Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 1 May 2009

(1) The article was started last night by merely copying and pasting part of the text of the article Occupation of the Baltic States, in an attempted move done without consensus (and concurrent with the re-titling of the latter article).
(2) Most importantly, an article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union that oddly begins 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR by the Soviet Union makes absolutely zero sense. Both from a historical perspective and from the imposition of an artificial temporal partitiion.
(3) Moreover, the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for nearly two decades (1922-1939, before the beginnings of the Soviet invasion), and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union", which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title. This would be akin to starting an article titled "France and Germany", and beginning in 1943 without including any mention of the decades of pre-1943 relations between the countries (or even World War II from 1940-1942).
(4) In an I would assume unintended (but amusing) POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944, which begins 5 years after the Baltic States and Soviet Union began military interactions (1939 Red Army actions) and 4 years after their annexation by the Soviet Union.
(7) The reason for this historical disconnect and effectively nonsensical temporal partitiioning is that it is essentially a partial copy and paste job from Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why that material was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
(8) Consensus should have been achieved before such a major move was attempted.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep pending conclusion of larger issues currently under discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per WP:Speedy keep#Applicability reason 2.2 "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption" and 2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." John Carter (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per John Carter. This is a split from the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is aimed to present the Soviet and Nazi occupations of the Baltic states as something equal. These both occupations were different, unrelated and both deserve its own article. Besides this the title Baltic states and the Soviet Union is more neutral since the status of the states after WWII until the dissolution of the USSR was disputed. We clearly need an article solely on this political controversy, without comparing with the Nazi occupation.--Dojarca (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on grounds of scope. The original article covered a 60-year period that included WWII events in three states. There were very complex, shifting battles and alliances with their extremely powerful neighbors during the war. If the split articles were expanded, as they definitely could be, they would exceed comfortable reading/editing limits. A fair amount of overlap could be kept. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per User:John Carter. Additionally, it is an NPOV title. It needs to be noted that the Annexation/Incorporation/Occupation of these countries is a disputed piece of history, and there are a multitude of opinions for and against in relation to the annexation/incorporation/occupation. By keep it at the title at this AfD, it is neutral, and doesn't purport to take one side in the debate or not. The rest is a matter for cleanup and expansion. Russavia 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A fork with no current or foreseen purpose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, the repeatedly stated purpose of the article, of which the above editor is aware, is that the prior article was both overlong and in rather poor shape. There had been considerable discussion of that purpose, and, considering the above editor took part in that discussion, I assumed he actually was paying attention to what was being said. Evidently, I am wrong in that. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject of this article is totally unclear. One would think this is an article about international relations between the Soviet Union and Baltic States before the annexation in 1939.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Vagueness of topic is rarely if ever grounds for deletion, unless the subject is far too vague for there to ever be a reasonable article. It should also be noted that the article is one of a set including Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Given the fact that more than one article already exists dealing with this subject, I have every reason to believe that it will be fairly easy to work out what content goes into which article, and how the articles should be named. Also, as the above editor seems to be primarily objecting to the article's title, it would be fairly easy to suggest alternative titles. I cannot see how it makes more sense to propose deletion than to try to change the title to make the subject a bit clearer. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Aforementioned arguments of Russavia and John Carter are persuasive. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)