Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

message: 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.
Under the "The Revolt in Crete, 1866-1869", and under "The Moni Arkadiou" it is mentioned that the Greeks surrendered ... when in fact they blew up them selves. See http://www.mlahanas.de/Greece/Regions/MoniArkadiou.html
and http://candia.wordpress.com/culture/history-of-crete/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.9.183 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a correction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nope. ArbCom doesn't review petty content disputes. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have left a note on his talk page.  Ideogram 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Another mediator is attempting to talk to him now.  Ideogram 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou very much.Suicup 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. Mukadderat 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Revert war of Aldux

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Answered above. Let me stress again that the two names are synonymous "even" in Romania. Dahn 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dahn's merge tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repressions against Turks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Caucasus

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turkish republic flag should be removed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, this is 4 years after your post, but I have to respond. I agree with most of what you said, but the last sentence ("This is why...") is very misleading. Just as an example, there are still some 250,000 ethnic Turks in Greece, and another 250,000 non-Turkish muslims. On the other hand, there are fewer than 3000 ethnic Greeks in Turkey. Yes, the forced population exchanges had a serious impact, but the numbers reveal that other factors were at play as well. In the Greco-Turkish case, at least as many Greeks left Turkey AFTER the exchanges as during them. Particularly in the 1950s-70s, their harassment was relentless. Anyway, I realize this is tangential to your main point.Nojamus (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems kinda biased

message: References #15, #16, and #17 need page numbers or they will be removed. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caroline Finkel, The History of the Ottoman Empire 

message: The claim about "traditional Russian anti-Semitism" is a clear bum rap that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The section on Jewish population must be expanded and re-written; otherwise, it reads like a piece of Russia-bashing with no substance. The Deceiver (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Traditional" Russian anti-Semitism?

message: Why the name in the template is Russian-Romanian-Turkish war. I don`t understand this. In this war also take part and Finnish troops, then what Russian-Romanian-Finnish-Turkish war, the right name for me is Russian-Turkish war.--Ilikeliljon (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian-Turkish war

message: I started to modify the description of the course of the war.  A few minor changes/corrections/clarifications were made.  I think the entire description of the three battles of Plevna and the seige overall should be scrapped in favor of a link to the article "Seige of Plevna" which is rather well done.  In the future I will expand on the operations of some of the detachments.  Kardon2 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course of the War edits 

message: Is the sole lasting impact of this war the separation of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements?  I hardly think that Muslim countries would ever adopt a cross to be the symbol of their humanitarian aid society with or without this war.  There were far more overreaching impacts of this war on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, strengthening of the Russian Empire and the shaping of the Balkan countries. The amount of space given to the impact on the Red Cross/Red Crescent society is totally out of proportion with the fact that the said section is barely relevant and can be safely deleted altogether without a substantial loss to the quality of this article. ---Vikiyazar (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lasting impact 

message: Isn't Istanbul the official name for the city since 1453, and hence the name that should be used in this article?VR talk 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Turkish Postal Law, the name was officially changed to Istanbul in 1930. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks.VR talk 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the original question stands. What does Wikipedia say about name usage? I would imagine the contemporary name is the one to use, hence Constantinople. Otherwise, history gets very strange. (Would we refer to ancient Carthage as "Tunis" because the modern city happens to be in the same place? Do you know of many history books that talk about ancient Londinium as "London"?)Nojamus (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istanbul or Constantinople 

message: Hi! The source which I have used for Sophus Christensen says that he participated in this war. It doesn't say which side (probably Russia), and Norway didn't officially participate in the war, so I wondered whether you have heard about a "Norwegian connection" here? Geschichte (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be really interesting to see. As a fan of Norwegians in general, I'd love to hear more about it. A simple search on the net did not provide with any references for this, though. Still the source on his article sounds sufficient. --Laveol T 17:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As Finland was at the time a Grand Duchy, part of the Russian Empire, Finnish troops did participate in this war. That a Norwegian may have joined in is entirely plausible, but sources are needed to confirm and give details.- Andrei (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian participant? 

message: This edit was copied directly from here and is a violation of wikipedia policy concerning plagiarism. It has therefore been reverted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are unable to comprehend what plagiarism is, I suggest you contact an Admin for further clarification. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: You seem to have some sort of misdirected animosity towards me. I would remind you to remain civil. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Good Evening. Turkey as a Political Entity was established after WWI. Thus, the name must relate to the Ottoman Empire, not Turkey. One may not refer in the given name to the ethnic origin of Most of the fighting force from either side. thanks Assayas (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with changing the title of the article is that "Russo-Turkish War"  occurs more than a hundred times more in English than "Russo-Ottoman War" , therefore that's what the name should be according to the principles of Wikipedia, which dictate that the more common name Also, why exactly can't an article title refer to the ethnic origin of most of the fighting force? There are plenty of articles that do so, for example Greco-Persian Wars. Kostja (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect name 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Punch - The Dogs of War.png will be appearing as picture of the day on June 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Punch - The Dogs of War.png]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: In the section "4.2 Effects on Bulgaria's Muslim and Christian population", someone has written that Bulgaria's population numbered "2800 thousands" or "2823 thousands". This is a strange way of writing it. Does the person mean 2,800,000 and 2,823,000 (i.e. 2.8 million)?Nojamus (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: in the opening maneuvers section it says "They decided that Russians would be too lazy to march along the Danube and cross it away from the delta, and would prefer the short way along the Black Sea coast." I think this should be looked  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.68.244 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russians too "Lazy?" 

message: I was just wondering if Januarius MacGahan might not deserve even more credit for generating public outrage against the atrocities in Bulgaria, and British reversal of support from Turkey to Bulgaria.  Other articles I've read made it seem like he sought out the British newspaper commission so that he could go in pursuit of the story which he had already caught wind of, but which was only just starting to come out, and may have never become widely known without him.  It was my impression that many Bulgarians considered him as their liberator because they believed he was the one who, having heard the stories and rumours of the mass-murder and other atrocities against civilians in Bulgaria (I guess coming out of Robert College), then went in to research them and verify them and through his commission with the newspaper bring them to the attention of the world, and was thus absolutely pivotal in turning the tide of public opinion in their favor, which in turn reversed the British policy which had been to support Turkey, and also encouraged Russia to go to Bulgaria's aid.  I have just learned of Januarius MacGahan recently, but this is what I've heard.  Apparently he was quite the news-hound, and had ties with American Civil War generals like Sherman and Sheridan, one of whom (Sherman I think) was also in Europe at the time, and may have even urged him to delve into the conflict.  Ok, this is all from a novice on the subject, not sure what it's worth, and if I am wrong please excuse my ignorance.  Also, someone please correct me if I am not using the Wikipedia Talk feature properly.  Thank you.2602:301:77D2:4E30:F164:35EC:4BAC:C962 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Januarius MacGahan 

message: I was just wondering if Januarius MacGahan might not deserve even more credit for generating public outrage against the atrocities in Bulgaria, and British reversal of support from Turkey to Bulgaria.  Other articles I've read made it seem like he sought out the British newspaper commission so that he could go in pursuit of the story which he had already caught wind of, but which was only just starting to come out, and may have never become widely known without him.  It was my impression that many Bulgarians considered him as their liberator because they believed he was the one who, having heard the stories and rumours of the mass-murder and other atrocities against civilians in Bulgaria (I guess coming out of Robert College), then went in to research them and verify them and through his commission with the newspaper bring them to the attention of the world, and was thus absolutely pivotal in turning the tide of public opinion in their favor, which in turn reversed the British policy which had been to support Turkey, and also encouraged Russia to go to Bulgaria's aid.  I have just learned of Januarius MacGahan recently, but this is what I've heard.  Apparently he was quite the news-hound, and had ties with American Civil War generals like Sherman and Sheridan, one of whom (Sherman I think) was also in Europe at the time, and may have even urged him to delve into the conflict.  Ok, this is all from a novice on the subject, not sure what it's worth, and if I am wrong please excuse my ignorance.  Also, someone please correct me if I am not using the Wikipedia Talk feature properly.  Thank you.2602:301:77D2:4E30:F164:35EC:4BAC:C962 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Januarius MacGahan 

message: According to Polish estimates 50000-55000 of Polish soldiers participated in the war.  They were generally Roman-Catholics from the Congress Poland. There are many Polish names on the Surgeons Monument . Xx234 (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles in the Russian army 

message: The sidebar lists no Ottoman casualties. I lack the skill to edit it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdruid (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Ottoman Casualties? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028062618/http://www.libfl.ru/win/nbc/books/bolgaria.html to http://www.libfl.ru/win/nbc/books/bolgaria.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060422201607/http://www.suc.org:80/culture/history/berlin78/ to http://www.suc.org/culture/history/berlin78/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071015050852/http://www.lib.msu.edu:80/sowards/balkan/ to http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061013190221/http://erastimes.8m.net:80/gambit_b3.htm to http://erastimes.8m.net/gambit_b3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following statement appears to not be supported by the source provided:
Statement:
Due to these attacks the Bulgarian military carried on horribly unjust acts upon the vast Turkish populations. They captured, tortured and killed many of the bashi bazouks within Europe.
Source:
As the sentence is not supported by any source and, in addition, looks to be biased (judging from the use of POV description of purported acts), I propose that it be removed from the article.
:Actually, this:
*"They captured, tortured and killed many of the bashi bazouks within Europe."
:is not sourced compared to the previous sentence:
*"Due to these attacks the Bulgarian military carried on horribly unjust acts upon the vast Turkish populations."
:is sourced.
:I would removed the unsourced sentence and change the sourced sentence to:
*"Due to these attacks the Bulgarian insurgents would retaliate by inflicting massacres upon the Turkish population." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). 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/20101011003946/http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/History_of_Bulgaria.htm to http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/History_of_Bulgaria.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106122235/http://www.serbianunity.net/culture/history/berlin78/index.html to http://www.serbianunity.net/culture/history/berlin78/index.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) 07:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: That is, on the side of the Ottoman Empire. There might well have been such a legion; Poles were not particularly happy about Russia, and I for one would be interested in reading about their direct involvement in the war. But there is no mention of a Polish legion in the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish legion" as Belligerent in infobox 

message: Would it be possible to have a map showing exactly which territories were occupied by Russia and by Serbia at the end of the war, with dates?  Thank you. 213.130.92.19 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was where at the end of the war? 

message: It seems we have some blatant edit warring going on between a couple of users. This has gone on for far too long. Upon analyzing the history of the article, I can see that earlier on this year and before, the article use to show “400,000 Turkish civilian deaths and 30,000 Bulgarian civilian deaths” or something of the sort. A compromise of this sort should be shown for the sake of the article and both side’s opinions ByzantineIsRoman (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The user Jingiby (talk) has made no attempt to reach compromise or consensus whatsoever, I reverted their disruptive edits to the status quo ante bellum and tried to reason but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. 2600:1012:B15D:5A12:2C17:2402:37C3:1AED (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian casualties need to be shown in the infobox  

message: As suggested, I am opening a talk page on this subject. Any help would be appreciated. Upon reviewing the user Jingiby’s block history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?page=User%3AJingiby&title=Special:Log/block : I can see that they appear to have a history of edit warring, disruptive editing, and nationalist trolling. They were even permanently banned for 3 years before until being unblocked. Again, I am open to discussion and any help would be appreciated. LoneWolf803 (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of the issue is above. Read it and then discuss there to gain a consensus for your changes. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, which one are you referring to? The one above this is blank, no replies to it. Second of all, why are you posting bogus threatening messages on my talk page and making inflammatory, baseless accusations against me? Again, I apologize if I offended you in anyway or made perceived personal attacks. That is certainly not what I’m trying to do. Thanks.  LoneWolf803 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited material that is displayed in the civilian casualties section of the article removed from info box with no explanation?