Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:47, 7 March 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Baltic states / European / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Baltic states military history task force European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Latvia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Soviet Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for Comment: Noncompliant

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

Statements by those previously involved

Comments by User:Novickas

Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by User:Vecrumba

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

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

Comments by User:Termer

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

Title and scope.

This article covers both Soviet occupations thus time limit was not justified. I have moved it but I suspect that after discussion of over an appropriate name there may be another move. Latvian SSR is an article about a member state of SU not the occupation itself so merging the second occupation to that one is not appropriate.I hope this settles the issue.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we are getting somewhere from Termer's actions but since AD renewed the Soapbox, I am restoring the tag for the same reasons described multiple times at the talk page of the original article. Soapboxing won't be tolerated. --Irpen 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You were getting exactly nowhere, to get somewhere you need consensus. Two people aren't it. Please be specific, WHAT exactly you don't like as a list. It looks VERY sourced to me.--Alexia Death the Grey 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved here the RFC and the tags that were lost in the splits.Feel free to continue, Im goning to change your noncmpilant tag to disputed until you provide proof.--Alexia Death the Grey 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed" applies only to factual accuracy. The article also suffers from WP:SYNT as explained ad naseum. Do not remove good-faithed tags over editor's objections. I've said all there is to it in the previous discussions. --Irpen 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the tag is now "POV" because you haven provided any material to support others. You are saying this POV is not neutral...--Alexia Death the Grey 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To have a dispute you need to provide SPECIFIC complaints. Why haven't you done so?--Alexia Death the Grey 15:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I've done so multiple times. That you refuse to acknowledge what you don't like is a poor excuse. You can't force me to repeat the objections time after time by not addressing them properly and then asking again what they are. --Irpen 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't. Slapping on MORE tags on top of the article does not make it more specific. Occupation is not A pov. Its a term used by sources, lots of the linked in the article.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Soviet occupations of Latvia" is even more clumsy title for the article than Occupations of Latvia. Occupied Latvia was clearly preferred on the talk page over there. Now, once and for all, lets get few things straight, since Latvia was incorporated into USSR in 1941, illegally or not, it doesn't matter. There always is going to no consensus regarding occupied Latvia 1944-1991. Since WP is working on building a consensus, and it doesn't make any difference how the story gets told here, I'd suggest Alexia Death the Grey restore the title Occupied Latvia (1940-41). As a compromise, so that it could be interpreted either ways, I'd also suggest Occupied Latvia 1940, or Occupation of Latvia 1940 once some editors think that mentioning Occupation in the title has such an importance. Since countries get occupied during wars anyway, it just comes with it, I personally would prefer Latvia in WWII that would include all other aspects of the events and the story than just "occupation". Thanks--Termer 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupied Latvia is a country in a state, even more so when limited to 1940-41. It would be an article of the same type as Latvian SSR This is not it. That misunderstanding is the root of your problem. Occupied Latvia is territory in a state and would constitute retasking of the article as this article is about the occupation as a process and a concept itself and that retasking as you can see made a LOT of editors unhappy. Consensus should not prosecuted at the expense of sourced facts.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Alexia Death the Grey, didn't get any of this what you were saying -"country in a state"? Please consider renaming the article like suggested to reach a consensus. Thanks--Termer 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it does seem weird no that I look at the explanation. I'll try again. This article is about historic events/phenomena in a territory spanning much bigger timespan than what you are proposing. You try to make it about a territory in a very restrictive time frame. You are trying to retask the article to be about something out of a very different category not speaking about the fact that this move would mean pruning the work of many editors. And with that other editors, like me, are not agreeing. You do not seem to understand consensus at all. Consensus happens when everybody agree. I and others don't agree, there is no consensus and you cannot achieve any by moving this page around. However you are welcome to start an article Occupied Latvia(1940-1941) and link it under see also on this page. That article would be limited to the time frame proposed, talking about only issues concerning that particular period of occupation focusing on the occupied territory itself.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it finally what seems to be the basis of misunderstandings here. Let me spell it out. Once upon a time there was a Republic of Latvia on the land called Latvia. There was only one party, a body of a state that had claimed the land

A1. The Republic of Latvia

Then the Republic in the land got occupied by the USSR in 1940 and it ended up being incorporated into the USSR as Latvian SSR. Thereafter there were 2 parties, 2 bodies of states that had claims on the land:

B1. Republic of Latvia

B2. USSR or Latvian SSR.

