Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Turkish War

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

Comments

[edit]

Old discussions

[edit]

Hm. I'm not sure if this goes here or not: "On July 21, 1774, Russia and the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji ending six years of war. " This is from the linked day and year pages ; please correct as needed. --mav 07:17 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We need a disambiguation page for Russo-Turkish wars (now should that be a capital "W" or not?) linking to the individual conflicts of 1710-11, 1736-39, 1768-74, 1806-12, 1828-29, 1853-56 (the southern front to the Crimean War), 1877-78 (the one in this article) and perhaps 1914-18 as a front to the wider WW1. I'll sort one out later with appropriate stubs unless you want to do so in the meantime. Graculus 07:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Please go ahead! I really don't know much about this part of history. Capitals seem OK for older wars at least. --mav

How to organize the Russo-Turkish Wars

[edit]

I do not know how Russions percieve the wars, but all these wars are percieved as a single entity from Turkish History. I thought that is the main view; when I saw this page. "Main page" stated the fact that all these fights share a comman view. Generally in Turkish books this section is given a cheapter and small sub-cheapters for each campain and battles. ((Accept Crimean war)). That is conceptually more integrating. At the end a story tries to give the relations between its components. Somebody advised me to create War Series on this issue. I was working to create a menu that will link each important item(battle, campaign, war). I do not see the need to keep one paragraf "period stories" under different pages, especially disconnected from the perious and next ones. Somebody the mention of discussions under these pages; There is only period page that has very extensive one. That is the last one. I have hard time understanding how you concepts are organized within 10 subheadings. Because the smallest concept is battle, campaign or war. And we should seek that path to tell the story. Develop these concepts and link them under the "MAIN PAGE." Time sections that cover 30-60 years are not coherant among themselves niether from a "specific goal" , nor the battles you are clustered together sometimes share the same region. I stop redesigning the page because Mikkalai wanted to keep it as it is. THANKS.--tommiks 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to keep it "as is". Turkisn books gives them "cheaper and smaller" for a simple reason: Turkey lost there, nothing for them to brag about. I do appreciate yor goal to paint a broader picture, but each of the 10 may realy be expanded into long texts, rather than shrunk into 2 sentences. Once again, please take a look at WWII. there is WWII, there is Operation Barbarossa, there is Battle of Stalingrad. mikka (t) 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Great redirect mess-up and anti-Turkish pov

[edit]

This set of articles was in a state of total mess-up. I tried to clear tings up and restore the content of Russo-Turkish Wars. I do not know why you guys are trying to delete the contents. Is this some kind of anti-Turkish POV? -- Petri Krohn 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

History of Russo-Turkish wars

[edit]

For the discussion, see: Talk:History of Russo-Turkish wars -- Petri Krohn 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Russo-Turkish Wars → Russo-Ottoman Wars — Historically wrong. —Must.T C 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

What are the verifiable reliable sources that are being used as a basis for this move? Britannica uses Russo-Turkish Wars. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia COLLECTS scholarship which has already been published. It doesn't write new scholarship. These wars are commonly called "Russo-Turkish" in the scholarly literature; that is what Wikipedia follows. Noel S McFerran 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the Philip Baird Shearer reference is a valid reference for western sources. I believe User:Makalp's opinion originates from Turkish sources, which uses the name "Ottoman" for the given reason. (if you have doubts about User:Makalp, do not but I bet s/he can not find "modern western sources" using the "ottoman" terminology.) Even during the existence of Ottoman Empire, there were other Turkish states. Some of them had conflicts with the (like Selchuks) Russians. When you say Turkish does that mean it covers all the conflicts of Turkish empires to Russians? (are we going to have a date limitation??) Also the Ottoman system was a multi-nation system which was established before rise of nationalism. "Turkish" generally is used for Republic of Turkey, which is a nation based state. If this move occurs Philip Baird Shearer position should be in the introduction section, but I believe what is pointed is a misconception based on western sources. It does not exist in Turkish sources. Are we going to continue with this misconception, or deal with it using an appropriate way? Thanks. --OttomanReference 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that English sources use Russo-Turkish Wars, but Turkish sources do not and use Ottoman which is more accurate. Then we should stick with the commnon English name for the article. Rational WP:NC: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really what I'm saying. You found a reference which used the terminology "Turkish," but that is the extend of it. A millennium long (beginning from tribe period) Ottoman history has been analyzed by westerners in couple hundred pages. That is small part of Turkish history. Except current publications (increased interest in Ottoman Empire thanks to Armenians :-)), it is impossible to find good resources. Regarding Ottoman-Russian history: If you find a single bind, I would like you to give me the reference. But besides short sections there is no detailed analysis. That is why there is a misconception. I'm sure in your logic and background of Ottoman history; you have a valid response. But it does not make it correct. And the Rational WP:NC is designed to choose the one among the correct (valid) arguments. Like the name of the capital city of Turkey should be "Ankara" or "Angora" (two words used for the same concept). I know I'm correct; I know User:Makalp jump on a topic that is very hard to deal with (requires changes in minds) but he has a valid potion. Just couple years a go the first Turkology department opened in USA. These issues going to take time. However to be more clear: the conceptual analysis of Turkish-Russian wars is a wider concept that what is represented in these articles and "Ottoman-Russian wars" is the correct definition as all these wars were performed using the military of Ottoman Empire. The argument that Ottoman and Turkish are exchangeable is wrong (can not be used for one another and even the argument that Ottoman is a subset of Turkish is only valid in specific contexts). Thanks for the interest. Hope I had some use to you guys. --OttomanReference 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to keep it Russo-Turkish, a sad attempt to push Turkce POV in these articles.Hetoum I 05:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 13:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Soviet-Turkish War (Russian Civil War) - Turkish intervention in Russia'

[edit]

No such event occured in history. What the hell is going on here?

Russian Civil War

[edit]

The Russian Civil War also in the same way Russo-Turkish War. Turkey one of the agressor in the War. Doncsecz —Preceding comment was added at 07:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting historical facts. Ottoman Turks were fighting against Imperial Russia since 1915, the civil war between Reds and White has nothing to do with this.

Ottomans didn't help Whites against Reds, and they didn't help Reds against Whites either. They were just fighting a war which started even before than the civil war. Like I said, they had nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested! War turkish attack in Soviet-Russia. Here in Hungary this is the general opinion! Doncsecz —Preceding comment was added at 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. Ottoman Turks never fought against Reds. And they didn't fight against Whites in the contex of the Russian Civil War. They were fighting against Imperial Russia since 1915, thus it's First World War.

Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Proof

[edit]

The board in the Russian wikipedia

Гражданская война в России → Civil War in Russia
Центральные державы (1917-1918): 

 Германия → Germany
 Османская империя → Ottoman Empire
 Австро-Венгрия → Austria-Hungary

WHAT IS THAT?? Doncsecz

Apparently that's Central Powers of WWI. And how is that related to the fact that you added Ottoman Empire to 'Allies' in Russian Civil War article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be more useful as a disambiguation page?

[edit]

It doesn't have much useful content, and History of the Russo-Turkish wars covers the subject more thoroughly. The page's name also hints more to a disambiguation page, and makes it more likely to be found by users looking for one of these wars.

Conversion should be easy. Waltham, The Duke of 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I made a conversion to a simple disambiguation page, but this was reverted by User:Voyevoda, who incidentally has a long history of edit-warring and numerous official blockings. Essentially, he doesn't seem to understand the concept of a disambiguation page--Joostik (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts[reply]

Russo-Turkish War (1914–1918), Indefinite?

[edit]

Is it indefinite or Turkish victory? After the war, Turkey liberated Kars and occupied Baku, so it is a victory but Turkey eventually lost the First World War to Great Britain. Kavas (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Russians won the Russo-Austrian-Turkish War (1735–1739)! The Russians defeated the Ottomans in the Battle of Stavuchany and the Ottomans defeated the Austrians, not the Russians!Ti2008 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Turkish_War&oldid=1177494535"