Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 26 September 2009

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Estonian history

I have a question about the wording of Template:History of Estonia Timeline. Why is the Soviet period called "Soviet occupation", but all other periods are simply "Danish rule", "Russian rule", etc. Wasn't the reason for Danish rule that the Danes conquered Estonia? Also, why is Russian rule 1721-1918 not "occupation"? Offliner (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

International law is the likely cause, dear colleague. Unfortunately, there were also times when slavery was a perfectly normal business, whereas now it is probably referred to as a crime against humanity. You can't say (in strict sense) that Genghis Khan occupied Russia; on the other hand, claiming Hitler did not occupy Russia would be gravely erroneous. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does international law explain that the Danish rule was not an occupation? Offliner (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful citing international law, as one can then ask to quote the actual case law involved, rather than mere opinions on what may or may not be. Some regard it as an occupation, some do not. Requests for such information in the past have gone unanswered. Anyway, I have taken the opportunity to rename it to Estonia in the USSR, as it is totally WP:NPOV. --Russavia 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

International law is not about "case law", it is as Misplaced Pages's own article states: "International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together nation-states in adherence to recognized values and standards" The use of military means to resolve territorial issues was renounced internationally in 1928 with the Kellogg–Briand Pact, which the Soviet Union was a signatory (and Russia being the legal successor). The pact prohibits nations from annexing territory by force. The Stimson Doctrine further reinforced the Pact by establishing the precedent under international law, of the doctrine of Ex injuria jus non oritur, ""illegal acts cannot create law"", i.e. lawful annexation cannot follow illegal occupation. Before the Kellogg–Briand Pact, it was perfectly legal for nation states to annex territory by force, now it is a crime against peace. --Martintg (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, we have European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States (you haven't edited that page, yet. You might want to take a look). Many more interesting sources can be found in this article. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The EU courts are not actual international cases, per se. They are only offering their opinion on international law. One need only look at the countries who recognise Kosovo as independent, claim that Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence is illegal, yet there is not yet any international case law on this. This is exactly the same case. I am aware of the Occupation of the Baltic States article, take a look at the talk page and one can see that editors totally ignore questions which are asked of them, when they claim that a majority of countries did not recognise the de jure incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, yet they are absolutely unable to provide opinions from the huge number of states which gained independence in the 1950s-1970s. Anyway, it will be impossible for one to say that what I changed it to is not NPOV in every sense of the word? --Russavia 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely not NPOV as Estonia was never legally "in" or part of the USSR. Please don't push your POV under the guise of NPOV. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, however, prior to the 20th century war was a legal means of settling disputes. In the 20th, not, so one cannot speak of earlier legal occupation. This has been gone over ad nauseum before. Russavia et al., do not rename events to make a WP:POINT to suit your personal POV. Soviets occupied, Nazis occupied, Soviets re-occupied. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername

I left you a lengthy response at my talkpage. The edits you claimed as "reverts" were, for the most part, not reverts; I see no reason to block, so I haven't. The main issue is that I'm not interested in becoming party to this long-running edit war across numerous articles, and I'm not interested in becoming anyone's lap-dog by taking sides in a conflict where both sides are acting poorly.
Anyway, please do read the message at my talkpage, because I have left suggestions there for you as well as for PasswordUsername. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Peacock term

Your last edit of the Soviet war crimes article demonstrates that you are not satisfied with wording. I took these words directly form the source ( William Korey. The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135), it is the article in the academic journal. If these words are acceptable there, I believe they are equally good for WP. However, if you disagree, feel free to reword. Otherwise, I'll remove the tag in close future.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The quotation marks are the improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I appreciated your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Home. We have worked together before User_talk:Martintg/Archive_2#welcome thankfully all of those bilateral articles have now been redirected! So that battle is over....

You maybe interested in a group I am a member of:

Hello, Martintg. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...hope to see you in the AFD trenches again. Ikip (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Divisional symbols

Can you read Estonian? Then please read this repeated by this. What are your sources for the officiality of the 'EI' insignia? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't know how reliable these websites are, the two seem to repeat the same thing, but don't provide any references to support their claims. I recall reading other sources that state that is was used informally. --Martintg (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, seems that none of us has the sources to verify our claims. Until we get our hands on some sources, why don't we leave the more commonly used insignia which will be better recognised by anyone who knows anything about the symbolics of the division. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that we do have one source that is considered reasonably reliable, www.axishistory.com, indicating that this is the official unit symbol, we should retain the original, until we can verify otherwise. --Martintg (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll deal with it tomorrow. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal  ¤ 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Email forwarding

You have, I believe, expressed the view that forwarding of emails to third parties without the consent of the originator is Bad. Are you confident that you have not engaged in similar behaviour yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)