Talk:Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823)

Persian tactical victory

I would like to see source(s) calling this war a "Persian tactical victory". Otherwise this is just original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As i wrote in the edit box, please read the article itself. The major battle of that war was the battle of Erzurum, which Persia won outnumbered. The treaty itself was based on that battle, hence the name treaty of Erzurum. Read the article itself for the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29 SomeGuy1122 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one that re-wrote the article using published sources. You are ignoring what the source(s) state and using your own interpretation. Are you saying you have no sources to support your opinion? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes you rewrote it to a POV article based on your POV. As I mentioned before the battle of Erzurum is the major battle fought during this war and Persia was victorious in it. The treaty was based on that war, making Persia the victorious side of the war, the source itself is the battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29. Feel free to add it as a source, and feel free to add sources for all the other wars as well. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Erzurum is just that a battle not the war, that is your original research. I have a source that states the result of the war, where is your source(s) for the war? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and while your all hopped up on this "your POV" merde. The reference for a Persian victory at the Battle of Erzurum was added by me.[1] . By the way, "The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo."

So that reference does not call the war a Persian victory, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The only original research is that of yours. It's very simple and I repeat:

Treaty of Erzurum = Based on the Battle of Erzurum = The major battle of the short war = Persian tactical victory:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29 What do you think "tactical victory" means? Major battle of the war won = tactical victory, really couldn't be more simple. The article about the battle of itself is all the source you'll ever need. You got a problem with facts? then let's have an arbiter settle this. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are your published source(s)? I see the source for the battle, but nothing for the war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The source of the battle is the source for the war, as the major battle and the decider of the war. I've repeated this four times now, and yet you're pretending the link and the source of it in the link doesn't exist. Tactical victory means battle won no matter how many times you deny it. I will recommend one more time to get an arbiter to settle this as you seem determined to have it your way despite what facts say. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia can not reference Wikipedia articles. The source for the battle, as posted above states, "'The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo." Apparently this is information you do not want to read. Do you know what "status quo" stands for?

You can repeat yourself all you want, that does not make it a reliable source. You were asked to present your published sources and instead have ranted about the battle of Erzurum. All you are doing is disruptive editing. This is your last warning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggested twice to get an arbiter to settle this, but you refused. Now you've gone and reported this to get it your way? I can see in the report that you have lied about the source, the source I put is the very same source you've put in the battle of Erzurum. The one you so proudly boasted about. You come here now with your last post trying to provoke and bait me, the only one ranting here is you. The major battle won in a war means tactical victory whether you like it or not. I will continue this in the administrator's noticeboard. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Persian side had recently lost North Azerbaijan to Russia and Fath Ali tried to compensate his losses by capturing Iraq and East Anatolia. Together with his son Abbas Mirza he campaigned to East Anatolia and his other son tried to capture Baghdad. (Ottoman Empire was occupied with Greek rebellion.) Although Feth Ali initially captured some towns such as Muş, Bitlis and Ercis after the cholera epidemic he had to give up his gains by the Treaty of Erzurum which was actually the ratification of Treaty of Kerden. No gain to either side; how can this be called a tactical victory ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on this war in most of the sources I checked (Cambridge History, Military History of the Ottomans etc), but there are some small entries from Google Books: Historical Dictionary of Iraq, The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire, and this very interesting piece in War and Peace in Qajar Persia, where the war is summarized as "winning the war but losing the peace". On the purely military sphere, the Persians held the upper hand at Erzurum, but at the same time they did fail to make progress in Iraq and their northern invasion was turned back after their battlefield victory due to a cholera outbreak. So the peace negotiations started not on the basis of Persian success, but on the basis of a stalled invasion. One could consider the war itself a "success" for the Persians in so far as they proved superior in the open field, but they certainly gained none of their strategic objectives. I still would not use the term "victory" for either side; "victory" implies a clear-cut result, not a muddled affair like this one. Constantine ✍ 08:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are sources describing it as a tactical victory, it can be added. However if this is only based on the interpretation of a wikipedia user, then it seems like original research. DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of a user? I repeat: The major battle won during that war was the Battle of Erzurum [2]. The treaty of the war was based on that battle and called "The Treaty of Erzurum". When a major battle is won in a war, it de facto means tactical victory, if not a total victory, not my opinion, fact. In fact the war was set as a victory for the Persian empire as it should be, before Kansas pushed his POV by citing an unreliable source that doesn't even mention the major battle of the war. The editor of the article has put references to back it up [3] "Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, Volume 4, Page 301-302." This was before Kansas bear put his own source, which he later didn't even mention in the report he made. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well 3 other editors, besides myself, do not agree with your interpretation of how the battle, which was fought in 1821, also signifies the result of the war, which ended in 1823.

Also, my report states that you are interpreting the Dupuy source to suit your own POV since the source does not state that the war was a Persian victory, simply that the battle of Erzurum was a Persian victory. No where in my report I have stated the origination of the source means anything, that is a fallacy you have contrived to call me a liar. "'After I tagged both articles and added citations to his opinion, Someguy1122 is now using a reference(quoted;"The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo.") to force his POV. So now Someguy1122 is falsely using a source to push his original research." I have not said anything about the source in question,except you are clearly misinterpreting it to suit your own POV.

If you continue to call me a liar, I will report you again for personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"In fact the war was set as a victory for the Persian empire as it should be, before Kansas pushed his POV by citing an unreliable source that doesn't even mention the major battle of the war."-Someguy1122. This is another false statement made by SG1122.

Per A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, edited by Spencer C. Tucker, page 1140,[4];"In the Battle of Erzurum in 1821, Abbas Mirza and some 30,000 Persians triumph over an Ottoman force of more than 50,000 men. With a cholera epidemic hitting both sides, Persia and the Ottoman Empire agree to peace in the Treaty of Erzurum of July 28, 1823." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should better check the difference between the war and the battle. A war may continue for years and there may be many battles, sieges revolts, epidemics etc. in the war . On the other hand a battle is a major clash in the war. There are historical cases in which the victorious side in a battle was defeated at the end of the war. For example in Siege of Kut the victorious side was the Ottoman Empire. But at the end of the First World War Ottoman Empire was very badly defeated. The same thing applies here. In the battle the victorious side was the Persia. But at the end of war Persia gained nothing. Well in the article Battle of Erzurum (1821) Persia is rightly declared as the victorious side. But this article is about the war and not about the battle. Then, there is no victorious side in the war.(something like a tie in sports). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kb, I won't bother responding to your repeated rant anymore. You went and invented a whole story about the source, in the administrators noticeboard. The source was provided by yourself, but you claimed it was mine, funnily enough and of course considering this is wikipedia, not surprising to me at all, you actually got away with falsifying the whole thing even though I gave you away by showing everything you had said was a lie. I don't care how many people like yourself you get here to help you strengthen your biased POV regarding pure facts, it still doesn't change history, so go ahead and make some more reports to get some more admins to help you vandalize these articles some more, as I see you are still doing, recently reverted someone else's edits based on your views. "Maybe we should better check the difference between the war and the battle". That is called POV, it is not up to you to check the difference, a battle, specially a major battle in a war is a decider for the war, and is simply called a tactical victory. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

According to your logic, we can write Japanese victory in the result section of ınfobox of WW2, because they destroyed Pearl Harbor. Of course that is not true. Well in the war of 1821-1823 although the human sacrifice was great, Ottoman and Persian empires gained nothing; no territory, no tribute, no reparations nothing . At the end of the war, everything (except human lives) was the same as it was before the war. How can we call this a victory ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this issue. I have no previous involvement in this or other Ottoman–Persian Wars related articles, and don't know the editors who are involved in this article. Having read the comments above, I can only say that according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". That means that if the article claims a "tactical victory" for one of the belligerents, this claim must be supported by a source using this or similar combination of words. I hope this helps. Best regards, Grandmaster 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)