Latest revision as of 12:49, 4 March 2024

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Summary position of primary editor

1) Very simple. The article itself should become a short summary and pointer to the articles

1. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany and
2. this article, renamed and solely focused on the Soviet Occupation of Latvia;
3. That the latter article be allowed to be, and remain, titled, the Soviet Occupation of Latvia and that said term "occupation" be protected from POV tagging;
4. That the article be allowed to fully document the periods of Soviet occupation from 1940-41 and 1944-1991, again with said term "occupation" protected from POV tagging.
5. I agree to archive the "why-an-occupation" section in the article's talk page--N.B., that section was solely the result of being asked by someone encountering the same occupation denial issue regarding another one of the Baltic States and requesting a response;
6. and so, accordingly, I additionally request that protection of "Soviet occupation of...": that is, being able to use the term "occupation" in both article title and article body and not be POV tagged, be extended to articles dealing with the other two Baltic States, Lithuania and Estonia, as well.

Having been the primary editor, including writing one article and then combining with a similar one, I again extend my invitation, as I have done repeatedly on every Baltic States main article and various related occupation talk pages: if you agree with the Russian position that Latvia's incorporation into the Soviet Union was completely legal (as is indicated in the article), then please present sources which we may include in documenting that position.

This invitation has been met with an abject silence of facts, however, escalating into insults where:

• Latvians of that period are characterized as the majority just waiting to get rifles from the Nazis so they can go out and slaughter Jews; Latvia and Latvians today, whether at home or part of the diaspora, are labeled Holocaust deniers (I don't think I need to comment futher);
• Latvia today is characterized as an ethnocratic Russian-human-rights violating state (when, in fact, the majority of ethnic Russians are Latvian citizens; and, when the world conference of Russian journalists abroad came to Latvia planning to expose its human rights violations, even members of the Russian Duma attending admitted that the situation in Latvia was not as portrayed)

...none of which, incidentally, have anything to do with the Soviet occupation, leaving the only reasonable possible conclusion to being that these "Wikieditors" subscribe to the Soviet position which I myself heard expressed on the streets of Riga in a conversation passing the other way on the street (shortly after independence): "The next time, we'll send them ALL to Siberia."

Not even in the most controversial geo-political articles, Transnistria, for example, have I encountered the kind of hate-mongering I have found here, all done by parties insisting their voicings of opposition to the term "occupation" are objective and neutral.

Should my requests (3., 4., 6., protection of the term "ocupation" in title and contents against POV and related tagging) be denied by arbitration, then under the standard of equal treatment I must insist that every article on occupation and genocide in Misplaced Pages be forced to give equal space and voice to the deniers--and do so regardless of their ability/inability to produce supporting documentation. And then we'll see how long this sort of thing is tolerated.

If Latvia and the other Baltic states are to be a litmus test and precedent, then so be it.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing as a behavioral issue (subsequent to Kirill Lokshin comment):

1. POV tags related to disputing the "occupation" of the Baltics which have been inserted with no further basis shall subject to removal.
2. Repeated insertion of such tags with no further basis will lead to warning, blocking, and if needed, banning of individuals in question.
3. Individuals removing such tags shall not be subject to 3RR (three revert rule).  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on article content. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is POV'ing without sources or basis (i.e., "I deem this article to be POV") to indicate article is POV, which is a behavioral issue.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The tags are not content dispute in current case. A dispute - esp. such a long one - can only be based on sources. Original research and straw man arguments can't make up a dispute. Thus, the whole 'dispute' was Disruption by 3 users, who break the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Constanz - Talk 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What I attempted to show on the evidence page is that tagging has spanned from the constructive to the disruptive. Illja's tagging has been constructive and nobody has any issue with it, while Grafikm's tagging has been totally disruptive, and the other taggers fall somewhere in between. I'll reorder list on the evidence page to reflect this. Martintg 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged primarily not because it is counterfactual but because it us a tendentious presentation. It's scope (arbitrary combination of separate events) combined with improper title defines the unencyclopedic character. The solution (separate article for separate events plus the overall article for the historic period under the History of... title) is rejected by the article's proponents. --Irpen 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

tagged not because it i

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

True but I do not see how it is warranted. Why not excessively polite, the discussion was robust and clearly conducted in good faith, at least in the most part. --Irpen 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Call for civility is justified. All arguments must be verifiable; baseless and ugly accusations of Holocaust denial must be dropped as well as general anti-Baltic statements: --Constanz - Talk 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We are all would be better off to live in an ideal world. The reality is that the level of civility issues in the particular discussion is as far as from being an ArbCom's concern as there can ever be. I mean, it would be nice to have a better level of civility at this article's talk, in Misplaced Pages overall and in life in general, true. However, the heat of the discussion was not even close to what goes on in a multitude of the articles on politically heated topics.

There are two excesses possible. One is to allow the incivility get out of hand and become truly a major problem (like it has been at, say #Admins IRC channel). This hasn't happened in this article. Another extreme is to allow the civility issues to be used as a weapon to resolve the editor's disagreements through pressing for sanctions against the opponent. This is also counterproductive. Robust discussions of fiercely disagreeing editors should be allowed to continue and in such discussions, occasional loss of temper by one or the other side is a possibility. Unless the problem reaches an intolerable degree, there is no need to overemphasize it.

Finally, if ArbCom wishes to make this particular article a showcase for the desired civility, it is noteworthy that representatives of both POV's were guilty of questionable spats. The Holocaust denial was invoked by both sides as well as some moderate amount of rather unpleasant ethnic talk, accusations of vandalism and in pushing the propaganda (Martintg and Constanz frequently did make such accusations and some such accusations can be found below at this very page. Need diffs?) If ArbCom sees this severe enough to warrant the intrusion, so be it. In this case, I request ArbCom to also closely watch much more heated talk pages, such as Talk:New antisemitism, talk:Jogaila, talk:Continuation War and a host of other articles. I doubt ArbCom wants to become a civility police but if it does, it should start from the places where civility problems are more severe. That said, I will support enhanced civility as far as this article concerned as well. --Irpen 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have not engaged in Holocaust denial. As for the accusors, one only needs to read Grafikm fr's comments to see what they really think of the Latvian attitude towards Jews. Or did I misread his intention when he clearly indicated the majority of Latvians were willing collaborators in the deaths of Jews?

Frankly, the avalanche of dubious original research such as Grafikm fr's contention that the Baltics were not occupied because there were ethnic Balts in the Soviet armed forces leads me to ask, what have the Latvians ever done to cause this sort of vindictive behavior? Or that Latvia was not occupied because it was a S.S.R. (same reference). Perhaps Grafikm fr's is so blinded by his hate for Latvians he didn't read the part where Stalin printed up S.S.R. maps as early as August 1939. Intent to occupy followed by threats to occupy (Stalin to the Latvian foreign minister) followed by occupation.

And I've been in Talk:Jogaila where I attempted for some time to assist in the article naming dispute. That is a minor family spat compared to the insults being leveled here.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Jogaila, you obviously came late to the party to witness the drama. There is a pointed difference the statements made by Grafik and the statement made by his opponents above. One thing is to opine on overall extent of the Latvian complicity in Holocaust. Quite another, is to accuse a fellow editor personally in "hatred of Latvians" (by Vecrumba) right above as well as by Constanz and Marting generously throughout this very page and at the article's talk. --Irpen 06:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How else would you charaterize someone who says a majority of Latvians welcomed the opportunity for complicity in the death of Jews?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And some, actually quite a few including most mainstream scfolars, say that the majority of Germans eagerly supported Hitler in most of his actions 60+ years ago. This does not imply hatred of Germans in general or of German fellow editors in particular. Here Vecrumba generously spreads the slander accusing a fellow editor in xenophobia, because being "blinded by his hate for Latvians" cannot mean anything less, xenophobia that is. I hope this kind of ethnic talk and hate speech is to be noted in the list of diffs for which users are to be admonished. --Irpen 10:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with proposal. Unfounded accusations of hate speech is a particularly nasty form of personal attack. Martintg 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but even your example of "Germans supporting Hitler" is different from Grafikm fr's contention most Latvians would eagerly take German rifles to kill Jews.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You may argue all you want about how correct the supposition that Latvians in their majority where happily assisting in killing the Jews is. This is purely a factual dispute. You, however, turned into accusing your opponent in general "hatred of Latvians". Accusing someone onwiki in being a xenophobe is a serious ad hominem attack. --Irpen 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1) Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Avala. Kirill Lokshin 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Neutral point of view policy actually states: representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. Martintg 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consequently, as of now no other perspectives other than the majority POV, which I subscribe to, could be mentioned, since there are no reliable sources for those. True, the article states clearly that the Russian Federation (minority POV in Wiki guidelines) rejects occupation (see intro). --Constanz - Talk 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem in stating "no one side is represented as the truth" when one side can cite documented fact and the other side has only its unsubstantiated opinion, such as Petri Krohn's "total disputing" tagging of the section added on non-recognition of the occupation as legal with no further basis.

    I do expect to examine the Soviet "position" more, as I have been gathering additional references on that very topic. However, the Soviet position can in no way be represented as a majority/minority "truth" when it is, in fact, and demonstrably, based on lies. And when the "Soviet position" side has yet to produce one shred of evidence supporting the Soviet version of events and which would run contrary to a single fact presented.

    To those who would tag the article as "POV" because it somehow insults Russia and the heroism of the Red Army in the defeat of Nazism, I would remind them that the Baltics were occupied and its inhabitants deported to Siberia--most to their deaths, or else to return home, broken, after twenty years in exile--before Hitler turned on his ally Stalin, with whom he had split up Eastern Europe between them.

    That Russia continues to support the Soviet version of events is its choice. That Russia has made that choice does not invest that version with "truth."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is really funny (except it isn't) is that you continually dismiss the notion of systemic bias.

As for "inhabitants deported to Siberia", what difference does it make in the present discussion? Millions of Russians were deported too (perhaps more than the three Baltic states put together). Does that also mean Russian Federation was occupied? The argument of human suffering, deaths and so on, however tragic these may be, has nothing to do with occupation. -- Grafikm 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find it funny, but unless you can cite a published refereed paper supporting your notion of "systemic bias" in regard to occupation, we will continue to dismiss your notion. Martintg 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is sad, Grafikm_fr, is that you disregard your very own quite explicitly stated not-based-in-this-particular-instance-of-facts systemic bias. What makes it an occupation is that Latvia was illegally invaded--and since its citizens were being deported to the USSR while Latvia was still independent and fully sovereign according to the USSR, that furthermore made those deportations an act of war. That Russia suffered under Stalinism makes it no less an occupation of the Baltics. Russians suffered, ergo the Soviet Union did not occupy the Baltics? Because the Soviet Union could not also "occupy" the (now) Russian Federation (because it was already there)? This is a basis for why Latvia was not occupied? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is why History of Latvia (1940-1991) is much better title as it allowed representing both views. Alex Bakharev 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Both views? Please provide a cite to a published source of this other view that you want represented. Martintg 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! There are many people who deny Holocaust, we need to give weight to their 'arguments' in Holocaust article or ought one to rename the article so as to be more 'neutral'??? Hiding national socialist crimes behind euphemisms is just as unacceptable as hiding crimes of communism with the pretext of 'neutrality' (?) and 'representing both views'. --Constanz - Talk 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone whined above about HD accusations, Constanz, did not he? Now, seriously, Constanz, could you explain anywhere, since you never did at the article's talk, what's wrong woth History of Latvia (XXXX-YYYY) title? --Irpen 08:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

History article would be wider, and all the legal aspects wouldn't be necessary. Occupation article covers some points in depth (see above). What could be wrong with the title that Western encyclopedias use and an overwhelming majority supported on talk page? Constanz - Talk 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the time to write a comprehensive History of Latvia from 1940 to 1991. I do have the time to write a comprehensive accounting of the occupation and its impact (and that is the area in which I have been gathering the most references).

Unfortunately another project that has been on hold is my contribution to History of the Russians in Latvia. I challenge any of those hurling insults to read that and indicate anywhere (show me one diff) where I spew the kind of ethnic hatred that they do here.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Alex Bakharev and Irpen, would not an article devoted to only the occupation but relabeled as the "History of Latvia, 1940-1991" produce even greater howls of POV? Since the entire history of that period is being represented as only consisting of the occupation? What you propose as reasonable is exactly the opposite. And, once again, where is there any substantiation of the "other" part of "both views"? Do either of you have the background information on why the Russian Duma felt confident enough to pass a resolution to remind Latvia that its incorporation into the Soviet Union was legal?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that having an article devoted to the entire period by the scope defined in turn by the title but having such article focused only on the aspects of occupation is tendentious. Focusing on only Soviet atrocities conveniently omitting the Nazi and the Latvian one, claiming for months "lack of time", adds an insult to an injury. At the same time, having such kind of title excludes the possibility of the article's covering the set of events properly. The crux on the dispute is not the legality of the Soviet takeover. Write an article on that all right. The crux is having the article titled "occupation" devoted not to this event but to the entire period of the history, while the neutral title is readily available as well as lack of interest to cover non-Soviet atrocities. This all makes an impression that the article's sole purpose is the ground to grind an axe someone has in order to avenge the deeply seated grievances. --Irpen 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your content/format criticisms ad nauseum. I spend 4-5 hours a day commuting, 9+ hours working, Sundays are taken with a commitment outside of home, leaving Saturday to manage everything I need to do in my life. Please stop insulting me by making the leap of WP:OR I have no commitment to the article and ergo my intention is to trivialize the Holocaust and merely grind my axe regarding the first occupation. Article writing takes a lot more preparation than just participating in article Talk. If I were grinding my axe I wouldn't be able to write a NPOV on the history of Russians in Latvia.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to meet anyone, let alone a wikipedian, who does not consider oneself an "extremely busy" person. So, your committments in RL are neither unique nor relevant to the question whether the article is satisfactory and forcible removal of a well explained tag is justified or not. That you wrote some other article is not a proof of anything since it is only your personal assertion that it is NPOV. Once some other politics related article you write passes into a WP:FA category, that is receives a community consensus in its neutrality, among else, your claim of producing NPOV content elsewhere will receive some validity. --Irpen 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

1) Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Martintg 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Has little to do with the dispute in question. Not single referenced statement calling the Soviet takeover an occupation was challenged or attempted removed from the text. The article is challenged on the grounds of the combination of the scope, title and contents. Of several offered solutions (title change), splitting topics to their relevant articles, all were plainly rejected by the other party. --Irpen 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Has everything to do with the dispute. Is the title appropriate to the contents? Yes it is. Have the contents been refuted in any way whatsoever? No they have not. To say you have not disputed the contents or references and then to say the title is simply inappropriate is specious at best. You have not commented on my offer to split articles and eliminate possibilities of confusion and misinterpretation of intent. Your proposed renamings as I have responded elsewhere require a priori acceptance that the second Soviet invasion was not equally an occupation, a contention for which no one has provided evidence.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. How does the title History of... implies whether there was an occupation or not? --Irpen 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Very significant part of the official NPOV policy. Wikipedians should not challenge standard western historiography with their own interpretations. It is not for us to speculate that reputable encyclopedias, like the Britannica, are biased. Editors are of course welcome to cite academic historians who have criticized the Britannica for having a Cold War bias. This behavior of arguing against reliable sources with original arguments I hope the ArbCom will remedy, because it is the single most frustrating part of Misplaced Pages talk pages. --Merzul 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the assertion but not with its relevance to the dispute at hand. Britannica's using the term allows us to use the term, referended as well and I have asserted that. It is inappropriate, however, to use the term as the article's title. Use this term in the history article. Use the term as the title even for the article about the event of the 1940 takeover. But for the period use the History as the title but feel free to use referenced occupation in the article's text. The article was not tagged {{POV}} but as a {{POV-title}} if you take a notice. --Irpen 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Merzul. For months, we've been trying to reach this point. As to Irpen: the whole period is referred to as occupation. The prolongation of a occupation does not legitimise it. Constanz - Talk 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen, this doesn't help. "The prolongation of a occupation does not legitimise it" is precisely the kind of non-source based argumentation that should be avoided. You are dealing with a very sensitive issue, stick to the sources and avoid emotional phrases like that. --Merzul 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet rule in 1970s or 1980s was legally still occupation (the principle is ex iniuria ius non oritur: illegality cannot develop into legality). Fortunately, the Western states also refused to change their views. Cmp: 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. Hrsg. Boris Meissner, Dietrich Loeber, Cornelius Hasselblatt. Hamburg: Bibliotheca Baltica, 1994, S. 466-504 You've read the article? I've read the translation. It covers the questions in detail (I often rely on M's argumentation).Constanz - Talk 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that you have relied on sources in your arguments. However, how do I put it.. uhm, have you tried to adopt a slightly friendlier approach to convincing people? It's just that my computer senses a lot of tension on this page, not just you, of course, but still... ;) --Merzul 13:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you might actually be right on the content, but I have read the talk page, and the way that this is argued has mostly not been source-based. You really do have a case, and could cite the relevant sections of the Britannica to prove that it uses occupation about the event not the entire period, but instead most of the discussion is based on OR, and some people even disputing the Britannica itself. This has frustrated the other side, and I would also have lost my temper and probably even assumed bad faith if people dispute sources like the Britannica. --Merzul 11:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist point of view

1) Editors with a particular national background are encouraged to edit from a neutral point of view, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Avala. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't think there has been any evidence given yet that the article has been presented with an overly nationalist viewpoint. I believe the primary editor Vecrumba was born and raised in the USA, so culturally he would be very American in his outlook. Besides, the test of the validity of a particular viewpoint is the existence of published sources. Does the act of a Latvian museum holding a Soviet document confirming the fact of occupation taint that document as nationalist viewpoint? Martintg 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a Nationalist POV, then most probably from 3 Russian users (Ghirlandajo (has left Eikipedia after another arbitration process), Grafikm fr and Irpen). Only non-Russian who clearly supports them is Petri Krohn. On talk page you see that the present article has been regarded as neutral by numerous people from Poland, Romania, the US (an IP user whom I know) etc.Constanz - Talk 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As concerns the claim that I have left "Eikipedia" for some reason, I urge the parties to refrain from posting patent lies about people temporarily absent from the project. I am busy in another wikipedia for the time being but I plan to resume my activities in English Misplaced Pages once it is reformed. --Ghirla 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic talk again Constanz? Please cut it. Besides, you are wrong. Neither Grafik nor myself are Russians. --Irpen 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic talk was started by two users who claim the present article was created and is supported by Baltic nationalists (I even needn't give a diff this time, you know who has been “fighing against Baltic nationalists” here). Constanz - Talk 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? --Irpen 08:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn claims in his statement that the article is Holocaust revisionistic and serves as tool for ethnic POV pushing. He claims Baltic states have adpted racist and/or Nazi laws . Grafikm fr uses alleged Baltic 'heavy nationalism', Nazist tendencies and Holocaust denial as an argument (here again). As usual, he doesn't cite his authoritative sources. Why are they using such unfounded, straw man arguments even in arbitration statements? Because they don't have any acceptable arguments?Constanz - Talk 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite not one an the same, Constanz, to say that the article is affected by a heavy nationalism and to speculate, as you do right above, about the ethnic background of your opponents and the inferiority of the Russians in general to a degree that even having a non-Russian agreeing with them becomes noteworthy. --Irpen 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then let's just leave it as clearly demonstrated anti-Latvian sentiment, per prior references.

Where is there heavy nationalism in the article? You wish to include the Russian position for the legality of Latvia's incorporation into the Soviet Union? I've been looking for it and can't find it, nor has anyone offered that information. Your contention for "nationalistic" (Latvian) requires the active and intentional ommission of information regarding the opposing (Russian) viewpoint. I have made no such active ommision. No one, in challenging the "occupation," has produced any viable supporting evidence. Perhaps opposing evidence is lacking for a reason other than a nationalistic viewpoint censoring it, which is the upshot of your "nationalistic" contention.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the latest 'contribution' by Grafikm fr: again the article is called “an attempt to push nationalist agenda”. . Seems to be backbone of Graf's argumentation? Constanz - Talk 10:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verifiability and sourcing

1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Verifiability and sourcing applies also the alternate POV implied by the application of a POV tag. Perhaps this statement of principle should read: Editors adding tags should articulate and make an effort to cite a reliable source supporting their implied alternative POV, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to tag the article, not with those seeking to remove it. Martintg 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the term in the sources may or may not justify the choice of the article's title and the propriety of the article's scope. As for the name, we have a rather well-written guideline that explains how to make a choice among controversial names and History of country (period) title is neither controversial nor implies either POV. As for the article's scope and composition, a simple common sense tells us that separate events are entitled to their own articles and the broader articles that are intended to cover several events spread over a period of time are articles that call for a history title. --Irpen 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has been established that the title is controversial, certainly not in the West, where English language Misplaced Pages is used. The point of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue_weight is that Misplaced Pages ought to reflect the majority of views held within its community of use. There may well be an article in Russian language Misplaced Pages titled Liberation of Latvia, if that reflects the majority viewpoint within the Russian language world, then who are we to go in and push a particular western viewpoint. Martintg 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already proposed separating the Nazi and Soviet occupations in the discussion page. Focusing on the Soviet occupation, which appears to be the problem here (no one has disputed the Nazi occupation): the entire history of Latvia for that period, or, taking a wider view, until restoration of independence in 1991, is a far larger topic than the aspects of that history that deal with the occupation. There can certainly be a "History of..." article, but that is a different and larger topic than "Occupation of....".

And yet again, you label "occupation" as a "controversial" term when there is no controversy, and when neither you nor anyone else has brought forward any evidence which confirms the Baltics joined the USSR freely, willingly, and legally--prerequisites for the Soviet presence to not be (correctly as it is currently) termed an occupation.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of false assertion above. First, no one is proposing the title of Liberation of Latvia as an alternative to this one. Secondly, the proposal to separate different events by covering them in different articles was supported by me very strongly. "Focusing on Soviet occupation" is not a problem per se. It is a problem when it is done in the article, whose scope, according to its title, should include also other events and those events are not covered, seemingly on purpose, as those include the atrocities committed by the military adversaries of the Soviets: the Nazis and their local accomplices. I would be fine with Occupation of Latvia (1940) as one article, Occupation of Latvia (1941-1945) as another article. Further, the article for the 1944 Soviet takeover in the course of the driving out of the Nazis already exists and its name is not Occupation of anything but the Battle of the Baltic (1944). I would be perfectly all right with the existence of the article covering all of these events as well. Such article would also cover whatever else happened in Latvia over this time period and the title of such article would be History of Latvia (Year1-Year2). Moreover, all the Vecrumba's interesting elaborations about the applicability of the "occupation" term to the Soviet control of the Baltics in general, can be moved to the Occupation of Baltic Republics (term) where the applicability of the term would be explained.

However, the article in its current form and shape is non-compliant because only selected events are tendentiously presented and, contrary to your (and mine) suggestion to separate different events between different articles, the article by the scope defined by its title attempts to paste them together. This is a normal disagreement and this is the first time I see this to be sorted by ArbCom. Fine by me. Let it happen. --Irpen 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agee that these occupation events are unrelated and tendentiously presented together. I think it is appropriate to include the 1940 Soviet occupation, the 1941 Nazi Occupation and the 1944 Soviet re-occupation in a single article because it correctly characterises the main stream viewpoint of, as Churchill described in 1950, the deadly comb ran back and forth, and back again over Latvia. There, I've just provided one cite to a published source that groups the three occupations together. Can you provide anything other than your very strong opinion to support your claim that it is tendentous editing?

However, I don't think ArbCom will see this as a content dispute no matter how much one may attempt to bring content issues into this workshop page. The issue ArbCom ought address is the failure of one side to provide published sources to support this allegedly unrepresented alternative POV. In other words: verifiability and sourcing Martintg 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, 3 pages on Soviet atrocities and zero on the German ones, nothing on the Holocaust and Latvian participation in it in the article that is supposed to cover the entire period is not tendentious, huh? I am fine with separate articles. I am also fine with the wider article but properly titled and properly elaborated. As for the sources, you refuse to accept that what is challenged is not specific facts, but having them tendentiously picked, presented in out of context scope and under the POV title. Several suggestions were given and all flatly denied. --Irpen 08:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The author Vecrumba has already stated previously that the article is still in progress and has even tagged the sections as incomplete. To then claim that he is tendentiously minimizing German atrocities or Latvian participation in the Holocaust, while maximising Soviet crimes, really is a stunning demonstration of your extreme assumption of bad faith. Martintg 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What I had written originally dealt only with the first year of occupation, then merged with the other article. It was/is absolutely is a work in progress, I inserted the tags myself for the other sections, which I put in as place-holders, quite a some time ago , before User:Grafikm fr began their "activism" . So it would have been clear to him all along that the sections dealing with both the Nazi and second Soviet occupations remain to be done. Really, it's tagged as incomplete, it looks completely incomplete, and therefore I'm a Holocaust denier? Simply ban User:Grafikm fr from any and all Baltics-related articles and there will be an immediate and substantial return to civility.

     It is disingenuous for Irpen to suggest the article is "tendentious" as he and I already had the incomplete discussion which led to the above-referenced insertion of flags to clarify those sections were not done. As for "suggestions being turned down," his indication elsewhere that he is O.K. with any form of any of title that does have the word "occupation" in it leaves me surprised to say the least. Unfortunately, closer examination reveals there is no NPOV olive branch: saying there's no need for "Occupation of Latvia 1945" because that's covered in the "Battle of the Baltics" is just another way of saying WP:OR Latvia was NOT occupied as the result of the second Soviet invasion, a patently false contention.

     I have not flatly turned down any suggestion, I have merely asked "show why?" and never received a non-WP:OR response.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, "simply ban" your opponent is a convenient way to solve content disputes. And it is not new. It has been tried in the past. Unfortunately, your opponent has demonstrated both good faith and scholarly approach with 3 Misplaced Pages:Featured Article under his belt and it will be extremely hard for you to argue that he is here to disrupt anything on purpose and needs banned. As for your accusation of myself, they are false again. I said multiple times that I am fine with calling 1940 takeover "an occupation". I do agree that the event itself is article-worthy and while I would have preferred Soviet takeover of Latvia (1940) for a title of such article, I think Occupation can be used for a title here as well. --Irpen 07:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how Grafikm fr's invective contributes here. Objectivity and demonstrated quality of contribution in other areas of Misplaced Pages have not translated to constructive behavior here. While it appears we now agree on calling the first Soviet invasion an occupation (!), that still leaves the subsequent re-occupation to be dealt with, where your offer regarding the Battle of the Baltics already covering the topic is not appropriate, as it's not about the battle.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Occupation and Battle - and who was the person so much afraid of 'different things being put together' (see above)? Constanz - Talk 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Particularly since there was an insurgency against the occupation that continued in Latvia well into the 1950's, long after the Battle of the Baltics ended. Martintg 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please do not misquote me. I do agree to call the 1940 takeover as occupation and agree for the article to be called as such but only for the article about the takeover itself, the event, and not the historic period. The article for the extended period should be called "History of ... (Year1-Years2). Further, you are doing the great disservice to yourself by calling Grafikm_fr's criticism "invective". He speaks about the Latvian complicity in the Holocaust. You may disagree on the degree of such complicity but this is a disagreement of facts. You in return, called another user personally a xenophobe (accused in in "great hatred of Latvians"). This is indeed an invective. --Irpen 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Re-outdented response to Irpen above) I misunderstood you and thought we had more consensus than we do on either period of occupation. Again, "History of..." is a broad topic. "Occupation of..." is a far more specific topic. Labeling an article solely about aspects of the occupation as the history of an entire period, whether brief or long, is a disservice. Nor am I proposing labeling an article about the entire history of Latvia (whichever year-whichever year) as "Occupation of Latvia". Time period encompasses History encompasses Occupation.
    Let me back up then. If we look at just the first Soviet occupation of Latvia, do you and I have agreement or not that there was (a) an act of occupation and that (b) the Soviet occupation lasted until it was replaced by the Nazi occupation?
    I do have to differ on your assessment of the nature of Grafikm_fr's stridency. I do not see how labeling Latvians as eager to pick up rifles, etc. etc., or misrepresenting the Eastern European Waffen SS as willing Nazis and exactly the same as the German SS qualifies as a mere disagreement on facts. The visceral nature of Grafikm_fr's response leaves little to misinterpretation. This is not a person with positive thoughts when it comes to Latvians. That said, I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong in that assessment but have seen no evidence in that regard, nor has Grafikm_fr come forward with any solid basis for his contentions.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Content forking

1) Creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject should be avoided.

2) Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of Viewand there is no difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The present article Occupation of Latvia 1941-1945 is not content forking. The same terms - occupation, incorporation etc. - are used in other articles (History of Latvia, Soviet Occupation of Baltic Republics) as well. But - the present article covers the some things (i.e dispute regarding Russia's official statements, Western government's opinions, international relations 1939, legal questions etc) in detail. For comparison, we do have Soviet occupation of Bessarabia. Vecrumba has proposed creating Soviet occupation of Latvia on the basis of materials from the current article. The use of term occupation is not controversial - it was legally defined as such. See for comparison Grafikm fr's 'arguments' of 17th century occupations: we can't use term occupation when there was no legal basis yet at the time; we must use when there is. Calling the Soviet actions otherwise (some claim here this would be neutral) would be whitewashing of the 20th century history. Constanz - Talk 10:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is IMHO the heart of the problem. The article is nothing but a content fork, aimed to be as WP:TE as possible. The title is POV (since it reflects only one, Cold-War side of the problem), and the rest of the text is accordingly POV too.

We have an article on History of Latvia, we could create a subarticle specifically on 1944-1991 or whatever other period, and that would be a NPOV approach. What we have here is an attempt to push a nationalist agenda. -- Grafikm 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please clarify what is "nationalistic" about undisputed facts? That they do not coincide with your deprecating view of Latvians? Please contribute evidence from the "other non-Cold War side" which in any way indicates the current contents are not completely accurate (where I even take pains to document that the initial stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltics was legal, whatever the other circumstances). Your contention (elsewhere) that it's called an occupation because of the Cold War (and not that the Cold War originated because of Soviet actions such as the occupation) is so wildly out of step with any sort of reality as to be tragic.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Graf's statement The title is POV (since it reflects only one, Cold-War side of the problem), and the rest of the text is accordingly POV too - once again, he's unable to understand that international law depends on neither cold nor hot wars. What was an occupation in 1940 or crime against humanity in 1942 remains so up to this day. And as usual, G. failed to point out, what's so terribly 'POV' about the content. If one were to start editing an article constructively, one should start referring to particular unsuitable passages and trying to improve those. But not throw everything into wastebasket, by declaring it to be 'POV' or 'non-compliant'.Constanz - Talk 10:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

International law does not depend? Now that's an interesting idea. Ever heard of a place called Vietnam (or Iraq maybe?). Either every article on an occupation is called so (and it's not the cas on WP by far), or a neutral. Calling one event an "occupation" just because you happen to dislike one of the protagonists is POV. Even if this POV reflects in some sources, it's still POV. -- Grafikm 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting fact: the article History of Latvia states that "The whole sequence of events, though technically not an occupation, is commonly regarded as such by Latvians and Western countries." (bold mine) That's a prime example of a neutral wording that should be used. However, if you name an article "occupation of...", you already express (and push) a POV. -- Grafikm 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" is not a value judgement, it is an accurate description of the situation based on international jurisprudence. "Technically not an occupation?" I'll have to look at History of Latvia to correct that. There's no "technically". The initial stationing of Soviet troops under the mutual assistance pacts was legal, plain and simple. The subsequent invasion was not, plain and simple. And the joining of the Baltics to the Soviet Union was legal in no way whatsoever. You insist that facts not to your liking are POV, more specifically: take demonstrated facts, take demonstrated lies, and insist that NPOV Wikitruth must be halfway in-between.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the section in question. It is completely wrong, not even having the sequence of basic events of the stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltics correct. It's a total mess. I'll have to see what happened. Rule #1, for legitimacy, all references must be externally sourced, not Wikisourced. AHA!!! Is that a workshop proposal??  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why it was technically and legally occupation has been explained in the very article itself. If you had read a single Western source about the problem, you'd know why is it this way. But it seems that you rely rather on Pravda than Britannica. Constanz - Talk 10:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grafikm, can you provide a cite to a reliable source, i.e. a secondary source such as a refereed paper for example, that it was "technically not an occupation"? Please do. We are waiting. We need scholarly input, not you amateurish opinion, so you better go to the library and do some research, when you find something, please come back and we will consider it. But until then, your assertions have absolutely no credibility here, none what so ever. Martintg 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the referenced term is not objected to. Tendentious title and overall scope is what's a problem here. The article merely duplicates what has to be covered in the History of Latvia article for an appropriate period. A series of articles about separate events, may complement a history article. A mirror to the history article about the period of history tendentiously titled is what makes this a POV fork. --Irpen 07:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is no more a POV fork than American slavery is a POV fork of American History. Martintg 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The text is adapted from WP:POVFORK and WP:SS. The Occupation of Latvia article is a spin-off of History_of_Latvia#Soviet_period as a spin-off it should use the same terminology as the main article Alex Bakharev 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The current article was created from an existing article and one that I wrote completely from scratch. It is not a spin-off. "Soviet period" is the equivalent of "History of Latvia (under Soviet rule)" which, again, is a larger topic than the Soviet occupation of Latvia. There is no conflict in terminology. As relates to this article, I invite you, as I have others, to present materials supporting the other side of "both views" (as you indicate elsewhere) that the Soviet Union did not occupy the Baltics. There is no forking of content. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact you wrote it from scratch does not prevent it from being a POV fork. Not in content, but in spirit. -- Grafikm 10:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the content is not a fork, how is it a fork?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

1) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article itself on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am not so sure about the efficacy of punishing the article. Both Irpen and Grafikm have been POV disputing articles such as Holodomor and Soviet Invasion of Poland, in fact any article that seems to contradict the Russian nationalist agenda of glorifying the Soviet Union appears to be a target.Martintg 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An extremely disgusting false accusation bordering the hate speech. The Holodomor article in its current stable form was mostly written by Irpen who added multitudes of sources that cite the Soviet atrocities and took an effort to fend off the attacks by several, now banned, users who were pushing the revisionist Stalinist agenda. That the same user:Irpen, an ethnic Ukrainian himself, also opposed emotional, unscholarly and unsourced POV pushing by the other side is presented as a proof of a "Russian nationalist agenda" exemplifies habitual ABF by user:Martintg directed against his opponents. --Irpen 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While I vigorously disagree with Irpen's viewpoints regarding the occupation of Latvia, I can say at least that he has refrained from the hate-mongering that has appeared of late.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

??? --Irpen 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have modified your comment to now claim my statement was "An extremely disgusting false accusation bordering the hate speach" Why would you consider the Russian nationalist agenda of glorifying the Soviet Union to be extremely disgusting? Afterall, didn't the Soviet Union make tremendous sacrifices in defeating Nazi Germany? Isn't that worth glorifying? I personally think that veterans of the Red Army who fought the Nazis extremely brave and selfless and deserve all the glory owed to them. What is so hateful about that? I am confused as to your modified response above. Martintg 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I modified it because I thought my original response to your slander was not strong enough and your disgusting and false attack needs a stronger rebuttal. I will not comment on another series of spats above. --Irpen 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Holodomor, perhaps one has mistaken Irpen for Grafikmfr? The last person has really rigorously fought against calling Holodomor a genocide (what Ukraine & some Western countries suggest) . Constanz - Talk 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Constanz, you are following Grafik all over Misplaced Pages trying to disrupt the great work he is doing here in various ways. You'd better did some content writing yourself for a change. You new spat about someone being the "last person" to denied Genocide is not worth spending time to reply to. Suffice is to read the Holodomor article, its talk and archives. Everything is there for anyone interested to read. --Irpen 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Holodomor is a poor analogy to the present topic of dispute, so I withdraw that comparison above. Martintg 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am forced to comment on Martintg's misrepresentation directly above. The whole point is that when it specifically came to the Baltics, they were not liberated from the Nazis, they were re-invaded and re-occupied by the Soviet Union (none of the conditions from the first occupation changed). Red Army soldiers did not fight selflessly, their officers had orders to shoot anyone trying to retreat.

     As I recall, most of the Red Army casualties in Latvia were from trying to take the last remaining bit of Courland as Stalin ordered in division after division--where the Latvians had joined in the fight against the Red Army. (I would note Latvian conscripts in the Red Army had been sent to the German front because they refused to kill other Latvians.) The Red Army lost 74,000 just in the last (6th) battle for Courland alone.

     Your characterization (POV) regarding Soviet heroism viz a viz the Baltics is fundamentally flawed: the Great Patriotic War began with the battle against Hitler. Meanwhile, the Baltics had already been invaded, subjugated, and their citizens deported by Stalin well beforehand--as Hitler and Stalin agreed to as allies.

     So let's just go ahead and add "dishonoring Soviet losses liberating the Baltics" to the list of accusations.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba

Well I did say "I personally think that veterans of the Red Army who fought the Nazis extremely brave and selfless and deserve all the glory owed to them". Ofcourse not all Red Army veterans fought Nazis. Some fought Baltic natives to regain territory Hitler assigned to Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which Hitler later reneged by attacking the Soviet Union. Those Latvians in the Courland pocket were merely defending their homes, not any foreign ideology.Martintg 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how this all is relevant here. RA veterans did not choose who they fight. I am not aware of any army where they do. --Irpen 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that by invading and occupying Latvia based on a pact with Hitler, and later re-occupying Latvia in a manner which completely and consistenly continued the first occupation, and as demonstrated by Stalin throwing in division after division to take Courland, Stalin was bent on taking over Latvia and the Baltics, not in liberating the Baltics from Hitler. THerefore it is not appropriate to characterize the Red Army's actions in the Baltics as consistent with heroism. And Latvian RA did choose and were shot or sent to the German front for their expression of personal principle.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So as to not offend Grafikm_fr's sensibilities, I do not dispute that there were many acts of individual heroism. Those individual acts do not, however, transmogrify into a heroic act by the Soviet state on behalf of the Baltic States.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact these people were sent to Waffen-SS (willingly or not) does not make them war heroes. In Western Europe, where some people were sent to the Wehrmacht or the SS (Alsace and Belgium come to mind), these people are not glorified as war heroes. Yes, most of them had no choice and were even sometimes sent to front by force, but that does not mean one should erect them a memorial.

As for "heroism", it is beyond the scope of the present discussion. -- Grafikm 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original research

1) Original research is prohibited. This includes a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; an argument is permissible only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the specific topic of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A useful reminder to editors working on this sort of thing. Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed.

Also, I will likely move and annotate the "Basis for occupation" section (which is not WP:OR) to a more appropriate venue (occupation of the Baltic States). It appears here only because of all the evidence-free contentions that the Baltics were not occupied. I (and others) grew tired of repeating the same thing over and over in all the various talk pages where this "controversy" has arisen. In particular, I was requested to prepare it as a response for the Estonia article ; however, owing to a Village Pump request by regarding the Lithuania article , I wound up posting on Talk:Lithuania . Typically, as has been the case in these so-called content disputes, User:DamianOFF did not respond to his own request for input/substantiation of the "opposing videpoint," and, indeed, after diligently scrubbing the word "occupation" from various Baltic-related articles over a two week period from September 12, 2006 to September 25, 2006 (which period marked the start of his Misplaced Pages editing), he did not contribute once more--anywhere--after posting his Village Pump challenge until February 7, 2007. . Far be it for him to acknowledge plain, simple, documented, substantiated facts.

Unfortunately, the abject lack of accurate facts no longer seems to be any impediment to disputing "occupation," as this current crop of persistent, escalating, and off-topic vituperative nastiness demonstrates.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot talk about how incomplete the article is because it is a temporary condition for months on one hand and reject the complaints that in the currents state the article is unsatisfactory and the reader needs to be warned about that. I expressed multiple times that I support splitting stuff putting it where it belongs. Your lengthy elaborations of applicability of the term belong to a separate article, say Occupation of Baltic Republics (term). The atrocities of the Soviets and their Latvian allies need separated from the atrocities of the Nazis and their much more numerous Latvian allies in separate articles. If you want to have them together is one article, also fine, but name the article correctly (History of the period that overlaps the entire time frame) and do not give the Soviet devils an undue weight in such article by completely omitting the deeds of the Nazi devils and their local friends. The materials from the Holocaust museum and Yad Vashem as well as from the Museum of the Great Patriotic War belongs to the article that is supposed to cover the entire 40-45 time period at least as much as the material sourced to the Latvian governmental museum of occupation, which is listed first among the article's sources. --Irpen 09:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As Vecrumba stated here , his aim was to first find consensus before preceeding to complete the Nazi and second Soviet occupation. Those months were spent attempting to achieve consensus, hence the inclusion of the lengthy elaborations of the occuptation term . The incomplete sections were even tagged as incomplete, so to claim Vecrumba is guilty of WP:TE is to claim that his statement here is a lie, and a demonstation of WP:ABF on your part. Martintg 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of that sort. I have no idea of his intentions and have no basis to comment on their being different from his claims. My comment and objections are devoted to the article in its current state, not the one Vecrumba intends to reach one day. In turn, I gave my own suggestions. Cover each event in its own article, let's discuss their scope and titles before-hand, and rename the article that covers the entire series of events over the extended time as History of... because this is what History is, and complement the selectively picked events by their full context in such more complete article. I am sorry that Vecrumba does not have time or interest to do so. I could have done it myself but the Ukrainian topics have so many glaring omissions and so few editors that I just do not know when I can start writing comprehensive articles on the Latvian history from scratch. Latvian editors should generally be much more readily expected to do that. --Irpen 07:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the difference between time and commitment elsewhere. An extended occupation is still an occupation. One year, five years, fifty years. There is nothing about the simple duration of an event which changes it into something more benign or legal. And please explain to me my motivation in contributing to Misplaced Pages when what I get for my trouble is being called a Holocaust denier and having to spend 99.9% of my time regarding Baltic topics fending off endless WP:OR disputing of the occupation of the Baltics? Frankly, all the other Latvian editors have been driven away from Misplaced Pages by the Baltic Wikischmutz which has culminated in the ugliness here. "Occupation" = western anti-Soviet propaganda?!?! = a viewpoint that is being censored by nationalistic editors?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, what you're trying to do is to minimize Nazi crimes at the expense of Soviet ones, as you demonstrated several times. In other words, you're trying to whitewash the Nazi regime by saying "oh, after all, they was not so bad, compared to you-know-who". In some countries, this alone is an offense. Except in Baltics, where Waffen SS troopers are considered war heroes...

As for people driven away, I hate to say that, but less nationalistic POV-pushers means more time writing useful content. -- Grafikm 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice example of the kind of assumption of bad faith that has poisoned the article's talk page. You even fabricate a quote and falsely attribute it to Vecrumba! Well done. Martintg 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Grafikm_fr you condemn the Latvian Waffen SS because they were the "SS." If you did any research on the Waffen SS units in Eastern Europe you would understand your gross mischaracterization. Because I say the Waffen SS are not what you say they are--while I explicitly state Arajs et al. did what they did, as an earlier organization--I am now whitewashing Nazism? Historical references are clear the Eastern European Waffen SS units were recruited/conscripted to fight the Red Army. Your eagerness to not absorb one iota of information you do not agree with is the epitome of POV.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That you research and write on WWII in Eastern Europe and present such a single-track (would it be fair to say you characterize the Latvian Waffen SS as anti-Semitic Nazis whose primary purpose was to carry out the Holocaust?) misinformed position is puzzling. Of course, I'm sure I can find quotes from the Russian foreign ministry pronouncing that the Latvian Waffen SS was convicted at Nuremberg (i.e., one and the same as the German Waffen SS). Your faith in non-Western sources, again, is based on?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will just comment on the interesting assertion about Baltic editors being "driven away" by "wikischmutz". (Should this be added to the list of diffs for which Vecrumba has to be admonished, btw?) If I may suggest, take a look at the lively and prolific Lithuanian community on enwiki. They create and improve the coverage of Lithuanian (as well as Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish topics), not necessarily agreeing with their neighbors all the time. For some reason those editors do not create the articles titled "Occupation of..." to cover the historic period. The proper section of the History of Lithuania article is titled In the Soviet Union. Now, we can only speculate whether there is any relation with Lithuanian editors having lesser propensity to create articles whose titles and scope are not aimed at grinding an ax against Russia and the Russians and the fact that Lithuanian citizenship laws adopted after 1991 accession of independence were all-inclusive towards the country's residents irrespective of their ethnic origin unlike those laws in Latvia. Perhaps coincidentally, same applies to, say, Ukraine. All-inclusive citizenship laws and no Occupation of..." article titles. --Irpen 08:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How come you are not insisting Soviet occupation of Bessarabia be renamed to History of Bessarabia and mutatis mutandis all the other Occupation of... articles on Misplaced Pages? Martintg 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question, Marting, and a very easy to answer one. Soviet occupation of Bessarabia is an article about an event that took place in 1940, a takeover of the territory with the use of the military force, that is occupation by the very definition of the word. The article does deal with the aftermath of this but the appropriate section is called Consequences of the event. However, if you look at the History section of the Bessarabia article, the section devoted to the period, not an event, is called Part of the Soviet Union. I've been proposing all along the same solution of this article. Write separate articles about separate events. Once this approach is agreed on, we can discuss the titles of such articles. However, if Vecrumba wants also a separate article about the history period, he can write such article and call it properly, that is History of.... Such article by its scope would properly include all those events. Properly titled, this would have a chance to become a fine article, one day, a WP:FA perhaps. The current title in combination with the current scope is WP:TE and the article tendentiously titled with the content being a set of separate events arbitrary pasted together is marked as non-compliant and having a disputed title/subject matter. --Irpen 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. "Occupation" can be defined as either as the act of seizure and control (which you correctly contend), or the term or period of control (which the article also correctly contends) . An "Occupation of.." can co-exist with a "History of...", it's not a POV fork, it just has greater detail and focus. What you are arguing for is similar arguing that American slavery be renamed to American History because you think the term "Slavery" is POV.

I don't agree that it is WP:TE and content is an arbitary set of events. Nazi or Soviet, it was still a foreign occupation, initially by agreement via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then contested militarily when Hitler reneged on that agreement. That's connection between the Nazi and Soviet occupations. Martintg 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Canvassing, meatpuppetry and single purpose accounts

1) Canvassing, Meatpuppetry and single purpose accounts are generally ill-received although those are difficult to explicitly define and such policy is difficult to enforce.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Irpen 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article. Each of these points has been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The natural solution in case of the lack of a mutually acceptable outcome is to get a wider audience. This has been already happening. The newly attracted editors happened to not uniformly side with either POV. It would be useful if the finding would have reflected this fact as well. --Irpen 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There were four outside responses in total, one supported changing the title to "History of ..." , while three maintained "Occupation of.." was appropriate , , Martintg 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think this was a content dispute. The locus of the dispute is: how is it possible to maintain a POV dispute when one side fails to cite any published source to support their case. Neutral point of view policy states: representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. It seems disingenous for one party to claim an article does not meet WP:NPOV, yet fail the WP:NPOV test that their alternate viewpoint must be published. Proceeding from that point, if an alternate viewpoint is unpublished, why should we give undue weight to it by acceding to their demands to alter either the content or title to accomodate their unpublished viewpoint? Martintg 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article, particularly the propriety of the combination of the scope of the article (a series of different article-worthy events with being combined together), its content (selective coverage with prominent omissions), and its title ("History of..." as the title for an article that covers several events that took place over a significant time frame is supported by one party and opposed by another.) Each of these points has been the subject of extensive and sometimes heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The parenthetical remarks here are essentially content decisions; it remains outside of our purview to rule that the article's content is "selective coverage with prominent omissions" or that its scope includes "a series of different article-worthy events", regardless of whether it's done via a separate ruling, or merely inserted into a broader finding in this manner. Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical remarks simply describe what the dispute is about. These are editors' (not ArbCom's) assertions and ArbCom may simply acknowledge that the difference of the opinions on these matters is the locus indeed. Articleworthiness is not disputed by either party. Neither the fact of omissions (as Vecrumba has acknowledged too) at least in the current state of the article. Only the propriety of the combination of particular scope with the particular content with the particular title is what the parties dispute. ArbCom does not need to rule which party is "right" by acknowledging what the locus of the dispute is. --Irpen 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Irpen 05:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Even you describe the "occupation" as a point in time event, like a phone ringing, not an extended event which lasted for the entire war (your indication there's already an article regarding the second occupation called the Battle for the Baltic, it's too late in the evening to go hunting for the diff), let alone until the re-establishment of independence. The scope of the article is to discuss occupation, the exercise of occupation, and the direct consequences of occupation. Also, rejected on your characterization that the problem is editorial in nature. A significant number of people opposing the term "occupation" do so on the basis of it not being factual while presenting no evidence to support their position.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves around the propriety of disputing the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 on the basis of opinion without reference to verifiable cites to published reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

On a trivial level, sources (e.g. official Russian resolutions) for the alternative viewpoint were provided. While it's certainly possible to argue that they're unreliable, insufficient, biased, propagandistic, etc., determining that is up to the consensus of the article's editors; it remains outside the purview of ArbCom to make that judgement here. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

However this one single reference to the official Russian resolution supporting an alternative viewpoint was in fact provided by Doc15071969, a supporter of the occupation viewpoint . Vecrumba did incorporate that viewpoint into the article, third paragraph in fact. This illustrates the efforts Vecrumba and Doc15071969 made to find balance in the article. It also illustrates the total bankrupcy of the opposing sides claim that the title, scope and content of the article is POV, because they have still failed to back their argument with one single cite to published sources.

Persistantly disputing the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 on the basis of opinion without reference to verifiable cites to published reliable sources is a behavioual issue which has wider implications beyond Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. If an Arbitration ruling implies that a lower standard of WP:OR and WP:V is required when disputing the title, scope and content of an article, then I could well imagine the more extreme participants of the Usenet group alt.revisionism for example, taking note of this new development and begin disputing a whole raft of articles that in their "strong opinion", view as not being neutral. Martintg 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating such a reference and stating shortly afterwards that it is the "most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda" is a pretty poor way to make a NPOV article. -- Grafikm 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, both statements ("vocal denial" followed by "persistent fabrication") are NPOV based in fact. There's no unresolvable POV/NPOV dichotomy here nor is there any attempt at being disingenuous. Both statements as made in the article are true. It is only Soviet sources that claim the Soviet Union was forced to invade--that would apparently be to protect itself from Latvia's standing army of 16,000-18,000 when the USSR already had 25,000 troops stationed in the country. If you have evidence that said vocal Russian denial is not based on Soviet propaganda (the ultimatum, for example, containing one correct fact intentionally misconstrued to fit the Soviet need to make an accusation, with all the rest being lies) but has some other basis in fact, please produce it.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Martintg 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Constanz - Talk 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Fitness of the tendentiously picked scope with the tendentious title and selective coverage is what is challenged. Not the sources or their citations. --Irpen 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case is not concerned about the content dispute, but rather the underlying behaviour that is preventing consensus being achieved. Martintg 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire "case" is nothing but a content dispute and when the compromise is not found, one invites uninvolved parties to chime in (It is an interesting idea to invite the ArbCom instead, but I do not object to it if this is what the ArbCom wants). That the previously uninvolved parties who commented already happen to be split made some unhappy and those decided to shortcut the DR to achieve a quick-fix content dispute through sanctioning the opponents. As far as behavior is concerned, I said before that it is not ideal but is quite far from being ArbCom's concern by the current standards. If there are some behavioral problems, however, the worse are accusations of vandalism and disgusting ethnic talk some demonstrated not only at the article's talk but even at this very page. Personally, I am rather thick skinned but ArbCom's reigning in on incivility and spreading of ethnic hatred by some will not hurt either. --Irpen 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1.Not content dispute, since no other (alternative) verified material was offered for content. 2. You are also tired of accusations of Baltic nationalism, Nazi revival, 'Nuremberg-style laws', Holocaust denial (which would be criminal in some countries) and similar 'arguments'? We have found a common ground here. Constanz - Talk 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article; these have been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved. Among other issues, the debate has focused around two related questions: whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A somewhat more detailed version, noting two distinct facets to the title issue. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I thought no content issues would be considered here, only behavioral issues. --Ideogram 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a distinction, I think, between a ruling affecting content and an explanation of the (content issue) dispute as background information. Kirill Lokshin 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tags

1) A number of parties—including Advocatus diaboli, Constanz, Ghirlandajo, Grafikm_fr, Petri Krohn, Lysy, Irpen, and Martintg—have engaged in a revert war over the presence of the {{POV-title}} and {{noncompliant}} tags on the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree with calling the development a revert war. Sterile revert wars are usually not accompanied by good faith discussions at talk. Parties extensively and mostly civilly explained their actions at the talk page and the talk page debate was detailed and comprehensive. The onlookers attracted by two articles RfC were divided in their support of either party. --Irpen 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't call it "sterile"; but a revert war with simultaneous debate on the talk page is still a revert war. Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A revert supplied with an extensive and good faith explanation at talk is not much different from an edit. Revert war usually applies to fast and unexplained or frivolously explained reverts. --Irpen 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Twelve reverts of the tags in a single day qualifies as both, I think. Kirill Lokshin 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends. The full context matters a lot. Please get a hold of it. --Irpen 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor behavior

1) A number of the parties to the dispute, including Grafikm_fr (), Constanz (, , , , ), Advocatus diaboli (), Martintg (), and Lysy (), have aggravated it by engaging in personal attacks or assuming bad faith of the other editors involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I click on the very first link in the proposed finding of fact which is supposed to be a personal attack by Grafikm_fr and, sorry, I do not see any in the link. This entry would not be appropriate for a conversation in the manner's school, true, but nothing warranting an ArbCom intervention, especially taking into account the context in which that edit was made. I can check them the other diffs too, but I would rather request that when something is proposed, the proposal is more clearly warranted by diffs. Please check again. --Irpen 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Kirill means ABF in that case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The constant accusations of "trolling" in these diffs are sort of borderline between merely ABF and actual attacks; I don't think it's going to be useful to quibble over the exact boundary between the two here. Kirill Lokshin 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

True of course, I was just pointing out that you were valid either way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, reflex indenting there; I had meant that as a direct reply to Irpen's comment. Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "trolling" may or may not be a personal attack depending on the context at which they were made. I humbly request the Arbitrators to not restrict their research to the parties' statements but read the talk page in its entirety just one single time. It will take, perhaps, 20 minutes or so, true enough, but would save more time not to be spend on the discussions and explanations once the jury gets better informed of the full case and its context. --Irpen 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read the entire thing; and I stand by my assertion that these accusations were borderline personal attacks and only served to aggravate the dispute. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spending time on reading the entire thing. This is actually the only thing I ask all the involved arbitrators to do. Now, could be that the discussion could have hypothetically be better. But was it that bad to warrant the ArbCom's intrusion.?Check, eg. talks and archives of such pages like Talk:New antisemitism, Talk:Atheism or even Talk:Jogaila. Those discussions are much worse and parties somehow manage to make slow progress without dramatic ArbCom intervention. The matter at hand consists of the content conflict between several editors who are acting in good faith and mostly reasonably. Outside opinions started to come in and were split as well. One user is too unhappy from not getting what he wants and decides to short-circuit a discussion and further DR steps by going directly to arbitration. I mean, fine, if this is what ArbCom wants to sort out but it is setting a strange precedent. Finally, accusations of trolling, while indeed borderline, are neither produced out of thin air or are exceptional, especially comparing to the debates at the talk pages of other hot-topic articles. Grafikm_fr, an author of several FA's devoted to the history of this very period (WW2), had already the pleasure of dealing with this particular opponent and may have had some basis for his opinion even if it is, as Kirill says, indeed "borderline". --Irpen

I reject this statement by Kirill: “A number of the parties to the dispute, including Grafikm_fr (), Constanz (, , , , ), Advocatus diaboli (), Martintg (), and Lysy (), have aggravated it by engaging in personal attacks or assuming bad faith of the other editors involved.”
This statement is not impartial, since - apart from Grafikm fr - only majority POV promoters are listed here as assuming bad faith and often using personal assaults. But what about numerous ugly Holocaust denial accusations by Petri Krohn () and Grafikm fr () (repeated by Ipren ()), general anti-Baltic comments by Grafikm fr ( ) and Petri Krohn (Baltic governments accused of Nazism ). Why forget these? Constanz - Talk 10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't mentioned here primarily because they're either comments in the arbitration statements themselves—I don't think it's really appropriate to base a ruling on the proceeding itself—or not "personal" attacks, per se. While I agree that disparaging entire countries is generally unhelpful, it doesn't seem quite the same thing as disparaging particular editors. (I had actually intended, originally, to include a more general "Negative comments along national lines" finding that would cover the sort of thing you mention, as well as similar comments by a number of other parties; that's why I added in the "Nationalistic point of view" principle, above. On further reflection, though, I'm not convinced that such a finding would be either necessary or particularly helpful to actually resolving the issue here.) Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor behavior

1) A number of the parties to the dispute, including Grafikm_fr (, ), Constanz (, , , , ), Advocatus diaboli (, ), Martintg (), Lysy (), and Petri Krohn () have aggravated it by some form of poor behavior, such as engaging personal attacks, assuming bad faith of the other editors involved, or making attacks and accusations along national lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A somewhat broader version of the above, mainly noting that the tone of the debate has been unfortunate here. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inadequate citation

1) Both sides of the debate have generally failed to cite the sources for their assertions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Constanz has cited atleast three verifiable reliable sources to published material that back his assertion that Latvia was occupied. Martintg 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which may or may not justify the usage of the term in the article's text but the locus of the dispute is whether they justify the usage of the strong term in the title of the article devoted to the entire history of the country in the specific period, for which the natural title would be ]. Further, no other article than under the History of the period title should be devoted to several different things in the history separated by time and completely different by scope. --Irpen 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, but whether one side is pushing an alternate POV based upon original research. I've shown one side has posted at least three cites. The other side nil. To say both sides have generally failed to cite sources is not a finding in fact I would make.Martintg 05:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into a discussion of these particular sources, I think it's quite valid to make the general point here despite the fact that three sources were provided by an editor for a particular point; the vast bulk of that 160K discussion nevertheless consists of uncited assertions. Kirill Lokshin 07:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is noteworthy, however, that the vast bulk of the discussion is devoted not to asserting and disproving specific facts but to the propriety of the title for the scope of the article as well as the propriety for any article other than devoted to the history in general to have a scope that includes three events separated both in time and by the players who took part in them. Remember WP:TE. --Irpen 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To equate the side which has constructively contributed to the article with the 3 man side which WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS used WP:OR is unacceptable. (See the references of the article). The occupation fact is well referenced, by using other encyclopedias (see arbitration or article talk) and neutral sources (by legal experts). Constanz - Talk 10:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick count on the talk page reveals atleast 19 separate cites to published sources that directly support occupation, whereas in 160k of discussion, the opposing side fails to cite any references to support their claim that occupation did not occur. Zero. I can go through the talk page and list them all if you like. Three, let alone 19, is infinitely more than zero, regardless of the volume of the talk page. So it cannot be said that both sides did not cite sources. Martintg 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be helpful, particularly if you could also list what sections the citations occurred in. I may very well have missed noting some links here; but it was my impression, based on reading through the discussion, that the bulk of it isn't sourced. Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cites supporting "occupation" argument in talk page. Four cites here . One cite here . Another cite here . Here , , , . Two given here . Three given here . Four here , one here , , . Martintg 11:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, fair enough; this probably isn't an accurate enough finding to be useful here. Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the term occupation is not sufficiently cited is astounding. It is rather that people here have disputed even Congressional committee findings using the word, encyclopedia articles using the word, and Latvian museums even though the documents they have in their collections are of Soviet origin. The best is, characterizing it all as anti-Russian Cold War propaganda on the basis of WP:OR that the use of the word occupation "coincided" with the beginning of the Cold War--i.e., the Cold War led to it being called the Soviet occupation (!), not that acts such as the Soviet occupation led to the Cold War. This qualifies as a "content dispute"?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Inadequate citation

1) One side of the debate has generally failed to cite the sources for their assertions. Constanz et al, have provided the following cites supporting occupation argument in talk page: four cites here ; one cite here ; another cite here ; here , , , ; two given here ; three given here ; four here , one here , , .

There is no evidence existing on the talk page that User:Grafikm_fr, Petri Krohn or Irpen have provided any cites to back their claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Martintg 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The referenced usage of the term "occupation" within the text is not objected to. What is objected to is article's tendentious scope being a combination of selectively picked events arbitrary pasted together combined with inappropriate title for the article whose scope is to cover the history of the country for the extended period of time. --Irpen 08:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate Irpen's decision to abandon occupation denial (now only Petri Krohn and Grafikm_fr seem to retain that view). However, Irpen himself continues dispute (accusations of non-compliance and “tendentious scope being a combination of selectively picked events arbitrary pasted together”). But no-one has really pointed out a single sentence in the article, that might be problematic ('tendentious, 'selectively picked' or whatever). General accusations like those above should be ignored. Constanz - Talk 10:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Section level tags would be more appropriate if Irpen had a real issue with sections within the article. Martintg 11:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an example: the section I've written (Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945#Non-recognition of the occupation) is tagged as 'factually incorrect' and not neutral. Which facts are incorrect? What is not neutral there? No-one has explained anything. And that's the level of the 'dispute'... Constanz - Talk 11:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I decided to stay out of this for various reasons, but here my two cents might help, I believe. Lack of sources to sustain tagging aside (noted by RfC comment, too ), Irepen's statement above illustrates precisely what was wrong with the debate. It is virtually impossible to address any concerns regarding the article unless they are expressed with reasonable specificity. I made two attempts to elicit concrete answers as to which statements in the article need to be addressed (do not, allegedly, conform to NPOV, need additional verifiable (or inline) references, or constitute original research). Please correct me, if I'm wrong (I have not double-checked this), but, with exception of

- "non-NPOV title",

- insertion of section on Nazi occupation (for which the solution was proposed), and

- the "British booklet" issue (which has been clarified/sourced subsequently, and still could be subject to discussion as to how relevant such factoid is to the article),

only assertions not referring to anything specifically in the article as well as continued recycling of statements refuted earlier have been forthcoming. I believe that the findings of fact put up for vote thus far completely fail to capture this aspect.

To me, it is the single most de-motivating (and it has proven to be disruptive, too, I believe) aspect of the debate, if it can be called so. It is impossible to identify specific concerns to be addressed, specific facts or statements under dispute or in need of inline citations, and, short of opting for unacceptable alternative--removing or replacing a term commonly used by "mainstream" encyclopedias to refer to the Soviet rule in Latvia (occupation that is), or changing the scope of article (which was intended to be Soviet occupation of Latvia), I believe it is impossible resolve the debate. At least resolve it in a way that will be acceptable to those tagging article. Attempting to improve article would implicitly validate general, largely un-sourced and yet refuted claims put forward while continuing to tag it, AND there is no prospect some resolution will come out of it. I'm not bothered by clearly preposterous suggestions of Holocaust denial, nationalistic viewpoints and the like - the kind of stuff that merits no response (other than bringing it to the attention of admin or whoever is in a position to intervene, perhaps), and I understand that ArbCom cannot involve itself into content disputes, but, unless this is addressed in a way that can be referenced in future, similar unproductive debates are bound to reoccur, with similar "outcome". Doc15071969 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is really an argument about whether the article has a right to exist at all. This is clearly a content decision and not for ArbCom. Accusations of Holocaust denial, to me, contitute personal attacks and are a behavioural issue that ArbCom can address. --Ideogram 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, although I can't quite believe (or rather accept) what I read here and on the comment page. What are the criteria to determine whether article may exist, if such challenge is to be accepted as 'content dispute'? Would arbitrary will of the community (or rather part of the community, because I can't phantom more than 10 people noticing and willing to get involved in the 'fate' of the article at once) be all there is to it? If so, it looks widely open to abuse -- I know there is no equivalence, but, to try to illustrate the principle, - may I extend similar reasoning to other articles, where the events covered are wider known and attract more public attention? May I dispute the right of article about Holocaust to exist? How often may I initiate such disputes, based on my unsubstantiated opinion and tenacious restatements thereof, and tag the article for the duration of those disputes?

What I'm trying to suggest is something else - there is no content dispute, there is a case of skillful and refined obstruction. Perhaps this will help to illustrate, and I apologize for having to inevitably involve some 'content':

Irpen: "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 Battle of the Baltic (1944). One troll calls called the Battle of the Dnieper as "Soviet Occupation of Ukraine" and another one called 1944-1989 as the "Occupation of Poland". (..)"

1) It is logically impossible to falsify an opinion - what can the response to this possibly be? "No, it can?"

2) Clearly false analogy is offered in 'support' of this opinion -- unlike Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Ukraine was not internationally recognized, independent and sovereign state, a subject of international law prior to WWII. It was part of USSR. Poland, although ruled over by communist totalitarian regime allied to USSR, remained as sovereign country.

3) The language is deceptive, because no-one is suggesting that "Soviet expulsion of the Nazis from Latvia" is what should be termed occupation. It's the re-establishment of Soviet control over a sovereign state, and exercise of that control up until Latvia was able to reassert her sovereignty in 1991, is what is termed occupation. Allied forces including USSR expelled Nazis from Austria, established their control, elections were held, civilian administration functioned alongside with the supreme allied political and administrative control, and and nothing is preventing encyclopedias and other sources to refer to the period between 1945-55, when the Austrian sovereignty was restored, as allied occupation. I could, of course, continue the dispute, present this argumentation, but where does arguing against, sorry, but quite unreasonable opinion cease to make sense? Similar disputes have been taking place at multiple articles for more than several years.

Furthermore, apart from small edit in October 2006 and removal of one picture and introduction of pictures related to Nazi occupation by Irpen ("arbitrary pasting of several events" subsequently became one of claimed deficiencies of article), there has been no attempt to contribute anything to the article by editors tagging it. No edits, no improvements - nothing that would actually compel them to commit to specific position on specific issue, and finally cite some sources.

Thanks again for your comments, Ideogram, and thanks to everyone who will invest their time to read this and to 'dig' through the 'content dispute'. Just my perhaps too categorical an opinion, but generic finding of fact that does not attribute "inadequate citation", or the impeccable statements of principles not related to findings of fact that would attribute problems with "neutral point of view", "verifiability and sourcing", "nationalist point of view", or "original research", would grossly misrepresent what kind of dispute took place. The implication suggested--that there might be some kind of equivalence between both sides of the debate--does not correspond with the reality. Good luck to Committee members sorting out this complex issue and hopefully something positive will come out of it. Doc15071969 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion really does not belong here. I will try to continue it on the talk page. --Ideogram 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

State of the article

1) Despite the extensive debate, the article remains largely devoid of citations to reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Rejected. See talk for numerous sources which prove that Latvia was occupied. Kirill Lokshin is unfortunatley equating the side which has presented evidence and referenced the article with the side, which used original research and straw man arguments.
I can't understand what Kirill means by “devoid of (...) reliable sources”. The encyclopedias and legal books are not enough? Constanz - Talk 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The important part of this was "devoid of citations to reliable sources" (emphasis mine); while the article does list a number of sources, most of the text is not cited to them in any obvious manner. Perhaps the wording wasn't clear here? Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the current deficiencies in citing, not a single one of the arguments presented in the article has been overturned (an alternative opinion given). --Constanz - Talk 12:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the very question being debated, is it not? In any case, this is merely noting the deficiency in citing; the finding makes no comment on whether the material is accurate. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've indicated repeatedly, it is only for lack of time I have not gone back to insert inline references to materials already listed--and frankly, this whole morass here is the primary reason why I have not been so motivated as article history has shown that no reference substantiating the word "occupation" is beyond being labeled "POV" and with no further basis of proof. = behavior issue, not content dispute.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not to mention that the U.S. Congress and Encyclopedia Britannica have been branded as unreliable, irrelevant, and, at a minimum, behind the times.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the goal of U.S. Congress is not NPOV but rather political manoeuvers aimed to maximize political influence, yes. This is by no means a revelation. -- Grafikm 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you dismiss the sworn testimony of individuals before Congresional committees as POV, but you represent non-Western (based in Soviet era lies) sources as worthy of inclusion as non-biased and with no political agenda? (Or you represent sworn U.S. testimony and Soviet era lies as of at least equal worthiness and each should be equally represented in the article?) You will note that for your benefit I am no longer using the term "propaganda" refering to Soviet era positions that are proven to be lies. "Lies" is not a "POV" term in that context.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Soapboxing

1) Petri Krohn has engaged in soapboxing . His statement provides evidence of his motivation in his intent to soapbox, where he states: And now to my personal views: The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States to deprive citizenship from their ex-soviet citizens. The view expressed in this article is the one promoted by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, a propaganda tool of the Latvian government. True or not, the views expressed in the article are vital for the legitimicy of Latvian policy. Given the resources of the state, there is no scarcity of printed sources supporting this views. Opponent however see the whole Latvian state as an illegal ethnocracy. I tend to agree..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Martintg 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. See also: my evidence here. Constanz - Talk 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mmmm... I don't want to defend his views or actions, but the above is his ArbCom statement. I don't think he should be punished for being honest about his bias. Constanz's evidence is of course important, but it was already placed on a highly appropriate page. --Merzul 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing and meatpuppetry

1) user:Martintg is a appears to be a single purpose account (see contributions created to support user:Constanz and user:Vecrumba during the long-lasting content conflict at the talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. The user attempted to pressure the arbitrators individually to accept the case. At the same time user:Vecrumba attempted to recruit more support for his POV and affect an ongoing ArbCom case by posting the call to act to the Misplaced Pages:Baltic States notice board, the call that received no reaction from the editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's not really possible to affect an ArbCom case by canvassing, since the final decision is explicitly made by the Committee alone; unlike other Misplaced Pages processes, there's no consensus (that could be affected by the presence of additional editors) involved here. Kirill Lokshin 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Irpen 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reject ridiculous proposal. Martintg has already explained that he had been an IP user before registering. He is a user interested in the Baltics so that's no wonder he tried to help when he saw the numerous Misplaced Pages violations done by 3 users, who seem to either 1) promote obsolete Soviet minority POV or 2) have some grudge against the Baltics. Constanz - Talk 10:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable proposal. Yes, I can confirm Constanz's assertion. My activity as an IP user was initially casual, so I didn't really have a full understanding of the Wikipedian way. Hence I did contact two Artbitrators to inform them that additional statements were posted, since they had both voted fairly early, before these participants had a chance to make a statement. I was subsequently made aware that this could be construed as canvassing , as indeed it has been. I promptly withdrew my remarks and apologised ,. I am learning the way of the wikipedian fast. As far as my contributions go as a registered user, well I do have a job and family, and this issue has consumed most of my Wikitime. I remind Irpen of the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Martintg 11:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is purely my personal point of view, and has nothing to do with proper practice on Misplaced Pages. But I just want to say that I'm not impressed with these proposed findings of misbehavior. I believe that's what the evidence page is for that. At least in my book proposing these things here just reflect badly on the proposer, and these things have been proposed by both sides. I'm writing this in the hope that it will stop. However, this is just my own opinion, you are all, of course, allowed to try get each other banned, but what is the use in that? --Merzul 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CANVAS, notifying other users by placing an announcement on public noticeboards is generally regarded as accepted. Errabee 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that there was some incidents in the past, where these noticeboards were used for canvassing votes, especially on non-consensual subjects. I agree that the ArbCom decides and that is it not really possible to affect its decision by canvassing, however, creating the illusion of a great support while there is none is not quite acceptable. -- Grafikm 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Parties admonished

1) The parties named above are admonished to avoid engaging in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Needs to be more specific. Not all parties engaged in PA's and even those that where were relatively mild (a couple of vandalism accusations is all I can think of) to be of the ArbCom's consern. --Irpen 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I disputed something in section named above by Kirill. He forgot the accusations of Holocaust denial and anti-Baltic comments e.g current governments said to be implanting Nuremberg-style laws and (unreferenced, probably self-invented) accusations of rising Nazi trends in the region (by Grafikm fr and Petri Krhn; see above).Constanz - Talk 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Irpen's claim of WP:TE against Vecrumba, despite the latter's repeated insistance that it was work in progress, as evidenced in the article's talk page, is a clear case of assuming bad faith. So he ought to be included in the Parties admonished too. Martintg 11:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Parties admonished

1) The parties named above as having acted poorly in this dispute are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To accompany the broader version of the finding above. Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Parties reminded

1) All parties to the dispute are reminded of the need to cite reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have already committed my intent to go back and insert references. All my sources are published and factually reliable. I would like some assurance that the situation will not be allowed to degenerate again prior to commencing such an activity.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article probation

1) The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on 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, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election. Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Would not hurt but seems unnecessary. Both sides were clearly acting in good faith and their failure to agree at this point can be addressed by more users reading the discussions and adding their input. Article's RfC attracted the onlookers. I will propose a title change and that would attract more eyeballs. If, however, ArbCom is willing to take the article under close watch, it will not hurt anything, of course, but I do not see why it is warranted. --Irpen 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill's idea is worth of trying. I'm afraid I can't fully agree with Irpen's statement that “oth sides were clearly acting in good faith”. I'm afraid the accusations of Holocaust denial and attempts to reduce the dispute to alleged Nazi nature of the Baltic nations is far from good faith. Constanz - Talk 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Irpen, even if in good faith, engages in WP:OR in stating that since Latvia was a republic in the Soviet Union it could therefore no longer have been "occupied", that is, illegal annexation terminated illegal occupation .

With regards to RfCs, there was a similar one on Lithuania some time back and absolutely no one responded to produce any substantiated evidence the Baltics were not occupied, not even the person who was the cause for the origination of the request.

Generally I have found Wikipolicing inadequate, as policies like the 3-revert-rule punish the innocent (those putting back the original) with those causing the chain of reverts in the first place.

The only "policing" that will produce any results is that the term "occupation" not be subject to POV tagging on people's personal whim, specifically, that anyone POV tagging the article without specific and substantial evidence that is not WP:OR be banned from editing the article. Is Kirill Lokshin indicating the Arbitration Committee is willing to take that stand?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, trouble is that you dismiss every evidence presented as "propaganda". Basically, you decide that you're right and your opponents are wrong. This is not what WP:DR is about. -- Grafikm 09:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What evidence? you haven't cited any, only opinion! Martintg 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While an interesting idea to rule out on the content, the article probation does not solve another problem, namely the POV-title. Even if one manages to produce a NPOV version of the article (and it not NPOV by a fair margin currently), the title would still be a problem. I would rather see an ArbCom-enforced mediation (dunno if such a thing exists, but heh) about the content and the title. -- Grafikm 09:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's put the title aside. And let's stick to the first section (first Soviet occupation), which I regard as fairly complete. Irpen has indicated he has no strenuous objections to at least that period being written about as an occupation.

Please cite specifics where it is POV. If you do not have specifics, then perhaps we have as a first step an agreement to split off "Soviet Occupation of Latvia (1940-1941)" and deal with the rest subsequently. If you do have specifics, please provide them to support your contention for the existence of an alternate reputable "NPOV" by your definition view of that period.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please point out specific evidence which has a basis in fact which I have dismissed as propaganda.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, what's the point in presenting you non-Western sources if you immediately dismiss them? For you, everything written in the USSR (and in Russia) about the subject is "Stalinist propaganda" (said your userbox). With such a kind of attitude, one cannot go very far. -- Grafikm 10:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice your (repeat) mischaraterization of my userbox--which I am only a borrower of, BTW, it is not my original work. It states I refute propaganda (lies) originated by Stalin and his propaganda (artful mix of truth, half-truth, and lies) machine which continue to survive in the post-Soviet era (not location or country-specific, only time-specific). It features a picture of Stalin, not Putin. You say I condemn everything. I say I condemn something very specific. You keep insisting there's no point in presenting your sources. Perhaps you could provide a sample of what you consider a reputable non-Western source.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second to Vecrumba. Now you've been given the floor, User:Grafikm fr.Constanz - Talk 10:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE to Grafikm fr: You admit you haven't presented any sources for some reason. If you're ashamed of your Soviet sources why aren't you ashamed of endlessly echoing similar viewpoint (without citing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Constanz - Talk 10:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not the author of the sources, there would be nothing to be ashamed of. However, your last sentence is the exact problem i'm pointing out - you dismiss all sources that don't fit you as propaganda. Basically, you estimate that you're right no matter what. -- Grafikm 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How can Constanz dismiss "all sources", you haven't provided any! Martintg 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr you are saying: accept all Soviet reference at face value as equally valid fact. I have been asking people for information to substantiate the Russian position (essentially unchanged from the Soviet). I even have the Latvian S.S.R. Concise Encyclopedia which I have gone through. Let me summarize what your "non-Western" source says: The longing of the Latvians to be Soviets (1905) was rudely interrupted by the bourgeousie Latvian state (1917) which through popular uprising was eventually overthrown (1940) and the Latvians finally achieved their long-sought goal of joining the great Soviet family as Soviet might was gloriously reestablished on Latvian soil. That's fine, I can certainly put that in as the Soviet view, translated and referenced. Now show me a single "fact" in there that is not a lie. And I should present this as a valid alternate viewpoint so as to not be labeled a nationalist? You can answer me: yes or no. Which is it?

I see where my problem is with Grafikm_fr. I have been using propaganda as a euphemism for lies, while Grafikm_fr uses propaganda as a marginally more sinister form of spin doctoring. I will refrain from using "propaganda" and use the word "lie" or plural "lies" to avoid any such future ambiguity on my part, for which I sincerely apologize.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Your misplaced mockery set aside, what I try to show you is that both views on the event are equally misshaped due to the historical context. The Cold War was a time when every bit of potentialy problematic information on your foe was worth using, and was used by both sides. Churchill refered to "a deadly comb", but at the very same time, UK had a colonial empire where several rebellions were put down with sometimes heavy casualtes. OTOH, the Soviet Union was happily criticizing this.

As for "show me a single "fact" in there that is not a lie", I dunno where you get your information, but in my books, things are quite detailed, including the ultimatum addressed to (if memory serves) the three Baltic states. Does not make that an occupation, though... -- Grafikm 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(re-outdented, replying to Grafikm_fr directly above) First of all, I do not mock you. I myself have called lies "propaganda" but also propaganda (blend truth and fiction into a seamless alternate reality) "propaganda".

    I may be starting to understand your position. Let me remind you of your lengthy eveidence where you allege the issue of "systemic bias." You are practicing exactly what you accuse me of. You are taking a general state of affairs ("the Cold War") and your characterization of the protagonists' positions ("misshapen") and applying that frame of reference to a very specific situation, the Soviet occupation of Latvia, with no further validation of supporting facts and whether those facts support, or refute, your framework in this instance. A classic example of systemic bias.

    You are dealing with generalities and applying them with a total disregard for any sort of intellectual rigor. When you get to the lowest level of detail: Cold War protagonist A says 2+2=4 and Cold War protagonist B says 2+2=22, the answer cannot be that 2+2=13 because both A's and B's concepts of math are misshapen.

    And so, to the lowest level of detail. You indicate you have quite detailed sources, including the ultimatum to the Baltic States. Then, characteristically you simply indicate "that does not make an occupation..." I'll ignore that words failed you at the point where the next word would have been "because."

    So, let's take the ultimatum. One Soviet "charge" against Latvia was based on a fact: Latvia had a military alliance in effect with Estonia. However, that had been signed since November 1, 1923, was a defensive alliance registered with the League of Nations, and the Soviet Union had never raised any objection. All the rest of the charges were purely fabrications and lies.

    Your thesis that there is some middle ground here is wholly inappropriate. One is true. One is false. There are no grounds for this being some sort of extremist posturing—the Cold War existed only in your future systemic bias.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree to call things with real names. I should have done it already yesterday. Constanz - Talk 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm glad the discussion here is much more civil than on the talk page. Grafikfm, your argumentation makes sense, although I'm still doubtful. If correct, then surely there must be academics who have argued precisely what you say. Western scholarly journals shouldn't carry a cold-war bias and would welcome such analysis, so there must be such evidence, and then the other side would just have to accept your point. --Merzul 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

1) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article content issues that may still be outstanding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A variation on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Well, I would not mind a mediation at all, however, the other party dismisses even the most basic steps of WP:DR , so it is kinda difficult to get a dialogue... -- Grafikm 10:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You think that DR is just yielding to demands by an aggressive minority? We've tried WP:Third opinion and two times WP:RfC. Both ensured that the current title should be used. It's a pity that you three couldn't agree with the opinion of most of the neutral commentators.Constanz - Talk 10:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, you have been the most aggressive, curiously enough. As for the RfC, the second one was made by a bystander, which is a pretty poor way to proceed. -- Grafikm 10:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reliable citations required

1) Grafikm is banned from POV tagging the article unless he provides a cite to a secondary source, such as a peer reviewed paper written in english, which supports his claims. Other editors are permitted to ignore his opinions on the talk page until he posts such a cite.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Due to findings of fact of inadequate citation and poor behaviour. A possible alternative to article probation. We want constructive scholarly contribution, not disruptive soapboxing Martintg 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He has been functioning as almost a single purpose account for some time, has not presented a single source (!) supporting his opinions, merely accused others of 'nationalist pov pushing' etc, accused whole nations of Nazism and so on and so forth. Sigh... Constanz - Talk 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Grafikm's statement that I am a single purpose account is obviuosly silly. The point of issue here is of WP:NOT#Blog and WP:POINT. The combination of the proven statement of fact regarding lack of citation and poor behaviour by Grafikm, and taking into account his statement (which we can use as evidence of motivation) where in the first paragraph he outrageously associates the editors of promoting a NAZI POV: "This article is a perfect example of tenditious editing edit wars waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Misplaced Pages. Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial, such as monuments erected to local Waffen SS troopers, desecration of WWII war monuments, and so on. Unfortunately, some people are trying to push the corresponding agenda on Misplaced Pages." points to behaviour that violates Misplaced Pages guidelines on soapboxing, justifying this remedy. Martintg 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Imho the proposal is wrong, see my comment bellow Alex Bakharev 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable citations required

1) Grafikm and Petri Krohn are banned from POV tagging the article unless they provide a cite to a secondary source, such as a peer reviewed paper written in english, which supports their claims. They are reminded of the following Misplaced Pages guidelines: WP:NOT#OR,WP:NOT#SOAP,WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. Other editors are permitted to ignore their opinions on the talk page until they begin supporting their assertions with reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Expansion of the above with same justification, plus statement of fact in regard to soapboxing. This is a fair remedy that will remove much of the heat out of this issue and allow progress to be made on finding consensus. Martintg 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One should even discuss blocking, because people have been blocked 'for blogging'. And just asking to ignoire their talk is a rather peaceful remedy. Constanz - Talk 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not Grafikm_fr or Petri Krohn as individuals, per se, but as noted elsewhere on this page, that contents are tagged not only as POV but as inaccurate based on absolutely nothing. Such tags are inserted without even an extra word typed into the "Edit summary" box. I suppose I'm asking, don't we already have this covered in a more general context as a proposal?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IMHO, the proposal is wrong.It sets wrong precedent that would hinder the work of the project. We need to have Reliable References to add material to an article, we do not need references to put a tag on it. The POV tags are entered not in the event ten facts are challenged {{Hoax}} or {{Or}} are used in that cases, but then wordings are not appear to be neutral, or an opinion presented as fact, or a point of view is given an undue weight, etc. I fail to see how reliable sources can confirm or deny any such claim. It is an inherently subjective thing. Besides the tagging is the way for onlookers who are not really interested in re-writing article to mark articles needed attention. If a user did an extensive research, found a number of reliable sources, etc, he or she may as well just rewrite the whole article instead of tagging it. Just imagine you come near an article stating The genius of Microsoft made Age of Empires to be competly superior to any computer game or similar, would I need to find a reliable sources claiming that this not true only to put a tag on the article?? Alex Bakharev 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss your hypothetical Microsoft case. There is nothing wrong in initially tagging the article POV if you believe it is POV. I go away and find a reliable source, say Encyclopedia Britannica, that asserts this to be true. But you still maintain it is POV. I find another reliable reference. You still maintain it is POV, claiming it is systemic bias. I then ask you to provide a source to prove your claim. You fail to do this. You then call the article an exercise in Holocaust Denial and continue the tag the article POV. Then you claim it is POV because there is a resurgence of heavy nationalism at Redmond. Then you claim it is a POV fork, because it is already treated in History of Microsoft, etc, etc, etc. All the while maintaining the POV tag. It becomes a behavioural issue. Martintg 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: