Talk:Congress of Berlin

message: Should this really be a separate article from the Treaty of Berlin, 1878? IMHO they should be merged. --romanm (talk) 21:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Why? It seems some people need a lesson in Wikipedia policies - or just need to grow up.
Bring your issues to the talk page instead of this revert war.
And if some people do not think that "russophobia" is POV, they should stop editing Wikipedia!
--itpastorn 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war but no talk 

message: "The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine of the balance of power, which the largest empire in the world often used to further its imperialist ends."
What power in 1878 was not imperialist? Russia was. France was. Germany was. The Ottomans would have been if they  had had the power. I see no difference whatsoever between the Brittish and the Russians. Ask the people of Central Asia if they wanted Moscow to rule over them any more than the people of Africa wanted to be under London.
--itpastorn 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not questioned the UK's imperialism. Of course they were trying to rule the World. My point is that all major European powers were imperialist at the time. And Russia was expanding in all directions, not only the Balkans. They had a struggle with the Brittish for Central Asia as well - and the people who had the misfortune of living there were neither brittish or slavic. It's POV to villify one nation and let another receive no blame, when both were equal culprits, as far as intention goes. Then maybe the Brittish were worse when it comes to effect, thanks to industrialisation and some other factors they had a head start and were more effecient empire-builders. --itpastorn 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - example 1 

message: User:Ghirlandajo feels that my edits to this article were POV, however I believe that using phrases like 'Freeing them from the Muslim Ottoman yoke' is hardly a neutral statement. As such, I am prepared to defend my edits. Should User: Ghirlandajo have further problems with this, I encourage him/her to discuss it with me here rather than revert again. Tev 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to User:Ghirlandajo's feeling that my edits were POV, I have gone through the article and attempted to make it comply further with the NPOV policy. However, I still do not feel that my original edits were POV. Tev 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, looks like we have this all resolved now. Thanks for everyone involved in reaching a peaceful consensus! Tev 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problem 

message: Does anybody object to a citation of Misha Glenny's The Balkans: 1804-1999?  That is, does anyone object to it ante facto?  --VKokielov 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that work, could you possibly find a section of the writing, or a summary? Tev 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   --VKokielov 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah sorry, didn't realise you'd replied to that. Mea culpa. Seems fine to me, cite away (unless you already have) Tev 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misha Glenny 

message: I made two changes in the section about the Ottoman Empire and Greece.  One was deletion of reference to the Ottoman parliament, which had ben prorogued by 1881 and had nothing to do with the border rectification with Greece.
Second, I deleted the reference to the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, which was very tandentially related to the topic and misleading to the point of POV.  While it's true the Ottomans declared war on Greece at that time, this was AFTER Greece had invaded Crete, been ejected by the powers, then invaded Ottoman territory on the mainland.
Also, this was not so much a result of tensions between the two states as a result of the Treaty but rather the Greek government's inability to control nationalist public opinion, which was sympathetic to the cause of Greek rebels on Crete.  Relations between Greece and the Ottomans between Berlin an 1897 were actually reasonably harmonious.
Finally, I don't think we need the ubiquitous and gratuitous reference to the Armenian Genocide that seems to accompany every article that includes the words "Ottoman" or "Turkey", particularly in this topic, which seems POV absent an explanation for its inclusion. - John
Update May 26, 2007 - If you have a reason for insisting on factually inaccurate statements or irrlevant asides, please take the time to discuss your position.  I am restoring the changes mentioned above.  Jpiccone 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion from Final Paragraph 

message: Where are the sources for this article? 
Terrifying Angel 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The Treaty of Washington, 1871 was negotiated at Washington, D.C. in 1871.  Ratifications occurred at London.  In 1872, the United States was awarded an indemnity at Geneva.  The conclusions reached and the rules adopted in 1871 had an effect on the Congress of Berlin.  Nations were expected to  remain neutral and not interfere in wars when extraterritoriality was an issue.  Superslum (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: International law

message: I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

message: I removed the ref about A.Synvet being pro-Greek because what the ref actually says is not at all that: It says that the MAP was favourable to the Greek cause, not the geographers, which is something entirely different. In detail: "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..... were favourable to the Greek cause" meaning that they agreed with the Greeks. That doesn't make (the geographers themselves) pro-Greek. The text is free on line as pdf. --Factuarius (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Gligan:::Synvet is not pro-Greek as explained above and the ref is clearly misquoted. If is something, is pro-Turk, which is very obvious in his map and from his positioning in multiple high ranking jobs in the Ottoman Empire, as well as from his close relations with well known Turk nationalistic circles of the era, especially around the Young Turk movement. He even show Turks inside Greece although I find that unlikely after the 1897 Greco-Turk war. Read more about him before accusing him or his map in being pro-Greek. So stop removing Stanford opening another edit war. --Factuarius (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Synvet's map

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Congress of Berlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621140434/http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/berlincongress.html to http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/berlincongress.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! I added an image of a fan signed by delegates which was uploaded to Commons as part of a pilot by the National Trust, there's further info here & further images here Lajmmoore (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added image from National Trust