that. Consider that as an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source source whose function is summarize a topic & verify the statements by citing reliable sources. Repeatedly throwing in chunks of quotations undermines this purpose.
Please note that the "I know more than you do" argument will get you zero traction here. Peaceray (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
MOS:QUOTE has some relevant recommendations on the use of quotes, as well. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course, I agree with you that this is not an argument to say, "I'm clever and you're not." I don't agree with you that I can be accused of just adding quotes anywhere. I noticed a significant flaw in the article and tried to correct it. What is the disadvantages? The disadvantage is that there was no coverage of the goals of the European powers (especially Great Britain) in the Crimean War, as well as coverage of Russia's mistakes in foreign policy that led to the outbreak of the Crimean War. I also tried to highlight the goals of the Ottoman Empire. I have added relevant texts and quoted from authoritative sources. I also added a text that highlights the circumstances and the exact date of the beginning of the Crimean War. It's just even strange that the article devoted to the Crimean War did not have an exact date of its beginning. Agree that this is a significant and obvious drawback. If you say that there are shortcomings in the design of quotations, then, of course, this needs to be corrected. I don't see any problems here. 93.81.216.236 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It lists 16 October 1853 – 30 March 1856? in the infobox. Are those not the exact dates?
It is not question of shortcomings in the design of quotations. What is wrong with the ability of summarizing and paraphrasing to convey the information? Too much exact quotes can lead to copyright violation problems. Peaceray (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, only at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox, about this (the date of the beginning of the Crimean War) said. But I think that's not enough. We need a more detailed description of the circumstances of this. Otherwise, why write anything at all if there is an "infobox".If you say that the design of the quote can be improved, then I will ask you to make an example of this. I think that any reader will only be glad of this. 93.81.216.236 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reinstated edit by IP (with indent). See section #To the IP that isn't indenting for detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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 ⁂ 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 ⁂ 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 ⁂ 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 ⁂ 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 ⁂ 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 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#Prominent military commanders 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 #To the IP that isn't indenting 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ⁂ 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 ⁂ Please ping me! 00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP that isn't indenting

To the IP that is participating in this discussion. Your edits are welocome but you have been asked now a couple of times to indent your comments per Help:Talk pages#Indentation and you just aren't hearing it (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). As you are a dynamic IP (that keeps changing), there is no point in posting to your talk page. I will keep reverting your posts until you start indenting properly. There seems no other way to get your attention that we have not already tried. If you require assistance to understand this, please start a new section at this page. I am more than happy to help. Misplaced Pages:Competence is required Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This above is a copy of the post I made at #Quotes cleanup. I am starting this section to resolve the issue. Once discussion is started here, I intend deleting my original post there, since the discussion is being started here. I will reinstate your original two posts (with indenting) once you respond here. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP. If you are responding to another's edit, put a colon (ie ":") at the start of your post. If the edit you are responding to already has colons, then just add one more to your post. If your post is more than one paragraph, add the colons at the start of each paragraph. This is "what is required" in a nutshell. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP: Your edit summary is "Please do not interfere with other people's communication". I respond that: by not indenting, you are interfering with other peoples' communication. You have been asked nicely and you have been offered help but ignore it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a {{Welcome-anon}} & links to Help:Talk pages & WP:Talk page guidelines on User talk:93.81.218.236, User talk:93.81.216.236, User talk:93.81.218.20, & User talk:93.81.218.116. Peaceray (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
FYI Peaceray, the IP's edit at #‎Infobox from hell and the edit at #Quotes cleanup have been reinstated since there was never any intention to permanently remove them from the record. This edit and this edit (at #Quotes cleanup) are essentially a duplicate of what has been reinstated. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 10 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)

Categories:
Talk:Crimean War: Difference between revisions Add topic