Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of military occupations of Latvia: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:09, 12 January 2007 editAdvocatus diaboli (talk | contribs)162 editsm Tag removed by Constanz again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:39, 8 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,208,319 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(477 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
== Recognition ==
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b|style=long}}


{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|
{{WikiProject Former countries}}
{{WikiProject Latvia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=low}}
}}
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no}}


==Request for Comment: Noncompliant==
"Latvia, its neighbours, most Western European countries as well as the USA never recognized the regime put in place after 1945"
This is evidently not true. Major powers recognized existing USSR borders after WW2. The source is: ].
] 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of ] ,], ] and ]?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:''De facto'' -- but not ''de jure''. For more on the United States policy, see ]. For more detail, see section VI in , for example.
:(''This entry continues below.'')
::Read this one attentively, please: . Since i don't have internet access to all of documents of Yalta Conference, I can't provide you with the text. As for Council of Europe and Europarlament. Their resolutions do not matter as CE and Europarlament are international organizations (or their parts), but not governments. They were not given right to speak for any european government. I think at least Helsinki Final Act(signed by presidents, prime ministers or at least ministers of foreign affairs) expects modifying the statement in the article. ] 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::: The fact is that not a few embassies continued to function, and relations were restored rather than established anew. The restoration of relations with European countries is explicit. Membership in bodies like the Olympics was renewed. Helsinki did not affect the actual legal status, and the sentence as it is written is true. If you want to try to modify it, go ahead -- but the fact is that most countries did not recognize the incorporation/annexation. I do not understand what Irpen is trying to say, and I won't bother with this. Occupation is a fact, any decent history will show that, other encyclopedias present it as such, and that is good enough for me. --] 11:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: I think that the terms "occupation" and "annexation" are controversial regarding the status of Baltic States in the Soviet Union (independent of any viewpoints on the events of 1939-1940). The territories of modern Baltic States belonged to Russian Empire for hundreds of years (and the only Baltic country, which statehood has formed before 1917, was Lithuania that can be associated with Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The independence of Baltic States for a total of about 20 years (1920-1940) was related to the Brest Treaty and the so-called Peace Treaties with the so-called Baltic States (actually, former regions of Russian Empire). In fact, all these Treaties should be considered as Treaties between Soviet Government and German Empire (or Entente) on the other side, because Baltic regions were occupied by Germany (and Entente) during those events. According to the logic of modern nationalists those Treaties should be considered void ab initio, because 1) they were established during WW1 under military force of Germany and Entente intervention 2) they were concluded by the Soviet Government which was not the legal government of Russian Republic (according to results of the elections of the Constituent Assembly of Russian Republic Bolshevik Party took only about 22% of seats, at the same time Socialist-Revolutioners Party took about 40% of seats; also Bolshevik Soviets could not be considered as effective government during Civil War; also Bolsheviks were not formally recognized by the most of the states of the world until 1930s). As for diplomatic relations with Latvia you're not quite right just the same. USSR was not a unitary state, it was a federal state. According to the Constition of USSR its members could establish international relations and act as subjects of international law. We know, for instance, that Byelorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR were United Nations members and concluded a lot of international treaties. Law has not restricted USSR Republics to establish diplomatic relations with other states. Evidently, every Republic could have its embassies. Latvia (later renamed to Latvian SSR) was not an exception to the rule. It is legally incorrect to oppose Soviet Republics to USSR as it is incorrect to oppose EU states to EU. The Helsinki Final Act was not the only legal document which recognized borders in Europe. Another example is the Treaty between USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany (Art. 3) signed on August 12, 1970 in Moscow (here you can see the text in Russian: http://www.portalus.ru/modules/history/rus_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1142027784&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&category=2). ] 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


===Statements by those previously involved===
:::::] wrote: "''...the so-called Peace Treaties with the so-called Baltic States (actually, former regions of Russian Empire). In fact, all these Treaties should be considered as Treaties between Soviet Government and German Empire (or Entente) on the other side, because Baltic regions were occupied by Germany (and Entente) during those events...''" No, that is factually incorrect; Latvia was no longer occupied by German troops when the ] was signed; ] (the German-Russian "]") was defeated in 1919, and Latvian and Polish troops, as well as those units of the ''Landeswehr'' loyal to the Republic of Latvia, had driven the Bolsheviks from ]. The Treaty was concluded after free elections to the Constituent Assembly had been held, when the Republic of Latvia was fully in control of its territory. From : "Russia recognizes without objection the independence and sovereignty of the Latvian State and forever renounces all sovereign rights held by Russia in relation to the Latvian nation and land The Latvian nation and land shall have no obligations arising from their previous possession by Russia." The contention that the so-called "republics" of the Soviet Union could conduct their own foreign affairs is too ridiculous to comment upon -- the embassies and legations to which I refer represented the legal government of the Republic of Latvia, not the Latvian SSR (with regard to Belarus and Ukraine and their puppet UN seats -- Stalin is said to have suggested that Texas and California be given seats as well... note, too, that the ''Soviet'' seat passed to the Russian Federation). It is rather disingenuous to claim that the Soviet government was not the legal government of Russia, and then go on to claim that the forcible incorporation of Latvia was somehow legal; Latvia was a member of the League of Nations, and the Soviet government was recognized by nearly all countries prior to the occupation. The USSR reiterated its recognition of Latvian sovereignty repeatedly, even unto 1939/40. Today's Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR. --] 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


====Comments by ]====
:::::: Thanks for correcting me about the Peace Treaties. I admit I could be wrong in some details. Anyway, the so-called independence of Latvia was _declared_ during German Occupation and was established during Civil War in Russia and foreign military intervention into Russia. The overall understanding of the situation in Russia and the other world during that period shows that those events happened by force rather by some legal procedure and good will. The text of the Treaty has only a small meaning because it was illegal and forced. The so-called secret ammendment to the Treaty of non-agression (also known as Pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop) between USSR and Germany only underlines the fact that occupied and annexed territories of Russian Bessarabia, Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine and Baltic territories are considered by Germany (due to the acts of which they were in fact occupied and annexed in 1914-1922) as territories of corresponding Soviet Republics (as the successors of former Russian Empire), nothing more. Regardless your understanding of the political processes in USSR, in terms of law regions of some federal states can establish international relations. For example, Art. 32 (3) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany allows the regions (lands) to conclude international treaties (like Concordate between Bavaria and the Holy See of 1965), so to act as subjects of international law. A lot of other examples do exist. As for your claims that the embassies belonged to so-called Republic of Latvia, I must say that during 1940-1990 there existed no state with such name. Three essential attributes of state are territory, population and government. On the territory of Latvian SSR the only effective government was the government of Latvian SSR. The population voluntarily acquired soviet citizenship through getting soviet passports and participating in political life (I mean elections). You wrote:"''It is rather disingenuous to claim that the Soviet government was not the legal government of Russia, and then go on to claim that the forcible incorporation of Latvia was somehow legal''". It is quite unclear what you mean by "forcible incorporation" because Baltic territories never ceased to belong to Russia. The acts of the local authorities in 1939-1940 only brought local legislation in accordance with the legislation of USSR.
:::::: The statement:"''Today's Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR''" is a little bit confusing. Russian Federation is one of 12 legal successors (CIS Treaty members) of Soviet Union (Baltic republics terminated their membership a little before and are not recognized as USSR successors). RF has declared its sovereignity (from USSR) on June 12, 1990. Legal succession in international law is understood as transition of international rights and obligations from one subject of international law to another subject(s) (12 CIS members in our case). Only several things are related to what is called "RF continuity" (the only significant is UN Security Council membership). Apart from that modern RF should not be associated with USSR because it is highly incompatible with the political structure of USSR, its goals, etc. If someone is looking someone to accuse for local events of 1917-1990 then it is more correct to concentrate on Georgia (for Stalin), Israel (for 99% of Bolshevik Party leaders), Latvia (for more than 40000 of professional Latvian strikers that provided significant help to Bolsheviks during Civil War). Sorry for my broken English. ] 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.
:::::::There are a number of points in your assessment which, while appearing plausible, do not stand up to closer scrutiny.


The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.
:::::::I. '''Your postulation that Latvia's declaration of independence and subsequent peace treaty with the Soviet Union was "forced" upon the Soviet Union and therefore meaningless (in terms of recognition of a break by Latvia and the rest of the Baltics from Soviet Russian territory).''' This is, alas, the Greek chorus bemoaning the death knell of Russian empire and Russian greatness with the victory of Germany on the Eastern Front and what has widely been characterized by Russophiles as the "humiliation" of Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It's far too much for a discussion here, but, in truth, Brest-Litovsk preserved Bolshevism and allowed Lenin not only the latitude and time he needed to consolidate the Revolution against internal adversaries, but the opportunity to launch Communist agitation in Germany which hastened its downfall.


The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.
:::::::II. '''Your wishful postulation that the Latvian Soviet Republic as member of a federation could negotiate its own foreign policy is unrealistic at best.''' Article 18a (enacted February 1944) of the Soviet Constitution does state, "Each Union Republic has the right to enter into direct relations with foreign states and to conclude agreements and exchange diplomatic and consular representatives with them." This was the basis for the Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus) joining the United Nations. This had everything to do with central Soviet policy aims and very little to do with republic's rights. When the Latvian S.S.R. dared to begin to exercise its constitutional rights in the 50's the government was summarily purged.


The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.
:::::::III. '''Your declaration that the Latvian state did not exist from 1940-1990 is patently false.''' The Baltic Republics each took steps to insure their continuation in exile. Power of State was transferred by the Latvian government to Zarins, head of the Latvian Legation in England. The affairs of the sovereign state of Latvia continued to be conducted in exile until such time that continuity was restored with Power of State returned to a sovereign Latvian government on Latvian territory.


It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled.
:::::::IV. '''Your characterization of "the only government in Latvia was the Soviet one" and that people voluntarily signed up for Soviet citizenship''' makes it sound like people queuing up for a happy day in Disneyland. Please! People also signed up to be party members in order to keep their jobs and not be shipped to the gulags to die there.


Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. ] 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::V. '''Your contention that by its very existence, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact grants de jure continuity to Russian Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics is a leap of galactic proportions.''' Most notably, the "local authorities" you speak of were fraudulently installed and petitioned for membership to the Soviet Union in a manner illegal according to the Latvian Constitution. Only Soviet era encyclopedias speak of the "restoration" of Soviet power in the Baltics (ostensibly in continuity with the 1905 Revolution and its aftermath). Frankly, you also imply that Latvia's "membership" in the Russian empire was somehow a benign or natural state of affairs when, in fact, Peter the Great annihilated nearly every Latvian. Contemporary accounts indicate that one could travel mile upon mile without meeting a single person--there are estimates that as few as 17,000 Latvians were left alive after Peter the Great got through with joining Latvia to the glorious Russian empire.


PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent. ] 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::VI. '''Your admonition that one should not associate the Russian Federation with the USSR because of fundamental incompatibilities is directed at whom, exactly?''' Perhaps the Russian Duma--which years after Latvia's (re-)independence saw fit to pass a resolution in November 1999 to "remind" Latvia it had been a voluntary and legal member of the Soviet State? The Russian Federation has gone out of its way to associate itself with the Soviet past and to rehabilitate and glorify that past. Even the bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the dreaded and murderous Cheka, now stands restored (in 2005) in Moscow's police headquarters. You are obviously confused about who is associating Russia with the Soviet Union.


====Comments by ]====
:::::::VII. '''Last but not least, heap the blame on the Georgians (Stalin), the Israelis (Jews in the Bolshevik leadership), and the Latvians (who guarded the Kremlin and saved Lenin, a bit of an overstatement but there is basis in fact--they were promised Latvian sovereignty, actually, and for their troubles Stalin later ordered all Latvians in the Soviet Union to be shot).''' Excuse me, but has anyone here said anything bad about the Russian people? Pride in Russian heritage is possible without parroting Soviet and now Russian Federation propaganda. What's the real problem here? That Russians feel worthless without Soviet glory to bask in? "Ahhh... we were once an EMPIRE!" Lithuania once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. I don't see any Lithuanian angst over loss of empire. Get a grip! Have some pride! Stop regurgitating Soviet pablum! ] 03:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely '''<u>zero</u>''' evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history.
:With regard to Europe, see Renaud Dehousse, Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, : "Although '''the Member States of the Community, along with the majority of Western states, have always refused to recognize the annexation of the Baltic states...'''"
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, ''only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed''.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... ''I believe I've covered them all''.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
* As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a head eventually gave up and abandoned Misplaced Pages.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


====Comments by ]====
:From the : "The Assembly, On the twentieth anniversary of the military occupation of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union, Recognises that this illegal annexation was accomplished without the free voluntary expression of the Baltic peoples, Acknowledges that '''the great majority of governments of nations of the world still recognises the de jure independent existence of the Baltic states...'''"
For now I'm just going to continue counting on ] as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is ''widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias''. The encyclopedia that has an article:'''Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation''' , the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes ''A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika'' + ''Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.''. Thanks!--] 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Protected ==
:From : "The Community and its Member States warmly welcome the restoration of the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic States which they lost in 1940. '''They have consistently regarded the democratically elected parliaments and governments of these states as the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples.'''"


I have ''tried'' to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict ''who'' will be banned. ] 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:Many other relevant documents may be found . --] 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


::Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like? ] 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Best yet, would be to produce a cold war time document, with the official statement of the western government claiming that it does consider Latvia as being part of the USSR. Or, if such documents were never issued, say that the non-recognition fact, is an opinion of certain historians.


:::This article is under probation. "''Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."'' An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens). I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken. "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call. It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive. It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive. Edit-warring over a dispute tag is ''definitely'' disruptive. ] 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the article in Lituanus with interest. It does say that the US refused to recognize the ''act'' of incorporation. There is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law. However, not considering Latvia as part of USSR in 60s-70s is not the same as to acknowledge the illegality of annexation in 1940.


:::: Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page. ''Not seeking to sway''? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations .<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actions of US courts is interesting but marginally relevant. The gov in US does not order the courts what to do. The annexation itself was clearly illegal and courts recognized it as such, no wonder. We should make it clear when speaking of "non-recognition" that it was an illegal annexation that was non-recognized and not the Soviet border. --] 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


:::::Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? -- ] 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
==5 Occupation Years?==


:::::: Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally ''according to international law'', <u>which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied</u>. I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving ] on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡''Qué lástima''! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (''unsourced'').<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as curious that the first five years of the Occupation of Latvia are segregated from the next 45. While I will not attempt to expand the article to include the post-1945 occupation, the reader should certainly be given a clear indication this article only covers a small, if important and unique, part of the occupation years.
::::::P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


: re: ''m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)))'' All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here.
This article is bluntly POV. Worst of all is the "recent misrepresentations" section, which I'm tempted to delete outright. ] 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
: You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're <u>already</u> frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:I did a rewrite to make it less POV, though it probably still is very POV - problem is, the POV which I tried to remove mostly corresponds with my POV, someone with less of an oppinion on what happened in Latvia in the early days of the second world war would probably do a better job. I do think that the existance of this article in principle is very important though, though it should at the moment either be expanded or renamed. Expanded in the sense that having an article called occupation of Latvia not mentioning the German occupation (and the eventual reannexiation of Latvia in 1944 which happened after the withdrawal of Nazi troops and after the reestablishment of an independent Latvian government) just isn't right. I'd either have someone add a paragraph on the German occupation at least or move it to "Soviet Annexation of Latvia". I do think the words annexation and occupation can be used though, being neutral shouldn't stop us from calling things by their name. Especially since even the Russian wikipedia does this. ] 09:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they <u>never</u> specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


:: Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the ] for more examples of ''casus'' ].<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article must be renamed. There is no single mention of the word "occupation" in the description of historical events within the article. There is no universal agreement on the term. My believe is that "annexation" is the proper term for this, at least, this view has equal right to exist. Such opinionated article doesn't belong here.
::P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well. Just ran across this completely by accident.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
''Iļja'' ] 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --] 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:"Occupation" and "annexation" are very different; the Baltic States were occupied ''prior'' to their annexation (Latvia was occupied on 17 June, but was not annexed until 5 August). I agree that the article needs substantial expansion and revision, but I strongly disagree with the proposal to rename it. If I steal your car and six weeks later I forge the title to your car, an article on the theft of your car should probably be called "the theft of X's car," not "the change of title to X's car" (whether you tried to hit me when I pointed the gun at you is of course immaterial) unless confined to the forgery of the title. I agree with much of what ] writes above, but his comment conveniently illustrates a serious difficulty with the term "annexation" as a replacement for "occupation": Latvia was ''not'' re-annexed in 1944 -- according to the Soviets, Latvia was occupied Soviet territory during the German occupation (this had bearing on how the population was to be treated , on how the Latvians who had served in the Legion were viewed, etc.). The government of the Latvian SSR continued to function, formally, in Russia. Most of the world had never recognized the original ''annexation'', and this is quite different from not recognizing the ''occupation''; the profound difference between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' is central to the subject of the article. For example, in the period between the invasion and the annexation in 1940, many persons (including the presidents of Estonia and Latvia) were subject to repression by the Soviets and deported or shot (a violation of international law because the Baltics were still technically independent). There is another article entitled ]. In my opinion, both articles should be expanded to cover the German occupation 1941-1944 and the re-occupation by the Soviets. --] 09:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


{{tl|POV}}
::Occupation is defined in 1907 IV , Article 42. There was no Soviet military administration (and no war between Latvia and USSR) in Latvia in 1940, so we can't speak about occupation. ] 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


:That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag ... — ] 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::If you read the articles under what an occupying power's army is prohibited from doing according to the afore-mentioned articles, the Soviet army violated all the terms. Both the Soviets and Nazis conscripted Latvians into their armies. The Soviets deported Latvians off Latvian territory while Latvia was sovreign, an act of war. By any legal definition, the Soviet presence in Latvia during their first (one year) and second (~fifty year) was an '''occupation'''. The Hague Convention is also not the only definer of "occupation." From the www.unhcr.org site (begin quote) "Occupation is defined by an even clearer humanitarian law standard. The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”98 A second definition is found in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: “The Convention shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” Of these two definitions, the Hague definition is possessed of much stricter requirements and would be more relevant to conditions of formal war. The Geneva Convention definition is more germane to refugee problems in Africa because it '''focuses on de facto control of territory''', whether occupation is “partial or total occupation”, and “even if a state of war is not recognized.” (end quote)


I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside):
:::What makes an occupation an occupation, according to international courts, (Human Rights Watch site) includes: "the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly". Whether it's administered by the army or by another authority of the occupying power does not matter. It's still an occupation. ] 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
*1940 Soviet occupation
*German occupation,
*Soviet return
*Latvia under Soviets
*Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic.
The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be ] which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like ].


The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others.
:::I request the recognition of the alternative point of view in the article, at least in the terminology. The article is not neutral without it. ] 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Iļja


Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''. Check the ] series. It is divided into such articles. ] is a redirect to ]. "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called ] and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA.
::::Iļja, I fail to see how the article lacks neutrality because it refers to the Soviet presence throughout its term in Latvia as an occupation. For an article about the Earth's moon to be neutral, would it need to hold equally valid the views that the the moon is made of cheese and that astronauts never landed there? Quoting from the REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COMMUNIST AGGRESSION AND THE FORCED INCORPORATION OF THE BALTIC STATES INTO THE U. S. S. R., THIRD INTERIM REPORT, 1954 (U. S. Congress): "'''CONCLUSIONS''' - (I) The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were '''<u>forcibly occupied and illegally annexed</u>''' by the U. S. S. R. Any claims by the U. S. S. R. that the elections conducted by them in July 1940 were free and voluntary or that the resolutions adopted by the resulting parliaments petitioning for recognition as a Soviet Republic were legal are false and without foundation in fact. (II) That the '''<u>continued military and political occupation</u>''' of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by the U. S. S. R. is a major cause of the dangerous world tensions which now beset mankind and therefore constitutes a serious threat to the peace." ] 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


The ''History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles. --] 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Iļja, a question for you... is it about whether or not the Soviet Union was an occupying power or is it about whether or not you as a Russian Latvian (I'm admittedly taking a leap here) are to be considered an "occupier?" What makes "good" and "bad" Latvians these days (as in residents/citizens of the state of Latvia) has little, if anything, to do with one's ethnicity. ] 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' into subarticles, my proposition is: ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' and ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''. ] ]-] 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


: Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons:
:::::It is about Soviet Union, and, therefore, about my status. If an illicit occupation took place, then I, as a part of it, should be "undone" somehow, to restore justice and pre-occupation status quo. If you say that occupation is one thing, but because of impracticality of deporting hundreds of thousands of people you agree that their status is legal now, you are showing inconsequence, and someone will necessarily point it out sooner or later, and will be right. You quote a document by U.S. Congress, why should I give it more weight than any other. Most of the countries didn't have problems with post-war division of Europe, the U.S. was one (if not the only one) of very few. I deny that the United States Congress has more authority in this subject than any other body. ] 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Iļja
:* "Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof.
:* "History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles.
:* Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you suggest?
:* And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent" article is essential.
:* Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using the word "occupation" are more ]: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well, as I see it, an article called ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' is <u>'''all'''</u> about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles. ] ]-] 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-] sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+<u>legal presence</u>" camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate.
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable. <u>'''The title comparison that is suitable'''</u> is ], where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has ] announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality?
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings simply object to it because they wish to persuade Misplaced Pages readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


::::The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part. Missing acceptance of Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented? ] ]-] 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::No - international justice, if there is such a thing at all, certainly isn't about pursuing hundreds of thousands of little personal vendettas - such as "undoing" the presence of former Soviet citizens who resettled to Latvia during occupation and their descendants. Restitution can take various forms and obviously is subject to law and common sense. Where nothing else is practicable, a simple acknowledgement that injustice took place as well as promise of non-repetition by the legal successor of Soviet state - Russian federation - should be the only remedy and just satisfaction Baltic states can hope for. ] 14:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Misplaced Pages, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Furthermore, the term "occupation" is by now widely accepted and used when referring to the events in question (see for example Britannica http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=occupation+baltic+states+britannica). Nevertheless, the accusations of lack of NPOV keep resurfacing from time to time. Perhaps we should take this throug some kind of formal NPOV dispute resulution process, that later can be used for reference? What forms is the basis of your claim of lack of NPOV - the view of what I would call" minority" certainly IS represented in the article by stating that: ''"The Russian Federation has repeatedly and vocally denied the occupation of Latvia, maintaining instead that Latvia joined the Soviet Union voluntarily and legally (statement by the Russian Duma, to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saeima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law," November 19, 1999.)"'' ] 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry--<u>'''version'''</u>--of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality."<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: In ], someone espousing that there was no occupation insisted the question be put to the "Village Pump" -- that those maintaining it '''was''' an occupation "should have nothing to fear" if they are right. And so that was done. I responded in detail in ] and that person has not been heard from since. I made the invitation there: if anyone can actually produce anything supporting the Soviet/now Russian position, let's hear it. —] 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP ] etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--] 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
==Basis for occupation==
''My response to Iļja''— I will be removing your "POV title" flag. "Occupation" is not about your status. For example, I was able to reclaim family propery (land) from before the war, but the dwellings and surrounding area which were at that time "legally" acquired within the context of the Soviet Union were claimed by the inhabitants--with no recourse on my part to change it.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Polemics aside, the government of Latvia obviously realizes that the influx of Russians as the result of the Soviet occupation is not going disappear--let's be realistic. And a majority of ethnic Russians are now citizens. Perhaps you have an ultra-nationalist Latvian neighbor who despises Russians, if so, for that I am truly sorry. As I have said before, there are Latvians and Russians who make wonderful Latvians, and Latvians and Russians who care nothing about the betterment of Latvia and only care to line their own pockets. And there are those Russians who still believe and live in the propagandist glories of the Soviet past--a situation far from unique to Latvia.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Neutral" does not mean because Russia maintains the Soviet Union did not occupy Latvia that the title changes. Since the term "occupation" appears to be an issue again I will be adding a "Basis for Occupation" section. The '''only''' thing that is "POV" here is that you are interpreting "occupation" as a '''personal attack''' on you.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, if you are truly concerned about the Soviet occupation, the way to "undo" the occupation is (for Russia) to admit it happened and to move on. Every time Russia denies the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, it revives and perpetuates that occupation. —] 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:: In other words, Misplaced Pages has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it. ] 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
== Potential expansion ==
''(detached from the section above)''
It would be a lot of work, but I propose expanding the article to encompass the entire occupation period, from 1940 to 1991. Otherwise, subsequent mass deportations, the attempted liberalization of the Latvian S.S.R. (and subsequent purge of its leadership), etc. is not captured. People who managed to survive the first deportations of 1940 did not get to see home for 15 to 20 years. To artificially cut off at the end of World War II doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of historical events. —] 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


:: The article ] is really misplaced in this context - Japan ] with an ]. The difference between the ] and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. ] ]-] 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
== Merge proposal ==


: Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere. Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on ] substantially duplicates this article, and it bears a title that is (1) almost unknown in English and (2) extremely objectionable to many, the term having been popularized by a work of Nazi propaganda with that title. The ] article already duplicates much of the material in ] -- I think there is a definite need for this separate article, but it should focus especially on what was specific to Latvia, and incorporating some of the material from the ''Baigais gads'' article here would be appropriate. The other major change that needs to be made is the inclusion of material on the Nazi occupation in this article, as ] pointed out above, and on the Soviet re-occupation in 1944-45. The difficulty, then, is where to end the article; there could be some overlap between this and ], though, with the last section of this article devoted to issues of international (non-) recognition, etc. At this point, both of the articles I propose merging require considerable work, and neither is at all "encyclopedic." --] 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


::I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"? ] ]-] 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:Agree. Baigais Gads is a definition of POV. Also, consider remaning to include "1940" or "First Soviet" in the title. Or expand to include Nazi occupation and Soviet re-occupation. ] 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
::"Baigais Gads" can certainly re-appear here, covering the first Soviet occupation. That would need to be followed by another section covering the Nazi occupation, then finally, the Soviet re-occupation, probably with some mention of Baltic partisans (haven't checked to see if there's an article on that). Perhaps retitling as "Occupation of Latvia in World War II" or "Occupation of Latvia in the Second World War" would be a proper title and scope. It's in large part because of the experience of the first Soviet occupation that as many Latvians fled as did with the retreating Nazi army, winding up in DP camps all over Germany after the war (or, alternately, fleeing across the Baltic to Sweden)—so it's important with respect to Latvian history and diaspora to connect the two Soviet occupations book-ending the Nazi. The occupations also need to be discussed together in how they worked together to destroy centuries-old positive Latvian-Jewish relations. (Really a pan-Eastern-European phenomenon, but Latvia has always been the lightning rod going back to my personally hearing then Congresswoman Liz Holtzman declare "all Latvians are Nazis.") In writing "Baigais Gads" originally, I also sought to lay to rest what was and wasn't legal, to document Soviet intent through mention of specific artifacts (Latvian and Lithuanian SSR maps) and incidents (Stalin telling Munters he could occupy Latvia "now"), and to provide a more detailed chronology. I would like to see that preserved or expanded, as I found the current "Occupation of Latvia" article lacking in that regard. I should mention that from my perspective, at least, "Baigais Gads" is how the first Soviet occupation has always and only been referred to by every Latvian I've known (in exile, that lived through it)—that Nazi propaganda goes by the same title or that "year of terror" may now seem somehow a subjective judgement is unfortunate but not a reason to label the term POV. —] 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:::* The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law.
:::* To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed."
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is so totally and completely and absolutely <u>'''NOT'''</u> about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is <u>'''ONLY'''</u> about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else. ''Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs?'' On the contrary, all I am asking for is <u>'''intellectual integrity'''</u>. You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources.
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact, ''thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity''. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced.
:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BTW, have you read the article and talk for ]? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes:
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::* &mdash; note ruling of
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


::::You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side. ] ]-] 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Good idea, but I would suggest "Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945" rather than "World War II" because the war did not begin here until the German invasion, and it is important to make that clear even in the title -- it is very common disinformation to try to suggest that the USSR needed to occupy the Baltics for its security, that Latvia was pro-German, etc. The process began before 1940, as already noted, and that can be included -- just as ending the article with the reoccupation and dating it will not imply that the occupation ended with the "integration" of Latvia into the USSR, which should be made clear.


===Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article===
:::Regarding the term "Baigais gads" -- it was referred to that way by many Latvians here and in exile primarily because of the Nazi propaganda that popularized the term, even if we take Virza's 1939 poem "Baigā vasara" as one of its roots. I am not trying to suggest that Nazi ideology was popularized together with the term -- it wasn't -- but the term is intimately and irrevocably connected to that text (if you Google it, the first hits are for the anti-Semitic propaganda, for example). Dribins notes that the Central Council of Latvia referred to the ''Nazi'' occupation by that term, by the way, and suggests that it could better be used in the plural ("''Years'' of Horror") -- . The Latvian term is in any case rare in English -- and when it is used at English language links, it is often by the extreme right in defense of the Nazi work and its point of view.
A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry . Calling your opponents ''"this exact same <u>Wiki-schmutz</u> of editors..." '' in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought. --] 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


:I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb.
:::"Merge" at Wiki means making one article of two, with one title -- I am proposing the incorporation of material from the "Baigais gads" article here and eliminating that article, not merely suggesting that the material re-appear here. ] 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that context.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


:P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in Latvia).<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree on 1940-1945 for the title—Latvia did try and maintain neutrality when the war started and was not immediately affected. I do think "Baigais Gads" should be still mentioned as a term by which the first Soviet occupation is often referred to, with the note that propagandists have used the term for their own purposes. I do apologize for one lack of clarity on my part, which is, by "re-appear" I meant the Baigais Gads article contents being carried over to here and that article becoming a redirect.


I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors ''schumtz''. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --] 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I believe it is important to identify which Soviet actions were legal under international and Latvian constitutional law and which, whether by the Soviet Union and/or the Soviet installed Saeima, were not. The "Soviet presence was legal" and "annexation was legal and voluntary" and "occupation" is a POV term discussion needs to be laid to rest, or at least all the facts laid out: the deportation of Latvian citizens including government officials to the Soviet Union while Latvia was independent was an unprovoked act of aggression, the petition to join the Soviet Union was unequivocally illegal under the Latvian constitution which was still in effect at the time (aside from being requested by officials installed through an election which was both rigged and then completely falsified), etc.


: Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately?
::::My knowledge of the Nazi occupation is more familial than academic. Nevertheless, there are some topics there which I would like to see explored. There is the reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians—obviously not for my father-in-law's family's Jewish best friend who was decapitated. More importantly, there is Stalin's widespread exploitation of Jews, using them to replace Latvians who were shot or deported—as at my mother's post/phone office in Talsi. It is because of Stalin that Jews became synonymous as Stalin's "collaborators." When the Nazis and their atrocities came, Latvians who participated did not do so out of alleged widespread Latvian sympathy to German anti-Semitism, they did it out of pure revenge. (Lunch time conversation my mother overheard in Talsi: "After what they did to my sister, I could kill them all.") My parents were saved by one such Jew, someone who was working for my mother at the post office who told her "don't go home" when the mass deportations came—the real point is that ''both'' Latvians and Jews were Stalin's victims. I find the notion that Latvians greeted the Nazis with enthusiasm and gleefully joined in their atrocities as an expression of centuries-old anti-Semitism (I have seen it described as such more than once) utterly repugnant. There are other issues to deal with as well, such as the Waffen SS—largely illegally conscripted but nevertheless eager for the opportunity to bear arms against the Red Army, knowing it for what it was because of the first Soviet occupation.
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat:
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"where this <nowiki> </nowiki>"
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


::::Not a simple topic to deal with, but an important one. ] 17:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC) : P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I assume you are referring to entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors ''Shmutz'' right above as well as even and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --] 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::The topic is indeed an exceedingly complex one; I can't, however, agree that there is a "reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians"; you mean ethnic Latvians, of course, not Latvian citizens -- but even so, as many as 30 000 ethnic Latvian civilians were killed during the Nazi occupation. The contention about Stalin's "using to replace Latvians who were shot or deported" is also questionable; one should note that more Jews as a percentage of their share of the population were deported in 1941 than persons of any other ethnic group, ethnic Latvians included. As to a possible motivation of revenge -- to quote Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere." Three of the four main people ordering deportations in the security apparatus in 1941 were indeed Jews: Semyon Shustin, who ordered the deportation of 6636 persons and the shooting of at least a few dozen; Zyama Krivitsky, who ordered the deportation of 1915 persons; and Aleksandr Brezgin, 1138 (an ethnic Latvian, Jānis Cinis, deported 2479 persons), and this certainly helped establish the myth that "the Chekists were Jews" (Sources: Zālīte, Dimanta; Stranga). At the same time, there was almost no Jewish presence in the régime itself -- Dribins notes that in the "People's Saeima" of 1940, only 2 of 100 members were Jews; in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, 1 of 35 members was a Jew; in the Soviet of People's Commissars, there were no Jews at all. The Nazis used propaganda like ''Baigais gads'' to exploit anti-Semitism, but they definitely didn't invent it -- whilst Latvia had an excellent record for the treatment of minorities, including the Jews, by comparison to most of Eastern Europe prior to the war, a perusal of the regional press in the early 1930s would disabuse anybody of the notion that anti-Semitism was absent in Latvia; it was quite prevalent and often quite virulent. Among the things I think need to be stressed in any appraisal of the period is (1) that one must avoid the generalization that "Latvians gleefully joined in atrocities," as you say -- because we are talking about actual criminals, not "the Latvians," and the criminals were actually not so very numerous; to quote Andrew Ezergailis: "The criminally guilty, using the criteria of the war crimes trials in the West, would involve about 500 to 600 men, 1,000 at the most. That would include four dozen journalists who wrote, edited, and published Nazi propaganda about the Jews." (2) The level of "collaboration" should be kept clear -- Latvia as a state had been destroyed by the Soviets prior to the Nazi invasion, and Latvia was never in any position to collaborate with the Nazis; as Ezergailis has pointed out, Denmark ''did'' collaborate, and was thus able to save its Jews. Latvian nationalism, and that includes the ultra-nationalism of the extremely anti-Semitic Pērkonkrusts, was fundamentally incompatible with Nazism; the ''pērkonkrustietis'' Gustavs Celmiņš ended up in the Resistance, was captured by the Gestapo, and was sent to Flossenbürg, a concentration camp that held many prominent figures from the Eastern European far right. --] 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


: I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm" comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them.
::::::Regarding... ''Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere."'' I can only speak to my mother's personal experiences in a government office, where the exploitation of Jews replacing Latvians was complete—as assistant postmaster, she was the only Latvian left, working with Red Army soldiers with machine guns at her back while replacement workers eavesdropped and informed on every conversation. She lived simply because the Soviets needed her, as they had installed a grossly incompetent ''apparatchik'' as postmaster to replace the one who "disappeared." Frankly, for Latvia to legitimately and necessarily attone for its participation in the Holocaust, the findings of the history commission could not be otherwise and still be politically acceptable--any other response would indicate there was some "excuse" for the Holocaust in Latvia, and the Holocaust is morally inexcusable regardless of the circumstances. (One American Jewish leader withdrew in protest from that very commission, I believe, as soon as there was a sniff of linkage. I'll try and track down that bit of information again. And I'll be reading the report, obviously.) The Latvians who disappeared in Talsi to be replaced by Jews in those government jobs—which could not have been a unique situation, that is not how the Soviets operated—testify that Viksne's statement is as much a choice as it is a conclusion.
: If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from "occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived.
: Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in question.
: That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Misplaced Pages will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute.
: It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


:: Today's time capsule: And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this is dealt with.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::In the meantime, if we are agreed, I would suggest we go ahead and move this article to "Occupation of Latvia, 1940-1945" or is it more "Wiki" to say "Occupation of Latvia (1940-1945)", and insert stubs for the sections needing to be added. I would be glad to take the extra detail in "Baigais Gads" and incorporate it in a merged section dealing with the first Soviet occupation (and then eliminate that article and redirect here). And we'll see how it develops from there. —] 00:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


:: And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen . <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed re the merger, and there doesn't seem to be any opposition. Regarding the History Commission -- those sentences by Vīksne are very specific and refer only to the motivation of those who participated in the murder of the Jews. I have not known the History Commission to be politically correct or to change its findings because of outside pressure -- a summary of its activities related to the Holocaust can be found . The ''context'' of a Jewish presence in the middle and lower occupation administration is also important; as Aivars Stranga describes it in ''Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1920-1940'' (Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Jūdaikas Studiju Centrs, 2002 , p. 245) (my crude translation), "a national consensus among ethnic Latvians had been reached in one question, and possibly in one question only: that the rôle of the minorities in the economy and especially in the administration needed to be reduced as much as possible -- in the civil service this had already been accomplished completely; in the economy, it would be done; and the behavior of minorities was to be inconspicuous." After the Soviet invasion, "there was a conspicuous 'reaction' -- the Jews 'returned,' and dislike for this is to be found in any and all Latvian memoirs, including those of Menders and Bastjānis, who were on the whole friendly to the Jews." There were, for instance, week-long riots in Liepāja after 17 June 1940, and though they were facilitated by the Red Army and Jews were not a majority of the rioters, Jewish participation was emphasized; the ''visibility'' of Jews by comparison to the Ulmanis dictatorship led to a distortion of their rôle (similarly, the one Jew in the Cheka basement in "the House on the Corner" became a prominent figure because many had contact with him). The Jewish minority was far from monolithic -- it was actually very divided, and it is worth bearing in mind that the structure of the community was completely destroyed by the Soviets; 12,4% of the 14 June 1941 deportees were Jewish, and the deportees included the community's (communities') leaders. It is quite common for the far right to point to Shustin, for example -- but he was utterly ''déraciné'' and a Russian not a Latvian Jew; to link the slaughter of one's neighbors in a Latgalian village to the presence of some Jews in the security apparatus and civil service is more than dubious, and rabid anti-Semitism among thugs (including not a few students, especially in the fraternities) was not at all rare prior to the occupation. --] 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


:: And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated .<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'll take a hand at the merger—my time's a bit limited the next few days, but I'm well motivated. I agree totally on Shustin et al.—far too much propaganda about Jews running the Cheka (a more atheistic group, frankly, could not be found!). I still have to make the observation. My mother, who speaks of her relationships with Jews with only fondness (and carried forward, all my best friends growing up were Jewish), was genuinely puzzled by the later Soviet oppression of Jews... "I don't understand why they would oppress their collaborators." Much has been written—and well—on the role played by propaganda on all sides. Still, my mother puts professional skeptics to shame, accepting nothing at face value. For her to be geniunely puzzled, still, 65 years later, speaks to a dynamic of personal experience influencing the beliefs of the "average person" at a grass roots level ''outside the propaganda machines'' which I am completely convinced has not been captured in current scholarship: a successful anti-Semitic propaganda campaign is not the source of my mother's puzzlement. BTW, I've written the Latvian Historical Institute and hope to correspond with Ms. Vīksne about seeking a scholarly context for my mother's experiences. I understand that her personal research has been focused on the Holocaust in more rural areas (which I'm hoping would include Talsi). —] 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


== Other encyclopedias ==
===Merge completed===
I took a first cut at merging in the Baigais Gads article, I'll be going back and redirecting that article here. The Nazi and second Soviet occupation (for the period through to the end of the war) need to be done. Rather than merciless editing, perhaps we can discuss here first for some consensus. --] 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period:
I've removed the old "Western Views" and "Claims and Historical Reassessment" sections. Non-recognition of annexation will be dealt with at end of second Soviet occupation and, in any event, is also well known. The "Claims and Historical Reassessment" was a rehash of various POV claims and counter-claims. Where appropriate, details of events in these two sections have been already incorporated in the rewrite done so far. --] 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war. However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics).</blockquote>
So this puts an another reliable published source on the table. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Status ==
That grey box does not belong to the article. It belongs to wikisource at best. There is a policy that says you should not include original texts in the articles. ] 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


] has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them.
:I do not have the complete article and it is only partially quoted from and not reproduced in full, which presents a problem insofar as making a copy available on Wikisource. I can of course paraphrase the whole thing but I don't see that adding value. If there's consensus on "Wikisourcing" it nevertheless, I'll do it. ] 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
* ] protected the article.
* More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations.
:* Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together.
* Neither ] nor ] has presented any contradicting ], instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by ''original arguments''.
* ], ] and others have provided further discussion.
:* Neither ] nor ] has answered to the discussion. The only significant ''response'' has been ]'s mock offence over ] using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling.
:* However, both ] and ] have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article, ] (, ). In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made.
* ], well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics.
] 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


: Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says: "I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page. ] 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::At least you could do this: select the most important parts of that order and rephrase them. Or you could leave some reaaaaly significant section (like 2-4 sentences). ] 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a ], therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --] 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The occupation of Latvia ended in 1991. Or at the very earliest, when stable, non-Soviet bloc governments first recognized the Latvian SSR. I don't think that happened until at least a few years after 1945. Some would say the occupation ended in 1994 when the last Russian troops left. ] 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies.
:As I just mentioned above, occupation involves the invading power substituting itself for the indigenous and previously sovreign authority. Under those terms, and the fact that the Baltic legations continued to function in exile, I believe it's fair and objective to say that the Baltics were occupied for the full term of the Soviet presence. ] 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period.
:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be a continuous narrative into pieces.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats cool ]! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--] 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
: And get three more places where to battle with other editors. ] 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::and get more than enough evidence of ] and ]. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--] 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


:Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in arithmetic is as "legendary" as !<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::Earlier on this page you mentioned that there might be an article on the Baltic partisans. I began expanding the ] article a few weeks ago, but it still has a long way to go... (I know the 'see also' is kind of bloated right now, am actually planning on incorporating almost all of those into the text at some point). ] 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


== Who occupied whom? ==
::By the way, do you have a link or source for that NKVD order? It should go in the article and it would be very useful to me. ] 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has '''always''' been Russian. Download and read it yourselves . Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) — ] 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I've been away from Wiki for a bit... in the article you can click on the Order 001223 reference in "Serov's deportation Order № 001223 applied to all the Baltics." which takes you to the Wiki article, where there is a link to the full text in the commons. ] 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


:In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to ]. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
==Legal definition==
There has not been war between the USSR and Latvia, therefore, according to international law, the Soviet presence could not be called "occupation". I propose that the article's title be changed as "Soviet domination of Latvia". ] 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I support renaming the article ]. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's ] in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of Misplaced Pages!--] 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:The premise that "there was no war" and therefore, according international law, Latvia could not have been "occupied" is <u>completely false</u>. As noted earlier, the earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV: Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." A formally declared state of war is not required. If the hostile army controls the territory&mdash;meaning, the sovereign institutions of the occupied territory are no longer in control, then this criterion for "occupation" has been met.


I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV! ] 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:Furthermore, as the Soviet, then Russian, military did not depart Latvia until well after continuity of Latvian sovereignty was re-established within the territory of Latvia, that qualifies the entire period of Soviet presence in Latvia as an occupation.


== Navbox ==
:Finally, with regard to "war," the Soviet Union deported Latvian citizens to Soviet territory while Latvia was still a sovereign country even by the account of the Soviet Union, constituting a blatant act of war. Both deportation '''from''' occupied territory of its civilian population and the transfer of the occupying power's civilian population '''into''' occupied territory have been specifically clarified as grave breeches of the Geneva Convention.


{{tlx|editprotected}}
:Whatever your reasons for wishing to believe that the Soviet Union only "dominated" Latvia, they are not supported by the objective and incontrovertible facts. ] 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have prepared the navbox of <nowiki>{{Soviet occupation}}</nowiki> but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. ] 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:] '''Done'''. Cheers. --] 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


== Personal views versus referenced reliable sources ==
::Thank you for citing the Hague Convention. As it strictly states out: '''placed under the authority of the hostile army'''. Latvia was under the authority of a pro-Soviet, pro-Communist, but officialy Latvian government. There was not an occupation commission, made up of Red Army officers.


With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world&mdash;experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize&mdash;and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues.
:::Subsequent to the invasion (as opposed to the initial stationing of Soviet troops on Latvian territory in accordance with the terms of the mutual assistance pact), the government was NOT an officially Latvian government, as it was (a) "elected" before the ballots were even counted (corroborated by Soviet documents), and (b) the fraudulently installed government petitioned to join, then joined, the Soviet Union under terms which were completely illegal under the terms of the Latvian constitution which was allegedly still in effect in an allegedly sovereign Latvia. There does not need to be an official military occupation commission, though it could be said that was essentially the role of the NKVD. (Just as there does not need to be a formal declaration of war.) ] 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen." On ], I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury&mdash;no, the <u>'''right'''</u> as an editor&mdash;to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The conflict here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me and my response . And , thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions).
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Misplaced Pages does not exist to serve and defend the <u>fictional</u> aspects of Soviet legacy&mdash;of which there are many&mdash;against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians at the Wiki-gate.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page&mdash;with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed rename to "]."
::If a deportation is to be considered an act of war, then the deportation of Jews in Tsarist Russia is by no doubt a Russo-Jewish war! ] 08:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The age of unsourced ] being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet <u>fiction</u> must come to an end.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; ]</span> 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


==Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)==
:::Well, unfortunately not quite, though I would completely agree on a moral basis. The "act of war" part is the deportation of the citizen of one sovereign state from the territory of that state and into the territory of the other (aggresor) state. That is legally different from the deportation of a citizen of a sovereign state to another territory still within that same state. ] 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up ]. Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--] 07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


:Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page. ] 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::There was no state of war between Germany and Denmark, but there is an article on the ]. There was no state of war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, yet there is an article on the ]. Maybe the persons trying to argue against historical fact, but lacking a factual leg to stand on, could hop on over and try to change the titles of those and other articles, instead of wasting our time with these sinister and senseless polemics? I mean, informed argument is a lovely thing -- but perhaps one could read at the very least a wikipage or two of what has been written anent these issues, before wading in? See other encyclopedias (the sort with serious editors). See the works cited. See, heh, the ''Pravda'' of the day, re Czechoslovakia! --] 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not appreciated.--] 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after here.--] 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I answered this one on the Lithuania talk. ] 08:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: Boris Meissner, ''Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa -- in Die Aussenpolitik der baltischen Staaten und die internationalen Beziehungen im Ostseeraum'', Hamburg:Bibliotheka Baltica, 1994, S.466-504 clearly defines the SU as aggressor and its seizure of the Baltic States as 'occupation'. Even Russian historians nowadays admit that “Soviet leadership, having thus broken all its treaties with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, entered its troops and began systematic Sovietization of the region.”. ] - ] 17:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: Yes, this was the ''de facto'' situation, not denied by anyone. But the ''de jure'' situation was one of allied troops entering in accordance with an alliance treaty. ] 08:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You fail to comprehend that the 1940 events de facto meant that the USSR '''broke''' the friendship treaties, so it was not ''one of allied troops entering in accordance with an alliance treaty''. Compare Meissner, who analyzed it carefully.] - ] 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Perhaps it will become clearer with some coffee in the morning, but what ''de facto'' and ''de jure'' situation are you talking about? How is this discussion related to the Allied forces and their post-war occupation of Germany? ] 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I can repost here if need be, but because the issue had been raised in ] relative to ] I have dealt with the occupation Yes/No debate on the ] page, section entitled ] --] 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== "Occupation" now fully documented ==

A separate section has been added to substantiate the objective use of the term "occupation" regarding the Soviet presence in the Baltics, with specific detail as regards Latvia. —] 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

==Soviet "pretenses" re: Poland ==
Please do not change pretense to protection. Stalin's "method" was to pursue geopolitical aim "X" while claiming "Y." I agree that Stalin invaded Poland, in part, to protect the U.S.S.R., however, unless you can cite a source which says purely protect, I will revert. My source specifically uses the word "pretense." I'll be glad to go back and annotate when I have some time; everything stated is directly from sources, I have not added my own POV (as in "pretense" versus "protect"). I'll be back to visit in a few days. ] 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:I do not get your point at all here. Pretence was not changed for protection. is my edit. Staling invaded Poland to pursue his geopolitical aim indeed. But he needed a ''pretence'' to do that and such was a claim that the reason of the invasion is the need to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians also noting that Poland, whose territory the invasion violated "ceized to exist" in the wake of German successes and the Polish gov's evacuation. --] 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::Do note that Poland gov evacuated AFTER the Soviet invasion - it was the Soviet invasion which ensured the Poland ceased to exist, not the other way around.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::: I think we're pretty much all on the same page here. My pretence/protection reference was an earlier edit where someone changed it to say that Stalin invaded specifically to protect Poland, changing the meaning from the prior (and which we agree on) Stalin used the pretence (excuse) of protecting Ukranians and Belarussians to invade Poland. (Also, spelling... seized (taken) versus ceased (ended).) My reading of the sequence of events is: (1) Hitler launches Eastern offensive, (2) Stalin pre-emptively invades Poland. Do we have a date (or range of dates) for when the Polish government actually evacuated? —] 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see a dateline, several officials were evacuating at different times. Who and when left. But the fact is that they ran away from the capital in the very first days of the war. Anyway, this is immaterial. Soviet claimed that their action is taken to "protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians in view of the Polands' imminent collapse". The geopolitically, the goal was to provide the country a dedree of strategic deapth in view of the imminent German invasion and ensure ''lesser strenghtening of Germany which was a threat. I am not trying to say defend the Soviet action and I take no position on the issue here. I am simply explaining facts. --] 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

==General criticism==
Generally this article is in a dire shape. First of all, it arbitrary pastes together three different periods: Fist Soviet Occupation, German Occupation and Second Soviet occupation. This is simply unacceptable. Each occupation is an ''event'' of its own and the article about such ''events'' may exist but not the article of their arbitrary sum. It is like writing a single article with the material from ] and ] pasted together. Or combining ] with ] AND ] all in one article].

If you meant to have an article about the period in general, the text belongs then to the ] or, if you intend to develop the History of Latvia series articles, such as ] or ] series, this would be ]. You cannot have the coexistance of the History article and a fork devoted to a specific period where three separate events (which could have their own articles) are arbitrary pasted together. On top of that you have a third fork (!) about the German occupation. This is simply a mess.

Further, the entire article conveniently ignores the fate of Jews in the hands of the German friends in Latvia. I wonder why.

Finally, such lengthy articles on such controversial issues have to use inline references.

I really do not know how to recommend you to proceed with this because I have no idea whether you plan to write a ''History of Latvia'' series (then the article could be coverted to one article of a series.)

Stuff like "a British tourism brochure published a decade after Baltic independence repeated this fiction as fact, demonstrating the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exercise in the post-Soviet era." is simply ridiculous. What brochure? Published by who? How is some WP editor qualified to judge the external publication, connect the events on the whim and make powerful conclusions on the meaning of such connection (occupation->liberation->brochure->propaganda)?

For now, due to the problems with forking, arbitrariness of presentation and referencing, I will tag the article as {{tl|noncompliant}}. "I'll be back to visit in a few days" and will check up on further developments. --] 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

: The article is incomplete, not arbitrary. There's certainly no bias to exclude Jews/Nazis. Considering my father-in-law, sent to check on a (Jewish) family friend, found her (Nazi) decapitated body, there's no Soviet=bad, Nazi=good bias building here, at least not on my part.
: I do agree that the article is getting long, there should probably be a summary occupation page then details on the separate occupations (and which could then also be multiple articles in a larger "History of Latvia" series). I would be glad to undertake that reorganization.
: As to the "brochure" in question was published by the British government tourism agency. Its publication sparked an '''international incident''' where the '''government of Great Britian''' had to formally apologize to Latvia. It was acknowledged/characterized as an example of the pervasiveness and longevity of Soviet propaganda in the post-Soviet era. This was a very specific and highly publicized event. I'm not taking an event and constructing original research or (my personal) conclusions about Soviet propaganda based on a "whim."
: Likewise, while I have my own POV regarding Russia's non-acknowledgement of the Soviet occupation, that's not appropriate for an article. If you believe there should be something more substantive with specific references on the Russian position on why the Soviet presence in Latvia was not an occupation (that had not been addressed, i.e., entered under terms of mutual assistance pact, Latvia freely and willingly petitioned to join the USSR) please point me to it and I will be glad to add it.
: There is nothing in the article that did not come from the references already listed at the bottom of the page. I will update the reference section to indicate that, and will look for an appropriate reference for the the brochure incident.
: If I've left out any of your objections, please let me know. —] 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Peters, perhaps inadvertendly, but the article looks like an axe grinding exersize one has against the USSR and Russia. As I explained, there is no justification to paste together three separate events, except if your goal is to write a History of the Period article. If so, it should be called so: History of Latvia (XXXX- YYYY).

I am not saying on whose part there is any bias. I am saying that there is a lot of bias as the article goes at length on Soviet atrocities while you did not find time and place in it to elaborate on German and Latvian own atrocities. BTW, just curious, did Latvia finally tried Kalejs? There are no recent news on that.

Now, the O-word (occupation) issue. This word, depending on the context, may or may not be neutral. Let's start from the meaning. Occupation may mean one of the two things (see 3a and 3b ):
#an act of occupation (the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE), like the Soviet occupation that took place in 1940 or the German one taking place in 1941)
#the "occupation" in a sense of a political regime (the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force), that is the coutry's being ruled by the military force of the foreign government. Let's not confuse these two meanings and study them one at a time.

In connection with 1940 events, the usage of the term seems justifable by the word's very definition. So it is for 1941. Coming to the next occupation, we have a POV dispute. Could be that Soviet ''action'' of evicting Nazis from Latvia is also called "occupation" from the Latvia's point of view. However note, for the Soviets, this was an act of evicting an invader from the Soviet territory (they annexed it in 1940 de-facto). So, from Soviet POV this was ''liberation'' (and again, note that this term in the military sense does not imply bringing the liberty to people, see : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power). I do realize that liberation in case of Latvia is not neutral either and by no means I want to suggest naming the article on the 1944 events a ]. However, the neutral term ''in this sense'' (neither Soviet nor Latvian POV) is "regained", "recaptured", "retakook control" etc.

And an outright POV is calling the following 50 years "the time of Soviet occupation". Again, I do realize that this is a Latvian POV, but encyclopedia should be based on the neutral POV. Soviet system was authoritarian and undemocratic, true, but Latvia was not a territory under the miltary occupation of the USSR (like, say, Afganistan (end-70s), Kuwait (1991), West Bank or Iraq (now)) but the territory ''integrated in the USSR'' rather than under its occupation. Its residents were Soviet citizens its economy was "expoited" no more and no less than that of other Soviet republics, and so on. Formally, Latvia was a constituent republic of the USSR making the USSR not a foreign power there. Now, we can talk length about "recognition/non-recognition". But no doubt that the term is POV because the condition of Latvia within the USSR was dramatically different of the condition of the territories commonly considered under occupation, such as Iraqi occupied Kuwait, Soviet occupied Afganistan, Israeli occupied West Bank, etc. In all those cases, we have a clear Metropolia vs Occupied Terriotry relationship, that is treatment of residents as foreigners, economic exploitation, etc. In none of this cases any effort is made to integrate the territory into the mainland. Latvia was integrated and it makes the case different. Again, I am not arguing "justice" here. I am arguing facts and neutrality. You can present the referenced Latvian POV in WP articles but not without balancing it and not under any circumstances you can use POV terminology in the titles of the articles.

The English brochure incident is presented improperly. It looks now as unreferenced, poorely phrased and, basically the Original research, that is Wikipedian's own conclusion about the Soviet Propaganda affecting the British Government. Even if this were to be addressed (and this article is not the place for such), the right way to do would have been: 'According to the statement of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or whoever), "this shameful incident" (quotes mandatory) "... is a typical manifestation of the UK government being infested by the Soviet propaganda legacy and a brutal interference into the Latvian internal matters" (or whatever else and whoever else chose to say, I am just hypothesizing here).

I believe you that most fo the article comes from the refs. But the current condition is totally unacceptable. --] 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:Irpen, as I have already explained the article is incomplete. There is no intent not to deal with the Nazis as I already said. I'll be glad to add a note at the top the article is "in progress."

:In terms of the occupation and the Soviet "POV" was they were "liberating Soviet territory," I fail to see how the result is an occupation the first time but '''not''' an occupation the second time when '''none of the circumstances regarding illegality, the disbanding and deportation of the rightful Latvian government, etc. have changed'''. Are you saying that the painting of Soviet propaganda of Latvia joining the Soviet Union willingly and legally is a POV equally worthy of the "Latvian POV" that Latvia was occupied? And to be NPOV both views must be reflected equally? That would appear to be the end result of where you are going with this.

:As I have indicated, "occupation" <u>does not require military control</u>. Occupation requires that <u>the rightful government can no longer function.</u> You quoted a dictionary, I quoted international law. As the rightful government continued to function ''de jure'' in exile, the term occupation applies. Or are you saying that "at some point" the Soviet authorities became the "rightful government" and therefore the occupation ceased? There is no such thing as a ''de facto'' rightful government.

:The "balance" is that Russia maintains the Soviet Union '''never''' occupied Latvia and '''purely and solely''' liberated it from the Nazis. Because the question has come up, I took the pains to clearly spell out all the details under which the Soviet takeover of Latvia was an illegal act of occupation--the details of which most are not aware, and which are essential to understanding the Latvian position (indeed that of the vast majority of countries). I did not POV rant about Soviet or Russian lies. From the very start I indicated Russia's objection to the term occupation right at the top. Irpen, if you have more information on why Russia says it was not an occupation, please present it as counterpoint, or if you have a list of countries besides Russia that have issued statements in continued support of Russia's position (and why), please add it. But for you to personally simply say Latvia was not under military jurisdiction or occupations simply don't last 50 years and that is sufficient cause to label the article POV is, frankly, your personal opinion; meanwhile, because you don't approve of the word "occupation", I am somehow a Latvian POV partisan even though absolutely everything stated is based on verifiable facts. Or are you doubting the Soviet Union's own documentation that it manufactured the results of the Latvian election?

:As for the brochure incident, again, I'll be rewording once I track down good references.

:I am sorry, but you have to present a far more compelling argument why the term "occupation" is incorrect than you think it's an awfully POV kind of word to be using. —] 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::I am curious as to what Irpen would suggest for a title -- could we compromise upon "Occupation and annexation of Latvia," or? Could there be an article on the "re-occupation of Latvia, 1944-45"? These arguments have spilled into various articles, and I suspect that you've seen many of them, Irpen -- the fact is that only Russia and "the Socialist countries," and a few "neutrals" subject to their pressure, ever acknowledged the incorporation as legal. Should an article then detail the re-occupation? I think that the term, as accepted outside of Russia (or, more specifically, by pretty much anybody other than Russian government and Soviet apologists), is quite clear -- Latvia was occupied by the USSR, forcibly incorporated into the USSR, occupied by Germany, and re-occupied by the USSR -- which occupation ended in 1991 and was followed by the complete withdrawal of Russian troops in 1994. Most Western governments never recognized the annexation/incorporation. Irpen, you seem to acknowledge the fact that the occupation in 1940 was forcible and illegal. What had changed by 1944? Nothing at all -- in fact, the LSSR government functioned throughout the war, complete with soldiers named after the Riflemen. It re-occupied Latvia piecemeal and by plan, and started to function both practically and formally even before the capital was recaptured (for instance, the illegal grant of the eastern parishes of the Abrene district was made when the seat of government was in Daugavpils, when Rīga was still under Nazi occupation, by polling members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soveiet, no meeting required, though the law required a vote of the entire Supreme Soviet and not merely the Presidium). To boil this down, Irpen, I would ask a very simple question -- when exactly did the occupation end, to your mind? --] 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peteris, I am confused, are you talking of legality, usability of terminology the optimizing of the content (whether to keep in in one article or not) or a proper title? To the latter question the answer is ] because there is no justifiable reason to paste three separate events arbitrary into one article. ] is a separate article from the ]. ] is a separate article from ] and ] is yet a third article while ] redirects to the ]. If you want to write ] article, you can stack them up all together. There is no other place to rant about three different events in one article unless the article is called ''History of Latvia (XXXX-YYYY)''. --] 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:What exactly are you confused about, Irpen? I asked you what you thought a proper title might be, and I suggested that you distill your objections -- finally, I asked you to define an end to the occupation, which would mean that you would have to separate these events in a certain way. The way you wish to separate these events is morally and intellectually unacceptable -- Latvia was occupied in 1940, and restored its independence in 1991. , for instance, treats every phase of the occupation, 1940-1991. That is indeed the most commonly accepted definition of the occupation. --] 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:: No it is a POV definition. And giving a Latvian museum website as reference... well, is contrary to ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peteris, I answered your question on the title. Either the combination of several events in the History article, or separate articles on separate events, not arbitrary events pasted together to make a convenient place to rant about certain grievances of a Misplaced Pages user against certain country. Each Russian revolution (1905, Februaru, October) is a separate article. Each Polish Uprising against the Russian Empire is a separate article, and so on.

Next, during the occupation the country is not ruled by the civil authorities and it is not integrated into a state that occupies it but rather remains a separate occupied territory, such as Soviet occupied Afganistan or US occupied Iraq. "Occupation of Latvia" ended when Latvia was annexed into the USSR becoming its part. As such, there was only one occupation, that is the action of 1940. And then there was also a German occupation in 1941, an entirely separate event which is underalted to the 1940 occupation (unless this is the ''History of Latvia'' arfticle or a ] article). The ] was not an "occupation" but a military operation whose result was driving the axis forces and the restoration of the Soviet authority over the territory the USSR annexed earlier. This has nothing to do with whether such ''past'' annexation was fair and just. The annexation took place before the German invasion. Then Germany conquered part of the Soviet territory, then the Red Army drove the Germans out.

Considering the period until 1991 as "Latvia under the Russian occupation" is outright unacceptable for the NPOV encyclopedia. Latvia was not occupied by RSFSR. Considering it ''Soviet occupation'' is similar nonsense. Latvia was not occupied by the USSR but was ''part'' of the USSR no more and no less than Ukraine, Georgia or Kazakhstan. It was ran by the civil authorities, its economy was getting an equal share of the Soviet investments and there was no resemblence whatsoever with the Soviet military control of Afganistan, US military control of Iraq or Israeli military control of the West Bank where the locals were never treated as equal citizens of the occupying authority and no attempt was made to integrate the area into the country.

Your POV is tantamount to saying that Texas is now under the US occupation because US won it in the war with Mexico and installed its sovereignty over the state in an illegal way. Try starting ]. I wish you good luck.

Last but not least, the entire lengthy analysis and discussion of the term occupation is the original research by Vercumba. This is unacceptable.

So, to condence by objections:
#The article arbitrary pastes different events together under one entry. This is acceptable only for the ''History of the country'' articles.
#The article uses the POV terminology calling the entire period until 1991 as "occupation". Besides, the article even dares to include this POV in the title (I am marking it {{tl|POV-title}} as such)
#The article contains lengthy speculation that belongs only to a Misplaced Pages user. Such speculations belong to talk page if anywahere at Misplaced Pages. --] 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::These events are not "different" (much less arbitrarily different) in that the Republic of Latvia, proclaimed in 1918 and still the same state today, not only essentially but also legally, soon to be hosting the NATO summit, is an entity with a continuity both formal and practical, one most countries recognize ''de jure'' -- continuity having been ''de facto'' interrupted by an occupation. That is part of the subject of this article. A few nations (foremost among them the nation that occupied Latvia, under different guises, and her former vassal states) dispute this -- they can compose a minority view. This is precisely why Latvia (and Lithuania, and Estonia) were ''not'' like Belarus, Ukraine, the Uzbek SSR, etc. An encyclopedia should reflect this. The Republic of Latvia exists today, and it exists on the basis of the Republic proclaimed 18 November 1918, with the same citizens and their descendants, plus those naturalized. The first elections held in the restored Republic were the fifth parliamentary elections -- in name, in letter, and in spirit (specifically discounting the previous "fifth" elections, which took place under occupation). This is the country that is a member of the EU, NATO, UN, CoE, etc. The Russian view can and should be placed in the article, but it is a minority view. --] 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

: ], by your standard, the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. is POV about the death of millions of Jews. And citing anything they publish or otherwise issue to describe the Holocaust is contrary to ]. Or am I missing something?
: "POV" would be terming the entire Soviet presence in Latvia an occupation. Please note that I took pains to indicate that the initial stationing of Soviet troops in Latvia (and the other Baltic States) was legal according to international law, regardless that the pacts of mutual assistance were signed under duress.
: Latvia was occupied continuously from 1940-1991, during which time the ''de jure'' government of Latvia functioned in exile. Again, I invite those who insist that Soviet "occupation" and subsequent Soviet "reoccupation" are "POV" and "ranting"--the opposite of that "POV" being that the entire Soviet presence was legitimate, as Russia maintains--to offer a verifiable basis for their contention, one that has something to do with Latvia and the Soviet Union. I've extended such invitations covering all three Baltic states. Please, let's hear it. If '''all the verifiable facts''' support the term "occupation," then who is being POV here?
: Irpen, whether territory was annexed or not does not change the fact that it is occupied. There was no rule by the ''de jure'' Latvian civil authorities during the annexation. You insist occupations must be military and under military jurisdiction. You are wrong, plain and simple, according to international law. Finally, I have not done any original research--you give me too much credit as a scholar. It's all taken from published sources. It has been necessary to present the detail in order that it is clear what part of the Soviet presence in Latvia was legal under international law, and what part wasn't, and why. I wasn't aware that there is some restriction on a thorough explanation of anything. It is YOU that are doing original research by using dictionary definitions and your personal opinion to argue against statutes of international law and by insisting that occupations can "only be military." —<span style="font-family:sans-serif;">] <span style="padding: 1px 4px; background-color: #660000; font-size: 9px; text-decoration: none;">]</span> <span style="padding: 1px 4px; background-color: #000000; font-size: 9px; text-decoration: none;">]</span></span> 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::Vecrumba wrote: ''whether territory was annexed or not does not change the fact that it is occupied.'' Just as an example of this, consider . Extract: ''International lawyers and historians have debated whether - from a legal perspective - Austria’s "Anschluss" to the German Reich should be considered an annexation or rather an occupation. If regarded as a case of annexation, Austria ceased to exist in 1938 and was re-established in 1945. If regarded as a case of occupation, Austria continued to exist as a subject of international law between 1938 and 1945, but was incapable of acting as a sovereign State.'' There has been debate on this subject on several talk pages, and yet we keep returning to the same arguments as though a multitude of sources hadn't already been cited and linked. The predominant view is that Latvia was forcibly annexed. Countries ''restored'' diplomatic relations with Latvia, which had remained ''de jure'' a sovereign state. That a few countries, notably Russia, dispute this, should be, can be, and is noted in the article. --] 06:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Re: Irpen''' ''"Considering the period until 1991 as "Latvia under the Russian occupation" is outright unacceptable for the NPOV encyclopedia"'' -- no it is not, as the legal status of territory of Republic of Latvia under international law indeed remained - occupied.

'''Re: Irpen:''' ''"during the occupation the country is not ruled by the civil authorities and it is not integrated into a state that occupies it"'' -- not necessarily so. East Jerusalem, even though annexed into Israel, under international law still remains occupied territory. Actions that are illegal under international law do not create right, installing a civilian administration does not end occupation and does not confer legitimacy to rule over the acquired territory. Every State is under obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions made in contravention of international law. It is not bias to say that the territories of Baltic states remained occupied until 1991, it is plain statement of legal fact: see, for instance, : ''"condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact, '''and continues'''"''. I'm sorry, but statement does not become non-NPOV just because someone does not like what it says.

'''Re: Irpen:''' "there is no justifiable reason to paste three separate events arbitrary into one article" -- if you look , this "confusion" started out after someone - also in search of "balance" and "NPOV", I guess - wrote stuff about Nazi occupation, and added some of it into this article. I thought that time that it is not a good idea, but kept quiet because it was brief and inserted to link in with the other article. Now you added pics... and are claiming that article is "no good" - several topics are conflated. C'mon, at least remove the stuff you , first... :) ] 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

==For once and for all==

*Britannica: Soviet '''occupation'''
*EU suggests that Russia accepts finally '''occupation''':

Considering that most of the world, exept of course for the Soviets, regarded it as occupation even in 1940s, that the events are still described as occupation by sources, which ought to be neutral and/or represent the majority opinion (e.g. Verheugen), it is clear that the aim of this dispute campaign by certain users can be descibed as POV pushing; promoting an opinion rejected by the majority. Compare: ].] - ] 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
: The latter link is some political stuff, that can by no means be considered POV, academic and RS. For what it's worth, "Occupation after WWII" does not even make sense, since Baltic States joined USSR in 1940, whatever you define the process as.
: Second, "Occupation" '''is''' too POV and awkward. There are pictures of people marching in cities in favor of the USSR, so presenting these events as a totally evil "occupation" is about the nastiest POV you can get, because the situation was, well, not so binary as you might like. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::People marching? As far as my homeland is concerned, people were forced to march, and the crowds consisted to a large amount of Soviet soldiers in civil cloths. Or have you read more about the Baltic history than the Balts themselves?] - ] 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: Yes, people marching. You might not believe it, but Communist were not aliens, they were living and breathing people, often of the same nationality as you are. And as incredible as it may sound to your ears, they really believed what they said. And Baltic states are not an exception. As for "Soviet soldiers in civil cloths", do you think women were soldiers too? :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Second link is not an acceptable source. EB is but EB speaks about the occupation as an ''act'' that took place in 1940. I think it is OK to call it so. What is not OK is to use "occupation" as the sense for the regime, not a military action, for all the years after the 1940. After the military occupation, Latvia was integrated into the USSR and become one of its republics similar to other republics. It is simlar to how Texas and Hawaii are the US states, regardless of whether their incorporation were just. Those were not ruled like occupied territories, unlike, say Namibia or West Bank. --] 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::''an acceptable source''? Which sources are then acceptable? Comrade Stalin's and mr Putin's official statements? I've already referred to Boris Meissner's study. The author is lawyer and made perfectly clear, that the events of 1940 and so on meant '''occupation'''. As most of the world has ackonowledged. You are deliberately pursuing minority POV advanced only by the heir to the occupants, i.e official Russia.] - ] 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::: The problem is that of POV. Basically, what you do in this way is singling out a particular even. Why not an article about ]. Why, it was annexed by force by the French king. Why not an article about ]? Or ]? Or ] or ] ? Any country expands its territory by any means it has at its disposal. Defining a control of a country by another as occupation is at best POV and narrow-minded, and at worst is a downright attempt at bending history the way you would like to. Only it does not work. Especially given the fact that Baltic states were full members of the USSR, and had the same load of advantages and problems as all other Soviet republics. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::They were never '''legally''' members of the USSR, but '''occupied'''. As the Western world also maintained: ''Whereas the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states has still not been formally recognised by most European states and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of Baltic states'' . ] - ] 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::::: Answer my question. Why, in your opinion, is there no article about ] or ] articles? We can't single out an event as "occupation" among hundreds of others, just because you fancy to. It's common sense. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Ok, scrap that: <s>Answer to the question about Texas is simple - it was ceded by Mexico as per legally made ].</s> ] seceded from Mexico, and having ], legally applied to be annexed into USA. ] 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Corsica was sold to France, what was "international law" at the time differed considerably from what it was in the run-up to WWII. An article arguing the Baltic States' case, outlining the legal principles involved, why Soviet actions were contrary to international law, and why did ''de facto'' occupation of Baltic States did not lead to legal extinction of them as subjects of international law can be found here <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::As to ''Occupation of Texas'' or Baque country - you might google a bit to see the poor side of your argument.] - ] 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::LMAO. Occupation of basque country --> 2 Ghits from "People's Daily Online English Edition".
:: As for "Occupation of Texas", I was talking about an '''article''', not a '''link'''? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

===To remind you the Misplaced Pages policies===

According to :

All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

# If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
# If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.

Majority of Western researchers and public describe the events as Soviet military occupation. So far you have failed to present whatever reliable source claiming the opposite (it would remain minority POV anyway). Your ] over the occupation definitions doesn't prove anything, as authors cited above have already covered the important points. ''You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.'' is smth that suggests ], as well as ''assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject.'' (i.e Soviet/Russian Fed official statements and arguments; long ago rejected by the West).] - ] 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
: I'm familiar with WP policies, thank you. However, a point of view among two (basically Eastern and Western) hardly qualifies as undue weight. In addition, one should beware of grande political statements (both during and after Cold War), for they're definitely not NPOV. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Proof, that the events are regarded as '''occupation'''==

Proof, that the events are regarded as '''occupation''' by third countries, including the overwhelming majority of the West:

*1960 ''On the twentieth anniversary of the '''military occupation''' of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union''
*1983 ''Condemning the fact that '''the occupation of these formerly independent''' and neutral states by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 pursuant to the Molotov / Ribbentrop Pact, '''and continues'''''
*2005 ''On May 21, the United States Senate passed a concurrent resolution, urging, "The government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement, admitting to and condemning the illegal occupation and annexation" until 1991 of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. ''

] - ] 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
: As a general rule of thumb, political sites, are not ] because politics are, well, politics and POV. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::<small>Meissner was a scientist, not a politician. Unfortunately you haven't provided any other respectable opinions as a counter.] - ] 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)</small>

1. You fail to understand that we have '''two POVs''' here: either 1.Baltic states '''were occupied''' or 2. Baltic states '''were not occupied'''. As sources prove, the first POV is shared by overwhelming majority in the West. It is a POV of the overwhelming majority, and POV of the non-participants. The second assumption has only been advanced by Soviet/Russian officials. It is a minority POV. We must not give prominence to the occupant's own justifications, or to draw a parallel, ] thesis here.Stop POV pushing, or trolling.

2. You haven't given '''any''' sources supporting your complaints. Thus your POV stuff remains ]. ] - ] 14:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
: You provided three links to political sites. Neither of them qualify as reliable sources... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Now you broke all your arguments yourself: '''the thesis, that the Baltic states were ''not'' occupied relies indeed fully on political arguments by USSR/Russia, i.e participant of the conflict.''' None of your arguments, guys, even if you gave links, hold water, as per your own logic. I've referred to third party opinions as well, plus independent legal analysis (see mr Meissner's book, it's not available online).] - ] 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: And what ''you'' fail to understand is that you get a wrong number of POVs. "Occupation" has a special meaning, which is not respected here. Baltic states were all three members of the USSR, were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet, they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR. For instance, there were Estonian officers and even generals, in the Army. All this hardly qualifies as "occupation". -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Legally''' it was qualified as '''occupation''', for the umpteenth time (the sources prove). According to majority POV '''Baltic states were legally never USSR members'''. Independent Western countries, majority of the world subscribed to this logic. Only Soviets followed the ludicrous ''they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR.'' idea, which here qualifies as ]. As Estonian-American politologist ] has put it: ] had as much legal basis as ]. You do not have any legal basis for your suggestion, except of course Soviet self-justifications. ] - ] 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: If legally means "recognized by a US resolution", than this "law" has no basis outside the US. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: As for your comparison with Bohemia-Moravia, it is totally false? Did representants from Bohemia and Moravia siege in the Reichstag? No, but Estonian representants did siege in the Supreme Soviet? Did the USSR close Estonian universities as Germans did? No. And so on, so forth. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Another blow to your own logic: Nazi-occupied Norway had its own ], did this do away with the '''occupation'''? Puppet representatives of Latvian SSR's puppet government didn't help the fact that Latvia ''was occupied'', as admitted by the whole world, except for the Soviets. Regarding your second argument (still WP:OR!), Soviets killed about 30 times more Estonia's inhabitants than the Nazis did (so exactly the opposite to your assumtion, regarding universities) - according to your view this means that there was no ''German occupation''?] - ] 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

''Another blow to your own logic: Nazi-occupied Norway had its own puppet government, did this do away with the occupation? Puppet representatives of Latvian SSR's puppet government didn't help the fact that Latvia was occupied, as admitted by the whole world, except for the Soviets.''

That is an extremely dubious statement. It is dubious that Moscow's allies India, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc considered the presence of Latvia in the USSR to be an occupation. It is also dubious that China felt the same way. After the thug Ulmanis fled, the legislature of Latvia chose to become a member of the USSR. While you can dispute the fairness of the election, the fact remains that Latvia's legislature voted to become part of the USSR.

== Heroization of Fascism ==

Just today, the Russian Minister of Defense urged the Baltic Republics to stop their heroization of fascism. There is much material on the subject in Yandex News. Is not it time to add some of this stuff to the article? --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Please keep to ]. Well, if you want to compare the influence of Barkashovites, Russian National Bolsheviks etc with the small skinhead groups in Estonia and Latvia... But not here.--] - ] 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Latvians fighting against Soviets = "anti-" "anti-fascists" = ergo, "fascists." The only thing being heroicized by Latvia is fighting against the Soviets to try to maintain Latvia's freedom.
:: Unfortunately, the Soviet Union was very close to officially denouncing the '''full term''' of the '''occupation''' of the Baltics before the USSR fell apart. This would have been on the heels of the denunciation, which did occur, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. (Sadly, original research from folks directly involved.) —] 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

==Third opinion==
I'm here in response a request for a ] on this discussion. It appears to me that Grafikm_fr ought to provide ] to ]; otherwise his complaint cannot be sustained. Constanz, you should add your citations to the article and not just list them in the talk page.
I think you are both arguing too much here. Making comparisons, analogies, and your own analysis is inadmissible ], so there is no point in either of you continuing doing so. It is only necessary to supply sources that engage in this sort of analysis.
Also, please stop edit warring. It does not help. ] 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
: Removal of POV tags without any consensus is vandalism, as per ], hence, one can restore any removal of tags without question. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:: I disagree that it can be restored ''without question''. It should probably be on there for now. Nonetheless, edit warring is harmful, so please stop. ] 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
: As you see, I have cited many Western sources, both regarding official policies as well as legal estimations: the other side hasn't found anything apart from the occupant's self-justifications... and the propaganda stuff above.] - ] 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We have '''two POVs''' here: either 1.Baltic states '''were occupied''' or 2. Baltic states '''were not occupied'''. As sources prove, the first POV is shared by overwhelming majority in the West. It is a POV of the overwhelming majority, and POV of the non-participants. The second assumption has '''without exception''' been advanced by Soviet/Russian officials. It is a minority POV. We must not give prominence to the occupant's own justifications, or to draw a parallel, ] thesis here. Pushing the Soviet-Russian POV is trolling, if I'm not mistaken?] - ] 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (note: copied from ])
:It is not necessary to characterize the idea that Baltic states were not occupied as trolling. It is necessary for those who believe that idea should be in this article to provide ] in support. Claiming that the alternative is POV is not enough to sustain this dispute. ] 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, to sum up, I'd return to ] comparison: in case we omit the number of 'believers', we can really say that “occupation-deniars”' work here is roughly equal to an hypothetical situation, when ] supporters would start adding POV-tags to ] article. ] - ] 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps eventually, but I don't think that the time is ripe to make that determination yet. ] 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also here as a user not involved in this discussion before: it seems to me that the 'occupation' in title is quite justified, but I completly agree with Grouse that more inline citations are needed ''in the article''.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: I'll be glad to delete the "why it's an occupation" and transfer that to a discussion archive, unfortunately, people keep insisting "occupation" is "POV" when it's not. I have invited anyone who wishes to post information that corroborates the Russian position that is verifiable in fact (that it was not an "occupation") on all three Baltic states talk pages. No on has accepted that invitation except to parrot pronouncements of the Russian foreign ministry. —] 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Your efforts to keep talking, to keep trying to explain are valiant but the unfortunate side effect of them is - it creates an impression that the topic is, at the least, not settled, and that is not so. There are variety of sources that refer to military occupation of Baltic states:
::- '"Ultimatums of June 15, 16, 1940, charged hostile activities; Russia had occupied the Baltics militarily and had arranged for pro-Soviet administrations to request admittance to the Soviet Union."' --
::- '"Nazi-Soviet Pact of Aug., 1939, placed the Baltic countries under Soviet control, and the following month the USSR secured military bases in Estonia. Complete Soviet military occupation came in June, 1940."'
::- '"Soviet troops occupied Latvia in 1940, and subsequent elections held under Soviet auspices resulted in the absorption of Latvia into the USSR as a constituent republic."' --
::- Encarta .
::- multitude of results on google book search just for
::Continued discussions and persuasion are ok, provided there is an argument based on something that can be falsified. Leaving aside the question about the content of the article, in this case we are faced with recurring charge: the very use - both legal and colloquial - of a term widely used to refer to the events in question, allegedly constitutes violation of NPOV. All the untenable arguments why the legal term isn't applicable put aside, the remaining basis for that allegation is - 'I say so'. For example : "(w)ords like liberation/occupation/invasion do have such flavor (..)". That one cannot argue against rationally, nor does one need to, I believe. Same goes for asking for "references" for "two-three" paragraph articles, that merely summarily recite widely (or relatively widely) known historical facts. This "I say it's non NPOV" bottomline also suggests that, provided even you create otherwise impeccable article, provided even alternative POV is presented as it was in this case, nothing short of deleting certain words or replacing them with certain other words will satisfy those advancing such claims. I have never bothered to find out how, but there ought to be ways and venues in Misplaced Pages to solve such cases without engaging in seemingly endless discussions where no reasonable basis for having one--and no ground for agreement--can be seen. And by that I mean, unfortunately, having top spend time complaining to some "authority"; who knows where/how/what our options are? ] 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'd go further and suggest that an article itself is a mess, and it is a mess precisely because people still feel obliged to try to go out of their ways to attempt to "prove" something that by now can be called widely accepted: that Soviet Union occupied three independent and internationally recognized States, and illegally annexed them. The legal arguments have been made in detail (for instance, by late , Dr. iur.); in all likelihood, the arguments will never be heard by a competent international court, and Russia is anyway not obliged to accept any such judgement even if they would be; this article can not possibly restate legal arguments; by now one should simply relay on sources like Britannica. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:::''people still feel obliged to try to go out of their ways to attempt to "prove" something that by now can be called widely accepted'' is correct, but who's to be blamed? That we wanted to ensure neutrality of the article and get rid of those tags? - All in all, every neutral opinion here seems to agree with our basic assumptions. Thus, adding the POV-tags '''is''' unmotivated, unless we regard Soviet propaganda as 'motivation'. But we don't, do we?] - ] 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::It wasn't really intended as a blame, although, on rereading it, I see it may appear that way. What I mean is that we need to work towards some '''conclusive and lasting resolution''' and these discussions obviously don't lead to it, quite the contrary. Also, we need to improve the article, but it's very de-motivating to realise that, as long as the "issues" remain "under discussion", pseudo-legal and "PVOish words" challenges will be mounted. ] 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: It was quite tidy after I merged the original two articles.
::::: All the materials are taken from the references at the bottom, I do realize that proper footnoting would be helpful. There is an article on the Nazi occupation, perhaps the best alternative currently is to point to that for that time period and have this be related only to the "Soviet Occupation of Latvia (1940-1941, 1944-1991)."
::::: As mentioned elsewhere, my 5 hour commute limits my time, but I do commit to going back and insert the appropriate references. —] 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::* This would also separate the Nazi and Soviet occupations for general clarity. —] 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm thinking in the same direction - we could create an intro that suits both articles (links to other article) and then say: this article concerns this occupation, the other one concerns that occupation, and move them to "Soviet Occupation of Latvia"/"Nazi Occupation of Latvia" respectively.
::::::Inline references would be great, but the lack of them cannot, IMO, justify both tags currently attached. Title is not POV - it's the one that accurately reflects the legalities involved, and there is nothing being discussed - at least not by those who initiated the discussions. ] 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Could you please remove the tag, then? As per consensus, support by each neutral observer and the majority POV as a whole.--] - ] 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==The problem is not or is not only in "occupation" per se==
The problem is that the term has multiple meanings. The sources cited above use the term "occupation" to describe the Soviet takeover in 1940. Some here want to use the term to describe the political settlement that followed, that is the regime. The political regime in Latvia was ] just like any other one and not that of the ]. Being part of the country and integrated in it differs much from being run by occupational authority, whose residents are never treated the same way as the citizens of metropolia. Further unacceptable is arbotrary pasting of several separate events into one article: Soviet takeover, Nazi takeover, Second Soviet takeover. ] and ] each have their own articles. The only article where they belong together one after another is the ]. There is a ] article for that. This is made to be a POV fork.

As such, the article has a POV title (as explained here) and also is non-compliant in its current form with several policies and guidelines. --] 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::You fail to understand that all the sources I added use '''occupation''' to describe the Soviet rule from 1940/1944 '''on''', i.e '' describe the political settlement that followed, that is the regime'', which was generally regarded as illegal. You don't have any sources for an alternative opinion, when we exclude Soviet/Russian propaganda statements. Please stop ] and littering the talk page with your own interpretations/'legal' analysis (]. Otherwise I ''will'' report it on incidents page as disruption due to personal POV-pushing.] - ] 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You may report this all you want. However, the sources describe the act and not the regime. And you did not say anything about article's being an arbotrary pasting of separate events together making it a fork. --] 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::It has been explained over and over again that, even if the sources allegedly describe an act - a takeover of territory, rather than the regime, it is utterly immaterial what puppet administration occupational power installs. See, for instance ICRC's Q&A on on some of the conditions when occupation ends :
::'"5. When does occupation come to an end?
::The normal way for an occupation to end is for the <u>occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it</u>. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

::A transfer of authority to a local government <u>re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation</u>, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory."'
::None of those conditions was fullfilled up until the USSR "crumbled" and Baltic states could fully re-assert their sovereignity.
::As for multiple topics - Soviet occupation and Nazi occupation in one article - I agree. However, please keep in mind that, before you yourself started expanding it by adding the pics, the info on Nazi occupation was brief and intended to link in to another article. One could have simply deleted the part of the opening sentence saying that the article intends to inform about Nazi occupation and it would have been fine. So a good step forward IMO would be if you'd move pics you added to an article about Nazi occupation of Latvia and get rid of the section, leaving perhaps one-two sentences linking in with the other article.
::Also, I'm trying to collect references and your input on which specific events, facts and paragraphs would need referencing would be helpful. ] 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

==Sophistry==
Is defined as: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning"
Just passing by and realized that I really enjoyed the definition of occupation v Latvia (see above) "The political regime in Latvia was ] just like any other one and not that of the ]. Being part of the country and integrated in it differs much from being run by occupational authority, whose residents are never treated the same way as the citizens of metropolia. " Of course one wonders how many executions were carried out under that guise. Well one supposes that it is OK since Russians were treated the same horrible way.... (:>) El Jigue 12-9-06 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
: What on earth "horrible way" are you talking about? If you're here to push Reaganistic propaganda about the good and the bad, you've came to the wrong place. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::But your own Stalinist propaganda is completely suitable here, eh?--] - ] 08:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
::Since the beginning of the 'dispute' you have not succeeded in finding a '''single''' argument which would satisfy Misplaced Pages neutrality rules. You and your comrades have only produced own 'thesis', all arguments actually being derived from the agressor's, i.e Soviet propaganda. This is a clear violation of ] and ]. Misplaced Pages is not a place to reflect mere Soviet vision of the events. ] - ] 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

==Russian SVR confirm occupation of Baltics==
Seems that this ongoing POV debate is now obsolete. See:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061123/55932837.html

MOSCOW, November 23 (RIA Novosti) - The Soviet Union was justified in annexing the Baltic states in WWII, as their governments supported Nazi Germany, Russia's foreign intelligence service (SVR) said Thursday. "These materials show that German-oriented policies conducted by governments in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia threatened to turn these states into a staging ground for a German invasion of the Soviet Union," Ivanov said. Ivanov said, "The archives contain special reports to the political leadership on secret talks between Latvian leaders and the Germans, about the inevitability of a future occupation of Estonia by German troops, and the readiness of the Lithuanian army to surrender to the Germans." In June 1940, Russia accused Estonia of forming a conspiracy together with Latvia and Lithuania against it, and issued an ultimatum, demanding among other concessions that more Soviet troops be allowed to enter the three countries. In the following month, local communists loyal to the Soviet Union won parliamentary "elections" in all three countries, and in August these parliaments asked the Soviet government for accession to the Soviet Union. As a result, the three states were formally annexed.

: I would note that all three Baltic states were strictly neutral in the war. The only problem with the Russian position (they "had to protect themselves") is the maps the Soviet Union printed already in 1939 showing the Baltics as "Name-your-Baltic-state S.S.R." And there was the attempted coup in Estonia between the wars, too.
: The whole thing about supporting Nazi Germany is, of course, a total lie. Let's not forget that there were plenty of talks with Hitler on the repatriation of Germans--that being necessary since Hitler didn't want Germans to fall under the Soviet Union as the result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So...
:# Stalin makes a deal with Hitler
:# Hitler talks with Baltics to repatriate Germans
:# Hitler's talks with Baltics "signal invasion"
:# Stalin takes over Baltics (as originally agreed with Hitler)
: Very neat and tidy indeed. It would appear the Russians are now blaming contacts that are the result of Stalin's deal to take over the Baltics as the reason to take over the Baltics. Talk about your circular reasoning!
:<small>(5 hour daily commute has been keeping me occupied, sorry I've been away...)</small> ] 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Atleast Russia can no longer claim the Baltics voluntarily joined the Soviet Union.... ] 11:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The funny side of 'USSR being threatened by a possible German takeover of Baltics' is that commies had already stationed there troops there in '''1939''' (that's why from that point on many Western diplomats didn't consider the Baltic states independent any more (were regarded as ]s). And in Spring-Summer '''1940''' Germany was busy fighting at the Western front. And that Germany had previously rejected any discussion over German support for Baltics in case of Soviet invasion etc etc. So that it is quite obvious, that this Russian official statement is rubbish. ] - ] 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

==The course of action==
I'd suggest the following:
<u>Re: ]: Remove POV-title tag</u></br>
'''1a)''' initiate ] to move the article to "Soviet Occupation of Latvia"; </br>
OR</br>
'''1b)''' just move it to "Soviet Occupation of Latvia";</br>
followed by</br>
'''2)''' removal of POV-title tag.</br>
</br>
I prefer 1a) → 2), because: a) there are varying opinions on the time period and they can be best addressed in footnotes to article; b) the title is "controversial" among some of our Russian colleagues – and it would still be after the move, I suspect, – but we would have had (or not had) some formal consensus as a kind of anchor point for future.</br>
</br>
<u>Re: ]: "article (..) is non-compliant in its current form with several policies and guidelines</u></br>
'''1)''' "Nazi stuff" from mid article is moved to ], pending action to incorporate it into that article;</br>
'''2)''' "Classification of the Soviet presence as an occupation" comes to talk - perhaps we could turn it into some sort of FAQ;</br>
'''3)''' Irpen (and others claiming noncompliance) is invited to make a detailed case with reasonable specificity outlining what in the remaining content constitutes noncompliance, so we can best address those concerns – general and wide reaching statements are virtually impossible to address;</br>
'''4)''' after specific concerns are discussed and/or addressed (or absent case form Irpen/others) noncompliance tag goes.</br>
--] 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:I do not object to the article entitled ] devoted to the Soviet takeover in June 1940. The article should focus on the event but can naturally, as required by context, mention the aftermath. The longer review of the consequences and Soviet brutalities belong to the ] or its subarticles, perhaps ] among them. If this is done, I would support removal of POV-title tag.

:I do not object to moving an entire period under the Nazis into a separate article. I still find it strange that the issue of Latvian Jews and the collaboration of the significant portion of the Latvian population in their fate is given so little prominence there but this we can discuss at the other article's talk.

:No way the Soviet expulsion of the Nazis from Latvia in 1944-1945 cannot be in the article ''titled'' as the occupation. The article for that is ]. One troll calls called the ] as "Soviet Occupation of Ukraine" and another one called 1944-1989 as the "Occupation of Poland". Such cliches and points of view can be discussed in the article's text with refs but not be thrown over the articles by POVish titles. I suggest to the interested Latvian editors to start ] article for what followed after that. --] 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::''by POVish titles'' typical communist logic! 90% is against your idea - this is subjective view! This is POVish in Misplaced Pages standards! 10% supports your idea - this is objective! This is neutral! This is NPOV!! <br>Leave aside Britannica, leave aside the Western democracies, leave aside the International law and lawyers - ] and current Russian rulers disagree with this - ergo, we have to echo their opinion! ] - ] 11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

==Tag removed by Constanz again==

# only 3 well-known Russian ''Derzhava'' promoters - namely Irpen, Grafikm_fr and Ghirlandajo claim that something is not NPOV (consensus has called everything OK)
# the trio fails to bring any facts to support their claim (we can't base a dispute on someone's own sentiments)
# the intro itself shows, who are the occupion deniers (I think Misplaced Pages is '''not''' a place where to give prominence to Russian state propaganda)
# sources - e.g encyclopedias like Britannica etc - use the title for the period 1941 to 1991. (official statements by Russia - an undemocratic regime anyway - have no significance whatsoever for the third parties and Western encyclopedias. These fall under POV category.)

Thus, I've removed it again, since title is perfectly NPOV and no-one has explained what is non-compliant here.] - ] 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, those who still claim Latvia wasn't occupied may formally request a move to '''Liberation of Latvia''' for example. Let's see if they will get more support there than they got here.] - ] 10:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

: Constanz, please stop your trolling and your ramblings about "propaganda". So far, you've been the only one to push your own POV, so talking about "consensus" from your side is a bit rich. A number of concerns has been raised about this page, both about the name and about content, and until these are fixed, the tag remains in place per the Misplaced Pages official policy. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

::perhaps we could rather move the article to Occupation and incorporation of Latvia, similarily to Britannica ]. How miserable, Grafikmfr, that much of the world, including Britain's cyclopedia makers, is so very much 'POV' and 'biased'... ] 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:39, 8 March 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of military occupations of Latvia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

List of military occupations of Latvia received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
WikiProject iconLatvia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archives
Archive 1

Request for Comment: Noncompliant

Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of WP:NPOV ,WP:Verifiability, WP:What Misplaced Pages is not and WP:OR?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by those previously involved

Comments by User:Novickas

Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.

The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.

The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.

The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.

It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled.

Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. Novickas 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent. Novickas 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Vecrumba

The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely zero evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history.
     The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed.
     I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... I believe I've covered them all.
     Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a head eventually gave up and abandoned Misplaced Pages. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Termer

For now I'm just going to continue counting on Encyclopædia Britannica as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias. The encyclopedia that has an article:Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation , the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika + Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.. Thanks!--Termer 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have tried to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict who will be banned. Thatcher131 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like? Digwuren 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is under probation. "Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research." An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens). I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken. "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call. It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive. It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive. Edit-warring over a dispute tag is definitely disruptive. Thatcher131 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page. Not seeking to sway? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations . —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? -- Petri Krohn 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied. I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving WP:OR on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡Qué lástima! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (unsourced). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
re: m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC))) All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here.
You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're already frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they never specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the Soviet occupation of Romania for more examples of casus I don't like it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well. Just ran across this completely by accident. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --Termer 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

{{POV}}

That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag ... — Zalktis 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside):

  • 1940 Soviet occupation
  • German occupation,
  • Soviet return
  • Latvia under Soviets
  • Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic.

The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be Occupation of Latvia (term) which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like Occupation of Baltic States (term).

The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others.

Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be ]. Check the History of Poland series. It is divided into such articles. Partitioned Poland is a redirect to History of Poland (1795–1918). "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called History of Poland (1945–1989) and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA.

The History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles. --Irpen 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing ] into subarticles, my proposition is: ], ], ] and ]. Philaweb T-C 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons:
  • "Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof.
  • "History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles.
  • Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you suggest?
  • And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent" article is essential.
  • Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using the word "occupation" are more WP:IDONTLIKEIT: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I see it, an article called ] is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called ] is all about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles. Philaweb T-C 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-WP:OR sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+legal presence" camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate.
      I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable. The title comparison that is suitable is Soviet Occupation of Romania, where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has Jimmy Wales announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality?
      Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings simply object to it because they wish to persuade Misplaced Pages readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part. Missing acceptance of Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented? Philaweb T-C 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Misplaced Pages, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry--version--of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP Occupied Japan etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--Termer 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Misplaced Pages has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it. Digwuren 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The article Occupied Japan is really misplaced in this context - Japan surrendered unconditionally with an instrument of surrender. The difference between the Axis powers of World War II and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. Philaweb T-C 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere. Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"? Philaweb T-C 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
  • The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law.
  • To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed."
      This is so totally and completely and absolutely NOT about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is ONLY about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else. Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs? On the contrary, all I am asking for is intellectual integrity. You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources.
      If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact, thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced.
      BTW, have you read the article and talk for Soviet occupation of Romania? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes:
and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side. Philaweb T-C 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article

A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry above. Calling your opponents "this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors..." in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought. --Irpen 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb.
      It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that context. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in Latvia). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors schumtz. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --Irpen 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately?
      I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat:
     "where this "
      Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors Shmutz right above as well as even earlier at the Arbcom and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --Irpen 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm" comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them.
If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from "occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived.
Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in question.
That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Misplaced Pages will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute.
It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Today's time capsule: Evidence page from occupation of Latvia request for arbitration seven months ago And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this is dealt with. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen .  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated RfA Digwuren. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period:

On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war. However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics).

So this puts an another reliable published source on the table. Reinis 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Status

Suva has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them.

  • Thatcher131 protected the article.
  • More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations.
  • Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together.
  • Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has presented any contradicting WP:RS, instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by original arguments.
  • Vecrumba, Reinis and others have provided further discussion.
  • Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has answered to the discussion. The only significant response has been Irpen's mock offence over Vecrumba using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling.
  • However, both Irpen and Grafikm_fr have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article, Soviet occupation (, ). In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made.
  • Termer, well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics.

Digwuren 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says: "I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page. Suva 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE, therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --Termer 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

      Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies.
      This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period.
      As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be a continuous narrative into pieces. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats cool Pēters J. Vecrumba! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--Termer 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And get three more places where to battle with other editors. Suva 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
and get more than enough evidence of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing and Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--Termer 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in arithmetic is as "legendary" as my "ignorance in international law"! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who occupied whom?

I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has always been Russian. Download and read it yourselves here. Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) — Zalktis 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to Liberations of Latvia. Reinis 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I support renaming the article Liberations of Latvia. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's Sovereignty in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of Misplaced Pages!--Termer 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV! Suva 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Navbox

{{editprotected}} I have prepared the navbox of {{Soviet occupation}} but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. Digwuren 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal views versus referenced reliable sources

With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues.
     But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen." On Transnistria, I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the right as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here.
     The conflict here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me and my response . And here, thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions).
     An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Misplaced Pages does not exist to serve and defend the fictional aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians at the Wiki-gate. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page—with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed rename to "Occupied Latvia."
       The age of unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet fiction must come to an end. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)

Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up Occupied Latvia (1940-1941). Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--Termer 07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page. Martintg 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not appreciated.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after here.--Termer 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: