Talk:Caucasian War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasian War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Russia: History / Military Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

Military history: Russian & Soviet

This 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Casualties

Who put those casualties? They are really far away from the true ones.

Russian Casualties

I added up the Russian casualties to be (at the absolute minimum) 31,000 killed or wounded. I got this number by going through multiple sources and adding up the casualties of every battle (on the Russian side). Communism is cringe (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have accurate data on Russian losses from 1801 to 1864. Accurate data on casualties as a result of the fighting is available in Collection of information about the losses of the Caucasian troops during the war with the Highlanders, Persians and Turks and in the Transcaspian region (1901). The author highlights the losses of troops precisely and by war, the Russians lost 96,275 directly in the war against the North Caucasians. Grigori Krivosheev (2001), taking into account these data, raised the total number of deaths (including deaths from diseases and civilian casualties) to 77,000.[1] Dushnilkin (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me time, I'll add everything to the infobox myself. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I cannot express in words how much I appreciate you doing this. (Not being sarcastic) Communism is cringe (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Sources on the Role of Principalities of Svaneti, Guria, and Mingrelia in the Caucasian War

Hello fellow editors,

The article currently lists the Principality of Svaneti, Principality of Guria, and Principality of Mingrelia as belligerents on the Russian side in the Caucasian War. However, this section does not cite any sources to verify their direct military involvement. For the sake of verifiability, it is necessary to include reliable references supporting their role in the war.

Could anyone provide academic sources or historical records, confirming:

Whether these principalities contributed troops, resources, or logistical support to Russian military campaigns.
If their inclusion as belligerents is based on their status as Russian vassals/protectorates rather than active participation.

Kind regards, Erudite Veteran (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is not just a case of verifiability but that such a mention in the infobox is a key or significant fact evidenced by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response on this issue, could you suggest the appropriate course of action?

Erudite Veteran (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles stand alone. If not supported by the article (with citation) in any way, they should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to belligerents in infobox

Serfunoheda, in this edit you partially restored your edit that had been challenged with your edit summary: What do you mean by "not supported by body of paragraph"? And could you please add this topic in the "talk" page, so we can discuss it there? Per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and the onus lies with the editor wishing to add content to gain consensus for their edit - ie reinstating the text without establishing consensus could be considered edit warring and the onus to establish consensus means the onus to initiate talk page discussion would rests with you - particularly if it is you that doesn't understand the P&G given in the edit summary that removed your edit.

To repeat my post in the section above (§ Request for Sources on the Role of Principalities of Svaneti, Guria, and Mingrelia in the Caucasian War)[2]: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is not just a case of verifiability but that such a mention in the infobox is a key or significant fact evidenced by the body of the article. The solution is to edit the body of the article (with verifiable sources) to evidence the involvement and that the involvement was "key and significant", thereby warranting a mention in the infobox. If and when that is done, we might revisit inclusion in the infobox.

Also, the two sources you added do not reasonably meet WP:VER because you have not indicated a page or pages. Without these, any claim made referencing the source cannot reasonably be verified.

I would suggest you self-revert your edit for now. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are pages from the first source: 19, 20, 27, 43, 49, 108, 121.

And these are pages from the second source: 20, 32.

Is there anything else I should provide? Serfunoheda (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the thing with editing the body of the article. Could you please elaborate on that or give example of it? Serfunoheda (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]