Talk:Congress of Berlin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merger
Should this really be a separate article from the Treaty of Berlin, 1878? IMHO they should be merged. --romanm (talk) 21:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Revert war but no talk
Why? It seems some people need a lesson in Wikipedia policies - or just need to grow up.
Bring your issues to the talk page instead of this revert war.
And if some people do not think that "russophobia" is POV, they should stop editing Wikipedia!
--itpastorn 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV - example 1
"The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine of the balance of power, which the largest empire in the world often used to further its imperialist ends."
What power in 1878 was not imperialist? Russia was. France was. Germany was. The Ottomans would have been if they had had the power. I see no difference whatsoever between the Brittish and the Russians. Ask the people of Central Asia if they wanted Moscow to rule over them any more than the people of Africa wanted to be under London.
--itpastorn 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly the first statement is poorly written. It should read "the UK at once recalled its favourite doctrine: the balance of power. The next part of the sentance is an awefully written short hand for "With peace on the continent the UK was free to persue its interests elsewhere in the globe." I recomend a correction to the effect of "The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine - the balance of power. By securing peace on the continent they hoped to persue their imperial interests." The fact of the matter is Russia at this time held Moldavia and Walachia as an imperial interest, as well as much of the Balkans, so it is a valid point. IF someone were to do a rewrite it may be a good idea to include that point. -Schatbot
The statement, while poorly written, does have a distinct ring of truth to it insofar as it is stated policy of the UK maintain hegemony over the Mediterranean and characterizing any challenge to this hegemony as destablizing.
As for Moldavia and Walachia, the common Slavic roots of Russia lend it slightly more legitimacy than English affairs in the Africa and certainly more than the Ottomans. Wrath0fb0b 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have not questioned the UK's imperialism. Of course they were trying to rule the World. My point is that all major European powers were imperialist at the time. And Russia was expanding in all directions, not only the Balkans. They had a struggle with the Brittish for Central Asia as well - and the people who had the misfortune of living there were neither brittish or slavic. It's POV to villify one nation and let another receive no blame, when both were equal culprits, as far as intention goes. Then maybe the Brittish were worse when it comes to effect, thanks to industrialisation and some other factors they had a head start and were more effecient empire-builders. --itpastorn 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems that everyone wanted to rule the world. Oddly, the Germans were the best imperialists, as they created an empire in the course of a decade or two the size of which almost two hundred years of British history accomplished. They had interests across the globe, including various islands in South East Asia, etc. In fact, the location of this conference in Berlin indicates they were the best imperial state, as much like Vienna in 1814/15 they were the diplomatic hub of Europe. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the Russians were running large-scale offensive across their borders. At this time they had little interest in future locations such as Afghanistan (where the Brisish were otherwise occupied) and many other middle Eastern Areas. Indeed, Russian foreign policy was largely directed at East Central Europe and Constantinople, following the 1850/60's deals with China regarding Manchuria (which came to a head in the 1910's war over the area) which freed them to follow these policies; as the opening to this article indicates. Overall, I'm very pleased with the revisions that have been made to this article, and it is a credit to the nature of Wikipedia. - Schatbot
[edit] NPOV problem
User:Ghirlandajo feels that my edits to this article were POV, however I believe that using phrases like 'Freeing them from the Muslim Ottoman yoke' is hardly a neutral statement. As such, I am prepared to defend my edits. Should User: Ghirlandajo have further problems with this, I encourage him/her to discuss it with me here rather than revert again. Tev 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Due to User:Ghirlandajo's feeling that my edits were POV, I have gone through the article and attempted to make it comply further with the NPOV policy. However, I still do not feel that my original edits were POV. Tev 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, looks like we have this all resolved now. Thanks for everyone involved in reaching a peaceful consensus! Tev 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misha Glenny
Does anybody object to a citation of Misha Glenny's The Balkans: 1804-1999? That is, does anyone object to it ante facto? --VKokielov 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that work, could you possibly find a section of the writing, or a summary? Tev 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion from Final Paragraph
I made two changes in the section about the Ottoman Empire and Greece. One was deletion of reference to the Ottoman parliament, which had ben prorogued by 1881 and had nothing to do with the border rectification with Greece.
Second, I deleted the reference to the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, which was very tandentially related to the topic and misleading to the point of POV. While it's true the Ottomans declared war on Greece at that time, this was AFTER Greece had invaded Crete, been ejected by the powers, then invaded Ottoman territory on the mainland.
Also, this was not so much a result of tensions between the two states as a result of the Treaty but rather the Greek government's inability to control nationalist public opinion, which was sympathetic to the cause of Greek rebels on Crete. Relations between Greece and the Ottomans between Berlin an 1897 were actually reasonably harmonious.
Finally, I don't think we need the ubiquitous and gratuitous reference to the Armenian Genocide that seems to accompany every article that includes the words "Ottoman" or "Turkey", particularly in this topic, which seems POV absent an explanation for its inclusion. - John
[edit] Sources
Where are the sources for this article? Terrifying Angel 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