Now, the Germans occupied the land called Latvia and claimed it by themselves and incorporated it into the province of Ostland. Thereafter there were 3 parties, 3 bodies of states that had claims on the land during 1941-1944

C1 Republic of Latvia

C2 USSR or Latvian SSR.

C3 Nazi Germany and its Ostland

Now, the Germans were pushed out from the land of Latvia in 1944 and the status quo returned to the previous

1944-1991 there were 2 parties that had claims on the land:

D1. Republic of Latvia

D2. USSR or Latvian SSR.

In 1991 or so the USSR ended up its claim to the land and thereafter only one party remained.

E1. The Republic of Latvia

Taking if from here, saying that the situation during, lets say 1944-1991 was strictly "soviet occupation" as a fact goes with an understanding that a claim is either 1 or zero; right or wrong. That means, it's a judgmental perception. Since there were 2 parties that had claims over the land during the period we can not proceed and call it a fact according to the judgmental perception of the one party only. Even though the viewpoint is supported by the Court of human rights, etc. all the sources. The facts that remain free from judgmental perception are that Latvia was occupied by USSR in 1940, a puppet government was installed. Now, the moment Latvia was incorporated into USSR, there is no more puppet government because the land and the republic were not sovereign any more and the status quo regarding soviet occupation as a fact changed as explained above.

Just as an example, since both parties: Republic of Latvia and USSR or Latvian SSR agree that 1941-1944 constituted the Nazi occupation; we don't have any problems over there because both judgmental perceptions say the same thing. Hope that this explains everything.

Based on the points above, please consider renaming the article. Thanks!--Termer 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. There are enough sources out there that synthesize the events as occupied Latvia from 1940-1991. Therefore the "unpublished synthesis" tag is factually incorrect and should be removed. Thanks--Termer 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, there is no synthesis. You just don't like the conclusion, "occupation," drawn by reputable sources. It is only "synthesis" if there are no sources. Ah, perhaps some introspection of your own quoting (or not) of sources is in order.

   Well, at least I'll get to eventually sit down to write a new summary article. You can feel free to tag that too when it arrives. Exactly where did you think "we" were getting, that an "occupation" would be called your neighbor just stopping by to visit and forgetting to leave for half a century?

   And, "I won't even repeat my objections, I'm just tagging?" (paraphrase) You've never justified any of your objections based on any sources, and now you don't even deign to explain your tagging? Not explaining tags based on principle! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the conclusion you state "occupation drawn by reputable sources" belongs to the article I long proposed about the applicability of the term. Nothing prevents you from using the term in the referenced form and within reason in the article about Soviet Latvia. But there is no reason why such article can only exist with your pet term in the title. History of La, Soviet LA, Latvia within USSR, there are plenty of non-judgmental titles and judgments in referenced form belong to the text and not articles. --Irpen 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about calling the article Occupied Latvia 1940. would that make everybody happy?--Termer 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there are no reputable sources saying NOT an occupation. Therefore it is not a "judgemental" term. It's not my "pet" term. "History of" is a different scope. "Soviet Latvia" is a duplicate, there is already a "Latvian S.S.R." article, which is a different scope. And "Latvia within the USSR"? Please! How about we don't call it the Kennedy assassination, from now on we just call it "Bullet within Kennedy's Brain" and create a separate article "Assassination (term)".

   Sources! Not your personal contentions that a completely reputably sourced term is "judgemental".  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I believe Irpen will never be happy until "occupation" is erased. Chopping the first occupation off is inappropriate, since the Soviets resumed right where they left off when they returned. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviets occupied in 1940. They then annexed and the country became the part of the USSR. In 1944 they reclaimed their pre-war borders. Latvia was part of the USSR and treated as such, unlike, say, Afghanistan. You cannot "occupy" your own territory. Some do consider the entire period an occupation which make this a good subject for the term article. As for the sources, as I said earlier, check the Columbia and Britannica. Both use the term "Occupation" only for the military event and not for the period. If they manage to do it, there is no reason why Misplaced Pages cannot. The lack of the word in the title does not deny the "occupation". It simply leaves this referenced claim to be made in the article with the reader left to decide. Your insistence to keep your pet term in the title is the source of all this drama. And I do not even object to its referenced usage within reason and context. --Irpen 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, its more than clear for me by now that we're dealing with a huge communication problem here. so lets just forget about it and once more, would Occupied Latvia 1940 make everybody happy?--Termer 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Better suggestion Occupation of Latvia (1940) with the Soviet atrocities and and deportations that immediately followed covered too as they were an immediate consequence of occupation directly related to it. --Irpen 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with Occupation of Latvia (1940) and the German and "2nd soviet occupation" are going to be kept in the Aftermath section. Hope the rest of the guys gonna go for it and we can call it a consensus. Thanks--Termer 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. to Irpen could you please be more considerate and choose words more carefully while dealing with controversial subjects. Things like your pet term & You cannot "occupy" your own territory are the ones for examle that are not going to help bringing parties to mutual understanding and issues closer to a consensus. In case you'd like to know why, I can explain in case necessary. Thanks--Termer 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The second quote is not addressed against any editor. It is simply a statement of fact that the occupied territory and integrated territory are different notions. As for the first one "pet term" it was my assessment of the situation when the editor cannot accept any title of the article about 50 years of the nation's history without the politically charged term. But I will try to take your advise into consideration. It would be nice if the other side avoided much more juicy epithets towards their opponents, both onwiki and on IRC (were the tone has turned plain horrific) and abandoned block-shopping and canvassing.

Now, with these rules in place, let's finally move on. I repeat my absoltuely sincere and not sarcastic suggestion to Vecrumba to start a term article. I don't understand why he does not want to discuss political positions where they belong and discuss history under the nonjudgmental titles. --Irpen 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, and yet again, sources?

Re: You cannot "occupy" your own territory.

I'm glad Irpen brings this up. Certainly, Irpen is entitled contend whatever position he likes. Certainly, when someone in the Russian government says this (it's been cited before, someone military), they are equally entitled to state what they will. However, contentions and opinions are not encyclopedic facts.

   Now, as I've mentioned too many times to repeat, the Russian Duma proclaimed Latvia (it was actually a reminder, proclaiming...) joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law: so, treaties, applicable Latvian laws, applicable Soviet laws. And this is why Latvia was not occupied--you cannot "occupy" your own territory that belongs to you legally.

   Irpen, to move your statement from your personal unsubstantiated contention to a reputable viewpoint, your task is clear. Produce a reputable source which explains how it is that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally. If you have no such reputable source, then your contention is just that, and nothing more--and is fine for a blog somewhere, but not for an encyclopedia. Produce a source.

P.S. You can't complain that there's no source because scholars can't be bothered to write about anything that is obviously true. That excuse has already been taken in a different article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. "Occupation" is not a political contention, it is a reputably sourced fact. Just because "non-occupation" is a political contention (ZERO reputable sources), that does not mean the opposite is also a "political" contention. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See Termer? That's what I meant. Sometimes I wonder whether certain editors ever read anyone's talk page entries but their own. And I even gave examples of sources above. I said above that we might be moving on. Now with that same old, this is unfortunately getting back on a familiar track. --Irpen 04:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Irpen at 04:35, occupied territory and integrated territory are different notions sounds good to me instead of the previous statement...
To Pēters J. Vecrumba and for editors who have been supporting the "Soviet occupations of Latvia". It could be referred to Double jeopardy to make things more clear what exactly Irpen is talking about. I think it's time to end this, since both "occupied territory" and "integrated territory" regarding 1944-1991 are POV-s we need to have a middle ground here and current proposals are the best both parties could get out of the subject. therefore, I'd urge everybody to go for it. thanks--Termer 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. POV-s are "Latvia was under 50 years of occupation" and "Latvia was not under 50 years of occupations". These are judgments. "Integrated territory" is not a judgment, it is a fact. Latvia's status was of the regular Soviet administrative unit, a Soviet Republic divided by raions in the same way as any other administrative unit. When one conquers the territory and keeps it, one either integrate it into the country or keeps it as a colony or some sort of a special territory, sometimes under the military rule of the occupational authority. The case here is the case of the integrated territory. This is not a judgment, this is a fact. Whether it still constitutes an occupation, this is indeed a judgment and POV. --Irpen 05:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irpen, just a friendly reminder that WP talk pages are not a proper place for political debates, therefore unfortunately I can't respond to your opinions.--Termer 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is your choice to respond or not to to anything posted at the talk page. But, for the record, I did not post any opinions in the last entry. I stated a fact and the admission that there are two opinions regarding this. --Irpen 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the portrayal that "occupation," fully sourced and supported, is some extremist POV view which we need to achieve balance and harmony with by meeting the unsourced, unsubstantiated POV contention that Latvia was not occupied halfway is, for all intents and purposes, agreeing Latvia was not occupied, it's just an opinion some people have.

   Irpen, you write as if you are reasonable, but in the end, you are not. You contend I ignore what you write, of course, that's the best way to ignore my simple request for just one reputable source (that I have been asking for, for months) to substantiate your claims of occupation = POV, Latvia not occupied = reasonable and reputable contention. Latvia was integrated and therefore not occupied? That's WP:OR that since Latvia was a S.S.R. it could not be "occupied." Or do you have a reputable source? To date, no one has even produced a source that even attempts to explain how the current Russian position (non-occupation) could somehow be seen as tenable with a basis in fact. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well OK Irpen, since you insist. “Integrated territory” is a POV simply because the US, the UK etc. never recognized the integration de jure . And also it’s a POV because my grandma and my mom told me so. But let’s concentrate on what’s important here, shall we.--Termer 05:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pēters J. Vecrumba, how about calling the article Occupation of Latvia (1940) and the German and "2nd soviet occupation" are going to be kept in the Aftermath section? yes or no? --Termer 05:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We may speak of the recognition of the legality of the integration but the fact of integration cannot be seriously disputed. This turns us back to separating opinions from facts. --Irpen 05:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Irpen, we're driving in circles here. The fact of integration lacking the recognition of the legality we may speak of is the reason your opponents call it occupation. And there is no point to go to the round 101 with this, perhaps it would be better to move forward.--Termer 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to state facts, agree on them and argue semantics, opinions and interpretations as a second step. The legality of the Soviet takeover of Latvia was disputed. I agree to that. But let's separate the issue from the facts of what was the Latvian status within the USSR. It had an exact same status as any other Soviet republic. It's territory was divided into the administrative subdivision similarly to the rest of the country, the structure of its local government and relations with the central government were not different from any other republic. The republic's party organization was a copycat of similar organizations of other republics, the state employees were paid according to the same rates system, etc. Certainly it was integrated and the issue of disputed recognition should not be confused with the facts in plain view. --Irpen 07:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,Irpen, please do not attempt to start a political debate over here again, it's not a place for that. since Latvian status within the USSR had an exact same status as any other Soviet republic is a POV and can be easily interpreted as factually incorrect statement by your opponents. If you'd like I can lay it out for you somewhere else in case necessary, what exactly are we dealing with. Or else I'd suggest sticking to the issues related to the article only and most of all, to the points that would help to bring it to a consensus on this talk page. Thanks!--Termer 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm on Wikibeak this weekend after this... Irpen, your contentions are, again, your contentions, even WP:OR requires original documents. Soviets = legal = no occupation, Soviets = illegal = occupation. Reputable sources analyzing the official Russian position as factual? The position is noted, I put that in myself. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. I don't make a judgment =legal. All I am saying that any judgment of this sort is a POV while facts are just facts. Referenced judgments should be left to articles and kept out of titles. --Irpen 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this is not going anywhere I'll just proceed and let guide myself by the WP:NPOV policies The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly and call the article according to the reached consensus Occupation of Latvia (1940). As the idea was also supported by the third parties and is the only middle ground available, that is the way to go. However, I'm not going to rush into this but take my time to let the things settle down. Regarding different interpretations of "consensus" here, as far as I'm concerned, it only applies to opinions that are helping to bring the article out of the gridlock. Therefore I'm going to dismiss any statements that refer to only one POV regarding the subject (1944-1991) or the title of this article. Thanks!--Termer 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me just state clearly that I agree that the applicability of the term "occupation" to the entire period of 1944 to 1991 is a valid and referenced POV and it needs to be covered. Just not in the title of the article about the historic period. --Irpen 21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" is a valid and referenced by objective sources, ergo not POV. No source has been produced anywhere in Misplaced Pages to indicate non-occupation is an equally valid POV with regard to Latvia, which is what you are asking for: that both are "valid" POVs. They are not. Also, the "historic period" refers to an expanse of time, not the particular aspects of occupation and its effects on Latvia--we've already been over "History of..." et al. versus "Occupation of...". I have no issue with covering the Soviet/Russian POV fully--however, hot a single reputable source has been produced that examines the Soviet/Russian position and ascribes it any validity whatsoever. No sources + an official government position = existence of POV gets acknowledged in article. To deserve coverage as an meritorious interpretation of historical events requires reputable sources. Please produce sources and stop pointing to your opinion that "occupation" is a politically motivated POV as equal to scholarly sources indicating "occupation" is both justified and accurate.

I fail to understand what the objection is to producing a source. Nothing has been produced in opposition to "occupation" except examples of official Russian WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Shouting WP:IDONTLIKEIT often enough and loud enough pretending that's an equally valid POV is poor editing, not defending a supposedly reputable interpretation of history. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "Occupation" being a "politically motivated" POV is, in fact, the verbatim official Russian position. Sorry, but you don't get to state the official Russian POV as POV #1, and the Russian POV that the Latvian position is a politically motivated POV as "opposing" POV #2. You only get to state the Russian position once. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. No one disputes the first occupation was an occupation. I have also yet to hear how that changed during the second occupation and after WWII. (I believe Irpen you insisted a very long time ago that an occupation couldn't possibly last 50 years.) I would still like to know why Irpen paints me as obstinate when all I ask for is one reputable source. Have Misplaced Pages standards for verifiability sunken so low? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pēters J. Vecrumba. it seems you're not getting it. Not to worry, it took me a while as well to get it what is it exactly Irpen has been after. I hope we don't have to go over it once again as it's all covered above. The only thing that would be good to point out once more perhaps, Irpen has asked not to include the "occupation" for the period (1944-91) in the title of the article in order to keep it NPOV. I say it is fair enough and thats what we're going to do.--Termer 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are sources that treat this whole period as occupation. As long as there are such sources there can be no agreement that the second part of occupation is not occupation per see just because there was German occupation and one sided illegal incorporation in between.The case is same for Estonia. Termer, I'm afraid you will not find agreement here continuing this line because for these nations the occupation did last until 1991 and thats what their sources say and nothing that you or Irpen say or do can change that and attempting to change this against sources and without consensus will just end in a move or revert war. I think that the way a nation writes its own history should take precedence over the way others write it tho their POV must be also presented for neutrality. I this spirit, I don't mind if theres a redirect that does not mention occupation, but the article is unlikely to change because there is no consensus HOW/IF it should change.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alexia Death the Grey Please read the talk page up here. Nobody is saying that the second part of occupation is not an occupation. The only thing thats been said, it should be avoided in a title simply because there are other POV-s regarding the era. The other point, the way a nation writes its own history is very clear. The most common way choosing titles in conventional national history textbooks regarding the subject is the way I've written Estonia in World War II. The other thing is that WP is not a national encyclopedia, therefore the point was not even relevant.

Now, you as the one responsible for changing the title here that BTW, is not currently in sync with the content at all any more. Therefore if you need to, please go back to Occupations of Latvia article and attempt to revert it according to your opinions. This one here was created according to the points already underlined above and at Talk:Occupations_of_Latvia as an article about Occupation of Latvia in 1940. Therefore I have no idea why exactly did you feel it was necessary to change the title so that it doesn't make any sense regards to the content. Further on, please do not attempt to revert or rename this article again once the title has been restored according to the content. Thanks--Termer 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Laundry list

I'm sorry, but this article is not meant to be a repository for a list of all possible occupations including ones not even remotely related. Japan???? What is appropriate would be Baltic/Estonian/Lithuanian occupations, that's it. I'm sure there's some more appropriate list of occupations somewhere. Wasn't this already deleted once or was that in another article? —PētersV (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Riga 1941 Nazi Welcome.jpg

Image:Riga 1941 Nazi Welcome.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Name (uncontroversial)

This article should be moved to Soviet occupation of Latvia. We don't need the "in 1940" in the title, and it's wrong - the article discusses post-1940 period as well. I hope this is not controversial... barring any objections, I'll move this article in a few days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

well, make sure u read "title & scope" above b 4 removing stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.102.102 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias Article

The section on Soviet terror is quite dubious and only cites 2-3 sources, when its over 4 paragraphs long. This needs work. Please be civil if I attempt to make the language less POV, in the near future. I won't delete unsourced material, I'll leave that for discussion. But the language in the article, especially this part, is quite POV and I might work on it in the near future is there isnt any convincing opposition. ValenShephard 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Unconfirmed Photo

The photo of the three military commanders bears a controversial comment: "Common parade of Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein". It cannot even be confirmed, that this is the city of Brest. Also, there can be seen NO military parade - what the photo claims to depict. I would also like to point out that the film "The Soviet Story" is highly controversial and shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and for that reason can be not used as a source of information. So, if a valid source is not provided, I request this photo to be renamed to something more adequate, like "Meeting of German and Soviet military commanders". In fact, I am going to change the description, anyone is welcome to roll the change back when they are ready to provide a valid source.

Here --Sander Säde 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, that counts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.197 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Latvia 1944 Liberation from Nazis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Latvia 1944 Liberation from Nazis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Latvia 1944 Liberation from Nazis.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Semen Shustin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Semen Shustin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Semen Shustin.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over section title

The appropriate title for Soviet re-occupation is re-occupation, not the Latvian SSR. Do not POV-vandalize the section title again. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the dispute which spilled over here with Altetendekrabbe has been suitably addressed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123015238/http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/ to http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325013623/http://www.afsa.org/fsj/may07/lastflight.pdf to http://www.afsa.org/fsj/may07/lastflight.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120801042342/http://www.eurotopics.net/en/archiv/results/archiv_article/ARTICLE71606-Latvia-still-occupied-today to http://www.eurotopics.net/en/archiv/results/archiv_article/ARTICLE71606-Latvia-still-occupied-today

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"The occupation took place according to the EU Courts, Gov't of Latvia ..." is far too vague

The beginning sentences of

"The occupation took place according to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government of Latvia, the United States Department of State, and the European Union."

is quite confusing in what it's trying to convey. Is it supposed to mean that those groups simply acknowledged the fact that an occupation happened or is it trying to say the occupation followed all the the laws and rules that those groups put out? If it's the first then there should also be added a sentence about groups who deny the occupation, likely the USSR, if it is the latter then it should be made more obvious that those groups are attempting to condone the action. This is especially confusing since the EU didn't even exist at the time of the invasion. EnzoTC (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a terrible opening. It means that those groups regard it as an occupation and not a legal annexation, as the Soviets claimed. Since you cannot occupy yourself, the Soviet position would deny that any occupation occured. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Baltic states military history articles
• Baltic states military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Latvia articles
• High-importance Latvia articles
• WikiProject Latvia articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Low-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles