Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)/Archive 1

I think it is hypocritical to say 'use the talk page' when somebody makes a legitimate edit, and then ignore comments which have been left on the talk page and then have the gall to protect the article. I have used the talk page many times, and had my say - i wait in vain.Suicup 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing references to superpowers as this is purely a 20th centuary term, never used in this context. The countries of Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France & sometimes Ottoman Empire & (more rarely Prussia) are generally referred to as the Great Powers, both now & at the time. I am therefore replacing reference to superpowers with great powers or powers

Apotheosis of War
I wonder if the inclusion of the painting "Apotheosis of War" by Vereshchagin (the great pile of skulls in the desert, bottom of the page) is appropriate here. Although Vereshchagin was indeed a major illustrator of the Russo-Turkish War, and indeed this painting makes a strong anti-war statemenet, nevertheless it was painted in 1871 and summed up his experiences in the Turkestan campaigns of the Russian Army, rather than those in the Balkans. Igottlieb 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the image. I concur with Igottlieb. The basis for association of this image with the content of the surrounding text is superficial at best. EntheoGen007 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Its former provinces"
I removed 3 words towards the end of the article. As other Wikipedia articles show, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were not provinces of the Ottoman Empire in 1877 (Montenegro had kept its autonomy all along; Romania had always been formed of autonomous principalities and in 1877 was at the same time under nominal Ottoman suzerainty and under the protection of Austria, Russia, France, Britain, Prussia, and was ruled by a freely elected German prince; and most of Serbia had already become semi-independent since the beginning of the century). Only Bulgaria was in 1877 (and had been since the end of the fourteenth century) an Ottoman province. Quatrocentu 08:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Moldavia and Wallachia were never provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They were vassal states. But who are these elected German princes that you mention? --Anittas 15:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

After the Crimean War, when Russia's power was temporarily waning (and Russia had been for almost three decades - since the Treaty of Adrianopolis in 1829 - the "protector" of the two Romanian principalities, much more influential there than the nominal "suzerain", i.e. the Ottoman Empire), the "guarantee" powers debated the possibility of a union of the two states, but only Napoleon III's France encouraged them in this direction. Nevertheless, the Moldavian parliament elected Alexandru Ioan Cuza on January 5, 1859, and so did the Wallachian parliament on January 24, 1859. The de facto union became a de jure union in 1861, when all the powers, including Turkey, had recognized it. Cuza was elected for a 7-year mandate, but was deposed anyway in February 1866. The same year in April, Karl von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected prince through a popular vote (later to become king in 1881 as Carol I of Romania), after another possible candidate, Philippe de Flandre, had declined the offer. It's not like it was a proper election, with several candidates (as in the case of Cuza), but rather a national referendum (people voted almost unanimously in favor). So, in 1877, at the time of the war, Romania had a German-born prince, "elected" by his subjects.

P.S. I had said elected "prince", not "princes". Carol I was followed in 1914 by his nephew (he himself was childless) Ferdinand, but neither he nor the next Romanian kings were elected.

Quatrocentu 06:06, 15 October 2005 (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

"Turks"
Isnt it high time to stop orientalizing the Ottoman Empire, refering to everyone, except the Slavs as "Turks" ? Universal conscription has already been in effect and chances are that Ottoman soldiery of that period was not only made up of Anatolian, Muslim Turkish speakers, (Turk among the elite was a derogatory term refering to Anatolian peasants) but also Albanians, Arabs, and other non-Christians.

So I move that all references to "Turks" be changed to "Ottomans"

-Constantinople Conference- Can somebody please make a link to this vital conference after which Russia and the Ottoman Empire went into War.

Problems with the "stable version"
Hi. I'd just like to point out that although therre is POV is all versions of this article I have seen recently, there is a reason why the "stable version" keeps on getting reverted. It states that:


 * The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea and liberating the Slav peoples of the Balkan Peninsula in south-eastern Europe from the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire. The nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Turkish yoke still regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood. Hence, alternative titles attached to it in the 20th-century nationalistic historiographies, such as the Romanian War of Independence, the Bulgarian War of Independence, etc.

In this way, it only makes a mention of Slav peoples, thus ignoring the situation of Romania, and only mentioning it in the last sentence, thus making it seem as if Romania's situation was the same as that of the other countries (and it is a Slavic country).

For this reason, I think the best compromise version is this, stating that:


 * The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea and liberating the Orthodox Christian Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (Bulgarians, Serbians) from the Islamic-ruled Ottoman Empire. These nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Turkish yoke regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood.


 * The war also provided an opportunity to gain full independence for the Kingdom of Romania. Although, unlike the rest of the Balkan counties, it had never been part of the Ottoman Empire, it was still officially under Ottoman suzerainty. Hence, in Romanian historic works, the war is known as the Romanian War of Independence.

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Paragraph
I added the last section and sourced its claims. If that book is not enough, i am willing to offer more in support. It was deleted because it was said to be 'original research'. I read Wiki's policy and couldn't understand how this could be the case. As a direct result of the war, there was a mass migration of Muslims, as well as the death of thousands. This is a verifiable event. You can't just delete something because 'you' think it is 'NPOV'. Suicup 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Suicup, the last thing we need in WP is Turkish imperialism. Please don't blame the alleged "deaths of thousands" on Russians but on the Ottoman administration which first settled these guys in a Christian country and then proved unable to evacuate them effectively. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am neither Turkish nor Russian, and my aim is not 'imperialism'. I am simply providing further information, supported by verifiable evidence. Indeed, given that the war was fought between Russia AND the Ottomans, why is it the only sources provided are Russian and a Bulgarian 'image gallery'? Doesn't that seem a little POV?? Surely some balance is required. If you claim that my source is POV, prove it. Otherwise, i will continue to revert. Suicup 12:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh... someone's original research, not really noteworthy. As far as I know (and as accepted internationally), many of the Turks simply didn't want to live in a Christian country and moved out to the Ottoman Empire. Of course, some stayed, these are the modern Turks in Bulgaria. I don't think any were expelled, while speaking about a massacre (LOL!) is playing with truth and fire simultaneously. Besides, those who left did so in the years and decades after the war, not during it. The calculation of about half the Turks leaving is otherwise close to the truth and the demographic change was indeed significant. But massacres, ethnic cleansing, even expelling, no... this is silly. And twice that silly to name it "government policy of the Russian-dominated Bulgarian state". It's just the Turks again trying to make themselves look like innocent vitcims in my opinion. I support your decision of removing the paragraph, it's just ultra-POV and falsely referenced. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are nothing but a Bulgarian propagandist! The claim that "the Turks simply didn't want to live in a Christian country and moved out to the Ottoman Empire" is a complete fabrication, a lie that you cannot even back up by any respectable sources. Turks were forced to leave their homeland in which they have lived for centuries through massacres and rapes. Doesn't the forceful expulsion of 500,000 women, children and men from their homeland, and the killing of a quater of a million not ammount to ethnic cleansing or massacres? This is something that was of genocidial proportions. In the process the territories under Bulgairo-Russian control lost half of their Muslim inhabitants. Istanbul was flooded with refugees, it was one of the biggest humanitarian crisis in Ottoman history, disease and hunger were widespread. This war was a total catastrophe for the muslim population in Bulgaria, and I firmly believe that the muslim casualties must be included as well.--Hasanidin 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You make claims, so source them. Where is the evidence that McCarthy's book is not noteworthy. Sure, not all of McCarthy's book is original research. Some parts have to be because the winners get to write history, and often dissenting voices get shouted down, or silenced - much like what is happening here. As i said before, why are there only Russian sources (websites, not books i might add) to this article? Suicup 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, according to you, what i contributed was propaganda. My claims are referenced in academic sources, not original research. I ask again, why are there only Russian sources for this article. It is hypocritical to call my contribution POV when the entire article is written from one perspective. As i said, i am neither Russian, nor Turk, however i am a student of history, and have studied this area - in fact, according to your userpage, you are Russian, so how can you call me as an Australian biased? Unless you can give a better reason than propaganda for deleting the valid contribution of others, i will continue to revert.Suicup 08:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how the addition is irrelevant? Is a change in the demographic makeup of Bulgaria as well as the death of thousands irrelevant? Also, i notice i seem to be the only one using the talk page, others are happy to just flippantly revert without any discussion.Suicup 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Telex that your typical massacre talk is not only sickeningly biassed, but also quite irrelevant to the subject of this article. If you think the alleged "massacre" is important, you should add your allegations to History of Bulgaria not here. And please don't try to look innocent, especially after gratuitous threats of revert warring above. Revert warriors are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please read WP:3RR. According to this rule, you may be blocked from further editing Wikipedia. If you want to stay here longer, please learn to respect consensus. Take care, Ghirla  -трёп-  13:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What use is consensus when everyone has the same point of view? WP is not supposed to be the domain of 'yes-men'. However this article seems to be a prime example of it. You haven't explained how it is biased, you haven't offered me evidence that it didn't happen. All you have done is show a self righteous attitude towards others.Suicup 13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some more to the last section and made it more encyclopedic. I also added some info to an earlier section, using a really good source which you can read for yourself - i put the link down the bottom of the article.Suicup 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some critical academic reviews of McCarthy's book i have sourced: The American Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jun., 1997), pp. 856-857 International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4. (Nov., 1997), pp. 657-659 International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Summer, 1997), pp. 470-473. Again i stress my purpose is not imperialism as some here want to believe, rather, it is restoring objectivity - upholding the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia.Suicup 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "McCarthy succeeds in providing factual material for bringing the European historiography of the later Ottoman Empire into more objective balance."
 * "Justin McCarthy's solid demographic work contributes to ahcieving a better balance and understanding that he so ardently desires for the history of these regions and peoples."
 * "McCarthy's book is a major scholarly achievement in a little-explored area and an act of intellectual courage and honesty."

Suicup I believe that you were acting in good faith when you have introduced the changes to the article based on the work of Justin McCarthy. However, I do not agree that the work on this author should be given the same weight as the rest of the factual material on the page. Much like historians who draw improbable conclusions to justify a claim that Holocaust did not exist, McCarthy pursues questionable historical research to justify that the Armenian genocide did not exist and the works you are citing are a part of that research. Material to substantiate improbability of McCarthy's point of view is available on the web. Nonetheless, Suicup you do have a valid point in supporting McCarthy's point of view and it SHOULD be represented on WP. Would you like to volunteer creating another article on the controversy presented by McCarthy's point of view on Ottoman Empire?


 * Oh, please! Justin McCarthy is a respected historian whose academic integrity has been questioned only by nationalist Armenians. The issue about the Armenians Massacres has nothing to do with the article at hand, so please do not change the topic. And what is the "factual" material that is given in this page? Most of the sources are either Russian or Bulgarian and the Turkish side of the conflict is completely blocked out. Besides McCarthy's figures about the Muslim casualties in this have been published in respected scientific journals, scrutinized by peer-reviewers and endorsed by many academicians. I will site some of the reviews for you:

I have posted scans of articles on McCarthy's book on the AllEmpires.com forum. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10040

Here is what some respected Ottoman historians had to say about McCarhty's work:

"McCarthy's book is a major scholarly achievement in a little-explored area and an act of intellectual courage and honesty."
 * Kemal Karpat, University of Wisconsin-Madison:

"One may pick arguments with specific interpretations of the events in the work, but the statistical data appear generally valid. McCarthy succeeds in providing factual material for bringing the European historiography of the later Ottoman Empire into more objective balance. Like most medicines,although difficult to swallow its corrective potential should prove beneficial in the long term. "
 * Dennis Hupchik, Wilkes University:

"Like all of the author's other works, this one offers positions that become pivots of rebutals, disagreements, counter-arguments, different interpretations, and propably some recriminations. Nonetheless, Justin McCarthy's solid demographic work contributes to achieving a better balance and understanding that he so ardently desires for the history of these regions and peoples. "
 * Robert Olson, Department of History, University of Kentucky:

Besides if you dispute McCarthy's credibility and the number of muslim casualties he cites(after solid demographic research), could you please provide us with a source about the muslim casualties which you believe are more "credible"? The problem is that while many of you rebuke McCarthy and the rest of the Ottoman scholars on the subject of the 1878 none of you can provide more credible sources about the muslim casualties. We are not talking here about some "fictious" event, we are talking about something that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have experience and gone through. Descendants of the victims of this war, including my grandparents, can still tell you the horrible tales of what they or their parents had to go through. We simply cannot allow them to be buried in history and forgotten. I beg you to add some balnce to this article! --Hasanidin 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hasanidin, you have recently made numerous edits to this talk page and while it is clear that you are passionate about the subject, the large number of allegations in your statements make it difficult to have a constructive discourse. I do not question the facts of your position, but given the style of your presentation I found it difficult to improve the article based on your suggestions. I think that you did not follow the recommendation about avoiding personal attacks (as described in Policies_and_guidelines) when you made a statement about only Armenian nationalists questioning McCarthy's record, e.g. I am not Armenian and based on the McCarthy's record on the web there is a basis for questioning his research.
 * Thank you anonymous for your suggestion, but whom did I attack personally? To be honest I have yet to see anyboy apart from Armenian nationalists (such as Prof. Balakian) question McCarthy's academic credibility. May I remind you also that McCarthy does not deny the massacres against Armenians and based on his solid demographic work in Ottoman history acknowledges that more than a million Armenians have lost their lives. He simply refuses to name these killings by what other historians view as the more correct term - Genocide. No-one has so far ever questioned McCarthy's demographic work, in fact from the recent reviews all I can see is praise for it. There is no academic basis whatsoever to question McCarthy's demographic work in the Balkans, there is a basis to question only his evaluation and conclusions from the demographic work, but not the numbers that he presents. --Hasanidin 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hasanidin if you'd like to move this article forward, I suggest that you create a new section in this talk page with bullet points listing short (1-2 sentense) summaries of points you'd like to have included in the article. The folks editing this page then can have an opportunity to review and comment on each point.
 * I simply want the article to acknowldege that 500,000 Muslim civilians were forced out and 250,000 have died in disease, starvation or were massacred as a result of this war.--Hasanidin 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also I suspect that your scans of the McCarthy's book may constitute a copyright violation and there is a possibility of putting WP in legal jeopardy by linking to the book scans, so I suggest removing them right away.
 * Yes, this would be a good idea.

To the person who is making unsigned comments, i appreciate your input however it would be helpful if you signed them by typing four tildes (ie ~) without a space after your posts. Thankyou.Suicup 07:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to Anonymous' comments, i think it is unfair and silly to compare McCarthy to someone like David Irving, a convicted criminal. Doing so doesn't really advance the argument at all. Furthermore, while i may not necessarily agree with McCarthy's stance on the Armenian genocide, this does not mean we should simply dismiss his work in other periods. The Armenian 'genocide', and the plight of Muslim (and Jewish) and other Turkish people during the closing stages and aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war in question are completely different events. McCarthy's work has received critical acclaim as i have shown in this talk page, and noone has provided evidence otherwise, other than claiming it is 'nationalist propaganda'. And i repeat, any evidence must be in response to THIS event, NOT McCarthy's work on the Armenian genocide. By including this paragraph, we are not discounting Russian casualties (military or otherwise) not the death/otherwise of others. In fact, i would encourage people to add this information to the article. Rather, I am simply redressing an imbalance which was present in the article. I think the massacre and demographic change is an important part of this war, and deserves to be mentioned, just as the war itself and the events leading up to it (such as the April Uprising - an atrocity committed by Turks) are mentioned. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, and academically dishonest.Suicup 07:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

yoke vote
Considerind that at least in Romania is a saynig, dating from Kiseleff time when the peasants days for working free for boyars was doubled during the russian new rule, that the turkish wodden yoke was changed with an iron yoke, maybe a vote about yoke word should take place.Let's stop this edit war.CristianChirita 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cristian, you may relax. If you bothered to read the text in question, you would see that the "yoke" doesn't refer to Romanians at all. Moreover, Pavel Kiselev had died five years before the war broke out, therefore your comment is irrelevant to the subject of this particular page. I know it's easy to blame all the hardships of your ancestors on those bloody Russians - as most Eastern European politicians never miss a chance to do - but please consider that those Russians gave your country a constitution, while the peasants suffered from the greed of Romanian boyars rather than from "the russian new rule". -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very relaxed, so i'll not either vote or edit, Pavel Kiselev contribution to development of Romania is undisputed. But anyway positive or not, an ocuppation is an occupation even if the occupationb it is for a good cause. Maybe you are right, any occupation is an yoke, and the result was the desliberation from turkish yoke. the point is that are way to many reverts regarding this.

Regarding the "russian new rule", there were some problems regarding discipline, but again is not in my scope to analyse this. I'm not disturbed by the yoke word, I'm not disturbed either by the rule word, but personsly I consider yoke too poetic (and propagandistic), and occupation will sound more enciclopedic and realistic.CristianChirita 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur here. -- Ghirla -трёп-  06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * for the saying. Yes, there certainly should be a civil discussion here. Septentrionalis 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Work out your differences here instead of edit warring. Personal attacks will be removed and their perpetrators blocked from editing, so please refrain from making them. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble) 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Crisis in the Lebanon, 1860
Okay this is to clarify a few issues on the topic.

First, I have a problem with a phrase "On May 27, 1860 a group of Maronites raided a Druze village. Massacres and counter massacres followed". Now, this phrase seem to suggest that this Maronite raid, of an unspecified Druze village, resulted in all the trouble that followed. In relation to this, I want to
 * understand which specific Druze village we are talking about here, to verify the fact, and
 * what happened during the raid - anyone killed, houses destroyed, this kind of stuff? Was there any reason to believe this raid was in any way special to justify saying afterwards "Massacres and counter massacres followed"?

Second, the phrase "between 7,000 and 12,000 people, of all religions, had been killed" - this sounds very unclear.
 * _Where_ this happened? In Lebanon, supposedly? Since a few sentences down we are talking about casualties in Syria, we need to specify whether this 7,000-12,000 figure relates only to Lebanon or includes Syrian casualties, too.
 * If we know that one of the sides suffered more, I guess we need to specify it as well. Here is a quote from U.S. Library of Congress' Country Study on Lebanon (1994) : "Although both sides suffered, about 10,000 Maronites were massacred at the hands of the Druzes". This doesn't contradict 7,000-12,000 figure but suggest most of casualties were Maronites, and I guess we should mention explicitly.

On a final note, the sources which are currently used (Shaw, Stanford J. and Ezel Kural Shaw. "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey" and Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, 1977) are US/English works relating to the history of the Ottoman empire. Which is fine, except that they both look at the issue from the same perspective. To add more balance, we need to add POV of the guys who were massacred (Maronites), and ideally some third party neutral view (which admittedly might not exist, but at least we have to try). At the very least Maronite POV should be given, since they are the guys who suffered most, I guess they deserve it.--Alex1709 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in the opinion that this section about the crisis in the Lebanon is not needed in the article. There are many other events that deserve mention for the events leading to the war. It appears like an efford to imply that the war was caused due to the oppression of Christians by Muslims. Events that occured 17 years before the war were not the primary causes of it.
 * This section has a right to be here as a few sentences explaining what's happened in Lebanon in 1860 and that "about 10,000 Maronites were massacred at the hands of the Druzes" (direct quote from ). You over bloated this section out of all proportions saying plenty of things which doesn't relate to the point and seem to be an effort to excuse Druze/Turkish side. I suggest shrinking it down to 1-2 sentences again. Your cooperation is much appreciated.--Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, there is no Druze/Turkish side. It looks like you are implying that this was done by the Drizes and Turks, and thereby the Russians were right 17 years later to declare war on the Ottoman Empire. The devil is in the detail. Simply claiming that 10,000 Christians Maronites were killed out of nothing is misleading. What caused it? Maybe there were communal tensions that lead to it. Scholars suggest that 7,000 to 12,000 people of all religions were killed. Overall more Christians were killed. This should be included.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming and not implying anything on my own. You see my sources. My text closely follows them. If you think some important pieces of information are missing, please add them, with references to your sources. So long as my sources, and my reference from them, are okay though, I insist they stay in the article.--Alex1709 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly, eventhough I provided the requested citation, the corresponding citations were removed with a comment  do not doubt you quoted those books correctly. But please either give more specifics on each point or admit explicitly you can't do so". Not knowing the name of the village that was raided can not be sufficient ground for removal of content.
 * correction: no content was not removed. I repeat, in case you didn't understood my point, that you need to add an explanation what exactly happened on May 27 or through away the whole sentence as meaningless. Fair enough?--Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All right I guess I found details of this mysterious May 27 Maronite raid: 3,000 Maronites from Zachle tried to attack a neighboring Druze village of Aindara, but were beaten by Druze force of about 600 people. I especially liked this, quote - "The inferiority of the Christians in military organisation to that of the Druzes, became apparent, as usual, from the first collision." ( page 142). So, your source does mean, doesn't it, that this rather unlucky Maronite raid was seen by Druzes as an excuse for "massacres and counter-massacres that followed"? I find this just increduluos. Judging on this event, I am sure Druzes were able to massacre Christians with much lesser forces, but I would be really curious to hear of "counter-massacres". Your input is much appreciated, as usual :)--Alex1709 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholars say this happened so it will be in the article. The above comments make it clear that the user disagrees with the expert oppinion but lacks the credible sources to counter it. A web side on the Maronite side can hardly be a reference. Books written by experts and scholars on the Ottoman Empire -of which the Lebanon was clearly a part of- should be used as sources. Not by those with their local POV who have issues to settle. Again I suggest that we remove the entire section. It is a stretch to incude it as part of a war that occurred 17 years later. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, you sources are not credible for me either (on a personal level, anyway) - I can not read them online and see whether you correctly give the context here. I much prefer online sources which anyone, at any point, can go to and read freely. That said, if you give them here, I let them be, trusting your integrity :). Anyway, let's cut this Lebanon piece, it is really over bloated. --Alex1709 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Online sources are generally less credible that publications. My sources are well-known main stream scholars accepted by the relevant community.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Online sources are also generally easier for a Wikipedia reader to access, you know. So, other things equal, they are preferable to offline stuff.--Alex1709 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)