Talk:Romanian War of Independence

message: Result "Russian victory" should be changed to "Ruso-Romanian victory" since Romania played an important part in this war.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: The article should be merged with Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78, as both article treat the same events, albeit from nationalistic points of view. I also place a NPOV tag here, for such phrases as Carol I accepted, and became the commander of both the Romanian and Russian troops, conquering Plevna after heavy fighting are just plain laughable. Perhaps the Plevna Monument on the New Square in Moscow honours Carol I? I believe the Russians, Turks and Bulgarians would be amazed to learn that Pleven was taken by the Romanians. --Ghirlandajo 14:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78]]

message: I agree not to be merged. On the above reasons.  Bonaparte  talk 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: not "merge"

message: I think it's not particularly useful to place this article in the categories History of Turkey and History of Russia. The war had nothing to do with the modern state of Turkey, it was a war of liberation against the Ottoman Empire, and it is already placed in the Category "Wars of the Ottoman Empire", a subset of the Ottoman Empire category. As to placing it in the History of Russia, the war indeed wasn't fought against Russia, and didn't have any particularly significant contribution to Russian history considering that it was a war of Romania's independence (and not Romania's independence from Russia, in any case). I find it odd then that Romanians are the ones now favouring putting it into a Russian History category. Now, why are there two disputed tags at the head of the article? What particular facts are either POV or not accurate? I don't think you can argue this whole article is POV, since the term "Romanian War of Independence" does exist and should hence have an article.  Ronline ✉ 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, Wallachia and Moldavia were not the modern state of Ro, yet what transpired in their history, counts as Romanian history. The same with the Ottomans: the Russo-Turkish War is called Turkish, even though it was against the Ottoman Empire; and they have the Turkish history category there. What's the difference here? It was a direct conflict between Ro and the Ottoman Empire, and should count as part of the Turkish history. I will readd the Turkish category. I'm not sure why the Russian category is said to not fit in this article. The Russians were involved, therefore, they fit in the category. To me, it's that simple. --Candide, or Optimism 13:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:CAT before wikilawyering. We should use more specific cats. :Category:Wars of Russia is the only cat this article could fit in. But it doesn't, because Russia was not a belligerent in this war. It was not "War of Russia". Please find something more useful than waging such silly revert wars. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you and Bonny started the revert war. To me, this conflict is another name for Russo-Turkish War, with the only difference that it focuses more on the Ro perspective. --Candide, or Optimism 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish and Russian History categories 

message: There is a POV tag on this, but no remark that I see indicating what is considered to be the POV problem. Would someone please explain here what the issue is? Lacking an explanation, I think the tag should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the article alleges that Plevna was taken by Carol I (what the Skobelev Park is all about then??) and that "Romania won the war", whereas in reality it was one of many subsidiary forces helping the Russians. We don't need nationalist megalomania here. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "Carol I accepted, and became the commander of both the Romanian and Russian troops, conquering Plevna after heavy fighting"  should be rephrased. Carol was the commander of the Romanian and Russian forces at Plevna ONLY; and Plevna was conquered by the joint Russian-Romanian forces, which it is not made very clear in the phrase above. As for the "Russia did not keep its promises of the April 1877 treaty to respect Romania's territorial integrity", see the Romanian-Russian Convention of April 4/16, 1877. I couldn't find the complete text of this treaty. Here's link to a page where the treaty is mentioned (Romania promised to the Russian army 'free passage through Romanian territory and the treatment due to a friendly army'; whilst Russia undertook to respect Romania's political rights, as well as 'to maintain and defend her actual integrity'):  Mentatus 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were promised Silistra, which was not given to us. --Candide, or Optimism 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral sources, please? Who officially "promised" it? Can you cite a document? Russians expected much from the war, too, but look how the Western powers crippled our achivements during the Congress of Berlin... --Ghirla -трёп- 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd article of the Convention held on the 4th of April, saying that: "It is never to be agreed on giving away of any part of our country, neither for another part of land, nor for any other compensation." The Document was signed by Michael Kogalniceanu from romanian sideCristianChirita 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I've done my best to translate the Romanian sentence that was in a note; would someone else please check my translation. I suspect I may have been overly literal in translating "Rog sã faci fuziune, demonstratiune…", but I couldn't see what else to do with it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the phrase "The Turks massed together the greatest troop at Pleven to lay us waste" to "The Turks, massing together the largest army at Pleven, are laying us waste. There are two subtle differences: the first is the usage of largest(to suggest great numbers) instead of greatest(which suggests best trained), holding true to the original Romanian text. The second is the use of the gerund form of "to lay" and "to mass", as to respect the original meaning in Romanian.(Vlad.teo (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: The Russian army had many volunteers (Bulgarian, Circasian, Finns etc.). Moreover, this edit was done by a user named "Avitohol" []. Notice that in the process of adding the "Bulgarian volunteers" (?) he also made some other changes. Ohh, never mind. It's just my ultranationalistical mind. How can I accuse my fellow wikipedian with the name of a Bulgar khan of something sleazy? Must definetly be my ultranationalistic mind. I've reverted back my edits. Au revoir and I leave you all in this cloaca. You're not worthy of my attention.  Stari sa (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants

message: Isn't this the wrong Grand Duke Nikolai? Nikolai Constantinovich was only 27 in 1877, and his wikipedia article only notes him as a well known womanizer. Surely the Grand Duke Nikolai in question is his uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1831–1891), who was commander-in-chief of Russian forces during the war with Turkey? john k (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Nikolai? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanian War of Independence. 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/20121013214454/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Russo-Turkish_Wars to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Russo-Turkish_Wars
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) 18:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: changed some of the opinionated pieces in the aftermath result, stating that "Russia never wanted to protect, liberate, etc. Romania and just wanted to take over territory for its selfish needs". This type of wording doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. 149.62.206.220 (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Aftermath Result