Talk:Battle of Bucharest
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I removed the Russian Empire as a belligerent due to inconsistency. Nowhere on in the article are Russian troops ever mentioned, nor cited by any source. And to top it all, it's not even the right Russian flag, the action is at the end of 1916, while the flag is from 1914. It's clearly one of those pitiful attempts to shoehorn in a Great Power due to the stereotypical belief that a small country can't do anything by itself, or trying to falsely diminish the odds that were against Romania, by claiming we had any sort of help in defending our capital.
- My problem is that those figures represent losses since the beginning of the campaign. Pretending that they represent casualties suffered during this battle (that lasted a couple of days) is wrong and misleading. In fact they most likely prove that real German casualties during this battle were comparatively light.--Avidius (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Avidius You do (hopefully) realize that "Germans" is not a synonym for the Central Powers, right? I'm very sure that if we'd know Bulgarian, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish casualties, the total wouldn't be that "light" anymore, right? Besides, given the conditions in which the Romanian Army fought (holding the longest front in Europe against all of the Central Powers and with next to no help) and it's lack of proper training, equipment and experience, I think their performance was...actually not that bad! They had 150,000 killed and wounded, while the Central Powers had, well, let's see: 60,000 Germans, 35,000 Bulgarians, 20,000 Turks, thousands more Austro-Hungarians, it's almost on par with the Romanian casualties, if we exclude the captured! That's quite impressive if you ask me, especially compared to the Russians.
- You are deliberately missing the point. Those figures represent losses since the beginning of the campaign(since September) but not the losses during this battle.--Avidius (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I got your point, as proved by he fact that I didn't edit the article anymore. Where am I supposed to put those casualties though? If I put them on the main RO WW1 article, someone would most certainly ask me for sources! I always found this very redundant and annoying: if it's also mentioned in other articles, why would you need to restate the source again? Isn't the article in itself the source? Once someone asked me how I got the 30,000 Bulgarian casualties, well I just summed up the casualties of the battles on the Dobruja front, from other articles! Do the maths, no need to be redundant with sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Those figures fit better in the main article but they must be sourced. Otherwise simply "doing the math" won't be accepted by other editors.--Avidius (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)