Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)/Archive 1

message: I think it is hypocritical to say 'use the talk page' when somebody makes a legitimate edit, and then ignore comments which have been left on the talk page and then have the gall to protect the article. I have used the talk page many times, and had my say - i wait in vain.Suicup 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I wonder if the inclusion of the painting "Apotheosis of War" by Vereshchagin (the great pile of skulls in the desert, bottom of the page) is appropriate here. Although Vereshchagin was indeed a major illustrator of the Russo-Turkish War, and indeed this painting makes a strong anti-war statemenet, nevertheless it was painted in 1871 and summed up his experiences in the  Turkestan campaigns of the Russian Army, rather than those in the Balkans. 
Igottlieb 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apotheosis of War 

message: I removed 3 words towards the end of the article. As other Wikipedia articles show, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were not provinces of the Ottoman Empire in 1877 (Montenegro had kept its autonomy all along; Romania had always been formed of autonomous principalities and in 1877 was at the same time under nominal Ottoman suzerainty and under the protection of Austria, Russia, France, Britain, Prussia, and was ruled by a freely elected German prince; and most of Serbia had already become semi-independent since the beginning of the century). Only Bulgaria was in 1877 (and had been since the end of the fourteenth century) an Ottoman province.
Quatrocentu 08:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Its former provinces" 

message: Hi. I'd just like to point out that although therre is POV is all versions of this article I have seen recently, there is a reason why the "stable version" keeps on getting reverted. It states that:
:The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea and liberating the Slav peoples of the Balkan Peninsula in south-eastern Europe from the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire. The nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Turkish yoke still regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood. Hence, alternative titles attached to it in the 20th-century nationalistic historiographies, such as the Romanian War of Independence, the Bulgarian War of Independence, etc.
In this way, it only makes a mention of Slav peoples, thus ignoring the situation of Romania, and only mentioning it in the last sentence, thus making it seem as if Romania's situation was the same as that of the other countries (and it is a Slavic country).
For this reason, I think the best compromise version is this, stating that:
:The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea and liberating the Orthodox Christian Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (Bulgarians, Serbians) from the Islamic-ruled Ottoman Empire. These nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Turkish yoke regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood.
:The war also provided an opportunity to gain full independence for the Kingdom of Romania. Although, unlike the rest of the Balkan counties, it had never been part of the Ottoman Empire, it was still officially under Ottoman suzerainty. Hence, in Romanian historic works, the war is known as the Romanian War of Independence.
Thanks,  Ronline ✉ 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the "stable version" 

message: Considerind that at least in Romania is a saynig, dating from Kiseleff time when the peasants days for working free for boyars was doubled during the russian new rule, that the turkish wodden yoke was changed with an iron yoke, maybe a vote about yoke word should take place.Let's stop this edit war.CristianChirita 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cristian, you may relax. If you bothered to read the text in question, you would see that the "yoke" doesn't refer to Romanians at all. Moreover, Pavel Kiselev had died five years before the war broke out, therefore your comment is irrelevant to the subject of this particular page. I know it's easy to blame all the hardships of your ancestors on those bloody Russians - as most Eastern European politicians never miss a chance to do - but please consider that those Russians gave your country a constitution, while the peasants suffered from the greed of Romanian boyars rather than from "the russian new rule". --Ghirla -трёп- 07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very relaxed, so i'll not either vote or edit, Pavel Kiselev contribution to development of Romania is undisputed. But anyway positive or not, an ocuppation is an occupation even if the occupationb it is for a good cause. Maybe you are right, any occupation is an yoke, and the result was the desliberation from turkish yoke. the point is that are way to many reverts regarding this.
Regarding the "russian new rule", there were some problems regarding discipline, but again is not in my scope to analyse this. I'm not disturbed by the yoke word, I'm not disturbed either by the rule word, but personsly I consider yoke too poetic (and propagandistic), and occupation will sound more enciclopedic and realistic.CristianChirita 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur here. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: <chuckle> for the saying. Yes, there certainly should be a civil discussion here. Septentrionalis 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: yoke vote

message: Work out your differences here instead of edit warring. Personal attacks will be removed and their perpetrators blocked from editing, so please refrain from making them. · Katefan0 (scribble) 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected