Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 4 September 2009

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

In response to your comment on my talk page, I edited the Estonia section of the neo-Nazism article. I deleted some unreferenced claims and improved the wording.Spylab (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lia Looveer

Hi, you might want to take a look there, both because you're an Australian and the person concerned came from Estonia :). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Estonian history

I have a question about the wording of Template:History of Estonia Timeline. Why is the Soviet period called "Soviet occupation", but all other periods are simply "Danish rule", "Russian rule", etc. Wasn't the reason for Danish rule that the Danes conquered Estonia? Also, why is Russian rule 1721-1918 not "occupation"? Offliner (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

International law is the likely cause, dear colleague. Unfortunately, there were also times when slavery was a perfectly normal business, whereas now it is probably referred to as a crime against humanity. You can't say (in strict sense) that Genghis Khan occupied Russia; on the other hand, claiming Hitler did not occupy Russia would be gravely erroneous. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does international law explain that the Danish rule was not an occupation? Offliner (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful citing international law, as one can then ask to quote the actual case law involved, rather than mere opinions on what may or may not be. Some regard it as an occupation, some do not. Requests for such information in the past have gone unanswered. Anyway, I have taken the opportunity to rename it to Estonia in the USSR, as it is totally WP:NPOV. --Russavia 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

International law is not about "case law", it is as Misplaced Pages's own article states: "International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together nation-states in adherence to recognized values and standards" The use of military means to resolve territorial issues was renounced internationally in 1928 with the Kellogg–Briand Pact, which the Soviet Union was a signatory (and Russia being the legal successor). The pact prohibits nations from annexing territory by force. The Stimson Doctrine further reinforced the Pact by establishing the precedent under international law, of the doctrine of Ex injuria jus non oritur, ""illegal acts cannot create law"", i.e. lawful annexation cannot follow illegal occupation. Before the Kellogg–Briand Pact, it was perfectly legal for nation states to annex territory by force, now it is a crime against peace. --Martintg (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, we have European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States (you haven't edited that page, yet. You might want to take a look). Many more interesting sources can be found in this article. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The EU courts are not actual international cases, per se. They are only offering their opinion on international law. One need only look at the countries who recognise Kosovo as independent, claim that Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence is illegal, yet there is not yet any international case law on this. This is exactly the same case. I am aware of the Occupation of the Baltic States article, take a look at the talk page and one can see that editors totally ignore questions which are asked of them, when they claim that a majority of countries did not recognise the de jure incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, yet they are absolutely unable to provide opinions from the huge number of states which gained independence in the 1950s-1970s. Anyway, it will be impossible for one to say that what I changed it to is not NPOV in every sense of the word? --Russavia 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely not NPOV as Estonia was never legally "in" or part of the USSR. Please don't push your POV under the guise of NPOV. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, however, prior to the 20th century war was a legal means of settling disputes. In the 20th, not, so one cannot speak of earlier legal occupation. This has been gone over ad nauseum before. Russavia et al., do not rename events to make a WP:POINT to suit your personal POV. Soviets occupied, Nazis occupied, Soviets re-occupied. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Story

In case you didn't notice my message regarding this (because of the multiple edit conflicts at my talk page), please be aware that the 3RR warning I gave User:PasswordUsername also applies to you. You too have been blocked before for edit warring, and have almost come under ArbCom sanctions, so you also need to be sticking to the talk page to get things dealt with. Neither of you has made an attempt, as far as I can tell, to bring any outside editors into this article's dispute, so if edit warring starts up again then one or both of you may be blocked. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)