Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. Cowman109^Talk 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. Cowman109^Talk 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? Cowman109^Talk 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. Cowman109^Talk 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.

How does that sound? Cowman109^Talk 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. Cowman109^Talk 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. Cowman109^Talk 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)

References

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? Cowman109^Talk 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Official Russian figures for the Danube and Caucasus Armies are 20,688 killed in combat and missing in action, 6,824 died of wounds in hospital, and 49,828 wounded but survived. In addition, just the Danube Army suffered 45,791 non-combat deaths, the vast majority from disease. . Kardon2 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

References

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 - [[1]]--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)

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)

This whole article needs to be deleted and rewritten again. The reports of massacres by the Bulgarians are based on two sources and cited numerous times. Please do not use McCarthy as a source. Statements like 260,000 turkish civilians perished and half a million were forced out need to be removed as it sounds like a complete propaganda or that there were 1.5 million Turks as it is implausibly large. If McCarthy has any sources that provide that and he cites them, cite his sources and not McCarthy's book. Bear in mind that in late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, Turkey and Greece and Turkey and Bulgaria had numerous mutual agreements of swapping populatoins. This is why there are almost no Greeks left in Turkey and few Turks left in Greece as well as why there are few Bulgarians left in Turkey. Stop this propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.64.136 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Caroline Finkel, The History of the Ottoman Empire

References #15, #16, and #17 need page numbers or they will be removed. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bashi-bazouks

This article says "Those irregulars mostly were drawn from Muslim inhabitants of the Bulgarian regions, many of whom were Circassian or Tatar refugees expelled from the Caucasus during the Crimean War by the Russians or had suffered at the rebels' hands." According to Caucasian War and Muhajir (Caucasus), the Circassians were expelled during the Russian-Circassian War. When this article refers to the Crimean War and Tatar refugees, does it mean Crimean Tatars, or the peoples that were referred to as "Tatars" from the Caucasus? Khoikhoi 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph at the end of Treatment of the Christians section states that:

The financial strain on the treasury caused by the Crimean War forced the Ottoman government to take a series of foreign loans at such steep interest rates that, despite all the fiscal reforms that followed, pushed it into insoluble debts and economic difficulties. This was further aggravated by the need to accommodate more than 600,000 Muslim Circassians, expelled by the Russians from the Caucasus, to the Black Sea ports of north Anatolia and the Balkan ports of Constanţa and Varna, which cost a great deal in money and in civil disorder to the Ottoman authorities.

This is from Finkel's book. Yes, these are the Crimean Tatars. I do not have access to Finkel's book at the moment but I do remember that page 484 is the location this is discussed. It talks about Circassians equating the local Bulgarians with their oppressor Russians who drove them from their lands. Emigration of Refugees to the Ottoman Empire has info regarding the refugee settlements into the Ottoman Empire. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified based on the source. BTW, the Emigration of Refugees to the Ottoman Empire article could possibly be merged into the Muhajir (Caucasus) page, since they basically cover the same topic (although the latter is broader). Khoikhoi 02:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Emigration of Refugees to the Ottoman Empire. It is partly copyright violation, must be rewritten ASAP. No merge: You are right: the topic is broader. Both articles must be mutually adjusted and fit wikipedia:Summary style. Nostradamus1 is notified in their talk page. Mukadderat (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Traditional" Russian anti-Semitism?

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)

Russian-Turkish war

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)

Course of the War edits

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)

Lasting impact

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)

Istanbul or Constantinople

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)

According to Turkish Postal Law, the name was officially changed to Istanbul in 1930. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks.VR _talk 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Norwegian participant?

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)

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)

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)

Plagiarism

This edit[2] was copied directly from here[3] and is a violation of wikipedia policy concerning plagiarism. It has therefore been reverted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bothered to read? It was not plagiarism, the part about the Harmanli massacre for example is totally not plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Also I want to thank you how quickly you came and deleted everything of my edit, which was written to give information about the muslims suffering.(which is not a lie, millions of descendants of Bulgarian Turks live in Turkey today whose ancestors fled from this war, hundreds maybe thousands of new villages were established by those muslim refugees they are called Muhacir in Turkey).

And I also want to thank you very much that you never edited the edits made by the user Kostja who basically vandalised all parts of the article related to muslim sufferings in order to deny or minimize that it ever happened. It shows your neutrality very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

I would ask User DragonTiger to stop using unjustified accusations on talk pages. Read what Vandalism is before accusing others of vandalizing; I assure that such accusations are not appreciated here. All my additions have been referenced and serve the aim of bringing balance to the article, which was lacking before. Kostja (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You totally unbalanced the article with your point of view. The article was fine and totally in balance, describing the sufferings of Christians and Muslims equally but you had to ruin the entire article. Every sentence about Muslim suffering you edited. What would happen if you would try to balance the Holocaust or other articles? It would not be allowed but when it comes to certain people you are allowed to balance their sufferings. Referenced or not is not the point here, your only goal was to deny or minimize the sufferings of the Turks and Muslims, and your referenced edits served that point. DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to include Massacre against Turks

One should remember this war is a war of liberation, that means to free Bulgarians from the grasp of Ottoman Turks so they can live freely on their ancestors land! and just before the war broke out, there was a Bulgarian uprising, during the uprising tens of thousands Bulgarians have been killed and raped. so whatever the Turks received during the Ruso-Turk war 1878, they deserve it, and they deserved it very hard. I feel sorry to those Turkish people because they have been used as a tool of the Ottoman empire to occupy the land, nothing else. the Sultan government saw them like slaves, and should be responsible for every civilian casualties during the war!

now we have the conclusion, I believe there were huge life losses on the Turkish side, very likely massacres and mass exodus happened. But, IT WAS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE THAT SHOULD BE BLAMED OF, not the Bulgarians, not the people fought with Bulgarians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.9.148 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand your logic, but at least you were honest about your opinions and revealed your bias up front. Most biased editors don't do that. Please understand that history (and Wikipedia) is not about taking sides and laying blame. You seem to think that an event isn't worthy of mention because "they deserved it". That is a ridiculous assertion. Any event that occurred and that is somehow important in the overall story must be mentioned, regardless of the reasons why that event occurred. What do you want Wikipedia to be: a feel-good website for nationalists, or an attempt at historical objectivity?

Now, the problem with the initial massacre claims on this page is that they exclusively cited McCarthy. He is of questionable reliability for reasons already mentioned by others. But this problem has been resolved because a lot of other historians have been cited, with counter-claims that put things in better perspective. You cannot possibly object to this. If you have further (reasonable) sources to give us more perspective, by all means add them. But don't expect Wikipedia to simply present "your side" of history.Nojamus (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

However objectionable his views on the Armenian genocide, McCarthy is a serious professional historian of Ottoman history. McCarthy’s work on these largely forgotten crimes is not invalidated by his Armenian genocide denial (a charge from which I would never defend him, nor would I ever cite him as an authority on the subject). Donald Bloxham, in ‘The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians’ criticises McCarthy’s treatment of the Armenians, but has this to say about his work on the Ottoman Muslims: ‘McCarthy’s work has something to offer in drawing attention to the oft-unheeded history of Muslim suffering and embattlement that shaped the mindset of the perpetrators of 1915. It also shows that vicious ethnic nationalism was by no means the sole preserve of the CUP and its successors"

I consider the view of a leading authority on the Armenian genocide like Bloxham to be worth more than the view of an anonymous users on wikipedia. Thannad (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

incorrect name

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)

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)

File:Punch - The Dogs of War.png to appear as POTD soon

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)

Picture of the day

A Punch cartoon from 17 June 1876 showing Russia preparing to let slip "the dogs of war", its imminent engagement in the growing conflict between Slavic states in the Balkans and Turkey, while policeman John Bull (representing Britain) warns Russia to take care. The Slavic states of Serbia and Montenegro would declare war on Turkey at the end of June, and Russia formally joined the war in April 1877.Artist: John Tenniel; Engraver: Joseph Swain;
Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Awkward numbers

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Russians too "Lazy?"

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)

Januarius MacGahan

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)

Januarius MacGahan

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)

A Counter-attack would have allowed the Ottomans to the destroy the bridge over Danube

Something similar is being said on this page http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/modern/russoturk.htm

...Again Osman failed to pursue. He was weak in cavalry, but he had sufficient to keep in touch with the enemy, who were utterly demoralized, and could have followed on with his whole force. He was but 35 m. distant from Sistova, and the result of the demolition of the bridge would have been incalculable.

This is supposed to be from John Henry Verrinder Crowe, 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 23, ppg 931-936

I don't think that destroying the bridge would make much difference. In fact, the bridge even got damaged by the ice that winter. The only way such a maneuver would succeed would be if there were enough troops to prevent passing the river, and to achieve this Osman Pasha needed the support of the other troops in the area, mainly those commanded by Mehmet Ali. So basically if there were no communication and no coordinated actions between Osman Pasha and Mehmet Ali, it was probably wiser to stay in the trenches around Plevna.

As for the repressions against civilians and POWs, they were the standard behaviour in that part of the world at the time, and were routinely executed by both sides. For example, little of the several thousand Ottoman POWs from Plevna, survived. They were all sent to Russia, and none of them were equipped or fit to endure such a journey.

Poles in the Russian army

According to Polish estimates 50000-55000 of Polish soldiers participated in the war. [4] They were generally Roman-Catholics from the Congress Poland. There are many Polish names on the Surgeons Monument [5]. Xx234 (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC) A small number of Polish volunteers joined Turkish army.Xx234 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No Ottoman Casualties?

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

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)

References

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Polish legion" as Belligerent in infobox

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)

Who was where at the end of the war?

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)

"400,000 civilians"

The only source that seems to give this figure and exclusively attributes it to Russia and Russian allies is Justin McCarthy, who is an unreliable source for the reasons stated in the "Historians' estimates about Muslim population losses" section. The same section also attributes civilian deaths to famine, disease, Circassians, and even the Ottoman army. This doesn't belong in the infobox. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here to ask this. I reverted it and put a link to this talk segment in the edit summary. Annwfwn (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The 400,000 Ottoman muslim civilian deaths figure does not even come from Justin McCarthy, what are you talking about? It comes from the Middle East Abstracts and Index via the Northumberland Press. 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D9BC:455E:9232:9020 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only source. Another source is given by Middle East Abstravts and Index as well as by Kumal. And McCarthy is an accredited historian, your opinion on what constitutes a reliable source is utterly irrelevant 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D9BC:455E:9232:9020 (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, you didn’t bother to reach any kind of consensus whatsoever, you simply posted a comment here and then proceeded to disrupt the page. The page should be left to status quo until consensus is reached, per Wikipedia policy 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D9BC:455E:9232:9020 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed, the only historian who mentions that the Ottoman army was even responsible for some suffering among its own civilians is Reid. Moreover, he lists it as a possibility, nothing confirmed. This does not warrant The deletion of an entire section of the info box that is supported by cited sources which has been the status quo for months now 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D9BC:455E:9232:9020 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, please review WP:WEIGHT to understand why McCarthy is not a reliable source. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

First off, the 400,000 ottoman muslim civilian death figure DOES NOT come from McCarthy, I don’t why this is hard for you to understand.

Second off, this is disingenuous and false, nothing in that section would suggest an accredited historian and professor at a university is an “unreliable source” due to him having dispute and controversy with other historians SamuelLion1877 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Northumberland press is not a reliable source. Jingiby (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An example for reliable source in this case is: Liberation and exile: The fate of civilians during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in Bulgarian and Turkish historiography. Author(s): Krzysztof Popek, Subject(s): History, Military history, Political history, 19th Century, Published by: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Keywords: Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878; war victims; historiography; Bulgaria; Turkey; the Balkans. Summary/Abstract: The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 is traditionally called as the “Liberation War” by the Bulgarians. The conflict led to gaining freedom from the “Turkish Yoke” and started creation process of the modern Bulgarian state. The Turkish perspective on these events is significantly different. The War of 1877–1878 is remembered through the lens of the tragic experience of refugees (muhajirs) and the suffering of the Muslim civilians linked to the pogroms, emigration and exile. The paper will focus on the depiction of the fate of civilians during the conflict in contemporary Bulgarian and Turkish historiography, in which the topic is marked not only by the reliability of historical research, but also by the presence of stereotypes (as is the whole history of the 19th-century Christian-Muslim relations in Bulgaria). Per Krzysztof Popek, check here on p. 519-520, Generally, the number of Muslim war refugees and victims in Bulgarian lands is estimated between 100,000 and 1,500,000. The most reliable method of calculating the scale of this phenomenon is to compare of the official data about the population of Bulgarian lands before and after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878. However, there is alo a problem... According to these data, the decrease of the Muslim population in the Bulgarian lands amounted to about 380,000, i.e. 35%. Of course, this kind of the calculations are approximate, and it is impossible to count the precise number of Muslim refugees and victims during the conflict. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not even come directly from Northumberland press (which again, how is it not reliable again? You have no explanation and just deleted sourced material without consensus and discussion.) it is from the university of Michigan, and Northumberland Press is simply the publisher SamuelLion1877 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, neither of the two disruptive editors that came out of nowhere and began sabotaging the article offered any further explanation or discussion or attempt at consensus here on the talk page sense their disruptive editing was reverted. It is utterly outrageous and laughable that this is not a clear cut and dry issue / solution… that is to keep the article to status quo ante bellum and stop subtle vandalism.. SamuelLion1877 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Univeristy of Michigans estimate of 400,000 isn’t alone, it is also supported by Kemal’s source, which is cited in the info box right after the former SamuelLion1877 (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. How is it not reliable? Why was it left untouched on this article for a long period of time until some users came along and decided to sabotage the article? SamuelLion1877 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Krzysztof Popek, due to the chaos during these events, later returns, and a lack of reliable statistical sources, the estimation of the number of Muslim victims and refuges is not an easy task. There is a big difference between the calculations proposed by various researchers. Berna Pekesen, Bilâl Şimşir, Osman Köse, Salahi Ramadan Sonyel, and Mirosław Dymarski hold the view that 200,000–500,000 Muslims died and 1,000,000 were forced to migrate during the conflict. Justin McCarthy and Nurcan Özgür-Baklacioglu estimate that about 500,000 Muslims took refuge in 1877–1878 and about half of them died as a result of war operations, hunger, diseases, and cold. Kemal Karpat writes about 750,000–1,000,000 muhajirs and 200,000–300,000 victims of the pogroms. Hüseyin Memişoglu expresses the conviction that 350,000 Muslims died and 600,000 were forced to escape. According to Ömer Turan, 800,000 Muslim civilians from the Bulgarian lands were murdered or permanently left their homes. Bulgarian historians and researchers, who are closer to the Bulgarian perspective, use other numbers. Roumen Daskalov wrote about 100,000 Turks, who were forced to emigrate or were killed during the War. Konstantin Jireček estimated probably the lowest number – according to the Czech historian, between 1877 and 1890, a total of 100,000 Muslims left the Bulgarian lands.18 In 1916, Kiril Popov held the view that 135,000 muhajirs left Bulgaria during the Liberation War. Richard Crampton, Alexandre Toumarkine, and Bernard Lory are inclined to believe that 130,000–150,000 Muslims from the Bulgarian lands took refuge at that time, and 75,000–80,000 came back to their homes after the War. What is also worth mentioning is the estimated data about the Muslim refugees and victims in the entire Balkans. Wolfgang Höpken, Raymond Detrez, and Mila Maeva assumed that 1,500,000 Muslims took refuge in 1877–1878 on the scale of the whole region.21 According to Marija Pandevska, that number was between 600,000 and 1,000,000. Youssef Courbage pointed out that the total number of the Muslims refugees of the wars of 1877–1878 and 1912–1913 was 1,500,000. According to the Ottoman authorities, on 27th of November 1878, exactly 729,127 emigrants were waiting for a transfer to Anatolia in different parts of the Balkans or had already left, which could also illustrate the scale of the Muslim exile during the War. Generally, the number of Muslim war refugees and victims in Bulgarian lands is estimated between 100,000 and 1,500,000.Jingiby (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, that is fair.

My solution for a consensus and compromise is simple then, why not just include the wide range of estimates then? something like:

“250,000-500,000 Ottoman Muslim civilian deaths” estimates vary widely see below” or something of the sort? I understand the wide range of estimates but leaving the infobox completely free of ottoman muslim civilian casualties while including refugees and deportees feels wrong to me. SamuelLion1877 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Because per Krzysztof Popek's recalculation this number, including deaths and refugees is ca 380,000. Moreover, the number of victims usually is about 3 times less than that of the refugees. Jingiby (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Who is Krzysztof Popek SamuelLion1877 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That is impossible given that it is estimated that there were 500,000-1.5 million displaced, and even according to your rule of “3x less” that would fall within the range I said before. Somewhere between 200,000-500,000 deaths SamuelLion1877 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Given these wide array of estimates, it seems it is safe to say the number of ottoman muslim civilian deaths was between 200,000-500,000. This needs to be reflected and acknowledged in the info box, having the info box devoid of this information while only mentioning refugees and deportees is unacceptable, makes no sense, and breaks the neutrality rule of the page SamuelLion1877 (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Krzysztof Popek is Assistant Professor, PhD at the Faculty of History of Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland. He is also a graduate of Bulgarian Philology. His research focuses on the socio-political history of Balkan Peninsula in 19th–20th century, religious minorities in Bulgaria, and memory about genocides. Popek doctoral thesis is on the Policy of Bulgarian State toward the local Muslim Minority in 1878–1913. Jingiby (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that’s all fine and good, but per Wikipedia policy and your own logic, we cannot just rely on one estimate while disregarding all the rest (a multitude of them).

I don’t know if you’re having difficulty understanding, maybe English isn’t your first language (which if not I understand)

“200,000-500,000 Ottoman muslim civilian deaths” needs to be present in the info box. While I understand it being temporarily blank while we discuss consensus, leaving it as such is not an option I fear SamuelLion1877 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Popek, according to the Ottoman census in 1864, in the Danube Vilayet (approximately the territory of the Principality of Bulgaria) lived 819,226 Muslims. In 1881 there were 527,284 Muslims. Before the War, in the Plovdiv and Sliven Sandjaks (e.g. later Eastern Rumelia) lived 210,000 Muslims and after the war in 1878 – 120,000. According to these data, the decrease of the Muslim population in the Bulgarian lands amounted to about 380,000. Your proposal of about 500,000 civilian victims in the same area is unrealistic by this situation. Jingiby (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been observing this talk page, and you literally said that 200-500,000 was the range yourself givin the estimates, and now you are saying it’s not in range?

As if any more evidence was needed that sometimes the talk page is utterly pointless 2600:1012:B118:D90A:F86F:1372:89BE:9114 (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume this is the correct discussion? Upon reading through this, I don’t see where the issue lies in my revisions to the page. It seems that the issue at the time of this discussion page being opened was the fact that the info box back then stated that Turkish / Muslim civilian deaths were exclusively due to Russian coalition massacres / atrocities. That is not what my revisions did at all. In fact, if you go back and look at them, you will see I stated that Turkish civilian deaths can be attributed to massacre by Russian coalition troops, famine, disease, and “other war-related causes.” The second issue seemed to question the reliability of historian Justin McCarthy. Upon doing some research, I can conclude that he only is a problem to cite when referring to Armenian genocide related issues. This has nothing to do with that field whatsoever, and in fact, even his fellow historians who criticized him for his apparent Armenian genocide denial have praised and acknowledged his work regarding Muslim civilian casualties. LoneWolf803 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, McCarthy is more than a dubious researcher and does not fall under neutral authors at all. According to historian Hakem Al-Rustom: Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia. According to Michael Mann McCarthy is often viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate over Balkan Muslim death figures stating: "In the Balkans all statistics of death remain contested. Most of the following figures derive from McCarthy (1995: 1, 91, 161-4, 339), who is often viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate." Historian Michael Robert Hickock also accused McCarthy of selectively using sources: Although he succeeds in recounting the plight of Muslim communities, he is less successful in demonstrating state policy or proving intent. Moreover, McCarthy is inconsistent in assigning blame. When the Ottoman state failed to control the depredation of Armenians at the hands of Kurds and Circassians, it was due to lack of resources and authority; when Russian, Bulgarian and Greek soldiers declined to stop similar events against Muslim peasants, it was done deliberately. The question of intent underlies the book's greatest flaw. As mentioned above an example for neutral source in this case is this article focused on the issue: "Liberation and exile: The fate of civilians during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in Bulgarian and Turkish historiography." by Krzysztof Popek. Per Popek, check here on p. 519-520: There is a big difference between the calculations proposed by various researchers. Generally, the number of Muslim war refugees and victims in Bulgarian lands is estimated between 100,000 and 1,500,000. The most reliable method of calculating the scale of this phenomenon is to compare of the official data about the population of Bulgarian lands before and after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878. According to these data, the decrease of the Muslim population in the Bulgarian lands amounted to about 380,000. Jingiby (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello hello, I understand your point of view but to me it seems you simply restated what was previously said and your reply did not directly address my argument. First of all, the sources you gave list McCarthy as an unreliable source when it comes to figures regarding the Armenian genocide, as stated. McCarthy is an issue when it comes to Armenian related matters. Academics such as Donald Beachler and Daniel Pipes who have noted his pro-Turkish line and denial of the Armenian Genocide have still vouched for the research and numbers Mc Carthy has concluded regarding the death toll of Balkan Muslims in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This article covers that very issue after all and numbers pertaining to that should be cited if other academics of good repute and standing have interpreted that they are of merit. Please actually read the sources I gave on my previous reply. Second of all, you are basing your entire argument by using one source, Popek, and arguing that one single source somehow invalidates and nullifies the multitude of reliable sources provided for deaths. That’s quite a flawed logic if you ask me, sorry. I am not talking about the 500,000-1.5 million ottoman refugees, I am speaking of the death toll, which all sources currently provided in the civilian casualties section of the article seem to agree fall between the range of 200,000-400,000. Lastly, McCarthy was far from the only source I provided for the death toll range. Dennis Hupchick, Kemal Karpat, Douglas Arthur Howard, and Richard C Frucht all provide a figure of muslim deaths that fall within the 200,000-400,000 range. Unless you can somehow prove that 5 (five) accredited historians are not reliable, I think it was highly unfair for you to revert my edits. LoneWolf803 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, again. Maybe we both didn't understand ourselves something. What you write above is true. However, this information is currently available in the infobox of the article on the right at the bottom: 500,000–1.5 million Turkish, Albanian and Jewish civilians displaced. Jingiby (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again my friend, ah yes I think you are right. I think we just got off on the wrong foot and misunderstood one another. Thank you very much for your understanding and willingness to see reason and compromise. Cheers and have a great rest of your day! LoneWolf803 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Civilian casualties need to be shown in the infobox

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)

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)

Cited material that is displayed in the civilian casualties section of the article removed from info box with no explanation?

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)

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)

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)