Talk:Russo-Circassian War

Vandalism

I ask the administration to pay attention to the actions of some participants, which add absolutely absurd data contradicting the sources, the article should be closed for edits Dushnilkin (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

remilitari.com

Please explain why you think that remilitari.com is a reliable source. It does not provide scholarly sources to the numbers it gives, therefore these numbers are impossible to reliably verify. - Altenmann >talk 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The website says "Members of this society and affiliates of the De Re Militari Social Network may be any person who previously requests it from the Administrator or Owner of the electronic Social Network as indicated on the Social Network Server page, as well as in the of this website intended for this purpose." This means this society does not require any scholarly credentials from he contributors, hence it cannot be possibly a reliable source. Altenmann >talk 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Altenmann. Also, it would be prudent for editwarring parties to start using the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Malik wrote in edit summary:

Remilitari.com is recognized as a reliable source by numerous academic institutions, historians, and researchers. Its credibility stems from thorough research, citation of primary sources, and peer-reviewed content. Furthermore, its commitment to factual accuracy and unbiased reporting solidifies its status as a reputable source for historical information. The source also provides the Circassian casualties, but you don’t change nothing on the Circassian side. It just shows your ego and hypocrisy

Please show me a single "citation of primary sources, and peer-reviewed content", or at the very least author in the page you cited, so that the credibilitary of the page may be evaluated. - Altenmann >talk 01:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

remilitari.com appears to be a self-published or user-generated source. It is equivalent to a blog or a mailing list or any random history website someone puts up on the web. It is most definitely not a reliable source. Air on White (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

@Tluadg: No provided sources for casualties have been reliable. Tluadg has justified sourcing with the following edit summaries:

I’m not trying to source spam, just trying to bring as much sources to provide the historical accuracy of the causalties. Even though there are many sources all of them claim the same thing. And the only source that I got from primary sources is from the book of Teofil Lapinsky who‘s the one that also claims that from the time of Catharine II that are about one and a half million military casualties KIA, DFW and DFD. diff

It does not matter how many sources you add if they are unreliable. 0+0+0+...+0 = 0 no matter how many 0s you throw in. The sources do not universally agree on your figure of 1.5 million. Many of them are primary sources - memoirs, journals, original statistics gathered by the military, etc. are all primary sources.

Who are you to say what sources are reliable and what aren’t. It doesn’t matter if it‘s old or not. The sources that I provided are books with sources from the original writings of foreign adventurers or Russian generals that took part in the Russo-Circassian war. You can look up all of the books and who wrote them, all of the books were written by historians with reliable sources to back their claims. diff

Please do not make personal attacks. The definition of a reliable source is widely agreed upon, both generally be scholars and in Wikipedia policy (WP:RS). Anyone can tell what's reliable and what's not. And if I can't, how can you? We're both anonymous guys on Wikipedia. Old sources are not reliable because they do not reflect the current state of scholarly knowledge. The writings of foreign adventurers or Russian generals are primary sources and should not be used in casualty estimates because primary sources may be inaccurate, whether intentionally or not. They are just one piece of evidence in determining casualty counts. As you just said, not all of the books are "by historians with reliable sources to back up their claims" - some are primary, and others like remilitari.com are most definitely not reliable. The proper source for a casualty count should be a recent estimate by a scholar that can be sourced to an appropriate book or article.

@Dushnilkin: You wrote:

The main quote that refutes the calculation of losses in 1901 is taken from the magazine "Rodina" which claims 77 thousand Russian losses diff

Rodina is owned by the Russian government and cannot be trusted as the sole source for a casualty count. I have therefore determined that no one has offered a reliable casualty estimate and just blanked the part of the infobox.

Thank you both for reading my comments about sourcing. Air on White (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote this post because one of the sources used by Tluadg refers to this quote, which cites this particular loss calculator. And so it would be best to send to Lieberman's work, he cited the estimated losses by name, referring to the documents of the Caucasus.[1] Dushnilkin (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have read all your message, I agree that it is better to leave the infbox page empty. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t mean to attack you in any way or be rude. I also think that it is better to leave the infobox empty. Tluadg (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)