Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:20, 30 March 2008

Odds and ends

• Wiki lull during first quarter, 2008
• Dawn of Pēters' Wikitime through mid-November, 2007 archive

A star for you

Compliment

brilliant. Ostap (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll second that. Turgidson (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. The whole affair with Anonimu is a microcosm for what's been allowed to grow and fester under the guise of "protecting" NPOV. We're far from done, though. PētersV (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baltic_states#Rename

Hi Peters,

there is some dicussion about a possible rename. Your thoughts are most welcomed. Martintg (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For anyone "watching"

I'll be concerting at the University of Latvia's Great Hall December 30th at 4pm (Ņujorkas latviešu koris and koris Balsis). Perhaps I'll see some of you there! The merriest of Christmases and best and warmest wishes for a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year! PētersV (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy new Year!--MariusM (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, Peters! And, Prieci'gus Ziemsve'tkus un Laimi'gu Jauno Gadu! (Hope I got it right...) Turgidson (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year PētersV!--Termer (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lielie Kapi - more information ? or translations?

Thank you for adding a photo of the great cemetery in Riga. I notice that your user profile states that you speak and understand latvian and your family origins are from there. There are a number of websites on the internet which are only written in latvian which give more details of the history of the cemetery, some of which are on the wiki article as links.

If you have any time and further interest to read these latvian websites and provide additional details in english for the wiki article about the history of the cemetery, please do so. Many thanks ! Amorfati00 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my discussion page. I think the majority of information that is missing from the wiki article relates to what happened to the cemetery after 1939. For instance - when did the destruction begin ? what was the motivation given ? and even more imporatntly - why was the destruction stopped halfway? How come some graves were left ? ...and was this before or after it was turned into park and who decided to turn it into a park ? Any info for the time period after 1939 would be useful. Amorfati00 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pēters

I am from Leningrad, come say hello. Igor Berger (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arvid Pelshe

Hi. Can u find of what illness Pelshe suffered? I know he was ill for sometime before he died, but what disease he actually had? I didnt find yet...maybe u can help me please? thx Superzohar Talk 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. One more thing: Can u find (in latvian sources maybe) some information about his family members' names/birthdates? thanks Superzohar Talk 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Yelizaveta Suslova, was the sister of Pelshe's wife. but what was the name of Pelshe's wife? did they have children? Superzohar Talk 20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Per this report. Thatcher 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The notice is dismissed as one not coming from an uninvolved administrator --Termer (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the situation and determined that Termer is incorrect in posting the message above. Thatcher is an uninvolved administrator as he has only taken part in Eastern European topics for the purposes of Arbitration Enforcement. His issuing of these notices is therefore valid and you are therefore bound by it, despite the above note from Termer. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it was found I "badgered" Gatoclass for an apology. And that's now either uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith. I had rather hoped an apology on both sides (Gatoclass not realizing his actions and tactics, which I took great pains to explain the situation,... and at least for my part, I could then acknowledge I took his actions and tactics to be yet another "I don't like..." attack) would put this to bed. Apparently insisting too much that we attempt a course other than AfD, tagging, AN/I et al. is now "badgering." I had rather hoped Gatoclass would see the light (or that some objective editor would assist and intervene privately) that his conduct fit the now classical article attack mode ("I don't like...", tagging, AfD, AN/I, et al.). Personally, I believe it's quite pointless for Gatoclass to receive a warning as I don't think he still understands what happened or why unless it's explained to him in painful detail.

As for myself, this has been an object lesson not to ask for an apology or to attempt to document to an editor the error, even if unintended, of their ways. Certainly not to insist on good behavior or explaining how conciliation works if that's what an editor really desires. I won't be asking or "badgering" for any more apologies. Nor will I bend over backwards to try and understand and explain to another editor the source of a situation gone bad. I spent far more time on this than it deserved and already suspected this would be the reward for my efforts in punish all sides Wikequality. Sorry, woke up on the cynical side of the bed again this morning. —PētersV (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And please, I never ever "threatened" Gatoclass. I told him that the tack he was taking rarely works out well--a statement of fact--and he didn't believe me, and here we are. —PētersV (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I did not see Gatoclass' last post before Thatcher closed and issued warnings. Too bad. I think we would have reconciled the situation and I strike my comment above about Gatoclass being rather clueless. So close to working things out but freeze the discussion and issue warnings to all. When it's patently obvious this wasn't the typical Eastern European editing problem situation. —PētersV (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter, take a break, sometimes argueing your point even when you are right does not work. There are many ways to skin a cat..:) Igor Berger (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that scooping down to level of incivility is never helpful. I trust this incident is an exception to the rule, and that you will be more careful in the future. We can deal with problematic editors without the need to act like them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an afterthought, insistent, yes. If I stepped over the line to incivility, my sincere apologies and please feel free to Email me privately as to where I needed to be more gracious. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there. Everyone knows where I stand on why I think this happened. It's a bit ironic that we might have been on the verge of working through it after all. Water under the bridge. In the longer term, I don't have a good answer for how easily good faith turns to bad faith. But I do know that it's related to the the lesson I learned (debating Mauco on Transnistria), which is not enforced as policy, which is to allow articles to be disputed ONLY on misrepresentation of sources and/or use of non-reputable sources. The whole "tenditiously edited" accusation should be banned. If that's truly the case, then the sources in question on which an article is based on have not been fairly represented and one should be able to demonstrate that. —PētersV (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulldozers

Probably you don’t know what many of responsible in 1929-33 crimes was imprisoned and sentences for death in 1937-38. Many of directly responsible in Great Purge crimes was sentences for death in 1939-41 ect. etc. Stalin and Stalinsm was condemned by CPSU in 1956, many prominenent Stalinist were imprisoned and even sentences to death in 1953-56. As regards the “occupation” – I knew only one long lasting occupation in present time it’s Palestine and Jerusalem (accordingly to UN definitions) – you can see a differences in methods , as regarding to post war Baltic/Eastern European – it’s more deserve a modern term “friendly acquire” and no “more 22 of June” measures. You should also take into account the number of media sources in US and USSR – 1 page for billions of pages and 1 row for millions – so both can be assumed as suppressions. As regarding to Beria GULAG (Instead of Yezhov and Yagoda)– statistic almost complete and published – so numbers are known (and not millions instead of someone would like to state). As claims “victims in mass graves using bulldozers acquired through the U.S.' lend-lease program” you can check does US supply to USSR (unknown military utility thing), if even yes – you can check how many was returned back (I assume you know what “lease” word means). If you mentioned as bulldozers some number of converted by Soviet M4A2 “Sherman” (turret removal) used in wood industry at Far East – it’s easily to check the figures on mortality at this region – as “mass graves” requires “mass victims”. Jo0doe (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone outside Russia would characterize the USSR's takeover of the Baltics as a friendly acquire. It was a 50 year occupation. While the Duma has proclaimed that Latvia joined the USSR legally (which would, of course, mean no occupation), neither the Duma nor the Foreign Ministry have produced one shred of evidence to support that contention.

   I am quite aware of all the various show trials conducted in the Soviet Union... you're not suggesting these were real trials? As for Khrushchev's condemnation of Stalin, well, Khrushchev was one of Stalin's most trusted and ruthless lieutenants, so Nikita was only condemning himself in the process. More politics.

   You've obviously spent considerable effort in reviewing Soviet sources, and it is all fascinating and valuable (regardless of veracity) information. But what are you using as your filter of verifiability? —PētersV (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not discounting your sources out of hand, but I am suggesting that whatever it is they maintain requires further verification. —PētersV (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once again - please see occupants action in occupied territories and same in USSR after 1953. 10 years at prison or bullet in head - so virtual things, really politics?. Anyway does the fact exist? Once again - what about "bulldozers acquired through the U.S.' lend-lease program" - could you give me a favour - please state the a US number - I compared it with soviet "wrong" sources. Jo0doe (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might add to this discussion...Looking at several issues of Sputnik from the 1970s and seeing the same actress dressed up to look like a member of several families from the Caucasus to the Baltics themselves, Soviet sources seem very unreliable to take as gospel without further corroboration from elsewhere. Much like the BBC TV presenter who on the Sunday before the last election in Britain (2005) said "No papers have come out for the Conservative Party" when I could count at least four in front of me (Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday), government sources even in the West are unreliable and need to be cross-referenced with evidence from non-government channels. Lstanley1979 (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello,

I am very sorry for the lateness of my New Years' Wishes. I hope you have a great one, and if there is ever anything I can help you with, please don't hesitate to let me know.

З Новим Роком!

Thanks, and again, have a good one, Horlo (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you as well, I know how much work it is to write articles! Always glad to help! —PētersV (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-citizens (Latvia)

I'm glad, that you've paid attention to the article I've started. However, I have to express a lot of objections, the most essential being: 1. The subjects of this article - nepilsoņi in Latvian law - aren't all "individuals who are not citizens of Latvia or any other state and permanently reside in Latvia", as you write, but only subjects of 1995 Law on the Status of those Former USSR Citizens who do not Possess Citizenship of Latvia or Citizenship of any Other Country. Your definition would include also bezvalstnieki (subjects of Bezvalstnieku likums), people with differing status. 2. The file on minelres.lv, which you have used, is out-of-date in some fields; as you can see, all the documents mentioned there are from the previous century. 3. Military service isn't compulsory for Latvian citizens anymore (since 2005-2006). See mod.gov.lv. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the documents I've read, "nepilsoņi" (resident aliens) have been described as including subjects of 1995 Law on the Status of those Former USSR Citizens who do not Possess Citizenship of Latvia or Citizenship of any Other Country--so that is, with reference to nepilsoņi who come under the category of Former USSR... there are special rules.

  One can be a resident alien without being a member of the citizen of the former USSR group. Someone who is a stateless person (bevalstnieks) is another category and is not necessary a nepilsons (resident alien).

  I'll be glad to go back and re-read. It's possible it's my misunderstanding.

  With reference to the mnelres.lv file and military service, I obviously missed the latest sources, please feel free to update, or I'll get to it in the next couple of days. We would still need to make the point that until such-and-such date there was a disincentive for younger candidates to apply for citizenship because they would become eligible for (then) required military service. Paldies! —PētersV (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bezvalstnieks (classical stateless person under 1954 Convention and Latvian 2004 Bezvalstnieku likums) is never nepilsonis (a special group in Latvian, regulated by 1995 Law with a long title, where they're called "former USSR citizens..."). All the article (and the same, but more expanded, in Latvian and especially Russian) was written about nepilsoņi, with their number, status etc. Now you've changed the definition including bezvalstnieki, and it contradicts most of the article and usage of term non-citizens (nepilsoņi) in Latvian case.

I know that usually in English a wider group is called non-citizens, but in the context of Latvian law exactly subjects of the 1995 law are called non-citizens, not all Latvian residents who lack citizenship. See, e.g. judgement of the Constitutional Court (which also acknowledges that nepilsoņi are a specific group, not bezvalstnieki/stateless persons, in section 15 and further) and OCMA website. Non-citizens have passports - stateless persons have travel documents. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-read my last change, I was not intending to indicate stateless are nepilsoņi (!). PētersV (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated. The text on bevalstnieki may need a very small bit of expansion to differentiate their rights (or lack thereof) as compared to nepilsoņi. PētersV (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I left it as a majority are... as there may have been individuals who resided in Latvia prior to WWII but were not citizens, so were not part of the Soviet influx. —PētersV (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave heavier reading for the weekend, but the current nepilsonības likums struck all language having to do with passports as of May 20, 2004. —PētersV (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Balachka

Pleas have a read and check the grammar. Thanks Bandurist (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. :-) PētersV (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Yikes!

Hi, no worries, because remark was for general purposes rather then for specific user. All the best, M.K. (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Monument

Hello, I have an idea regarding diagram of the monument, which involves your pictures, so I would like to know what you think - It's explained at Talk:Freedom_Monument_(Riga)#The_various_groupings ~~Xil...sist! 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Denial of the Holodomor

A lot of interesting activity there recently. Bandurist 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Digwuren

ArbCom are voting to apply discretionary sanctions across EE articles. Martintg (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

If so, I suggest an addendum to WP:BRD saying "except in EE articles."

Unfortunately I tend to see a lot of what Moreschi calls "the plague", and I can tell you that accusations of bad faith abound. This is the first time, however, that I have seen someone who has never edited in a particular area before immediately being accused of bad faith. And given the (general) obstruction that I have faced on the talkpage since I ceased deletions, and the (again, by and large) wilful ignorance of basic policy on reliable sourcing, I don't see how discussing it beforehand would have been better. Either way, if I'd been persistent, I would have been accused of bad faith. (And also of vandalism and threatened with an RFC... etc) Relata refero (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia map

Thanks for the note, I'll check this out and modify the map. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

What I did is a quite standard technique in intelligence processing and analysis, but your point is well taken that a reader not familiar with that approach may misuse it. I made a last radical try at revision of the material in general, and will see what happens.

At this point, I'm really wondering if the Misplaced Pages policies, or some interpretations of them, are compatible with my research and writing styles -- certainly as a volunteer. I may decide to fade, gracefully, away. I'm not sure, even given the pleasant surprises when someone, with whom I had battled over accusations of whitewashing the CIA, returned with a Barnstar of Diplomacy.

Thanks again. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice too

Sveiks!

Thank you for your note. My boyfriend grew up in the former Soviet Union (of Russian extraction, from the Donbass) and is a bit agitated by the word Bolshevik (preferring to call everything right through from start to finish "Soviet") but then again it helps to have some advice on what people generally think. Perhaps we were a little overzealous. By the way, we hope we don't make too many edits with which people are unhappy, he and I both regard the Baltic States as homes-away-from-home and so are trying to help improve the English of some of the articles. That's why we are probably too bold when it comes to some early terminology. Lstanley1979 (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional message: it is a great pleasure to read the articles and the discussions and I am only sorry I can't do more than help edit the grammar, style and usage on a subject I find fascinating. Obviously feelings run very deep here and perhaps once the immediate pain of the Soviet occupation "grows out", the period can be understood more objectively. Reading "Land of Crosses" by Michael Bordeaux, though, on the sentiments within the Lithuanian Catholic Church at the time of publication in 1978, it is going to be a phenomenal task to convince a lot of people that the period should not just be totally ignored as it is on some pages where there is a forty-year gap that should be filled. The YouTube user Estoned has some fascinating documentaries on his list about Estonia which set the benchmark for assessing the period as objectively as possible and yet still highlighting the injustices and propaganda that permeated your societies. We need someone of the filmmaker's calibre to write us a few more articles explaining the currents within those societies as opposed to just the beginning and end. The article on the Estonian SSR is pretty good; it is a shame that Lithuania and Latvia don't have corresponding depth to their SSR articles as that seems the most obvious place to try and write a summary of the period for both countries. 40 years is a long time in politics... Lstanley1979 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest message. I am glad that work is intended on the Latvian SSR article...I will proof-read it for you later. Good luck with the project and I hope to see you around. Lstanley1979 (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Liepāja monument

Peters, could you take a look at the Liepāja "Monument to the sailors and fishermen perished in the sea" article? The title and translation of the Latvian name for this should be rendered as "Monument to the sailors and fishermen lost at sea...just better style, that's all. I'm not sure how to change the article title and wondered if you knew how yourself. Thanks. Lstanley1979 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ivan Rohach

