This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Ottoman / Russian & Soviet C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Ottoman military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Military Top‑importance 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. Former countries: Ottoman Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

The figures given for casualties in pretty much all of the wars are too contradictory and often inaccurate to warrant a spot in the infobox. For example, it is impossible to know how many Russian soldiers were killed specifically by Ottoman soldiers in the Crimean War (and vice versa) because of the involvement of other countries. Ottoman soldiers killed in the 1737-39 war also includes casualties inflicted by Austria. The WW1 casualties for Russia is only inclusive of the Caucasus front till September 1916 (excludes other fronts, months of 1916 after September, and the remaining years of the war). It should most definitely be removed from the infobox asap. I wanted to lay out my rationale here specifically for @Vbbanaz05. Lenovya (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx[reply]

The Russians withdrew from the Caucasus in 1916. 95% of the Ottoman losses were from the Russians (throughout the campaign). The data on the losses in the war in 1735 is completely correct. The 44,000 were losses in the war with the Russians, not the Austrians. You can look into this. You may be right about the Crimean War. There were 3 countries on the side of the Ottomans. The allies lost a total of 165,000. We can write this off with the Ottomans. So I don't see any problem Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05 You are correct about the 1916 campaign. However, the figure for the 1737-39 war is incorrect. It contains WP:OR if you look at the note which lists only some of the battles of the war and their casualties (which are disputed, by the way). I'm going to try to find casualties for that war for the Ottomans, but if I can't I'm going to remove it soon since it is original research and is uncited. As for the Crimean War, it is inaccurate to provide the total losses of the Allies as the Ottoman loss; it is also inaccurate to provide the total losses of the Russians since other countries were also involved. You must only involve the casualties inflicted by Russia on the Ottomans and vice versa; this however is impossible, which is one of the reasons why the casualties section should be removed.

Furthermore, casualties from multiple other wars are also missing. You can't just list the casualties of a few wars and leave the others out; either you give a casualty estimate for all of them, or none of them. Either way, with all these problems and contradicting numbers, the casualties section should 100% be removed. Lenovya (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx[reply]

the casualties of the war in 1735 were taken from all Russian and Ottoman battles. I just looked at it. Moreover, in the Crimean war, the allies, together with the Ottomans, suffered 165,000 casualties. In this Infobox, there are already UK, France and Italy as the allies of the Ottomans, so I do not see it as a problem. You are right that there are no casualties in many wars (1568-1570) (1768-1774) (1828-1829) I believe that if we bring the casualties in these 3 articles to light, we will solve all the problems. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05 Like I said, the casualty figure for the 1735 war is original research and would have to be removed unless a citation can be provided. As for the Crimean War, I can see your point but nevertheless, the title of the article is "Russo-Turkish wars" and thus it would be appropriate only to include casualties inflicted by both sides on each other (which I acknowledge is impossible, which is one out of many reasons I'm vehemently supporting the removal of the casualty estimates).

If you can find a casualty estimate for the remaining wars, that would be helpful. However, I'm still advocating for deleting the information from the infobox as these wars are too expansive to provide an accurate number of casualties, especially when there are a lot of contradicting figures given by historians. Lenovya (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx[reply]

There are already sources on the casualties in the 1735 war and they are all about the Russian-Ottoman battles and all of them have sources, only the battles with Austria do not have sources. As I said in the Crimean War, the Ottomans suffered casualties as well as the Allies, so the Ottomans' casualties are also written there. Since there are UK, France and Italy in the Supported by section in this infobox. I am against the removal of this, I think our biggest problem is the 3 articles I mentioned. If we find the casualty data in those 3 articles, we will solve the problems. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05 Pretty much all of the battles of the 1735-39 war have contradicting figures, and these are major differences. e.g. in the Battle of Stavuchany you have 13 to 1,000 Russians killed, 1,000 to 15,000 Ottomans killed. By the way, it is still original research even if you add up all the sourced casualties; the total figure must be sourced too. Either way, as I've said, there are too many contradicting estimates of casualties to warrant a place in the general infobox of the wars. Lenovya (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx[reply]

Rather than doing research, all the sources are written there, but anyway, I started to understand that it is ridiculous, for example, in the wars of most countries regarding each other, there is no Casualties section in the (Polish-Russian) (French-British) (Spanish-French) wars, so I am starting to agree with you. Anyway, we wouldn't be able to find casualty data in the 3 articles I mentioned. Even if we did, datas wouldn't be very reliable. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05 Yeah for countries who warred with each other a lot, their articles almost never contain a casualties section in the infobox for the reasons I've outlined. There's just too many contrasting numbers given by historians, and you could never fit that into the infobox. I'll remove the section seeing that we've come to an agreement.

If anyone can provide sufficient objections to the change, they can reply here. Lenovya (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx[reply]

I added the Crimean-Russian wars of 1571-1572 in which the Ottoman Empire was also involved (with support instead of direct declaration of war). These are two significant events that can’t be ignored on this page. Especially considering this page also mentions the Crimean Khanate as a Ottoman vassal in the infobox. Woxic1589 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in 1735, with Russia and Austria in alliance against Turkey. The Russians successfully invaded Turkish-held Moldavia, but their Austrian allies were defeated in the field, and as a result the Russians obtained almost nothing in the Treaty of Belgrade (September 18, 1739) it must be Ottoman Victory. Wendecors07 (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the wars between the Central Powers and the Russian Wars in World War I was a victory for the Ottomans and the Central Powers (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). Russia withdrew from the war with territorial concessions. Member2023 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Woxic1589, you can´t change the format of the article and the results of the 1571–1572 war without a consensus. Per this edit you simply errased Shaw and Martin cites on the result of the war. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 - 29 May 2025 - First time
2 - 26 November 2025 - Then again
Mr.User200 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding those colored backgrounds to the results of the wars makes no sense as this is supposed to be a neutral page. Its not a page for the ‘’wars involving Russia or the Ottoman Empire/Turkey’’. And for the 1571-1572 war, I already explained that at my earlier edit summary when I reverted his change.

He also added content such as this here: ‘’Ottomans succeeded in expelling the Russians from Kabarda, which limited Tsarist Russia's influence in the Caucasus;^[1]

• Ottomans halted Russian advance across Black Sea;^[1]
• Fortresses on the Terek River were destroyed;^[2]
• Russians retained Kazan and Astrakhan, thwarting the Crimean Khan's plans to destroy Russian Tsardom.’’,

Again, this is not related to the two raids from 1571 and 1572, which resulted into the battle of Molodi. There were many wrong things and errors from that edit, which should have been first discussed at the talk page before editing half of the wars list. Woxic1589 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is you the one changing the content of the article through time

Even if you find errors on the article you can´t change them without concenssus you should elaborate first at the talk, then wait for aproval for inclusion. Here I see you changed 1 for the first time, then you got reverted and changed again 2. Regarding the colors used in the table, the editor that used them wanted to use it to summarize the results. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing up a completely irrelevant edit topic from months ago, from May? If you didn’t notice yet, that was already discussed and done. You can go into my edit history from that era. Also, him being the one who starts changing half of the wars list, would mean that he would have to start a talk page topic by himself first to reach a consensus for his new edits, not me after his edit. Thats not how Wikipedia works. Neither do you decide that. Woxic1589 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]