| Revision as of 13:50, 22 May 2006 editHeqs (talk | contribs)7,126 edits →Merge completed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:39, 8 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,268,481 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (630 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| This article is bluntly POV. Worst of all is the "recent misrepresentations" section, which I'm tempted to delete outright. ] 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| :I did a rewrite to make it less POV, though it probably still is very POV - problem is, the POV which I tried to remove mostly corresponds with my POV, someone with less of an oppinion on what happened in Latvia in the early days of the second world war would probably do a better job. I do think that the existance of this article in principle is very important though, though it should at the moment either be expanded or renamed. Expanded in the sense that having an article called occupation of Latvia not mentioning the German occupation (and the eventual reannexiation of Latvia in 1944 which happened after the withdrawal of Nazi troops and after the reestablishment of an independent Latvian government) just isn't right. I'd either have someone add a paragraph on the German occupation at least or move it to "Soviet Annexation of Latvia". I do think the words annexation and occupation can be used though, being neutral shouldn't stop us from calling things by their name. Especially since even the Russian wikipedia does this. ] 09:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b|style=long}} | |||
| {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} | |||
| This article must be renamed. There is no single mention of the word "occupation" in the description of historical events within the article. There is no universal agreement on the term. My believe is that "annexation" is the proper term for this, at least, this view has equal right to exist. Such opinionated article doesn't belong here. | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List| | |||
| ''Iļja'' ] 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Former countries}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Latvia|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no}} | |||
| ==Request for Comment: Noncompliant== | |||
| :"Occupation" and "annexation" are very different; the Baltic States were occupied ''prior'' to their annexation (Latvia was occupied on 17 June, but was not annexed until 5 August). I agree that the article needs substantial expansion and revision, but I strongly disagree with the proposal to rename it. If I steal your car and six weeks later I forge the title to your car, an article on the theft of your car should probably be called "the theft of X's car," not "the change of title to X's car" (whether you tried to hit me when I pointed the gun at you is of course immaterial) unless confined to the forgery of the title. I agree with much of what ] writes above, but his comment conveniently illustrates a serious difficulty with the term "annexation" as a replacement for "occupation": Latvia was ''not'' re-annexed in 1944 -- according to the Soviets, Latvia was occupied Soviet territory during the German occupation (this had bearing on how the population was to be treated , on how the Latvians who had served in the Legion were viewed, etc.). The government of the Latvian SSR continued to function, formally, in Russia. Most of the world had never recognized the original ''annexation'', and this is quite different from not recognizing the ''occupation''; the profound difference between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' is central to the subject of the article. For example, in the period between the invasion and the annexation in 1940, many persons (including the presidents of Estonia and Latvia) were subject to repression by the Soviets and deported or shot (a violation of international law because the Baltics were still technically independent). There is another article entitled ]. In my opinion, both articles should be expanded to cover the German occupation 1941-1944 and the re-occupation by the Soviets. --] 09:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of ] ,], ] and ]?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Occupation is defined in 1907 IV , Article 42. There was no Soviet military administration (and no war between Latvia and USSR) in Latvia in 1940, so we can't speak about occupation. ] 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statements by those previously involved=== | |||
| :::If you read the articles under what an occupying power's army is prohibited from doing according to the afore-mentioned articles, the Soviet army violated all the terms. Both the Soviets and Nazis conscripted Latvians into their armies. The Soviets deported Latvians off Latvian territory while Latvia was sovreign, an act of war. By any legal definition, the Soviet presence in Latvia during their first (one year) and second (~fifty year) was an '''occupation'''. The Hague Convention is also not the only definer of "occupation." From the www.unhcr.org site (begin quote) "Occupation is defined by an even clearer humanitarian law standard. The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”98 A second definition is found in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: “The Convention shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” Of these two definitions, the Hague definition is possessed of much stricter requirements and would be more relevant to conditions of formal war. The Geneva Convention definition is more germane to refugee problems in Africa because it '''focuses on de facto control of territory''', whether occupation is “partial or total occupation”, and “even if a state of war is not recognized.” (end quote) | |||
| ====Comments by ]==== | |||
| :::What makes an occupation an occupation, according to international courts, (Human Rights Watch site) includes: "the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly". Whether it's administered by the army or by another authority of the occupying power does not matter. It's still an occupation. ] 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith. | |||
| == Merge proposal == | |||
| 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 article on ] substantially duplicates this article, and it bears a title that is (1) almost unknown in English and (2) extremely objectionable to many, the term having been popularized by a work of Nazi propaganda with that title. The ] article already duplicates much of the material in ] -- I think there is a definite need for this separate article, but it should focus especially on what was specific to Latvia, and incorporating some of the material from the ''Baigais gads'' article here would be appropriate. The other major change that needs to be made is the inclusion of material on the Nazi occupation in this article, as ] pointed out above, and on the Soviet re-occupation in 1944-45. The difficulty, then, is where to end the article; there could be some overlap between this and ], though, with the last section of this article devoted to issues of international (non-) recognition, etc. At this point, both of the articles I propose merging require considerable work, and neither is at all "encyclopedic." --] 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :Agree. Baigais Gads is a definition of POV. Also, consider remaning to include "1940" or "First Soviet" in the title. Or expand to include Nazi occupation and Soviet re-occupation. ] 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::"Baigais Gads" can certainly re-appear here, covering the first Soviet occupation. That would need to be followed by another section covering the Nazi occupation, then finally, the Soviet re-occupation, probably with some mention of Baltic partisans (haven't checked to see if there's an article on that). Perhaps retitling as "Occupation of Latvia in World War II" or "Occupation of Latvia in the Second World War" would be a proper title and scope. It's in large part because of the experience of the first Soviet occupation that as many Latvians fled as did with the retreating Nazi army, winding up in DP camps all over Germany after the war (or, alternately, fleeing across the Baltic to Sweden)—so it's important with respect to Latvian history and diaspora to connect the two Soviet occupations book-ending the Nazi. The occupations also need to be discussed together in how they worked together to destroy centuries-old positive Latvian-Jewish relations. (Really a pan-Eastern-European phenomenon, but Latvia has always been the lightning rod going back to my personally hearing then Congresswoman Liz Holtzman declare "all Latvians are Nazis.") In writing "Baigais Gads" originally, I also sought to lay to rest what was and wasn't legal, to document Soviet intent through mention of specific artifacts (Latvian and Lithuanian SSR maps) and incidents (Stalin telling Munters he could occupy Latvia "now"), and to provide a more detailed chronology. I would like to see that preserved or expanded, as I found the current "Occupation of Latvia" article lacking in that regard. I should mention that from my perspective, at least, "Baigais Gads" is how the first Soviet occupation has always and only been referred to by every Latvian I've known (in exile, that lived through it)—that Nazi propaganda goes by the same title or that "year of terror" may now seem somehow a subjective judgement is unfortunate but not a reason to label the term POV. —] 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Good idea, but I would suggest "Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945" rather than "World War II" because the war did not begin here until the German invasion, and it is important to make that clear even in the title -- it is very common disinformation to try to suggest that the USSR needed to occupy the Baltics for its security, that Latvia was pro-German, etc. The process began before 1940, as already noted, and that can be included -- just as ending the article with the reoccupation and dating it will not imply that the occupation ended with the "integration" of Latvia into the USSR, which should be made clear. | |||
| Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. ] 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding the term "Baigais gads" -- it was referred to that way by many Latvians here and in exile primarily because of the Nazi propaganda that popularized the term, even if we take Virza's 1939 poem "Baigā vasara" as one of its roots. I am not trying to suggest that Nazi ideology was popularized together with the term -- it wasn't -- but the term is intimately and irrevocably connected to that text (if you Google it, the first hits are for the anti-Semitic propaganda, for example). Dribins notes that the Central Council of Latvia referred to the ''Nazi'' occupation by that term, by the way, and suggests that it could better be used in the plural ("''Years'' of Horror") -- . The Latvian term is in any case rare in English -- and when it is used at English language links, it is often by the extreme right in defense of the Nazi work and its point of view. | |||
| PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent. ] 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Merge" at Wiki means making one article of two, with one title -- I am proposing the incorporation of material from the "Baigais gads" article here and eliminating that article, not merely suggesting that the material re-appear here. ] 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments by ]==== | |||
| ::::I agree on 1940-1945 for the title—Latvia did try and maintain neutrality when the war started and was not immediately affected. I do think "Baigais Gads" should be still mentioned as a term by which the first Soviet occupation is often referred to, with the note that propagandists have used the term for their own purposes. I do apologize for one lack of clarity on my part, which is, by "re-appear" I meant the Baigais Gads article contents being carried over to here and that article becoming a redirect. | |||
| The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely '''<u>zero</u>''' evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history. | |||
| ::::I believe it is important to identify which Soviet actions were legal under international and Latvian constitutional law and which, whether by the Soviet Union and/or the Soviet installed Saeima, were not. The "Soviet presence was legal" and "annexation was legal and voluntary" and "occupation" is a POV term discussion needs to be laid to rest, or at least all the facts laid out: the deportation of Latvian citizens including government officials to the Soviet Union while Latvia was independent was an unprovoked act of aggression, the petition to join the Soviet Union was unequivocally illegal under the Latvian constitution which was still in effect at the time (aside from being requested by officials installed through an election which was both rigged and then completely falsified), etc. | |||
| <br> The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, ''only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed''. | |||
| <br> I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... ''I believe I've covered them all''. | |||
| <br> Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a head eventually gave up and abandoned Misplaced Pages.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments by ]==== | |||
| ::::My knowledge of the Nazi occupation is more familial than academic. Nevertheless, there are some topics there which I would like to see explored. There is the reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians—obviously not for my father-in-law's family's Jewish best friend who was decapitated. More importantly, there is Stalin's widespread exploitation of Jews, using them to replace Latvians who were shot or deported—as at my mother's post/phone office in Talsi. It is because of Stalin that Jews became synonymous as Stalin's "collaborators." When the Nazis and their atrocities came, Latvians who participated did not do so out of alleged widespread Latvian sympathy to German anti-Semitism, they did it out of pure revenge. (Lunch time conversation my mother overheard in Talsi: "After what they did to my sister, I could kill them all.") My parents were saved by one such Jew, someone who was working for my mother at the post office who told her "don't go home" when the mass deportations came—the real point is that ''both'' Latvians and Jews were Stalin's victims. I find the notion that Latvians greeted the Nazis with enthusiasm and gleefully joined in their atrocities as an expression of centuries-old anti-Semitism (I have seen it described as such more than once) utterly repugnant. There are other issues to deal with as well, such as the Waffen SS—largely illegally conscripted but nevertheless eager for the opportunity to bear arms against the Red Army, knowing it for what it was because of the first Soviet occupation. | |||
| For now I'm just going to continue counting on ] as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is ''widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias''. The encyclopedia that has an article:'''Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation''' , the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes ''A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika'' + ''Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.''. Thanks!--] 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protected == | |||
| ::::Not a simple topic to deal with, but an important one. —] 17:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have ''tried'' to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict ''who'' will be banned. ] 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The topic is indeed an exceedingly complex one; I can't, however, agree that there is a "reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians"; you mean ethnic Latvians, of course, not Latvian citizens -- but even so, as many as 30 000 ethnic Latvian civilians were killed during the Nazi occupation. The contention about Stalin's "using to replace Latvians who were shot or deported" is also questionable; one should note that more Jews as a percentage of their share of the population were deported in 1941 than persons of any other ethnic group, ethnic Latvians included. As to a possible motivation of revenge -- to quote Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere." Three of the four main people ordering deportations in the security apparatus in 1941 were indeed Jews: Semyon Shustin, who ordered the deportation of 6636 persons and the shooting of at least a few dozen; Zyama Krivitsky, who ordered the deportation of 1915 persons; and Aleksandr Brezgin, 1138 (an ethnic Latvian, Jānis Cinis, deported 2479 persons), and this certainly helped establish the myth that "the Chekists were Jews" (Sources: Zālīte, Dimanta; Stranga). At the same time, there was almost no Jewish presence in the régime itself -- Dribins notes that in the "People's Saeima" of 1940, only 2 of 100 members were Jews; in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, 1 of 35 members was a Jew; in the Soviet of People's Commissars, there were no Jews at all. The Nazis used propaganda like ''Baigais gads'' to exploit anti-Semitism, but they definitely didn't invent it -- whilst Latvia had an excellent record for the treatment of minorities, including the Jews, by comparison to most of Eastern Europe prior to the war, a perusal of the regional press in the early 1930s would disabuse anybody of the notion that anti-Semitism was absent in Latvia; it was quite prevalent and often quite virulent. Among the things I think need to be stressed in any appraisal of the period is (1) that one must avoid the generalization that "Latvians gleefully joined in atrocities," as you say -- because we are talking about actual criminals, not "the Latvians," and the criminals were actually not so very numerous; to quote Andrew Ezergailis: "The criminally guilty, using the criteria of the war crimes trials in the West, would involve about 500 to 600 men, 1,000 at the most. That would include four dozen journalists who wrote, edited, and published Nazi propaganda about the Jews." (2) The level of "collaboration" should be kept clear -- Latvia as a state had been destroyed by the Soviets prior to the Nazi invasion, and Latvia was never in any position to collaborate with the Nazis; as Ezergailis has pointed out, Denmark ''did'' collaborate, and was thus able to save its Jews. Latvian nationalism, and that includes the ultra-nationalism of the extremely anti-Semitic Pērkonkrusts, was fundamentally incompatible with Nazism; the ''pērkonkrustietis'' Gustavs Celmiņš ended up in the Resistance, was captured by the Gestapo, and was sent to Flossenbürg, a concentration camp that held many prominent figures from the Eastern European far right. --] 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like? ] 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Regarding... ''Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere."'' I can only speak to my mother's personal experiences in a government office, where the exploitation of Jews replacing Latvians was complete—as assistant postmaster, she was the only Latvian left, working with Red Army soldiers with machine guns at her back while replacement workers eavesdropped and informed on every conversation. She lived simply because the Soviets needed her, as they had installed a grossly incompetent ''apparatchik'' as postmaster to replace the one who "disappeared." Frankly, for Latvia to legitimately and necessarily attone for its participation in the Holocaust, the findings of the history commission could not be otherwise and still be politically acceptable--any other response would indicate there was some "excuse" for the Holocaust in Latvia, and the Holocaust is morally inexcusable regardless of the circumstances. (One American Jewish leader withdrew in protest from that very commission, I believe, as soon as there was a sniff of linkage. I'll try and track down that bit of information again. And I'll be reading the report, obviously.) The Latvians who disappeared in Talsi to be replaced by Jews in those government jobs—which could not have been a unique situation, that is not how the Soviets operated—testify that Viksne's statement is as much a choice as it is a conclusion. | |||
| :::This article is under probation. "''Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."'' An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens). I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken. "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call. It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive. It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive. Edit-warring over a dispute tag is ''definitely'' disruptive. ] 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In the meantime, if we are agreed, I would suggest we go ahead and move this article to "Occupation of Latvia, 1940-1945" or is it more "Wiki" to say "Occupation of Latvia (1940-1945)", and insert stubs for the sections needing to be added. I would be glad to take the extra detail in "Baigais Gads" and incorporate it in a merged section dealing with the first Soviet occupation (and then eliminate that article and redirect here). And we'll see how it develops from there. —] 00:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page. ''Not seeking to sway''? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations .<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed re the merger, and there doesn't seem to be any opposition. Regarding the History Commission -- those sentences by Vīksne are very specific and refer only to the motivation of those who participated in the murder of the Jews. I have not known the History Commission to be politically correct or to change its findings because of outside pressure -- a summary of its activities related to the Holocaust can be found . The ''context'' of a Jewish presence in the middle and lower occupation administration is also important; as Aivars Stranga describes it in ''Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1920-1940'' (Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Jūdaikas Studiju Centrs, 2002 , p. 245) (my crude translation), "a national consensus among ethnic Latvians had been reached in one question, and possibly in one question only: that the rôle of the minorities in the economy and especially in the administration needed to be reduced as much as possible -- in the civil service this had already been accomplished completely; in the economy, it would be done; and the behavior of minorities was to be inconspicuous." After the Soviet invasion, "there was a conspicuous 'reaction' -- the Jews 'returned,' and dislike for this is to be found in any and all Latvian memoirs, including those of Menders and Bastjānis, who were on the whole friendly to the Jews." There were, for instance, week-long riots in Liepāja after 17 June 1940, and though they were facilitated by the Red Army and Jews were not a majority of the rioters, Jewish participation was emphasized; the ''visibility'' of Jews by comparison to the Ulmanis dictatorship led to a distortion of their rôle (similarly, the one Jew in the Cheka basement in "the House on the Corner" became a prominent figure because many had contact with him). The Jewish minority was far from monolithic -- it was actually very divided, and it is worth bearing in mind that the structure of the community was completely destroyed by the Soviets; 12,4% of the 14 June 1941 deportees were Jewish, and the deportees included the community's (communities') leaders. It is quite common for the far right to point to Shustin, for example -- but he was utterly ''déraciné'' and a Russian not a Latvian Jew; to link the slaughter of one's neighbors in a Latgalian village to the presence of some Jews in the security apparatus and civil service is more than dubious, and rabid anti-Semitism among thugs (including not a few students, especially in the fraternities) was not at all rare prior to the occupation. --] 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? -- ] 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'll take a hand at the merger—my time's a bit limited the next few days, but I'm well motivated. I agree totally on Shustin et al.—far too much propaganda about Jews running the Cheka (a more atheistic group, frankly, could not be found!). I still have to make the observation. My mother, who speaks of her relationships with Jews with only fondness (and carried forward, all my best friends growing up were Jewish), was genuinely puzzled by the later Soviet oppression of Jews... "I don't understand why they would oppress their collaborators." Much has been written—and well—on the role played by propaganda on all sides. Still, my mother puts professional skeptics to shame, accepting nothing at face value. For her to be geniunely puzzled, still, 65 years later, speaks to a dynamic of personal experience influencing the beliefs of the "average person" at a grass roots level ''outside the propaganda machines'' which I am completely convinced has not been captured in current scholarship: a successful anti-Semitic propaganda campaign is not the source of my mother's puzzlement. BTW, I've written the Latvian Historical Institute and hope to correspond with Ms. Vīksne about seeking a scholarly context for my mother's experiences. I understand that her personal research has been focused on the Holocaust in more rural areas (which I'm hoping would include Talsi). —] 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally ''according to international law'', <u>which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied</u>. I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving ] on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡''Qué lástima''! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (''unsourced'').<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Merge completed=== | |||
| ::::::P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I took a first cut at merging in the Baigais Gads article, I'll be going back and redirecting that article here. The Nazi and second Soviet occupation (for the period through to the end of the war) need to be done. Rather than merciless editing, perhaps we can discuss here first for some consensus. --] 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : re: ''m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)))'' All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here. | |||
| I've removed the old "Western Views" and "Claims and Historical Reassessment" sections. Non-recognition of annexation will be dealt with at end of second Soviet occupation and, in any event, is also well known. The "Claims and Historical Reassessment" was a rehash of various POV claims and counter-claims. Where appropriate, details of events in these two sections have been already incorporated in the rewrite done so far. --] 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're <u>already</u> frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they <u>never</u> specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the ] for more examples of ''casus'' ].<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That grey box does not belong to the article. It belongs to wikisource at best. There is a policy that says you should not include original texts in the articles. ] 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well. Just ran across this completely by accident.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --] 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not have the complete article and it is only partially quoted from and not reproduced in full, which presents a problem insofar as making a copy available on Wikisource. I can of course paraphrase the whole thing but I don't see that adding value. If there's consensus on "Wikisourcing" it nevertheless, I'll do it. ] 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{tl|POV}} | |||
| ::At least you could do this: select the most important parts of that order and rephrase them. Or you could leave some reaaaaly significant section (like 2-4 sentences). ] 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag ... — ] 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The occupation of Latvia ended in 1991. Or at the very earliest, when stable, non-Soviet bloc governments first recognized the Latvian SSR. I don't think that happened until at least a few years after 1945. Some would say the occupation ended in 1994 when the last Russian troops left. ] 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside): | |||
| :As I just mentioned above, occupation involves the invading power substituting itself for the indigenous and previously sovreign authority. Under those terms, and the fact that the Baltic legations continued to function in exile, I believe it's fair and objective to say that the Baltics were occupied for the full term of the Soviet presence. ] 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *1940 Soviet occupation | |||
| *German occupation, | |||
| *Soviet return | |||
| *Latvia under Soviets | |||
| *Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic. | |||
| The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be ] which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like ]. | |||
| The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others. | |||
| ::Earlier on this page you mentioned that there might be an article on the Baltic partisans. I began expanding the ] article a few weeks ago, but it still has a long way to go... (I know the 'see also' is kind of bloated right now, am actually planning on incorporating almost all of those into the text at some point). ] 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''. Check the ] series. It is divided into such articles. ] is a redirect to ]. "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called ] and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA. | |||
| ::By the way, do you have a link or source for that NKVD order? It should go in the article and it would be very useful to me. ] 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ''History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles. --] 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' into subarticles, my proposition is: ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' and ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''. ] ]-] 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons: | |||
| :* "Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof. | |||
| :* "History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles. | |||
| :* Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you suggest? | |||
| :* And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent" article is essential. | |||
| :* Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using the word "occupation" are more ]: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, as I see it, an article called ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' is <u>'''all'''</u> about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles. ] ]-] 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-] sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+<u>legal presence</u>" camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate. | |||
| ::: I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable. <u>'''The title comparison that is suitable'''</u> is ], where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has ] announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality? | |||
| ::: Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings simply object to it because they wish to persuade Misplaced Pages readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part. Missing acceptance of Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented? ] ]-] 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Misplaced Pages, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry--<u>'''version'''</u>--of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality."<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP ] etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--] 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: In other words, Misplaced Pages has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it. ] 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The article ] is really misplaced in this context - Japan ] with an ]. The difference between the ] and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. ] ]-] 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere. Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"? ] ]-] 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is: | |||
| :::* The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law. | |||
| :::* To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed." | |||
| ::: This is so totally and completely and absolutely <u>'''NOT'''</u> about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is <u>'''ONLY'''</u> about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else. ''Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs?'' On the contrary, all I am asking for is <u>'''intellectual integrity'''</u>. You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources. | |||
| ::: If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact, ''thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity''. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced. | |||
| ::: BTW, have you read the article and talk for ]? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes: | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* — note ruling of | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side. ] ]-] 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article=== | |||
| A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry . Calling your opponents ''"this exact same <u>Wiki-schmutz</u> of editors..." '' in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought. --] 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb. | |||
| : It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that context.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in Latvia).<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors ''schumtz''. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --] 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately? | |||
| : I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat: | |||
| : "where this <nowiki> </nowiki>" | |||
| : Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I assume you are referring to entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors ''Shmutz'' right above as well as even and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --] 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm" comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them. | |||
| : If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from "occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived. | |||
| : Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in question. | |||
| : That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Misplaced Pages will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute. | |||
| : It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Today's time capsule: And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this is dealt with.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen . <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated .<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Other encyclopedias == | |||
| In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period: | |||
| <blockquote>On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war. However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics).</blockquote> | |||
| So this puts an another reliable published source on the table. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Status == | |||
| ] has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them. | |||
| * ] protected the article. | |||
| * More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations. | |||
| :* Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together. | |||
| * Neither ] nor ] has presented any contradicting ], instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by ''original arguments''. | |||
| * ], ] and others have provided further discussion. | |||
| :* Neither ] nor ] has answered to the discussion. The only significant ''response'' has been ]'s mock offence over ] using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling. | |||
| :* However, both ] and ] have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article, ] (, ). In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made. | |||
| * ], well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics. | |||
| ] 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says: "I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page. ] 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a ], therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --] 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies. | |||
| : This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period. | |||
| : As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be a continuous narrative into pieces.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thats cool ]! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--] 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : And get three more places where to battle with other editors. ] 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::and get more than enough evidence of ] and ]. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--] 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in arithmetic is as "legendary" as !<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Who occupied whom? == | |||
| I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has '''always''' been Russian. Download and read it yourselves . Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) — ] 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to ]. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I support renaming the article ]. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's ] in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of Misplaced Pages!--] 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV! ] 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Navbox == | |||
| {{tlx|editprotected}} | |||
| I have prepared the navbox of <nowiki>{{Soviet occupation}}</nowiki> but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. ] 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Done'''. Cheers. --] 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal views versus referenced reliable sources == | |||
| With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues. | |||
| <br> But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen." On ], I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the <u>'''right'''</u> as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here. | |||
| <br> The conflict here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me and my response . And , thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions). | |||
| <br> An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Misplaced Pages does not exist to serve and defend the <u>fictional</u> aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians at the Wiki-gate.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page—with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed rename to "]." | |||
| <br> The age of unsourced ] being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet <u>fiction</u> must come to an end.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)== | |||
| Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up ]. Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--] 07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page. ] 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not appreciated.--] 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after here.--] 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:39, 8 March 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of military occupations of Latvia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | List of military occupations of Latvia received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Archives | |
|
Request for Comment: Noncompliant
Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of WP:NPOV ,WP:Verifiability, WP:What Misplaced Pages is not and WP:OR?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Statements by those previously involved
Comments by User:Novickas
Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.
The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.
The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.
The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.
It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled.
Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. Novickas 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent. Novickas 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments by User:Vecrumba
The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely zero evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history.
The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed.
I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... I believe I've covered them all.
Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a head eventually gave up and abandoned Misplaced Pages. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments by User:Termer
For now I'm just going to continue counting on Encyclopædia Britannica as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias. The encyclopedia that has an article:Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation , the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika + Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.. Thanks!--Termer 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Protected
I have tried to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict who will be banned. Thatcher131 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like? Digwuren 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article is under probation. "Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research." An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens). I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken. "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call. It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive. It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive. Edit-warring over a dispute tag is definitely disruptive. Thatcher131 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page. Not seeking to sway? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations . — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? -- Petri Krohn 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied. I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving WP:OR on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡Qué lástima! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (unsourced). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- re: m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC))) All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here.
- You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're already frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they never specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the Soviet occupation of Romania for more examples of casus I don't like it. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well. Just ran across this completely by accident. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --Termer 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
{{POV}}
- That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag ... — Zalktis 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside):
- 1940 Soviet occupation
- German occupation,
- Soviet return
- Latvia under Soviets
- Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic.
The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be Occupation of Latvia (term) which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like Occupation of Baltic States (term).
The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others.
Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be ]. Check the History of Poland series. It is divided into such articles. Partitioned Poland is a redirect to History of Poland (1795–1918). "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called History of Poland (1945–1989) and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA.
The History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles. --Irpen 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing ] into subarticles, my proposition is: ], ], ] and ]. Philaweb T-C 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons:
- "Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof.
- "History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles.
- Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you suggest?
- And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent" article is essential.
- Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using the word "occupation" are more WP:IDONTLIKEIT: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as I see it, an article called ] is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called ] is all about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles. Philaweb T-C 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-WP:OR sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+legal presence" camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate.
- I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable. The title comparison that is suitable is Soviet Occupation of Romania, where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has Jimmy Wales announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality?
- Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings simply object to it because they wish to persuade Misplaced Pages readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part. Missing acceptance of Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented? Philaweb T-C 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Misplaced Pages, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry--version--of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality." — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP Occupied Japan etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--Termer 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- In other words, Misplaced Pages has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it. Digwuren 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article Occupied Japan is really misplaced in this context - Japan surrendered unconditionally with an instrument of surrender. The difference between the Axis powers of World War II and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. Philaweb T-C 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere. Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"? Philaweb T-C 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
- The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law.
- To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed."
- This is so totally and completely and absolutely NOT about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is ONLY about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else. Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs? On the contrary, all I am asking for is intellectual integrity. You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources.
- If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact, thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced.
- BTW, have you read the article and talk for Soviet occupation of Romania? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes:
- and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
- You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side. Philaweb T-C 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article
A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry above. Calling your opponents "this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors..." in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought. --Irpen 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb.
- It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that context. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in Latvia). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors schumtz. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --Irpen 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately?
- I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat:
- "where this "
- Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to this entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors Shmutz right above as well as even earlier at the Arbcom and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --Irpen 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm" comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them.
- If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from "occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived.
- Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in question.
- That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Misplaced Pages will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute.
- It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Today's time capsule: Evidence page from occupation of Latvia request for arbitration seven months ago And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this is dealt with. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen . — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated RfA Digwuren. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Other encyclopedias
In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period:
On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war. However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics).
So this puts an another reliable published source on the table. Reinis 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Status
Suva has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them.
- Thatcher131 protected the article.
- More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations.
- Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together.
- Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has presented any contradicting WP:RS, instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by original arguments.
- Vecrumba, Reinis and others have provided further discussion.
- Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has answered to the discussion. The only significant response has been Irpen's mock offence over Vecrumba using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling.
- However, both Irpen and Grafikm_fr have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article, Soviet occupation (, ). In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made.
- Termer, well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics.
Digwuren 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says: "I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page. Suva 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE, therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --Termer 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies.
- This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period.
- As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be a continuous narrative into pieces. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats cool Pēters J. Vecrumba! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--Termer 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- And get three more places where to battle with other editors. Suva 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- and get more than enough evidence of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing and Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--Termer 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in arithmetic is as "legendary" as my "ignorance in international law"! — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Who occupied whom?
I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has always been Russian. Download and read it yourselves here. Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) — Zalktis 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to Liberations of Latvia. Reinis 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I support renaming the article Liberations of Latvia. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's Sovereignty in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of Misplaced Pages!--Termer 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV! Suva 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Navbox
{{editprotected}}
I have prepared the navbox of {{Soviet occupation}} but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. Digwuren 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal views versus referenced reliable sources
With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues.
But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen." On Transnistria, I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the right as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here.
The conflict here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me and my response . And here, thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions).
An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Misplaced Pages does not exist to serve and defend the fictional aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians at the Wiki-gate. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page—with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed rename to "Occupied Latvia."
The age of unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet fiction must come to an end. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)
Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up Occupied Latvia (1940-1941). Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--Termer 07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page. Martintg 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not appreciated.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after here.--Termer 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: