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.
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I only just today looked at all your article starts and contributions...fine work! ] 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I only just today looked at all your article starts and contributions...fine work! ] 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
|}
|}
== Please ==
Please tone down the broad sweeping accusations, uncivil comments and generally be more polite & civil in discussions. You are well-aware of what is and is not acceptable language and behaviour. ] 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Andrey, I am always amazed and delighted by the periodic DYKs that appear on my talk page, largely thanks to the work you do on the raw material I provide on the Humanities Desk. We make an ideal partnership, a little like Marx and Engels, or Laurel and Hardie! All the very best from Anastasia. Clio the Muse22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you know? was updated. On 31 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ladoga Canal, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Made some additions based on Brook and an article by Ehud Ya'ari. They both call the site "Khumar".
Should we rename the article "Khumarinskoye gorodishche" or "Khumar", as Skhimar seems a rather obscure Georgian designation? --Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- are both just dic defs. I've left pleas in a couple of places, & can chip in myself, but I'm sure you could make a great job of them. Any chance? Johnbod19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My feeling (lurking as usual) is that any material that could go here would be more encyclopedic if incorporated under Noble court (bad title), even as separate sub-sections. These should be redirects, IMO. --Wetman22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that. It certainly is a terrible title, but the article is a start. "Courtier" should probably redirect there, but "favourite" certainly deserves its own article. Johnbod01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why there is an Uspensky/Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki
Hi Girlandajo!
You wrote on the talk page of the article on Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki that: "There is no explanantion why a church in Helsinki should occupy this generic title". There definitely is an explanation: Finland and Russia happen to have a common history 1809-1917. Kindly read my comment on this on the talk page of the article. By the way, your analysis about Misplaced Pages
on your user page is thoughtprovoking! Cheers! --Tellervo11:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Mongol question
Ghirla, hi, I'm needing the help of a Misplaced Pages editor who actually knows something about the Mongols (in particular about their activities in the late 1200s). Preferably someone who actually has access to reliable sources, as opposed to someone who's just doing Google searches through pseudohistory websites. :/ Would you be a good person to help with this, or could you point me at someone else that might be able to help? Thanks, Elonka19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that PHG has done a lot of fine work on other articles in the past, so I was a bit surprised to see the use of some unreliable sources as regards the Knights Templar. Hopefully it's just because PHG was putting too much trust into some websites that turned out to be pseudo-history fluff (there's a lot of that where the Templars are concerned). I'm hopeful that once we find some reliable sources, things can be straightened out fairly quickly. Thanks for the help, Elonka20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article was not "bypassed" due to Kazanowski Palace, but due to the fact that the nomination for Anne de Joyeuse was accompanied by a good quality image and including the article in the update indicated by Camptown would have resulted in the image not being used. In the past, you have expressed extreme displeasure when this was not done. Have you changed your attitude about image use since then? --Allen314:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne de Joyeuse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Paintings depicting battle, death and war (new articles)
Hi there. I saw your suggestions at the Reference Desk thread. Do you know of anyone (maybe you?) who would be able to draw up a more complete list of the most famous "battle" and "war" paintings that we should have articles on? commons:Category:Battle paintings might help. The list so far is:
Did you know? was updated. On 12 September, 2007, a fact from the article pseudo-Nero , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think the general idea is good (temperature information is encyclopedic and useful), but I, too, don't care much about this particular implementation. Peacock colors aside, the template is so wide (regardless of whether it is hidden by default) that it would more often than not clash with infoboxes and images. In Irkutsk in particular, there is no way to fix this situation unless the "Geography and climate" section is expanded (more than twice) or moved down (which isn't desirable either), or if the infobox is removed. I don't really know if there is a good solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Normally, people get warnings when violating 3RR, but since move-wars are probably the most annoying wars to clean up, you aren't getting that courtesy.
In the future, also, please do not completely retask an active page without clear consensus. You are being blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is absolutely outrageous. I am told the block was prompted on IRC to prevent me from commenting on WP:ANI. "Reverts ##1-2" and "Reverts ##2-3" have nothing in common and are different by nature. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I prepared the evidence before I noticed you had commented on ANI, and I had no clue you were planning to comment there. I prepared the evidence for the block on IRC once it was realized that you had reverted twice by your moves alone. That reverts are different by nature does not exempt them from the Three Revert Rule. This is a statement of the block, not a decline of the block. --Golbez21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not an "IRC block". I merely collected the evidence there. This was a personal decision by myself after looking at the recent history. A cabal cannot consist of one. --Golbez21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are expected to drop a line to the editor instead of "preparing the evidence for the block on IRC" (that is, if you don't want the block to be punitive). I am well aware that IRC is full of folks who want me away from Misplaced Pages, and your action just confirms what IRC is abused for. I have to expect some kind of blow in the back all the time. --Ghirla21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on you or the folks who want you away from Misplaced Pages. I saw a 3RR violation and acted appropriately. As for dropping a line, having been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, you know the rule well enough. --Golbez21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Blocked for 3RR multiple times before"? This is simply false. I have *never ever* been blocked for 3RR, apart from a fraudulent report submitted by a self-professed sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte. After a block engineered by Bonny, I don't give a hoot about another IRC-prompted block from Digwuren and the crowd. From my experience I know that such blocks are never helpful, being used to escalate the problem rather than defusing it. --Ghirla22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In this regard I will admit fault; I saw the two blocks on December 30, 2005 and did not notice they were for the same incident. --Golbez22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) What? I'm as big a critic of IRC as you can find, but I see no problem here. Looks like Ghirlandajo was edit warring. He got blocked for it. This is routine. Friday(talk)21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a routine case when anything goes to have one's opponent blocked from editing, even frivolous deletion of pages (see my ANI post). I find it improbable that Golbez suddenly decided to "sort out" the mess that is under ArbCom scrutiny now. If he thinks himself a better judge, fine for him. For my own part, I find it difficult to believe that his action was not prompted by a bunch of interested editors who lurk on IRC and threaten me with block buttons all the time. I feel sorry for block-happy admins who prefer to go easy on the buttons instead of talking with a wikipedian they feel was revert warring, especially when the case is pretty borderline. --Ghirla21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of an Arbcom case, and the exitence of an Arbcom case does not exempt you from 3RR. Not borderline in the least, especially considering you started a move war. --Golbez22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely borderline! diff 3 is not a revert in any way. Golbez, your involvement in this issue is deplorable. --Irpen22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The conflict was originally noted on IRC. I looked ar the article, and pasted revert diffs there as I found them. The same result would have come about had I seen the conflict on ANI. (which is where Ghirla himself posted it moments later) IRC had nothing to do with my decision. --Golbez21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can vouch for Golbez here. After I came online, he asked if a 12-hour block would be acceptable for a user who had no warning, but had engaged in a move war. I asked if the user had a history of 3RR blocks. He said yes, and I said 24 hours was appropriate. After Golbez did the block, I found out Golbez was referring to Ghirlandajo. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I could not, as #wikipedia does not allow for public logging. The discussion was mostly unilateral amongst myself. I noted the sequence of the move war, someone commented that Ghirla had made two reverts in the course of the move war, which spurred me to search for more reverts to see if he had violated 3RR, which he had. The other people involved with this decision are not relevant, particularly as I don't remember them off the top of my head. --Golbez21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you at least say, who was initiator of this discussion on IRC. Or this info also not for public? M.K.22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I understand what happened. I can figure who known to be on IRC was there and went block-shopping. Sneaky and dirty! --Irpen21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You continue to misrepresent me. No one went block shopping. My discussion with you on this matter is over. (By the way, it HAD been noted on ANI, before Ghirla deleted it, he says in an edit conflict) --Golbez21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, you should know better than act on snitches' prompting. "Someone" "noted" something over IRC while there are 3RR and ANI boards because that someone knew that "noting" something behind user's back when the user can't see and respond may be more effective. --Irpen21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if there was a "snitch" prompting.....it was a clear violation of the rules. Just because you don't like the way that Golbez found out about it, doesn't mean that the block isn't valid. It is. Break policy, pay the price. ⇒SWATJester22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's allowed to report things in different areas. When someone reports a vandal on ANI instead of AIV, or a 3RR violation on VPA instead of AN3, we don't say, sorry, we won't act on it because it was reported in a different place. AN3 is simply a helpful clearing house. And, need I remind you (I don't think I do), that when this issue was first brought to my attention, it was not a 3RR issue. That came about later as *I* realized you had engaged in a revert war as well as a move war. It wasn't like someone came up to me on IRC and said, "this guy broke 3RR". --Golbez22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, Swatjester. It does matter that there was a snitch prompting. And, second, there is no clear violation either. Diff 3 is not a revert in any way. --Irpen22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages was made transparent for a good reason. You have been told never to issue blocks based on IRC discussions and advice. My opinion about the judgment of trigger-happy IRC guys has always been low, and this is just another proof of their facile attitude. --Ghirla22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "trigger-happy IRC guys." Just because it was brought to someone's attention via IRC does not mean that WP:AN3 should be shut down or that you did absolutely nothing wrong. You moved what was originally Soviet occupation three times today and you editted the redirect made in the initial move so the page could not be moved back except by an administrator, and one you apparently don't like very much. Don't you see something wrong with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is no 3RR. Even in your interpretation, there are 3 reverts, not 4. You can say that 3RR is not an entitlement. Is that what you are saying as the block's justification? --Irpen22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe Ryulong (as usual) argues that "cool-down" blocks should be made without prior conversation or warning, preferrably on IRC advice, with a taunting block summary like "you aren't getting that courtesy, etc." Have you expected anything different? --Ghirla22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not only that. It also gives a chance to analyze and discuss the allegation by bringing it to more eyeballs. It also allows the accused to see the accusations and respond. And, yes, it also matters that the snitch has no guts to state the allegation in public. -_Irpen22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't be labeled as a "snitch" for making valid 3RR reports. They should be applauded for bringing it to the attention of administrators. We're here to enforce policy, buddy. There was no other shenanigans being pulled around here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(Changing the subject a bit) Personally I don't really think a 24 hour block is that appropriate. Just a several hour block to prevent further move changes would have been enough to get the point across that we shouldn't be move warring.. but yeah, Ghirla, after your first move was reverted you probably should have stopped there and taken it to discussion Cowman10922:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You can see what you get when you try to engage in discussion under such circumstances. None of my reverters cared to comment anywhere but IRC. I have long been disappointed by what happens in English Misplaced Pages and been spending most of my wikitime in Russian Misplaced Pages. So it's not a big deal for me. --Ghirla22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
I came into this blind. I saw four reverts and acted appropriately. Considering 1) You're obviously a good editor, considering the awards and laudations higher on this talk page, 2) I misread your previous block list (though that doesn't excuse you), 3) There was no warning, 4) The article itself is move-protected, and 5) the block occurred after the protection, I'm cutting the block to 90 minutes.
As a final statement, to be clear, no one came on IRC hunting for a 3RR block. The conflict was mentioned and *I* noted the multiple reverts. --Golbez23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
However, keep in mind that this is not an invitation to resume your disruptive editing tactics, which you have not yet expressed apology or remorse for; I would greatly appreciate a statement from you to that effect. And keep in mind that the four reverts from earlier today still count for the next 20 hours or so. --Golbez23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to resume editing that page, especially as I never edited it before what you call my first "revert". You can't even say that I'm interested in the subject. --Ghirla23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the first revert was the second move you made. Second of all, are you commonly in the habit of completely changing entire articles that you have never edited before? --Golbez01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what about my "conduct" has made you lose confidence in my admin abilities, especially since I'm not involved at all in this except as an outside observer. I believe you violated 3RR, and I believe that it is very clear. It has no reflection on you, or anything beyond that. I believe Irpen has a personal issue against anyone who uses IRC that is an admin, and that he's taking it too far right now. So I'm not really sure what it is that I've said that's made you "lose confidence" in me. If there's something you think that might convince me that I'm wrong, I'm all ears. ⇒SWATJester00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Swatjester, please do not put things into my mouth. I have no "personal issue against anyone who uses IRC that is an admin". I have a policy issue with deciding certain things at IRC, such as blocks, behind the curtain, except narrow cases where IRC's speed and discreteness are warranted. Speed may be warranted in case of a WoW mass mage moving vandalism. If I used IRC (I don't) I would be first to report such violations there. Secrecy may be warranted when issues involve sensitive matters, privacy, etc. None of those were involved. There was no need to discuss Ghirla's action at IRC behind his back in this case. There is an ANI for routine issues like that. --Irpen01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me present my opinion to you and, if you agree with me, let's see how this affects your concerns.
IMO, there never was an Allied occupation of (all of) Europe. Most countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated with perhaps a short occupation (measured in terms of a few years) of some "liberated" countries and some Axis powers (Germany, Austria, Italy). I don't have exact dates at my finger tips but I think the last country to be occupied was Germany which regained full sovereignty in 1956.
The U.S. occupied Japan for a few years. The four Allied powers occupied Germany until 1956. (My knowledge here is sketchy so forgive any errors in dates.)
Thus, I think it is wrong to have an article titled Soviet occupation of Europe. The Soviets did not occupy all of Europe and, legally at least, they did not occupy Eastern Europe as long as the Soviet occupation of Europe seems to imply. I have not read the entire article but I did get far enough to notice that there is an article entitled Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia which asserts that the Soviets "occupied" Czechoslovakia until 1989.
Now, let's be honest about things. The Soviet Union exerted very tight control over the Warsaw Pact countries even to the point of military incursions into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Nonetheless, the official and legal relationship between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not one of occupation but of allies with the Soviet Union being the dominant ally.
Now, I would not argue that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were morally equivalent during the Cold War. However, we can see that the U.S. did not "occupy" Haiti, the Dominican Republic, South Korea or South Vietnam in the sense that it is alleged that the Soviet Union "occupied" Eastern Europe despite the fact that the U.S. intervened militarily in those countries and exerted strong influence on their governments.
It is true that it is a favorite phrase of American conservatives to style the Soviet relationship to the Warsaw pact countries as "occupation of Eastern Europe". I myself think of it this way. However, this is highly POV and is not encyclopedic. It's OK to mention that American conservatives think this way but it is wrong to assert it as if it is the only perspective on the truth.
Since I am new to this discussion, I have no idea of which articles need to be changed and where to start building consensus for the change. If you agree with what I have written above, tell me what articles need to be changed and where the discussion should be continued.
If you disagree with what I have written, please tell me what you disagree with and let's see if we can find common ground to move forward.
I don't really take much interest in the 20th-century politics, but I feel that you can't cover the taking of Berlin in 1945 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in the same article. I believe that there was a post-war occupation of Europe by the Allies, which included Britain, USA, and USSR. We definitely need a page about the Allied occupation (we already have the category), and I don't understand why it should be deleted or replaced with a generic page about "Soviet occupation" of Hungary, Bukovina, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and whatnot. Irpen makes an excellent point here. --Ghirla00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have read both of the above two postings by Irpen and I am in agreement. The melding together of unrelated events is WP:SYNTH. I have no love for the Soviets but we must present events in an encyclopedic and NPOV way rather than in a polemical anti-Soviet way. Even the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany must be separated from the Warsaw-Pact era. As Irpen correctly states, there is a difference between occupation and "satellite state".
I have not really read any of the Misplaced Pages articles on this topic and so I was unaware that there was a problem until now. I will start reading over the next few days to develop my own assessment of the size and nature of the problem. If you two care to provide links to relevant articles that need to be revised, please do so.
Richard, you mentioned Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and claimed "the official and legal relationship between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not one of occupation but of allies with the Soviet Union being the dominant ally". Whose intepretation of this relationship are you referring to here? Officially and legally the Czech Republic views the period up to 1989 as Soviet occupation , as do most Western sources. We can wave our arms as much as we like, but at the end of the day, Misplaced Pages must reflect the sources, not reinterpret them to fit our personal world view. Martintg02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... that's why I love Misplaced Pages. I'm always learning new things. OK, I accept that the current government of the Czech Republic considers the entire era from 1945 to 1989 as Soviet occupation. That doesn't make it so. There are at least two POVs here. That of the Czech Republic and that of the Soviet Union. Both POVs should be presented with some indication of which is the mainstream view. What do Russian historians say? What do Western historians say? I would like some support for the comment that "most Western sources" also consider the occupation as lasting to 1989. (I'm not really disputing this but since there some dispute about it, it would be best to provide the support.)
Actually, while this particular source is not entirely clear on when the occupation started, one of the more obvious interpretations suggests 1968 -- the year of Prague Spring suppression, marked as beginning of "military occupation" --, not 1945. Digwuren03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Richard, the article Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia does present the viewpoints of both the Czech and Russian governments. You raise important questions regarding what the historians say, one side is working to provide sources that reflect the Western view. Unfortunately Irpen and Ghirlandajo are not providing any input on what Russian historians say, they are simply engaging in disruptive behaviour instead, so perhaps the Russian sources don't exist. Until they do provide those sources, Western sources must constitute the mainstream view. Martintg03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced about the "most" part of "most Western sources". I'd like to see references. And, yes, I guess at some point I need to do my own research and reading. I do wish to point out that the sources provided in the article are not very robust with the exception, of course, of the official website of the Czech government.
I also think that the title of the article is POV even if the article itself does present both viewpoints. I'm not convinced that the article is NPOV in the sense of taking a truly neutral POV stance. Just presenting both viewpoints is not enough. One also needs to ask whether the "occupation of Czechoslovakia" was substantively different from the relationships of the Soviet Union with other Warsaw Pact nations. Where else in the Warsaw Pact were Soviet troops stationed? Were the other Warsaw Pact nations similarly intimidated by the threat of Soviet military intervention? Seems to me that Poland lived under the shadow of threatened Soviet intervention during the Lech Walesa/Solidarity years.
Is the coalition presence in Iraq an "occupation"? Technically, it isn't. Iraq has a sovereign government which even has the temerity to tell Bush that they can find friends "elsewhere". Yet, some people would call it an "occupation". "Occupation" is inherently a POV term unless the occupier itself considers itself to be occupying the territory in question.
Finally, I wonder what people would think of the title Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. To me, "hegemony" is a more neutral word that still captures the state of affairs. Moreover, the term "hegemony" was widely used in academic sources so this is not OR.
Richard, your view that an article is NPOV in the sense of "taking a truly neutral POV stance" seems to go beyond WP:NPOV, which is simply to present all POVs according to weight. Martintg05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And on what basis would you weight the Western POV over the Soviet POV? Wouldn't it be more NPOV to state "The predominant Western perspective was to consider the Soviet presence an occupation while the Soviets argued that it was simply one aspect of an arrangement of economic, military and cultural cooperation." (my words although I don't think I'm far off the mark). Also, when we say "predominant Western perspective", what are we talking about? If you go back to the 60s and 70s, there was probably a greater diversity of opinion between the left and the right in the West. This was especially true during the days of "peaceful coexistence", "containment" and "détente".
Even in the 80s, the Reagan/Thatcher foreign policy of actively opposing the Soviet hegemony was new, contentious and considered potentially destabilizing. It is revisionist (IMHO) to suggest that the West uniformly considered the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe to be an "occupation". Reagan was castigated by liberals for daring to declare that the United States did not accept the Soviet presence in Europe as a "fait accompli". I can't find the quote at the moment but I remember the flap when Reagan first made the point in a speech. --Richard05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Asking ourselves rhetorical questions whether there were substative differences between Czech and other cases, or comparing it with the coalition presence in Iraq is engaging in WP:OR, unless you can point to sources that ask these questions or make these comparisons in those terms. Martintg05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is OR without sources but you miss my point. Do other former Warsaw Pact nations consider their relationship with the Soviet Union to have been one of occupation? Or is it just some Western sources who use that term? I am not convinced that "occupation" is the most widely accepted term to describe this period. But, maybe I'm old-fashioned and the academic ethos has changed over the last couple of decades.
It would be interesting to know how the usage has changed over the years. I would assert that in the 60s and 70s, the term "Soviet hegemony" was more widely used as being more politically correct (from a left-leaning liberal POV) and that this started to change in the 80s. This probably changed even more post 1989 and I would expect that Eastern Europe uses "Soviet occupation" more uniformly than the West. All of this is wild speculation but I'm just sharing my personal hunch. If you can prove me wrong, I'm happy to admit it and learn something new in the process. A quick scan of the first couple pages of ghits for each term suggests that my theory about a pre-1990 / post-1990 change in usage may be valid. If this is true, Google Scholar may be biased towards post-1990 usage since fewer documents were available in electronic form prior to 1990. --Richard05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"Soviet Occupation" is more widely used in academic sources than "Soviet hegemony", with "Soviet Occupation" getting 5240 hits, while "Soviet hegemony" only gets 930 hits . It is not for us to judge if a term is inheritly POV, if that term is widely used in scholarly sources. Martintg05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Touché. Point taken. However, your Google searching skews the numbers a bit. A better comparison would be to Google Scholar "Soviet occupation" "Eastern Europe" (2110 hits) and "Soviet hegemony" "Eastern Europe" (930 hits). Thus, the distribution is not as skewed as your searches suggested although the basic point is on the money. I think the main difference is that searching for "Soviet occupation" alone turns up a lot of hits that are not related to Eastern Europe (specifically Afghanistan which shows up in a lot of the hits on the first page).
Please tone down the broad sweeping accusations, uncivil comments and generally be more polite & civil in discussions. You are well-aware of what is and is not acceptable language and behaviour. Vassyana07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