Please make a comment Bandurist (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Ivan Rohach, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivan Rohach and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template enquiry

Hi. May I ask your opinion of Template:LatvianPMs? Should we make a separate template for Soviet-era ones, or keep them there? Biruitorul (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We've established that presidents and first secretaries don't mix; I take it independence-era prime ministers and Communist-era prime ministers shouldn't either, then? Fine by me! :) Biruitorul (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

International rankings

I am renovating the Estonia article - I remoevd the section in order to save space - otherwise it gets too long - I will re-add it as soon as I have finished the other sections which arebt currently written - such as science-culture etc. I plan to give to the international rankings a new outlook - little bit smaller, more rankings and statistics and possible some small add-ons in the terms of images or some icons. I hope its okey with you? ] (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen

I could not detect what was wrong in what Irpen has done, from your original comment. He had recently likewise removed a similarly unfortunate comment by an editor he doesn't seem to "protect".

PS: I didn't follow Irpen's interaction with your group much, but that struck me as a textbook example of how to gang up on and insult someone repeatedly without getting caught. No reference intended to any particular person, indeed. Irpen's performance there was amazing. Wish I had his patience. --Illythr (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only a member of a "group" by associations created by others... I just stick to sources. :-) I should mention that I told Irpen I hoped his removal of unfortunate comments I was referring to in the Holodomor discussion signified support of a less contentious 2008.

   Actually Irpen does apply his personal article editing standards uniformly whether it's the Baltics or closer to home (Ukraine). Where we differ is in the results of our readings and understandings of sources having to do with Soviet conduct. Irpen's empirically tend to be kinder than mine.

  For example, on Holodomor:

• I made an edit putting the interest of Soviet leadership in famine relief into what I thought was a more appropriate characterization (that is, it was one particular instance).
• Grafikm_fr (whom I have locked horns with) reverted per Jo0doe's (rather poorly worded) "objection on talk"--I had no appetite for a revert war with an editor who had stated that the majority of Latvians were happy to pick up German rifles to slaughter Jews or others who would also support his revert
• Some time later I returned with another edit, this time of an edit done by Irpen. I did not agree with the phrase "Documentary evidence confirms the cases when the Soviet leadership expressed even personal interest in ensuring the aid distribution."
• Irpen then re-edited with details of the specific incident of personal interest, eliminating "many requests even from senior party officials were rejected" of my edit, and chiding me for writing something that wasn't in the source ("please don't add info to the sentence referenced to a source that is just not there")

Well, at this point I was rather stuck, as what I had was a scholarly review of the D&W text indicating what was in the text, not the text itself. As I was rather having some difficulty reconciling Irpen's characterization with the review I read, I finally plunked down well over $100 to buy the book and see what it said. Well, right on the next page was essentially what Irpen had removed of my edit stating it didn't exist. And so...

• I reinserted this time citing the next page in the text.

  Just another expensive ($) Wikiday!

   As I've said elsewhere, there is much of "Soviet achievement" that it's right to be proud of. However, there is much that does not fall into that category.

   And so the bright side of all this, now having all sorts of the most interesting and expert references, having bought them in the hope they would let me have the last (undisputable) word. :-) —PētersV (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the time to assess the situation right now (Holodomor articles are one of the assorted vipers' nests I do my best to keep away from), but I do have one preliminary question: Would this review be an accurate summary of what the book is about? --Illythr (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the entire essay, just several points. I have the book. If Vecrumba wanted to see it, he did not need to spend $100. He could have just asked, most of the relevant info is between pp. 204 and 230. Not too much to scan and share but, obviously, cannot be publicly posted.

Vecrumba's edit was factually false, the original (I reverted) and the latter that I have not yet dealt with because of the lack of time. In this very book one can find: a May 31 loan given in response to Kosior's and Chubar's telegram (bottom 216 top page 217). Page 218 right after the Vecrumba-cited "rejection" by Chernov cites allocation of another 19,000 tons of seed grain aid in response to Kosior's telegram. I am just too tired or too busy sometimes to immediately deal with tendentious and distorting edits. I will take care of this soon.

Next, about Soviet "achievements", does not even warrant a response. I am not sentimental about Soviet achievements in any way.

The claim that I removed JoeDoe's excesses because I "protect" him is bizarre. Firstly, I similarly removed Dpotop's offensive stuff in a different incident. Second, although I think Joe brings much useful info, I was actually trying to "protect", if Vecrumba wants to use this word, his opponent, Faustian with who I productively collaborated for a very long time from inappropriate statements.

I can't promise to respond to each and every new bizarre assertion about me. Unlike some, I just don't have time and interest to follow people around and deride them or comment and object to whatever they are doing. I stumbled into this thread merely by accident. Vecrumba's talk archive indeed demonstrate the kind of unfortunate attitude we have to deal with at Misplaced Pages. Illythr was apt in noticing that. This won't end it though and I am sure more comments in familiar light are coming. --Irpen 08:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet reviewed and analysed the nature of the content and the dispute around it, so I can't comment on this particular moment yet. My own personal POV on the issue closely coincides with that reviewer's take on what the books is about (i.e., incompetent implementation of a bad policy at a bad time), that's why I ask Vecrumba if he agrees with the description of the book he cites.

I can, however, point out that that last paragraph is not helpful either, as it is likely to lead to further accusations (f.ex., of bad faith) from your opposition. I know, it's easy for me to say so from my "high horse", seeing as how I do not have to face that much abuse (mostly due to avoiding confrontational topics, not because of some outstanding diplomatic skill), but I think that that point about "dumping hot coals by helping" (as much as I dislike the notion being applied to Misplaced Pages) may work very well for you, too. An interesting (IMO) example of bad dimplomacy can be found on this AFD entry: despite mikka being absolutely right in his proposal, a lot of users voted "Keep" because they either distrusted his insistence, or simply distrusted him. It actually took my digging in the Chronicle (among other things) to convince the closing admin that the article is indeed a case of a "broken phone" translation. --Illythr (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen. My edit was not "factually false"--this is precisely my point that we genuinely disagree on editorial interpretation. D&W themselves indicate the Sholokhov incident was the only one where aid was provided and in the amount requested, many more were partially filled or not at all. I appreciate that you are seeking to reputably represent the material in D&W that talks about aid during the famine and that aid did occur. But you can't omit that in lots of cases plea went unanswered. These are D&W's own words summarizing the situation--your editorial interpretation of how you read D&W cannot take precedent.

   My point on Soviet achievements was that at the end of the day, when either of us represents Soviet actions from the same sources, my results tend to be less favorable—that may not be the correct word—than yours. I'm glad you indicate this difference in results is not the result of any sentimentality.

   As for your removal of unfortunate comments, I applaud your intent but don't believe you should be a self-appointed censor (my perspective on how I would see myself were I to do so) editing other editors' entries in talk (typos, misspellings, a terrible grammar error not included). It is not your prerogative to choose to clean up some comments versus to dispute/assault others. From my perspective, that connotes a lack of impartiality. When it comes to expressing your own views, whether personal or editorial, you are free to express yourself as you see fit. When it comes to editing the expressions of others, you do not have that same freedom. That you feel you have that freedom concerns me, that is not something I would have the editorial hubris (I'm using that word solely from my perspective on how I would view my actions in that regard, your results obviously differ) to do.

   Please feel free to discuss anything anytime. From my perspective, I don't have an attitude, as I'm sure is the case for yourself. Since we both look upon our own attitudes positively, perhaps we can work on improving our mutual outlooks. (Illythr, I'll take a look later at AFD you mention.)—PētersV (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick peek at the AfD... Well that really is the problem, that who supports what in past editorial debates/standoffs can easily color our initial reactions when a new topic comes up involving those same parties. It's not that easy to look at each new topic as a coin flip: prior results do not influence future results. (Thanks for the Pernambuco trip down Transnistrian memory lane, that reminds me I need to look at some of Sotnik's latest proposals...) —PētersV (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A question

Wanted to ask for a while - what's столични? A Bulgarian dish of some kind? --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Stolichny (also called Salad Olivier) is basically potato salad with peas, ham (some make it with beef or turkey), egg, a bit of pickled herring minced in for flavor... it's pretty similar all across eastern and northern Europe, since we have a lot of Russian delicatessens in the neighborhood, we feast on the Russian variety. :-)

Hm, I'd like to suggest to correct the spelling from the Bulgarian-sounding "столични" to "столичный", and maybe link it to Olivier so that curious visitors unfamiliar with the dish might be tempted to become acquainted with it after seeing the pretty picture in the article. --Illythr (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and also for the split of questions and answers. :-) PētersV (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor book

  The book review of D&W gives the book all the kudos it deserves. That said, there are things it is not. A prime example is the bit which others and I editorially choose to summarize differently--earlier summaries featured "Stalin even taking a personal interest":

• aid granted in some cases (we've only got the one case where the aid requested was given in the amount requested), some aid in other cases, no aid in many cases
• intentionally no insight into the decision process of who got all / some / or no aid of that requested

Where decision processes and motivations and intent are concerned, one has to look to other references. The crux: when Stalin told Churchill how many millions of lives collectivization cost (9 or 10 million, I forget which), did Stalin consider that loss of life merely collateral damage? and where did the famine factor in all of that? did he really care about any of the victims? did he choose to focus where the damage was directed or restricted to? When the Ukrainians seeking food to the north were turned back, was it to contain the spread of famine or to insure the Ukrainians (who had resisted collectivization) conveniently expired, teaching them all a lesson?

   D&W don't say, nor should anyone interpret D&W in their own reading as saying anything about it (as in "personal interests" implied to be concern). While the tsars and Lenin admitted to famine and got aid, Stalin didn't--certainly calling interpretations of actions as his caring into question. Between poor planning and no request for outside assistance it's fair to characterize the Great Famine as "man-made." I have my own personal opinion on genocide or not, but the bottom line is there's still no smoking gun, nor will there as long as there are still files in secret archives. (Not that a regime that lied regularly can be expected to not also lie in its archives... but that's another topic.) —PētersV (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in the part of the review where it says "... this book serves to utterly destroy right wing (the famine was deliberate) and left wing (it was caused by reactionary saboteurs) myths about the famine." If it indeed does so, then it must be made clear that "man-made" does not mean "deliberate", which, I understand, is a POV being pushed through by a group of Ukraininian nationalists in modern times (Holocaust parallels and all). I'll take a look at the article eventually (didn't read it yet, except for the diffs above), but I am interested whether you agree with this general notion. --Illythr (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I need to (re-)read D&W very carefully from cover to cover. There are two different questions here:

• Do D&W really utterly destroy all the myths? No. It's not possible for their text to do that as they do not investigate the decision making process nor possible motivations, by design. Anyone who contends D&W do destroy myths is reading the lack of information regarding deliberateness (if that's a word) as the lack of deliberateness itself.
• Natural vs. man-made vs. deliberate
  1. The Great Famine most certainly was not simply a consequence of an act of nature. (Though Tauger appears to go here, a different topic--what I've read hasn't impressed.)
  2. The Great Famine was certainly was man-made. From the collectivization campaign through official Soviet denial of the famine (in stark contrast to requesting aid in the past), there were many decisions from Stalin on down to the regional commune authorities that directly contributed to the final tragic result.
  3. Was the Great Famine deliberate?
     • The "myth destroyers" say no, stopping at man-made (#2), tragic, unfortunate, etc. and point to the fact that, as aid was provided though in insufficient quantities, that more than just Ukrainians died, it proves that all famine-related deaths were unintentional, hence no genocide
     • The proponents of genocide point to
       1. The collectivization campaign, its particular impact on the Ukraine, the resistance by the Ukraine
       2. Stalin's own words as to how many died in his collectivization campaign (so, collectivization campaign = Stalin = cause, result = death, enough to account for the death toll in the Ukraine and millions upon millions more)
       3. Stalin's denial of the Great Famine (no outside aid)
       4. Stalin's restriction of the Ukrainians to their famine/death zone, enforcement of requisitions of grain which left nothing to eat or sow for the next season, ...

So, did Stalin, at the outset, sit down one day and hatch a plan to eradicate the Ukrainians? We don't know. Even though there are still documents remaining to be declassified, we will probably never know. Do I think it's possible? Given that at one point Stalin ordered ethnic Latvians to be shot simply for being Latvian, perhaps.

   Did Stalin take a particular disliking to the Ukrainians as they resisted collectivization? Don't know, but likely. (And this is an area where perhaps some Stalin quotes could be tracked down for the article.)

   As the famine developed, did Stalin take actions which focused and exacerbated its toll on the Ukrainians? Thus making its effects deliberate--and therefore genocide? Multiple orders turning back/restricting Ukrainians to famine zones (subject to being shot), Stalin's denial of the famine while it was happening thus preventing outside aid,... one doesn't need to be Ukrainian to consider that those two actions alone are "proof" enough, regardless of whatever aid did make it through to victims.

   What do I believe personally? Stalin was a monster to whom human life meant nothing. It's good propaganda (and insurance) to portray oneself as attempting to at least save the children (we all know Stalin's "Papa Stalin" picture portrait fetish)--I don't consider that aid was provided as proof of any particular motivation. Indeed, the whole Sholokhov incident doesn't prove Stalin's personal interest in saving lives as some editors have contended, it just means Stalin liked Sholokhov and his home town that particular day. It's rather telling that Stalin executed the statisticians reporting population loss (not good for propaganda extolling the accomplishments of collectivization) instead of executing bureaucratic incompetents, don't you think? —PētersV (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes

First time. Pumpmeup 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

What would be standard answer to these anon claims? M.K. (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a ref has already been put in. Generally speaking, the various tribes and their chieftains were at war ("war" taken in the context of the time and its technological limitations) a good deal of the time--"skirmishes" might be a more apt. In Latvia this also included belligerent encounters with the Estonians to the north. It's fair to say that the German invasion shifted the priorities of the Baltic tribes to respond to the greater threat. "Unified" against a threat, yes. "Unified" in all it implies took longer. —PētersV (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And that about part - there was no Latvians? M.K. (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The materials I've read indicate the Latvians, Lithuanians, and ancient Prussians were differentiated from each other into ancient times. Ethnic and ethnolinguistic identity doesn't change whether you're united, skirmishing, or at war, nor does it require unity.

   People as a nation and people as a unified nation-state are two different things.

   I do have some good non-Baltic sources which I can check for an "outside" view on the topic. —PētersV (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help

Find sources and address the general points raised here and here? I thought it would be of interest to you, after our discussion of Nazi sources and undercover activities.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something on this. —PētersV (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you could try to mediate between Polish and Lithuanian editors at Talk:Dubingiai_massacre#Removed_info. I doubt we can find a common language there by ourselves.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brothers' Cemetery

Hi, you said you got something about bringing flame for enternal flame from Leningrad. I also found a note about that in a Soviet published encyclopedia, however so far I haven't found anything about lighting the enternal fire in any other source. Thing is it was lit in 1958, however the altar for the enternal flame was built in 1930s. Does your source say what had happened to fire and what was symbolical meaning behind bringing it from Leningrad ? ~~Xil...sist! 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)