Talk:History of the Russo-Turkish wars

message: 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)
replies: text: (Refering to move from Russian Expansionism and Ottoman Empire to History of Russo-Turkish wars. -- Petri Krohn 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I have done the following to clear things up:
* I added a reference to this page on Russo-Turkish War diambiguation page.
* I redirected Russo-Turkish Wars and Russo-Turkish wars here 
* I added an "otheruses" type of reference to the diambiguation page in the begining of this article.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Proposal

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge with [[Ottoman wars in Europe]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: We can move the material not present in the articles on the individual wars into the Ottoman wars in Europe.
#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)
thread_title: Make the article to be a redirect to a disambig list of the wars

message: 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). 
#Support. `'mikka (t) 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Keep and make it conform wikipedia traditions in format

message: * 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)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: ====Making order====
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Making order

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Home vs guest ? Bad choice 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Gettin' fragged 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War 

message: Russia won 166.192.43.44 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia be like:ha xD