Talk:Crimean War

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, the Coldstream Guards are a regiment of the British Army, not the US Army. Historyfan300 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so what relevance does this have to US participation? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: THis looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What does OR mean? Historyfan300 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: wp:or (original research). 13:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Because Austria and Prussia technically got involved. And the Caucasian Imamate helped until 1854. Historyfan300 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States participation 

message: , 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  WP:MONTAGE tels us:  [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,  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)
replies: text: Okay then thank you Vbbanaz05 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I think I am very successful. Can you let me? Elanoraga (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Answer me sir please. Elanoraga (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay then we can start talking. Elanoraga (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry Elanoraga that collage is very blurry due to its low resolution, it's very much worse than the image that proceeded it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How bad could it be? I even used an application that improves image quality. Elanoraga (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Collage image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Ironclads 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The text that they want to discuss is presented for discussion. I immediately point out that the text has authoritative sources. If you have any thoughts, please state your opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------
The non-Muslim population in the Ottoman Empire had very difficult conditions. "It is estimated that by the early nineteenth century the average Christian farmer and trader in the Ottoman Empire was paying half his earnings in taxes".
"More than any other power, the Russian Empire had religion at its heart (...) Moscow was the last remaining capital of Othodoxy, the ‘Third Rome’, following the fall of Constantinople, the centre of Byzantium, to the Turks in 1453. According to this ideology, it was part of Russia’s divine mission in the world to liberate the Orthodox from the Islamic empire of the Ottomans and restore Constantinople as the seat of Eastern Christianity. The Russian Empire was conceived as an Orthodox crusade  In addition to ideological grounds, this direction of Russian foreign policy also reflected the weakness of the economic foundation of Russia at that time "due to the systemic backwardness of the state, the development of which was shackled by the chains of serfdom. Russia was not a sales market for the region's goods, having the same grain sector of agriculture with them" V. N. Vinogradov, Was there a connection between the triuph of France in the Crimean war and her catastrophe under Sedan?   Journal "New and Recent History|ru|Новая и новейшая история" (№5. 2005) Therefore, it is the religious factor that has become the main lever for Russian foreign policy. There were good reasons for using it. "Osman empire comprising around 35 million people. Muslims were an absolute majority, accounting for about 60 per cent of the population, virtually all of them in Asiatic Turkey, North Africa and the Arabian peninsula; but the Turks themselves were a minority, perhaps 10 million, mostly concentrated in Anatolia". "10 million Orthodox subjects (Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Moldavians, Wallachians and Serbs) in their European territories and something in the region of another 3 to 4 million Christians (Armenians, Georgians and a small number of Abkhazians) in the Caucasus and Anatolia". 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this add, why do we need to know this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also ask the question - why shouldn't we know this? Reputable historians state this in their works. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: THis is an encyclopedia entry, and can't have everything, we need to really restrict ourselves to only the most significant facts. Otherwise, the page will become too big to read. THis adds a fair few words, that tell us nothing about the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the volume of the article has limitations. However, it is impossible to understand the situation without specifying the internal reasons for the actions, in this case, of Russia. The theme of "Russian expansionism". 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "The conflict with the Ottoman Empire also presented a religious issue of importance, as Russia saw itself as the protector of history of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Orthodox Christians, who were legally treated as second-class citizens.". Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What you bring is too little. It is impossible to understand how difficult the situation was for the non-Muslim peoples. Therefore, it should be pointed out that only non-Muslims paid taxes, and these taxes were very large, 50% (!!!!!) Without this, it is impossible to understand why the peoples of the Balkans fought so hard for independence. I did not find the figures I provided in the entire article. These figures show the internal fragility of the Ottoman Empire, in which Turks made up 30% of the total population. Without knowing this, it is simply impossible to understand why events developed so unfavorably for the Turks. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Time for others to chip in, my objection stands until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you didn't know that. 95.25.108.45 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the text fragment 

message: Oh the irony... Talk about eating the pudding and ascertaining its proof. Of course, the regime is literally blocking access to sites that could otherwise be used as sources at the DNS level, for pol-POV reasons, and you wouldn't believe how much money and man-hours go into ensuring "consensus", so such sources, where yet accessible, still get smeared and barred as "not reliable". And I agree, they're not. Ideologically reliable, that is. "Worldwide" Nightingale boosterism in the Crimean War article? A-OK! The local heroine? Nah. Justifications can always be found, and with enough censorship synergy and ethnic hatred, it doesn't even get too obvious to the benightingaled. 'Nothing to do with neutrality, of course... 'not even pretending anymore. Suddenly the regime is no longer concerned about "invisibilizing women". Good laugh. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not even bother to offer up a source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: Some people might mistake this with the Russian annexation of Crimea. There should be a Not to be confused with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation at the top. 172.79.78.69 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: nuh uh 172.79.69.201 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Conflicts