Misplaced Pages

Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 2 June 2007 (→Time to remove the tags: Disagree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:19, 2 June 2007 by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) (→Time to remove the tags: Disagree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive
Archives
  1. 12/11/05 - 04/05/2007


WikiProject iconRussia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRomania Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Split proposal

I have proposed splitting the article into two articles. The new article could be named liberation of Romania. The Royal Coup could also be included in this article.

The cut-off day could be the Romanian Armed Forces Day, October 25 (1944). The new article could then discuss the relative merits of the Romanian and Soviet forces in the liberation. Also, it would be much easier to discuss the Soviet-Romanian cooperation (or the lack of it) under a title different from "Soviet occupation of...".

A new intro for this article could start:

After the liberation of Romania in 1944 by Romanian and Soviet forces, the Red Army stayed on as an occupying force...

-- Petri Krohn 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But I still don't understand why it should affect this article? Because it gives some brief information (which most of it probably would have been mentioned anyway) in the lead and the background section?
You should rather argue for splits (or better at this moment only supplementary details/sections) in articles like Battle of Romania (1944) or Romania during World War II#The Royal Coup. Daizus 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced - this article still needs to get bigger before a split should be considered. By the way, may I point out that Petri Krohn has created a "Category:Holocaust in Romania"? I question the need for this, particularly as some of the entries are of a dubious nature - the Kolozsvár Ghetto was not "in Romania", but rather in Hungary; the Dorohoi Pogrom wasn't really part of the Holocaust, etc. Biruitorul 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The motivation for splitting in not the length of this article, but the impossible POV. This article now squeezes Liberation of Romania and Soviet occupation of Romania into one article. At the same time it creates a WP:POVFORK of Liberation of Romania by covering the Soviet participation, while leaving out the Romanian involvement.
(On the other issue: you can take it to WP:CFD) -- Petri Krohn 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Liberation of Romania" is not squeezed in this article any more than it is squeezed in any other article I've linked, actually less. You keep flagging this article based on some brief information present in its lead and the section dedicated to the historical background, while the topic of this article is different. The article is not about how Romanians (or Soviets or any other Allies) fought against Germans, but about how Soviet army was installed in Romania, to what extent, for what purposes (the general drive of Soviet army against the German forces is covered in other articles, including in Battle of Romania (1944)), to what consequences, etc.. If you create a new article, perhaps no content (or perhaps very little) from this article will be moved there, that's why the split proposal tagging along with a POV-title shows to be unnecessarily emphasized with tags in this article. To claim a POV problem and a split based on few phrases (uncovered in other Wiki pages) from a several pages, 12 sections long article cannot be somehow else than disruptive! (that not to mention you reverted 4 times today the article to put your POV-title tag!!). Daizus 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I am all for having a separate article about the August 23 coup, with events leading up to it, and events in the immediate aftermath. How would such an article be named, I do not want to prejudge -- I guess this would involve quite a debate, the "Liberation of Romania" being just one of a range of possibilities (note: I am not discounting it, I just say it needs debate and context and narrowing down of scope before one can say with certainty). Right now, I do not have the time or the energy to engage in such a debate, but let me just say one thing: The Liberation of Romania from Nazi Germany was not just done by Romanian and Soviet forces (though these of course were the most important ones, certainly on the ground). A non-negligible role was played by the other Allies, specifically, the United States of America, To wit, at the request of the Romanian government, the United States Air Force bombed the German air facilities at Băneasa and Otopeni on August 26 -- some 10,000 German troops were killed in those raids, and the German Air Force, which could have greatly disrupted the liberation of Bucharest, was knocked out of the air. (See references and quotes provided up on this page.) So, before getting carried away too much, let's keep in mind the role, small as it was, played by the US Air Force in the Liberation of Bucharest, at least. Thank you. Turgidson 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me -- today is the 63rd anniversary of the Bombing of Bucharest in World War II. In that article, there is a section at the end about the air raids on Bucharest carried out by the Luftwaffe on Aug 24-25, but only a half-sentence about the Anglo-American bombing the next day (with only a mention of Otopeni, not Băneasa; I'm not sure whether British forces were involved -- they may have). I think this warrants expansion. Turgidson 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is a good idea Petri. - Francis Tyers · 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a thing I don't understand, though. If a split is proposed, what is the content (from the current version of the article, the one which triggered the proposal in the first place) which will be moved (not copied, not copied and further developed, but moved). Daizus 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
All forms of battle and invasion/occupation/libration between the Romanian Government/Soviets & Americans/Germans should be moved to the new article. (The non-government resistance/terrorism after 1944 can be covered in this article.)
The new article should cover the events between the August 23 coup and the October 25 "liberation" of Carei, and any secret negotiations before August 23. -- Petri Krohn 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
More specifically, what should be moved is the intro, the Background and beginning of the occupation and the images. -- Petri Krohn 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they should not. They were added in this article to provide a relevant context for the Soviet occupation. There are not details, just brief summaries. Besides, the coup of 23 August has already a section in another article. I already told you that earlier today but you chose to ignore it. The way I see it, if your interest is genuine you should work from that section (develop it and then request a split, when it's the case) and not disturb this article and its editors.
As for images, the first one shows the Red Army entering Bucharest. Please ... For the second image, I agree. But to move it in the section we already have, develop it, and when it's ready make an article out of it. Daizus 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This article does not seem to be developing. We now have 300kB of discussion and maybe 30kB of article. Besides, you are wrong on the context: The Soviet occupation was a result of the totality of events of the liberation of Romania, not some unilateral tank-cruise to Bucharest. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right. But a large part of this discussion is debating with you, debating upon alleged POVs of this article. I (and probably others) want this issue cleared and I unfortunately I see no end to it.
With a straw man I have no mood to fight right now. I simply told you that the first image is related to the content of this article and should not be moved. Daizus 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) The current introduction covers salient points, but perhaps in a bit too much detail which is not focused on the primary topic--but which would be useful as a lead-in paragraph, perhaps simply titled "Context." I would propose we give the article a chance to develop and put a moratorium on POV combat. Let's spend some more collective time gathering facts to tell the story--and let the facts speak for themselves. I would disagree on a need to split--as proposed it would remove crucial context. If we develop enough material, the events leading to the armistice can certainly be expanded into their own article(s). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that the relatad article Allied Occupation Zones in Germany is completely void of salient points. It starts from where the occupation/liberation ends. -- Petri Krohn 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what the above comment means, and what does it have to do with anything. Turgidson 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the article, and the pre-occupation events mentioned are there mainly as essential context, I don't see that there are two separate topics here needing to be split into separate articles. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Perhaps the time has come to revisit this article, and bring it to the next level (hopefully, without having sterile revert wars in the process)? By the way, how come the article has no rating? I'd say it's way beyond stub level, and of quite high importance among Romania-related articles. I'll put a WPRA template at the top, maybe someone wants to assess the quality and importance of the article so far. Turgidson 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What liberation?

I'm sorry, but what liberation are you talking about?

  • If it's about Soviet forces liberating parts of Romania from the Germans, it can only apply after the armistice convention (Sep. 12), and for direct fights between the Soviets and the Germans on Romanian soil after this date. Were there many? BTW, don't count here fights in Northern Transylvania, which was not Romanian at the time. So, I presume, no liberation.
  • Soviet propaganda (in cluding the RPR constitution) also talks about liberating the "Romanian people" from the evil bourgeois plutocrats. If this is your "liberation of Romania", then it's funny, nothing more.

Dpotop 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can always make an article saying that the Liberation of Romania is a Soviet propaganda stunt meant to present Soviet forces as liberating their first capital of a German ally of... the Germans. :) Dpotop 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. As the evidence amply demonstrates, Romanians largely liberated themselves (with help from the USAF) and had no need of the Red Army.
  • Funny but also tragic, given what followed.
  • That's a good idea - it does have notability, given its use in propaganda for years, and its verifiability. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

Would someone (Anonimu, Irpen, Petri Krohn, etc) like to actually propose a move? If not, why should the POV tag stay? I think I've called your bluff, and if there's no poll soon, I'll consider myself justified in removing the tag. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need another pool so that you can call your lackeys here. Either the subject of this article will be limited to 1944-1947 or the title will be changed, not by voting, but with rational arguments (per meta:Polls are evil and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy)Anonimu 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. Turgidson 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about a factual argument? "Rational" unfortunately means interpretation of events according to your POV. At a minimum, the Allied (Soviet) presence was a formal occupation under the armistice and while the Soviets ostensibly extended their stay to execute Allied duties (open-ended occupation continues) until their evacuation of Austria (however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence).
     Your reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation are?
     And please don't say you don't need to produce sources to counter our (let me get this out of the way) "cherry-picked" facts, that you only need your "rational" argument. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of a move proposal, the copious citations adduced to support the notion that Romania was occupied through 1958, and the lack of opposing citations, the tags have been removed. Biruitorul 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Lack of opposing citation" thing is the weakest argument i've heard. Typical for nationlists. There isn't still a move proposal because some of us still hope the article will be split in a "Soviet occupation of Romania"(1944-1947) and a "Soviet military presence in Romania"(1947-1958) to reflect the realityAnonimu 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please confine your comments to content, not editors - "Typical for nationlists" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no, I make a very persuasive case: my argument has plenty of citations; you have adduced none to the contrary, despite the fact that this debate has been going on since March 26. The split proposal is absurd, but why don't you launch a formal debate on that? I'm determined not to have us be stalemated in trench warfare for months. One way or another, I intend to force the issue.
I will leave the split tag to give you time to try and initiate a split process. I will remove the disputed tag, as the other side has manifestly failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. Biruitorul 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: keep the current name.

  • User:Anonimu, Cease the personal attacks immediately.
No personal attacks, sorry...Anonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that the current name could have negative connotations for some parties involved.
  • However, per WP:NCON, the most usual name of the subject of the article takes precedence. A quick google shows that the title of this article is used frequently as a name for the period described in this article.
A quick google search for soviet occupation Romania "1944-1958" -site:wikipedia.org shows very few entries, and if you remove the title of the book -"Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops", you'll get no related result. Anonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a voluminous footnote with scholarly references about the Soviet Occupation of Romania 1944-1958 right in the main article (some of them you may find with Google Books: e.g. ). You have provided no scholarship for any other view, as such your tagging lacks justification. Maintaining it in such circumstances is disrupting behavior. Daizus 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's ludicrous to ask sources that deny something. And anyway just 6 of those references support occupation during "1944-1958" (5 of them written by Romanians)Anonimu 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Most scholarship related to History of Romania is written by Romanians. So what's the problem here?
You should know by now....Anonimu 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:POINT Daizus 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, your generalizaton is OR.Anonimu 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR applies only if it affects the content of the articles. WP:POINT again. Daizus 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can't provide scholarly support for any other view, then it means this view has unanimous support. Consequently the tags should be removed. Daizus 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Somethig wrong with your logic?Anonimu 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF Daizus 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
?!?Anonimu 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name "
  • It is awkward to call a time period (44-58) a "liberation". The specific moment that the Germans left Romania could be called a liberation.
Nobody wants that, anywayAnonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Another quote from NCON:


“ Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. ”

--User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Krator, for your very sensible opinion. This is yet another reason for the tags to go. (And, for the record, I have never even heard of Krator before, so make of that what you will.) Biruitorul 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, User:Krator made some very good comments -- this "third opinion" is very much welcome. Pity that this opinion has been made hard to read by Anonimu, who took the liberty of interspersing non-sequiturs in the middle of the tightly reasoned argument made by Krator. Could we follow from now on at least some minimal rules on these talk pages, and leave opinions such as this one intact? Thank you. I also agree with Daizus' explanations. Trouble is, they rely on basic syllogisms and Cartesian logic — and those are hard to communicate to the other side, apparently. I simply do not know what to do in such a situation. Looks like a filibuster to me. Turgidson 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

(Before I make these remarks, let me note there is a new article, King Michael Coup; we should decide how that fits into our scheme and whether the split is still necessary (it never was for me.))

Now that we've had a lengthy discussion and a third opinion given, the next step appears to me to be Mediation. Anonimu, if you do not stop disrupting the process, one of us will have to file such a request. Are you prepared to go that far? Biruitorul 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Note i'm not the only user wanting the title changed, so you should probably ask the others too. BTW, you should teach your servants to respect men. Imagine, they had the insolence to address me.Anonimu 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Anonimu: This is not the first time you use such derogatory words with respect to other editors: before, it was "lackeys", now it's "servants". (And I also noted the use of "groupie" in a similar context.) You must understand these terms are not part of civil discourse, and are offensive to other editors -- who, let me say that to you for at least the third or fourth time, actually add content to the Misplaced Pages, instead of just putting POV tags and engaging in repeated reverts. And I will ask you one more time: Who exactly among the editors here are you calling "servant" or "lackey"? I am waiting for an answer. Turgidson 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not? I'll tell you why not. Because such moves sap energy that is better spent doing more productive things than disputing communist aggression with avowed communists. But I'll gladly do it. And in response to your "it takes two to tango" comment: if you have something on me, bring it on! Biruitorul 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You did it, so you're responsible for losing the time an energy of other editors. Cum vrei sa luptam? o.b.-uri, chiloti, sau ciorapi sa'ncercam?Anonimu 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one who's responsible for an utterly pointless 19-day debate. Biruitorul 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've filed the request; you can go sign here. Biruitorul 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I find puzzling those flagging the page didn't even bother to sign the mediation request. That is the ultimate proof they do not search a solution, just to push a POV and disrupt others' work. Prove me wrong by signing there. Daizus 08:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupation denialism

I have started an article on Soviet occupation denialism, and currently list the three Baltic states as main victims of the denial. However, Romania was also once occupied by the Soviet Union. Alas, I am not sure if there are notable denialist ideas regarding that. If there is, it should probably also be covered. Digwuren 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I put a "see also" link in the article you mentioned to this article on the Soviet occupation of Romania. Turgidson 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove the tags

If no-one objects, I will remove the tags concerning the inane suggestion about "Liberation" and the POV tag. Icar

Disagree. I think the idea has merit. - Francis Tyers · 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. -- Petri Krohn 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: