Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 17 May 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Estonia Stub‑class Low‑importance

Lia Looveer is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Australia Stub‑class Low‑importance

Lia Looveer is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Changes by Termer

regarding Changes by Termer. The Joint Baltic Committee of Sydney was an Australian, not an Estonian, organization. by Anti-Nationalist.

Well, it is a Baltic organization in Australia, not an Australian organization per se. FFI please see the State library of New South Wales: The Joint Baltic Committee was formed by representatives of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian communities in Sydney in 1952, + Lia Looveer was a member of the Board of the Estonian Society of Sydney and office manager of the Estonian weekly Meie Rodo, 1956-1966.--Termer (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:PasswordUsername edit warring over category

User:PasswordUsername thinks the Category:Estonian politicians is based upon ethnicity, but it is in fact based upon nationality. As far as I know Lia Looveer was a dual Australian/Estonian national. --Martintg (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I rather expected it might be both, as the "Lists of..." Estonians, Latvian, and Lithuanians include both. VЄСRUМВА 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername (whoever might that be?) doesn't think Category:Estonian politicians is based upon ethnicity, descent, or birth location. He thinks it is based on nationality, here meaning where the person actively participates in politics , although Vecrumba apparently thinks the reverse , Martintg. ;-) If politician categories were classified by ethnicity, Theodore Roosevelt would be a Dutchman, while Alfred Rosenberg would be Estonian. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lia Looveer had dual Australian/Estonian nationality, so what is User:PasswordUsername arguing about? --Martintg (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He means that she wasn't active in Estonian politics, as he explained. Croatian Prime Minister Hrvoje Šarinić is a dual Croatian-French citizen, but he's not a "French politician" because of it. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

´´If politician categories were classified by ethnicity, Theodore Roosevelt would be a Dutchman, while Alfred Rosenberg would be Estonian. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)´´ - funny, I never knew Alfred Rosenberg was Estonian. Ever heard of Baltic Germans? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He was a Baltic German, born in Estonia. C'mon, Miacek–I never claimed that he was Estonian and wouldn't describe him as one despite his being born in Reval (Tallinn), which is why the analogy was used. That's the whole point: you classify an individual as an "X-ian politician" if said individual is active in politics in country "X." Any other classification, whether by birth or descent, is non-sensical, which is why presenting Theodore Roosevelt as "Dutch politician" and Alfred Rosenberg an Estonian Nazi figure would be a stupid way of classifying people. It's the invalidity of this sort of categorization that I've been illustrating. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how any of this nonsense about Roosevelt as "Dutch politician" is related to the subject unless Roosevelt was an active member of Dutch political organizations in the US like Looveer was an active member of Estonian political organizations in Australia.--Termer (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Was Looveer a Nazi collaborator?

Wasn't she a Nazi collaborator? According to this link , Looveer, worked for Baltic Radio in Nazi Germany, 1944-45. I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing. I am also wondering if the Australian public was largely aware of this fact. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages describes collaborationism as

the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.

I don't think a case (one out of thousands) of a Baltic person having fled the country as the Soviet occupants seized the land and then working for some months for a rather unknown German radio warrants the label 'Nazi collaborator'. Similarly, chairmen of minor kolkhozes in the ESSR aren't usually described as Soviet collaborators. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the station was propaganda or not. Did Nazi Germany seemply broadcast Baltic Radio for the fun of it? Maybe. That's why I asked. And a collaborator is somebody who collaborates with an occupier. Even the initially pro-German Juri Uluots (claiming the mantle of Estonia's legitimate ruler during the Nazi occupation) got his Estonian supporters fighting Germans by 1944, while Lia Loover went to Germany and worked for this mysterious broadcaster in 1944-45, so I think the description seems fitting. Explain? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationalist nèe PasswordUsername, please present evidence that "Baltic Radio" was a Nazi radio station and not a Baltic (language, I would presume) radio station operating from Germany. That something operated in Germany during the war does not automatically make that something a Nazi enterprise. Are you here to create content or to smear a dead Estonian? (Per your openly leading question starting as: "Wasn't she a Nazi collaborator?", your innuendo "wondering" about her son having "no need to hide", "wondering" about the Australian public.) VЄСRUМВА 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides that British Empire Medal is awarded for meritorious civil or military service worthy of recognition by the crown. I'm surprised that PU wasn't "wondering" about the validness of my relative being decorated with that medal. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering about this, Vecrumba. Thanks for assuming good faith. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I only observed the manner in which you asked your question. Constructively asked questions are always taken to be in good faith. Questions asked in the form of accusatory innuendo are not. Enough said on this and elsewhere. VЄСRUМВА 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's shown promptly how exactly is this smearing related to a discussion about "improving the article", I'm gong to remove this chapter from the talk page shortly. Thanks for understanding! --Termer (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not smearing: it's a question I'm asking because I'd like to know about Looveer's work in Germany and if there's any further information I might be able to look at. It is a relevant question because I was wondering about adding her to category Nazi collaborators, as she prima facie appears to have been a real collaborator with the Nazi authorities, even going from Estonia to Germany and then working on what appears to have been a propaganda radio station (I don't think Baltic Radio Germany was broadcast into Estonia in 1944-45 for fun and profit). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, bring something more than your personal interpretation and speculation to the plate.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, let's see! Here's my basis for asking a simple question about her: . Aight? You gonna give me a lynching for that? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a speedy candidate as the page was not created to disparage its subject. If you guys come to a consensus that the discussion should be hidden then someone can just blank this section. Deletion is not necessary. James086 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Baltic radio in Poland and Germany in 1944, there was considerable amount of Baltic war refugees out there at the time and what has their Baltic radio station where Looveer worked according to her resume anything to do with "Anti-Nationalist" personal speculations here? Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish original research or original thought, so why hasn't this section been deleted yet?--Termer (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I want information, not speculation. The file I have twice linked to refers to Baltic Radio Reichskunfunkt–an official establishment, if we're going by the name of it. I would like more information about this station–such as, for one, whether the station was commandeered and run by one Joseph Goebbels, as the Nazi state's broadcasting was. From the sound of it, it seems like a Nazi propaganda station, but I would very, very much like more information about this seemingly obscure radio service as I do not want to "publish original research or original thought" or "personal speculations" of any sort here. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What you said above you want is "adding her to category Nazi collaborators". In case you want more information about the radio station, why don't you contact for example the information services of the British crown. They surely must have asked questions about the work at the station in case it was run "by one Joseph Goebbels" etc. while considering awarding her with the British Empire Medal.--Termer (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my question had a practical purpose. I think if she worked for a Nazi propaganda station in '44-45 after moving to Germany, she can be classified as a Nazi collaborator. If you have any numbers for me to call or people to e-mail to find out the nature of her activities, well, help a brother out. By the late '40s, the Australians accepted low-level collaborators into their country, actually. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No kidding...? I would love to help you out just that please explain which part of WP:FORUM is not clear enough? Hope you don't mind if I spell it out for you: "If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Misplaced Pages has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages."--Termer (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I am discussing one of the sources in this article (see my first post in this section), which mentions Looveer's work in Nazi Germany for a station called "Baltic Radio Reichskunfunkt" in 1944-1945. I am wondering about whether such work could serve as evidence of Looveer's working as a Nazi collaborator. I asked a question about what it could mean, since I thought that the article could fit in the Nazi collaborators category, but wanted to be sure first. I am sorry if this came across as an "attack" for you–but how else does one discuss what appears to have been Looveer's Nazi collaboration without actually talking about Nazi collaboration? Discussing the article's content and how it may be more accurately represented is a fully acceptable activity to be carried out on talk pages–per WP:TALK. How can I be any more clear about this? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

All you have presented is a primary source that mention she worked briefly in Germany then proceed to make WP:OR speculation that it is evidence of Nazi collaboration. Since that you apologize that it came across as an attack, perhaps you could demonstrate that you raised this matter in good faith by allowing the deletion of this discussion, which you have been reverting . --Martintg (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A bloc of nationalist editors reverting repeatedly in order to remove a valid question by somebody else is actually unacceptable. No. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In no place says Looveer's resume "work in Nazi Germany for a station called "Baltic Radio Reichskunfunkt" in 1944-1945" like "Anti-Nationalist claims. It says "Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt, Germany, Thorn, Poland" where the latter are obviously place names. Where is Thorn in Poland is clear, where or what exactly is this Reichskunfunkt (it doesn't mean anything by itself) in Germany remains unclear. The bottom line however suggesting based on this entry on Looveers resume that she may have been a "nazi collaborator" is flat out ridiculous. And labeling other editors with the "nationalist" tag doesn't make the whole thing look more serious, quite the contrary.--Termer (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I have been asking about, Termer! Thorn was a place under Nazi German control at the time. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) On top of everything else this is original research as there is no secondary source, nor primary as in a press statement issued by a respected organization such as the Wiesenthal Center, which has stated anything about Looveer being a Nazi collaborator. Until then, this is is all a discussion which (a) IMHO is simply an attempt to smear Looveer (as living person BLP does not apply) and (b) regardless of (a), to do so via the injection of WP:OR. When reliable scholarship publishes a book on Estonian Nazi collaborators and it includes accusations against Looveer—and no such reputable accusations, indeed, none at all, have been produced and therefore are not germane to the article—then we can discuss it further as it will pertain to improving the content of the article.
   Until then, any further discussion is making this talk page into a forum and should be stricken or archived, and closed. I hope this is clear.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

All this energy would be better used for a trip to the library. I found one book, and according to "Rundfunk in Deutschland: Rundfunkpolitik im Dritten Reich" by Ansgar Diller, 9783423031844, page 404-406, the Reichs-Rundfunk, Reichssender Baltikum was a relay station that was previously a Polish radio station, and became after 1939 a relay station for the Reichssender Danzig. The station was mostly broadcasting German programs, most of just relaid from other radio stations, some produced in Thorn. The Baltischer Reichs-Rundfunk was a propaganda program in Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian, and I am quoting verbatim "produzierte mit Hilfe von 10 Kollaborateuren Nachrichten, Propaganda und Unterhaltungssendung in den Sprachen des Baltikums" (Transl.: "produced with the help of 10 collaborateurs from baltic countries news, propaganda and entertainment in the languages of the baltic countries). Unfortunately the book does not mention Lia Looveer, but it seems, judging from this article that there are not many sources on this person to begin with. Pantherskin (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a venue for original research. The only source presented that Looveer worked for "Baltic Radio" is a funeral notice, hardly a reliable source by any measure. Unless a reliable source that states she was a Nazi collaborator is presented, this discussion is just going no where. --Martin (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We cannot say that she was a Nazi collaborator, but we can say that she worked for a Nazi proganda radio station. Quite ironic btw that her daughter was born in Branau am Inn, the birth place of the Fuehrer. Anyway, it seems that the National Library of Australia might have some more material, so hopefully there will be some Wikipedians who can shed some light on her Nazi ties. Pantherskin (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we cannot even reliably say that she worked for a Nazi proganda radio station, given the only source for that is an apparent funeral notice compiled by persons unknown published on a personal website. --Martin (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Compiled by her son Juho Looveer. And this funeral notice was not published on a personal website - it was published in a newspaper or somewhere else, the link to the website is merely a convenience link. The more general problem though is the borderline notability of Lia Loveer, resulting in this article relying on basically one source - and the notability is not clear from this source given that Lia Looveer appears like your run-of-the-mill politician. Pantherskin (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged to be compiled by her son. You have a link to verify it was published in a newspaper somewhere? The website contains no link. As far as notability is concerned, that is a separate issue. --Martin (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have a reliable source showing that she was working for a Nazi propaganda radio station (plus the juicy fact that her daughter was born in Branau am Inn, the Fuehrers birth place). You disagree with that assessment of the source, though surprise, surprise only after it was revealed that the seemingly innocuous link to a funeral notice hinted at a rather embarrassing dirty secret. I propose that you post a message on the RS noticeboard and ask the experts what they think about it. Pantherskin (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith here?, And seriously, where her daughter was born has any relevance? Is this really the caliber of the discussion here? --Martin (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The RSN views the source presented as unreliable. Since no other source has been presented that states she was a collaborator, the original question "Was she a Nazi collaborator?" has been answered: Not according to reliable sources. --Martin (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RSN did not clearly say that the funeral leaflet is unrealiable, but that it depends. There is little doubt that what this source says is accurate, it might not be a reliable source according to our definitions, but the idea that the funeral notice or the information on it is faked is ludicrious. So we have - at the moment - strong indications that she was a Nazi collaborateur, and we also know from a clearly reliable source that she supported a war criminal and nazi collaborateur. More sources are obviously preferable, but it is a good start. Pantherskin (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages itself cannot call a person a Nazi collaborator. Misplaced Pages is not in a business of digging "rather embarrassing dirty secret"s. One has to provide a reliable source, which says clearly and unambiguously that Looveer was defined as a collaborator. And this calling must come an authoritative source, not just from a disgruntled boyfriend or something. Otherwise it will be original research. - Altenmann >t 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I concur. Conclusions from the fact that she work as a reporter on a German radio station (in an unknown to us field), various definitions of the collaborator term and the hypothesis that her work must be an ideological one are a typical example of WP:SYNTH and might be WP:OR as well. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

About the German source

I was going to say (yesterday, but didn't have time to edit) that I was glad that some progress was made. As far as I know, there was no Baltic arm of the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, that is, the official propaganda radio. So, we would still need to know what "collaborators" were doing from a scholarly source—sharpening pencils or simply translating news is not collaborating against one's nation or people. The "bar" is not if you weren't out killing Nazis you were a Nazi "collaborator." But, again, that is neither here nor there, it is not our place to speculate. As I mentioned, I was going to respond positively on some progress in finding a source despite the not completely constructive tone of its communication (energy "better used" for library, not everyone has access to a German library). Now just a day later I'm just disappointed to see we've dengenerated and jumped down the same sensationalist "juicy" rat-hole as before. Please, let's introduce sources in an adult manner and discuss them in an adult manner.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since sources are unavailable, I suggest we end this discussion. In my opinion articles should not be written when extensive sources are not available. Please read the "Conflict of Interest" section: Consequences of ignoring this guideline. Since there seems to be an overlap with the Joint Baltic Committee it might be best to merge this article into that one. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion be closed. The German source mentions nothing about Looveer, while the RSN sees the funeral notice as not reliable as it is on a self-published website. --Martin (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Peters, Nazi collaborator is anybody who was employed by Nazi regime but was not a German national.--Dojarca (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So what? No source has been presented claiming she was one. --Martin (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Collaborationism describes the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government." So which criminal deed applies to Lia Looveer? --Sander Säde 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The part that is stressed in "collaborator" is definitely on complicity, Sander. Have you ever heard of Lord Haw-Haw, for instance? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, in the absence of any reliable source that states she was a collaborator, all this is just speculative WP:OR. If you want to discuss the meaning of the term "collaborator", take it to Talk:Collaborationism. --Martin (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might have a case that it's OR if we just go ahead and write that she was a Nazi collaborator in mainspace, sure. But we're discussing her life and how it's to be represented. Although it is not acceptable to make conclusions in mainspace on the basis of a primary source (I never claimed that the opposite was actually the case), simply discussing her life on the basis of the available sources is an acceptable activity for talk pages–especially as further information may well come out of a reasonably-posed question about the subject. Since Looveer worked for the Nazi station (presumably, not "sharpening pencils" as Vecrumba would most likely like us to believe).

At the same time, Martin, to elaborate a slight bit more on my comments to Sander on the more general question, establishing that Looveer worked for a Nazi propaganda station seems to be sufficient to identify her wartime role as a collaborator. On that very note, worthy Wikilinks to consider, IMHO, would be Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft (the station in question, amirite?) Lord Haw-Haw, and William Joyce. As far as those go, you might take care to note that William Joyce–who was an American citizen, not a British man, by the way, in spite of his residence–was executed for much the same line of work that Looveer may have been involved in. At the same time I recognize that Misplaced Pages policy as regards claims and sources is a strict one, and that's something I am going to completely grant, which is the reason I have made no changes on the subject in mainspace, pending a talk page discussion of the information. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well actually your claim "simply discussing her life on the basis of the available sources is an acceptable activity for talk pages" contradicts Misplaced Pages policy: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" You asked a question in regard to a source, the source was found to be unreliable, therefore your question was answered. All the rest is just irrelevant forum style discussion. --Martin (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Martin. I asked about Looveer's wartime role, not the source (the primary source–the funeral notice by her son) was simply presented as evidence. This advances the state of the article because the article (as written by Miacek) shed no light on her wartime activity–by no means an irrelevant part of a biographical article. People reviewing the talk page can now see the discussion and review the evidence. What do we do as regards representing the WWII period of Looveer's life–isn't the talk page a project space to discuss the future direction of what the article should resemble in mainspace? Surely, this discussion indeed centers on improving the article, exactly as prescribed for such talk pages by WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. What we need now, actually, are just additional sources for the mainspace edits that we are going to make. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

But since it is clear that there are no sources that discuss her war time role, there is no evidence to review and therefore there is nothing to add to the article, so this circular discussion does nothing to improve the article. --Martin (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how Martintg misrepresents what has been said at WP:RSN - a funeral notice might be reliable for uncontroversial information due to the tendency of relatives to omit negative and less than flattering events in the life of a person. But here the controversial information is not omitted, and in fact it is not even controversial as virtually noone really knows what kind of radio station Baltic Radio was. Pantherskin (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Ethnic Council

The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That little snippet of information would fall under WP:UNDUE. --Martin (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes right. A little snippet of information, especially when compared to the massive amount of books and articles that have been written about this woman. Or in the words of WP:UNDUE: "article should should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Pantherskin (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the actual source for that claim? The PDF only has "1979 – With Liberal Ethnic Council president, Lyenko Urbanchich, organised highly successful Liberal Ethnic Concert in Sydney Town Hall in July in support of then Leader of the Opposition John Mason MLA.", nothing about being a member or executive - or supporter of Urbanchich. --Sander Säde 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See: The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia (2007), Ian Hancock, p. 188, 196 (footnote 21 on p. 219) Chapter 6. "The "Uglies" and the "Trendies" (at War: 1978-81" p. 192) describes the bitter conflict between a faction led by Michael Darby and Lyenko Urbanchich and the moderates, but this conflict appears to have affected the party throughout the whole period. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here, perhaps is should go into the article about the Liberal Party of Australia, but that even may be WP:UNDUE for that article. --Martin (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is that undue, actually? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Factional fights within parties are a common thing in Australia, this one seems not that notable in the context of Liberal Party history as a whole. You could always ask on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia. --Martin (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be articles about the separate state parties, as there is for Canadian provincial parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Martin (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that you haven't explained why it's undue for the Looveer article. It was something she did, after all–so it's only proper that we add the biographical information. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Given her other more notable achievements, I'd say it's undue in any case. --Martin (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be undue if her other more notable achievements would be discussed in dozens of other books or newspaper articles and if they would ignore her involvement in the Urbanchich affair. But that is not the case, we have one source listing her achievements and another source that mentions only her support for a war criminal and nazi-collaborateur. What means, that this support is probably her most notable achievement. Pantherskin (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The article should also mention that the subject founded the Captive Nations Council in 1960 with Douglas Darby in 1960 and remained Honorary Secretary throughout the Council's life. Douglas Darby was president from 1968 to 1978 and represented them at the World Anti-Communist League. (Note the References listed in Darby's article.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps that should go into an the article Captive Nations Council. --Martin (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba has found another source for the article, a speech by David Clarke, MLC. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Victim of Soviet repressions before WWII?

According to this source Looveer was engaged to Mr Robert Tasso who was arrested in 1940 after the Soviet occupation by the NKVD and deported; spent 15 years in Siberia. I'd like to have more information on that one. I mean, before adding the article to the Category:Victims of Soviet repressions--Termer (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Being involved or even being a farther or a daughter of a victim does not qualify to the "victim" category. Otherwise we can safely include 90% of former Soviet population into this category. Or are you going to write an article about Robert Tasso? - Altenmann >t 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. --Martin (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette

Here is a link to the official notice of the BEM: The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Such things must be in article page, not in talk page; especially since it adds more info, namely, the reason for the award. Fixed. - Altenmann >t 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

COI?

I see it's already been deleted, but it is not helpful to put in tags such as "conflict of interest", that is self-promotion (person or group) for a dead person without some explanation. What prompted this?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on discussion above. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN would probably be more appropriate to describe Martintg editing behavior, although WP:COI might also apply. Complaining about unreliable source and BLP issues (despite the person not being a living person), and then he introduces completely unsourced content into the article himself. Pantherskin (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by Pantherskin / Censorship by Martintg

Pantherskin keeps reverting text ,, that is not supported by the source cited. The source mentions Looveer in footnote 21, the text to which this footnote applies states on page 196: "Next day, the sub-committee met Urbanchich, who was accompanied by Clarke and Ferro and several others". No where does it state that Looveer "supported" Urbanchich but rather the purpose of this sub-committee was to question Urbanchich over these allegation, mentioning some committee members expressed frustration at Urbanchich refusal to answer the question. So this text is not supported by the sources and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you accuse me of edit warring when you are the one who is edit warring and removing sourced content you do not like. See the repeated attempts above to censor information that you find inconvinient. Read the full text of the citation, and not just some cherry-picked snippet. Lia Loveer was not in the subcomittee but among those who supported Urbanchich (together with Ferro, Clarke and the other person mentioned in the footnote) against the charges and attempts of the party subcommittee. Note also that this text has been introduced by User:The Four Deuces, not by me. Pantherskin (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The source does not say she "supported" him, is says she together with Ferro and Clarke "accompanied" him, that is all. There is a significant difference. Obviously Ferro, Clarke and Looveer wanted to get to the bottom of these allegations as much as the committee did, hence they attended the questioning too. "Supported" is synthesis introduced by User:The Four Deuces. --Martin (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the word "supported" to "accompanied". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Urbanchich was never expelled from the Liberal Party. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Urbanchich and Looveer knew each other during the war"? He worked for Radio Ljubljana while she worked for Radio Balti, both Nazi propaganda stations. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps its me but I don't see any mentioning of Looveer by the source above in the context. So what exactly are you talking about and how is it related to the article?--Termer (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to follow the links that User:Martintg provided in the first paragraph of this section. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it, it says this Urbanchich guy was accompanied by "several others" at the hearing and then the footnote lists Looveer as one of the "others". Well, As far as I can tell, the edits by Pantherskin listed above say something completely different. basically this attendance at the hearing was turned into "Looveer was supporting a war criminal" according to Pantherskin. well, I guess such edits speak for themselves.--Termer (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. and what is this "Radio Balti" all about also in the article? If anything would make sense in English, it would be Radio Baltic.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Note what I wrote above: Perhaps we could change the word "supported" to "accompanied". Also, it was called "Radio Balti". There is no reason for us to translate it if it is not generally translated into English. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis concerning Balti Raadio

So what are you suggesting, Looveer accompanied along with all the "others" listed there the Urbanchich hearing? What's the point of it and how is it notable?
And in case there is no reason for us to translate the name of the station, why is it translated from "Balti Raadio" to "Radio Balti" in the article then? The current translation "Radio Balti" for the "Balti Raadio" just doesn't make any sense. in the context 'Balti' in English means literally 'of Baltic', while "Raadio" translates as Radio. so what the source says there is "Radio of Baltic" or simply "Baltic Radio" not "Radio Balti".--Termer (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Termer. I noticed it sometime ago, 'Radio Balti' smells like a poor cut-n-paste job. Anyone who does not speak Estonian might just check the ghits: . --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also WP:SYN issues with this "Balti Raadio". In nowhere the source says that it was a nazi propaganda station where Looveer worked. There is another source saying that there was a nazi propaganda station that broadcasted in Baltic languages. Well first of all the native lnguage of Looveer, Estonian is not a Baltic language, so there is no way to tell if Looveer actually worked in the station that is described by another source. So very good example of WP:SYN: "Looveer worked at Balti Raadio"" + there was a nazi propaganda station that brodcasted in Baltic languages" = "Looveer worked at the propaganda station"?, this is combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. But all that was already well spelled out by Alex Bakharev above . So all this nonsense should be simply removed as WP:OR&WP:SYN as it was clearly spelled out by Alex--Termer (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, yet I don't know who would/could get the ball rolling. I am currently scrutinized by arbs, so are Martintg and Vecrumba (I wouldn't be surprised if we three eventually get banned for some period due to that list). Our changes here are likely to be chaeracterized as 'ongoing disruption', whereas defamation and synthesis by some can be overlooked. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RE I don't know much about the Arb you're talking about, what I know is that for the benefit of Misplaced Pages all clear WP:SYN and WP:OR issues that have been pointed out here by several editors can be removed by anybody including by those who made such mistakes in the first place. The longer it stays there, the only thing that gets damaged is the reliability of Misplaced Pages.--Termer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain where there is original research or synthesis. Both that Looveer worked for the radio station and that this radio station was a Nazi propaganda station are sourced, and no conclusions are made. Pantherskin (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the radio station. It seems that Pantherskin probably used the Google translation service, but there is no evidence this is a standard translation. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference from the National Library Tallinn was introduced by Alex, not me. Besides, there is a source that clearly characterizes Baalti Raadioo (or Reichssender Baltikum respectivel Baltischer Reichs-Rundfunk in German) as a Nazi propaganda station. The stations are identical as they have the same name and are located in the same city. The station was located in Torun, with the mother station being in Gdansk (Danzig). Definitely not OR as the article does not make any conclusion about Looveers role in the radio station, but only states the known facts. Pantherskin (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No conclusions are made? how about what the article says that Looveer worked for Reichssender Baltikum, a nazi propaganda station? Thats a clear conclusion based on 2 separate sources which may or may not even speak about the same station. there is no way to tell if this "Baltischer Reichs-Rundfunk" or "Reichssender Baltikum" -meaning literally "Baltic State Broadcasting" that one source is talking about without mentioning of Looveer and the "Balti Raadio" literally "Radio Baltic" that another source says are even the same stations. therefore WP:SYN itself can't be more clear about it "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".--Termer (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you are misunderstanding WP:SYN. We have a source that states that Lia Loveer worked for Baltic Radio, and we have a source that confirm that Baltic Radio was a nazi proganda station. Only these two facts are mentioned, and no conclusions are drawn. Or if you want so, only one conclusion is drawn, that is that she worked for Baltic Radio. But that is what the source says, hence not WP:SYN. You are hopefully not seriously suggesting that there are two radio stations of the same name in the same location at the same time at the end of World War II, and that only one is mentioned in a supposedly complete overview of all German radio station during the Nazi era? Do you have a reliable source that shows or claims that Ansgar Dillers overview is incomplete? Pantherskin (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It says in the article "Radio Balti (German: Reichssender Baltikum) was a Nazi propaganda radio station". it can't get more WP:OR and Syn than that. One sources says "Balti Raadio", another "Reichssender Baltikum" and conclusion made on wikipedia is that "Radio Balti" = "Reichssender Baltikum". IN case there is no Syn here, where exactly is the source that says this: "Radio Balti" also known as "Reichssender Baltikum" was the station Looveer worked as an announcer?--Termer (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"It can't get more WP:OR and Syn than that" - I guess that sums it up pretty neatly. Using different sources in different languages is not SYN, because if it would be we would have almost no articles here on Misplaced Pages. Raadio Balti, Estonian for Baltischer Rundfunk; Baltischer Reichsrundfunk, German for Raadio Balti. Btw, this source calls the radio station "Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt". I am still waiting for your source that shows that there were two radio stations of the same name in Thorn at the end of World War II. Because according to the overview in Diller there was only one. Pantherskin (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be fun to be pointy and apply your logic to this and other articles. I mean for example, is the Lia Looveer mentioned in the Womans archive really the same Lia Looveer that is mentioned in the London Gazette? I mean, it could be a different Lia Looveer, right? Pantherskin (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a stretch to believe that there were two stations called Baltic Radio operating within Nazi Germany. BTW Termer, you could help expand this article by finding broadcasts made by Looveer during the war. It would enhance this article to read what she said. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm too lazy to do original research and start looking for "broadcasts made by Looveer during the war" and either the 2 separate sources speak abou the same station or not. Once there is a secondary published source available that directly discusses such matters that involve the subject, only then I'm able to help you out. Until then, I'm clad you're so sure about the whole thing.--Termer (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems this synthesis issue has not been resolved. --Martin (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here, and it is well sourced. Time for the EEML tag team editing to stop. Pantherskin (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This was after the Soviet reoccupation of Estonia. Whatever the station did, if it did, prior does not reflect what the station did later or if it was under the same "management". Without programmes, we cannot say what content the station broadcast. The issue is that there are editors here who are taking the paucity of information and are bent on painting her into being a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator, for example, "defecting to Nazi Germany" and "moving to Nazi Germany" when she fled the coming Soviet occupation a day before Tallinn fell, getting out on the last boats to leave. Don't lecture me about POV and don't use "EEML tag team" again.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We state what the sources say, not what you think. If you have any evidence that the source are wrong, and the station was a Nazi proganda station before the "reoccupation" of Estonia and suddenly not a proganda station after the "reoccupation" then by all means add these references. The article does not say that she was a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator, it merely states what our sources say, that she worked for Baltic Radio, a Nazi proganda station.It is rather ironic that you dont want to be lectured on POV when all you present here are your personal opinions, which you do not back up by any references or sources. But to your credit at least this time you did not particpate in the EEML tag team editing. Pantherskin (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that one source, a funeral notice deemed to be unreliable mentions "Balti raadio", while another source allegedly mentions "Reichssender Baltikum", the synthesis comes from the claim that "Balti raadio" and "Reichssender Baltikum" are one and the same. --Martin (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They are identical, same name, same location, same time period, and no evidence for a radio station of the same name in what is a comprehensive overview of radio station in Nazi Germany. Plus, no one should be surprised that a radio station in Nazi Germany at the end of World War II employing Estonians was broadcasting propaganda in Estonian. So that does not even raise any WP:REDFLAGS. What is next? Any doubts that the Sydney, Australia mentioned in one source is really the same Sydney as in the other source? I mean, it could be Sydney, Nova Scotia. Pantherskin (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So you claim, but you don't concede that she fled even though in the same period and location people did flee as refugees from the advancing front. Th situation is that we have one source saying one thing, another source saying something else, but nothing tying the two together apart from your synthesis. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the article is not tying the two together to draw new conclusions. We just state the mere facts, we are not making any claims about her being a Nazi collaborator, we do not make any claims of her being a Nazi propagandist. We merely state what is known, she worked for that radio station, and this radio station was a Nazi propaganda station. Pantherskin (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we have one source that mentions she worked in "radio of the Baltic" (literal translation of "Balti Raadio"), we have another source (that does not mention Looveer at all) that states a radio station called "Baltic state radio" (literal translation of "Reichssender Baltikum") was a German propaganda station, the synthesis comes in with the claims that "radio of the Baltic" was a german propaganda station. --Martin (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Urbanchich

Just wanted to point out that its not really encyclopedic to claim that this Urbanchich was a war criminal or was "later exposed as a Nazi war criminal". What the source given in the article says about the matter, on page 139 is that "Urbanchich was an alleged Nazi war criminal" and later that "...had no evidence to prove that Urbanchich was a Nazi war criminal" etc. Surely such matters like if one is actually a convicted war criminal or someone has been alleged to be a war criminal, don't you think an encyclopedia should keep this difference clear.--Termer (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I added another citation that unambiguously states that he was a war criminal. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This an article by Mark Aarons at The Sydney Morning Herald is an editorial that calls Urbanchich a war criminal. Sorry but its not a fact but an allegation. A fact such as someone been a war criminal in an encyclopedia can be stated if ths someone has actually been convicted. Mark Aarons can call this guy a war criminal, I can do it, anybody can. But once there is no conviction its an allegation, not a fact.--Termer (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is actually an obituary. Before I look for sources you think are acceptable, do you believe that there actually were Nazi war criminals or do you want sources for that as well? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care, just pointing out that wikipedia should keep the facts straight. And in that sense if there are sources out there showing that Urbanchich was a convicted war criminal, fine. Just that I've looked in to it and everything out there refers to Urbanchich as an alleged war criminal. War crimes are serious things, see the article -"violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity". So in case Urbanchich was a war criminal, there surely should be sources out there that talk about his conviction.--Termer (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He like many others was never convicted, but I will see if I can find an other sources that uses the term "war criminal". Many war criminals in fact died before they were brought to justice. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not convicted requires "alleged", and "alleged" needs to indicate by whom.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Adolf Hitler never got a trial and still he is a war criminal. Obviously we need reliable sources that show that he was a war criminal, but guess what there is one already in the article. Pantherskin (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is interesting that both of you apply a different standard to communist and Nazi war criminals. Please note that Misplaced Pages does not exist to support war criminals. I would like to point out that Nazi Germany brought about a war that led to the deaths of 50 million people and that fact is accepted and that you should not continue to argue this point here. If you disagree with mainstream thought then get your theories accepted elswhere first and then reargue them here. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

where exactly has anybody applied a "different standard to communist and Nazi war criminals"? War criminal is a war criminal, and an alleged war criminal is an alleged war criminal, no matter if one is a nazi or a communist or whomever.--Termer (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Yugoslav government considered Urbanchich a war criminal and nazi collaborateur. Pantherskin (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is btw, high time that you stop your tendentious editing. First you tried to censor all discussion of Lia Loveer role in the nazi war machine, then you tried to bully Anti-Nationalist, and now are arguing about every single word in the article. Not constructive. Pantherskin (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I have to disagree. Facts belong to Misplaced Pages instead of speculations. In case the Yugoslav government considered Urbanchich a war criminal and nazi collaborateur, why don't you just get the source that says so and state the fact - Urbanchich - considered a war criminal and nazi collaborateur by the Yugoslav government. And in case Looveer was a nazi collaborateur and/or a supporter of a war criminal, according to whom it is so?--Termer (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald says he was a war criminal. The reason he was never brought to justice was the support given to him by people like Lia Looveer, members of the uglies faction of the NSW Liberal party who were active in "ethnic" organizations. It is really up to you now to show that he was misunderstood. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"support given to him by people like Lia Looveer, members of the uglies faction of the NSW Liberal party who were active in "ethnic" organizations", sorry, but that is just not the case. There is absolutely nothing in the sources that suggest that Looveer either supported Urbanchich or was a member of the uglies faction of the NSW Liberal party. This is just your personal synthesis --Martin (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the conclusion that most readers of the book about the Liberal Party NSW would draw. I am not suggesting that this be put into the article. It speaks for itself. Have you read the chapter? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. Looveer is mentioned exactly twice, in a photo caption and in a footnote. So I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those two scant references without engaging in some seriously creative WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Looveer was on the executive on a number of ethnic groups that were contolled by the Darbys, Clarke and Urbanchich, all of whom were leading uglies. These groups formed the basis of ugly support. Clarke praised Looveer in the state legislature and Clarke published her obituary on his website. None of the "trendies" (white Australian conservatives) even mention Looveer. (She also defected to Nazi Germany and was a Baltic Tokyo Rose.) So it is logical to assume that she was an ugly. Although this article should not contain synthesis (which it does not), that is the conclusion that any reasonable reader would assume. Luho Looveer defended her by saying that her motivation was protection of Estonia. While that may be true it is interesting that Estonia awarded her the White Star fifth class. This story is a mystery. What was the relationship between Looveer and Nazi Germany and the uglies? My opinion is that we lack sufficient information for an article. As there is an article, it must represent what is known about her based on reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is classic synthesis: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". --Martin (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, its WP:QUACK: "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". But I do not have to connect the dots for the reader, because they are alot smarter than you think they are. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting better all the time. In case Looveer indeed prevented war criminals from been brought to justice like The Four Deuces claims, that would be quite a story on its own and based on such a fact the article could make it to WP:DYK perhaps. So I'd like to hear more about it, how exactly Loover prevented such things from happening?--Termer (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, WP:QUACK is just an essay, where as WP:SYNTH is official Misplaced Pages policy. Take some time to read and digest it. --Martin (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fled to Nazi Germany

Do we really know that she fled from the Red Army that liberated Estonia from the Nazi occupation? The source only says the sometime in 1944 she moved to Nazi Germany. It seems weird, it almost makes her look like a Nazi loyalist. Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. Why did she go to Nazi Germany? I have changed "moved" to "defected". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You really do seem to have a problem understanding the policy WP:SYNTH. There are no sources that say she "defected", this is just a politically loaded term that also breaches WP:NPOV. --Martin (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Defected means: "In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another." There is nothing loaded about it. Looberg gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

She and thousands of others fled the advancing Red Army. The only place any boats were going were to Sweden and Germany. Let's not manufacture "defected" for war refugees.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looberg gave up her allegiance to the USSR? was that a joke? As I recall it from the discussion according to J Looveer:Lia's life was about fighting against communism, as it had destroyed her family and home.--Termer (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, she "defected". The Four Deuces (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another. As it seems to me according to J Looveer she never give up allegiance to her country: Lia spent her life opposing communism and slavery, and fighting for freedom, mainly of her homeland--Termer (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Looveer never had any allegiance to the Soviet Union to give up. --Martin (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in case Looveer had any allegiance to Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany as well, she could be considered a defector in both cases. But her motives seem different according to J Looveer.--Termer (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did she go to Nazi Germany? I have changed "moved" to "defected".

- this is exactly the problem with the editing tandem Four Deuces/Pantherskin. Each and every piece that can be thus (mis)interpreted is presented in a manner that portrays the subject of the article and Balts in general as negative characters. Estonians obviously had no 'allegiance to the USSR' to give up, since the country had been occupied and illegally annexed by the USSR in 1940. Estonians had never sworn allegiance to the USSR, nor were they given a chance to do so. To talk about defection here is tantamount to claiming residents of Prague 'defected' when they started the May 1945 uprising. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I merely removed the claim that she fled from the Red Army and replaced it with she moved to Nazi Germany. That is the most neutral term we can use here given that the sources do not say anythig about her motivation. All this suggests that she was a Nazi loyalist, especially given her later work for a Nazi propaganda radio station, but at the moment we do not have sources that elaborate on her motivation. So I propose that this debate will be closed until new sources are found. Pantherskin (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I resent your reference to "tandem editing". I am not editing in tandem with anyone. Incidentally I listed this article for deletion precisely because of the difficulty in finding sources to explain the subject's relationship with the various organizations and individuals with whom she was involved. And in no way do any of my comments or edits portray Balts as negative characters. Nor am I attempting to portray the subject in a negative way. It is not my fault that she chose to join the organizations and associate with the individuals that she did. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I merely removed the claim that she fled from the Red Army" This grossly misrepresents historical facts as confirmed in non-Baltic reputable sources on WWII. "Moved" is the POV edit here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for the claim that she fled from the Red Army? If not this discussion is moot. Pantherskin (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done some checking, her autobiographical notes specifically state they left Estonia to not live under Soviet occupation. As near as I can tell, that was late September, 1944. Sorry, unfortunately none of that is available online. But that is moot, as there are ample sources which describe the mass exodus from the Baltics. Don't misrepresent historical situations and there's no issue.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done some further cross checking. The boat Looveer left on was among the last set of transports to leave (September 21st). It was hit by a Soviet bomb (>100 dead) but was able to continue. The Red Army overran Tallinn the next day (September 22nd).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that she left Estonia in anticipation of the Soviet occupation, but it would be synthesis to state that. (It could be that she had planned the move months before.) You might add in "ahead of the Soviet occupation". I don't know what the best NPOV term would be, bearing in mind that the occupation was never recognized. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Her autobiographical self-written notes state to "escape" Soviet "occupation." Given the atmosphere here of ludicrous "NPOV" invention, I don't plan to do much with the article until I can see about her autobiographical notes getting published on an established reputable Estonia or otherwise Baltic related site so they can be appropriately referenced.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I did feel obligated to correct the circumstances of her departure and date of marriage.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources need to be published, so that others can verify them. Pantherskin (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vineta

The German propaganda organisation that prepared radio broadcasts in Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian during the war was "Vineta Propagandadienst Ostraum e.V.", a subunit of the "Europasender" section of Großdeutscher Rundfunk (formerly Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft) and subordinated to Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry. Further information available here, (in Latvian, abstract in German), from the peer-reviewed historical journal Latvijas Arhīvi. Note the statement on p. 112 regarding the confusing situation in 1944/45 that "The broadcasters' names and frequencies complicate identifying the location of the editorial staff." It then gives some examples of different guesses. I hope this sheds some light on the ongoing discussion. If one can prove that Looveer was on the staff of Vineta, then one can definitely say she was working for an organisation spreading propaganda for the cause of Nazi Germany. —Zalktis (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what this long discussion above has been all about since the beginning. There is no source saying that Looveer worked for any propaganda stations yet a conclusion has been made or it has been implied in the article by combining 2 separate sources like she did.--Termer (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat it a million times, and still it is not true. At this point you have to demonstrate that there is indeed no source for the fact that Looveer worked for a Nazi radio station. Are the sources maybe not reliable for you? Or you are alleging that there are two radio stations of exactly the same name in exactly the same location at the end of World War II? And that miracously only of these two stations is mentioned in what is supposed to be a complete overview of all German radio stations between 1933 and 1945? And that by coincidence one of these fictional two radio stations broadcasted in Estonian, and the other did or did not broadcast in Estonian, but at least employed a native Estonian as an announcer?

And why are you so picky about this little factoid? What if the Lia Looveer mentioned in the London Gazette is a different Lia Looveer? After all there is not one single source which includes all facts in this article. Who knows whether the Lia Looveer in one source is different from the Lia Looveer in other sources? And why not go to other articles, because then this would be a serious problem for virtually all articles on Misplaced Pages that rely on more than one source.

Or could it just be that the sentiment expressed by several other editors at this ANI thread is true? Pantherskin (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know how complex the situation was in the Baltics, after the Soviet mass deportations no one was sticking around for the return of the Red Army. All you can say is she worked for the radio station. You cannot call her a collaborator as there is no scholarly source for what the program content was (other than language) and no allegations other than every radio station in Nazi Germany was a Nazi Germany station. Refugees fled primarily to Sweden and Germany because that was the only place where transport went. She worked in radio before the war, of course she would seek to send news back to the Baltic States. Simply state what we know and stop insisting she's a Hitler-loving Nazi-sympathizer Nazi-collaborator. She may be dead, but you can't synthesize content which describes her as a Nazi unless you have a whole lot more detail than is available. Let's not go on a paint Estonians as Nazis witch hunt per the (frankly) over the top content recently inserted that she defected from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany. Stop pushing ridiculous personal POVs and our interaction here can be cordial. As we get verifiable, reliable information it can be added. But when editors synthesize "defected from the Soviet Union," I can guarantee the results will not be cordial—if you want to point fingers, point at disreputable personally synthesized content.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) We also need to be clear on timeframes, what was going on while Stalin and Hitler were still partners, what was going on while Hitler was attacking Stalin, and what was going on while the Soviets were reinvading the Baltics and the Nazis were retreating (exception being the Courland pocket which held out to the end) are all different. For example, people accuse the Baltic Waffen SS being complicit in the Holocaust (and confuse them with the SD units where were collaborators, earlier) when the units were organized to resist the Red Army long after the Holocaust had claimed its victims. Hope this provides some additional perspective. BTW, this has nothing to do with Baltic sources, this is also all supported in non-Baltic reputable sources on the Baltics (Hiden and others).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  06:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, all of this is very interesting but we must stick with the facts. Lia Looveer left her country in order to work for the Nazi government and later in Australia worked in organizations with the Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich and other right-wing politicians, who were under investigation by ASIO as suspected threats to national security. Was she herself a Nazi, a collaborator or a threat to the security of Australia? I do not know, just that those were the people with whom she associated. This article can only reflect what is in reliable sources. My suggestion all along has been that because we do not know why she collaborated with these people that we have insufficient information for an article. But if an article exists it must reflect the available information. Incidentally can you please tell us what specific information about Looveer should be withheld in this article and provide reasons. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all its impossible to WP:Verify what does the German offline source by Diller, Ansgar say about "Bati Raadio" and what does it say about Vienta, the propaganda unit. So the article still implies after Pantherskins revert like Looveer worked for a nazi propaganda station without any sources saying so.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you are missing the point. Looveer abandoned her country and went to work for Nazi Germany. Was that the right thing to do? Not for us to speculate, but that is what she did. It is unfortunate to have this article when we know so little about her. Was she the Estonian Tokyo Rose? Please look into this because it would help to improve the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the hundreds of thousands who fled the return of the Red Army. "What she did" is your personal and biased interpretation. Per Termer's below, this will simply need to remain tagged as hopeless for now and we can all move on to something more constructive.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all a repetition of a repetition as we have discussed this ad nauseam. As long as we don't have any solid sources for her nazi collaboration we cannot add this fact to the article. As long as we don't have any sources that demonstrate that Ansgar Diller mischaracterized Baltic Radio as a propaganda station we cannot remove this fact. So we have to stop and wasting each other's time. Obviously if any new sources are found we can resume the discussion, but otherwise it is completely pointless. Pantherskin (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any changes or any sources saying what has been claimed, sorry I really hate tagging articles but it seems it the only way to go for now.--Termer (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What does Diller state about years of operation?

Pantherskin, if you still have access to Diller's book, what does it say about the period of operation of Reichssender Baltikum? Thanks.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I got the book from the library, but I could look it up once I am back home end of January. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated, if available, that will definitely assist in improving the article.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen years of operation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation of Diller is questionable per correspondence from Herr Diller himself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

An anonymous IP has revised the article using Michael Darby's website and an "Estonian Foreign Persons" website that has no reputation for fact-checking. Well-sourced information has been deleted without explanation. Articles should be based on books published by reputable publishers, academic journals and reputable news sources. We have already determined that the Darby site is not a reliable source. (See RSN here.) Therefore I will reverse these edits which are not reliably sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. Why was the Darby source still included when I started work on the article? And do you care to re-do all the chronology layout and style improvement work I put time into? 174.89.242.109 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The link to the Darby site was retained as an external link but wass not used as a source. I have now corrected that. I do not understand why this article exists since there are very few reliable external sources, and those that exist mention the subject only in passing. The subject worked for the German government during the Second World War and later became involved with a far right group within the NSW Liberal Party, led by Lyenko Urbanchich and Douglas Darby. However none of the sources provide any details about these relationships. Google scholar provides nil returns. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article it would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is you should revert back to the last edit I made and make any corrections according to the sources you feel are reliable. I just put the article into chronological order with better wording. There's _12_ citations in the article. How can you claim there are no sources??? 174.89.242.109 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You added a paragraph to say: "Lia was born to Aleksander and Hilda Saarepera on October 5, 1920. In 1938 Lia graduated from the Tallinn E. Lender Girls Gymnasium (E. Lenderi Tütarlaste Gümnaasium), and then studied law at the University of Tartu, graduating in 1943. In 1940 Lia became engaged to Robert Tasso. The marriage did not take place as Tasso was deported to Siberia for anti-Soviet activities soon after." This is sourced to M. Darby's website. Some of the wording of other paragraphs was changed. For example, you changed "she moved" to "she fled". That is conjecture. I knew an elderly woman who had fled Latvia and she went to a DP camp outside Dresden not to work for a radio station. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In that paragraph, everything before "In 1940 Lia became engaged..." was in the article already. You obviously didn't even bother to look at what my edits changed. 174.89.242.109 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The work done by 174.89.242.109 definitely improved the article, so I think its completely unreasonably for The Four Deuces to blindly revert this overall improvement of the article. I mean the article became readable, now its back to "what exactly are you trying to say here"?--Termer (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Introducing unreliable sources and second-guessing existing sources (i.e. original research) is not normally considered an improvement. Pantherskin (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

IP, please avoid personal attacks. Yes I read both versions and your version contained details that were not properly sourced. That is not to say that there were improperly sourced details in the article already. If you and Termer want to improve the article you should find academic papers documenting the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that a preemptive suggestion, or a baseless accusation? I don't see how anything I have said so far can be construed as a personal attack.

The burden is still on you to prove why all of my edits should be reverted. 174.89.242.109 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "You obviously didn't even bother to look at what my edits changed" is a personal attack. I see no reason why I should have to sift through 20 edits and determine which ones are valid and which are not. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't even bothered to look at my edits, why are you reverting them? 174.89.242.109 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Because I see no reason why I should have to sift through 20 edits and determine which ones are valid and which are not. Also, it is impossible to reverse edits when subsequent edits have been made. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps if you actually read the article to determine which edits are valid and which are not.--Termer (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which of the twenty edits do you think are valid and which are not? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your job to determine. What you can do instead of arguing here is revert back my edits, then make additional changes to correct what you think are mistakes or omissions. 174.89.242.109 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow the 20 edits separately, I just read the version before and after The Four Deuces revert and the reverted version had much better flow, was written in much better English. I didn't spot any invalid statements either. So I'm not getting it why it had to be reverted? Some sources were not good enough? Was it anything out of the ordinary that the sources claimed Looveer was actually an alien out of space? Didn't look like it and the only thing needed in the context really would be WP:verify.In case there really was any dubious statements added and the source wasn't reliable, this could have been simply removed. but again, I didn't spot anything like that.--Termer (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me which of the 20 edits were valid and which were mistakes. I will certainly support all valid entries. BTW have you found any valid sources that will improve this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The only mistake I can see was reverting those 20 edits.--Termer (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Termer, which of those 20 edits do you think should be restored? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've said 4 times already that all of the edits should be restored like I hope I clearly stated in the first place and then we can take it from there in case anything really weird pops out. There is no point reverting the 20 edits that have improved the article in general.--Termer (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Termer, we have a difference of opinion. You would like to introduce all 20 edits, some of which are unacceptable, whereas I would like to exclude all unacceptablr edits. I wish to compromise: please list the edits you think should be accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care repeating myself that many times, it's not worth it, feel free to do whatever you need to do.--Termer (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating my edits are "unacceptable" over and over gain, but you have failed to identify what it is in the article that is wrong. Of course if you could do that then you would not have any problem changing those things as per my suggestion. At this point I have no choice but to assume you are trolling. You can consider that a personal attack. 174.89.242.109 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You added a paragraph to say: "Lia was born to Aleksander and Hilda Saarepera on October 5, 1920. In 1938 Lia graduated from the Tallinn E. Lender Girls Gymnasium (E. Lenderi Tütarlaste Gümnaasium), and then studied law at the University of Tartu, graduating in 1943. In 1940 Lia became engaged to Robert Tasso. The marriage did not take place as Tasso was deported to Siberia for anti-Soviet activities soon after." This is sourced to M. Darby's website. Some of the wording of other paragraphs was changed. For example, you changed "she moved" to "she fled". That is conjecture. Why don't you just make the edits you think are appropriate without using unreliable sources or guesswork. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Darby's site is completely consistent with Looveer's own autobiographical notes. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I checked the sources for this article and removed all information that was not supported by the source provided. Please do not restore this information without correctly referencing it. TFD (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of, you know, behaving normally, ie. using {{cn}} tags and not removing material which is present in the other sources (such as her maiden name, marriage, son and more) - or simply doesn't need sourcing, such as she being politician. If someone is active in a party on federal level, a part of various (political) councils etc, I think it is fairly safe to call the person politician. We really do not want to go down the idiotic road of "Human hand has five fingers ".

In my opinion, your edits were not even close to a standard expected from a Wikipedian, and I recommend you revert all your edits yourself and start treating this article neutrally. Point out the specific cases where additional sources are needed - or simply add them yourself.

--Sander Säde 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for your attacks. If you have actually anything constructive to contribute please do so. As you probably know WP:Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, for good reasons. If you feel that TFD removed anything that can be sourced then by all means reintroduce the content with the appropriate source. If you are not able to do that stop complaining about editors removing unsourced content. Pantherskin (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have actually anything constructive to contribute please do so.

There is a need for a neutral and encyclopedic approach - which deleting things easily sourced definitely is not. I will roll back TFD's edits and add sources for things that can be easily verified in sources already present in the article. I hope that in the future - whatever your personal issues may be with Looveer - all editors will behave.

And as you brought up WP:Verifiability, I think you should read it, too, especially this section.

--Sander Säde 07:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I worked on the article a bit, cleaning it up and adding sources - also removed some unneeded and unsourced secondary info (parents, moving to Sidney). I'll try to get two biographical newspaper articles about her, however, that will take time, as I have to order them from a library (and I simply won't have time for it for a few weeks). Please point out further unsourced details - either by adding an appropriate tag to the article or here. --Sander Säde 09:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is far easier to remove unsourced information then re-add it using sources. I do not think that the term "politician" is accurate as she held no political office. "Political activist" would be more accurate. TFD (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good solution (and a better description, too). I will change it. --Sander Säde 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) A problem with the article is that it was based on an obituary that all editors later agreed was not a reliable source, then editors looked for sources. It would have been better had the article been based on the most complete reliable source available, The Australian Women's Register entry, with additional information added from other sources. If you want to improve this article, getting the newspaper stories is a good start. TFD (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

As I recommended long ago, this article should be deleted because there are inadequate sources. In order to defend maintaining the article supporters should find a source that provides substantial discussion of the subject. I have however found a new source that mentions Looveer, War criminals welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945. Unfortunately it is only available in Google Books in snippet view. The snippet says, " Viks immediately disappeared, issuing a public statement through Lia Looveer of the Estonian Association. Looveer was also a prominent member of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay, the mass killer ..." Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references. TFD (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there something you can come up with which is not guilt by association, implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis? Someone in a leadership position would have many contacts, look at all those that continue to try to smear President Obama based on prior associations. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the book TFD referred to is hardly an impartial source (yes, we need better sources, I agree). The author seems to come from an Australian Communist dynasty , so I'd be rather surprised if he'd be very sympathetic towards right-wingers such as the Australian Liberal Party politician Looveer, who had fled to Australia due to Soviet repressions in her country. Looveer had belonged to the Australian mainstream, unlike this Communist. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I did note the dynastic element as well on doing some checking. The guilt by association angle per TFD's snippet speaks for itself regarding agenda, that is, painting out (generally conservative) Latvians out to be Nazist if not Nazis. Australia has a long history of this sort of politics. Part of Whitlam's motivation to recognize Soviet annexation of the Baltics was that he detested the Baltic immigrants in general and detested them more for being conservative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Aarons is a well respected author and journalist and has worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He does not appear to be a Communist, having been an advisor for the NSW Labor government. If we decide to ban sources written by Communists, ex-Communists, sons of Comnmunists, etc., then we should ban Furet, Courtois, and most of the other sources used for anti-Communist articles. Anyway, I merely repeated the only part of the reference to Looveer that is on-line. Guilt by association? The only references to her in reliable source are about her relationship to right-wing figures. Can you provide any other sources? TFD (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the scant material visible from this book via snippet view, there is nothing useful that can be added to the article. Since Looveer was a representative of the Estonian Association, and Viks was an Estonian and therefore asked the representative of the Estonian Association to issue a statement, so what? I don't know where you live, but here in Australia we do have a presumption of innocence. You might gain more respect for your arguments if they remained consistent. In Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism for example you demand the highest standards of verifiability of sourcing, yet when it comes to articles like this it seems the most tenuous mention is sufficient. --Martin (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pray, since you repeat "reliable sources" like a mantra, what exactly are unreliable sources in the article that displease you so much? This article is by now better sourced than 95% of BLP's. --Sander Säde 06:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I am not challenging any aources in the article, since we all agreed to remove the unreliable sources that were used for the article last year. You have chosen to create an article about a person whose only mention in reliable sources is in relation to right-wing activists. Whether she associated with these people because it was the best way to advance Baltic independence or other reasons, we have no sources. My suggestion would be to delete the article. "Presumption of innocence" is an odd request. The Crown is required to prove criminal charges against people in order to obtain a conviction. But none of the sources accuse Looveer of any crimes, so that legal concept is wholly irrelevant. It would be a bizarre standard to apply to historical articles in any case. Hitler and Stalin were never convicted of anything they did during their rules for example, and Australian law does not allow people to be prosecuted after their deaths. Would you argue that they were innocent? TFD (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.". Lia Looveer#Awards section alone amply covers notability criteria, not to mention small things like coverage of her life twice in a newspaper and such... --Sander Säde 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

None of these are "significant honors". The highest award was the British Empire Medal. The cut-off for significance is the Order of the British Empire. TFD (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide link to Misplaced Pages policy stating the above about BEM? I was unable to find it, but maybe I wasn't looking at the right place.

Order of the White Star is worthy of the inclusion alone. Of course, she also fulfills WP:BASIC policy easily.

--Sander Säde 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, please come up with something constructive as opposed to making Looveer out to be a Nazi, and failing that advocating to delete the article. Otherwise, as far as this article is concerned, you're a WP:TROLL and we should simply stop feeding you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. @TFD: Perhaps you'd like to go to Fran and Anna, also BEM recipients, and advocate to delete that article. And why stop there, delete the entire recipients of BEM category and all biographies related if that's the highest award they received. If you are advocating deletion based on policy here, then your path is clear. You can't just apply your criterion (BEM not significant enough) to one article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fran and Anna are not notable because they were awarded the BEM, any more than the Beatles were notable because they were awarded OBEs. When people are notable, we mention all awards they have earned, including ones that do not establish notablity (e.g., university degrees). Sorry, but the Order of the White Star, 5th class, does not establish notablity. There are five grades higher in rank and the order is not the country's top award. How many people have received the medal? Do major newspapers outside Estonia report when the award is made? And no I am not inferring anything about Looveer, just that the only reliable sources that say anything about her refer to her association with right-wing (not necessarily Nazi) characters. TFD (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all your personal synthesis and interpretation regarding notability. Bring this up on the appropriate board to discuss notability. She was a broadcaster starting from before the war, the head of an émigré organization after the war, was the recipient of public recognition. That is sufficient significance. I don't understand your burning desire to spend as much time as you have to eradicating her presence on WP unless this has become a personal cause for you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

As far as I can tell from the discussion here, you're just happy causing commotion to suck in editors with whose editorial POV you disagree. Do you really have that kind of time to waste? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that TFDs source is quite convincing, especially given Lia Loveers prior collaboration and support for the Nazi regime (what Vecrumba describes as working as broadcaster). There is no need to whitewash her career, given that we have several sources that show that Lia was one of the many Nazi collaborators. Pantherskin (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how working a few months for a German regional radio made her a collaborator or supporter of the Nazi regime. Otherwise we would have to label every Estonian who from 1944 till the late 1980s worked as announcer for the Estonian (Soviet) television or radio as supporter of Communism - an equally untenable assumption. And how ironic that you make such accusations while supporting a work with the self-revealing (as per Fred Bauder) title War criminals welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945, written by someone who had willingly joined a Communist party whilst living in the free world. Unlike Looveer, who worked for a radio under circumstances when there were hardly any jobs to choose from for an Estonian fleeing the approaching Soviets. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The source itself says that the radio station was manned by collaborateurs. That's all we need, and that's why this article should be in the category Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany. Pantherskin (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source, from a PhD thesis by Lachlan Clohesy (2010). "In 1953, the Joint Baltic Committee formed an organisation known as the United Council of Migrants from behind the Iron Curtain. Lia Looveer, an Estonian born woman, was the Secretary of both the Committee and the Council. An advisory council of ‘old’ Australians was appointed and included Wentworth, Darby, Col. J. M. Prentice, Eileen Furley and Arleen Lower. (pp. 148-149) The Liberal Party had also founded a Migrant Advisory Council in 1957. This included Lia Looveer, Laszlo Megay and Romanian Constantin Untaru. Megay and Untaru were also prominent members of the international Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which ASIO considered pro-Nazi and of the extreme right in a 1955 report to Menzies and the Cabinet. (p. 172)" Again these are just passing references. TFD (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We already know Looveer was the Secretary of both the Joint Baltic Committee, the United Council of Migrants and a member of the Migrant Advisory Council, that is already in the article. What new information does this source bring? --Martin (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It provides information about these organizations and their leadership. Do you know of any sources that provide any sort of substantial information about the subject? TFD (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I could see how that could be relevant to articles about these organisations, but is that relevant to this article? --Martin (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And again you are censoring the well-sourced information that this radio station was a Nazi German propaganda radio station; instead you are cherry-picking from the source that this station broadcasted entertainment, news and proganda. Btw, this was also discussed extensively in the past, so before removing sourced information and should maybe use the talk page and establish a new consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You claim to have access to the source, please provide a full quote of the relevant paragraph for verification. --Martin (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has become a magnet (IMO) to tar someone who is dead as someone supportive of Nazism. Those that do so POV-ignore the unique situation of triple occupation (parts of Eastern Europe were even quadruple occupied). Unless someone has a source indicating Looveer actively supported Nazism, the term collaborator is not representative of circumstances and its use here is WP:ADVOCACY, as also confirmed by advocating here by TFD for guilt by association based on the nature of their passing references. The charge that someone was a Nazi collaborator, that is, was an active and willing supporter of Nazism and the evils it wrought, is an extraordinary charge and requires extraordinary proof. That a group of Estonians who had been in broadcasting in Estonia took advantage of the opportunity to broadcast news in their native language into Soviet-occupied territory by the only means which would provide them a broadcast signal of sufficient strength does not confirm support of Hitler or make them into anti-"anti-fascist" Hitlerites. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am frankly disturbed by the trend labeling individuals of Baltic extraction, dead or alive, as "Nazis" without proof of support of Nazism, being a Nazi party member, etc. (e.g., also Lācis labeled a Nazi by state Russian media, referenced at one point in the Russophobia article). I support calling collaborators "collborators," but those have to be individuals who swore allegiance to the Nazi cause, who murdered Jews in the Holocaust, etc. Quite frankly, calling Looveer a "collaborator" dilutes the meaning of the word and detracts from the guilt of those who were truly complicit in traitorously aiding the Nazis against their own nations and citizens. Is that what we are looking to accomplish here, to dilute the meaning of "collaborator" the same way "fascist" has been diluted in modern discourse? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I could find only three reliable sources, other than official sites, that mention her - the two mentioned in this thread and in the book about the New South Wales Liberal Party. In all three cases she is mentioned in connection with right-wing members of the party. I am not being selective in choosing these sources - there is nothing else. Incidentally I made no such claim in Talk:Russophobia, and Pantherskin did not comment there at all. I never called Looveer a collaborator either, and in fact wrote, "Since sources are unavailable, I suggest we end this discussion" (18 November 2009). And in fact this is the only biography on a person of Baltic extraction on which I have ever commented. TFD (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looveer's "connection" with right wing members of the party is by virtue of the fact of her membership of the Liberal Party (which has been described as a broad church of both liberal and conservative members) and official capacity in various Ethnic and Migrant Councils. Ethnic councils are generally populated by people of ethnic descent. There were some 200,000 displaced persons from Europe in Australia after WW2, a small number were Nazi sympathisers and even smaller number had infiltrated the Migrant Advisory Council, but all of that was exposed in the 1980s and was quite an embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Australia which had created this council, I don't think the Liberal Party would have awarded Looveer the Heritage Award in 2002 if there was any hint that she had any kind of real association with any unsavoury people. When I recall your past comments related to editors (accusing them of holding fascist or far-right ethnic nationalist viewpoints) and articles (associating particular scholars and public figures of a certain ethnicity of holding far-right views or sympathies with Nazism) in the Baltic states topic area, I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith on your behalf. --Martin (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that explains this? Otherwise it is original research, and we must present readers with the hard facts and let them draw their own conclusions. In cases like this where there is no analysis available I would recommend not having an article. Note that there are no articles about any of the organizations of which Looveer played a leadership role. What do you think makes this subject notable? TFD (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Well there are are few things I can think of:

• a number of memberships and board memberships, leadership positions of Estonian and Baltic emigre organizations
• being appointed to the NSW Parliament Migrant Advisory Committee
• member of the Liberal Party of Australia, holding various positions and posts
• founding member or member of various governmental commitees on Ethnic Affairs and Women's Welfare Issues (i.e., advisory committees to ministers/ministries)
• public recognition and honors which TFD professes are "so what?" (i.e., too lowly to be of encyclopedic merit)
• I would add that there are also a large number of Baltic and other events which Looveer led and/or organized.

I would request TFD nominate the article for deletion and we continue the discussion on notability there, or we close the discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"What" is not "why"

@TFD above, not wishing to belabor this further, but:

• sources, well, sources other than official ones which are mired in Australian politics are what they are; Looveer is sufficiently notable to merit an article, and not under the flag of exposing Baltic collaborators with the Nazis
• regarding Russophobia, better discussed there, that was my comment in general that if any source states Baltic national = Nazi, Nazi collaborator, etc., some editors contend that may be stated as fact "per reliable source" in the absence of specific and damning evidence against the individual, as here
• that Pantherskin has not commented outside the venue here is not material to the symptom, above, which I describe
• well, this is also the only biography on a person of Baltic extraction where the symptom, which I describe, has been as apparent and a source of contention from the first mention of Looveer broadcasting from behind German lines

Unless Pantherskin can produce additional detail from Diller which states specifically what Loover and the other displaced Estonians did that traitorously supported Hitler against the Estonian and other Baltic nations and their citizens, "collaborator"—that is, why they broadcast, the contention they did so in support of Hitler against their own nations and citizens— is at best an opinion (also, does Diller name Looveer?); meaning, the article is properly served by describing what material the station broadcast, about which there is no contention.

I have to also note that even where the broadcasting of "propaganda" is concerned, one would think that as they were into their third occupation, the peoples of the Baltics listening to the radio could tell the difference between real news and propagandic fiction. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Darby Report

The Original version of this article, which was imported here from the Estonian Misplaced Pages, which remains substantially the same, relies heavily on a posting in the Darby Report after Lia Looveer's death based on information from her husband. I think editors of this article have been more restrictive than necessary with respect to information in that report which are not controversial, see Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How many uses of "Nazi" are required? At some point does iteration of "Nazi" appear to be aimed at the subject of the article?

At this point, the use of "Germany" as the name of a nation has been reverted to "Nazi Germany" with the comment that It is the name of this country during that period

Curiously enough, I find "Nazi" to be an adjective applied to the name of the country, and not part of the actual legal country name (which appears, in English, to be "Germany" and legally, in Germany, "The Great German Reich").

I find the iteration of "Nazi" to be possibly aimed at associating the person who is the topic of the article with the word "Nazi." This would appear, in point of fact, to be directly contrary to assurances that the Digwuren rulings do not apply and ought not apply to this article. Do others now assert that the iteration of "Nazi" and iteration of history relating to the Baltic states do not in any way appear to relate in any manner whatsoever to the Digwuren ArbCom decisions and rulings? Collect (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a discussion on the WWII talk page and came to a conclusion that "Nazi Germany" is more common in English literature than Third Reich. "Nazi Germany" is as common as, e.g. "Soviet Russia". To use just "Germany" is somewhat confusing and may be uncomfortable for German audience.

The answer on the question "how may?" is "few". It is incorrect to use "Nazi" every time, however, it is equally incorrect to remove this word completely. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Misplaced Pages does not state in any page that "discussions on a different page make a binding position on entirely different articles." I trust you know this. "Soviet Russia" is also a poor name for the "USSR" or "Soviet Union." And "Third Reich" was not a "national name" in any case as noted above. Now the point - is it important that Looveer be linked directly with Nazi propaganda? If so, why? And if she is to be directly linked with Estonia and with Nazis, is it not clear that the article ought to be directly under the Digwuren sanctions? Collect (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are not, but they are not irrelevant either. If you want to have the same discussion on this talk page, I do not mind (although Lia Looveer does not belong to my field of interest). However, if the discussion will start I expect you to address all arguments we put forward on another talk page, and the simple vote will not be sufficient to refute them. Are you prepared for this discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Only arguments given on this talk page are relevant to discussions on this talk page. Amazing! Collect (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what does "Baltic Radio was a Baltic language radio station relaying for "Reichssender Danzig"" mean? Did the Baltic radio just relayed the "Reichssender Danzig"'s text translated to the Estonian language, or they broadcast independently? If the first was true, then whom "Reichssender Danzig" belonged to and what type of propaganda did it broadcast?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder if some of the recent edits are somewhat WP:POINTish, given the recent closure of the circus on WP:AE? How many times does the term "nazi" need to appear in a single paragraph? --Martin (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, whereas the word Nazi cannot be completely removed, there is no need to repeat it more than one time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering Looveer's biographical notes (and as per the Darby site) list her employ as "Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt", that shows you how servile (not!) she considered her role, being that she didn't even (apparently) know to spell the name (Reichs-Rundfunk. "Empire Broadcasting") correctly. The Estonians originally established the station in Danzig. Unfortunately as she has passed away, it's not possible to go back and ask for clarification. She only indicates that the entire Tallinn radio crew that she worked with banded together to broadcast to Estonia, now "behind the Iron Curtain!" As far as I can tell, no records survived, so I suggest we end nonconstructive speculation about the "type of propaganda". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest that editors not pursue: "But we need to know what kind of propaganda it was to appropriately represent how deep her Nazi sympathizer and Nazi war criminal supporter roots go." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Once again, I am not interested in pushing any concrete idea in this article, I noticed it only in connection to the last AE request. I am not an expert in Lia Looveer and in the political life of the Baltic emigrants in Australia. I sincerely do not know what this radio station was, to whom it belonged and what type of broadcast it performed. However, taking into account that this radio station was located in the Nazi Germany occupied Gdansk, it was natural to suggest that that station (as well as all mass media in the totalitarian Nazi Germany) was under a strict control of the Goebbels' ministry, and the propaganda was the Nazi propaganda. If that was the case, then it should be said. However, if Looveer's work was purely technical one (and the latter is highly likely) than it would be quite sufficient to write "worked on the German radio", because, independently of the language of the broadcasting, the radio was German both geographically and physically. The opposite was simply impossible in the totalitarian society, which strictly controls mass media.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To further clarify my point: it is almost impossible that someone worked on the radio station located in Nazi Germany and broadcast the propaganda that didn't serve to the purposes of the German Reich. It was highly unlikely, especially during the late days of WWII. However, if Looveer was doing her job just to survive, we do not need to say anything about the essence of this job. "Worked for radio station in Danzig (Gdansk)" is quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Given there is no source that concretely gives the answer, it is pointless speculating as to her role. All we have is a statement from her son that she worked to put food on the table, as did millions of others during the war. --Martin (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What information does this sentence bring?

The article currently says:

"She was also secretary of the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia which included Australian state politicians Douglas Darby and Eileen Furley, and Federal politician William Wentworth."

Taking into account that the text with the similar structure (the quote from some PhD thesis):

"This included Lia Looveer, Laszlo Megay and Romanian Constantin Untaru. Megay and Untaru were also prominent members of the international Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which ASIO considered pro-Nazi and of the extreme right in a 1955 report to Menzies and the Cabinet"

caused serious criticism, I do not understand what is the need to add the info about Darby, Furely and Wentworth. The purpose seems to be to inform a reader about a non-notable (judging by the red link) council Looveer was a member of by associating it with more notable persons. However, if the same approach (to inform a reader about other Looveer's colleagues, who are notable for another reason) has been criticised, then, to avoid double standards, we need to remove the mention of Darby, Furely and Wentworth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Martin (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that the names after the name of the organization do not add much to the article, though since her official position is given, the names of other office-holders might be germane. They would, of course, be germane to an article about that organization, of course. Mention of a second organization of which she was not a member is, of course, not germane to her biography in any case. And I would also find a PhD thesis to be a much lower-level source than would ordinarily be used in any article which impacts any living persons, and, indeed, most articles about dead people as well. In another article, I think you indicated that such was your position on PhD theses. Collect (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to research to what degree the ASIO may have considered anti-Soviet = "anti- anti-fascist hero" = anti- anti-Nazi = pro-Nazi. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Took a quick peek around and there are more Nazis rule the world today even as we speak conspiracy theories than you can shake a stick at about the ABBN. Sheesh. Can't take "Anti-Bolshevik" at face value. Why is it that anti-Soviet = pro-Nazi, while anti-Nazi just means anti-Nazi? At any rate,

( Looveer + A + B = members of X ) + ( A + B = members of Y ) + ( ASIO calls Y pro-Nazi )
says nothing about Looveer and is there simply to associate her with folks the ASIO thinks of as Nazis

So, no, no, no, no, no. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can these "no, no, no, no, no" be interpreted as "no addition of the info about Looveer's colleagues?" If that is correct, then that is exactly what I mean. However, to avoid double standards, we need to remove the information about all her colleagues, including Darby, Furely and Wentworth.

With regard to your equations, I do not think we can reject what the reliable source says. It it says that this Anti-Bolshevic Bloc was considered as pro-Nazi, we cannot reject that based on our own analysis. If you have a source that says the opposite, we can speak about anything concrete, otherwise we have to simply accept what this source says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Looveer wasn't a member of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc, so I don't see howw that is relevant. --Martin (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No more relevant than the info about Darby, Furely and Wentworth. And not less. If we mention the former, the latter should be mentioned too, and vise versa. However, if we decide not to mention the persons that had only a tangential relation to Looveer, we must avoid double standards, and this strategy should be applied universally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Douglas Darby, Eileen Furley and William Wentworth are State and Federal members of Parliament of some note and along with Looveer were all members of the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia and this source deems it notable to mention them together. On the other hand Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru don't seem notable at all. I say again, Looveer was not assocated with the Anti-Bolshevik Block of Nations (ABN) in any way. On the other hand this PhD mentions that Wentworth actively supported the ABN:

In Australia, the ABN also campaigned for the recognition of Captive Nations Week. Wentworth was a supporter of these efforts, addressing six hundred people at an ABN rally demanding that Captive Nations Week be recognised in Australia in September 1963. ... Speaking after Untaru, Wentworth told the crowd gathered at Croatian House in Sydney that Communism was more of a threat than Nazism was in 1938 and 1939.

but I do not see any effort to add Wentworth's documented assocation with the ABN and Constantin Untaru (and by implication Laszlo Megay) in his biography, so why is it being attempted with Looveer? --Martin (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: Your commutative and associative relationship math is skewed. Whomever Looveer associated with in an organization is one thing (e.g., Darby, Liberal Party NSW, both were members), whomever those same individuals associated with elsewhere (e.g, aforementioned ABN or ABBN as it may be referred to) is immaterial.

I'm interested in Looveer because of her life-long commitment to the preservation of Estonian culture and her political activism to insure the cause of freedom for the Baltics was kept alive. I can't say that for everyone participating here. We shall see what develops going forward. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to write the article about Looveer with different degrees of detalisation. I personally do not care about the concrete way you want to do that. However, when the article starts to provide more details about Looveer, the word Nazi will appear inevitably. For instance, we can write "She moved to Gransk where she worked as a radio announcer", and that would be fine. However, we cannot write "She moved to Gransk, Germany where she worked as a radio announcer for the Estonian radio station that broadcast entertainment, news and propaganda", because that would not be fine: we need to specify that Gdansk was occupied by Germany (otherwise we insult the Polish audience), that that was a Nazi Germany (otherwise the German audience may feel uncomfortable), and that the news and propaganda the most likely served to the purposes of the German Reich, so we can speak about some collaboration. Please, try to understand me correctly: I am not insisting on addition of these details, what I am objecting against is the tendency to provide some details and simultaneously to omit others. The sources about Looveer are very scarce, and the fact that at least three out of 6-8 sources that mention the Looveer's name do that in connection to the word "Nazi" does not allow us to ignore that word. You either provide just very general information about Looveer (and the word "Nazi" will not appear in the article), or you may give more details, however, in this case, that cannot be done selectively, so you will not have a right to complain that the word "Nazi" will appear in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the war footing of the German economy, chopping wood would have likely served the purposes of the German Reich, and given that Looveer owed no allegience to the Soviet Union that had illegally incorporated her country of birth, one cannot speak of collaboration either since at that point Nazi Germany no longer occupied the Baltic states. As you admit, sources about Looveer are very scarce but none of them mention the term "Nazi" in connection to her. What I object to is this tendency to squeeze out an implication through association with other people, which being a secretary of a migrant organisation she would necessarily meet with in the normal course of committee business. The State Library of New South Wales seems to be able to write a biography without mention of the term:

Lia Looveer was Secretary General of the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia and was Secretary of the Captive Nations Council of New South Wales from 1968. Born in Estonia in 1920, she came to Australia with her husband and daughter in 1949. She settled in Sydney in 1952 and became a member of the Joint Baltic Committee. She was a member of the Board of the Estonian Society of Sydney and office manager of the Estonian weekly Meie Rodo, 1956-1966. Looveer joined the Liberal Party of Australia, N.S.W. Division, in 1955, and was a member of its Migrant Advisory Committee and of the federal Party's Advisory Committee on Ethnic Affairs, 1976-1981, as well as a member of the State Council over the same period. She is a foundation member of the Ethnic Communities' Council of N.S.W. Looveer was awarded the British Empire Medal in 1978 and received a Heritage Award from the Liberal Party of Australia, N.S.W. Division, in 2002.

Given the resources of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War in exposing the backgrounds of particular emigres, you would think some dirt could be found on someone as high a profile in the emigre community as Looveer had. But nothing has been published. The Liberal Party of Australia wouldn't have awarded Loover a Heritage Award in 2002 if there were question marks about her past. Misplaced Pages isn't an indescriminate collection of facts or a venue for original research. --Martin (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If a person moved to Nazi Germany and worked for the radio station there, one can speak about collaboration with Nazi Germany independently of legality or illegality of some Soviet actions. However, such an information is not necessary to add to the article. For instance, the degree of detalisation similar to that in the text you quoted does allow us to omit the facts and the events that may link Looveer's name with Nazism. If the article will be written in this way, I see no need in the references to Nazism (except one mention of Nazi Germany in a context of Danzig). --Paul Siebert (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Moving to Germany did not make one a Nazi or Nazi collaborator. That you appear to feel that it does makes this quite clearly an issue of NPOV. Absent a real and direct connection to Nazism for the person, it is grossly improper to deliberately make the insinuation. Collect (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it does not make it automatically. However, if a person moved to Nazi Germany voluntarily, and worked for radio that broadcast propaganda, a possibility of collaboration cannot be ruled out completely. The border between "insinuations" and the attempts to reveal real cases of collaborationism is as vague as the border between the good faith desire to protect someone's name and the attempts to justify real Nazi collaborators. And, btw, NPOV arguments can be invoked from both sides. --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Digging deeper each time? Um -- every business was "Nazi controlled" if you wish to assert that sort of argument - so we are still left with "anyone who escaped the Soviets and ended up in Germany is, perforce, a Nazi collaborator even absent any actual evidence" Saying that since collaboration "cannot be ruled out completely" is one of the worst abuses of NPOV available. One might as well say anyone from Rwanda should implicitly be stated to be a "possible mass murderer" since it "can not be ruled out completely." Implying anyone was a "collaborator" requires substantially stronger sourcing that saying "well she moved to NAZI GERMANY" for dang sure! Collect (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, avoid straw man arguments: not anyone was a Nazi collaborator. However, if you do not want some details to appear in the biography of a person who worked in Nazi Germany during WWII, do not dig deeper, because that may reveal not only the details you want to show, but also something you want to hide. That is my point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please redact any post above which could be construed by anyone as an attack on me or any other editor. I particularly refer to the last sentence you make immediately above. Collect (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul: My point is, produce a reliable scholarly source unequivocally confirming Looveer was a Nazi supporter or put an end to the implication that there is dirt to be dug up. The two major places that the peoples of the Baltics fled to were the only two places possible, by boat, west across the Baltic to Sweden or south to occupied Poland or Germany proper. Thousands upon thousands of Baltic refugees "worked" in "Nazi Germany" between the time of their arrival and the end of the war. There were no DP camps, everyone had to fend for themselves. My mother learned to sew and worked as a seamstress, my father, who graduated from the national art academy, got a job as a draftsman. So, what, that made them defectors to Nazi Germany in the employ of Nazi Germany industry? Looveer happened to join her fellow Estonians who established Baltic Radio in Gdansk to get news back to their homeland, now behind Soviet lines for a second time after the Red Army ripped down the Estonian flag in Tallinn. Plain and simple.

Let's not revisit advocating along the lines of TFD's incendiary and grossly offensive crap about Looveer "defecting" to Nazi Germany. Do not make implications about Looveer (then) or editors (now) wishing to "hide" "something" under the guise of WP:INVESTIGATIVEJOURNALISM. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And I echo Collect's request that you immediately redact your last statement indicating a potential desire on the part of editors to whitewash Nazism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised with that your reaction. Since I never claimed that Looveer was a supporter of Nazi, I have no idea why did you decided that I suspected anybody in the attempts to whitewash Nazism. I believed my point was quite clear: I found nothing in reliable sources that may serve as an indication that Looveer actively supported Nazism, and I have no desire to portrait her as a Nazi supporter. However, some sources do mention his name in connection to some Nazi collaborators. In addition, Looveer's activity during the period when she lived in Nazi Germany can potentially be interpreted as collaborationism. Since the linkage between Looveer and Nazism is very tangential, I see no problem with removal of detailed information about Looveer's biography from the article, including the info about her duties during the work in Nazi Germany, and including the info about her colleagues, some of them were real or perceived Nazi collaborators or supporters. I see no problem with that, and I do not blame anybody in attempts to whitewash anybody. What I am oppose to is the attempts to present minor details about Looveer that describe those aspects of her activity that had no association with Nazism, and removal of the same level facts that may potentially negatively affect her image.

In summary, I would gladly redact any my statement indicating a potential desire on the part of editors to whitewash Nazism, had I made such a statement. However, since I haven't, I have nothing to redact. The facts of Looveer's biography do not portray her as an active Nazi supporter or collaborator, so the attempts to improve her image by removal from the article some minor details have nothing in common with whitewashing Nazism. However, if you decided to remove minor details, please be consistent.

PS. The tendency of one user (with whom you have a conflict) to see anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial virtually everywhere has been criticized by you extensively, and this critiques was partially justified. Maybe, you should apply the same approach to yourself, and to avoid throwing unneeded accusations of others in blaming others in whitewashing Nazism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: Given the context of the discussion here and regarding recent proceedings elsewhere, "However, if you do not want some details to appear in the biography of a person who worked in Nazi Germany during WWII, do not dig deeper, because that may reveal not only the details you want to show, but also something you want to hide." is explicit in stating that Collect and other editors may wish to hide an individual's Nazi past. Such "hiding" is whitewashing, plain and simple. The accusation is not "unneeded," I am simply stripping away your civil manner of delivery to hold up a mirror to your grossly uncivil accusations. I also request you refrain from characterizing myself as having personal axes to grind with regard to individual editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What concrete "Nazi past" do you meant? The fact that Lia Looveer worked for German radio is not a Nazi past. The fact that she had contacts with some of her colleagues who were Nazi collaborators is also not a Nazi past. I am not an advocate of the idea that Looveer had some Nazi past, however, she definitely had something in her biography that has some tangential relation to Nazism. As I have already explained, these details are not essential for the article about her if we agree to avoid unnneeded detalisation. However, if you want to add more detailed information about Looveer (i.e. if you want to "dig deeper"), then you cannot do that selectively, and you are supposed to be ready that some words, the usage of which you would like to avoid, will be added to the article. I am not insisting on the addition of those words, and fully understand your desire to avoid them, and I do not see it as the whitewashing of Nazism. And, accordingly, I do not think I can be responsible for redundantly wide interpretation of my words by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire to "avoid" anything, that is not what an encyclopedia does. However, neither does it draw guilt by association, paint Baltic refugees as Soviet defectors, etc. We have a single German reference on Baltic Radio operating under the aegis of "Empire Broadcasting" with no further information on the radio station's establishment and no examples of its program content. At least I have an original copy of "Rīgas Vilnis" (Riga Waves) during Soviet occupation if I wish to talk about Soviet propaganda radio. Where I have an issue is the painting of willing Nazi collaboration when the wartime experience of the Baltic peoples was to leverage either occupier any way they could to their own advantage. Your own contention of "de facto" support of the Third Reich by Latvian legionnaires, for example, comes across as your attempt at ultimate damnation, i.e., "well, you have to admit, ultimately they DID fight for the AXIS side." "Collaboration" is working with the enemy against your own people. "Collaboration" is not everything that's left once you subtract attempting to kill the representatives of the occupying power at every turn. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re guilt by association. Did you read my posts? Where in my posts did I support the idea to call Looveer "defector"? I thought I wrote clearly that I did not see the idea to characterise her in such a way appropriate. This idea had been put forward by another user, and to refer to it in this discussion is hardly appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You picked one thing out about what has occurred at the article not pertaining to you personally but then did not address the the "de facto support" issue nor the what really makes a "collaborator" issue. The WP article on collaboration with the Axis Powers pretty much makes it out that if you advocated for living until tomorrow, you were a collaborator. No reference for any definition. It's a disgrace that diminishes the meaning of "collaborator" and insults the memories of the victims of true collaborators.

More generally speaking, the conversation would go better if you did not assume wants, desires, or motivations on the part of other editors. I cannot speak for others, but more than once in the past you have mistaken me for/mischaracterized me as someone I am not, leading to contentions which are, frankly, at times, grossly offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the conversation would go better if both sides did not assume motivations on the part of other editors. I already wrote that I am not interested to portray Looveer as a Nazi collaborator, however, it is impossible to completely avoid mention of the Nazi in the article about her.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as we are agreed that Baltic Radio is one thing and is separate from Looveer on Misplaced Pages being alleged to be (but not by editors currently in conversation) a Nazi collaborator traitor to the Estonians and other Baltic peoples, we are fine. Re: Diller, his use of "collaborators", as in traitorous, does not withstand WP:VERIFIABILITY. The use of "collaborator" in this article is unfounded, even with attribution to Diller as he provides no detail beyond what's mentioned here elsewhere. That could have been his personal deduction for all we know. I should mention I've made a number of attempts to follow up on detail, but I've run either into dead ends (no response) or bounced Emails (expired Email addresses). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From Darby

Missing information

• 1941-44 -announcer/broadcaster State Broadcasting company, Tallinn
  • What state controlled Estonia from 1941 to 1944? What was the programing and purpose of the State Broadcasting company, Tallinn and what role there did Looveer play?
• 1944 (September 19)–escaped from Estonia to Germany
  • When did the Red Army re-occupy Estonia? Tallinn?
• 1944, September 30 –married Leonid Looveer in Danzig
• 1944 –1945 –Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt, Germany, Thorn, Poland
  • What was the nature of Baltic Radio and what does Reichskunfunkt mean? What was Looveer's role at Baltic Radio? Announcer, news reader, propagandist? All three?

Not all of the answers to these questions need be original research or generated by our imaginations. Some questions such as how Looveer felt about all this and what she really believed are simply unanwerable from information available to us. To a certain extent this is an exercise in saying what is known, and NOT SAYING what is unknown. The temptation is to use your imagination and then include its products in the article. We know little about the true feelings of anyone in a totalitarian ambiance unless they are very brave or very foolish. Some times it may be best just to say she worked at "Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt, Germany, Thorn, Poland during 1944 and 1945" and let the reader do the imagining. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline using information already sourced on WP: The independence of the Republic of Estonia was recognized by Western Allies on 26 January 1921. On 24 September 1939, warships of the Red Navy appeared off Estonian ports and Soviet bombers began a patrol over Tallinn and the nearby countryside The military occupation of Estonia was complete by the 21 June 1940. I trust these are acceptable as rough dates. The WP Estonia article then states: The official Soviet and current Russian version claims that Estonians voluntarily gave up their statehood. Freedom fighters of 1944–1976 are labeled "bandits" or "nazis". Thus the "Estonian SSR" or the Soviets ran Estonia from 1941 to 1944 by any accounts. Estonia was not "independent" when Looveer went to Germany. "Danzig" was called "Danzig" at the times she lived there (from 1944), as it was not again part of Poland proper until post WW II. "Reichsrundfunk" appears to mean "Imperial Broadcasting" from high school German. "Thorn" appears to be "Torun, Poland." The city became part of Prussia in 1793 and was not Polish again until after WW II. From 1919 to 1939 unter the Versailles Treaty, it was part of the "Polish Corridor." At the times involved, "Thorn" was part of Germany. All ethnic Germans were expelled after WW II. ArbCom rulings about what to call places would appear to be invocable at that point. No sources indicate precisely what any particular announcer did, but at her age she was not in any position high enough to do much writing of anything for sure. She was likely just used to read Estonian translations of something originally written in German, but that is speculation. Does this help? Collect (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: Well, I would stick to the specific cities without worrying about country or occupied territory. Since Baltic Radio was set up by former Estonian radio broadcasting personnel, any speculation about content and precise nature of the "Baltic Radio" relationship to "Empire Broadcasting" is speculation. @Fred: The Baltic peoples despised the Soviet and Nazi occupiers, let's not speculate that there is room for speculation otherwise or that such speculation should be left to readers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Fred, on "1944 (September 19)– escaped from Estonia to German, When did the Red Army re-occupy Estonia? Tallinn?", Looveer escaped on the last boat to leave Tallinn before it fell to the Soviets the next day, as I recall. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Fred. I am not sure if this info is really missing. She was not an editor-in-chef, she was doing just a technical job. Some people may feel uncomfortable when the detailed information (if it is available) will be presented in the article, and I see no problem in omitting it, along with other minor details of her biography.

Regarding your ""Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt, Germany, Thorn, Poland during 1944 and 1945"", that is similar to what I proposed, however, your text is somewhat ambiguous. What does "Germany, Thorn, Poland" mean? It was a German occupied Polish Thorn, it was occupied during the WWII, and the name of the occupying country was Nazi Germany. Since the country's name appears in the article first time, it is supposed to be full. Therefore, correct wording should be:

"Baltic Radio, Reichskunfunkt, Thorn (Poland, occupied by Nazi Germany) during 1944 and 1945"".

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. They might despise, however that did not prevent Latvians and Lithuanians from active participation in the Holocaust (I can provide the sources if you want). In addition, that did not prevent a considerable part of the male population of these states to fight de facto on the Axis side (and frequently semi-voluntarily). I have no desire to make a redundant stress on this fact, however, I expect another party to be more modest, and to avoid the attempts to equate the Balts with the nations that actively opposed Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. Did I understand your "At the times involved, "Thorn" was part of Germany" as it was within the pre-1937 German border, or you imply that the annexation of the Western part of Poland during the WWII was legal?

Re "Estonia was not "independent" when Looveer went to Germany." I am afraid, other users will disagree with that, because, according to the contemporary Estonian position, Estonia as an independent state never ceased to exist between 1940-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul: Every country had its true Nazi collaborators. Your charge of Latvians fighting for the Nazis is reprehensible. Your implication that the Baltic states embraced Nazism is equally reprehensible. And your "Estonia was not "independent" when Looveer went to Germany." I am afraid, other users will disagree with that, because, according to the contemporary Estonian position, Estonia as an independent state never ceased to exist between 1940-91." is equally ludicrous, given you know it was occupied and there is a difference between preservation of sovereignty and territorial circumstances. I respectfully suggest you disengage from Baltic-related topics before you dig yourself into a deeper Baltophobic hole. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not blaming any Baltic nation in anything. Many nations during the WWII were simultaneously heroes and villains. That is particularly true for some Eastern European nations, including Russians and the Baltic. The situation the Balts found themselves during the WWII remind me the Sophocles' tragedies when the hero has no satisfactory solution, but, nevertheless, has to act despite his efforts are absolutely futile. However, I am blaming some WP users who attempt to use the information selectively. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, of course you are blaming:

• They might despise, however that did not prevent Latvians and Lithuanians from active participation in the Holocaust (I can provide the sources if you want).—You did not say "some" or a "minority", you imply a proportion much larger not to mention the implication of wider passive support.
• In addition, that did not prevent a considerable part of the male population of these states to fight de facto on the Axis side (and frequently semi-voluntarily).— Confirming the implication of widespread support, you have the Baltic peoples fighting on the Axis side when you know very well (a) Latvians were conscripted and, in the case of Estonia, (b) accepted arms to solely to attempt to prevent the Soviet reoccupation of Estonia, both (a) and (b) totally devoid of support of Nazism, swearing of allegiance to Nazism, und so weiter, with the Latvian legionnaires wearing Latvian flags under their uniforms for the day they could drive both invaders off their soil. It is you who a is painting a POV-"selective" picture.

I suggest you take a break and not continue on your present course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a blame, it is just a statement of fact. I believe, noone will try to question these facts. However, I do not blame the Balts in that, because this activity of the Baltic peoples cannot be taken out of historical context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)From 1944 (actually earlier - but 1944 was the date applicable to Looveer) until the new borders of Poland were established, Thorn was part of Germany per UPU (Universal Postal Union) conventions, and making no comments on whether the rule was de jure or not. I also would state that Estonian SSR was under control of the Soviet Union, without making any claims about de jure or not. I consider the claim that the Estonian SSR was "independent" of the Soviet Union to be a most remarkable claim indeed. I, and most people, consider "independent" to mean that a nation is fully free to engage in all aspects of sovereignty. AFAICT, the current Estonian position does not claim that Estonia was "independent" while under Soviet occupation. Can you give a cite for your claim otherwise? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. BTW, what does UPU says about the Baltic states? And can the UPU serve as a argument in the dispute over State continuity of the Baltic states?

In addition, if I am not wrong Thorn is situated in the Polish Corridor, which was a part of Poland by 1939.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the post - Thorn was under German rule in 1944. 1944 != 1938. Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only Thorn. Entire Europe (except the USSR) was under German rule in the first half of 1944, so what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A statement of fact ("semi-voluntarily" meaning OK with the idea) in the absence of stating motivation (resist invading Red Army seeking to reoccupy the Baltic states) and in the absence of stating allegiance (first, foremost, and only to their native lands and unequivocally not to Nazi Germany) is, indeed, "blame" and not a mere "statement of fact." As with calligraphy, the "empty" space, the counter, is just as significant as the space you fill in (your "statement of fact"). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that motivation does matters? The motivation of the Red Army was equally noble: to kill the Fascist beast in his lair (the road to Germany laid through the Baltic states), and that was not the Red Army soldiers' fault that Stalin's regime had started a new round of repressions in the Baltic states after they were conquered. (Of course, I am writing that not to start a new discussion, that is just an example of how dangerous is to judge about some events based on motivation...)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And what about before the "Great Patriotic War?" What was the "noble motivation" for the Red Army to slaughter and deport innocent civilians of other countries? You can't blame it all on Stalin. Not to start another discussion. Of course motivation matters. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to talking in circles... You say "the "Estonian SSR" or the Soviets ran Estonia from 1941 to 1944"; wasn't there some kind of Nazi occupation or puppet regime? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Estonia article ... The Soviet Union was in control from June 1940 (Estonian surrender) becoming the Estonian SSR in August 1940. Operation Barbarossa begane a year later (the Soviets drafted men of military age, and killed political prisoners according to the Misplaced Pages articles). Ostland (again per WP) was substantially recaptured by the Soviets in 1943-4. The idea of merging the nations into one territory did not apparently go over well with the people therein. Apparently a few books have been written on all this - but it is pretty clear that the citizens were not partial to the Germans as a rule. The Soviets, by the way, never allowed that their rule was interrupted. Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed anti-German sentiment predominated in Estonia before 1940 and there was little or no anti-Russian sentiment existed during the czarist and first independence period, on account of economic domination of the Baltic German aristocratic classes that ruled the country in the centuries before independence in 1920. Imposition of Soviet rule in 1940 and subsequent actions by Soviet authorities led to the replacement of anti-German sentiment with anti-Russian sentiment within just one year, and it is characterized as "one of the greatest achievements of the Soviet authorities" according to Jaan Kaplinski. --Martin (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

During 1941-44 Estonia was a part of the Reichskomissariat Ostland, whose status was close to that of a German colony or protectorate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I should note that those who contend Looveer "defected" mean from the Estonian SSR (USSR) occupied by Germany as opposed to from the occupied (sovereign) Baltic states. The Baltic/Western view is the Baltic states were occupied by both powers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, Estonia had formally declared neutrality before being subsequently occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, which then proceeded to decapitate the leadership and civil society before the German occupied the country in 1941. --Martin (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are Misplaced Pages articles: German occupation of Estonia during World War II and Estonian Self-Administration, the puppet government. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an investigation of the general situation and of prominent personalities by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity in 1998. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a link to their online reports however. Here is something http://www.estonica.org/en/History/1939-1945_Estonia_and_World_War_II/German_occupation_in_Estonia_1941-1944/ I can't find a paper copy of "The German Occupation in Estonia 1941–1944" either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: http://web-static.vm.ee/static/failid/051/1941-1944_ik.pdf User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Try . Specifically . (I just followed the clear links to get there) Collect (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good finds. No mention of Looveer however, but this material would be useful for German occupation of Estonia during World War II. I note the reports mention Australia's other (in)famous emigre Ervin Viks so anyone is welcomed to start an article that describes his well documented and real collaborationist activities. --Martin (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Commission has considered carefully the

role and responsibility of those who worked for the Directorate in areas other than the police, and in less senior capacities, ranging from heads of departments down to clerical workers. Although their activities contributed to the German war effort, we concluded that in the absence of evidence of specific actions taken by these individuals that gave rise to a criminal act, we could not hold them responsible for criminal acts simply by virtue of the positions they

held.

Many of the lower-level administrators had held

the same or similar positions under previous regimes. The Commission believes that they belong to the large category of Estonians who may have been aware of criminal acts, but neither took part in

them, nor registered any protest against them.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The people who left Estonia before the advancing

Russians did so because they did not want to find themselves under Soviet occupation again. Among their numbers were those who believed that their cooperation with the Germans would have brought them before Soviet justice. Some, at least, were members of the Directorate, or of the Security Police, or had as members of military units or police battalions guarded camps or towns in which crimes

against humanity or acts of genocide had been committed.

These people were, with isolated exceptions,

never required to account for their actions before a court of law. The outbreak of the Cold War provided a form of amnesty for those who could claim that their struggle had been against the Soviets, even if in alliance with or subordinated to Germany. Questions about the nature of their activity during the war were, with a few exceptions, not asked. Accordingly, many refugees were able to emigrate freely to England, Australia, Canada, the United

States and elsewhere.

Our research examined the fate of numbers of

Estonians who had stayed in Estonia, or had fallen into Soviet hands as prisoners, and were put on trial. A few were acquitted. Others were convicted of a range of criminal activities on the basis of credible evidence. But when their convictions were based solely on collaboration with the Germans, as Soviet citizens, the convictions were unsound. Estonia had not joined the Soviet Union by any form of due process, and Estonians had every right to regard

themselves as citizens of the Estonian Republic.

It is unjust that an entire nation should be criminalized

because of the actions of some of its citizens; but it is equally unjust that its criminals should be

able to shelter behind a cloak of victimhood.

"The outbreak of the Cold War provided a form of amnesty" User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good quotes. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My mother was the assistant postmaster in Talsi. She was that during independence. She was that, working under a Soviet installed incompetent with Red Army lined up against the office wall behind her holding loaded rifles, she was that when Nazi Germany invaded and tossed her out of the family house the same way the Soviets did for barracks space. So, apparently as my mother didn't attempt to kill anyone she was both a Soviet AND Nazi "collaborator." The overuse and misuse of the word "collaborator" renders it almost meaningless by the time we appropriately apply it to individuals who committed crimes against their state, their fellow citizens, against humanity itself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From the World Dictionary, for "collaborate":

cooperate traitorously with an enemy:

during the last war they 'collaborated with' the Nazis

Notice the use of the word "traitorously". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an issue: working for a radio station is to be a voice of the regime, but, as said, she and many thousands of others were never thoroughly investigated, and thus neither cleared nor brought to account. 0 is a number for a reason. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she worked for a radio station in broadcasting in the Estonian language to the Estonian people. So who precisely considered this activity traitorous? The Soviet authorities who had occupied and illgally annexed the country in 1940 or the restored Estonian state which had awarded her a Cross of Merit for her work? --Martin (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

She never fell under Soviet jurisdiction after the war and as far as we know they said nothing. In the case of others they did have jurisdiction over:

Our research examined the fate of numbers of Estonians who had stayed in Estonia, or had fallen into Soviet hands as prisoners, and were put on trial. A few were acquitted. Others were convicted of a range of criminal activities on the basis of credible evidence. But when their convictions were based solely on collaboration with the Germans, as Soviet citizens, the convictions were unsound. Estonia had not joined the Soviet Union by any form of due process, and Estonians had every right to regard themselves as citizens of the Estonian Republic.

The attempt to render a verdict that is being made here, now, based on her associations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my account of my mother being apparently a dual collaborator, we are not here to render any verdict. Given the post-war Soviet witch-hunt against Baltic and Ukrainian nationals in particular as the most vocal anti-Soviet "nationalists", "credible" has to be taken with a grain of salt when there is proof that the Soviets deposed dead people in evidence provided to the U.S. Department of Justice's OSI in its hunt for Nazis. But a conversation for another place and time. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Fred. I believe you don't mind me to re-format your post.

@ Martin. Re your "she worked for a radio station in broadcasting in the Estonian language to the Estonian people" you forgot to add "from the territory occupied by the Nazi Germany and with the permission from the German authorities." It is hard to believe that the content of this broadcast was not under a strict control of the German ministry of propaganda.

Let me re-iterate, however, that I do not see a need to add anything about collaboration, provided that the work for radio during the German occupation is mentioned only briefly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "she worked for a radio station in broadcasting in the Estonian language to the Estonian people sometimes from non-soviet territory occupied (Rostock being Germany proper) by Nazi Germany and with the permission from the German authorities." and Estonian state bestowed the Order of the White Star for being a "Freedom Fighter" in 1998 for her efforts. Evidently the President of Estonia deemed her efforts worthy of an award, so certainly the content of her 1944 Estonian language broadcasts to the Estonian people were not deemed traitorous by the contemporary Estonian state. A contemporary German source states that the radio station broadcast news, propaganda and entertainment (original German: "Nachrichten, Propaganda und Unterhaltungssendung in den Sprachen des Baltikums"), we do not know which of the three program items Looveer was involved in, but I imagine broadcasts denoucing the Soviet conquest of Estonia being approved by the German authorities. --Martin (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Annexed vs occupied

I see that the same people who vehemently oppose to the use of the word "annexed" in a context of the Baltic states/the USSR are more liberal when in the case of Germany/Poland. By contrast to the Baltic states, Poland was attacked by Germany and during 1939-45 was officially at war with it. By no mean we can use the word "annexed" in this situation. The only appropriate term in this case is "occupied".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Poland was, indeed, occupied (by two nations, as a matter of fact). And got a US postage stamp for it. Poland had a "government in exile" in London, and issued postage stamps which were validated for a very short period post WWII in Poland. Collect (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And what the second nation was? The Soviet peoples? Ukrainians? Belorussians? How long did this occupation last? When did it end?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone interested in this period of history, you would be aware that at the inception of WWII, Hitler occupied 49% of Polish territory and Stalin occupied 51% of Polish territory, completing its partition, again. Perhaps you've forgotten Stalin's premature telegram of congratulations to Hitler on the fall of Warsaw? Asking such questions in (my perception) an impatient manner—if not accusatory tone—does not advance the dialog here. And regarding "annexed vs. occupied", you are an ardent opponent of "comparing occupations," are you not? Sources guide what things are called, not the personal contentions of editors.

And again, you mischaracterize the position of other editors, that being, that "annexation" (act) and "occupation" (duration of presence) regarding the Baltic states are not mutually exclusive. No one has stated that the Baltic states were not annexed, so cease and desist with your personal attacks alleging "vehemence" on the part of editors who might not agree with you on all counts. Refrain from painting yourself as the voice of reason attempting to stem the tide of vehement POV-pushing editors. I'm disappointed that every time we seem to take a small step forward you insist on taking multiple steps back.

Lastly, I am glad to discuss sources any time, however, your endless denigration of other editors must stop. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's congratulation didn't cancel the fact that Hitler declared a war on Poland and military occupied it after fierce fighting. Nazi Germany was at war with majority states, and its post-1939 borders were not recognised neither de jure nor de facto by most no-satellite states (except, probably, the USSR). In connection to that, to replace "occupied" with "annexed" is hardly correct, and this step is especially strange, taking into account that it has been done by the user who vehemently (sorry, I cannot find more appropriate epithet) opposes to the use of the term "annexed" in a context of another event, which fits this definition much better (according to what reliable sources say).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Soviet forces enter Poland? On what day? At whose direction? Did Germany occupy all of Poland on, say, October 1, 1939? If not, was anyone else occupying any of Poland? If so, who? I suspect simple questions may elucidate this quite a bit. Collect (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This question posed has not yet been answered. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, Stalin's congratulations recognized that Hitler and Stalin had agreed beforehand to carve up Eastern Europe and Stalin was happy for Hitler that things were going so well for him. @Collect: As I recall, Stalin invaded eastern Poland a week (or two, I'll have to go back to check dates) 16 days after Hitler invaded western Poland, ostensibly to protect national minorities, and seeing that the Polish authorities were no longer in control. Unfortunately, the Poles could not fight a war on two fronts, and by the time the two invasions were finished, the USSR had taken control of more of Poland than Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. @Paul: I suggest you consider that one editor's being vehement is another editor's being rigorous. It's safe to say we've contended the same sources "say" something different. So stop with the tiresome epithets. BTW, the appropriate description for what happened to Poland is "partitioned." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re " Stalin's congratulations recognized that Hitler and Stalin had agreed beforehand to carve up Eastern Europe". Although that is not your personal contention (using your own terminology), it is not a mainstream view either. See, e.g. Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.:

"There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland. This assertion cannot be definitively proven but there are a number of documentary clues which support it.

"The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war."

You may disagree with that conclusion, however, what you may not is to speak about my personal contentions on that account. I am just reproduce what reliable mainstream sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And I can quote sources which specifically speak to the Hitler-Stalin pact, while ostensibly a nonaggression treaty, was a "war pact by which the two signatories divided the prospective territorial booty. In view of these facts, the opinion that the responsibility for World War II was entirely one sided can only be maintained with respect to western Europe. In a wider sense, the war guilt was about equally divided between Berlin and Moscow who planned together for the new conflagration." So, don't pick one source supporting your position, position it as "mainstream sources" and denounce whatever I say as being merely my personal opinion. I prefer to represent what sources (plural) state, while you appear content to represent a source (singular) as what "mainstream sources" (plural) state. Since you perpetually contend that anything I state is some fringe POV view unsupported by mainstream sources (I'll spare you the endless diffs), that prevents any further meaningful discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely, you can. What you cannot, however, is to pretend these sources to express the scholarly consensus. That viewpoint is just one of viewpoints, and should be treated as such.

Re "don't pick one source supporting your position, position it as "mainstream sources" and denounce whatever I say as being merely my personal opinion." Read carefully what I wrote: "Although that is not your personal contention (using your own terminology), it is not a mainstream view either." By writing that I meant that, whereas your statement is supported by reliable sources, these do not represent a sole majority viewpoint. You will not find anywhere in my post the claim that Roberts' viewpoint is the sole mainstream POV (I just wrote that the source is mainstream, and it is hardly possible to refute this claim). I am not so stupid to state that the majority viewpoint on this subject exists. It is well known that at least two mainstream viewpoints exists on the Nazi-Soviet relations, and the POV you share is a viewpoint of so called "German school".

Your claim (""don't pick one source supporting your position") is simply false and offensive. Please, redact it and apologise, otherwise it will be hard for me to further assume your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "I prefer to represent what sources (plural) state". Well, we have two statements, one from the source provided by me, and another from the (unnamed) source provided by you. How do you propose to combine them? (I fully understand that this question belongs to another talk page, however...)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything here, we are entirely off topic, we are agreed there. When you stop contending I'm a fringe theorist, we can discuss sources more constructively. BTW, Robert Ingrim, 1946. I didn't cite the source to avoid an enervating exchange of dueling sources, which is what you took it as (after all, I didn't name my source). You ignored my observation that (according to you) you're only quoting "mainstream sources" and I'm always off engaging in some POV prattle. You really ought to break your habit of "me=mainstream" every other word, the other word being "you=fringe." You didn't used to behave that way, your constant denigration of other editors instead of simply discussing sources is unbecoming. Perhaps you don't even realize you're doing it. I regret you seem to have picked up some bad habits while you didn't have me around to keep you honest. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't blame others in your sins. Whereas I never claimed you were a fringe theorist, your statements about my "personal contentions" can be found at virtually every talk page where we interact. For instance, during the current discussion I never called your sources fringe (despite the fact that you provided no references), because I know these sources, and I know that such authors as Raack or Nekirich are reputable scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop defending yourself by attacking others (my "sins"). I'll spare you the diffs on calling my views unsupported and fringe because then I'd have to call you a liar and this conversation would simply degenerate. Let me know when you're ready to discuss sources without editorializing about other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. That means, eliminate endless contentions of "mainstream", "fringe", and "so-called" from your discussion of sources for a bit. Your discourse might be more collegial. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my words: I do not defend myself, because I simply do not need to. I admit I could forget something, but I do not remember when I called you a fringe theorist. With regard to your "the diffs on calling my views unsupported and fringe", I cannot rule out that I called some your points unsupported, however, I am always ready to withdraw these my statements if needed evidences of the opposite will be provided. One way or the another, we will be able to speak concretely only if you will give me some examples, because I simply do not remember what concrete my words you mean. Btw, you can freely call me a liar, because, as I already wrote elsewhere, I am not going to report you in any event (independently of whether your accusations are substantiated of completely baseless).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, if you have no need to defend yourself then you should have no further need to denigrate other editors and the unfortunate exchanges over the past several months can be considered closed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: RE: Did Soviet forces enter Poland? On what day? At whose direction? Did Germany occupy all of Poland on, say, October 1, 1939? If not, was anyone else occupying any of Poland? If so, who? I suspect simple questions may elucidate this quite a bit. Collect (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Soviet forces entered Poland on 17 September 1939...
2. ...at Stalin's direction.
3. Nazi Germany did not occupy all of Poland. (16 days following Hitler's invasion from the west, Stalin invaded sovereign, unoccupied Polish territory from the east. According to Molotov, Polish sovereignty had ceased to exist, so technically the Soviet Union did not invade another sovereign country.)
4. No other foreign power occupied (parts of) Poland between 1 September 1939 through 16 September 1939 aside from Nazi Germany. (By the end of September, however, the partition of Poland between Hitler and Stalin was complete, formally, October 6th.)

Is this the nature of clarification you're looking for? Or perhaps you were looking for Igny or Paul to represent their understanding, in which case I would be interested as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re denigration. Yes, I had no, have no and will have no need to denigrate anyone. If you know any example of denigration, please, let me know, and I withdraw my denigrating statements and bring my apologies. However, AFAIK, I never denigrated anyone (of course, unless a legitimate notion about incorrectness of the policy of double standards is denigration). What I write is truth, at least, you haven't demonstrated the opposite so far. Re your ##1-4,

1. Correct;
2. Correct;
3. Correct;
4. Partially correct (you forgot Slovakia). However, more important, you forgot to explain when the occupation of Kresy ended. You probably know that this part of Poland became the part of the USSR both de facto and de jure, and now it belongs to Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. In connection to that, could you please explain me if the annexation of Kresy lead to the end of occupation (as it was usually the case according to those time international law) or it lasted after that? If the second is true, then when did the occupation ended? Or you believe that Lithuania continues to illegally occupy its own capital? Or you believe the occupation magically ended with dissolution of the USSR?

And, finally, let me remind you that we are talking about German occupied Danzig, which had never been under Soviet occupation (except, arguably, the short period in 1945). In connection to that, what is the reason of this your post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Truth"? Even I don't contend I'm the keeper of any "truth." Regarding the massive shift in the post-war borders of Poland et al. wrought by the USSR and all related including the issue of Kresy, that is an entire topic unto itself and off topic here. Regarding Vilnius, it is described in pre-WWII Western sources as being occupied by Poland. At least this is a case where it would be far more factual to state "Нельзя оккупировать то, что тебе принадлежит" with regard to Vilnius' position today. What do your questions have to do with Looveer?PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

What your "Even I don't contend I'm the keeper of any "truth."" means? Is it a Freudian slip, or you know something that other mortals don't? (You don't need to ask, that was obviously a joke).

Regarding the rest, I fully agree that it is absolutely irrelevant discussion, that, by the way, was started not by me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a Freudian slip, merely that hubris is not one of my vices. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

About pages 404-406

I received a most cordial correspondence from the eminent Ansparg Diller in response to my wishing to find out more about Reichssender Baltikum. It is most odd that he indicates the passage from pages 404-406 about Baltic collaborators ("produzierte mit Hilfe von 10 Kollaborateuren Nachrichten, Propaganda und Unterhaltungssendung in den Sprachen des Baltikums") that has been the source of charges Looveer collaborated with the Nazis is not in his book; however, he does have a single sentence later in the book devoted to Radio Ostland. ("Leider findet sich der von Ihnen zitierte Text an keiner Stelle meines Buches auf den Seiten 404-406. Mein Buch enthält auf Seite 431 nur einen Satz mit dem Hinweis auf die Sendergruppe Ostland, zu der auch Estland gehörte."). Out of respect for his privacy, I am not quoting further, reproducing his Email in full, or sharing his Email address. This is the sum total of his correspondence regarding the passage in question. Herr Diller did suggest additional reading which I will follow up on personally. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean that the passage quoted by Pantherskin (talk · contribs), which he claims is from Diller's book, doesn't actually exist? --Martin (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case. In my correspondence, I was quite careful to quote everything accurately as represented. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like anyone to explain me what is wrong with this

...this edit . No additional explanation is needed, because the edit summary is self-explanatory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Carefully following an English language source, I've changed the text as follows:

She became engaged to Robert Tasso on 31 December 1940, but he was arrested by the NKVD and deported to Siberia for fifteen years.... On 19 September 1944, Lia Looveer escaped to Germany, and on 30 September 1944 she married Leonid Looveer (Looberg) in Danzig.ref "Australia Loses a Great Lady" (PDF). Lia LOOVEER (née Saarepere) BEM JP (1920-2006). Michael Darby. 8 November 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-16..

Note that there's a piped link to Nazi Germany as that's the article for the historical period, but the source says Germany so that's what we should show. This edit by User:Paul Siebert had the edit summary Danzig was not more German than, e.g. Vienna. Nazi occupation has to be mentioned, because preceding sentence tells about the Soviet period. Not everyone knows about the fact that Estonia was okkupied by Nazi– that's obvious original research and is unacceptable – if you want to make that point, find a source that makes it explicit. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)<ec>

By the way, the preceding paragraph does not mention Soviet occupation. While the source notes her fiancé was nabbed by the NKVD and deported to Siberia, so we show that, it does not in itself state that Estonia was occupied by anyone. Readers can always follow the links, including the link to Nazi Germany. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Danzig, I asked for clarification from a person that seems to know that better than I do. Let me point out, however, that the source you use is a reliable source for the details of Looveer's biography, hot for the history of Poland.

Re NKVD, you must concede it is ridiculous: your text literally says that Lia's fiancé was deported to Siberia by NKVD and she worked for radio. The first thing that comes to mind that she worded for Soviet radio. I believe the fact that Lia lived and worked under German occupation must be in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. In future, please, be more restrained with your edit summary: what edit warring are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you "believe the fact that Lia lived and worked under German occupation must be in the article" (In fact you inserted "Nazi occupation"), when the article makes no mention of the Soviet occupation (or "Bolshevik occupation" for that matter)? --Martin (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, do please work from reliable sources and don't use original research. As the cited source says,

1940, December 31 –engaged to Mr Robert Tasso. Mr Tasso was arrested by the NKVD and deported; spent 15 years in Siberia
1941-44 -announcer/broadcaster State Broadcasting company, Tallinn
1944 (September 19)–escaped from Estonia to Germany
1944, September 30 –married Leonid Looveer in Danzig

It shows the sequence, as does our article. Nothing there about occupation by anyone. Note that she escaped to Germany, she could have gone from there to Danzig if you think Danzig wasn't in Germany, though the occupants at that time seem to have thought it was. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably do not understand what OR means. Misplaced Pages cannot be written based on a single source. The source you refer to is reliable for the fact of Looveer's biography, but it is not the most reliable about the history of Estonia, or Danzig. If another source says that in 1941-44 Estonia was under German occupation, and if that is relevant, it should be said in the article, and the fact that the source you use does not say that in not an argument. Or you maybe question the fact that Estonia under German occupation during that period?

Again, my question is: why, in your opinion, the fact that Estonia was under German occupation should be removed from this article? I already explained why this fact is relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS If you believe I am engaged in original research, please, demonstrate what concrete "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories" did you find in my edits "for which no reliable published source exists". Accusations in original research must be substantiated, otherwise they have a zero weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SYN, which is of course part of our no original research policy. It's no good finding sources about Estonia or Danzig if they don't specifically discuss Lia Loovers. It's policy, don't try to break it. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In connection to that, please, explain what concrete conclusion (which is not stated by any on the sources) is implied by the text: "During 1941-44, when Estonia was under German occupation (a source about Estonia), Lia worked for Radio Broadcasting (a source about Looveer)". Let me also note that the source you cite is simply misleading: what state does it mean? Estonian? German? Instead of quoting the policy that is irrelevant to this case, you should provide satisfactory counter-arguments, because a discussion on the WP:NOR will hardly lead to the outcome you expect to get.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen, sunshine, you've clearly been trying to imply Looveer chose to move and work in a Nazi occupied area. Find a source that makes the connection, and then we can show it, but without such a source you're evidently trying to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", or even worse, using your unsourced original research to add in something not in any cited sources. Biographies should have exemplary sourcing, so go forth and find sources that specifically refer to Looveer. . dave souza, talk 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. Looveer lived in Estonia, and, when Germany occupied it started to work for State radio. By omitting any mention of Germany, we imply that she worked for Estonian state radio, which is not correct, because the Estonian state did not exist by that moment (few consulates throughout the world were not sufficient to speak about any government in exile). That is simply misleading. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the fact that the country was under a control of Nazi German authorities during this time. She was not a doctor or farmer, worked for radio, that implied some deep connection with the authorities (when we speak about totalitarian authorities), therefore, that needs in clarification. Generally speaking, a fact that the country some person lived was occupied is an important detail, and I do not understand why this fact is irrelevant. The same is true for Danzig: it was not a part of Germany from the point of view of international law: it was conquered, and the war hadn't ended by that moment, so we simply cannot speak about even theoretical recognition of its incorporation into Germany.

Re "find sources that specifically refer to Looveer." I do not think to write "German occupied Estonia" we need a source that specifically tells about Looveer. That is against both the letter and spirit of our policy, which says "do not combine sources to reach a conclusion that is not present there", not just "do not combine different sources in one article".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you wish to imply that Looveer actively worked for the Nazis in some manner? Can you provide an RS so stating that as a fact, or just that you wish it to be implied? She is dead, so you are free to toss BLP out the window, I suppose. Collect (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put this another way. As I've mentioned my mother's last job in Latvia was assistant postmaster (so mail, phone, telegraph) in Talsi. She had that job in an independent Latvia, then under the Soviets (where the staff she managed eavesdropped on all conversations at rifle-point). That does not make her a Soviet collaborator, nor subsequently a Nazi collaborator after that invasion. Escaping the second Soviet invasion to the south Baltic shore did not make her a Nazi accessory. @Paul, you insist who and where were in power is important, that is your WP:OR. It is abundantly clear from the same-said circumstances that (a) people continued to do what they did prior assuming the occupying authorities had some need for you, that was better than being dispensable and dead—many of my mother's staff simply disappeared, and (b) you flee what you perceive to be the greater danger to yourself; Looveer did it fleeing on the last boat to leave Tallinn, my parents did the same fleeing the Courland pocket with Soviet bombs dropping around them.

To "explain" who was occupying what in the manner indicated ultimately encourages the reader to infer the worst, having been given no guidance as to the actual circumstances of individuals who, sadly since they are dead, do not have WP:BLP to protect their reputations. Unfortunately, WP cares only about who might litigate against it as opposed to having a standard for biographies, since there is no logical reason that the standards upheld for living people should not apply to the dead, who, arguably, are in less of a position to defend themselves. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The very first reference in the article, Academic Library of Tallinn University, mentions she worked for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling", which translates to Estonian State Radio. But Paul seems to dispute this source injecting his personal OR: "By omitting any mention of Germany, we imply that she worked for Estonian state radio, which is not correct, because the Estonian state did not exist by that moment (few consulates throughout the world were not sufficient to speak about any government in exile)." Reliable sources assert that many Estonian state institutions continued to exist despite Soviet and German occupations. --Martin (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of dealing with Looveer's time in the DP camps and emigration to Australia? @Paul, I suggest you abide by consensus as you can't appear to avoid making the Nazi connection by circumstance in the absence of specific sources. Elsewhere, your "absolutely voluntarily" fled to Nazi occupied territory as opposed to "absolutely vountarily" remaining to be occupied by the Soviets, ergo preferring Nazis renders you, IMO, incapable of objectively editing in the topic area of the Baltic states and actions/legacies of the USSR and Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that the lovely argument of both of you is the reference to OR when we speak about something you dislike. Sometimes this habit assumes absolutely ridiculous forms. Thus, to claim that the statement "in 1941-44 Estonia was under Nazi occupation" is my original research is simply nonsense. With regard to the "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling", I see no problem to write that. However, I see a problem with something else, namely, what concrete "state" is meant when we speak about Estonian State Radio? Do you mean the Estonian state? If yes, then you must concede that Germany did not occupy Estonia, and in 1941-44 Estonia was an ally or co-belligerent of the Nazi Germany. If no (the latter is, in my opinion, correct), then we should speak not about the Estonian state, but about some other, unnamed state. I've done some original research and synthesis of sources, and I came to a conclusion that during 1941-44 Estonia was not an independent state, but the part of the Reichskommissariat Ostland, a form of German occupation regime, and the German administration was the only state regime that existed in Estonia during this time. If the source from the Academic Library implied the opposie, it is obviously unreliabe, because we cannot speak not only about independent Estonian state, but even about a puppet state.

And, in addition, taking into account that the described events took place during the war, and all territories we discuss were under military occupations, to mention the occupying state in not only desirable, but event necessary. If the sources about Lia Looveer do not do that, it is not an argument against the mention, because, whereas these sources are reliable for the details of Looveer's biography, they are not necessary reliable for more general facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no such thing like "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" between 1941-44, the station operating in Estonia at that time was called Landessender Reval (official name Reichs-Rundfunk GmbH Landessender Reval).--Termer (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Termer, hmm, interesting but offtopic without a source about Looveer, and the sources refer to the State Broadcasting company in Tallin. It rather depends whether she started her part-time broadcasting (while still a law student) before September 1941, see the conjecture below. Got a source about Looveer? . . dave souza, talk 06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul Siebert, nope. Mentioning occupying administrations is unnecessary and unjustified unless a source about the life of Looveer specifically mentions the occupation. Having looked into the history a bit, it's complex though informative. If we did mention occupations, we could have something like the following:

"While Loover was at law school, Tallin was invaded and occupied by Soviet forces and on 31 December 1940 her fiancé was arrested by the NKVD. In 1941 she began working as an announcer/broadcaster for the State Broadcasting company in Tallin, later that year German Nazi forces liberated Estonia from the Soviets and occupied Tallin. She continued work with the broadcasting company until 1944. When the Soviets again invaded in 1944, she escaped to Nazi German occupied Germany and got married in Danzig. She then worked for Baltic Radio, Reichsrunfunkt in Nazi Germany and in Thorn, Nazi German occupied Poland. When Soviet forces invaded the area she and her husband moved to American occupied Austria."

Silly, eh? And a lot of unacceptable original research. . . dave souza, talk 06:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:dave souza One source about Looveer refers to the "State Broadcasting company" in Tallinn between 1941-1944, another without giving any dates to "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling". Only thing I'm saying, the discussion above is waste of time since she couldn't work for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" between 1941-1944 since such a station didn't exist during the period. So she may have worked for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" before 1940, but it's just my best guess. The point is that all questionable facts that are based on not so WP:RS should be removed from wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not silly. Almost everything is correct. The only original research is the statement the moment Looveer started to work in Tallinn. Did she start to work under Soviet regime or under Nazi? I am not sure the source gives us this information. It states: 1941-44, however, it is unclear if 1941 refers to pre-June period also. With regard to the rest, my only objection is "invaded and occupied by Soviet forces". In actuality, that was formally peaceful, although de facto forceful incorporation of Estonia into the USSR. Accordingly, Nazi did not liberate Estonia from the Soviets, they forcefully and militarily occupied it. This wording is redundantly anti-Soviet and pro-German, however, after minor modifications the text proposed by you can be added to the article. I support it.

Let me explain that again. It is quite ok to combine sources, unless we do not want to push any specific idea that is is not present in any of them. By adding the information about a historical context of the events of the Looveer's life we do no original research, because we imply nothing in addition to what the sources say. Without this background the article is completely obscure. "Arrested by NKVD". Was NKVD acting in independent Estonia or it became a de facto part of the USSR by that time? "Escaped to Germany". Why "escaped" if the reason of this "escape" has not been provided? "worked for Eesti Riigi Ringhääling (Estonian National Broadcasting)" How could she work for the radio station that was established after her death (in that sence, I agree with Termer)? Which state funded this radio station?

In summary, the article seems to be written no for the broad audience, but for rather limited amount of readers, mostly Estonians, who are aware about the history of Estonia. The article tells about the person who was a persistent proponent of Estonian independence and the opponent of Communism, however, any historical details that demonstrate that are being carefully removed from the article, because otherwise it will become clear that the same person was more tolerant to Nazism and ex-Nazi that someone wanted.

If you want to write the article specifically for nationalist Estonian audience, feel free to do that. However, in this case the article should be supplemented with the tag that explains this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, your "carefully removed" is another editor's sticking to sources and not stuffing the article full of crap directly or indirectly stating Looveer was a Nazi sympathizer, "war criminal supporter", or "collaborator." You will also note that Estonian Radio under the Nazi Germany occupation was not part of the "Empire" broadcasting system. Of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't censorship, but again, all speculation. I suggest you disengage and allow other editors to formulate objective content based on what's been stated in sources. Cease your "same person was more tolerant to Nazism and ex-Nazi that someone wanted" smear campaign that Looveer thought Nazis were more OK than the Soviets and that there are editors here who are engaged in a campaign to suppress bona fide reputably sourced (naming Looveer) allegations of Nazi sympathies—of which there are exactly zero. Don't repeat this line of argument again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference TallinnU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Estonia articles
• Low-importance Estonia articles
• WikiProject Estonia articles
• Stub-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles