text:
Talk:First Mithridatic War

'Massacre' vs. 'genocide'
I changed 'genocide' to 'massacre.' I think we should guard against our contemporary tendency to call every large-scale massacre of a population 'genocide.' For one thing, the overuse of the term diminishes its usefulness; for another, it isn't accurate here. The word "genocide" was coined in the 1940s because circumstances required it; although there are earlier racialist policies of extermination to which it can be usefully applied (the first governor of California, for instance, stated "We will not rest until we exterminate them all", referring to those who populated the continent before the Europeans), it's almost always anachronistic in antiquity. One can argue that the institution of slavery and its economic "benefits" prevented genocide, because there was no reason to exterminate a population when it could be enslaved. In specific wartime circumstances when an entire town was slaughtered, this extreme action was meant to serve as an object lesson about the ability of the perpetrators to crush the enemy. It was not a racialist policy per se.

It appears to have been Mithridates's intention to rid the region of Romans, but it is not clear that he was calling for the extermination of all the Romans in the world. Or no more so than any general at war. I don't mean to make too fine a point. But as far as I know (and I could be wrong), this was a massacre confined to a single occasion for effect, not an action he implemented as policy for the long term. There's also a lack of understanding in the article as to Mithridates' options for addressing what he may have viewed as the economic exploitation of Asia by the negotiatores. The Social War and the Sullan civil wars meant that he could not count on dealing with a united Roman government that could keep its word, because of the factional to-and-fro between Sulla and the Marian-Cinnans. The timing of his actions exploited this division within Rome. To provide a more balanced perspective, one might also note that Mithridates could argue that he was on his home turf (as Ariovistus did, according to Caesar, at the beginning of the Gallic Wars), while the Romans were foreign expansionists in Asia. This is not to "take sides" either way, or to say who was right or justified (Mithridates can also be described as an expansionist), but the words "gruesome" and "racialist" strike me as crossing the neutrality line. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

'Aww, innocent Romans, victims of their own cruelty'
Definitely..biased by the original writer. Totally shows ignorance of what the Middle and Late Roman Republic period was all about. The Romans got a terrible reputation for massacre and exploitation during this time. In the Greek world, the massacres on Sicily during the FIRST PUNIC WAR, 250'sBC sent shockwaves through the Greek speaking world when the Romans really wrecked Magna Graecia. Sicily was the place where two huge slave revolts occured in the 100'sBC, the precursor to Spartacus. Than in the Hannibalic 2nd punic war, 220'sBC-200BC they sacked Syracuse, famously murdering unarmed scientist Archimedes in the process. They only showed restraint in 200BC-198BC in Greece fighting the first Macedonian war, but in the 2nd Macedonian war, the one that ended with Pydna in 167BC, they destroyed, massacred, looted, enslaved without pity. Polybius recorded all of this, as a Greek eyewitness to Roman cruelty. He was present at the sack of Carthage, which occured at the same year as the sack of Greek Corinth, the center of Greece, in 146BC. The most heinous episode recorded by Polybius and Plutarch involved relatively innocent Epirus, which had been ordered to bring all its gold to avoid massacre and enslavement, and than, Roman general Paulus let his soldiers loose anyway, enslaving at least 200,000. This was after looting the hell out of Macedonia and ending Macedonia as a nation forever, for being the main foe in this war against Rome. And it only got worse, as the murder and exploitation of Greeks by Romans accelerated with Roman victories

When they took over Asia from the last Attalid king, bequeated in a will, they really found a cash cow, making the Senate and Equite class ridiculously rich, and stripping whole regions of Pergamum and Asia minor of all moveable wealth and their freedom. Roman tax farmers, publicani, businessmen extorted the Greeks mercilessly, backed by the fury of the legions. When the legions were on the move in Greek territory, nobody was safe from the famine, rapine, and destruction. Roman Provincial rule was horrible, expoitative, violent during the middle Republic period, and it only got worse as the Civil Wars began. This was the grief and anger that was unleashed by Mithridates, who used the cruelty of the Romans as a rallying cry for Greeks of Asia and Greece to join his war. The Romans were the worst thing to happen to the Greeks, although Greece made a recovery, it took centuries.

Sulla destroyed Athens and burned the temples of Piraeus that were famed throughout the Hellenistic Era. Only when Augustus came along and brought some sense of justice, did Roman rule mean anything other than looting, rapine, murder and famine. This was why Augustus was worshipped as a God during his lifetime in the Greek East. This was what made the Empire last, when administration became somewhat humane, as Greeks began joining the legions and defended Rome, and earning citizenship. But none of this existed in the period in question, Roman barbarism and injustice is a main cause of the Mithridatic wars and the reason why any Greeks joined in the Asiatic vespers and why the Romans were massacred. Without understanding how Hitleresque Roman rule during the Middle and Late Republic 200BC-30BC, Its impossible to understand why the Mithridatic wars occurred. The sources exagerate the number of Italici killed to 80,000, which can only mean, if correct, that collaborating Greeks who joined the Romans in the wholesale looting of other Greeks were also thrown in. Rome had only been ruling Asia for a few decades, the amount of 80,000 is a sure exageration so Romans could justify the extreme cruelty shown when Asia was reconquered. The details of the 'Final Solution' which Rome unleashed when crushing the revolts of the Mithridatic wars have NOT survived, but were sufficiently well known that the Roman historians probably felt the need to omit, since they were writing at a later age when Greeks were Roman citizens, and would rather shed light on Greek cruelty rather than Roman cruelty. This was however, a very interesting time indeed, fun to read about, terrible to live through. However, it is important to mention...that Alexander the great was just as cruel, and many of his Hellenistic successors were equally as bad. And, just like the Romans, their actions did cause resentment among their subject populations, both Greek and non Greek. Ptolemaic Egyptians, hated their Greek foreign kings.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMalax (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 February 2010

"The Roman Command Structure"
The section on "The Roman Command Structure" strikes me as too long and full of detailed inscriptional evidence that detracts from the main focus of the article. It's a valiant effort to make sense of this large cast of characters (and quite a lot of work to have put in!), but it's a lot to wade through for the general reader. Could I suggest a separate article called "Roman officers in the Mithridatic Wars"? This section could then be condensed and cross-referenced to that article. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Done. I made a new page and moved this whole exegis there. I linked to it so its not an orphan. Its like this, For the battle of the bulge article, would anybody want some shreds of German paperwork detailing whether 1st recon brigade of the 2nd SS panzer division would be in Malmedy on December 24th at 3pm? Its enough to make anybody close the book and never read about WWII again. I dont know who wrote it, and I wanted to delete it for the longest time, it sucks the life out of the article and destroys it, nobody cares about Greek inscriptions about Roman officers who arent even mentioned at all in the battles, they are reading about a war. I made a new page and moved it there, since the man that wrote it either put alot of work into writing it, or cut and pasted it from his own PHD thesis. I doubt anybody else THAT professional would be reading Wikipedia for prosopographical and numismatic analysis of Ancient History. MrMalax (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) MrMalax

Consul Sulla?
The articles says that consul Sulla was given command for the campaign against Mithridates in 87 BC. However Sulla was only consul one year earlier in 88 BC. In 87 BC he was proconsul and led the campaign as such. Cn. Octavius and L. Cornelius Cinna were consuls in 87 BC. 154.122.15.204 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Mortran

We're not done yet
We can't draw our own conclusions unless those are obvious but the one thing we can do is present. Besides the clean-up of the referencing I would say we still need work in presentation. Why is any given material in there? What is it trying to show and why? The detail has to support some thesis, otherwise it is not too comprehensible. The reader has to be able to follow the thread. Otherwise it is just he-said-she-said, like the material on command structure that was moved. What is the point of reading it? Why are we giving this gobbledeygook to the public? More conclusions, more connecting sentences, more explanation of whys and wherefores. You can quote the modern authors, you know. This article is not bad, but there is a distinction remaining to be made. The article treats Rome's gradual involvement in the affairs of Asia Minor as all Mithridatic War. The greater part of the article is not the Mithridatic War, which does not start until the Senate declares was on Mithridates. I guess I am being critical of the organization. The "Prelude" is everything leading up to the war. The war starts when Sulla as consul is assigned the task of undertaking the bellum Mithridaticum. Before then other officers have been assigned other tasks. I will be going more on this but not just yet.Botteville (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sulla's election to consulship
The section 'Pontic re-occupation of Cappadocia, summer 89 BC' contains several subjective statements about Sulla's election being 'surprising' or a 'shock'. I undertook a quick check of a few ancient sources (Plutarch, Appian, Livy, Velleius), and can find no reference for this view. If it comes from a well-known secondary source, this should be indicated (it is not). However, I suspect that it is the personal conclusion of whoever wrote this section, and therefore qualifies as 'Original Research'. With this in mind, I have deleted these statements. Drivingrevilo (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Mithridatic War


text: Talk:Fourth Macedonian War

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Fourth Macedonian War


text:
Talk:Samnite Wars

Tuscans
It looks like the meaning of Tuscans here (and at Saturnia) is not even covered by the disambiguation at Tuscan. I take it that it refers to a pre-Roman tribe. Do we have a relevant article? In any case, can someone add it to the disambig and then re-link this accordingly? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I've always been told that Tuscany and Tuscans is derived from Etruria and Etruscans. Mhaesen 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"In 320 and 319, the Romans returned for revenge against the Samnites and defeated them in what the Roman historian Livy described as one of the greatest events in Roman history. In 315 BC, after the resumption of hostilities, Rome suffered a crushing defeat at Lautulae."

This paragraph is contradicting itself. Did the romans honor the 5-year treaty or not?

Large enough to split into 3 pages?
I think that we have enough content here to split a page off for each war, much like the Punic wars. Gomm 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one Samnite War
It is, in my oppinion, wrong to use the subdividion in the first/second and third Samnite war. We should be speaking of one Samnite war. For the full discusion one should read. "Deconstructing the Samnite wars" in "Samnium : settlement and cultural change : the proceedings of the third E. Togo Salmon conference on Roman studies" the last article. The subdevision in three parts is a modern thought. Coming from a German Historian if I'm right. If you are intrested in this subject it's a real must to read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.28.154 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical references
The classical references are obscure, even going to the authors’ pages. They should be listed in the bibliography with a title, or at least linked to a section on how they are to be referenced in the authors’ or works’ pages. 189.61.28.233 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate and/or unhistorical information in the introduction and the background section
Regarding the introduction, 1) the statement “the Samnite wars were fought over the control of Italy” can be misleading. It can sound as if it was over the control over the whole of Italy. It was not. It was about the control of parts of central and southern Italy. 2) The statement that the wars involved nearly all the states of Italy is an exaggeration. It involved all the peoples to the east, north and west of Samnium (land of the Samnites) + the peoples of central Italy north of Rome (the Etruscans, Umbrians and Picenti) and the Senone Gauls. Many of the Italic peoples did not get involved. Foremost among them were the Lucanians who lived next to the area of the wars. The Veneti, Lingones, Boii, Cenomani Insubres, Taurini and Ligures of northern Italy did not get involved. The Iapyges and the Messapii of Apulia did not get involved. The Oenotrians of present day Calabria did not get involved either. Therefore, many groups had nothing to do with these wars.

Regarding the background section, the migrations or conflicts of the other Umbro-Oscan groups had nothing to do with the Samnites and were totally irrelevant to the Samnites or to the Samnite Wars. The Umbro-Oscans (the speakers of Umbrian, Sabellian and Oscan langauges) was a linguistic family, not an ethnic grouping. There were 13 ethnic groups which were distinct from each other and politically independent and the only thing they shared were linguistic similarities. In addition, 1) the Samnites were not Sabellians. They were Oscans. 2) There is no record of the Etruscans having to fight back Umbrians or Sabellians. 3) Yes, Rome and the league of the other Latin cities had to fight raids by the Volsci and the Aequi. However, they were Sabellians and not Oscans. 4) Yes, the Lucanian were pressing on the Greek cities in the area of the modern Basilicata coast. However, even though they were Oscans, they were distinct and separate from the Samnites.

The View that the Samnites who lived on the mountains where backwards and the ones who migrated to Campania became civilised, less warlike and ill-fitted to fight the Samnite of the mountains is unhistorical and might reflect prejudice. There is no historical record of this. The statement that the Samnites were after the grassland of the plain which was fenced is also unhistorical. There is no historical record of this either. Archaeology has shown that the Samnites were not just backward mountain herders. Agriculture was practiced in their towns lower down in the valleys and there is evidence of Hellenization among the urban people, especially among the Caudini tribe. As for the Campanians, 1) it was only the city of Capua which asked Rome for help, not all of the Campanians (there were many Campanian cities). 2) The Capuans did not ask Rome for help because the Samnites were migrating into their area or because they were after the grassland of the plain. Not at all! The Samnites wanted to attack Capua because it helped the Sidicini against whom they were fighting. Also note that between the land of the Sidicini (who were not Campanians) in northern Campania and Capua, there was the lands of the Aurunci and the Ausoni, who were not Campanians either (the term Campanian is restricted to the people who had migrated from Samnium, the land of the Samnites, to central and southern Campania). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 020amonra (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-Varronian Chronology
I don't know where else to say this, but at some point wikipedia would do well to reject Varronian chronology. The fabricated Dictator Years (333, 324, 309, 301) in the Varronian chronology of the Fasti Capitolini are a relatively late invention. To put it briefly, a bunch of fictional years were inserted into the chronology of the late fourth century BC to help explain chronological inconsistencies in the chronology of the late fifth and early fourth centuries. There are undoubtedly problems in the chronology of the late fifth and early fourth centuries, which is also likely why some ancient authors (e.g. Livy) extended the Sextian-Licinian Anarchy from one to five years (cf. the one year in Diodorus' account).

But for the late fourth century the solution appears to be simple. By remaining true to Livy's account, who inserts no Dictator Years into his narrative and makes no mention of their claimed existence, we can reconstruct the most likely chronology. For example, once we delete the Dictator Years, the Second Samnite War is shown to have broken out in 323 BC, not 326. Of course Livy doesn't make such things clear to the modern reader as he simply dates everything to the consulships and does not try to universalise these dates by linking them to, say, the Olympiads or the archonships in Athens. But Diodorus does take this universalising approach, and although his chronology has mistakes, we can usually see that, for the late fourth century, the non-Varronian chronology is supported by Diodorus' universalising efforts.

The problem of course is that, while scholars on the Middle Republic acknowledge that the Dictator Years are spurious and discuss the likely reasons why these Dictator Years were invented (these issues have been discussed by Andrew Drummond, Tim Cornell, S. P. Oakley, etc) and some scholars now do use non-Varronian years when discussing the Samnite Wars (e.g. James Tan, Byron Waldron), it is still standard practice in scholarship to use the Varronian years anyway, I presume simply because it's 'canon' or something. And so, is it the responsibility of Wikipedia to follow the practice of a minority of scholars in actually using the historical non-Varronian years? I suppose not. It might just confuse users who see books date the battle of Caudine Forks to 321 (as opposed to 319), or the sack of Rome to 390 (as opposed to 386).

Nevertheless, one day I hope more scholars (and eventually Wikipedia) adopt the practice of employing non-Varronian years. Incidentally, this is what the Second Samnite War looks like once you remove the Dictator Years: https://historum.com/t/a-non-varronian-timeline-of-the-second-samnite-war.197094/ 129.78.56.138 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Samnite Wars


text: Talk:Second Illyrian War

title: Talk:Second Illyrian War


text:
Category talk:Fictional governments

Ministry of Magic?
Should the Ministry of Magic be here if it's part of a government and not a government in its own right? User:Philip Stevens 19:20, 15 October 2005

title: Category talk:Fictional governments


text:
Talk:First Servile War

Comporanda
Is this actually a real word?! I can't find it in a dictionary, and googling it only seems to bring up the same quote from Morton's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

comparanda--it's latin 2607:EA00:101:3817:5DC3:3774:71C4:C97D (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Scipio?
That he was a leader has no citation. A. E. Astin's "Scipio Aemilianus" mentions this war a few times, but not Scipio's involvement therein. Strange if he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

-Quite right to ask. Scipio did not participate in putting down the revolt. In 133 he was in Spain putting down the revolt of Numantia, and a passage of Mommsen's The History of Rome, (Meridian Books, 1958), ch. I., p. 46, “when challenged publicly on his return from Spain (132 BC.) [whether he approved of Gracchus' death]”, apparently indicates that he did not join Rupilius in 132 in subduing the Sicilian revolt.

title: Talk:First Servile War


text:
Talk:Second Servile War

Untitled
The Ancient Wars of Greece and Rome bar was above the article, as it was put in with the others.JanderVK (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cicilian"?
Is this meant to be "Cilician" or "Sicilian"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Second Servile War


text: Talk:Servile Wars

title: Talk:Servile Wars


text:
Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)

Finnish place names in a contemporary English text
Please read these United Nations toponymic guidelines for Finland:. In essence: "In foreign languages, names of monolingual areas should appear in the form they have in the official language of those areas (for instance fi Iisalmi, sv Mariehamn), unless there are no other established names in the languages in question. In bilingual areas, the names in the majority language should be preferred (for instance fi Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa; sv Jakobstad, Nykarleby, Pargas, Ekenäs.)" This recommendation is not changed by the fact that in Finland Finnish only gained an equal status with Swedish in 1892. The article is CONTEMPORARY and so the UN guidelines are recommendable even when dealing with matters of the past. NOTE: the name Vyborg has been used correctly here (Russian ortography, not the Swedish one, Viborg, or the Finnish one, Viipuri, although at the time in question the city's "official" name was Viborg). Clarifer 14:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let the UN use its own recommendations. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. As the most general rule, we use historic names: for instance Kaliningrad is always called Konigsberg in pre-1945 contexts and Gdansk is always Danzig. I don't see why we should make an exception in this particular case. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In historic articles the same names should be used that are used in the literature devoted to history of these events. As pointed out above, no one uses "Kaliningrad" in historic books about pre-1945, even the modern books. As per the same rule, the historic names should be used in Wikipedia for an articles that write about the past events, rather than the modern town's history. See for instance Treaty of Åbo article in Britannica. --Irpen 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not logical usage and results in historical multiplicity (I.e. many stories for one thing). There is no sense in writing e.g. about Irish history and use Irish toponyms for pre-English time periods, then suddenly - in the same article - switch to English names and then again use Irish names for later toponyms. What is usually done is a) use the contemporary name and b) state how and why the toponym has changed throughout history. Let's take the city of Vyborg. There's absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to first start to talk about Viborg, then suddenly switch to using the name Viipuri and lastly suddenly start talking about Vyborg. See any history book for this. What is usually done in such a case is a) constantly talk about Vyborg (the current name) and b) state that the city was founded as Viborg and was also once known as Viipuri. In this particular article, the toponyms should be determined by the current usage and this is NOT against the usual way to write a history article (quite the contrary). As to Kaliningrad (history again and UNDERSTANDING it). The toponym is new compared to Königsberg and the two have never existed side by side. This is totally different with Irish/English or Finnish/Swedish toponyms. All of the toponyms used in this article have Swedish and Finnish names which are about equally old. The only difference is that Finnish language didn't have a similar degree of officiality as Swedish did during the time in question. And no, I do not agree with writing two histories for Istanbul and Constantinople either as they are the same thing. They should be merged into ONE history for ONE ENTITY. And here Wikipedia is tested. Clarifer 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahem, now that I've read both the Istanbul and the Constantinople article through I see that indeed, in the article on Istanbul the Greek history has indeed been included as is proper so neither article is completely hopeless... Clarifer 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly so. The Istanbul article says "See Constantinople for a more detailed history before the Ottoman Turkish conquest of 1453. ". It is customary in wikipedia to split long articles into shorter ones. For example, we have Imperial Russia, RSFSR, Russia, although it is the same territory (under different politics). `'mikka (t) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Naming conventions. I think you will have questions about naming other things as well. Our case is in Naming conventions (geographic names). Your concern is understandable, but in wikipedia the problem of different names is alleviated by the fact that wikilinks are cheap, and any "historical multiplicity", if detected, is easy to correct. Personally, I think usage of different names in different contexts increases the historical awareness of readers, which is a good thing for modern readers. For example, having several names in the eyes in many places actually helps to detect and correct the abovementioned "historical multiplicity". This was not so for printed books. Please think how many changes in habits have been introduced by internet, hypertext, and other modern wonders. `'mikka (t) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read the naming conventions articles and couldn't find anything that would settle the disagreement here. I still disagree in a multiple of ways. Using anacronistic (not modern) toponyms tends to make things more complicated in certain cases and does NOT help the reader to see the historical perspective (e.g. using Vyborg in 'the Castle of Vyborg' in an English article makes the article more objective, serious and trustworthy than using Viipuri or Viborg) no matter of the time period. I can see how Constantinople is used in historic contexts as the name Istanbul is a recent one and there was a period in time where the place was not at all known by that name. The same logic holds true for Gdansk-Danzig and Kaliningrad-Königsberg (this is a question of historical events and understanding them). Using the Swedish place name in a contemporary English text of Finland's geography is not a similar case. I repeat: In the context of Irish and Finnish place names BOTH (when talking about municipalities) are equally old and have been used side-by-side for centuries. The only difference between these municipal names is that one language enjoyed more officiality than the other. Indeed, in the case of Finnish place names the naming convention should be based on the municipal majority language (as recommended by the UN) and NOT the fact that Finnish wasn't an official language of Finland until 1892. What is your argument for using the Swedish place names in Finnish (and Swedish) history in a non-Swedish non-Finnish language environment? Clarifer 11:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Using a toponym of the linguistic minority language is (at least close to) POV and in any case unnecessery
Just as it would be strange e.g. to use the name Freiburg (German) for Fribourg (French) in an English article or to use Dutch place names in Wallonian contexts, it is also strange to use Swedish place naming with regard to Finland for municipalities that have Finnish as the majority language. May I point out that it would also be POV to use the name Pietarsaari for Jakobstad where Swedish is a majority language. Also, Korppoo would be false as Korpo is the Swedish name for it. Again, if we follow the logic of the writers of this article, why is the city of Vyborg named Vyborg and not Viborg then? I don't seem to understand the logic in the toponymic usage in these articles and I find the current usage highly questionnable and selective. Moreover, so far nothing in Wikipedia's conventions support the usage of Swedish place names for Finland's municipalities that have Finnish as the majority language. Even in historical contexts. Clarifer 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article as of now is a mess with all the parenthesized place names, e.g, Turku (Åbo). I am no expert on Finland but as far as I know a lot of the place names in question were founded by Swedes, and since Finland didn't exist as a country back then it would be more proper to use the Swedish name. Then again, that could confuse modern readers who aren't aware of the historical background. As I understand it, it's a pretty sensitive issue where Swedish speaking people would be offended if Finnish place names are used - and vice versa. I can't agree with the usage of parentheses though as it doesn't look very encyklopedic so something has to be done. Redeem — Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This guy Clarifier, who introduced the same mess into Finnish War, instead of clarifying the article, uglified it. He should recollect that Wikipedia uses redirects, therefore there is no need to abuse brackets at all. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A country does not need to be independent to be a country, nor does it matter did the Swedes find cities or not. --88.114.254.169 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where this is leading to but I've thought about this and still think that the best approach when writing about history is primarily making use of the contemporary toponymy if the place name is equally old in the candidate versions (if a person reflects upon the usage he can just as easily be directed to the relevant article explaining it or the history behind it). For people not used to a multilingual country the issue seems difficult. A multilingual country uses it's own principles when dealing with these issues (e.g. majority language street name above, minority language street name below in signs). I cannot understand why Wikipedia couldn't reflect this usage. 1. It is true that most municipalities in Finland were organized and cities founded and therefore officially named during the period in time when the current area we now call Finland was ruled from Stockholm. 2. It is also true that every new Swedish municipal name had a Finnish version from the first founding moment onwards at the latest as in most of Finland the majority (the common people) was Finnish speaking. E.g. the city of Villmanstrand was founded in the 17th century on a market place in Lapvesi (parish founded in the 15th century) -> Lapvedenranta -> Lappeenranta. 3. This makes BOTH names about equally old even though Villmanstrand, of course, was the name used in "official" (=Swedish speaking) communication. 4. Therefore, the question emerges: Why should a text written NOW in a language OTHER than Finnish or Swedish use explicitly the Swedish version of a place name in Finland? 5. Taking this into a larger context: who knows what the (actual) founders or rulers of controversial places like Jericho, Jerusalem etc. called them? The principle of changing place names according to their official character during different era is therefore NOT a very good basis and makes history clustered especially in cases where the candidate names are about equally old or their history unknown/controversial. Wouldn't the easiest and the most objective approach here be to make use of the CONTEMPORARY usage? Clarifer 11:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamina and Lappeenranta as names were used already back then. Today, they are the known names in English. We are not writing a Swedish encyclopedia here, but an English one. Finlandais 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few toponyms in Finland do not have a Finnish language equivalent that is not equally old to a Swedish language toponym. Writing about history will become impossible if one first needs to check the official toponym for each time period first. With regard to writing about Finland's history, using the majority language toponym (be it Swedish or Finnish) is a far more justifiable principle than using toponymy according to its official character over different time periods. Can I ask Ghirlandajo: on what grounds do you use VYborg instead of VIborg here? An example: I just watched a BBC documentary about a Celtic rebellion against the Romans in England. Londinium, the Roman official toponym of the time, was used ONCE (in the beginning like: "London, known as Londinium at the time,....") and 99% of the time they spoke about London which is the name given to the city by the natives and which is how the city is known today. I think such usage is more typical for history discussion if both toponyms are about equally old or the history if the toponym is unknown. Clarifer 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd use the historical name (of the major language at the time) and wikilink to the municipalities of today via pipered links, though the matter is fairly complicated. Back in 1997 the "Research Institute for the Languages of Finland" wrote an article (English) and recommendation (only in Swedish) on how to refer to places in Finland in other languages than Finnish & Swedish. In a nutshell, their recommendation is like the UN one. Still, as far as recommendations goes, they apply nicely to articles on municipalities etc. (á la Turku, Swedish: Åbo) but leave the issue of names in a historical context unresolved.

 * While I'd prefer to use historical names for locations, nations and whatnot, one must understand that the Finnish situation is very complex and both language groups feature "passionate" people who are easily provoked. At any rate, a possible sound approach would be to include both Finnish and Swedish names in the article in order to educate readers, despite the cluttering. Or make an article on historical placenames in Finland and include a link in a note to the page in all articles related to historical Finland (like some articles point out that the German Graf in a person's name means count, example). Scoo 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A historical name is not the same as "an official name". Please consider the concequences of applying past usages contemporarily in an attempt of over-correctness. What would that mean e.g. in the case of South-Africa (sorry for the exaggerated example but I want to make a point here)? Swedish was never a majority language in Finland and it was rarely a municipal majority language even though a language shift has occured. What is more significant: no exact data remains of the past linguistic distribution, we only know the contemporary percentages for sure. However, the municipal linguistic distribution seems to have remained fairly stabile. Most people in Finland have always spoken and still speak Finnish though the officiality of languages has changed through history (Swedish, Russian, Finnish). Please take a while and look into Finland's history before making such proposals. The recommendations by BOTH the UN and the Kotus (the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland) are not changed by the fact that Finnish wasn't an official language (though the MAJORITY language) in Finland before the year 1892. It would be absolutely ridiculous to speak of Abo before 1892 and suddenly of Turku after that only because of the officiality. (What is known is that in Koroinen, the original trading post, and in Turku, the later city, the oldest stratum of toponyms is Finnish whatever the trading post's "official" name originally was). Please inform yourself on this, ok? You can compare the situation with that in Ireland if it helps at all. This has little to do with passions, it's just boring realism. What applies to multilingual countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland etc. etc. should also apply in the case of Finland. Nothing more, nothing less. Clarifer 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you read a bit too much between the lines.. ;) (I'm quite aware of the history of Finland and the Finnish language, thank you). I'd still suggest implementation of some kind of notice template directing readers to an article that would inform readers on naming conventions and different geographical names in say Finnish and Swedish, all in the intent of informing say a reader from New Zealand who might stumble upon articles such as this one. Going off topic, you're quite right regarding the scarceness (or less than reliable) linguistic sources (if memory serves, parish priests were to report on the linguistic outlook of their parish in some of the parishes surrounding Turku in the 18th century. Still their instructions were quite vague {i.e. how to measure how good a person know either language} and they pretty much made up their own minds of when someone could be described as a fluent speaker etc.) Scoo 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you mean by reading between the lines. I do think that it is time to try and start a dialogue on a) all this "historical multiplicity" in wrong places that Wikipedia seems confronted with, b) how a multilingual country works and c) the case of Finland in particular. I agree that an informative article would be in order if not even trying to settle on an entry here Naming conventions or here Naming conventions (geographic names) regarding Finland's toponymy. (while for some reason it seems clear that in an English text, even on history, one speaks of Fribourg and not of Freiburg - the Swiss city being bilingual - it seem less clear that one also should speak of Turku and not of Abo or Jakobstad and not Pietarsaari in a non-Swedish non-Finnish language context.) Clarifer 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Finnish name
of the war itself is hattujen sota (War of the Hats), Lesser Wrath, in Finnish pikkuviha was the Russian occupation period during the war. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange naming
I must say I was very surprised when I read this article with all placenames in Finnish. Of course I have read all the text above but I still can't see why we for example have Lappeenranta instead of Villmanstrand which was the name used at the time. And it also becomes even more confusing when we have an article named Battle of Villmanstrand. When talking about the pre-1809 time I thought it was custom to use the Swedish placenames in English literature. After all it was part of Sweden at the time. That's also why we say Battle of Kircholm and not "Battle of Salaspils" (like Battle of Stalingrad and not "Battle of Volgograd"). You can also compare with placenames in Ukraine that we can say have a similar history. For example we have Battle of Lwów (1675) and not "Battle of Lviv". Of course the city is called Lviv today, but it wasn't known as that in 1675. Närking (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple. Things that STILL exist such as cities are dealt with current naming conventions (Finnish derived place names are mostly older in Finland although the Swedish names were once the only official ones). Things that are no longer such as old peace treaties or battles are dealt with their contemporary naming conventions. Clarifer (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said this is for some reasons only the case with articles related to Finland. Read the article about Battle of Stalingrad and you will find that Volgograd is just mentioned in the beginning telling that Stalingrad today is known as Volgograd. Närking (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of setting the pre-1809 names in Finland in Swedish as it makes chronologically far more sense. After all there was no Finland (as a nation, it existed merely as a region) at the time, just Sweden. Of course their names in other languages should be noted as per WP:PLACE. Problem really is that there seems to be relatively little English literature on the topic, most being in Swedish, Finnish or Russian with all three using their own nomenclature. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)


text:
Talk:Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)

Merger between the articles:- "Anglo-Russian War" and "The Quasi War between Britain and Russia in 1807"
I am the author of the article entitled "The Quasi War between Britain and Russia in 1807". I absolutely agree that these two articles should be merged. I realise that they both deal with exactly the same thing; and I had I realised that an article already existed concerning the war, I wouldn't have written my own one.

I didn't raise the problem beforehand, simply because I didn't know what to do to merge these articles, or how to put a marker saying that these articles should be merged.

Go for it, I say!

EasyPeasy21 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * In the late 19th century there was a much more bloody Anglo-Russian War, so that Anglo-Russian War shouldn't be merged with this article !Ti2008 (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anglo
The title uses the term 'Anglo'. This is Incorrect, as anglo refers to England, yet the war involved the United Kingdom and Russia, not England and Russia. This could be both offensive and misleading. I suggest it be changed to British-Russian war, or something along those lines. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 * See what the sources call the conflict Google Books: Anglo-Russian War. Anglo is the usual prefix for such conflicts Google Books: Anglo- War returns thousands books. -- PBS (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 years later - this remains incorrect and potentially offensive and misleading as Scotland Wales and Ireland qere also represented alongside England. 84.217.93.165 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)


text:
Talk:Caucasian War

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

Abkhazians and Abkhazians of Circassia
Do you have sources who reject historical facts? You are engaged in socialism Alsho093 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caucasian War


text: Talk:Ingrian War

title: Talk:Ingrian War


text:
Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829)

Untitled
so russia won right?

A pure piece of garbage
This article needs to be updated, the Turkish forces are enormous in this article, which is absurd, much of the information is incorrect and it seems like the page has russian benefit.

Bullshit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Scorched Earth and such
The article stated: ''The Russian army plundered the landscape and engaged in scorched-earth tactics, which lead the an English traveller Sir Adolphus Slade to remark:' 'In some mud cabins, hard by Yeni Bazar, an advanced post of Cossacks was lodged, in great distress for want of necessaries, which they were obliged to draw from Varna, two days distance. All Bulgaria they informed me, was in the same state, not a house standing, thus confirming what a Russian officer had before told me "the Turks did some damage, but we levelled all" The reason of their wanton destruction is difficult to understand, especially among people whom they were pleased to call co-religionists, allies,&c., but whom they treated worse than serfs. Pravodi, for example, a Christian place, they levelled to the ground, although it was not attacked. The adage, " where the Spahis' hoofs tread, the grass will not grow," may be applied with more reason to the Cossacks."

By that time, Russia and Britain were political rivals. So the quote is hardly the testimony of a disinterested, unbiased witness. A claim as ridiculuous as that not a single house was standing in Bulgaria anymore is propaganda, even when it is delivered as hearsay. -- Zz (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Slade actually served in the Ottoman navy, so he is biased. His book discusses in great detail the movements of Russian troops, and clearly states that they went only a relatively short distance inland from the Black sea coast (Svilen, Shumen, Pravodi etc.). Bulgaria did not exist as an independent country then, but as far as I can tell, people at the time would have understood "Bulgaria" to mean the territory of modern day Bulgaria plus modern day Macedonia and quite a lot of adjoining territories too, so I don't quite know what to make of his claim that not a house was standing in Bulgaria. It's pretty strange. Either his grasp of geography was very limited, or he was trusting to the ignorance of his readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829)


text:
The Virgin Tour

The Virgin Tour was the debut concert tour by American singer-songwriter Madonna. The tour supported her first two studio albums, Madonna (1983) and Like a Virgin (1984). It started on April 10, 1985, at the Paramount Theatre in Seattle, United States, and ended on June 11 of the same year at the Madison Square Garden in New York City. Although initially planned for an international audience, the tour was restricted to the United States and Canada. Warner Bros. Records decided to send Madonna on tour after Like a Virgin became a success. After an official announcement on March 15, 1985, Madonna and her team began production plans. She wanted the tour to be a reflection of her own self and collaborated with designer Maripol for the costumes.

Beastie Boys were signed as the opening act, while record producer Patrick Leonard was the music director. The stage was triangular, with walkways and ramps around it, with lighting arrangements hanging about 30 feet above. Four giant screens lined three sides of the stage's outer perimeter. The setlist consisted of songs from her first two records, Madonna and Like a Virgin. Madonna was backed by two male dancers as she moved energetically across the stage. The show ended with her in a wedding dress, performing "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl".

The tour received a mixed reception from critics, but was a commercial success, with many newly-obsessed Madonna fans in attendance. As soon as it was announced, tickets were sold out nearly everywhere. Macy's New York department store created a “Madonna department”, where shoppers could find not only official tour merchandise, but also clothing, jewelry, and accessories to replicate what was considered (at the time) to be the Madonna “style”. The store was flooded with fans, who bought everything from chunky bracelets and bangles, scrunchies and headbands, to pearl necklaces and rings. The store also carried shoes, shirts, denim jackets, large sunglasses, and Madonna’s “signature” accessories: rosary-style necklaces, crucifix earrings, fingerless gloves, and even a replica of her iconic belt, with the metal buckle carved to say “BOY” in all capital letters. On its end, the tour was reported to have grossed over $5 million ($0 million in dollars), with Billboard Boxscore reporting a gross of $3.3 million ($0 million in  dollars).

The tour was recorded and released on VHS, Betamax and LaserDisc, as Madonna Live: The Virgin Tour, which received a gold certification by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). With the commencement of the Virgin Tour, a wide-ranging audience—especially young women—thronged to attend, all nearly decked-out in Madonna-inspired outfits. This frenzy surrounding Madonna gave rise to a new term called Madonna wannabe—a reference to her obsessive followers (during the mid-1980s) that would be officially recognized by the Webster's Dictionary in May 1991.

Background
The Virgin Tour was officially announced on March 15, 1985, by Warner Bros. Records. Prior to the tour, Madonna's only live performances were limited to evening shows at Danceteria, CBGB and Mudd Club, and only the 1984 MTV Video Music Awards, where she performed her song "Like a Virgin". Following the success of the Like a Virgin album, the record label wanted to milk-in the success of the album by sending Madonna on a worldwide tour. However, the tour was restricted within United States and Canada. It did not visit Europe, Asia or other continents. Early on there were plans to schedule dates in Australia and Japan due to Madonna's large fan bases in both countries; however, the final schedule did not reflect the idea. In the end several more U.S. dates were added and the tour was moved to larger concert venues due to overwhelmingly strong ticket sales. Madonna was quite nervous to perform in front of a huge audience, and singing with a live band for the first time. During a 2009 interview with Rolling Stone, interviewer Austin Scaggs asked Madonna regarding her feelings and emotions during the tour, since it was the first time she was playing in arenas. Madonna replied saying, "That whole tour was crazy, because I went from playing CBGB and the Mudd Club to playing sporting arenas. I played a small theater in Seattle, and the girls had flap skirts on and the tights cut off below their knees and lace gloves and rosaries and bows in their hair and big hoop earrings. I was like, 'This is insane!' After Seattle, all of the shows were moved to arenas. I've never done a bus tour. Everyone says they are really fun."

Development
After the tour was confirmed, Madonna and her troupe started working on it. Madonna wanted it to be "loud and brazen, and a reflection of my street-style and DGAF attitude." She wanted a concert where people can enjoy themselves as much as she would enjoy performing. Commenting on the development, Madonna said "I normally hate performances where there is just a singer singing, and a lame-ass band playing in the background; or shows where there is a rocker screaming his lungs out and jumping on the crowd. That just plain sucks! That's why I wanted something different, something that would be memorable." For the show, Madonna collaborated with her designer friend Maripol for the clothes and the fashion. Maripol operated a small fabric boutique called Maripolitan in Greenwich Village, where the designs and the clothes for the tour were decided by her and Madonna. Rehearsals for the show started in late February, with auditions and choosing the dancers going on in-between. Madonna specifically wanted male back-up dancers, citing that the "provocative moves that I do on stage works better with men beside me." To further promote the tour, Warner Bros. Entertainers Merchandise Management Corp. introduced the Boy Toy collection, named after the belt buckle Madonna wore on the Like a Virgin album cover picture. It consisted of a rectangular buckle, with the words "Boy" and "Toy" emblazed on it in gold color. For choosing a music director for the tour, Madonna's manager Freddy DeMann contacted record producer Patrick Leonard, who had just returned from the Victory Tour by The Jackson 5. At first Leonard said no, feeling exhausted from the Victory Tour, but after he spoke to Madonna on the phone, he found her charming, and agreed to sign for the tour.

Beastie Boys were signed as the opening act for the tour. Adam "MCA" Yauch of the group recollected: "One day, Russell Simmons, co-founder of Def Jam Recordings, came in and said, 'Hey guess what—Madonna's manager called. Do you guys want to go on tour with her?" DeMann had asked for another group called The Fat Boys, but Simmons did not manage them and lied, saying "Oh, the Fat Boys have another gig that week. What about Run–D.M.C.?" But they were too expensive according to DeMann, and hence ultimately Beastie Boys were chosen. Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz from the band commented: "It's not like any of us knew Madonna that much, but we all used to hang out at Danceteria [club] so we knew about each other. I don't know why she thought it would be a good idea [to open for her tour], though. It was a terrible idea. But it was great for her in a way because we were so awful that by the time she came onstage, the audience had to be happy." The circular stage for the tour, consisted of three ramps around the perimeter, which were connected with each other. A long line of stairs descended to the main stage from the central ramp; it was flanked by the band. About 30 ft above the stage, the speakers were suspended from a circular beam. Four giant screens lined the outer perimeter of the stage, on three sides.

Concert synopsis
The show opened with Beastie Boys performing six of their songs for 30 minutes. They were accompanied by their DJ, Rick Rubin, who scratched the music, with The Beastie Boys prancing around the stage, making lewd gestures towards the audience. As they finished their performance, the backdrops started displaying Madonna's images from her music videos. The band—consisting of guitarists, bassists, a drummer and three synthesizer players—came into focus, and the music started. Madonna's voice was heard, saying: "Don't be afraid... it's gonna be alright." Then, Madonna's silhouette appeared behind a white screen on top of the stairs as the first beats kicked in. The white screen lifted and she is finally seen, wearing a psychedelic denim jacket, a blue see-through crop-top and her characteristic green bra. She also had lacy leggings and crucifixes around her ear and her neck. She posed on the stairs before reaching the microphone to sing "Dress You Up". After dancing to the last note of the music, Madonna and the two male back-up dancers went to the back of the stage, as the music of "Holiday" began. Taking a moment to ask the audience how they are feeling, Madonna declared, "I was never elected homecoming queen, but I sure feel like one now", and started the performance of "Into the Groove", playing a tambourine. A boombox was present on the stage during the performance, Madonna sitting and playing with it, and addressing it as her "box". She continued with "Everybody", while asking the audience to clap along with her. As she finished the vigorous performance of "Everybody", the lights were dimmed and the introduction music of "Angel" started. Rotating lights fell on the stage. Madonna appeared sitting on top of the stairs and gradually descended. During the intermediate bridge, she and her dancers moved energetically around the whole stage, as white balloons fell on them from above. Madonna continued singing as the lights were dimmed again. She finished the performance and disappeared behind the wings for a costume change. She appeared on the stage wearing a black, fringed micro-top and similar skirt, with her belly-button exposed, and a number of crucifixes in different sizes, hanging from different parts of her body.

As the guitar intro of "Gambler" started, Madonna stood on the side-stage and started dancing energetically, as flashlights fell on her. While singing the song, she sometimes opened her jacket and sometimes straddled a steel structure present on the side of the stage. The performance ended with Madonna jumping off the side stage, onto the main one. She then performed "Borderline", "Lucky Star" and "Crazy for You"—while touching the hands of the audience members. Madonna then returned to the microphone and started singing "Over and Over" from Like a Virgin. It was followed by "Burning Up" during which she caressed one of the guitarist, ultimately disappearing for another costume change. As the music of the song "Like a Virgin" started, Madonna returned on the stage, wearing a wedding dress, holding a bouquet in her hand and a long white veil behind her. Accessorized by a white bow atop her head and lacy, three-quarter length gloves, she also had a crucifix on her waistband and another hanging from a long chain around her neck. Madonna asked the audience "Will you marry me?" When the audience answered affirmatively, she threw the bouquet towards them and started singing the song. Madonna continued singing the song while rolling around the floor, and added a snippet of Michael Jackson's Motown-style single, "Billie Jean". Balloons floated out towards the audience again as she pulled apart her veil and threw it towards the audience. She returned to the stage in the arms of one of the backup dancers, wearing a boob tube and a tight white skirt, carrying a bunch of notes in her left hand, and a number of garlands around her neck. In a self-parodying performance of the song "Material Girl", at the end of the performance Madonna asked the audience "Do you really think I'm a material girl? ... I'm not ... Take it [Throwing fake money] ... I don't need money ... I need love." As she began to strip off more clothes and jewelry, she was apprehended and marched offstage by an extra posing as her father. In Detroit, her father Tony Ciccone himself did the honors. The show ended with Madonna returning onstage once more to take her fur coat and doing a curtsey.

Critical reception
The tour received generally mixed reviews from critics. Jason Stratley from The Philadelphia Inquirer said that "On stage, wiggling and writhing, a rock-video vision of messy, bleached- blond hair, bare skin, sequined paisley and dime store diamonds was the flash-and-trash rock queen Madonna. Behold the Madonna clones—she is turning into one fine legend." Jeff Sewald from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette felt that "the modus operandi [of the tour] was clear. Madonna was not only selling her music to throngs of teen-agers and adults alike, but she was selling herself and the entire package proved to be a joy for the 14,500 screaming fans. [...] Madonna's 'Virgin Tour' had torn the cover off Pittsburgh's sexuality." Rachel Lee from The Sacramento Bee felt that "more than any pop star in recent memory, even Boy George and Prince, Madonna is an image. Her hour-long concert here Tuesday night, as professionally performed and well-choreographed as it was, did nothing to give her more dimension than the two already bestowed on her." Arthur Daniels from Lexington Herald-Leader felt that "Madonna looked grim, but the fans were delighted when the blond rock star made her first major concert appearance to kick off her 'Virgin Tour'. [...] She looked blank and did not look up as she passed fans who gathered by the stage door before the show."

Robert Hilburn from the Los Angeles Times commented: "Madonna represents a contemporary fantasy figure that revives the glamour, innocence and raw sexuality of many of Madonna's own teen heroes, including Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. Like the early Monroe, Madonna may portray a bimbo, but there she's clearly no pushover. Though the audience was on its feet throughout, it often seemed that Madonna was operating beneath her potential in this pop format. It's important to demonstrate that she can handle herself live, but the simplicity of pop concerts doesn't begin to tax her ambition or talent. In fact, she has so little to do other than express this aggressive, sexy attitude that the show seemed long at just over an hour". Heidi Sherman from Spin commented, "The Virgin Tour was Madonna's first, yet it put her in the same league as Prince and Bruce Springsteen. It proved that Madonna was beyond real. And if her stage presence indicated she was more showgirl than musician, at least she knew how to gussy up her act for the postfeminist MTV age. Boy Toy? Not exactly. She was a bonafide pop star in the process of becoming a cultural icon."

Laura Fissinger from South Florida Sun-Sentinel felt that "'Virgin Tour' establishes Madonna more as a bimbo, rather than the strong, independent woman people think her to be." David O'Reilly from Philadelphia Daily News said that with the concert "Madonna proved once more why she was called a 'talentless bimbo'; it was utter trash." Richard Defendorf of Orlando Sentinel gave a positive review, saying "Madonna's 'Virgin Tour' was very enjoyable and she put her music video charms in her live performances." Maya Hathoray from The Miami Herald said that "We know [Madonna is] sexy, exotically beautiful and her funk/pop songs make us want to dance, but on stage, she is extremely tame compared to her raw persona in her music videos. She is like daddy's little girl." Mary Edgar Smith from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution observed that "It was obvious from the apparel of the young girls at last week's Virgin Tour concerts in Tampa and Orlando, Fla., that the 26-year-old singer [Madonna] had more to give to the music world than what others suggest. She will be a force to be reckoned with." Stephen Holden from The New York Times commented, "While her pubescent lookalike fans cheer approvingly, the star's manipulation of such symbols as a wedding gown, a cross, furs and jewels becomes a lighthearted communal psychodrama. Madonna has brought traditional little girl's games of dress-up and playing with dolls (using oneself as model) into the television age by turning them into a public spectacle." A review in Variety by John Gleeson said that "Madonna's singing was like a soundtrack to a more visceral display of herself, her persona, her nonstop dancing and her surprisingly explicit sexual dare, which included a visual climax—so to speak—to every other song." Paul Grein from Billboard said that "Madonna's show was stylish, well-paced and consistently entertaining." On their rankings of Madonna's tours, VH1's Christopher Rosa and The Advocate's Gina Vivinetto both placed The Virgin Tour in the ninth position; for the former, "it's definitely energetic and full of '80s teen bombast" but lacks "the style and sophistication of her other tours", while the latter deemed it a "stripped down, sloppy romp". The Odyssey's Rocco Papa placed it in the eight position of his ranking, calling it "a mere preview of what Madonna had in store for the rest of her career".

Commercial reception
As soon as the tour was announced, tickets were sold out almost everywhere. In San Francisco, tour shirts were selling at a clocked rate of one every six seconds. All 17,672 tickets for Madonna's show at New York City's Radio City Music Hall were completely sold out in a record-breaking 34 minutes. Both the shows at Chicago's UIC Pavilion were sold in a single day with a record-breaking 18,000 tickets being sold. In Philadelphia, a record-breaking 31,000 tickets were sold in under four hours. Along with ticket sales, merchandise associated with the tour also sold rapidly. T-shirts, posters and promo-magazines featuring Madonna's image were picked up by the fans, even though most them were overpriced compared to the market value. After its end, the Virgin Tour was reported to have grossed over $5 million ($0 million in dollars), with Billboard Boxscore reporting a gross of $3.3 million ($0 million in  dollars).

Recordings
The 1985 Madonna Live: The Virgin Tour VHS and LaserDisc documents a Detroit stop on the tour. "Angel","Borderline" and "Burning Up" were part of the tour set list but were not included on the official VHS and LaserDisc releases. It was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for shipment of 50,000 copies and received a "Video Software Dealers Award" for the Most Popular Music Video in September 1986. The video received mixed reviews from critics. Annie Temple from Philadelphia Daily News said that the release was "not so flattering" and "was a sloppy job". Dennis Hunt from the Los Angeles Times said that "the video is sometimes distracting and blurry, wonder what went wrong during recording. The angles are awkward, especially when the audience members are shown touching Madonna's hand. Was it really necessary to show a fan coming unannounced on the stage?" Terry Atkinson from the same paper said, "This follows the typical concert video format of putting you in the best seat in the hall and letting the aura of a superior performer encaptivate your senses." Joe Logan and Gail Shister from The Wichita Eagle said that "seeing Madonna live in an arena and seeing her up, close and personal in the tour cassette is totally different. The energy, the movements, the provocation—all captures you more."

The release debuted at 14 on Billboard's Top Music Videocassettes chart, on December 7, 1985, and reached a peak of 11, the next week. The video started a slow climb on the chart, and on the issue dated January 18, 1986, it reached the top of the chart, replacing Prince & The Revolution: Live by The Revolution. On May 24, 1986, the video again climbed back in the top ten of the chart, at position two. It was present on the chart for a total of 65 weeks. Live – The Virgin Tour was the top selling music videocassette for 1986. The video was certified two-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for shipment of 200,000 copies and received a "Video Software Dealers Award" for the Most Popular Music Video, in September 1986.

Legacy
When the tour first started, people—especially women—thronged to see it wearing clothes inspired by Madonna. Debbi Voller, author of Madonna: The Style Book, observed that "Hundreds of thousands of young girls came to the concert dressed like her, with bleached and tousled hair, see-through tops, bras, fingerless gloves and crucifixes. Magazines and TV shows ran lookalike competitions." This frenzy regarding Madonna gave rise to a new term called Madonna wannabe—a word that was ultimately officially recognized by the Webster's Dictionary in May 1991. Madonna was mystified as to why all the women would want to copy her look. She commented, "I never set out to be a role model. I am a strong woman, a successful woman, and I don't conform to a stereotype. For so long women have been told that there are certain ways they mustn't look if they want to get ahead in life. And there I was dressing in a forbidden way and yet obviously in charge of my life. It was then I realized why all of them were out there in their seats, dressing like me." While the tour was going on, the American lingerie industry reported that their turnover was suddenly up by 40 percent and that Madonna's image was responsible for this underwear revival. Sam Gower from Rolling Stone commented, "In the sixties, women burned their bras, now they wear five at a time, and bare their belly buttons. Madonna has done for the corset and crucifix what punk did for the safety pin. Macy's New York department store was flooded with buyers, who bought the tour merchandise like the crucifix earrings and fingerless gloves." The demand was so huge that Macy's had to refill the merchandise time again. Madonna's subversive antics on the tour provoked fiery and antics among the press. Rolling Stone said: "Like Marilyn Monroe, Madonna is bent on epitomizing and championing a vision of female sexuality, and like Monroe she is often dismissed as an artist for doing so." Suzanne Ferriss, author of On Fashion said that "Virgin Tour exemplified Madonna's extended desire to treat boys as toys and her chastity belt coming off at her own whim and desire. Her dance numbers with men during the tour shows them as her underlings, accessories that she toys with and totally dominates."

Set list
Set list and samples per Madonna's official website and the notes and track listing of Madonna Live: The Virgin Tour.

 * 1) "Dress You Up"
 * 2) "Holiday"
 * 3) "Into the Groove"
 * 4) "Everybody"
 * 5) "Angel"
 * 6) "Gambler"
 * 7) "Borderline"
 * 8) "Lucky Star"
 * 9) "Crazy for You"
 * 10) "Over and Over"
 * 11) "Burning Up"
 * 12) "Like a Virgin" (Contains an excerpt from "Billie Jean")
 * 13) "Material Girl"

Personnel
Adapted from The Virgin Tour program.
 * Madonna – creator, vocals, tambourine
 * Patrick Leonard – keyboards
 * Bill Meyers – keyboards
 * Jonathan P. Moffet – drums
 * Bill Lanphier – bass guitar, synth bass
 * James Harrah – guitars
 * Paul Pesco – guitars
 * Michael Perea - dancer
 * Lyndon B. Johnson - dancer
 * Brad Jeffries – choreographer, staging
 * Maripol - costume designer
 * Ian Knight – set designer
 * Freddy DeMann – personal management
 * Dave Kob – audio mixer
 * Rick Coberly - monitor mixer

title: The Virgin Tour


text:
Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812)

Untitled
I think the article should include joint Russo-Serbian campaign against Ottomans during First Serbian Uprising. --  Bojan   Talk   04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar
In the text it says that Russia defeated Ottoman Empire. But the result according to side bar in indecisive. The bar should be consistent with the text.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar
In the text it says that Russia defeated Ottoman Empire. But the result according to side bar in indecisive. The bar should be consistent with the text.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Kamenskys
The article talks about the Kamensky brothers and their key role. However, immediately after introducing the Kamenskys, the article starts talking about Kamensky (singular), and it is not clear which one is being referred to. For instance, who died in 1811? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Thurston (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus Front section
I have removed the unreliable "Baddeley" source and tagged the section. If the information within the section can not be verified using reliable sources, then it should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Vidin?
The article records a battle at Vidin on 26 October 1810. This appears to be a reiteration of the Battle of Batin, albeit with the wrong date and location. Vidin is far away from the area of conflict. Plucas58 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Flag of Abkhazia (18th century).svg

title: Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812)


text:
Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced "victory" and deletion of reference
user:El Diablo98(currently at 4RR) has chosen to edit war instead of explaining their edit of adding "Russian victory"(unsourced) to the infobox while removing "Russia defeated in Crimea" cited by the Torke reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 * So the victory of the Turks in Crimea does not change the outcome of the war, it is a separate campaign. Anyway, according to the peace treaty, the Ottomans satisfied all the demands of the Russians Dushnilkin (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Except the source you added isn't 3rd party, it's a Russian source written by Andrey Guskov(unless I'm mistaken). Which makes it from the Russian perspective, not the neutral perspective. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I ask you to at least familiarize yourself with the contents, and then declare a one-sided source. Russian Russian defeat in Crimea is wrong in any case, because this is one of the many companies of the early stage of the war, the result in any case was beneficial to the Russians, this is confirmed by absolutely all sources. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700)


text:
Al DeRogatis

Albert John DeRogatis (May 5, 1927 – December 26, 1995) was an American football player and television and radio sportscaster.

Life and career
DeRogatis was born in Newark, New Jersey, and attended the city's Central High School, earning All-State honors at center. At Duke University, after a knee injury shortened his junior season, he made the 1948 All-America team as a tackle.

He was drafted the following year by the New York Giants of the National Football League (NFL) and played defensive tackle. He was an NFL All-Pro in both 1950 and 1951. A recurrence of the knee injury he suffered at Duke ended his playing career after four seasons of professional football. For thirty-three years beginning in 1953, he served as a vice president with Prudential Insurance.

From 1966 through 1975, the bespectacled DeRogatis served as a color commentator for professional and college football telecasts on NBC, primarily with Curt Gowdy on the network's top broadcast team for American Football League (later, American Football Conference) regular-season and playoff matches, Super Bowls III, VII and IX and several Rose Bowls. He also was paired with Jim Simpson to call a few Orange Bowls. Prior to joining NBC, DeRogatis had begun his broadcasting career working with Marty Glickman on New York football Giants radio broadcasts on WNEW-AM from 1960 through 1965. DeRogatis was among several veteran announcers who returned to call some NFL telecasts for NBC in September 1988, while many of the network's regular broadcasters were busy calling that year's Summer Olympics in Seoul.

DeRogatis relinquished his NBC duties prior to the 1976 NFL season despite one more year remaining on his contract with the network. He was also Vice President for Community Affairs with the Prudential Insurance Company, president of the National Sight Foundation and afflicted with glaucoma at the time.

DeRogatis can be heard with Gowdy calling a football game in the 1978 film Heaven Can Wait.

DeRogatis was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1986. A resident of Spring Lake, New Jersey, he died of cancer at Jersey Shore Medical Center on December 26, 1995.

Legacy
Sports Illustrated magazine's "Dr. Z" (aka Paul Zimmerman) has rated DeRogatis as his #1 football analyst of all time.

Upon his death in 1995, DeRogatis was eulogized in the Boston Globe as a prototype for what it means to be a gentleman, in the sense of displaying a gracious, polite, kind and generous nature. The Globe also published a picture of DeRogatis in the NBC booth together with Curt Gowdy and Don Meredith in the 2006: The year in photos series, after Curt Gowdy's death in 2006.

title: Al DeRogatis


text: Template:Infobox protected area

title: Template:Infobox protected area


text:
Atlantic silverside

The Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), also known as spearing in the northeastern United States, is a small species of fish from the West Atlantic, ranging from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada to northeastern Florida in the USA. It is one of the most common fish in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Barnegat Bay. It is a common subject of scientific research because of its sensitivity to environmental changes.

The fish is about 15 cm long, mostly silver and white. It eats smaller (biotic) animals and plants – small crustaceans, algae, annelid worms, shrimp, zooplankton, copepods, amphipods, squid, and insects.

The Atlantic silverside's predators are larger predatory fish – striped bass, blue fish, Atlantic mackerel – and many water birds, including egrets, terns, cormorants, and gulls.

The abiotic factors the Atlantic silverside needs to survive varies for populations of fish based on their geographical location. A rule of thumb for the species includes an average temperature of 70 F, a salt content of the water ranging from 0 to 37ppt (Tagatz and Dudley 1961), and a well-mixed body of water to prevent hypoxic conditions.

The Atlantic silverside's habitat is generally near the water's edge. They are mostly found swimming in brackish waters, such as in the mouths of rivers and streams that connect to the ocean. These small schooling fish have been seen to gather in seagrass beds, which can harbor the nearly defenseless fish some form of shelter from predation as well as provide safe haven for spawning. During winter, most Atlantic silversides swim in deeper water to avoid cold/low temperature. During the summer, most are found in the shallows along the shoreline.

The Atlantic silverside's defense is to hide in seagrass beds. They are also quick swimmers and their coloration of silver and a little white makes it confusing to predators to determine the direction the fish are heading. The silverside's strongest form of defense is the strength-in-numbers strategy, where fish will school in large numbers to diminish their chances of being the one picked off by a predator.

title: Atlantic silverside