Misplaced Pages

Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:03, 12 April 2007 editBiruitorul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers148,269 edits Move proposal← Previous edit Revision as of 22:39, 12 April 2007 edit undoKrator (talk | contribs)5,814 edits Move proposal: Third OpinionNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:
:::'''Please''' confine your comments to content, not editors - "Typical for nationlists" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no, I make a very persuasive case: my argument has plenty of citations; you have adduced none to the contrary, despite the fact that this debate has been going on since March 26. The split proposal is absurd, but why don't you launch a formal debate on that? I'm determined not to have us be stalemated in trench warfare for months. One way or another, I intend to force the issue. :::'''Please''' confine your comments to content, not editors - "Typical for nationlists" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no, I make a very persuasive case: my argument has plenty of citations; you have adduced none to the contrary, despite the fact that this debate has been going on since March 26. The split proposal is absurd, but why don't you launch a formal debate on that? I'm determined not to have us be stalemated in trench warfare for months. One way or another, I intend to force the issue.
:::I will leave the split tag to give you time to try and initiate a split process. I will remove the disputed tag, as the other side has manifestly failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. ] 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :::I will leave the split tag to give you time to try and initiate a split process. I will remove the disputed tag, as the other side has manifestly failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. ] 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

'''Third Opinion''' Summary: keep the current name.
*'''User:Anonimu, Cease the personal attacks immediately.'''
*I acknowledge that the current name could have negative connotations for some parties involved.
*However, per ], the most usual name of the subject of the article takes precedence. A quick google shows that the title of this article is used frequently as a name for the period described in this article.
*''"If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name "''
*It is awkward to call a ''time period'' (44-58) a "liberation". The specific moment that the Germans left Romania could be called a liberation.
*Another quote from NCON:

{{cquote|"Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is '''descriptive''', not '''prescriptive'''. We cannot declare what a name ''should be'', only what it ''is''."}}

--] (] ]) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:39, 12 April 2007

Archive
Archives
  1. 12/11/05 - 04/05/2007


WikiProject iconRussia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What liberation?

I'm sorry, but what liberation are you talking about?

  • If it's about Soviet forces liberating parts of Romania from the Germans, it can only apply after the armistice convention (Sep. 12), and for direct fights between the Soviets and the Germans on Romanian soil after this date. Were there many? BTW, don't count here fights in Northern Transylvania, which was not Romanian at the time. So, I presume, no liberation.
  • Soviet propaganda (in cluding the RPR constitution) also talks about liberating the "Romanian people" from the evil bourgeois plutocrats. If this is your "liberation of Romania", then it's funny, nothing more.

Dpotop 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can always make an article saying that the Liberation of Romania is a Soviet propaganda stunt meant to present Soviet forces as liberating their first capital of a German ally of... the Germans. :) Dpotop 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. As the evidence amply demonstrates, Romanians largely liberated themselves (with help from the USAF) and had no need of the Red Army.
  • Funny but also tragic, given what followed.
  • That's a good idea - it does have notability, given its use in propaganda for years, and its verifiability. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

Would someone (Anonimu, Irpen, Petri Krohn, etc) like to actually propose a move? If not, why should the POV tag stay? I think I've called your bluff, and if there's no poll soon, I'll consider myself justified in removing the tag. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need another pool so that you can call your lackeys here. Either the subject of this article will be limited to 1944-1947 or the title will be changed, not by voting, but with rational arguments (per meta:Polls are evil and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy)Anonimu 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. Turgidson 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about a factual argument? "Rational" unfortunately means interpretation of events according to your POV. At a minimum, the Allied (Soviet) presence was a formal occupation under the armistice and while the Soviets ostensibly extended their stay to execute Allied duties (open-ended occupation continues) until their evacuation of Austria (however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence).
     Your reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation are?
     And please don't say you don't need to produce sources to counter our (let me get this out of the way) "cherry-picked" facts, that you only need your "rational" argument. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of a move proposal, the copious citations adduced to support the notion that Romania was occupied through 1958, and the lack of opposing citations, the tags have been removed. Biruitorul 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Lack of opposing citation" thing is the weakest argument i've heard. Typical for nationlists. There isn't still a move proposal because some of us still hope the article will be split in a "Soviet occupation of Romania"(1944-1947) and a "Soviet military presence in Romania"(1947-1958) to reflect the realityAnonimu 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please confine your comments to content, not editors - "Typical for nationlists" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no, I make a very persuasive case: my argument has plenty of citations; you have adduced none to the contrary, despite the fact that this debate has been going on since March 26. The split proposal is absurd, but why don't you launch a formal debate on that? I'm determined not to have us be stalemated in trench warfare for months. One way or another, I intend to force the issue.
I will leave the split tag to give you time to try and initiate a split process. I will remove the disputed tag, as the other side has manifestly failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. Biruitorul 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: keep the current name.

  • User:Anonimu, Cease the personal attacks immediately.
  • I acknowledge that the current name could have negative connotations for some parties involved.
  • However, per WP:NCON, the most usual name of the subject of the article takes precedence. A quick google shows that the title of this article is used frequently as a name for the period described in this article.
  • "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name "
  • It is awkward to call a time period (44-58) a "liberation". The specific moment that the Germans left Romania could be called a liberation.
  • Another quote from NCON:


Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: