Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The Quixotic quest for "balance"

April in Paris was far more pleasant. In some countries, May Day was a long and lazy official holiday weekend. On historical fact and fabrication and representation of scholarly analysis and POVs thereof

Name and scope of article

Full disclosure, Dojarca asked me to take a look at this article regarding his concerns that the article is biased only to the POV of the post-independence Baltic states. In reviewing the article, I do see his general point, and would like to suggest that the scope of this article be reconsidered.

I think there is a valid POV out there which considers the time spent under Soviet rule to be an occupation. That said, I think there is an equally valid POV that the Baltic states were an integral part of the USSR. As it stands, this article definitely does not present both views. Speaking from my own POV, that of an American who grew up during the Cold War, I was always under the impression that the Baltic states were part of the USSR... mainly because it was shown that way on every single map. Whether they wanted to be or not seems to be what this article should actually be about.

Rather than "Occupation of the Baltic states", it strikes me that this article should be centered on 20th century sovereignty of the Baltic states. To view the Baltic states as merely occupied seems to speak only to the national POV of the post-independence period. Since this is a credible position, it is an important one, but one which should be a section within a larger article that discusses the factual reality of soveriegnty for Baltic states between 1939-1991; significant portions of the population wanted independence, but the countries were not sovereign, and were firmly under Soviet control. An interesting section of the article would also center on the national and international significance of the view of a Soviet occupation since 1991, particularly in relation to how this plays against the policies of Russia under Putin.

As for good comparisons, do we have any similar articles which discuss questions of sovereignty in countries that spun out of other large states or empires during the 20th century (i.e. Occupation of the Caucasian states, or states that emerged from the French, British, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian empires)? It strikes me that during the better part of the 19th and 20th centuries a majority of the planet's modern states were occupied in the sense of the term as used in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Art. 42 of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907):

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." In 1940, the Baltic Fleet put the Baltic States under naval blockade, voicing an ultimatum to the Government of Estonia to resign. Before the Government could sign the resignation, the advance troops of the Red Army entered Estonian territory. De jure, these actions meant the start of the occupation of the Baltic States and were recognized by the U.S. as such. The current article represents not only the POV of the 'post-independence Baltic States' but the official positions of the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, U.K., U.S., and more countries.

The parallels of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or, for that matter, the Roman Empire are childish, as the case should be resolved upon the international law valid at the moment when the governing power is changed in the territory, basically the Hague Conventions. The governments of the Caucasian states never acquired sovereignty over significant portions of their territories before 1991. The relevant parallels are the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Occupation of Denmark, Occupation of France, Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Occupation of Poland, and Soviet occupation of Romania. Were anybody to put parallel claims on the occupied countries a la:"To view France as merely occupied seems to speak only the national POV of the post-WWII period" or:"I think, there is an equally valid POV that Denmark was an integral part of Germany," his or her mental welfare would be in serious doubt. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hiberniantears This has been discussed several times:To view the Baltic states as merely occupied seems to speak only to the national POV of the post-independence period. Please familiarize yourself with the subject: According to the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council [1], the governments of the Baltic countries,[2] [3]the United States,[4] and the European Union,[5] the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union. Also see: 110TH CONGRESS2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 87.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PS.the factual reality of soveriegnty for Baltic states between 1939-1991, significant portions of the population wanted independence, but the countries were not sovereign??

I have no idea what are you talking about. The sovereignty didn't cover the territory because it was occupied by USSR. It doesn't mean the sovereignty of the states didn't exist de jure. For example :DYK that the republics of Estonia and Latvia were among the 73 countries around the world who sent the Goodwill Messages to the Moon in 1969?--Termer (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca has been active elsewhere too [6] trying to remove the references to the Occupation of the Baltic States article, pushing forward the "you can't occupy your own territory" argument. Oth (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this has been discussed before, and I am not disagreeing with any of the ideas put forth above. Rather, it appears that we have a false consensus on what this topic should be (i.e. many editors worked hard to craft a fine page, but the page does not take into account that there are other legitimate views of the topic). It appears to me that nobody would dispute that there was an occupation, and that this occupation was disputed by at least some continuous group of resistance, but at some point we have to account for the fact that the occupation was a flat out conquest in which the states in question become an integral part of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, these states would not be independent. Fast forward to the modern Wikipedia, and this article looks to be little more than a part of the contemporary national rivalries between Baltic states and Russia, rather than a balanced view of historical reality. The Baltic states are right to view the period within the Soviet Union as an occupation, but the Russians are right to view the same period as something else (in this case, a Soviet Union).

Let me also be clear that I am not fully backing Dojarca's position on this either. He and I have had a fair amount of head butting elsewhere, and do not see eye to eye on many things. However, I do agree with his over arching opinion that there is more balance which can be introduced into this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hiberniantears the page does not take into account that there are other legitimate views of the topic??

Please read the article, the Stalinist POV is well spelled out in following sectionsPolicy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation, Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika, Russian_historiography_in_the_post-Soviet_era, Official_position_of_the_Russian_government. That's more than enough to cover an WP:UNDUE opinion that's only supported by Russian chauvinists, an ideology that has chosen to take pride in the countries Stalinist past. If you think such a POV should dominate the article even further, I disagree.--Termer (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"POVs" and interpretation do not apply, it is a case of simple facts

Dear Hiberiantears, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.
   You have been duped by Dojarca into believing the "sounds reasonable" postulation that this is a clash of equally valid POV's over an event:

1. Baltic "nationalists" claim "occupation";
2. Russians categorically state there was no occupation--Russian generals saying "You can't occupy what belongs to you" and Putin commenting that even as a drunk student he knew there was no occupation.

That this is a clash of POVs over the same set of events is not the case.

1. What is characterized as the Baltic "nationalist view" is an objective accounting based on reliably and indisputably verified facts. This objective and factual accounting of history is supported and accepted by any nation with an interest in the facts, the exception being Russia.
2. What is characterized as the Russian "national" (no "ist", it is the government's position) view is that the USSR was forced to assist the Baltics in a change of regime, that the Baltics joined the USSR legally (including a post-Soviet Russian Duma proclamation specific to Latvia), etc. This is a view of history based on Soviet fabrication, that is, a pack of lies.
   

   Let's crystallize the issue, and let me stick to Latvia to keep it simple. The Russian Duma issued a statement as its "duty" to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saima [sic.] that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view." That is, Latvia joined the USSR legally:

1. according to Latvian law,
2. according to Soviet law, and
3. according to international law (minimally, all treaties in effect between the two parties).

This legal joining of Latvia to the Soviet Union makes it, legally, not an occupation.
   Despite years of asking for it, not one proponent of "equal and valid POVs" has produced a single shred of reputable scholarly evidence in support of the current Russian position as having any basis in fact. Not even WP editors with degrees in international law from Oxford. I should note that Russia does not pick on Lithuania not because of language laws or voting rights but because Russia signed a treaty recognizing the USSR impinged on Lithuania's sovereignty, acknowledging occupation in every way except not using the word itself.
   The Russian POV born of Soviet fabrication is noted as it should be. Based on reliable sources built on verifiable facts, it deserves no more.
   I am truly sorry that you have allowed yourself to be bamboozled into believing this is some conflicting-nationalist name-calling issue requiring a "balance of opinion." If you are truly interested in the issue of the Soviet occupation of the Baltics based on verifiable legal aspects, I suggest background reading here. PetersV       TALK 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. All three Baltic states took steps to preserve the continuity of their sovereignty regardless of territorial events. That sovereign authority was returned to the then territorial authorities after the fall of the Soviet Union at the moment independence resumed. PetersV       TALK 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I'm just seeing this article as little more than a tug of war between Russian nationalist view points, and various Baltic nationalist view points. Neither one makes for a credible encyclopedia article. I will continue to review this and submit my ideas for any changes that I think may offer sustainable NPOV content. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• It has been already stated that not only Russia, but also Sweden, Finland, all Eastern bloc countries, Australia (for a short time) accepted the Baltic republics were part of the USSR at the time the USSR stil existed. This is not a POV of one country, but POV of at least a half a world. There were also Helsinki accords were all European countries declared they recognize borders of each other by how thery were at the time the accords were signed. On the maps issued in the USA these republics also were included into the USSR (but on some maps there was a footnote that US government does not recognize it). I doubt such footnotes were on maps printed in China, India and any third-world country. And again. Occupying its own territiory is nonsence. You either recognize this territory to belong to the USSR or you think it's occupied. You cannot believe both.--Dojarca (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you come arguing here, please acquaint yourself with the terms de jure and de facto as used in international law. Printing maps is a typical case of de facto reckognition. Currently, countries are printing maps with Abkhazia in different colour than Georgia. This doesn't mean they are recognizing Abkhazia as a state, just acknowledging the fact of it being separate. Exactly the same goes for the Baltics up to 1991, when countries just accepted the fact of them being part of the Soviet Union while not recognizing it as legal annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And what are your grounds for stating that the Baltics were the Soviet Union's 'own territory' in June 1940? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, I'm over it.

• The Helsinki accords specifically stated that there would be no military action undertaken crossing existing frontiers. There was NO recognition of borders, NO recognition of annexations. There was only the commitment that the West would not invade the Soviet Union. The word "border" does not appear once in the Helsinki agreement. Nor does any implication of recognition of legality.
• Shown as part of the USSR on maps? Don't make me laugh.
• "Occupying its own territory is nonsense"? Please, Dojarca, produce one reputable source based on verifiable facts that Latvia (et al.) joined the USSR legally according to international law, as the Russian Duma has proclaimed. That reputable evidence, and that alone, would make it not an occupation. That evidence does not exist anywhere in the known universe and you know it.

Please, Dojarca, save your breath. PetersV       TALK 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. You should be banned for attempting to rope in uninvolved editors in to be your unwitting meat-puppets. PetersV       TALK 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where my degree in international affairs comes in handy. It strikes me that Jaan Pärn's points are precisely what this article should be about. "Occupation of the Baltic states" is a loaded term. The issue here is the politics surrounding de facto and de jure recognition. This should be an article on "Sovereignty of Soviet controlled Baltic states". Hiberniantears (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I already stated, it is irrelevat whether they joined the USSR legally or not. If they joined - then no occupation. Period. It is impossible to imagine occupation of own territory. Or would you insist Hawaii or Texas are still occupied because they joined US illegally? Some countries recognized they joined the USSR and some - did not. I do not say they joined the USSR legally, I only say that if they joined(legally or not) then they were not occupied in the view of those who recognized they joined the USSR. And there are plenty of sourced thay they joined (as well as opposite sources). If to speak about legality, then why not to say the Baltics still belong to Russian Empire because the October revolution was illegal? Why do you start counrting legality from 1940, why not from 1917?--Dojarca (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to notice how Dojarca attempts to present the illegality of annexation as a minor infraction of legal procedure. That is not so; the illegality in question is not one of procedure; it is one of international law. International law is very flexible regarding domestic matters such as the Communist revolution in Russia, but it has its say -- and it's an authoritative one -- where violation of treaties, waging war of aggression or massacring civilians is involved. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Briefly to the above:

• Occupation is not a "loaded" term if it's based in facts, which it is. Hiberniantears, if you wish to have a discussion of this based on your "degree in international law", please give it your best shot, I can fully and incontrovertibly support the proper objective use of the term "occupation." There is no wiggle room for opinion on occupation or sovereignty or continuity of sovereignty.
• It's "joined legally" versus "occupied, annexed illegally and continuing to be occupied". There's no middle ground of de facto joining which makes it not an occupation, therefore...
• ..."de facto recognition" here is the loaded term in being taken as meaning no occupation.
• Arguments over the Russian revolution are immaterial. Arguments over Hawaii, Texas, et al. are immaterial. There are piles of treaties between the USSR and the Baltics which were all unilaterally violated by the USSR.
• It is not a question of "joined" versus "joined legally." There was no act of "joining" executed by the Baltic states. Parliaments elected whose election results are published 24 hours in advance of the close of elections executing acts illegal according to constitutions do not "join."
• Dojarca's argument that he does not dispute legality, it's only that the Baltic states did "join" and that there were representations that the Baltic states were "joined" to the USSR and so no occupation has no basis in supportable fact.

Show ANY FACTUAL BASIS the Soviet presence was legal, show ANY FACTUAL BASIS that Baltic sovereignty was terminated beteeen 1939 and 1991 and we can discuss some other title regarding Soviet actions. PetersV       TALK 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not go quite that far either. There was definitely an occupation. However, at some point the occupation gives way to an incorporation of the Baltic territories into the Soviet Union. Whether this incorporation was legal, illegal, willing, or unwilling is moot to the facts on the ground, which was a conquest in the historical sense of the word. Both of these things transpired in the aftermath of WWII, and the rest just seems like Cold War politics. In any event, all three countries were not in the same boat as Romania or Hungary, or Poland, or any of the other Warsaw Pact client states, which were still sovereign, even if they were completely dominated by Moscow. The Baltic States, on the other hand were both dominated, and incorporated into the Soviet Union. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are piles of treaties between the USSR and the Baltics which were all unilaterally violated by the USSR. - heh, if the October revolution was illegal, then the USSR was also illegal and all of its treaties were also void. Parliaments elected whose election results are published 24 hours in advance of the close of elections - so you contest the elections? Does it mean that any goverment in the world whose elections contested, illegal and also its treaties void? Do you think the pre-Soviet regime in Estonia which was a dictatorship, was more legal? Do you think the governments in excile which were not elected at all were more legitimate? Show ANY FACTUAL BASIS the Soviet presence was legal I already said that in the view of those countries and institutions who recognized incorporation of the republics into the USSR, Soviet presence there was legal because it was their own territory. Not all countries recognized this - this is true. --Dojarca (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I "contest" the "elections"? Please, don't make a horse laugh. The Soviets released results to the press in London before the elections. There were no elections. Again, this is not about views, this is simply about basis in international law as confirmed by the Russian Duma itself. PetersV       TALK 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop publishing personal opinions on this talk page but refer to published sources instead

Thank you!--Termer (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources already had been presented numerous times:

• occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory [7] (International Red Cross)
• From 1940 through 1990 the USSR comprised 15 constituent republics [8] Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2006 World Almanac Education Group.
• A former federation of 15 republics occupying the northern half of Asia and part of Eastern Europe, comprising Russia, Belorussia (Belarus), Ukraine, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Georgia, Armenia, Moldova (Moldavia), Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. "Soviet Union." A Dictionary of World History. 2000. Encyclopedia.com. 29 Apr. 2009 [9]
• Former republic, eastern Europe and northern and central Asia. It consisted, in its final years, of 15 soviet socialist republics that gained independence at its dissolution: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia (now Republic of Georgia), Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.[10]
• Viro, Latvia ja Liettua, yhteiseltä nimeltään Baltian maat, muodostavat Neuvostoliiton läntisimmän osan Itämerta vasen... (translated: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, togeter known as the Baltic Countries, form the westernmost part of the Soviet Union, bordering the Baltic Sea.) Suuri Tietokirja - Finnish Encyclopedia from 1961 by WSOY, article "Baltian Neuvostotasavallat" ("Baltic Soviet republics")

--Dojarca (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is your synthesis. The fact is that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United States and the European Union have all recently re-affirmed that the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union for 50 years. This re-affirmation comes after the the end of the Cold War and is backed by scholarship. This is not simply some kind of Baltic nationalist POV, but the mainstream view of major western nations. To say that the Soviet POV must be given equal weight would breach WP:UNDUE. Martintg (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking critically, should we be defining the last half century like this? Deciding what was, and was not the Soviet Union after the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't really seem to be constructive. It still strikes me that what matters most is what was the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union existed. Discussing how the Baltic states were illegally acquired is really what this article is about, but saying that these components were never part of the Soviet Union seems a bit of a red herring. Most large countries have component territories which were acquired by less than legitimate ways (see the western half of the United States, or Tibet), but that doesn't dispense with the reality that these lands are now part of the controlling countries. That's really all I'm getting at when I say we need more balance. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen this particular viewpoint expressed in the literature. I trust that this is not your own personal synthesis, so could you give me a cite so that I can review this argument. Martintg (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dojarca, in the end this is the same tactic that Petri used before he was banned, i.e., anything that indicates simply the Baltic states were "part of the Soviet Union" means they were not occupied; anything that does so without explicitly stating they were occupied means they were not occupied. Show the scholarly sources which indicate:

• the pacts of mutual assistance, appearing to be legal, were not done under duress thereby making them an agreement gone into willingly
• the invasions of the Baltics were a legal act under international law
• the deportations of citizens from the Baltic to another country as soon as the USSR invaded (recall, for the Soviets to maintain the Baltics joined "willingly" they had to still be sovereign) were a legal act
• the "elections" in the Baltics were free and fair (sorry, just teasing, we all know the results for Latvia were published in London 24 hours in advance, apparently someone couldn't tell what day it was)
• the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law as the Russian Duma has found itself "duty" bound to remind Latvia in particular

The article bends over backwards to go through all the phases of the Soviet/Russian version of events (BTW, none of it contributed by any editors defending the Russian position as far as I know, the so-called derided "nationalist" editors had to do that part too)--it's not POV because it's an opinion based on Soviet lies, not objectively verifiable facts. I admire your new creative tactics to whine to receptive editors about "balance," attempting to convert and enlist unwitting meat-puppets to your quest and convince them it's about anti-Russian anti-Soviet nationalists (initial words used by one of your receptive targets) unfairly attacking Russia and stonewalling editors writing in her defense. In the end, this will end like every other attempt to propagate Soviet propaganda, that is in failure, because that propaganda tells a tale of history that is merely a fabrication. PetersV       TALK 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And to Hiberniantears, let's get real. Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive. To contend so is not critical thinking. And how territory was acquired before the 20th century is immaterial as war was then a legal means for settling conflict. PetersV       TALK 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but for half a century, to every Baltic person, to those individuals vested with the sovereign authorities of the Baltic states, to those states which supported them and have affirmed their half a century of occupation since the fall of the Soviet Union, they were occupied. Unless, Hiberniantears, you are WP:OR contending nothing can be occupied for 50 years.

   The herring is Baltic, not Red. PetersV       TALK 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good one. That said, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not Dojarca. Move beyond what brought me here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for any improvement in the article. I'm even fine with leaving this article as the occupations and events--as was originally intended, with mention of the current Russian position, and create a separate article for the "critical thinkers" which details the "facts" each side uses to "support" their so-called "POV." But the answer is not that there is some real controversy over interpretations of history based on the same sets of facts: there is one interpretation based on facts, another on fabrications. The answer is not to milquetoast the title of this article to assuage Russian feelings and nostalgia over the Soviet Union, a dead, defunct, brutally totalitarian state. PetersV       TALK 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Batman. If official Germany and German collective memory held to Nazi propaganda and dogma and "versions" of history, there would be global moral outrage. Official Russia and Russian collective memory hold to Soviet propaganda and dogma and "versions" of history and there's "controversy." I'm sorry, but I don't know if it's more laughable or more morally reprehensible. In truth, it is profoundly tragic for Russia and its future. You wish to write an article reflecting critical thinking on all of this? That's where it has to start. PetersV       TALK 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the personal slights and general disrespect. I'm only talking about this article, not about all Russian views of history. No credible intellectual thinks the Soviet Union was a nice place, or a good neighbor. Again, red herring. Critical thinking is not consistently making fun of someone who is making a good faith attempt to analyze an article. Look at my actions, and my sum contributions to this discussion and you will see that you are neither discussing the same thing that I am, nor assuming any thing even approaching good faith. Call me crazy, but the fact that you make edits in exactly the same fashion as Dojarca (4 or 5 individual edits at a time to leave one post), makes me suspect you're all just playing with me here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is saying that these components were never part of the Soviet Union? Only the phrase "occupation of" tells me that something must have become part of something. In that sense sure, the territories of the Baltic states became part of Soviet Union. The only thing there is, the majority of western democracies didn't recognize it de jure. See also for example Israeli-occupied territories where these "components" are part of Israel, but not always recognized internationally as such.--Termer (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. So what's your issue with what I'm discussing? Again, same page. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, could you rephrase in a nutshell, what you are proposing? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Originally, I did think an article move was warranted. That's off the table now, as I can see that the article could be appropriately tempered by explaining that this is a view and interpretation of events. I think the article is there, or nearly there following a few minor tweaks from me which amounted to little more than moving around some paragraphs. It was my fault for discussing it here with people too eager for a fight. I should have just done it on day one, and nobody would have cared.Hiberniantears (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniantears. I respect your motives, but it is exactly horses such as "However, at some point the occupation gives way to an incorporation of the Baltic territories into the Soviet Union" that have been beaten to death and remained dead. That was the excuse for Australia's recognition by Whitlam unilaterally in his person, he got booted, Willesee his foreign minister got censured, and it was undone becuase no one has the right to say for someone else "might as well give up, you will never be free again." There is no "at some point" as long as sovereignty and hope remain. PetersV       TALK 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not at all eager for a fight, but if someone attacks without the facts on their side, I will defend vigorously. This is not a fight, this is an attack by editors with a POV, WP:OR, and no facts to back their position versus editors with facts and no WP:OR.

   You should see the crap on "not occupation" in RU Wikipedia. As long as you're on international law you might look at Russia's annexation of Bessarabia, the Ottomans' "ceding" of that territory (over which they did not have sovereignty, Moldavia was sovereign but under the Ottomans), and the WP:ARGUMENTS over whether it was "ceded" to Russia (given to them, Russians received a gift and are nice guys) or Russia "annexed" it (Russia took it, it was not a gift for the Ottomans to give, Russians are not very nice guys). PetersV       TALK 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So when you say Russians are not very nice guys, is that your fact backed NPOV position, or are you just a gigantic hypocrite? Humans aren't nice... it isn't a quality unique to Russians. Whoever has the most guns usually ends up pounding their neighbor. In any event, you just handily exposed your "anti-Russian" views quite nicely and have been soundly exposed. Moving on, I am not seeking to bend this article to Dojarca's standings, and just as I am not here to turn this article into a nationalist Pro-Russian screed, I am certainly not going to be slapped around or lectured by any other nationalists of any other stripe.

I have been sensitive to your comments, and taken them into full account, yet for whatever reason you feel a need to keep being over the top in your commentary with me. Calm down. Take a few breaths, and understand that I am neither here to ruin your article, nor is it your article to have ruined. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was merely framing another debate going on elsewhere, where political events are also taken by defenders of Russia as being personal affronts on Russian integrity. I have no "anti-Russian" views. PetersV       TALK 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• PetersV, whether elections were fair or whether the deportations were legal is completely irrelevant here to the topic we are discussing. Otherwise I can ask you whether the pre-Soviet elections were fair? I see you're trying to present Baltic peoples as victims, but this also is completely irrelevant. You said "Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive" - you're wrong. I've already cited the International Red Cross' definition of occupation. Some entities and countries (for example, USA) did not recognize the countries were included into the USSR, so they think the territories were occupied and their viewpoint should be reflected. Other countries (eastern bloc) thought the territories belong to the USSR and hence not occupied. You're trying to present history from the viewpoint of the western countries who were "winners" in the cold war. Why then not to write in the Kosovo article that it is an independnt state just because the USA and the majority in the EU already recognized it?--Dojarca (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to suggest that say, Tajikistan should be counted, I'll gleefully respond by citing Alabama, Wyoming, and perhaps some 48 individual states inbetween. But you've already tried that, so you know that. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• To Hiberniantears, I am not a Russian nationalist. And where do you see Russian nationalist screed? I assert that there are various viewpoint existing and sourced. There is a declaration by European Parliament and by Russian State Duma. I just wonder why the declaration by European parliament should be given more weight. About half of countries recognized the independance of the Baltic republics while they existed and about a half did not. I even do not insist the republics were incorporated into the USSR legally, I agree with you that it is irrelevant.--Dojarca (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And the way Dojarca explains it here is different than the "you can't occupy your own territory" line of thinking. There are multiple views on this topic which have varying levels of validity:

1) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, legally.

2) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, illegally.

3) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, but regardless of legality, the people of those states never stopped fighting for independence.

4) The Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic states, and these states were never part of the Soviet Union.

5) The Soviet Union legally occupied the Baltic states, but they never lost sovereignty.

6) The Soviet Union did any of the above, but the USSR later apologized.

6) The Soviet Union did any of the above, the USSR apologized, but Russians long for their lost empire, and now are trying to whitewash history.

7) The Soviet Union did nothing wrong, did not apologize, and now the peoples of the Baltic states are seeking to whitewash history by equating Soviets with Russians.

In a nut shell, these are the debating positions that I've seen on this page in the past few days, often times from the same person. Let me know which was is "The Truth™, lest I overstep my bounds and behave as a rogue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Positions 2) and 3) are correct, replacing "owned" with "possessed". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not possible, as you can not "own" something "illegally". You can "hold under your control," but you cannot "own." Holding/controlling and owning are in no way equivalent. PetersV       TALK 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The official Russian point of view is that the states joined the USSR legally and there is nothing to apologize for. But my point of view is that whether the joining was legal or not is irrelevant here. Yes it may be somewhat illegal or unfair, but I've also read that there was a wide popular support for the joining. There were countries who recognized the incorporation of the republics into the USSR and there were countries who did not. So in the view of former, the territories definitely were not occupied, and in the view of the others they probably were occupied (or not, depending on what is considerd occupation - purely military administration or civil administration too). The article should be based on the sources which exist in abundance fo any of the points of view. It is interesting for example, Latvian position. I fount this explanation on the site of Latvian foreign office: ([11]) It's title is "Occupation of Latvia: historical and international law-related aspects". Dispite the title the word "occupation" used only a few times in the article. First time the author says that in 1940 Latvia "fell in hands" of Red Army, whih is "one of features" of occupation accurding to 1907 Hague Principles (i.e. "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"). Saying Latvia was occupied the author cites a magazine and places the entire phrase in quotes. Later the author uses olny words "annexation" and "incorporation" relative to acception of Latvia in the USSR, but notes that the annexation was illegal because it was "based on occupation". The article nowhere says that occupation lasted until 1990.--Dojarca (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The article is titled "1939-1991", you left that off. PetersV       TALK 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    No. Where do you see it? The article is titled "Оккупация Латвии - исторические и международно-правовые аспекты" ("Occupation of Latvia - historical and international law considerations")--Dojarca (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the links to the left, the article you cite appears under:

• Вопросы истории Латвии. 1939 - 1991 годы = History of Latvia, Years 1939-1991

There's also the link:

• История оккупации Латвии (1940 - 1991) = History of the Occupation of Latvia (1940-1991)

While the article itself may not have a date, it's certainly clear what the span of history is and it's also clear what the Latvian foreign ministry indicates is the period of occupation. PetersV       TALK 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is not RU:WP. Please do the courtesy of posting links to English language sources for the materials you cite so other editors can draw their own conclusions. PetersV       TALK 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is only a name of a web site section. The historian is more accurate in using words in his article.--Dojarca (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts v. points of view

It is unacceptable to compromise the lead in any way suggestive as to the plain facts supported by numerous sources are merely "points of view". This is not Postmodernopedia, after all. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the republics were included into the USSR. And there are numerous sources. Why not to include this fact in the article?--Dojarca (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca, you know full well that the article is about the events that led to the Baltics being so-called "parts" of the Soviet Union. That they were illegally annexed = they were so-called "parts" of the Soviet Union. That is already included in the article, obviously.

   That does not mean as you contend that they were "joined" officially part of the Soviet Union as in "you cannot occupy what belongs to you." Give it a rest already. I know you enjoy getting a rise out of Baltic editors, but recruiting other editors to be your unwitting meat-puppets is both creative and underhanded. Too bad you have to do your own arguing now. PetersV       TALK 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, who are you insinuating is a meat puppet? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was talking to Dojarca. I have not said you are a meat-puppet, but that Dojarca was campaigning to find/create meat-puppets to come and do his work for him as he was well aware of the reception his contentions (starting off right where he left off after a year of being banned) would receive. So much better that they should come from someone not in the fray before. As you have stated yourself, you are not Dojarca, nor am I confusing you with him. I am stating Dojarca's strategy in restarting the whole sordid affair of representing the Russian position equally and fairly, woe is Russia beneath the onslaught of the relentless Baltic nationalists. You will partdon my tone of impatience, you've been here several days, this has been going on like this for years. PetersV       TALK 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One last time

Alas, one last time...
Dojarca

• "Whether elections were fair or whether the deportations were legal is completely irrelevant here to the topic we are discussing. Otherwise I can ask you whether the pre-Soviet elections were fair?"
  • One deals with the internal affairs of a country, the other deals in the Soviet Union invading and interfering the the affairs of another country. Deportations of citizens from their own country to the USSR irrelevant? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard from you yet.
• "I see you're trying to present Baltic peoples as victims, but this also is completely irrelevant."
  • Ah, country invaded, citizens killed and deported, that's "trying" to portray them as "victims?" I'm sorry, did they attack the USSR first? Have I missed something here?
• You said "Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive" - you're wrong. I've already cited the International Red Cross' definition of occupation.
  • The Geneva Convention definition of occupation is that the local legitimate authorities are prevented from exercising power. Done. I have no idea what definition you have that makes the Soviet presence not an occupation.
• Some entities and countries (for example, USA) did not recognize the countries were included into the USSR, so they think the territories were occupied and their viewpoint should be reflected. Other countries (eastern bloc) thought the territories belong to the USSR and hence not occupied.
  • The article is not a contest about who recognized what. Your contention the "Eastern bloc" thought the Baltics "belonged" to the USSR is laughable as those were all puppet governments installed by the USSR.
• You're trying to present history from the viewpoint of the western countries who were "winners" in the cold war.
  • No, I am simply erasing 50 years of lies by a defunct despotic murderous regime whose version of history you appear to be personally bent on preserving.
• Why then not to write in the Kosovo article that it is an independnt state just because the USA and the majority in the EU already recognized it?
  • Different animal. Baltics were recognized by everyone including the USSR before WWII. Just another "Red" herring.

Hiberniantears' understanding
And the way Dojarca explains it here is different than the "you can't occupy your own territory" line of thinking. There are multiple views on this topic which have varying levels of validity:

1. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, legally.
   • Didn't happen
2. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, illegally.
   • You can't "own" something illegally, didn't happen
3. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, but regardless of legality, the people of those states never stopped fighting for independence.
   • Again, you can't own illegally, not related to kept fighting for independence
4. The Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic states, and these states were never part of the Soviet Union.
   • This is the closest, they were never de jure part of the Soviet Union and never ceased being "occupied" during their tenure as "SSRs"
5. The Soviet Union legally occupied the Baltic states, but they never lost sovereignty.
   • Occupation was not legal. Sovereignty was continuous.
6. The Soviet Union did any of the above, but the USSR later apologized.
   • Recognition of the illegality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a first step. No apology has ever been made, so false on that.
7. The Soviet Union did any of the above, the USSR apologized, but Russians long for their lost empire, and now are trying to whitewash history.
   • There's been no apology. Read any scholarly source these days, you will find rehabilitation of the Soviet past. Generally speaking that is looked upon as "whitewashing." That such actions may be born in genuine nostalgia for the past and not intentionally sinister would be even more tragic than it being done intentionally (my personal opinion regarding Russia's future).
8. The Soviet Union did nothing wrong, did not apologize, and now the peoples of the Baltic states are seeking to whitewash history by equating Soviets with Russians.
   • Ah, we come to the crux of it. It is not the Baltic states which are whitewashing/revising anything, nor is it the Baltic states which are "equating Soviets with Russians." Russia through its official position has stated an official Russian version of history which is the same as (and some have argued even more Stalinist than) the fabricated Soviet version of history which came before it. It is Russia that is equating itself to the Soviets in its words and deeds. Don't say the Baltic states are putting words into the mouth of Russia, Russia is choosing words and putting them into her own mouth.

As you can see, there is nothing about any of the series of possible contentions being suggested that hold water, except one, which is that the occupations were illegal and the Baltic states were never officially part of the Soviet Union. So can we all go home now? PetersV       TALK 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Prove it. Each one of my assertions. With sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, prove what? One cannot "own" something "illegally" that is a contradiction in terms. So, what, now every possible contention is considered true until disproven by sources? I rather thought we had and understanding and reasoned discussion outside of the fracas here. Apparently I was wrong, or you've slapped an anti-Russian xenophobic Baltic nationalist tag on me. Before I respond, please let me know whether you're now considering this a WP:BATTLE. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Each of the assertations are in one way or another discussed in Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden - Boston: Brill. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify regarding the above (and your earlier comment re #2, #3) about whether "owned" is not meant as "controlled"? "Own" indicates legality of control and therefore also the extinguishing of the Baltic sovereignties during the time period in question. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. 'Control' or 'possess' is the correct term for the Soviet occupation, not own. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• PetersV, do you really want to discuss moral aspects of deportations? Then why not to discuss killing Jews by those who supported the independence during WWII? local legitimate authorities are prevented from exercising power. Done. Please give a link to such strange definition. And the governments in excile were legitimate in the view of some contries and illegitimate in the view of other countries. those were all puppet governments installed by the USSR. This is your point of view. But they were recognized as legitimate even by their enemies. No, I am simply erasing 50 years of lies - good effort. Had ever heared about historical revisionism? It seems we're moving around. That's sad.--Dojarca (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the good old distraction by unrelated yet loaded issue. We've even got an article on this topic. It's called And you are lynching Negroes. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Go back through all the previous archives discussing this for the definition. I'll be glad to discuss the Nazi Holocaust in Latvia, that has nothing to do with this article. "Jews killed by those supporting independence?" What on earth are you talking about?
   And, oh by the way, Stalin proportionally deported more Jews from the Baltics than any other ethnicity. With all their political and community leadership gone, they were unprepared to organize for the Holocaust when it did come. There's no "revisionism" going on here despite your best contentions. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As for not puppet governments, events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia speak for themselves. My POV? That's rich! PetersV       TALK 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional outsider comment

You know, I just came to this page because Hiberniantears, whom I gathering by his name might be Irish?, asked for some input on a noticeboard. PetersV probably saw the message I left there. For what it's worth, I'm a citizen of the US of German heritage. I make it a point to dissociate myself from power-mad loons with weird mustaches, however.

Hiberniantears says that this article tends to be a bit leaning toward the view of the Baltic states, I have to agree with him there. The title itself, "Occupation of the Baltic states", is a bit prejudicial. Granted, it reflects the opinion of a lot of groups, but there still are a few others, like the old Soviets and the Russians, who disagree. All articles are supposed to be as NPOV as possible, as per WP:NPOV, and having a slightly prejudicial title don't help there a lot. Having said that, it might be one of the easiest versions of the title, so there is some cause to keep it.

PetersV says higher on this page that "this has been going on like this for years". That isn't good. There are ways to resolve matters like this one. Mediation as per WP:MEDCOM, arbitration per WP:ARBCOM, and other means exist. They can and probably should be tried, if they haven't already.

I do note that PetersV in the above thread seems to be in my eyes way to quick to dismiss certain sourceable comments because he has a view of the situation with which they do not agree, and at the same time use language which could potentially be seen as less than acceptable. These are concerns to me, because they lead me to at least think that PetersV might think he knows the truth. We aren't seeking after "truth", however, but just "verifiability", as is indicated in the first sentence of WP:V. "Critical thinking", which PetersV also seems to be important, is not required. It is, in fact, very likely a violation of the policy regarding WP:SYNTH. It seems to me that the claims for the Soviet opinion meet verifiability, so they should be included as prominently as the opposing claims. And, as per WP:NPOV, all significant views must be represented fairly, which means that they should get about equal coverage, taking into account complexity issues, and the article should not take sides. This one, seemingly, does take sides, both in the language it uses and to an extant the article structure. The after-the-fact judgements of any courts are just that, after the fact.

At this point, I would urge all parties involved to accept input from outside editors in the spirit in which it is intended, to help the article. I would also at least suggest mediation as per WP:MEDCOM. Otherwise, unfortunately, I can and do think it likely that the article will remain a constant dispute, will keep causing the generation of ill will which inhibits development of content, and very possibly could lead to sanctions against at least some of the editors involved, probably on both sides.

Hiberniantears made a post while I was writing this asking whether the scope of this article might be a bit too big. I tend to agree that it probably is. One, there is almost certainly enough material for separate articles on the occupation of each of the individual countries. I can't see a lot to be gained by lumping them all together into a single article. I would myself see maybe the following separate articles: Occupation of the Baltic States, the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union, with perhaps particular emphasis on the last. I myself would probably put a summary section related to this article in the main Baltic states article, and then add summary sections on the two other articles relating to the Soviet Union in this article. That's just my opinion, obviously, but I think it would make it easier to reach the NPOV status that we all more or less are striving for. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The page has been all the way to arbcom and back. This was old when I first arrived to Wikipedia some two years ago. And still, every now and then -- there are certain anniversaries that seem particularly attractive to this sort of thing -- some self-appointed guardian of "balance" shows up and claims that it's "judgmental" to speak about massacres as though it was a bad thing, or that in interests of "balance" there must be a section explaining how the tens of thousands of people deported to Siberia for slave labour were actually criminals, or insists that the European Court of Human Rights doesn't know the first thing about laws, and it would be better if Wikipedians attempted to interpret international law themselves. This horse is dead as a parrot. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I pondered and pondered, but I don't see why such a split would be beneficial. Could you be more specific? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict prior to your last paragraph) Hello, John. I should mention my involvement here stems from (a) Latvian background which is probably obvious and (b) having added all the materials on treaties, et al. which the Soviets abrogated (one in particular states that there are to be NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which one party has the right to invade the other) and (c) having researched and debated the legal aspects of occupation and de jure recognition ad nauseum with all those who have come before. There have been endless mediations and arbcoms where Baltic editors have been called the worst imaginable things for simply sticking to the facts. Formal WP means of resolution have already exhausted man-years of editors' efforts, so let's not suggest we go there again.

   I am not "quick" to "dismiss" "sourcable" comments. Comments are not the issue. The issue is taking comments such as "Latvia was part of the USSR from X to Y" and insisting that means Latvia was not occupied, et al.

   And since there was an occupation, and people were killed and deported (even while their country was ostensibly still independent), how is a title reflecting that "prejudicial"? If reputable sources all indicate the Baltic states were occupied, what is it, exactly, that prevents us from using the word "occupied" in the title? Who are we offending? The Soviet Union is dead and buried. Whose sensibilities are we here to protect?

   Your contention of "prejudicial" presuposes this is truly about POV. It is not. It is about a historical event about which the current official Russian position differs from the facts. And, I should mention, the current Russian position differs from its own treaty still in effect with Lithuania, which acknowledged the actions of the USSR against Lithuania's sovereignty.

   I'm not the holder of any WP:TRUTH. It's only that through research and all that I have gathered over time that I'm likely one of the better informed editors regarding international law and the Soviet occupation. It's precisely your feelings that something may be prejudicial based on what, the use of a particular word, that editors like Dojarca appeal to.

   That the current Russian position denies Soviet actions Russia has already acknowledged in their own treaty with Lithuania is not my problem, nor is it the mission of the article title to reflect that denial as another "perspective" which we must consider as to not prejudice or offend. I hope this helps. PetersV       TALK 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To your last paragraph, the article was intended to be about the events of the occupation. It was the "Baltics were not occupied" litanies incessantly tagging the article and requesting sources which produced the bloat over the period being termed and "occupation" and the multiple paragraphs on the Soviet and Russian positions as evolved over time (all added by Baltic editors, I might add). As I've stated, I've got no objection to any split as long as it does not produce something which paints the Baltic and Russian positions as equally valid "POVs" over the same historical events. The Baltic view is based on facts, the Russian one on Soviet fabrications. That's WP:BLUNT, not WP:TRUTH. PetersV       TALK 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, re: "It seems to me that the claims for the Soviet opinion meet verifiability." Please indicate which claims you believe "meet verifiability" and I'll be glad to respond. PetersV       TALK 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

John is correct, I am a third generation Irish-American. I'm going to follow John's advice and take this to WP:MEDCOM for feedback on moving toward a structure that comprises some variation of Occupation of the Baltic States, the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ethnicity is irrelevant. It does not matter in any positive or negative way. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was coming back to suggest as a topic (too long as a title, but) "communal Russian memory regarding the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union". That would save the endless debate over whose memory is correct or not.

   I'll take the ethnic background comment as an attempt to assure us you're not culturally biased--not that culture or ethnic background matter. PetersV       TALK 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Simply pointing out I have no ethnic stake in this. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged ethnic stake is a red herring. Martintg (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Διγουρεν, You've cited European Court of Human Rights. May be it would be interesting for you to know this quote from the ruling of the court on Kononov vs. Latvia case: In the instant case, the parties and the third party intervener agreed that the applicable domestic criminal legislation applicable to the events of 27 May 1944 was the Criminal Code of Soviet Russia, which was adopted in 1926 and became applicable to the Latvian territory by virtue of the decree of 6 November 1940. [12]. So even in 1944 when the territory was under Nazi control, the only applicable domestic law according the ruling was Soviet criminal code.--Dojarca (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are falling into the trap of making a personal interpretation of a court ruling to advance a position. Unless you can find an independent reliable source that makes this interpretive claim, it remains WP:OR. Martintg (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  It is not interpretation, it is exact quote.--Dojarca (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a direct quote, but the problem is that this direct quote is used to support the wider claim that the Baltic states were not occupied. Unless you can find a paper or book that makes the interpretive connection between the court ruling and the wider claim of "non-occupation", it remains OR. In fact, of one reads the full judgment, the majority decision explicitly makes no conclusions as to the legality of the annexation, but accepts the facts established in an earlier case as the historical truth:

"112. The Court notes, lastly, that the parties and the third-party intervener attach considerable importance to certain questions of a general nature, in particular, whether Latvia's incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940 was lawful under public international law and constitutional law.......In this connection, the Court reiterates that it will abstain, as far as possible, from pronouncing on matters of purely historical fact, which do not come within its jurisdiction; however, it may accept certain well-known historical truths and base its reasoning on them (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 96, ECHR 2006 ...)"

Looking at the Ždanoka v. Latvia case [13], it states as fact:

"Following an ultimatum to allow an unlimited number of Soviet troops to be stationed in the Baltic countries, on 16-17 June 1940 the Soviet army invaded Latvia and the other two independent States. The government of Latvia was removed from office, and a new government was formed under the direction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (“the CPSU”), the USSR’s only party"

--Martintg (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• As another outsider, I do not understand what's the problem. Looking at this article edit history, I only found this revert of an edit by Dojarca dated June 2007:[14]. Is this is all about removing POV tag? Biophys (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states

I have opened this case at WP:MEDCOM. If you wish to participate, please feel free to add yourself here, and add any issues you wish to be included here. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added my own name. I would urge all parties who have an interest in this subject to take part in the mediation as well. One reason for that, regretably, is that it seems to me that this argument will not be resolved without some such outside input. If that continues to be the case, then there is a very likely chance that the behavior relating to this article will worsen, and the ArbCom may be called in. The ArbCom has recently become a bit more actively involved in resolving such matters, as can be found by their decision to appoint a trio of outside administrators to resolve naming issues related to Ireland at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure and following. If this matter were to go to ArbCom again, it may well be that, as in the case above, the resolution of the problem might be done by outside parties, and those who have already been involved in the development of the article may find themselves facing a decision with which they very clearly disagree, but which they would be powerless to do anything about. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm quite surprised how quickly this has escalated in the space of a day. You must know that ArbCom does not rule on content issues. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I would ask you to look at the link I provided again. In that case, and possibly in the future in another one I'm currently involved in, which is why this occured to me so quickly, they didn't directly involve themselves, but they have given themselves the authority to appoint a group of independent administrators who are in a position to decide the matter, in effect appointing a board to resolve it. They themselves still aren't "ruling on content issues", they're just appointing individuals who are. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

?? I read the ArbCom ruling, it is asking that the community develop a procedure for resoling a conflict, nothing about appointing a group of administrators to rule on content. Did you link the correct thing? Martintg (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the following sections as well. They say that if there isn't a decision in 14 days, the ArbCom appoints three outside administrators to resolve the matter. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry John, but my reading is that these outside admins are to develop a procedure resolve the matter, not the matter itself. There is a difference. Martintg (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

True. There is. But exactly how much a difference that will wind up being after the "procedure" (or steps to determine a matter, which is generally equivalent to a "guideline") is finished is still up in the air. Granted, they won't be able to enforce it over the objections of the majority of individuals involved. But in contentious issues, like the one I'm in now, there are going to be individuals from one side or the other who want to "stick it to" the other side however they can. All in all, having looked at the matter myself several times in the past few days, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want anything I would be concerned about to be resolved in that manner. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John, so in a nutshell I'm being told I have no choice but to participate yet again (appointed if not participating?). Many people have heard of Ireland and have hear of its strife in the news. Few have heard of Latvia. From that standpoint, "uninvolved" most certainly means "uninformed." As well intentioned as your involvement is, your own suggestion that (at face value) "occupation" is "prejudicial" when it was the Soviet Union that invaded unprovoked is precisely why "uninvolved" admins do not work for this topic. And, personally, if you had an iota of understanding of the degree to which the Soviets raped the Baltics, you would realize that it is you who is offending sensitivities, not the editors indicating the article is rightly titled "Occupation...". So be it, we'll do this all yet again. And what is the "contentious" issue we're looking to resolve? That Russian POV based on lies deserves equal time? I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is all quite misguided, and it has nothing to do with my believing I'm a holder of the WP:TRUTH, that's frankly insulting. PetersV       TALK 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, I said nothing of the kind. I wish you would not try to add to my comments. If I remember correctly, I think I said that the word "occupation" in the title is POV. That's all. I didn't offer the weak comment you just now decided to attribute to me. Your own clear lack of objectivity in the matter, including in your last statement above, makes it quite possible that, like has happened in some of the cases currently before ArbCom, that others may become involved, and that they may become so frustrated as to bring the matter before ArbCom. You yourself have in your own comments said things which could call into question your own objectivity and neutrality. And, unfortunately, if mediation is rejected, the only option remaining is ArbCom. But, your call. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ak vai.

• Well, I read it as if folks don't participate, others uninvolved will be appointed to rule, no?
• You said "The title itself, "Occupation of the Baltic states", is a bit prejudicial." Based on?
• You said "But in contentious issues, like the one I'm in now,..." Contentious based on one editor complaining that the Russian POV is not adequately represented (as stated in the mediation filing)--when Soviet/Russian historiography is discussed at length?
• Achieving a "balanced" point of view requires objective assessments of events--on which various parties may have opinions; representing all opinions as (implicitly) valid does not achieve balance.

So, you believe I've stated things calling my objectivity and neutrality in question? Please, let's have them. While you're making that list, please feel free to read Wiki Cold War from August 2007 for some historical perspective. PetersV       TALK 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Two admins are the uninformed editors of which you speak. We're not above the law, but you don't get to be an admin by being a moron (though some might dispute that). Point is, we're not easily duped. What you're doing here is classic stonewalling, and the mediation case is open for your benefit so that I don't take it to ArbCom. The issues currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 are exactly the type of issues that are in play here right now, and I think it would behoove all involved to take a stab at mediation. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you creating Baltic States and the Soviet Union and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union, we are not going to do it for you. If that is unsatisfactory, perhaps you should take it to ArbCom then. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, ArbCom never deals with content disputes. so why exactly has this been brought up? Has anybody been violating any WP policies? Been uncivil or something, has been engaging in an edit war, has violated WP:OR. The claim that the word "occupation" in the title is POV by John Carter is an opinion like any other. Just that what would possibly be a non-POV-sh title then? Perhaps it's me but I haven't seen any suggestions that would make sense. So what exactly are you guys after Hiberniantears and John Carter? How would braking up this article make a difference? Or else are you in all seriousness supporting the POV of the current Russian government, who's so far the only source out there that disputes Soviet Union occupying anybody. meaning, the countries and the peoples cave up their independents voluntarely?--Termer (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To:John Carter I see you're an American, so why don't you take on Armenian Genocide? The English speaking countries the US, the UK don't recognize such an event as a genocide, so it is clearly a POV title? Unlike 'Occupation of Baltic states' where the majority of scholars and politicians etc. in English speaking countries are on the same page with this article including it's title. --Termer (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever you discuss here, please avoid presenting this as an ethnic dispute. "Soviet" does not mean "Russian". That was Soviet and Nazi occupation, not Russian occupation.Biophys (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Biophys. It has is nothing to do with anybodies ethnicity here, if anything the dispute is a political one. The Soviet style Communism was not an ethnicity but a political regime.--Termer (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) By the way I looked at the Macedonia titling dispute, I'm sorry but it's quite silly by comparison. (Arguing against standard country article naming convention.) And comparisons of WP:IDONTHEARYOU to here are inappropriate. That's projecting other experiences in other disputes to a completely different set of circumstances. PetersV       TALK 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME tells to "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article". If you want the article renamed for neutrality reasons, please provide another common name from the literature in English. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the article up according to John Carter's proposal appears to make a world of difference, as it appears to support Dojarca's view that the occupation ended immediately after it had commenced with the silent recognition of the annexation by the World. All I can say about it, is that before you start pushing such POV, provide a notable source that actually makes such a conclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the dispute and status controvercy, not about "occupation" as such. --Dojarca (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway you can verify youself: google search for "occupation of the baltic states" -wikipedia [15] gives 7 730 links, "incorporation of the baltic states" -wikipedia [16] gives 9 850 hits. So incorporation is the more frequently used term.--Dojarca (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "Incorporation" seems to be at least as common as "occupation". As long as the first sentence points out that the incorporation was forcible and therefore illegal, I will not object the renaming. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article must be simple and understandable. Everyone knows what is occupation or annexation. What "incorportion" means is totally unclear. I fixed Introduction simply to make it more simple and readable per WP:MOS. Better? I do not see any reason for you to waste a lot of time here. Biophys (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it is more used, it is more recognizable.--Dojarca (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation is too open to interpretation as to what it means. What is the requirement to milquetoast the title? PetersV       TALK 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And since "incorporation" is used in tandem with "forcible" I see no benefit to "Illegal incorporation of..." or "Forcible incorporation of..." over "Occupation of...". PetersV       TALK 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article also covers the Nazi occupation, "incorporation" wouldn't be really applicable. Martintg (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Acttually, if you click through the pages of results, there are infact 458 hits for "occupation of the baltic states", and 295 hits for "incorporation of the baltic states" , so "occupation" has twice the number of hits that "incorporation". Anyway, I think "incorporation" is a narrower term. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, during the German occupation the 'Baltic states were incorporated into the Reichskommissariat Ostland' [17] or 'annexed to Nazi Germany as part of its Reichskommissariat Ostland' [18]. This occupation-incorporation-annexation in the context is after all only semantics.--Termer (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To: User:Hiberniantears, please explain your "minor edit": [19]. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Other than the source provided on the military occupation, there is entire chapter on the subject: Reversing Soviet Military Occupation [20] in State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia By Bruce Parrott. there is The major international treaties of the twentieth century By John Ashley Soames Grenville, Bernard Wasserstein, p.886 [21]: ...A related issue was the continnuing Russian miliyary occupation and bases. The Baltic states demanded the withdrawal of all the ex-Soviet troops, numbering at least 100.000. In case more sources are needed, please let me know. Simply removing sourced facts from the article can be explained exactly how?--Termer (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

If you ever read the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, you'll find that the annexation of the Baltics was contrary to this pact as it provided that no political change should be made in the Baltics. Germany used the Soviet involvement in the Baltics as a pretext for invading the USSR it is note of declaration of war.--Dojarca (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And this would be so according to whom? In case the opinion can be verified by a secondary published source, it should be simply added to the article like any other possible viewpoint on the subject.--Termer (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting opinion coming from a Russia scholar: Elena Zubkova, a senior scholar at the Moscow Institute. She is saying that "the consequences of the introduction of a Soviet regime" and the suppression of the independent state existence of these three countries , Zubkova argued, "turned out to be worse than any occupation could have been." The text in English:[22], and the original lecture in Russian at www.polit.ru--Termer (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can add it but please as an indirect speach.--Dojarca (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also add this by the same historian: 2 July in Luthuania in Kaunas there was a large 30-thousand military parade on the stadium where marshed Lithuania's military units under Soviet banners(...). Lithuanian's military marshed under red flags and shouted "Long live comrade Stalin!", "Long live the 13th Soviet Republic!".[23] It was before the incorporation of Lithuania.--Dojarca (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit, do you think that 1940 annexation did not violated Lithuania's (and reaming States) sovereignty? M.K. (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognition lists

Recognition was multifaceted and nuanced concept in post-WWII international law. Collapsing these nuances into a one-bit "recognised"/"recognised not" decision embodied by two lists is prone to lose information and possibly mislead our reader. Instead of presenting imprecise data as precise, we should either give a full overview without OR classification of the entries, or summarise the available data in a way that researchers have summarised it -- thus, making it explicit that it's a summary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Why not? --Dojarca (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is now split

I just split the article between this, which is now intended to deal with World War II, and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎ which is intended to deal with the post-war to independence period with a very plain, NPOV title. I have move protected this article given the energies exhibited by many individuals in the hope that everyone can step back and calmly evaluate what I did. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good editing practice requires a) in order to split and rename article use appropriate splitting tags, in order to inform parties about such move. Non of this was done. b) before making actual split - find an consensus on talk for such action. Non of this was done as well. More staggering issue that you heavily involved in this dispute, yet you used your sysop abilities to protect this article [24], therefore violated core WP policy WP:ADMIN, particularly - Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. M.K. (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniantears, please show me scholarly sources which indicate the occupation by the Soviet Union after re-taking the Baltics differs in any way from the occupation of the Baltics by the Soviet Union initially. That there is a difference is an opinion unsupported by historical fact. I additionally regret your move protection characterizing the entire community of Baltic editors out to be editors of bad faith, your euphemism of "energies". This in the absence of consensus and professing your own unfamiliarity with the topic.

   The supported split was to discuss so-called controversy regarding after WWII, returning the original article to its intended contents, the events of the occupation for the entire span of the occupation. not to split the time period into during and after based on the official Russian position, the sensibilities of editors who support that position, and the perceptions of editors previously unfamiliar with the topic.

   Frankly, I'm disappointed. I sadly have to concur with M.K that you have overstepped your bounds here by deciding that according to Wikipedia occupation can only apply to WWII as your unilateral solution to Dojarca's complaints to you and to the anti-Baltic position agitations on your talk page (Russavia).PetersV       TALK

Just wanted to say that even though such potentially controversial moves should be done pr. WP:Consensus, I personally don't have any major problems with the overly long and somewhat clumsy new title "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" since according to Baltic sources for example For Estonia, World War II did not end, de facto, until 31 August 1994 [25].--Termer (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article can remain split along the original lines intended, original occupation title, all events, and Baltic States and the Soviet Union discussing versions of history which make it an occupation or not after WWII. PetersV       TALK 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Current article name is messy. In any case article Occupation of the Baltic states can be made as the summary of WWII and Post WW II events. M.K. (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Entirely correct --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Without having gone into details right now due to lack of wikitime, I can only agree with M.K.

:Good editing practice requires a) in order to split and rename article use appropriate splitting tags, in order to inform parties about such move. Non of this was done. b) before making actual split - find an consensus on talk for such action. Non of this was done as well. More staggering issue that you heavily involved in this dispute, yet you used your sysop abilities to protect this article [26], therefore violated core WP policy WP:ADMIN, particularly - Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.

in that we really have a blatant case of admin tools misused in content disputes. Not only had the sysop concerned had no contributions to the article, until prompted 'to have a look' by some users apparently cherrypicking some people with admin tools - moreover, no attempts have been made to gain some kind of consensus. --Miacek (t) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

When I split the article, I messed up a few citations. Because this article is overflowing, I don't have time to fix that until later today, but invite anyone else willing to sort through the ref tags and find out where I broke things. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I suggest that Dojarca places here the precise text of any changes he/she wants to discuss and vote if necessary. Same applies to renaming article, moves and splits. Everyone, please follow WP:Consensus. There is no another way around.Biophys (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split of this article

Hiberniantears, please explain, what titles do you suggest for new sub-articles? Why this article needs to be split?Biophys (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing wrong with creating new sub-articles. However, this article can be also kept as an "umbrella article". Why not? But making a protected redirect this article has been unilaterally deleted, which is against the rules.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like, I would be happy to turn the original article "Occupation of the Baltic states" into a disambiguation page which includes a link to Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And protect the disambig.page? That is precisely why such things should not be decided without an AfD debate. Do we need an umbrella article here? Maybe we need. May be we do not. That should be discussed and decided per WP:Consensus. The normal "evolutionary" approach here would be this: (1) someone creates sub-articles; (2) the corresponding segments of text are only briefly summarized here as to avoid content forks. This way any editorial conflicts would be minimized. Is that the way to go? This also should be discussed.Biophys (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If I change it from a redirect to a disambiguation page, yes, I will keep it as a protected page. However, I do want to specifically address the concerns you raise regarding deletion. Nothing has been deleted, the article was simply split. The most important part if this is that I did not change any of the content. The two articles contain everything from the original article. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Woeful inadequacy of lead

The lead section as it now stands is both fairly obviously pushing a POV and woefully inadequate. It describes in comparatively great detail how some see it as having been illegal, but doesn't actually say much anything about the occupation per se, which, presumably, is the real subject of the article. I cannot see how any reasonable outsider could not come to the conclusion, based on that lead, that this article is not so much interested in describing the subject fairly, but is rather interested in describing a certain variety of responses to the actual presumptive topic of the article. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Feel free to re-write it. Splitting the article up is not going to make the lead any better. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, do not do it please. Please place your version of the introduction here for discussion. This is the pointBiophys (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that this article is under constant heated debate, major edits to it, should be discussed on talk page first. M.K. (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we keep the occupation article to the events of the occupation, including after WWII, similar to the article on the Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940.

   The other article should be devoted only to the question of occupation with details of events specifically having to do with that (not a repeat of the entire history in the first article). PetersV       TALK 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved version not what the article is right now

Just to be clear this is what I moved here, which you'll note was quickly reverted to the version of the original article. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this article, originally entitled Occupation of the Baltic states, was split on May 1, 2009 into Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union (postwar period).

FWIW, I support the article split and the renaming. Someone has suggested that this is an opportunity to focus on the details of the post-WWII period. To that end, I'm suggesting that the number of Soviet troops stationed in the Baltic states during that time be discussed in that article - can we agree that troop presence is relevant? Not OR since this book draws the connection by describing it as a military occupation and by stating that Soviet troop withdrawal was problematic during the establishment of independence [27]. Sources conflict about number of troops towards the end - for the Baltic states as a whole, NYtimes, during the early 1990s, gives at one point 130,000 [28] and at another point 400,000 [29] Just a starting point for these stats, which would belong in the other article, but there's more discussion here...Note to JC (!!) and HB, I appreciate your involvement. Novickas (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New quality tag

I have added a new tag to the article to revlect the obvious issues the article now has. Specifically, I see whole paragraphs without a single reference citation. In fact, the last two paragraphs of "Soviet terror", the second paragraph of "Occupation by Nazi Germany, 1941-1944", the first two paragraphs of "The Holocaust - Lithuania", and both paragraphs of "Historical considerations" all lack even a single reference citation. The content of the lead section is poor. We are led to conclude that whatever it was the Soviets did was illegal, but we aren't given much if any idea of what it was they actually did, which is almost amusingly inadequate. Section headings like "Soviet terror", "terror" being a very emotionally loaded word, can reasonably be seen as violating WP:NPOV. I honestly cannot see how the tag can or should be removed until all these issues are addressed. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, specific section tags should be implemented, instead. It would allow to see that specific sections needs improvement. M.K. (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. The downside to doing so would be the number of tags, which would be at least six right now. And those are just the obvious ones I indicated above. When that many tags are being discussed, it generally makes more sense to tag the whole article, to reduce the amount of template "noise" in the article. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in lead

I have removed from the lead:

although the majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation.

This was sourced to http://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA104&dq=Baltic+de+jure+recognize+India&hl=ru#PPA103,M1 which states:

The majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation of the Baltic States.

However, this source, http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 written by Antonio Cassese states:

The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States.

So long as this discrepancy exists, the assertion that I removed has no place in this article as written. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit. That last quote "The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States" is from Willessee's personal testimony in procedures which resulted in his being censured. He couldn't tell Balkans from Baltics apart in his testimony. And his testimony as a whole indicated he had no concept of de facto versus de jure. There's no discrepancy. PetersV       TALK 15:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in various places above, please discuss changes first so that we avoid unfortunate misinterpretations and misrepresentations of sources. PetersV       TALK 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not Willessee at all. It is the words of Gough Whitlam, read the source it indicates this. We have two sources which say conflicting things. Until such time as the position of ALL states can clearly be clarified, the fragment as written in the article is a no-go. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles states: "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." This has now been done. It should also be noted from here that it says: "It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic States." Unfortunately "most Western States" does not equate to the "majority of countries". If it is the majority of Western States, then this needs to be clarified, but when he have a Prime Minister of country stating that the "majority of countries" do recognise the de jure incorporation, this is going to create discrepancies. For example, what was the opinion of Togo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Nepal, etc, etc on this matter? Until such time as this can all be clarified, as I said it shouldn't be stated in such in the article, but until then, inlin with general principles at that Arbcom, opinions need to be cited to their proponents. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't have my notes of the sessions handy, Willessee contended the same. Whitlam was angling for UN General Secretary and soliciting Soviet favor. Be that as it may, this article is firstly about historical facts, opinions are secondary and may, or may not, be supported by the historical facts. Oh, sorry, to you it's all POV. How convenient. PetersV       TALK 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitlam

Whitham is an official person. If his statement should be removed as 'non-scholary' then the reolution of European Parliament, UN, US department of state also should be removed as non-scholary.--Dojarca (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not removed because of being non-scholarly but because it is based on nothing, as shown in depth below in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the position of the U.S. Depatment of state should not be removed, but position of Australian prime minister should? Because you know the truth?--Dojarca (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of course against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles. I hope people realise that. Perhaps those who are claiming that "most countries didn't recognise" can provide List of countries along with whether they did or did not recognise the de jure incorporation. US and EU does not equal the world. It's about time that people get that thru their heads, really. To say that Whitlam's comment is based on nothing is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard. Does one think he got up in Parliament and stated this without consulting the Department for External Affairs for information? Anyone who would think as such, give me your address and I can send you a shiny red clown nose to go with that opinion. But honestly, removal of information which is sourced to their proponents is a no-no, and particularly as it is obvious that this assertion is being disputed by myself and now another editor. I would agree to it being written "The de jure incorporation of these states into the Soviet Union was recognised by most countries, but not by the majority of "western states". Russavia ^Dialogue 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User Jaan Pärn placed the following notice in the edit summary. If a statement is not based on research, it is nothing more than a point of view. Feel free to reintroduce the statements and present them as such. I think we reached consensus here and as such the statement should be restored but introduced as a point of view of the then prime-minister of Australia. But still need Jaan Pärn's explanation about what he has against a link to W.A. Timmermans' article.--Dojarca (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Whitlam's POV - not significant enough for the lead, include among other POVs. Facts first, then interpretations.

Concerning Timmermans - very simple - makes the section contradict itself, as Ireland and Vatican are listed below as other two countries with exactly the same policy. I mean, an author missing basic facts in his field of research speaks for the seriousness of his work himself. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the information which is currently in the lead, can you please provide a source which indicated what side all 200 countries took on this issue? Because the article only mentions the "western world" and this does not equate "the world". In providing this source, please ensure that it includes the views of Benin, Mauritius, Seychelles, etc, etc, etc. Because what we currently have is the opinion of one person being placed in the lead, at the exclusion of the opinion of another; and the excluded opinion is one which states the majority of the world's countries did de jure (in 1974 at the time of the speech) recognise the incorporation of states into the USSR, and which obviously does not fit the POV of editors. The challenge is now that editors have seen fit to 1) remove verifiable information which was attributed to its author and 2) repeatedly breached Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles for those same editors to provide sources for ALL countries, because this information is being disputed, and the refusal to provide this information may have consequences. Russavia ^Dialogue 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To show what is wrong here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II&diff=287270284&oldid=287269937

The book I have source is written by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Cassese and is available at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA258,M1

You will see that it states: "it should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic States."

At: http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 the part of Whitlam's speech which he gave to the Australian Parliament in 1974 states: "The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States."

That edit was undone, example at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II&diff=287276232&oldid=287274943 with the summary of "If a statement is not based on research, it is nothing more than a point of view."

Some problems with this.....

• 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II#Recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation_and_occupation is based on a 1960 survey, done at a time before the independence of many of the African countries
• 2) Editors are assuming that Whitlam didn't do research before getting up in front of parliament to deliver his speech in 1974. He would have consulted government ministries, such as the Department of External Affairs (now DFAT), in determining whether to recognise the de jure incorporation
• 3) Cassese, as one who one would recognise as an expert in international law, given the positions he holds, would have noted in this book that Whitlam's assertion of fact was wrong, but he doesn't...he merely mentions that "most Western States refused to recognize"...not "most countries refused to recognise".

As one who thinks logically, this would mean that according to Cassese, what Whitlam said is actually correct, but with a kind of disclaimer with "most Western States refused to recognize". This means, in essence, that what is in the lead is wrong. And the only way it can be shown to be correct, is for someone to produce a complete list from List_of_countries with a sourced opinion as to whether that nation recognised the de jure recognition or not. Until such time as this is produced, what I initially wrote above is the correct course of action. Anything but is discounting one source because it says something that one doesn't like, and is a violation of the Latvian arbcom. Russavia ^Dialogue 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am truly amazed by the comment that this opinion isn't "significant enough for the lead", considering that the extant lead is so weighed down with similar opinions already. If this opinion isn't significant enough for the lead, then I would have to assume that most, if not all, of the other opinions already contained in the lead aren't significant enough either. Personally, I have already stated that I see the lead, as currently structured, is being basically a ridiculous accusation that one group did something wrong while at the same time giving an at best minimal description of what they did.

I remind whoever helped form that lead section that wikipedia is supposed to be written for those who are, in fact, not familiar with the subject. That means, guys, that it kinda helps to go into a bit of detail as to what you're talking about before you start throwing around opinions about it, as the lead currently does. I realize that might be a bit of a new concept to some of you, but if you think about it I'm sure you will eventually realize it makes sense. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the lead is probably amongst the worst out there. It's supposed to summarise the article, not engage in WP:NOTADVOCATE at the get-go as it does now, and which some editors are already clearly intending for it to do as per the above. I especially like this..."The Baltic States' struggle for independence came to a conclusion in 1991"...what is this? An encyclopaedia? Or a Wikipedia novella script that we are hoping to get turned into an equally bad made-for-TV movie? Does this mean that we are all cast as extras? Russavia ^Dialogue 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Cassess Whitlam is correct? This is getting to be preposterous. PetersV       TALK 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation is based on facts, not opinions. As for Russavia's constant and increasingly strident derisiveness, that's typical of all the editors who have come before trying to make this into a contest of any and all opinions that can be found regardless of their basis in fact. The moon = made of cheese, score ONE. The moon = made of rock, score ONE. The moon = a huge doughnut hole, score ONE. Represent all equally regardless of facts. PetersV       TALK 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting preposterous, because none of you have yet detailed the opinions of all of these countries on recognition. Who do we listen to? The opinion of a Wikipedia editor? Or the Prime Minister of a country who has a diplomatic service giving him information on which he bases his statements? And an international reknowned jurist who states only "most Western countries didn't recognise", published by Cambridge University Press in what one would expect that if it weren't true for it to be explicitly stated. The upside to this, is at least it isn't an assertion being made by a Russian source, because we know that would be discounted immediately, as they usually are by the "usual" editors on "such" topics. Vecrumba, you have tried to discount numerous people's argument by saying you have "the books", so it should be relatively simple for you to consult those books and tell us (with sources, of course) what side of the fence the following countries stood: Libya, Zaire, Haiti, China, Madagascar, Uganda, Oman, India, Nepal, Lebanon. There's 10 countries, did they or did they not recognise the de jure incorporation of the 3 into the USSR? If you wish to talk about facts, please show us the facts on these countries. Several editors have thrown down the gauntlet, and you yourself stated at the Arbcom "(Virtually) none of the world's governments saw the incorporation of the Baltic States in the Soviet Union as "legal.", so I am responding by challenging you to "prove it", because all I can see so far is a source which has a small list of countries from a survey done in 1960; before many countries gained independence (i.e. a lot of Africa, etc). Otherwise, this is merely a case of the discounting of verifiable information, which was attributed to its author, because one doesn't like what it says, whilst leaving other comments in the article because they like what it says. And this is exactly getting to the crux of what Dojarca was talking about, and which you several of you went thru in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia. Russavia ^Dialogue

Hiberniantears and John, you have encouraged Dojarca and now Russavia to make this all into a contest about opinions regardless of basis in fact or competency of the source. This is a travesty. And Russavia's utterly derisive comments such as: I especially like this..."The Baltic States' struggle for independence came to a conclusion in 1991"...what is this? An encyclopaedia? Or a Wikipedia novella script that we are hoping to get turned into an equally bad made-for-TV movie? Does this mean that we are all cast as extras? indicate he is a prime candidate for being topic-banned. BTW, I'm still waiting for that source that supports the Russian Duma's declaration that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. Or facts don't matter anymore? PetersV       TALK 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't anybody look at and read the source given? Antonio Cassese in his Self-Determination of Peoples is very clear about what he says: It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states. (page 258). The citation by Whitlam is in footnotes section , 258-259 : (1) In October 1974, answering a parliamentary question, the Prime minister Mr, Whitlam said :'...the great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these Sates...(3)Following the election of a new Liberal-Country Party Government on 4 Descember 1975, the new Government decided to withdraw de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.--Termer (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The contradiction between sources is not a reason for deletion of sources. You see, he is serious enough to be cited by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania --Dojarca (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the sources Termer, hence why I have posted what I have. I've said it a dozen times now. The Western world does NOT equal THE WORLD. A majority of countries in the world did recognise the de jure incorporation of the 3 into the Soviet Union, but a majority of the "Western" world did not. There is no way to say this any clearer. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitlam Redux

Getting too long above. Firstly, it's not a contest when there are declarations and treaties as to legality or illegality of Soviet action. Who had what POV or what motives they had for those POVs is interesting but irrelevant. Now to Russavia's:

• 2) Editors are assuming that Whitlam didn't do research before getting up in front of parliament to deliver his speech in 1974. He would have consulted government ministries, such as the Department of External Affairs (now DFAT), in determining whether to recognise the de jure incorporation

This is the height of sheer and utter fabrication. It's extensively documented that Whitlam did no research and consulted no one regarding his decision. Stop contending how things ought to have worked as if they actually did work that way. Whitlam's decision and its implementation was unilateral to his person in every way. (That he was a Baltophobe and angling for U.N. Secretary General was a far likelier determinant than Russavia's alleged "he must have researched" fantasy.) PetersV       TALK 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. Your incoherent rants are not answering the challenge to your assertions. Russavia ^Dialogue 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did Oman, Nepal, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan, etc, stand on this question? One can't discount the views of 175 countries when one is stating "the majority of the countries in the world did not recognise". Russavia ^Dialogue 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please relate to the world of World War II and not of today. Some of the states you mentioned were not independent states at the time of recognition/non-recognition of the occupation of the Baltic states. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What you say makes ZERO sense. There was no worldwide referendum on whether countries would recognise or not; this was left up to individual countries when they entered into diplomatic relationships with the USSR. It is silly to use 1945 as a cut-off point, or even 1960 (the date of some survey), because a heap of countries did not gain independence until the 1960s/mid-1970s, by which time there were a lot of countries who were allies of the USSR, who would have de jure recognised this incorporation. All I have seen so far is dismissal of whether countries such as Angola and Ethiopia de jure recognised or not as "unimportant". To show how ridiculous this is, it would be like putting in the Wikipedia article that "most Wikipedia editors come from Latvia", and this is obtained only by asking those editors in Latvia where they are from, because where everyone else is from is ridiculous and unimportant. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments makes perfectly sence to people that live in the past. Unfortunately (for them), the majority of the English Wikipedia readers lives in the present and are Anglophones, which means trivia like "how many did what, how many did not in a foreign obscure part of the world" in a historic perspective is quite uninteresting - and makes them press the mental remote control.

There is no limit to the argument you are conveying, since opinions (also for governments) change all the time. What is helpful to readers of Wikipedia is to understand the contemporary opinions in the time things occured - or we could have endless articles on how opinions changes for every historic period and fad (which could become articles of their own when it comes to issues like Christianity etc.) Just my last 2 cents on that. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that we should only look at this issue from how it was just after World War II, because to look at this issue from a 1970s viewpoint when most countries were independent (and by which time "most countries recognised [or not]" would have been known), only make sense to people who live in the past? This is looking more and more like a logical paradox, and I am feeling a bit like Robot Santa here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[joke on] Time travels tends to end up in logical paradoxes [/joke off] No, that was not what I was saying, that is what you were reading. I did write some more, though. My last 2 cents. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You create fantasies and then say disprove them. Please! Prove Whitlam consulted anyone, the WP:BURDEN is on you. Yours are the fact-free rants here. As for recognition or not, it is interesting but irrelevant to legality/illegality and subsequent basis for occupation since the Russian Duma has specifically declared Soviet presence and Latvian (Baltic) incorporation into the USSR was legal according to international law. PetersV       TALK 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And a P.S., unless a country formally indicated whether or not it recognized annexation, simple recognition of the Soviet Union is not sufficient basis to claim de jure recognition of Baltic incorporation. Plenty of sources on how recognition works across successions of states, etc. on that too. None of this being the subject of this article. PetersV       TALK 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, you do not answer the question. All I have seen from you is an attack on an ex-Prime Minister of Australia who is a WP:BLP and whole lot of other irrelevant rants not pertinent to the question at hand. If what I am saying is a fantasy, WP:PROVEIT. Russavia ^Dialogue 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What question, exactly, is it that I am not answering? Zimbabwe? This is all your fantasy, you can go dance with it. The Duma's declaration is at the center of this, it is not an irrelevant rant. Your Zimbabwe question is merely a diversion from the true topic and is the "irrelvant" item here.

   If you'd like to collaborate on an article regarding Whitlam's recognition and subsequent retraction thereof, Willessee's censure, et al., I'll be glad to. It won't be pretty for Whitlam, WP:BLP or not.PetersV       TALK 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Truly horrible idea to try to split off part of the article into Baltic states and the Soviet_Union

(1) An article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR makes absolutely zero sense.
(2) The "new" article has seriously been titled by someone as "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" as opposed to "Invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union" or "Annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union."
(3) Moreover, the title would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for over two decades, and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union", which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title.
(4) In a perhaps unintended but amusing POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, perhaps more amusingly, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944, which begins 5 years after the Baltic States and Soviet Union began military interactions (1939 Red Army actions) and 4 years after their annexation by the Soviet Union.
(7) The reason for this disconnect is that it is essentially a partial copy and paste job from this article, the Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why it was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
(8) Consensus should have been achieved before such a major move was attempted.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the idea was that annexation had happened in 1939, when WWII already started (after invasion of Poland), but yes, this unilateral move and protected redirect were highly unproductive. This is a complicated and sensitive subject that must first be debated.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems, all in all, that someone would wish an article entitled 1940 June revolutions in the Baltic states and the re-unification with the USSR. The article we had here did indeed note there was such a viewpoint present, too. --Miacek (t) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just submitted an ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union. Weigh in on the topic as desired.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union

I just submitted an ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union, the new article purporting to split off part of this article.

Weigh in on the topic as desired.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note - the split of this article is being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard [30] Novickas (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany

Can we move it now to Occupation of Baltic states by Nazi Germany because current title is based solely on Soviet POV? Oth (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be based on solely anti-Soviet POV.--Dojarca (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, "Baltic states" is the most common means of referring to the three, and you just played your hand, you want "republics" in the title because you want to indicate the Soviet SSRs were occupied, not that Nazi occupation was substituted for Soviet occupation. More of your same old same old. PetersV       TALK 05:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And you state "anti-Soviet POV" as if it is "anti-truth POV." I'm still waiting for scholarly sources backing the Russian Duma "joined legally according to international law" resolution. Until then, its "pro-historical facts" versus your "pro-Soviet fabrications". PetersV       TALK 05:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There is no difference in either saying 'Baltic states' or 'Baltc republics' since all Baltic states were before 1940 and also currently are republics. In case anybody wants to talk about the Baltic Democratic republics vs. the Baltic Soviet republics, the official names of independent Baltic states vs. Soviet Baltic states, than that's another story.--Termer (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment We went through this wailing and gnashing of teeth before with the pro-Soviet can't be occupied contingent going for "republic" as WP:OR implying SSR. As "Baltic states" is the most common means of referring to the three, that should be carried through all titles (despite their officially being republics during independence). "Occupation of the Baltic states" indicates one thing (only), "Occupation of the Baltic Republics" can be taken as states or ("officially") SSRs, the latter being the intended meaning on the part of its proponents with regard to the article title in question. PetersV       TALK 05:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stick with Baltic states... Republic is simply a form of state, and the form of state is not the topic. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet republics are always called republics, not states and the word 'state' empathizes their independence. By the time the Germany invaded the USSR, those lands were fully under Soviet control as Soviet republics and the "states" were represented by goverments in excile and exercised no control over the territory. Stating that the occupied entities wre 'states' clearly supports the so-called theory of 'doulble occupation'.--Dojarca (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Soviet takeover converted something that weren't republic into republics is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. And believe me, I've read some really ridiculous things today. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"theory of 'doulble occupation'"? They were occupied three times -- twice by the Soviet Union and once by Germany. This isn't theory, it's fact. No one disputes any of those occupations. The only dispute was, for international governments between 1940-1991, whether the annexed Baltic States were to also be legally recognized as members of the Soviet Union. Note that no outside country, including those recognizing the annexation, disputes that they were occupied or annexed by the Soviet Union (they obviously were, as has been recorded in day-by-day detail of the invasions, parliamentary imposition, purges and annexation). Rather, the only issue was whether to, despite that 1940 annexation and occuaption, politically move to some de jure recognition -- and most countries would not even do that. The two concepts clearly are not (and were not) mutually exclusive.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Theory of double occupation" is a theory that during 1941-1944 the states were under "double occupation" you can find the term here in the proceedings of the European Court of Human rights:[31] (Kononov vs. Latvia case). It is official theory in Latvia. For example they consider anti-Nazi partizans as "occupants" or those who helped occupants. --Dojarca (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dojarca The word 'state' empathizes their independence? The word 'state' doesn't mean it's necessarily independent (see State (administrative division) or U.S. state). The term for an independent state is Sovereign state, which also all the Soviet republics were according to the Constitution of the USSR.-> Republics of the Soviet Union-Sovereign Soviet Socialist states that had united with other Soviet Republics to become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. --Termer (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not like a U.S. state which is a part of the US. While technically I agree that the both terms ('republic' and 'state') can be used either to independent state and to a constituent part of the USSR, in practice the word 'state' is used nearly exclusively in the context to empathize the independence. Here I see no need to empathize the independence as Germany invaded the USSR, fought Soviet soldiers etc. Even more: the pro-independence governments served like pro-Nazi collaboratonist regimes and called the people to support German army (for example in Estonia). If an occupation is supported by the local government then it's not an occupation you see, it's invitation.--Dojarca (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples: State of Bavaria, the State of West Bengal, Lagos State. But I suspect you knew of them already. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the pro-independence governments? The only internationally recognized representation of the independent Baltic states during WWII were the accredited Baltic diplomatic missions in NY, USA. And what do the sources say about the Estonian underground government (not recognized internationally by anybody at the time) during WWII, Jüri Uluots, counting on a German debacle, supported the mobilization call during a radio address in hopes for restoring the Estonian Army and independence of the country. [32] And sorry to point out but calling this "served like pro-Nazi collaboratonist regimes" would be an inflammatory comment not helping the situation here I think.--Termer (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Things should be called as they are. Anyway this government cannot be called 'hostile' to German army. And as you know, the modern Estonian government counts themselves as successors of the government of Jüri Uluots --Dojarca (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

this government cannot be called 'hostile' to German army? Sorry but your comments and the use of Fascist (epithet) is insulting! "this government" was formed by the underground resistance movements in German-occupied Estonia in March 1944. [33] By April 1944 a large number of the committee members were arrested by the German security agencies. [34]. On 18 September, 1944, Estonian independence was re-declared in Tallinn. A provisional government was formed [35]The Estonian military units clashed with the German troops in Tallinn, seizing the government buildings in Toompea. [36]--Termer (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about this "government" established in the neutral strip of the front after German army evacuated and Soviet did not arrive yet. I also know they helped German army in evacuation.--Dojarca (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that the Otto Tief's government was created with the permission of the Nazi authorities and it used two flags as its symbols: the Estonian tricolor and the Nazi flag with swastika [37].--Dojarca (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

this above is no news. According to the President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves We are witnesses to the information war against Estonia which already reminds of an ideological aggression [38]. And according to Edward Lucas this is so because what really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another.[39][40]--Termer (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According A. Dyukov, there is a massive campaign of history falsofication ongoing in Poland and the Baltic states. Official revisionist structures Polish Intitutute of National Memory and Lithuanian Center of Genocide and Resistence beceme something like a political police, analogious state-sponsored structures exist in Latvia and Estonia. Also besided reseach institutions important role in history rewriting play museums of occupation. It is a specific phenomenon on the post-Soviet space.(...) The word 'museum' should not make confusion: the aim of those structures is not preservation of national memory, but its radical transformation in anti-Soviet and anti-Russian spirit. A Dyukov. Factories of historical myths.--Dojarca (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite telling that these so-called "official revisionist structures" are able to back their claims with facts and historical documents, while "historians" like Dyukov have only rhetorics and propaganda tricks. And, of course, support from Russian state. Please, do continue, perhaps there's somebody left who still hasn't figured out your mission and objective here. Põhja Konn (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Read his monographies if you think he has nothing aside rhetorics and tricks. For example, this: [41] "The Soviet Story:Forgery tissue", or this: [42] "Second grade enemy".--Dojarca (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read couple of his masterpieces, what do you expect I should have find there? Unsubstantiated claims, propaganda and "we know what happened, we have THE TRUTH". Besides, I'm not historian and even if I were, my personal opinion wouldn't matter here. Where are his other fellow historians around the world, seriously citing his writings, discussing his findings, where are Dyukov's own peer-reviewed and published works in respected publications? There aren't any, as this person is not "historian". Põhja Konn (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) Dyukov as anyone other than someone on a mission to promulgate Soviet fabrications as truth is well known. That he is trained as a historian does not make him a reliable source for anything other than the (current official) Russian POV. That horse has been beaten to death elsewhere. (Note who are pushing him as reputable.)

   To Hiberniantears, I appreciate your agreement (Agreed. Stick with Baltic states... Republic is simply a form of state, and the form of state is not the topic.) although you may be agreeing for the wrong reason, as the term "Baltic states" (which should technically be Baltic States) refers to states as independent, not as parts of any confederation or union.

   Lastly, what the Museum of Occupation of Latvia possesses is not POV clap-trap where the Soviet occupation is concerned. It has an extensive collection of Soviet documents that aren't the fabrications in archives (as in what Dyukov quotes, that Estonians rode off to Siberia in comfy coach trains, not cattle cars). But the pro-Russian position pushers know all this. PetersV       TALK 13:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And Dyukov cited from his own self-promotional blog, that's rich too. Let's see something from a scholarly peer reviewed journal on why we should believe Russian Duma proclamations regarding joining legally. To the uninvolved here, have you noticed that no one ever addresses that question? Wonder why. (No, actually I don't.) PetersV       TALK 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, on "Factories of Historical Myths." Who quotes that here as fact, that is, the contention that lifting the veil of 50 years of propaganda and lies is a sinister plot, just about sums it all up. Based on that alone Dyukov's bio article (created to support the illusion he is legitimate) should include a "conspiracy theorist" tag. And that, my dear Hiberniantears and John Carter, is just the tip of the iceberg. PetersV       TALK 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

My hat is off to Dojarca and Russavia who are still contending it's a popularity contest, I admire your dogged pursuit, even if historical facts are not your goal. As I've stated, it's quite simple, stemming from the Russian Duma declaring that joining was legal according to international law† and therefore no occupation.

1. Events
   1. Only technically LEGAL as entered into under duress, hence ILLEGAL: Mutual assistance pacts
   2. ILLEGAL: Invasion
   3. ILLEGAL: Deportations of government officials
   4. ILLEGAL: Installation of puppet regimes
   5. ILLEGAL: Non-elections
   6. ILLEGAL: Petitions to "join" the Soviet Union
   7. ILLEGAL: Occupation and subjugation under the Soviet Union for the duration from initial invasion, the initial stationing of troops being only technically legal and under duress
      1. Footnote: Russian SSR's treaty with Lithuanian SSR recognizing USSR's ILLEGAL acts against Lithuanian sovereignty
2. Soviet->Russian POV
   1. Stalinist
   2. Post-Stalinist
   3. Perestroika
      1. Including acknowledgement by treaty of occupation (in all but the word itself) regarding Lithuania, seems to have been forgotten by the current Russian administration
   4. Ergo, subsequent back-tracking to current official Russian position, "legally according to international law"
3. List of de jure, de facto, and non-recognition by country [as I've stated, interesting, but not the "legal according to international law" as stated by the Duma]

Essentially what we had before all this latest needless upheaval. PetersV       TALK 16:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
†Meaning legal according to Baltic, Soviet, international law and according to all treaties in place between the parties.

P.S. Dojarca and Russavia would have us believe that:

• #3 comes first, that is, it's all about who did and who didn't
• #2 comes second, that is, after all, there were so many countries that "recognized" annexation, that it was all OK is alleged to be the predominant international reaction and hence view as to "legality"
• #1 comes last, it's not about LEGALITY or ILLEGALITY, ILLEGALITY is a debased nationalist anti-Soviet Russophobic POV lie

I am merely proposing we put the world right-side up again. Have I missed something here? PetersV       TALK 17:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FACTS, SCHMACTS. Yes, you have missed quite a lot. Editors have been asked now for sources which indicate that the majority of countries did not recognise the incorporation of the 3 Baltic state into the Soviet Union. I have mentioned many countries, asking for their positions, and all I get is incoherent rants which do not answer the question. Where did Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Sri Lanka, etc stand on this issue? All I can see if a survey done in 1960, at a time BEFORE many countries gained their independence from European colonial powers (UK, France, Spain, Portugal, etc), and nothing else. Oh, and the other thing I get is personal attacks directed towards myself. The issue is no more than and no less than what I have stated. You can't keep rambling on about historical facts, but refuse to answer the question, and the only answers I have been given is an attack on a WP:BLP accusing him of being a Baltophobe. Just where did the 175 countries that don't make up the US/EU stand on the issue of de jure recognition of the incorporation of the 3 Baltic states into the Soviet Union? Let's not avoid those historical facts whilst attempting to state in the article "the majority of countries did not recognise the incorporation of the 3 Baltic state into the Soviet Union". --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps intriguing to know the answer to your question. It could be comprised to about a couple of lines in the article, since it would have remotely little to do with the outcome of whether the Baltic states were actually occupied or not. There has never been a referendum on what official opinion all of the countries of the world has on this issue at this very point in time. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you agitate the list is the only thing that matters, rather proving my point above, why not work on it yourself? I've already stated it would be informative and useful:

• Recognized/did not recognize annexation de facto
• Recognized/did not recognize annexation de jure

There are instances, for example, where official de facto recognition along with official de jure non-recognition was stated by a particular country. Recognition has to be explicit, otherwise it's a WP:OR interpretation. Also, you do know that recognition of the Soviet Union by a newly formed state subsequent to the Baltic annexation neither implicitly nor explicitly recognizes that annexation. PetersV       TALK 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the position of the Russian State Duma has nothing to do with the position of the governments in Luanda, Bamako, Niamey, Addis Ababa, Kathmandu, etc, etc. These positions are mutually exclusive of one another, and I must say it is somewhat odd that editors would say that the position of these other countries is irrelevant, whilst they are arguing that "the majority of countries did not recognise the incorporation of the 3 Baltic state into the Soviet Union". I am saying that in order for one to state in the article what is stated, the positions of these other countries are entirely relevant, particularly when what is in the article is a statement of fact. This has nothing to do with the Russian Duma, or whether the annexation/incorporation/occupation is legal or illegal, or anything other irrelevant notions, but it is directly challenging the statement that the majority of countries did not recognise the de jure incorporation of the 3 Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Nothing more, nothing less. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, where to start...

Alas, all I have is my baseless and violating WP:BLP attacks on the esteemed by Russavia Mr. Whitlam.

‘We don’t want any f***ing Vietnamese Balts here’ per the U.K. Spectator

Referring to persons of Baltic origin who have immigrated to Australia as undesirable boat people (and yes I can source that characterization, it's not mine) would generally be taken as Baltophobic, no? PetersV       TALK 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Luanda, Bamako, Niamey, Addis Ababa, Kathmandu, etc, etc.

   I have already fully supported your desire to make a full list to settle the recognition question once and for all. Have at it rather than continue shouting over it. Given your prodigious editing output, it shouldn't take you more than a day or two. Per your own stated position of PROVEIT (i.e., burden is on me to show that Whitlam didn't consult anyone, therefore his decision was suitably researched and validated), regarding your contention that majority non-recognition is not factual, I invite you to PROVEIT that it's wrong. (Actually, I invite you to construct the list, of course.)

   You ignore my position that recognition or not does not change the original legality or illegality of Soviet actions in the Baltics. You also ignore that as the Russian Duma declared all those actions legal (and therefore no occupation) there should be a demonstrable basis for that contention which I am more than glad to discuss and incorporate into the article if it exists. Shouting large letter fulminations not required. PetersV       TALK 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And you still refuse to answer the question, but try to deflect answering. Oh, and on Whitlam, I see you have found some great quotes from Australian politicians...our pollies down here have a way of saying things. I much rather prefer his ‘two headed Tasmanian fellatio’ (you can ask our resident Tasmanian Estophile about that one...PMSL). But, let me paraphrase another of our great politicians who had a knack for such quips. Discussing this with you further "is like being flogged with a warm lettuce." --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how Whitlam all of the sudden is just an amusing anecdotal aside, after my being called to task for attacking someone still alive. PetersV       TALK 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, more of your derisive responses about my "refusal"

When the article gets unprotected I suggest the following (I've nowiki'ed the reference for readability)

The annexation in 1940 by the Soviet Union of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, resulting from the secret agreements of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, was not recognized by the majority of states.<ref>Hough, William J. H., III. The Annexation of the Baltic States and Its Effects on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory. New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol. 6 no. 2 (Winter 1985)</ref>

As we've all surmised this is not a simple issue especially with successor states and all, I am therefore listing the entire work as a reference. (This is also how I find this work cited regarding the matter of recognition.) PetersV       TALK 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

---

(to Russavia) It is perhaps intriguing to know the answer to your question. It could be comprised to about a couple of lines in the article, since it would have remotely little to do with the outcome of whether the Baltic states were actually occupied or not. There has never been a referendum on what official opinion all of the countries of the world has on this issue at this very point in time.♥фĩłдωəß♥

---

Without a doubt, and I'm sure most editors understand that annexation, occupation and de jure/de factor/non-recongition are all entirely separate issues.

None of the small number of outside countries that even recognized the Baltics as being part of the Soviet Union that I've seen have done anything remotely like deny the illegal annexation and occupation. Nor would they, as the entire event was recorded in detail. Obviously, de jure or de facto recognition is merely the diplomatic stance of a country regarding relations, not some sort of rubber stamping of historic activity. The de jure/de factor/non-recognition debate is just a part of the article, but it has absolutely zero bearing on the title.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Philaweb There has never been a referendum on what official opinion all of the countries of the world has on this issue at this very point in time? The relevant facts have been simply removed from the article [43]: The Baltic annexation by the USSR de jure not recognised according to the August 8, 1960 survey:

John Hiden, Vahur Made, David J. Smith

Hiden, John (2008). The Baltic Question During the Cold War. Routledge. p. 120. ISBN 9780415371001. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

De jure non-recognition of Baltic annexation into the USSR

• Country - Notes
• Afghanistan - no official relations with Baltic representatives, no final decision on non-recognition policy.
• Australia - semi official relations maintained with Baltic representatives, de jure recognised for 17 months between July 1974-December 1975 by the Whitlam government.
• Canada - semi official relations maintained with Baltic representatives. De facto recognition accorded, de jure denied "The Government of Canada recognizes that Estonia has de facto entered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but has not recognised this de jure. The Government of Canada recognizes the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic to be the de facto government of Estonia but does not recognize it as the de jure government of Estonia."Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, p104
• Belgium - no final decision on non-recognition policy, no official relations with Baltic representatives, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Brazil - official relations with Baltic representatives.
• Chile - no diplomatic relations with USSR.
• China - (Lawrence Juda, United States' nonrecognition of the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States: Politics and law, Journal of Baltic Studies, Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 1975 , pages 272 - 290)
• Costa Rica - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Colombia - Some relations maintained with Baltic representatives, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Cuba - Some relations maintained, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Denmark - Some relations with Baltic representatives maintained, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Dominica - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• West Germany - Recognition of Baltic passports, no final decision on non-recognition policy, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Ecuador - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Ethiopia - no official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Germany - Recognition of Baltic passports, no final decision on non-recognition policy, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Finland - no official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy.
• France - maintained semi official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Iceland - no official diplomatic relations
• Greece - no official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Iran - no official relations with Baltic representatives.
• Ireland - no official relations, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Italy - de facto recognition accorded.
• Liberia - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Luxembourg - no official relations
• Mexico - some relations with Baltic representatives, no final decision on non-recognition policy.
• Netherlands - Visa de courtoisie granted to Baltic representatives in London, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Nicaragua - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Norway - no official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy.
• Portugal - no diplomatic relations with USSR, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Peru - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Paraguay - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Spain - maintained semi official diplomatic relations, had no diplomatic relations with USSR until 1977. no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Switzerland - some relations maintained, fiduciary of Baltic assets, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• Taiwan - no diplomatic relations with USSR
• Turkey - no official relations, no final decision on non-recognition policy
• United Kingdom - maintained semi official diplomatic relations, de facto recognition accorded.
• United States - maintained official diplomatic relations, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Union of South Africa - no official relations
• Uruguay - maintained official diplomatic relations
• Vatican City - maintained official diplomatic relations, no de jure nor de facto recognition accorded.
• Venezuela - no diplomatic relations with USSR

--Termer (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Termer, your answer misses my point twice (Quote myself):"There has never been a referendum on what official opinion all of the countries of the world has on this issue at this very point in time". 1). What you present is not a result of a referendum, diplomatic responses seldomly are. 2). "at this very point in time" was not dated. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ♥фĩłдωəß♥ but I completely miss your point. I'm not getting why would "all the countries of the world" care about the question in the first place, not to mention conduct any referendums on the issue. All interested international organizations and countries in the world who have opinion on the matter have expressed it clearly "at this very point in time", take the European Union, the US, or Russia etc. --Termer (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading ♥фĩłдωəß♥ incorrectly, I think he's just saying that no official referendum on the matter was taken, and that it is inconsequential anwyway to the occupation/annexation issue, which no one (outside of perhaps old Soviet propaganda) denies in 2009. Not that recognition was irrelevant. The diplomatic recongition issue is notable and relevant for the article, but just a diplomatic issue separate from the factual existence of annexations and occupations, which no credible source still denies.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hough

Hough's publication, referenced above, is probably the seminal work on the subject. I dug it out (from boxes in storage), and I quote from page 481 (note this was published in 1985), my emphasis:

The annexation of the Baltic States has served as a major precedent—one which has moved international law onto a plane much higher than existed in 1940. For the first time in recorded history, the majority of the members of the world community have refused over a lengthy period to recognize the legitimacy of title acquired through conquest.

I trust this puts this issue to rest and we can move on. I'm far enough along in middle age to request that we treat this as the serious topic it is, not make it out to be some puerile contest where only opinions count and the winner is based on volume—that is, numbers of whatever one is contending counts rather than facts, and shouting in the biggest letters.PetersV       TALK 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

David James Smith

Smith's book Estonia: Independence and European integration, Published by Routledge, 2001.

• Page xix: "With the exception of states such as Nazi Germany and Sweden, the international community condemned this illegal annexation and never gave legal recognition to the Soviet rule over the Baltic states. This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91."
• Chapter 2: "The Long Second World War: Estonia Under Occupation 1940-91" pp33-64

--Martintg (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Cassese

Cassese, Antonio (1995). Self-Determination of Peoples. p. 258. ISBN 9780521637527. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states.

--Termer (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy

McHugh, James. Diplomats without a country. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2. ISBN 9780313318788. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Separate entries for each of the Baltic states were maintained between 1940 and 1991 (the years of Soviet occupation) within certain source books, including the World Book Encyclopedia. Within that particular source, a curious fact was mentioned as an aside within each of the three relevant entries. Estonia (/Latvia/Lithuania) is a land on the Baltic Sea in northern Europe. It was an independent country for 22 years. But in 1940 Russia seized Estonia (/Latvia/Lithuania) and made it a state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Many countries, including the United States, do not recognize the Russian seizure of Estonia (Latvia/Lithuania). Such countries recognize Estonian (Latvian/Lithuanian) diplomats and consuls who still function in many countries in the name of their former governments.

--Termer (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect

Since the main objection (provide source for "majority") has been taken care of, I request the article be unprotected so editors can put the article back into shape. Per various discussions on various pages (article, arbitration, sysop,...) I believe the consensus can be stated as:

1. This article to remain and focus on events of Soviet occupation, then Nazi occupation, then Soviet re-occupation
2. The "split off" Baltic states and the Soviet Union article to be regarding (primarily) diplomatic relations between the Baltic States and USSR, from the inception (with Bolshevik Russia) through collapse, who did and did not grant explicit de jure recognition of annexation as SSRs, etc.
   

Our first step is to complete an orderly re-organization and deduplication with a minimum of updates to content. Once that is done we can discuss removing We also need to remove "during WWII" from the title as an arbitrary and historical non-sensical boundary as neither Western nor Soviet sources indicate any change in stated status of the Baltic States as SSRs since the annexation during the first Soviet occupation of 1940.
   I would also ask editors to consider renaming Baltic states and the Soviet Union to Baltic-Soviet relations to clarify the scope.PetersV       TALK 01:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

the main reason given by User:Hiberniantears for his undiscussed moves was Speaking from my own POV, that of an American who grew up during the Cold War, I was always under the impression that the Baltic states were part of the USSR... mainly because it was shown that way on every single map. Whether they wanted to be or not seems to be what this article should actually be about. [44]

The only question I have, since when any article on Wikipedia is suppose to be based on "my own POV"? I've met people who have been under an impression that the capital of Denmark is Sweden. Not to mention that few people outside of Scandinavia can even put the Baltic states on the map.

The policies are clear about it, Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly not on "personal impressions". Now, it s clear that Wikipeda editors who have chosen to take pride in their countries Soviet past reject the idea of Soviet Union forcefully occupying anybody, not to mention for 50 years like the sources given above say. Now, the question is if it's a "valid POV" like any other in the context or WP:UNDUE? I personally consider a POV that is based on once existed totalitarian regime not a serious suggestion. But to get a community consensus on it, if the POV of the Soviet style communism has any weight for WP purposes, I'd suggest before moving forward with the article here, the question about the "valid Soviet POV" needs to be clarified at WP:FTN & WP:RSN, and WP:RFC.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The last I heard, geography was only on 25% of U.S. school curricula. We are here exactly to lift the veil on "impressions" to reveal the facts (that is, facts, not WP:TRUTH). What the Soviet position and to what degree today's Russia's position mirrors or even exceeds it can all be explored in the relationship article. This article must be about the events of the occupations, no more, no less, and--as I indicated--for the duration. The degree to which a POV is held to be valid must be based on facts. I continue to ask, where is the factual basis for the Russian Duma declaring Latvia (and therefore the rest) joined legally according to international law? None has ever been produced in the two decades since the fall. Whereas evidence as to the illegality of Soviet actions--invasion and occupation--is plentiful and easily verifiable.

   Russia may insist the moon is made of cheese. Every Russian may believe it to be so as part of Soviet now Russian collective memory because they've been told that in the media and by their officials every day of their lives. But that something may be a belief in Russian collective memory through endless repetition does not imbue that belief with any validity whatsoever.

   I can hear the protestations. But if a government protests vehemently that the Baltics were not occupied, that a people are hurt that the Baltics call Soviet acts oppression and not liberation, who are we to deny the validity of their feelings? No one denies feelings here. We only, rightly, deny the falsehoods those feelings have been built on. PetersV       TALK 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Termer's above and the title of this article and its contents the primary clarification must be WP:RSN, that is, reputable sources regarding illegality and therefore occupation, and any reputable sources regarding legality and therefore not occupation (i.e., basis for the Duma declaration). PetersV       TALK 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Once that is done we can discuss removing "during WWII" as an arbitrary and historical non-sensical boundary as neither Western nor Soviet sources indicate any change in stated status of the Baltic States as SSRs since the annexation during the first Soviet occupation of 1940."

--Changing the name back to Occupation of the Baltic States (which is now a redirect) should be done immediately -- as in, within minutes of the protection being lifted. As it stands now, obviously, the title does not reflect the current substance of the article. As has obviously been discussed now on countless Administrative, Talk and other pages, the original move a few days ago just before the protection was clearly without consensus. If anyone is seriously still at this point considering limiting the article to pre-1945 -- which has been hammered home by now as a pretty historically nonsensical artificial partition, so I'm not sure anyone even still wants it -- any such proposals should be raised after the name was changed back to the status quo before the non-consensus change a few days ago.

--Also, agree on (1) and (2) above. If that occurs, some more of the treaty information should be moved to the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article before it is deleted from this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur that moving back article name to status quo, should be priority (taking into consideration the nature how that move was done). M.K. (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)P.S. if there will be a desire to move this article name to different one, WP:RM procedure should be applied.

Agree. That would be the natural thing to do. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. The status quo was stable, and is a good starting point for any future development, including possible future split.

If we're going to split the article, I can offer two possible ways: we could split off Nazi occupation in 1941-1944 into an article of its own, or we could split the Stalin's era of 1940-1953 from the 1953-1991. Both are reasonably well supported by available literature, and are independent of each other. I'm unconvinced that split is needed, but I think I can support either or both of these splits -- if the consensus arises, naturally. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Admins See my comment on keeping this page protected here. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note to Admins See my attempt at explaining that "stonewalling" et al. are not occurring and ultimately failed dialog with Hiberniantears here. I request Hiberniantears not delete that section from their talk page until this issue is settled. I have indicated to Hiberniantears that based on this latest failure I will not be contacting them directly further regarding this issue. PetersV       TALK 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended Course on Tendentious Editing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note - Hiberniantears just did the same with more attempts at discussion of prior stated views on the issue here. He labeled the archival as "The following section is archived for quarantine". No attempt at discussion or reply was made. I hadn't really looked at prior entries on his Talk Page until now, and he appears to have archived several discussions with Dojarca here. Note that I still do not think that this editor is acting out of bad faith, but rather was just initially drawn into a WP:Fringe position by another editor before opening any books on the issue, as is discussed here ("I'm in the same boat as you, as far as having detailed knowledge of the Baltic states is concerned. I jumped in without getting proper background...That they were considered occupied for the entire period of 1939-1991 is news to me") and here.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Yep, Hiberniantears has found The Truth, and won't let any amount of facts in the way of his enforcement thereof. He's a lucky bloke, most other truths at least require you to read a holy book such as Ruhnama, Das Kapital or The Road Ahead; he didn't need any of those. All he had to do was respond to a call of a newfound friend. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I may live in Boston, but I don't know The Truth. In any event, a modicum of due diligence would yield evidence that editors on both sides of this dispute think I'm blind to reason, and even the briefest look at Roman consul or Hypatus would demonstrate that. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I think the problem is that some editors feel you convicted them as a group before your involvement and that during the course of your involvement you have taken opposition to your editorial actions as being evidence of bad faith ("stonewalling" et al.) and taken any statement of taking exception to your actions as an escalation of same bad faith by those editors. Those editors have not escalated anything, nor have they demonstrated bad faith. Any editorial accusations against you have been in reaction to your actions which you stated you knew were going to be provocations. That you went ahead was taken as not listening to an entire community of editors. That you cut conversations off reinforces that perception. You actions on other articles doesn't matter to me, or that you (from your perspective) I am sure have not approached this dispute any differently than any other. This is not those topics. This has been described (scholarly source, non-Baltic) as the first time in recorded history that the majority of the world community refused over an extended period (published in 1985, 45 years after initial occupation) to recognize the acquisition of territory by force. Any event described as the first time in recorded history requires more in-depth familiarization than you devoted before involving yourself, seeming to judge all interactions and claims simply at face value or based on biases you appear to have developed. This is my personal impression of course, but I suspect there are others that might agree. As I've stated, the current impasse regarding your position is regrettable but likely to continue as I only see you cutting off dialog with those you apparently, from your actions, consider bad-faith POV-pushing WP:IDONTHEARYOU nationalists. I've had some constructive (I think) conversation with editor John Carter on my talk page recently, if you'd like to chat there with no strings attached, you're welcome, my talk page has been a forum in the past for resolving editorial conflict among editors dealing in good faith but nevertheless in conflict. PetersV       TALK 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I began quarantining my talk page when it became clear that Martin and Digwuren had no intention other than to accuse me of being this or that, and then lobbing insults. As for you, once it became clear that no matter what I said, you were not going to take the time to actually view my position, but instead were intent on doing your best to double the size of my talk page by restating your position over and over and over and over and over and over again, I cut of chatting with you on the grounds that I am not seeking to alter the content. My position is this: An article that is only called "Occupation of the Baltic states" lacks specificity, and when the intro to that article did not indicate what the article was about, but merely listed every organization that supported the as yet described position, then it was clear that there was at least a manual of style issue, but most probably an NPOV article. This edit was my initial attempt, acting as an admin, to introduce NPOV to the lead, followed by this and eventually this edit, both of which were meant to do the same thing: Preserve all content, and create a lead in line with the WP:MOS. These edits were reverted, first by Termer, and then by Digwuren with the following edit summary: "What a strange move from one who claims to understand international relations. For Justitia's sake, courts do not "hold views", courts "find" and "rule"!". The eventual article split was done for the same reason, and Erikupoeg quickly redirected the original article to itself. Likewise, when I opened a mediation case, the same group of editors simply declined to join. Of course I'm assuming bad faith with these individuals. However, to your credit, you were the only one who assumed good faith and attempted to work with my original edit [45] before you decided that I was just trying to push the Soviet/Russian view. There are Russian and Estonian and Latvian and Lithuanian nationalists editing here (even though nearly everyone claims to be Australian). Dojarca invited me to look at this, but I do not share his views of the world or history, just as it appears I do not share the views of many of you here. My job isn't to agree with you, nor is it to force an article to be about any given topic. However, I can enforce NPOV, and that is exactly what I did, without removing any content whatsoever. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I must say your comment above about my intention is a gross assumption of bad faith, I have not accused you of anything nor lob insults, I was merely attempting to understand your position. Also I don't know where you got the idea that "nearly everyone claims to be Australian" either. As been explained to you previously, mediation is a waste of time with people with who have admitted to having no knowledge of the topic area. As to your view of WP:NPOV, you seem to have forgotten WP:UNDUE, and in regard to the title WP:COMMONNAME. Martintg (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) By assuming bad faith from editors for simply not agreeing to your proposal to split and redirect the article, and calling them nationalists, you simply demonstrate your ignorance as an administrator and not the best side of you as a human being. Your desired goal of enforcing a NPOV has produced rather the diametric opposite result - the rise of a whole bunch of POVs. Make your own conclusions on your role here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC) And I would fully agree with you had that been what I did, but as you can see from my post just above your's, it is not. I'll assume good faith and just assume you did not read said post in its entirety. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Anyhow, at the time you made the edits, their exact purpose was totally unclear which was expressed loud and clear at this page, while you went on deep editing regardless of what anybody discussed here. Hence the hard time you're having at this page right now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Anywho, as you admit that you were mistaken, I accept your apology as well. Since you now see what my purpose was, rather than what you originally mistook it to be, I fail to see what the problem is. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) RE:Hiberniantears These edits were reverted, first by Termer?? There is one thing I'm most sure of, I haven't reverted anybodies edits in this article. Please provide evidence for your statement or please withdraw such an accusation! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Amend your statement. Apology accepted. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) You have offered a diff showing you reverting Termer's edit and offer it as evidence of Termer reverting you. Do you have linked the right diff? --Martintg (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I showed my reversion of Termer's reversion because Peters made a decent edit in between and I didn't want him included in the dif. You would have seen this if you had taken three or four seconds to look at the page history. This dif includes Termer's reversion, over a series of edits, as well as Peters edits, which are fine. Make an effort and look at the page history in order to fully grasp the situation, because in this series of edits, Termer is the problem, while Peters is not. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) RE:HiberniantearsWell, I'm confused what exactly are you accusing me of? I haven't reverted you or anybody , yet you say "Termer is the problem". It's even more confusing because according to the edit history it has been you who has reverted several of my edits without any explanation: [46]. If you have or had a problem with my edits, feel free to explain. Simply removing the things that I've got from published sources and then accusing me of reverting you instead, sorry but it doesn't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) PS: I went through the edit history in order to find out what may have been the cause of "Termer is the problem"? The first edit after Hiberniantears comes from Vecrumba who has removed "is a term which" [47] (not a problem according to Hiberniantears above), originally added by Hiberniantears. [48]. My post Hiberniantears and Vecrumba edits start with adding the Footnotes section to the references [49] after which I spent adding references, quotes and citations to the article according to secondary published sources.[50] [51] [52] [53] [54], also spelling out the POV of the Russian government [55]. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong but the way I'm reading Hiberniantears: "Termer is the problem" because I've added sources to the article and I also spelled out the alternative viewpoint according to those sources? That was the reason why you Hiberniantears reverted some of my edits without any explanations? like for example me adding sources saying that military occupation and subsequent annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union remains to this day one of the serious unsolved issues of international law [56] that was reverted blindly [57] --Termer (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I think we're talking about the removal of content by Hiberniantears and me reverting it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Nope. That was later, and a problem in its own right. Just read my post above... it take seconds. We're talking about this series of edits by Termer, which adds refs and rolls back my change to the original. Sneaky, but obvious. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Got you Hiberniantears! adding references and sources to an article is what makes Termer a problem for you. However, this is only your problem, not a problem for Wikipedia. And I hope to be such a problem in the future to anybody who prefers to edit articles according to their personal opinions, not according to secondary published sources. just please remember that removing sourced material from Wikipeida may be considered WP:Vandalism and at the same time, any unsourced text, claims, commentary may be challenged by anybody at any time. Sorry that this is a problem for you.--Termer (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC) You honestly only read half of every sentence I write. There is nothing wrong with the adding of refs. What you did that was inappropriate was to use the addition of refs to hide that you were actually rolling back my change. That was sneaky, but obvious. Your comments here, such as the "got you!" exclamation just above, demonstrates that this is exactly what you are doing to obfuscate the issue to make it appear as if I was engaged in a content dispute with you. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I'm really sorry in case anything looked like I was "rolling back your change". What I did, edited the article according to the sources/refs available. And in that sense, actually I'm not surprised that the article started to look more what did the sources say instead of the edits according to your personal interpretations. And once again, there only can be a content dispute if there are conflicting variable perspectives according to secondary published sources. And the bottom line, I'm not going to ever discuss things on what anybody personally might think about the subject. Show me your sources and what do they say and we can add it to the article without any fuzz. Any unsourced claims however, need to go. Sorry again but that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. --Termer (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC) And so, having been exposed for trying to confuse the issue, you change tack and begin discussing content and sources, as if I had made any additions or deletions of content or sources. Good tactic. Flawed attempt. I moved content inside the article. Nothing was deleted. For it to have ended up where it did after your edits were completed, you would have had to manually put it there. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC) having been exposed? I change tack? What are you talking about Hiberniantears?? The edit history is there for everybody to see and according to it you have blindly reverted one of my edits, yet you accuse me of ..I have no idea of what. I edit any article on Wikipedia following WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, and in case any of your previous edits you had made in this article were in conflict with what did the sources say, those may have been obviously changed because of it. I don't or haven't follow your edits around, I read what do the sources say and in case an article on Wikipedia is not in sync with it, I make the edits and necessary changes. It seems that in the process your additions were changed and you taking it personally? Nothing personal Hiberniantears, in case you add a source or a citation to any of your edits "according to whom this is so", we're not going to have any further problems.--Termer (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) And having been fully exposed on all fronts you simply restate your false premise again. Throw in some question marks, or feigned outrage for good measure, and your obfuscation of the issue is complete. Tendentious editing in the article, combined with a sense of innocence and outrage on the talk page. Very clever. This is text book strategy on your part. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (od) Dear Hiberniantears, please consider that you are taking any and all acts by Baltic editors as implicit acts of bad faith. My experience with editor Termer over an extended period--regardless that we are on the so-called same "side"--is that he is an editor of integrity (that is, with scholarly sources fairly represented). Before you go accusing people of "text book" strategies (on which there is a clear disagreement if not outright confusion), remember you are the one who split against consensus and salted to start this whole affair. That is as "text book" as it gets. Please either stop throwing stones in glass houses or simply recuse yourself from this topic. PetersV       TALK 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Thus, upon exposing the tactics and flaws in one editor's commentary (Termer) to the point that he is decisively shown to be acting in bad faith, a second editor enters the debate (Vecrumba) and makes a different false accusation (that is: that you are taking any and all acts by Baltic editors as implicit acts of bad faith) which again is meant to derail conversation from the original topic (neutrality). Behold, the Tag Team Maneuver. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Dear Hiberniantears, I value my integrity. Please retract your accusations of bad faith, I will not be smeared by a sysop who has lost all perspective on a matter. PetersV       TALK 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) As for "neutrality" in presenting historical events without bias, please see my Wikilawyering below. PetersV       TALK 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) RE: Hiberniantears fully exposed on all fronts? my false premise again? The way I'm reading this, are you just trying to provoke me? And yes, I'm fully exposed, I've edited the article according to published sources and refs available and there is nothing wrong with that.--Termer (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Now, here we have an example of an editor who was seeking to provoke, but was used as an example of tendentious editing instead, now asking if the analysis of this thread as a lesson is an act of provocation. This is, of course, another classic tool used to provoke an administrator into an angry outburst. My experience has shown that it is perhaps one of the more clever tricks out there, since any angry outburst by a responding administrator is then shown to demonstrate that administrator's bias. The ultimate goal is to create a variety of things. First, discrediting the administrator in question. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Second, creating further Wikidrama, which is part of the ultimate goal of obfuscating the original issue (in this case, a sneaky rollback). The Wikidrama itself is a means to an end since it generally bores the wider community, resulting in the departure from the debate by any third party editors and administrators who may have entered the debate. Upon all third parties "giving up", the dominant party on a given article can then go back to dominating said article. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) RE: Hiberniantears I would appreciate if you could limit your comments on content instead commenting on what have been my intentions in your opinion. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Of course, here we have a key tactic essential to any successful Filibuster. By having their misbehavior pointed out again, the offending party cries foul and attempts to turn the thread back to a discussion on "content". The strategy here is to get those parties to AGF and reengage in discussing the topic, not realizing that content is the last thing the filibustering party actually intends to discuss. If nothing else, this tactic is effective in dragging out any conversation until neutral third parties grow tired and move on. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) RE: Hiberniantears reading your comments have been very educational indeed. I've learned many new wikiterms, like stonewalling, WP:FILIBUSTERS etc. However, please let me know when you are ready to talk about the content, the sources and about the article in general. That's what this talk page is for, after all. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC) So concludes our lesson for the day on how and when administrators should call a spade a spade. Please join us tonight for an exciting seminar on how to derail the Wikipedia's conflict resolution process through the combined arms technique of Wikilawyering, canvassing, and sock/meat puppetry. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Your increasingly derisive and vile contentions have no place here as a sysop and someone who cuts short and "obfuscates" dialog on their own user talk page. Take a break. Stop seeing Red. Oh, sorry, according to you that would be me and my meatpuppets. Seriously, take a day away from this to restore some perspective. PetersV       TALK 21:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The old name Occupation of the Baltic states is far more neutral than the current name Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II, since the new name is more controversial as it implies a particular POV that occupation was restricted to WW2, whereas the original name makes no claim of duration either way. Clearly there is a body of post-Cold War academic work and numerous Western government declarations that supports the view occupation lasted 50 years, while the Russian government declarations supports the view that occupation ended at the end of WW2, both of these view points are covered in the article itself according to weight. Since the main bone of contention is the duration of the occupation, the original title is far more neutral. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. The title "Occupation of the Baltic states" is the neutral middle ground between "Occupation of the Baltic states (1940-1991)" and "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II". --Martintg (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support moving this article back and unprotection per talk above.Biophys (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Outcome

Okay, looking at the discussion in this section, there seems to be no dissenting voices here for unprotecting the redirect Occupation of the Baltic states and moving this article back as the more neutral title (Hiberniantears has claimed numerous times he is not a party to this content "dispute", so we can disregard his viewpoint on this content issue). --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we have one of my favorites. Martintg, thank you so much for volunteering to help with my course. Alleging a consensus, while challenging the ethical integrity of an administrator is usually a tool that is employed later in any issue involving tendentious editing. While this example only calls on the consensus of one side of the debate to be represented, it is not entirely unusual for two sides of the debate to tie up an article talk page with endless threads making opposing claims of consensus while calling suspect the ethics of any involved administrators. It is an easy to use device that is difficult to defend against. A must have in the toolbox of any tendentious (or aspiring tendentious) editor. Fortunately, in this particular example, two AN/I's were recently opened and closed on the topic, so the claim itself is moot. Nonetheless, it stands as a fine example of how to trip up any uninvolved editors or administrators who may take a look at the larger dispute. I give it a B+. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What larger dispute? The article was stable since 2007, and the name stable since its creation. You admitted yourself you originally moved the page against consensus. Martintg (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One possible option would be list the requested move in WP:Proposed_moves, although I believe it had to be moved back per AndryK ArbCom ruling.Biophys (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

Anyone can move it now but Hiberniantears didn't bother changing the name back to the original before the unilateral move. Occupation of the Baltic States still exists. We can copy and paste the text back over to it, but it will nuke the history. Maybe someone should shoot Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus or another admin not involved in the prior unilateral move a message to move it so we can do it and keep the history of this page.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs an admin to do the move, since the redirect has history. Martintg (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of going around to another administrator or a copy/paste job, I've actually attempted to just engage Hiberniantears here to get him to restore the page to its original name before the unilateral move and sysop protect, especially since its material therein is clearly outside the scope of "World War II". I still don't believe that he originally acted out of bad faith and this would be the simple low drama way to restore the article name prior to the unilateral move and protect, and the article name that actually reflects the material therein (which is well outside the scope of World War II).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. I unprotected everything to demonstrate your bad faith. I made the moves. I reported my moves to AN/I for feedback. That feedback was deemed appropriate by the community. I was re-reported to AN/I. Again, my actions were deemed appropriate. I decline your request to move the page, but do not object to another admin doing it. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: " I unprotected everything to demonstrate your bad faith."

You've got to be kidding me. A simply unreal statement coming from an "administrator".Mosedschurte (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Latvijas okupācija (1940.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but lv:Latvijas okupācija (1940.) seems to be only about the occupation of Latvia. Hence it is not a correct interwiki for this article and should be removed (or replaced with the proper article at lv wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Naturally --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not even that; it only concerns the first Soviet occupation of Latvia, which began before the world War II. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To my recollection WW2 began 1 September 1939. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends. September 1939 is the start for Poland, which was invaded then. Germany had already annexed Bohemia and Moravia in March of 1939; this was sort of a harbinger to the upcoming war, and is sometimes considered a part of it.

In Far East, the Japanese invasion of China had began years earlier, in 1937 already.

The part that is relevant here is what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War. The start date for this is generally considered June 22, 1941.

And of course, for Americans, the war didn't start until the attacks on Pearl Harbour, in December of 1941. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off topic, but most Americans (and most of the world) considers World War II to have started with the September 1, 1939 German invasion of western Poland (followed two weeks later by the coordinated Soviet invasion of eastern Poland), even though America did not become directly involved until December 7, 1941.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you are not an anglophone. September 1939 was not only the start for Poland, but also the British Empire. Even though never invaded, the British Empire declared war on Germany 3 September 1939, thus expanded the conflicts to a World war. The Great Patriotic War is not particularly relevant since the World war was already active. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 03:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now what? I make a point about the war being big and different countries starting the fighting at different times, and you brush it off saying I should behave as an uneducated jerk and say that the war started when it started for me?

When we're discussing whether a particular action by USSR happened before or after the start of the war, the relevant date is the date of USSR entering the war. Officially, USSR claims it entered the war in June of 1941, when Operation Barbarossa was launched. A number of warlike actions by USSR happened before that date, and that's what we're talking about here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a statement that ended: "...which began before the world War II", that was the part I originally commented on. If you follow the wikilinks I have made in my previous answer, you will see what the definition of a World war is - and it does not equal "Great Patriotic War". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 07:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The US didn't enter the war, but they were well aware it had begun. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The beginning and the end of WWII is dated differently according to different sources. At the time when September 1 1939 is the most common dating for the beginning of WWII, there are several other interpretations like pointed out above. Please familiarize yourself with the subject, a brief overview and relevant sources are also available at WW_II#Chronology.--Termer (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears' accusations

I suggest Hiberniantears take a day off regarding their charges of (I'll spare the diffs):

• Wikilawyering,
• canvassing, and
• sock/meat puppetry [sock puppetry] and
• [meat puppetry]

But let's start with "tendentious". Apparently, contending that historical narrative should be first based on a reputable accounting of the facts, including fact-based interpretations, followed by dissenting opinions (that is, those based on fabrications of events), is pushing personal agendas. "Objective" is "no POV is the truth", but it is not "represent all POVs as valid regardless of factual basis." That's OK, I'll just be denounced as someone who thinks they are the holder of the WP:TRUTH.

• The above, I believe, is an example of the afore-mentioned "Wikilawyering", that is, contending that there are historical facts that exist and can be verified reputably and represented fairly and accurately OUTSIDE of any POVs (whether fact or fiction).
• Canvassing -- Exactly where? All the Baltic editors here have been involved all along. Hiberniantears was "canvassed" by Dojarca to participate. And here he is. And on the article deletion page (for the second article) I see the long-lost Ghirlandajo has come back to vote.
• Sock puppets -- Exactly who? I expect a retraction.
• Meat puppets -- Exactly who? A community of editors that holds the same viewpoint of historical events because they are in possession of the same set of verified historical facts? If one contended the sky is green and 20 editors contended it was blue, that does not make those 20 editors "meat puppets" for disagreeing. I suggest Hiberniantears take a couple of days off to reflect on their vitriolic conduct here. PetersV       TALK 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any sysop who starts off comments with "Behold" should consider recusing themselves from further activity. PetersV       TALK 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I present here to you students the beginning of our next promised lecture. Wikilawyering. Please read the above case study generously volunteered to us by Peters, a highly accomplished and esteemed graduate of wikilaw school. It isn't his best work, but is concise and meets the basic requirements needed to illustrate the concepts of this lesson. I'll need 500 words from each of you on what you view as the the fundamental techniques used to Wikilawyer in the case study. Please have these to me by no later than 5pm EST, Thursday. Good luck, and please feel free to ask any questions regarding this assignment. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're projecting. Face it, you lost the initial discussion on its merits -- and it's not any wonder, because Dojarca misinterpreted the issue at hand, and you mistakenly trusted him on this --, and now you're trying to convince yourself, using your superiour hands-on knowledge of wikidisruption, that you only lost because Teh Other Side consisted of evil disruptive geniuses. Quit trolling and discuss the merits, or follow Peters' advice and leave. Your continued attempts to ascribe to others techniques you introduced yourself will not serve you. To the contrary, these diffs will provide strong evidence in the upcoming ArbCom proceedings regarding your fitness for administrative duty. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment, this isn't the venue for this kind of discussion, let's keep it on topic. Perhaps an RFC/U may be a more appropriate venue to discuss Hiberniantears behaviour, as suggested here: either Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct or Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges, or both, I'm not sure. Martintg (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have attempted to engage Hiberniantears in a reasoned discussion over the genuine difference between historically verified fact and scholarly analysis thereof versus historically disproved fabrications and fact-free pronouncements regarding same, that those are not two equally "valid POVs." All I have accomplished is to have my integrity attacked by a sysop, and in the most derisive, disparaging manner possible. My position, as I've stated here, above, as clearly and succinctly as possible, has been labeled as everything from stonewalling to Wikilawyering. Facts are inconvenient things. That they are inconvenient to the unsubstantiated Soviet POV is not a phenomenon of my creation, it is of Soviet creation. Yet, apparently, I am the guilty party. There is no WP:TRUTH involved, only simple, stark, naked, unflinching facts. The moon is not made of cheese despite protestations to the contrary. Throughout some of the worst contentious editing possible, including battling paid propaganda pushers, I have not initiated administrative action against any article or editor, preferring to slog it out based on sources (which has cost me well over a thousand dollars to buy sources not even available at the library). I have been proud of my record defending my editorial position based on sources without resorting to attack tactics. PetersV       TALK 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Add to Hiberniantears behavior that he just made the following unbelievably odd statement to me above: "I unprotected everything to demonstrate your bad faith." Of particular humor in making the statement, Hiberniantears actually stated "the community approved of my move", perhaps under some utterly twisted reading of the fact that no action was taken on ANI or he wasn't de-sysoped. Simply unreal.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Antics like this are why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiberniantears is necessary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

School's Out For Summer

Now let's see if we can apply these lessons in the real world. Students, I call on you to demonstrate that you have learned the valuable lessons of this course, and thank you for your protection. Page protection may now end. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you have changed the protection level of the page, I guess this is okay since we don't want anon IPs vandalizing the page. --Martintg (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All I'm going to say about that is this: Look at the time stamps between when you left your note, and when I unprotected that page (hint: you should really look into things like that before posting stuff). Hiberniantears (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So? I re-factored my comment appropriately. --Martintg (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good show!

I say, this page is rather talkative - all these black thingies on white background. Wish I had a penny for each letter. Cheerio laddies. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I speak for any community of editors, far from it, but if others agree as indicated elsewhere that there is no point to taking the current alleged content dispute (the Hiberniantears affair) any further through ArbCom, I believe we should be able to get back to editing, starting with the WP:BOLD move of archiving most if not all of the above. PetersV       TALK 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No archive until you can find someone willing to make the move. It is important for them to understand just what they're stepping into. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is simply too big at this point. Let me know if you are OK with archiving earlier materials and leaving the latest round of discussion on this page as a visible but "do not modify" section. We can start a fresh dialog below that, including the discussion of any proposed article moves (if I interpret your note properly). PetersV       TALK 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I looked back through the page again and keeping all of the latest visible is still too huge and there is also all the off-topic discussion on alleged heinous editorial behavior which we can all do without. I would suggest archiving after perhaps coming up with a table of contents for structuring discussion going forward:

• agreement on timeframe of occupation/non-occupation of Soviet presence (from both perspectives, no break @ end of WWII)
• discussion of article organization (editor John Carter has provided some useful input elsewhere)

Just a thought. Or we can {{hab}}...{{hat}} the entire prior contents and leave in place. Anyone interested can expand to read. PetersV       TALK 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That the split-off relations article has been closed as a "keep" also makes this a good point for a fresh discussion in terms of what goes where. PetersV       TALK 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Now that this is all closed for now, I'm taking a Wikibreak while my elderly mother (97) gets transferred to nursing from the hospital. If I've been less than indulgent, my tolerance for wasting time on less than fully informed postulating (recall, my perception!) has been rather lacking for good reason the last couple of weeks. To Hiberniantears, if that has made our exchanges less congenial than otherwise, my apologies. PetersV       TALK 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections to giving all the section a hat/hab. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-split, target content

With the "keep" closure on Baltic states and the Soviet Union it is time to complete separating contents. I propose that this article be the events of the duration that the Baltic States were occupied (by both aggressors) and that the other article focus on the relationship of the Baltic States and Soviet Union dating back to Bolshevist Russia. PetersV       TALK 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this. --Martintg (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)