Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Crisis in the Lebanon, 1860

Okay this is to clarify a few issues on the topic.

First, I have a problem with a phrase "On May 27, 1860 a group of Maronites raided a Druze village. Massacres and counter massacres followed". Now, this phrase seem to suggest that this Maronite raid, of an unspecified Druze village, resulted in all the trouble that followed. In relation to this, I want to

  • understand which specific Druze village we are talking about here, to verify the fact, and
  • what happened during the raid - anyone killed, houses destroyed, this kind of stuff? Was there any reason to believe this raid was in any way special to justify saying afterwards "Massacres and counter massacres followed"?

Second, the phrase "between 7,000 and 12,000 people, of all religions, had been killed" - this sounds very unclear.

  • _Where_ this happened? In Lebanon, supposedly? Since a few sentences down we are talking about casualties in Syria, we need to specify whether this 7,000-12,000 figure relates only to Lebanon or includes Syrian casualties, too.
  • If we know that one of the sides suffered more, I guess we need to specify it as well. Here is a quote from U.S. Library of Congress' Country Study on Lebanon (1994) [1]: "Although both sides suffered, about 10,000 Maronites were massacred at the hands of the Druzes". This doesn't contradict 7,000-12,000 figure but suggest most of casualties were Maronites, and I guess we should mention explicitly.

On a final note, the sources which are currently used (Shaw, Stanford J. and Ezel Kural Shaw. "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey" and Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, 1977) are US/English works relating to the history of the Ottoman empire. Which is fine, except that they both look at the issue from the same perspective. To add more balance, we need to add POV of the guys who were massacred (Maronites), and ideally some third party neutral view (which admittedly might not exist, but at least we have to try). At the very least Maronite POV should be given, since they are the guys who suffered most, I guess they deserve it.--Alex1709 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in the opinion that this section about the crisis in the Lebanon is not needed in the article. There are many other events that deserve mention for the events leading to the war. It appears like an efford to imply that the war was caused due to the oppression of Christians by Muslims. Events that occured 17 years before the war were not the primary causes of it.
This section has a right to be here as a few sentences explaining what's happened in Lebanon in 1860 and that "about 10,000 Maronites were massacred at the hands of the Druzes" (direct quote from [2]). You over bloated this section out of all proportions saying plenty of things which doesn't relate to the point and seem to be an effort to excuse Druze/Turkish side. I suggest shrinking it down to 1-2 sentences again. Your cooperation is much appreciated.--Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
First, there is no Druze/Turkish side. It looks like you are implying that this was done by the Drizes and Turks, and thereby the Russians were right 17 years later to declare war on the Ottoman Empire. The devil is in the detail. Simply claiming that 10,000 Christians Maronites were killed out of nothing is misleading. What caused it? Maybe there were communal tensions that lead to it. Scholars suggest that 7,000 to 12,000 people of all religions were killed. Overall more Christians were killed. This should be included.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not claiming and not implying anything on my own. You see my sources. My text closely follows them. If you think some important pieces of information are missing, please add them, with references to your sources. So long as my sources, and my reference from them, are okay though, I insist they stay in the article.--Alex1709 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, eventhough I provided the requested citation, the corresponding citations were removed with a comment do not doubt you quoted those books correctly. But please either give more specifics on each point or admit explicitly you can't do so". Not knowing the name of the village that was raided can not be sufficient ground for removal of content.
correction: no content was not removed. I repeat, in case you didn't understood my point, that you need to add an explanation what exactly happened on May 27 or through away the whole sentence as meaningless. Fair enough?--Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All right I guess I found details of this mysterious May 27 Maronite raid: 3,000 Maronites from Zachle tried to attack a neighboring Druze village of Aindara, but were beaten by Druze force of about 600 people. I especially liked this, quote - "The inferiority of the Christians in military organisation to that of the Druzes, became apparent, as usual, from the first collision." ([3] page 142). So, your source does mean, doesn't it, that this rather unlucky Maronite raid was seen by Druzes as an excuse for "massacres and counter-massacres that followed"? I find this just increduluos. Judging on this event, I am sure Druzes were able to massacre Christians with much lesser forces, but I would be really curious to hear of "counter-massacres". Your input is much appreciated, as usual :)--Alex1709 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Scholars say this happened so it will be in the article. The above comments make it clear that the user disagrees with the expert oppinion but lacks the credible sources to counter it. A web side on the Maronite side can hardly be a reference. Books written by experts and scholars on the Ottoman Empire -of which the Lebanon was clearly a part of- should be used as sources. Not by those with their local POV who have issues to settle. Again I suggest that we remove the entire section. It is a stretch to incude it as part of a war that occurred 17 years later. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, you sources are not credible for me either (on a personal level, anyway) - I can not read them online and see whether you correctly give the context here. I much prefer online sources which anyone, at any point, can go to and read freely. That said, if you give them here, I let them be, trusting your integrity :). Anyway, let's cut this Lebanon piece, it is really over bloated. --Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Online sources are generally less credible that publications. My sources are well-known main stream scholars accepted by the relevant community.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Online sources are also generally easier for a Wikipedia reader to access, you know. So, other things equal, they are preferable to offline stuff.--Alex1709 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massacres Against Turks

WHy are the massacres against Turks in this war completely ignored?

--- In

Bulgaria’s Turks in the 1980s: a minority endangered by VICTOR D. BOJKOV published in Journal of Genocide Research (2004), 6(3), September, 343–369

we read:

Major factors that decreased the Muslim population were the two big wars in the region. The Russo-Turkish War of 1878 and the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 became important causes of massive mortality and forced migration.7 Of the Muslim population in Bulgaria between 1876 and 1882, it is estimated that 262,000 died and 515,000 became refugees who never returned to their homes (McCarthy, 1995, pp 88–91).

Also please read E.Zucher's "the making of modern turkey" before making any comment against the history of turkey. Also read Kemal Karpat's "the politicisation of islam" pg. 136-154, which is more balanced and clear about the events of this period.

In his memoir Pictures from the Balkans published in 1906 John Foster Frase gives the following account of his visit to Shipka pass (p.91) and mentions the Russian massacres against the civilian muslim population:

At first the way was broad and easy. Then it narrowed, became rugged, and the horses were in lather. At places we dismounted and walked. There were rude paths through the woods, made in times of battle so that the troops might be moved beyond sight of the Turks on the heights. I rode over a knoll where were the Russian headquarters. I climbed a precipice where, with mighty labour, cannon had been perched to sweep the Pass.

All silent now in the drowse of glowing forenoon. The eye wandered beyond the dark, cypress-cloaked ravines. The world was an impressive panorama of tumbled hills. Distance was lost in the haze of heat.

Twenty-eight years ago the echoes were roused with thunderous cannonade. Russians to the north, Turks to the south, met on this mountain road. Terrible struggles took place in the hollows of the hills. Positions were lost and won and then lost again. The Russians, fearless of death, pushed their advantage; and the Turks, heedless of life, held their ground. One battle lasted for seven days. Then a fortnight of breathing time. On came the Turks again; they captured Mount Nicholas, the commanding position in the Pass. But they were mastered by the Russians, and with terrific slaughter fled to the southern ravines. There they waited till winter. The last great fight was in mist and blinding snowstorm. The Turks were outnumbered.

They struggled in desperation. It was useless. All that were left of them, 32,000 men, unconditionally surrendered. The Russians poured down the southern slopes to Shipka village.

There stands a bedizened, gorgeous, Russian-Greek church to commemorate the victory. The massive cupola, surmounted. by a cross, is of burnished gold. You can see the sun glitter on it from twenty miles away. But there is no record of the pillaging, the rapine and drunken orgies of the Rdssian troops when they laid hold of Shipka village.

An old man told me sad stories. "Ah!" said he, "the Turks did wrong things, but never anything so bad as the Russians." "But you are glad," said I, "that the Turk has been driven away, and that Bulgaria is now free?" "Not so very glad," he replied; "when the Turks were here taxes were light, and now they are heavy. Then we had a wider market for our goods; we had all Turkey. Now we are a separate country they try to keep out our goods. Bulgaria is a little country, and other countries tax our things. Perhaps it was best in the old days."

.. as a result of Russian expansioin, the Bulgarian revolutionary movement, and the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, more than 500,000 Muslims were ethnically cleansed and settled in territories still controlled by the Ottomans, while another 260,000 Bulgarian Muslims died of starvation, disease, or cold, or were killed. By 1879, more than half of the Muslim population had left Bulgaria.

http://www.jstor.org/view/00207438/ap010095/01a00280/0


The Russo-Turkish war of 1877/78 takes up chapters 3 and 4, and McCarthy provides numerous graphic and detailed descriptions of how Russian troops and Bulgarian bands killed Muslim civilians indiscriminately. His account is based on, in addition to reports of the British consuls, the eyewitness dispatches of the correspondents of the major European newspapers; for this was the first foreign war covered in depth by newspaper men thanks to the availability of the telgraph. According to McCarthy's calculations, by 1879 13 percen of Bulgaria's Muslims had been killed and 34 percent made refugees; all in all, the Muslim population of Bulgaria was reduced from roughly 1,500,000 (and this is an underestimation) to a minority of 672,000 pople.

The indiscriminate killing of children, women (after repeated rapes) and of the old, and Russian soldiers' robbing refugees even of their clothes so outraged the European reporters that they drafted a letter denouncing the abuses (p. 67) However, neither this and similar letters nor Queen Victoria's protests amounted to anything. Similarly, attempts to send inquiry comittees into the Balkans were thwarted by the Russian and European procrastination and obfuscation.

http://www.jstor.org/view/01979183/di009794/00p0244f/0

--Hasanidin 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this topic should be a section in its own right, rather i think it would be better to incorporate the material into the 'outcomes of the war' section, or the like.Suicup 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with you. I understand that this thread is about the war and not about the massacres against civilian Turks. A short sentence in the Outcome of the War acknowledging that half a million Muslims have been deported as a resulut of this war, and a quater of a million have died will be sufficient. I am thinking of creating a new article solely about the Massacres against the Turks when I get some more free time in the future. --Hasanidin 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know anything of massacres or mass fleeing/deportation of Muslim Bulgarians (alias Pomaks)?--Aldux 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Pomak territories were not incorporated into Bulgaria until the Balkan wars in 1910s, so I do not think that they were affected that much in the 1878 war.


......................................................................................

As a turkic studies student i think i have, alter my profesor, the widest knowledge on this topic. nevertheless, i belive it is still healthly, to rather catogorize something like a war into only one countries history, but as there are two countries involved include the war into both of there history and also add anyone who has been affected by the war. also, one must be very carefull with what is writen and said about turkey and its past as, 80 per cent of the texts and books writen about the turks and the ottoman empire is biased. this is the case for many political reasons. so one must be completly open minded, and try to do their reseach properly i.e. by gaining the opinion and resources of both sides.

The Armenian genocide happened. This is undisputed among unbiased scholars. By siting Justin A. McCarthy you discredit this article. I do not dispute whether ethnic cleansing of Turks in Bulgaria took place. It may have taken place. However, using McCarthy is equivalent to using a Holocaust-denier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.66.205 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a correction

The current (locked) version of the article states that the war brought the second statehood to the Bulgarian people. This is not accurate, as there had already been two Bulgarian Empires. The period of Bulgarian statehood following the war correctly should be referred to as the Third Bulgarian Kingdom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.251.249 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 May 2006.

[edit] Mediation

I requested this dispute go into mediation, which it did, however Ghirlanda has been unresponsive. I have done the right thing, now it is time for others to cooperate.Suicup 04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking over the mediation. Ghirlandajo, please respond. If you continue to edit without participating here we will have to take it to a higher form of dispute resolution. Ideogram 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Ghirlandajo is gone. I will close the case; let me know if you need my services again. Ideogram 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has not gone (as evidenced by his reversion of my last edit), and i'm afraid you will have to come back. I've left a note on your talk page.Suicup 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo please respond. If he does not, you will have to pursue higher forms of dispute resolution, see WP:DR. I will be happy to assist you. Ideogram 16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. ArbCom doesn't review petty content disputes. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have left a note on his talk page. Ideogram 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo has removed my note on his talk page, calling it "trolling". This mediation is now closed. Again, I will be happy to assist you in further dispute resolution efforts. You might try an RfC. Ideogram 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There already was an user RfC on that guy, and I must say it worked to some extent. He did not start to use talk pages when asked, but he stopped offending others. So, in other words, there is a chance to contact him, though at times it might be hard. //Halibutt 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hali, you know that I don't relish your society and avoid those discussions which are plagued by your trolling. Hence, no more posting from me on this page. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Another mediator is attempting to talk to him now. Ideogram 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou very much.Suicup 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of the paragraph

I reply to this page, because User:Cowman109 asked me to. [I believe that this the paragraph is a way to push a POV]. I don't want this page reduced to another Holodomor or Armenian Genocide, hence I remove the massacre talk on the ground of irrelevancy. It has no direct bearing to the subject of this article, so it should go. Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This does bring up an interesting point. The paragraph concerning the massacre certainly is an event that appears to have affected the region heavily, but does it bear relevance to the article on the Russo-Turkish War? If so, perhaps it could be shortened a bit, as the way the paragraph stands does appear to elaborate on the massacre much more than is necessary. Cowman109Talk 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me recommend that you appeal to the broader Wikipedia community for input, by posting a Wikiquette alert or at the Village pump. Ideogram 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for Suicup: do you have a source for your claims other than Justin McCarthy? Although he's an expert on Ottoman history, he can be very partial on some things and is even criticised as a historical revisionist by others, particularly in the case of the Armenian Genocide, where the majority of western historians disagree with him. If he's biased on that subject, what makes you think he can give objective information on this? —Khoikhoi 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's our job to pass judgement on the validity of our sources. If he is a recognized expert, it's a verifiable source. If you want to counter his views, add appropriately cited material of your own. Ideogram 03:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it should be addressed that the paragraph does appear to put unneeded emphasis on the massacre. I suggest that it could be cut down a bit to not contain so much of such material. Cowman109Talk 03:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be based on our personal views, but I'm saying that a lot of people criticise the man. If you don't mind I'm going to quote Eupator:
David Irving is a more "respected" scholar than this guy. At least Irving is not financed or rewarded by revisionists. It's not that McCarthy's wife is Turkish that makes his motives biased it's the fact that he is actually paid by the Turkish government to publish his books. He was also awarded the Order of Merit of the Turkish Republic by the President of Turkey in 1998 and he got his Honorary Doctorate at Sûleyman Demirel University in Turkey. Not to mention that the book in question deals with ALL muslim deaths within the vast Empire during the war. That includes Druzes of Lebanon or the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq, Alevis of Anatolia and Syria etc. Many of those deaths were actually caused by the Ottoman Army. McCarthy is just a hired gun for Turkish interests within the U.S. Saying the Nazis were the victims of WWII falls under the category of Holocaust denial/revisionism right? Create an article for Genocide denial where this can be discussed, an article about a non-existent term and event is useless and illogical.
However, I will try to find sources, although I still don't think we should phrase what McCarthy says as absolute facts. Perhaps we could say something like, "according to Justin McCarthy in his book...etc. etc.". —Khoikhoi 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh I totally agree here. Any time there is a debate in the literature we should not take sides and should state each position along with cites to who supports them. Ideogram 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure some of McCarthy's views are seen as revisionist, however we are not talking about the Armenian genocide are we? I posted some peer reviews of this particular source in the now archived talk section which seemed pretty positive. If you read McCarthy's methodology for the figures, they seem pretty reasonable if you ask me. I will try to find other sources, although this is easier said than done as it is not really a heavily researched area of history. With respect to the paragraph, the massacre was a direct result of the war (indeed much of it happened while the war was in progress), hence i believe it should be included. I am happy for the paragraph to be shortened etc, however the fact that it took an edit war, and one failed mediation to even come to rational discussion about the topic at hand lowers my personal opinion of Wiki itself. Part of the reason i added the paragraph in the first place (in addition to its historical significance) was an attempt to correct what i saw as a pro-Russian bias in the article - before i started, all the 'sources' were Russian, the entire article was written from a Russian perspective. Obviously the victors get to write history, however if we are serious about writing some decent academic material, it pays to look at events from both sides. The article was and still is to an extent unreferenced, with a few weasel words such as Most analysts agree without actually citing any sources. It was me who added the Stavrianos source, which seemed to be well received (ie it wasn't mindlessly deleted outright).Suicup 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't let one experience turn you off to Wikipedia. While arguments often get heated and you will have to defend your opinion, most of the time when you cite your sources people will respect you. Ideogram 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Or you will be called a 'pesky nationalist'....Suicup 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's just one editor. There are thousands of editors here. Ideogram 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have died down. I think we agreed that at least the paragraph should be shortened to not put such a significant emphasis on the massacre, then it would still state that such an event happened while still making everyone happy. Could someone try doing this? Cowman109Talk 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to do so, however the key protagonist in this has not really spoken at all other than a token remark, thus unless we get some sort of confirmation that he will not delete any resultant incarnation of the paragraph, the matter is far from over.Suicup 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that should stop us from moving forward. It's his decision whether he would like to participate or not. Should he still have a problem with it he is welcoem to come back. Cowman109Talk 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A sure way to restart discussion is to make your proposed edits and see who objects. Ideogram 12:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't incite revert warring. If you persist, you will be reported. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
One edit as a precursor to discussion is not revert warring. Reverting without discussion is revert warring. Ideogram 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just put in an edited version of my paragraph. It is about half the original length. Even though it is my opinion that the events were an ethnic cleansing, i took out that reference because it can be disputed. However, i think this exercise is futile because it seems that Ghirlandajo will not accept any version of the paragraph, and thus by editing it, i am diluting the point the original paragraph tried to make for no real reason.Suicup 04:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I briefly looked over the paragraph and saw a few points that could still be shortened a bit, and I came up with this:

Following the San Stefano treaty, the Russians set up their own governmental system in the new Bulgaria. Russians as well as Bulgarian nationalists then conducted a massacre of Turks, especially Muslims and Jews, in which more than half of the Muslims in Bulgaria had either died or been forced to flee as refugees. [1]

How does that sound? Cowman109Talk 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that over does it, here is a version without the final sentence.
Following the San Stefano treaty, the Russians set up their own governmental system in the new Bulgaria. Russians as well as Bulgarian nationalists conducted a massacre of Turks, especially Muslims and Jews, on the scale of the Ottoman massacre of Bulgarians in 1876.[2] By the conclusion of the war more than half the Muslims in Bulgaria had either died, or been forced to flee as refugees.[2]Suicup 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the removal of the word Turks? And shouldn't changes be floated here in talk first, with a consensus copy then being put in the article? Willy nilly editing just leads us back to square one.Suicup 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not necessarily all Turks were Muslims and Jews (though it would make the most sense). It should probably be made clear who the larger group is, so there is no confusion. Cowman109Talk 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How about Turkish Muslims and Jews?Suicup 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, as the article clearly is disputed, would you object if I put a {{disputed}} tag at the top of the article? Removing the smaller disputed note doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. Cowman109Talk 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No. However let me just say i didn't disagree with Aldux's whole edit - just the removal of the word Turks. I only reverted because i think any changes to this obviously contentious passage should be floated here first. Seeing that Ghirlandajo has swooped again, accused me, and is looking to start another edit war i wanted to make that clear.Suicup 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to assume good faith. Don't make a tense situation worse. Ideogram 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I already articulated my concerns above. Personal attack removed Please find a reputable source for your claims. A passing mention in the heavily biased book is not on. For the time being, let the tag stay, so that every reader could check this page and understand that Suicup's assertions are not the ultimate truth. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, be civil. Calling someone a troll is frowned on. Ideogram 17:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We have WP:TROLL which may give you an idea of what the troll is. Given my experience at exposing the trolls and having them permabanned from editing Wikipedia, my calling someone a troll is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. As my edits are deleted here, you have no right to expect me to engage in this farce any more. I will post my comments where they are not deleted. Good bye, Ghirla -трёп- 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I was responsible for removing the tag; a blunder on my part, I'm sorry. As for the rest, I didn't expect my edits to be so contentious; simply 1) "massacres" seemed better than "a massacre" 2) "a massacre of Turks, especially Muslims and Jews" - now, reading this one starts to think that "muslims and jews" are subsects of Turks; also, by saying of muslims, I wanted to be more comprehensive; other than Turks, muslims in Bulgaria were, and still are, Pomaks, Tatars, and Roma; and the the weird, "massacre of Turks, especially jews" was removed 3) "By the conclusion of the war more than half the Muslims in Bulgaria had either died, or been forced to flee as refugees"; this wording seems made to overestimate the entities of the massacres 4) "Even if many returned in 1880" - this insertion comes from the enc. of Islam, the article "Bulgaria" if I remember correctly, but the data is also under the article "Pomaks".--Aldux 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, Ghirlandajo can be a little sensitive. I'm sure the rest of us can come to an understanding. Ideogram 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, read my comments above, i didn't disagree with your edit, only the removal of the word Turks - i think it should be 'Turkish Muslims and Jews'. I wanted to let you know here rather than edit again and risk taking us back to square one. Just so you know, the reason it was written like that is because everyone who was massacred was a Turk, however Muslims and Jews within that group were particularly targeted. Thus it should have read 'Turkish Muslims and Jews' for clarity. As for Ghirlandajo, he pretty much sums up my low regard for wiki at the moment. His arrogance, and refusal to engage in critical thought, as well as his personal attacks make it very difficult if not impossible to undertake worthwhile edits of this encyclopaedia. Frankly, it is pointless even debating this as i have come to the conclusion he will never be satisfied with anything except his own conceited edits.Suicup 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal attacks on Ghirlandajo yourself. Ideogram 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you telling me that Jews are Turks? Now, this is what I call a very fringy theory...--Aldux 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would support dropping the Jewish reference completely as McCarthy only made a small mention. My original paragraph made sense, however the forced reduction in size/simplification has meant that this misunderstanding of meaning could be bound to occur. So it should just be Turkish Muslims.Suicup 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Only "Turkish muslims" is a bit pleonastic; weren't all Turks muslims? And I partly understand Ghirla's concerns regarding the source, McCarthy; while he exagerates, it is true that McCarthy has been a systematically partisan historian in all Ottoman issues; so it would be better to right something like "the historian Justin McCarthy claims that Russians as well as Bulgarian nationalists conducted massacres of Turks on the scale of the Ottoman massacre of Bulgarians in 1876." Also, the statement "The demographic changes which occurred then can still be seen today in the modern state of Bulgaria" clashs with what I know, that muslims returned in all the territories that did not become part of the kingdom of Bulgaria, and generally speaking memigration is a slow process that started in 1876 till 1989 (even today).--Aldux 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The proper context of the "McCarthist" paragraph is History of Independent Bulgaria, where the topic may be discussed in necessary detail, including McCarthy and (if one finds) opposing views. Controversial issues must be resolved within their most immediate context, where all aspects are at hand, not piecewise all over wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC) What is more, McCarthy spears about the decreasy of "Muslim population in Bulgaria between 1876 and 1882," i.e., it is no way a single-shot event that may be called "massacre". It was war within this period, you might notice, whose very goal was to drive invader Turks out. `'mikka (t) 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what this discussion reminds me of? The discussion in Chechen articles (like Grozny) whenever the 250,000 ethnic Russians that disappeared from Chechnya statistics are mentioned. Someone even suggested they were all soldiers and spies and torturers and that sort of ilk, and so it was normal that they all left. --Pan Gerwazy 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe we need a more reputable source for sweeping allegations of genocide. Until verifiable sources, not propaganda, are provided, the controversial passage is better be dropped. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has called it genocide except you. Furthermore, the reference by McCarthy is not propaganda. Why can't you just accept a critical analysis of the situation, rather than be blinded by your own nationalism?Suicup 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. They are inflammatory and non-productive. Comment on the content and not the contributor. --Ideogram 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise?

Well, from this diff we have what appears to be a complete rewording of the paragraph to focus on the after-effects of the war, and not specifically the massacre. Until other sources appear that definitively declare the event a massacre, perhaps it's best to leave the new paragraph as it is now, as the information is brought across in a neutral way. Words such as 'massacre' are often very controversial and it may be for the best to avoid that for the moment unless more reliable sources come up that clearly describe it as such. Are there any objections to this? Cowman109Talk 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for compromise, and find it a good idea.--Aldux 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Revert war of Aldux

I am baffled with the description "POV pushing". That Bulgars didn't like Turks is a sad fact, not POV. What is more, my addition clarifies that decrease of Turkish population was not result of "Russians set up their own governmental system in the new Bulgaria" as the contested version of this section insisted by Suicup. Please explain your opposition. Mukadderat 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple: I don't understand why references to Bulgaria in the 1950s and 1980s should end in an article on the Russo-Turkish War. These are arguments for others articles, that it doesn't make any sense inserting here. Nobody's saying that what you say is false: simply that it's hardly relevant in this context. As for Suicup's version, as you see, it's not here anymore. --Aldux 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As a general philosophical remark, history is not a sequence of isolated events, and people often draw parallels acrosss time. To the immediate point, I explained in very detail the "why" in my edit comments: it gives a more fair comparison of numbers 500,000 and 1,000,000. You posed no objections to my actual explanations, therefore it is my turn to say that I don't understand what exactly you don't understand. (I am inclined to refuse to accept a very generic explanation that any mentioning of 1980 is disallowed in description of 1878 events.) Mukadderat 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it be enough if we simply placed "Notwithstanding heavy emigration to Turkey"? It would also be more accurate, because the 1950s and 1980s were only the most dramatic examples of a phenomenon that continues to the day.--Aldux 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Mukadderat 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This 'new' sentence needs copyediting by someone who is a native English speaker. I am happy to do it if no one objects.Suicup 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation active?

Is this dispute still active? --Ideogram 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the mediation. If you need further assistance, you can leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dahn's merge tag

Dahn, nobody knows better than me that you are the farthest thing from a Romanian nationalist that exists; but this doesn't remove my strong doubts regarding your tag. In all my history books this conflict is called Russo-Turkish War; while I'm afraid that "Romanian War of Independence" is a name popular only in Romania, as I've never heard of this name in my books.--Aldux 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That is exactly why I am proposing for the "War of Independence" article to be merged into the Russo-Turkish War one. Dahn 13:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I am mostly a humble observer of this article, but please allow me to notice that in Wikipedia it is customary to split big articles into smaller ones, not vice versa. While the conflict is the same, involvement of Romania in it is IMO a very separable topic, especially if there are certain people willing to expand it. Mukadderat 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the two articles are in no way different, and Ro historians tend to use Russo-Turkish war to refer to the "war of independence". The other article is succint and in no way independent, and at best it could form a separate section of this one. I also agree with several Russian users that the Ro participation was neither vital (except for a brief moment), nor separate from Russian command. Dahn 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have simple question regarding the idea that "Russo-Turkish war 1877–1878 to refer to the "war of independence"". If this statement is true: In prevention of the Russo-Turkish being a misleading title -> Why not change the title of the Romania to Russia and Romanians to Russians or go with the more explicit definition "war of independence" instead of dates ("1877–1878") which is a better representation. If this statement is false: Is there a "Romanian war of independence" or after Russo-Turkish war 1877–1878 they become the subjects of Russians?" "Why Russians do not want to name it as "Romanian war of independence?" Is it possible that two wars instead of one is going on at the same time, one with Russian-Ottoman conflict and other Romanian war of independence against the other two parties, which Russia do not want to acknowledge"--OttomanReference 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As for "popular only in Romania", this name is not a synonym of "Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878". Also, while it is English wikipedia, there are many things English people simply don't have a name. If it is called "War of Independence" in Romania, then it was "war of independence", and it is only a pity that English world does not know this, and it is only good that wikipedia may fill the gap. Mukadderat 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Answered above. Let me stress again that the two names are synonymous "even" in Romania. Dahn 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering Dahn's awnsers, I remove my objections to a merge between the two articles. I have full confidence in Dahn's ability to merge the articles keeping the NPOV.--Aldux 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I sugest a compromise that will satisfy (I hope) both the Romanians and the Anglo-phones: at the See Also section of each article a reference to the other article. We (the Romanians) do not anything against the fact that the worls knows this war as the Russo-Turkish War. But the world must know that this war was The War of Independence for us. Let us not forget that, in the end, the Comander of the Russo-Romanian Armyes was H.M King Carol I of Romania. ES Vic 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I have to say that it is absurd to be looking for "a compromise" in a matter that is settled by sheer convention (and not by voting). Most of the info on the "War of Independence" article and in Romanian historiography is either repetitive or detailing info present here; whatever is not repetitive and detailing is hardly relevant. Even what you say the "world must know" does not in the least affect the generic ptroblem of logic in creating and managing articles; I don't know what the world "must" know, but let me tell you that this is a good way to ensure that the world will know that wikipedia tolerates subjectivity. "Let us not forget that, in the end, the Comander of the Russo-Romanian Armyes was H.M King Carol I of Romania." - this is not really valid, and it adds naught to the argument. Dahn 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge here I am not against mentioning that in Romania, and even possibly in the Ukraine and Russia this war is known as the "Romanian War of Independence". However, since the war was about other issues as well, and was fought in other areas of the Ottoman Empire as well, it seems appropriate that the artcile be lodged under the traditional (in English) title "Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)". I do think that all the necessary information, including appropriate reference to Romanian paticipants and partizans, can and should be part and parcel of the article. This does not preclude someone from writing an article on the Romanian indepedence movement which could include so much more than a partial duplicate of this article. 70.57.246.220 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am against the merge of this articles because without the Romanian Army the russians wouldn't conquer the Pleven citadel. The Romanian Army won the battles of Vidin, Smardan, Rahova and Grivita, not the russian one. I think this is a war between Romania and Ottoman Empire and it shouldn't be confused with the Russian-Turkish , because it's very important in the Romanian History. I also think there is a large potential to expand this article and it really needs much more attention. Eurocopter tigre 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Romania would have neither declared war, nor could it have been successful in such a war if it hadn't been for the leadership and commitment of Russia. It was, actually, after a Russian request for help that Romania entered the war. In Bulgaria the war is known as the Liberation War, yet this is no justification to start an article under that title detailing the Bulgarian participation in the war. The Bulgarian volunteer corps played a major role in the defense of the Shipka Pass, whose fall would have doomed the Russo-Romanian siege of Pleven. This, however, would have never happened if it hadn't been for the Russian military involvement. It was a war between the Russian Empire and its small allies and the Ottoman Empire. Tseno Maximov 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would humbply ask to stop Russian propaganda and address the issue in question: whether there is sufficient text to have separate articles or not. Mukadderat (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The "Romanian War of Independence" is a linguistic construct to denote the Romanian participation in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. It was not a separate war and should not be treated as such. If a consensus cannot be reached, perhaps a vote can be taken. I suggest that you refrain from labeling people's opinions "propaganda". Instead, try to point out how they may be incorrect. Tseno Maximov 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No merge (already expressed a year ago). I fail to understand why this discussion resurfaced after over a year. There is clearly no consensus to merge and will never be. When discussing wikipedia articles one must operate with wikipedia notions, not with political preferences. From whatever point of view, involvement of Romania in a particlular war is a clearly separable topic and the contested article clearly has enough content to live separately. What the heck, we have articles for separate battles. Why there cannot be an article for a separate country? Mukadderat (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian War Casualties

I see that Russian losses in the war are estimated to be as high as 200,000 by the time of the truce of January 1878. Is this dead only or dead and wounded together? More important, is there a reliable source for this figure? It seems awfully high considering the war by that stage had only lasted some nine months. Clio the Muse 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


These figures are not accurate. They are made by a Pro-Turkish historian who has made controversal remarks. Real casualties are around 50,000 for russians and their allies and 100,000 for ottoman turks.
200,000 Russian dead in the 1877-78 war is impossible. This figure must represent dead and wounded together.
Kenmore 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Kenmore

[edit] Repressions against Turks

I am one of the main initial contributors to this article and I tried to present an open minded concept of the event by pointing out that Russia's goal was its imperial interests, and that a new Turkish constitution was drafted to ease the tension, but was ignored by everyone. If you read this article's translation to Russian, for exampe, you will never find references to these, and you will be under the impression that the goal of this war was entirely to save the slav brothers from the Turkish oppressors.

I agree that the Turkish side of this story is much less known to the world, and to me. It's good to have friends here to alert us of that, and to contribute. However, please refrain from referencing the current situation in Bulgaria. This note, for example, (For comparison, there are about 1,000,000 Muslims in Bulgaria today, roughly %12 of the total population, despite heavy immigration to Turkey) could easily be contested and is completely out of context, in my opinion. First bear in mind that even in the contest of present day Bulgaria the terms Muslim and Turk are not synonims, and in the general sense they are quite different.

This is just another article completely ignoring the massacres against Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.193.30 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian reentry

Serbia renewed the war with Turkey in 1878 (a few days after the fall of Plevna) and liberated Pirot, Nis and Vranje. Serbia was reluctant to help the Russians earlier because of the unpleasnat experiance of recent defeat at the hands of the Turks (at the battle of Djunis in particular) and because of financial difficulties caused by the previous war (it redeclared the war only after substantial financianl aid from Russia).

Veljko Stevanovich 7. 12. 2005. 17:15 UTC+1

[edit] Caucasus

The article completely misses the description of the battles in the Caucasus where Russia managed to conquere Kars. Voyevoda 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish republic flag should be removed

On the right of the articles you see the table with the flags representing the different empires most of those flags are no longer are in use today and the modern day states have different flags.

However for the ottoman empire we have the modern-day republic of Turkey flag which was not in use till the founding of the republic. The Ottoman empire had 2 major flags one was red with 3 moons and the other the same except it was green.

Some one needs to make the correction.Bashir3 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The article is overcrowded with paintings of little if any encyclopedic information. It would make sense for major events, like capitulation or major battles, but paintings armies in march are useless and undue weight to Russian POV on the war. Mukadderat (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects on Bulgaria's Muslim Population

I have the following sourced paragraphs. Some users (mostly Bulgarians acting as watchdogs) are repeatedly removing this information from this and other related articles.

As Russian forces pushed south in January 1878, the troops, the Bulgarian volunteers, and the emboldened local Bulgarian villagers inflicted a welter of atrocities on the local Muslim population. Some 260,000 Muslims perished in the war's carnage, and over 500,000 refugees fled with the retreating Ottoman forces. (Dennis P. Hupchick, The Balkans, p. 265, 2002, Palgrave and J. McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Princeton, N.J: Darwin Press, 88–91,(1996) ISBN 0878500944.)

Few of the cities and only a small part of the countryside in Bulgaria were scenes of protracted battle, so civilian losses due to battle were relatively few. Nevertheless, 17 percent (262,000) of the Muslims of Bulgaria died during and immediately after the 1877-78 war. Some 515,000 surviving Muslims, almost all Turkish, were forced from Bulgaria into other areas of the Ottoman Empire, never to return home. They were victims of a combination of local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror. When Russian troops entered part of Bulgaria, Bulgarian revolutionaries, Russian soldiers, especially Cossacks, and Bulgarian peasants began a programme of rape, plunder and massacre. The result was the flight of the Bulgaria's Muslims. Some 55 percent of the Muslims of Bulgaria, mainly Turks, were either evicted or killed. (Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the end of Empire, 2001, p.48, Oxford University Press)

A number of Muslims fled during the conflict and there was some destruction of Muslim buildings and cultural centers; a large library of old Turkish books was destroyed when a mosque in Turnovo was burned in 1877, and Sofia, which one Russian soldier had described as a ‘forest of minarets’, lost most of its mosques, seven of the in one night in December 1878 when a thunderstorm masked the noise of the explosions arranged by Russian military engineers. In the countryside a number of Turkish villages were burned and there were many instances of ethnic Turks being driven from land which was coveted by local Bulgarians.(R.J. Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, ISBN 0-521-56719-X)

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus, the problem with your editing is (again!) that you use sources as a pretext to take over the POV expressed in these sources and insert it one-to-one into the Wikipedia article. An overtly judgmental, tendentious expression like "local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror" is okay if some author in the literature uses it. It is still not okay in the Wikipedia article. It is okay for Mr McCarthy to have his own POV judgment of what happened (and still be a respectable scholar). It is not okay for us. Besides, how often do I have to tell you, taking over such wording verbatim as you did violates not only our principles of POV, it is also plagiarism, aka copyright violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I already tried to explain this to Nostradamus. A neutral user (non-Bulgarian and non-Turkish) felt the same as me. See my talkpage - [[4]]--Laveol T 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the reason to go into explicit detail as to the actions of Russian and Bulgarian forces. A simple,
As Russian forces pushed south in January 1878, the troops, Bulgarian volunteers, and the emboldened local Bulgarian villagers inflicted a welter of atrocities on the local Muslim population. -- Hupchick p.265
With an addition that 260K Muslims were killed during this war, would seem to be sufficient. Nothing is to be gained by libelling Bulgarians or Russians as to the explicit details of how Muslims were killed. I understand Nostradamus' position, but if to make this article NPOV, then it doesn't need to go into minute details, just to insult Bulgarians and Russians. Kansas Bear (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That is still too close to the original. My point is we should avoid literal wording taken over into our text, both on grounds of avoiding copyvio/plagiarism, and on grounds of avoiding subtle or not-so-subtle POV overtones implicit in some expressions (what does "emboldened" mean? what does "a welter of" mean?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to use the Hupchick quote verbatim, just use the gist of the information with a mention of the number of Muslims killed. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the accusations of plagiarism and copyright violations.

  • Why sources should be cited WP recommendation gives To avoid claims of plagiarism as one reason. I DID provide citations.
  • Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright section states that "Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced". Again I did provide proper attribution.
  • Also the brief paragraph can be used under fair use. The paragraph Hupchick has is identical to the one McCarthy has in his book. Hupchick has McCarthy as a reference.

As I commented to Laverol before the issue here is not that I insist to have any content verbatim. I provide information hoping that it may be used to improve the article. Sentences can be restated to make them better. This is not what Laveol did. He simply removed information he did not want to be included. I disagree with Kansas Bear's comment for not including the actions of the Russian soldiers and the Bulgarians. This is an article regarding a war and actions of others such as the bashibozouks are already mentioned in the article. Furthermore the section is named as Effects on Bulgaria's Muslim Population. Therefore efects such as demographic changes in terms of numbers need to be incuded. Finally, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am sorry to state it so plainly but I started to doubt your impartiality in your dealings around some of the disputes I was involved. (You even accused me of creating a fork when I created Big Excursion) Here we have an article that at its present form states that:

  • to free Balkan nations from oppressing Ottoman Empire regime, known for recent massacres of indigenous Christian nations in Cyprus, Balkans and in Constantinople
  • Has a suggestive section titled Oppression of the Christians in the Ottoman empire
  • The abuses were at their worst in regions with a predominantly Christian population, mainly located in the European part of the empire, where local authorities often openly supported them as a means to keep Christians subjugated
  • Although both sides suffered, about 10,000 Maronites were massacred at the hands of the Druzes
  • In Syria, events in Lebanon stirred the Muslim population of Damascus to attack the Christian minority with between 5,000 to over 25,000 of the latter being killed, including the American and Dutch consuls, giving the event an international dimension
  • The siege of Moni Arkadiou monastery, when about 150 Cretan combatants accompanied by about 600 woman and children were besieged by about 23,000 Turkish troops, became widely known in Europe after several hundred women and children who sheltered in the monastery's gunpowder room chose to blow themselves up rather than surrender to the Turks.
  • Bashi-bazouks, true to their reputation, brutally suppressed the uprising, massacring up to 12,000 people in the process

and yet you chose to intervene on this matter without even warning Laveol for removing content. If the word "emboldened" poses a POV so does the comment 'several hundred women and children who sheltered in the monastery's gunpowder room chose to blow themselves up rather than surrender to the Turks'. It seems to me that some of us are not demonstrating the same level of sensitivity to avoid "insulting" all people and reach a NPOV. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's put it like that - I'm a Bulgarian and you're a Turk. We both have our POVs on this, right? And we have two neutral editors that don't have a particular opinion on the issue. They both tell you that you're witings when you get into such detail are not ok. Are they being extremely sensitive or something, on an issue that does not concern them? I doubt it. And I'm not sure why you have that habit of attacking every single editor that opposes you with words like I started to doubt your impartiality in your dealings around some of the disputes I was involved or comments about their contribs like you did with Gligan, Lantonov and me. The last thing you should be doing is commenting on other editors in such a way. I've had my issues with Fut.Perf. and we've disagreed tons of times on tons of subject, but I still think he is able to handle those POV situations. And about the Big excursion - yes, it is a POV fork, but this is not the place to discuss that. --Laveol T 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To Nostradamus: I don't deny for a moment that the rest of the text, as written mostly by the Bulgarian editors, may have its own massive POV problems. That's why I keep saying, this is truly a case where you guys ought to go to mediation, because you both are potentially productive contributors who have something genuine to offer, but all of you hampered by POV prejudice to some degree. But your comment about the quoting/plagiarism issue is really discouraging. It shows that you somehow really "don't get it". Let me put this plain, if you continue working in this style I'll see no alternative but to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point Nostradamus, the article is mostly written by a tremendous POV language, and Future perfect is interestingly only disturbed when you want to add info about the ethnic cleanesing of the Muslim population in Bulgaria..One only needs to compare the space that is reserved in the article for the Ottoman atrocities and the atrocities committed against hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians..The latter is underrated and explained by two easy sentences, however the Ottoman atrocities are elaborated using an un-encylopedical language, like:to free Balkan nations from oppressing Ottoman Empire regime"--88.241.22.35 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Either way, WP is an encyclopedia and POV are not recommended. By re-writing parts of the article from one POV to another will not make it a better article, only worse! Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seems kinda biased

I read through the article and realy it seems kinda biased against turks. Saying Russian soldiers fought bravly is a opinion plus you can't say they fought bravley during a seige of all things becuase you dont need bravery to shoot cannons into a city. Also none of the massacres and suppresion of muslims and turks are mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)