The Last Angry Man (talk | contribs) →POV tag.: And were was I the last three months? |
|||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
::::::::::Oh, lighten up, Russavia. Would it kill you to give the new kid on the block a rundown of what has been going on here? ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::::Oh, lighten up, Russavia. Would it kill you to give the new kid on the block a rundown of what has been going on here? ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::He is not new by any means [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states&diff=434213152&oldid=434152436] ([[User:Igny|Igny]] ([[User talk:Igny|talk]]) 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)) |
:::::::::::He is not new by any means [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states&diff=434213152&oldid=434152436] ([[User:Igny|Igny]] ([[User talk:Igny|talk]]) 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)) |
||
{{od}}You seem to forget i was unjustly blocked for the last three months, I had no time to follow any debates before my block. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:49, 11 September 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notice to new editors
PLEASE REVIEW THE ARCHIVES IF YOU ARE VISITING THIS TOPIC FOR THE FIRST TIME. MOST BASIC QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS STATEMENTS OF POSITION BY WESTERN, BALTIC, AND OFFICIAL RUSSIAN SOURCES HAVE BEEN COVERED THERE.
Side discussion (another)
Well, in light of your own words (taken from another talk page): " I prefer to represent what sources (plural) state, while you appear content to represent a source (singular) as what "mainstream sources" ", can you answer the following question:
- "As I have persuasively demonstrated, about a half of reliable sources speak about "annexation" (or absorption, or incorporation) of the Baltic states by the USSR, and another half use the term "occupation". I insist on the usage of both terms. You insist on "occupation" only. How can it be reconciled with this your statement (which I quoted above)?"--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Paul, you actually do not realize that you and Vecrumba talk about 2 different things? You use italic and Vecrumba bold, and still are not able to get on the same page with this. or did your last post mean you insist on the usage of both terms for (as Vecumbra put it):a continuous span of time regarding the presence of two foreign powers over three contiguous time periods? The Baltic states were annexed by the Sovet Union and Nazi Germany?--Termer (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Baltic states were illegally annexed (absorbed, incorporated, occupied) by the USSR in 1940, militarily occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, conquered by the USSR (as a result of the war with Nazi Germany), and the annexation was de facto recognized by majority of foreign states. Vecrumba argues that, since Germany did not annexed the Baltic states, we cannot speak about annexation by the USSR. However, a considerable part, if not majority of sources say that the USSR annexed the Baltic states, and do not speak about continuous military occupation. In connection to that, and taking into account that Vecrumba declares his adherence to what all variety of reliable sources say, I would like to know how Vecrumba proposes to reflect this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
it might be me but I haven't seen Vecrumba saying since Germany did not annexed the Baltic states, we cannot speak about annexation by the USSR. So I still don't thing you're on the same page with this. On the other hand you say majority of sources say that the USSR annexed the Baltic states, and do not speak about continuous military occupation. Isn't that self explanatory. how else was the SU able to keep the Baltic states annexed if not by continuous military occupation.--Termer (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul: Your wording belies your "Soviets" were "more of an intervention." The Baltics were militarily invaded by the USSR, Nazi Germany, by the USSR. You continue to make the initial Soviet onslaught to be something other than the crushing (Malksoo's word) of the Baltics by overwhelming military Soviet force. That the Baltics chose not to fight to the death to the likely eradication of their peoples does not make the first Soviet invasion kinder and gentler, or not an act of war against the Baltic states. Even the initial stationing of Soviet troops under the pacts of mutual assistance, having been exacted by explicit military threat of invasion, was a coercive and illegal act of aggression. That initial stationing was the only act which was not an overt invasion, merely the insurance that when the invasion did come there was no chance of resistance because of the tens of thousands of Red Army already stationed in Baltic territory. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)- You argument would be relevant if we argued for renaming the article to Occupation and Soviet intervention or some such. We have established that terms like liberation and intervention are probably not the best choice for this article, and that the term occupation is used widely enough to stay in the title. It is however not important because the neutral term annexation is even more widely used by almost everyone,and it does not embellish any Soviet action during the WW2. (Igny (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC))
- As I've stated there's no need to rename the article to anything else. It is not a case of "occupation" is a "bad" word and "annexation" is a "neutral" term. That is your POV contention. An invading power displacing sovereign authorities is an occupation, plain and simple. Whether or not territory was subsequently "annexed" or not is immaterial. It is not a choice of one or the other. Annexation neither precludes nor terminates occupation. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)- Again, that particular argument would be relevant if we argued to remove term occupation from the title. We don't. (Igny (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC))
- You've lost me, why would we remove "occupation" from the title of an article about "occupation"? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- Peters, Igny argues that we do not request to remove the word "occupation" from the articles about the Baltic states, but you insist on removal of the term "annexation" (although that would contradict to what reliable sources say). That contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction of policy as occupation and annexation are not mutually exclusive as some have argued. Furthermore, "annexation" appears where dealing with only the first Soviet occupation although some have lobbied for 1944 as well, contrary to facts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current title. You respect Malksoo, he says the Soviets "crushed" and "occupied" the Baltics. The current title is in full compliance with reputable sources. Do not imply I advocate for content which ignores WP policies and standards. Putting "annexation" in the title implies there was some period of "annexation" and not "occupation," which is not the case. One should not imply what is not factual. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- As the previous discussion demonstrated, there are issues, and, as the sources demonstrate, annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive in general (I provided the sources that demonstarte that, and, therefore, that is not my personal contention). With regard to the Baltic states, the language used by reliable sources is mixed, and your constant and persistent refusal to concede that is not a demonstration of your good faith. Instead of wasting the time in fruitless discussions, you should have to switch to something more productive, for instance, to the discussion how to explain in this article the fact that, although annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive in general, the sources dealing with the Baltic states use the first or the second terms, or combine them together. The situation is unusual, and it needs is explanation.
- I decided not to insist on addition of the word "annexation" to the title, and that was a demonstration of my good faith and readiness to consensus. I saw no similar demonstration from your side so far. Please, stop to reject the obvious, and stop to claim that others present their personal views, whereas in actuality that is what the reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction of policy as occupation and annexation are not mutually exclusive as some have argued. Furthermore, "annexation" appears where dealing with only the first Soviet occupation although some have lobbied for 1944 as well, contrary to facts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current title. You respect Malksoo, he says the Soviets "crushed" and "occupied" the Baltics. The current title is in full compliance with reputable sources. Do not imply I advocate for content which ignores WP policies and standards. Putting "annexation" in the title implies there was some period of "annexation" and not "occupation," which is not the case. One should not imply what is not factual. PЄTЄRS
- Peters, Igny argues that we do not request to remove the word "occupation" from the articles about the Baltic states, but you insist on removal of the term "annexation" (although that would contradict to what reliable sources say). That contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've lost me, why would we remove "occupation" from the title of an article about "occupation"? PЄTЄRS
- Again, that particular argument would be relevant if we argued to remove term occupation from the title. We don't. (Igny (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC))
- As I've stated there's no need to rename the article to anything else. It is not a case of "occupation" is a "bad" word and "annexation" is a "neutral" term. That is your POV contention. An invading power displacing sovereign authorities is an occupation, plain and simple. Whether or not territory was subsequently "annexed" or not is immaterial. It is not a choice of one or the other. Annexation neither precludes nor terminates occupation. PЄTЄRS
- You argument would be relevant if we argued for renaming the article to Occupation and Soviet intervention or some such. We have established that terms like liberation and intervention are probably not the best choice for this article, and that the term occupation is used widely enough to stay in the title. It is however not important because the neutral term annexation is even more widely used by almost everyone,and it does not embellish any Soviet action during the WW2. (Igny (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC))
- @Paul: Your wording belies your "Soviets" were "more of an intervention." The Baltics were militarily invaded by the USSR, Nazi Germany, by the USSR. You continue to make the initial Soviet onslaught to be something other than the crushing (Malksoo's word) of the Baltics by overwhelming military Soviet force. That the Baltics chose not to fight to the death to the likely eradication of their peoples does not make the first Soviet invasion kinder and gentler, or not an act of war against the Baltic states. Even the initial stationing of Soviet troops under the pacts of mutual assistance, having been exacted by explicit military threat of invasion, was a coercive and illegal act of aggression. That initial stationing was the only act which was not an overt invasion, merely the insurance that when the invasion did come there was no chance of resistance because of the tens of thousands of Red Army already stationed in Baltic territory. PЄTЄRS
Paul, your argument "annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive" is predicated on the premise that a legal annexation occurred, i.e. that the Baltic states were legally incorporated into the Soviet Union. But no source claims legal incorporation occurred. As Deitrich Loeber states: "The claim to a lawful annexation has been characterised in legal writing as an 'outsider' position'". In other words it is a fringe viewpoint. If you are not insisting of the addition of the word "annexation" to the title, why are you not directing your comments to Igny, he is the one with the issue with the title, do you not see all this discussion over the title is stalling the development to the rest of the article? --Martin (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- My argument is not predicated on this premise. I never saw in the literature that, according to the XX century international laws, the de facto annexed territories are deemed military occupied if the annexation was illegal. You may find such statements in some contemporary sources dealing with the Baltic states specifically, however, that was not a common practice in XX century. Yes, it was not a legal annexation, but it was not a military occupation either. The terms "annexation" (without "illegal") "absorption", incorporation, etc, along with such a term as "period of annexation" (see e.g. the Hoover institution web site) are used as wide as the term "occupation".
- However, this argument has been repeated so many times that I even do not know what else should be added to that. The issue is clear: despite a large amount of reliable source state the opposite, I do not insist on the word "annexation" in the title. That step is a demonstration of my good faith, and I expect similar steps from you. Are you ready to demonstrate your good faith?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, re: "are mutually exclusive in general" is immaterial, the Baltics set the precedent in international law, what generally applies does not pertain to this case. As for "not a military occupation" that is no better than the Russian Federation stating there was no declaration of war between the USSR and the Baltics ergo no occupation. Of course it was the Soviet military that secured the territory and kept it secured for the entire duration of the Soviet presence/ era/ occupation. Or was it my imagination, hectares upon hectares of still closed off territory and
Red ArmyRussian Army joy riding in their troop transports even after independence, mainly to intimidate the locals while Russians conversed openly in the street "Next time, we'll send them ALL to Siberia"? That you insist general practice take precedence over the Baltics specifically would indicate, well, you know, I'm tired of trading barbs on "good faith". That you present yourself as dealing in good faith and others as not speaks for itself. Lastly, not insisting on "annexation" in the title is a concession only to your editorial point of view, not a concession to those whom you would consider your editorial opposition who are only representing applicable reliable sources fairly and accurately. PЄTЄRSJV ►TALK 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- @Paul: You implicitly postulate that "occupation" can only be a "military" occupation administered by the military, that an ostensibly civilian administration (regardless that it was put in place and kept in place by overwhelming military force) of "annexed" territory cannot be an occupation. That is wrong, plain and simple. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 22:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- @Paul: All the previous discussion demonstrates is that you and Igny insist on disagreeing. That does not mean there is an actual content issue. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- The term "civilian occupation" [1] means the activity, or principal business of someone during his civilian life. Please, provide the examples of what you believe is "non-military occupation" (with sources).
- Re your second point, let me remind you the Ford's phrase: "A car may be of any colour provided that it is black". Similarly, you are prone to consensus, provided that the consensus coincides with your POV. If it is does not, you ignore everything, including what the reliable sources say. By contrast, by agreeing not to add the word "annexation" to the title I demonstrated my good faith. Can you provide a similar example from your side?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- To point #1, "occupation" of the Baltic states, endless sources for that. Did I say "civilian occupation?" No, I indicated overwhelming military presence keeping an ostensibly "civilian" administration in power. That would be occupied by military force/forces.
- To point #2, "consensus" is something to be achieved regarding fair and accurate representation of directly pertinent sources, not agreeing to saying "X" merely through the achievement of consensus. Lastly, you mistake me for someone who is on a "side" and who only agrees with people who agree with me. The only "side" I am on is fair and accurate representation of reliable and pertinent sources. As for agreeing, that's a bit of a tautology, is it not, as I would also disagree only with those who disagree with me. I am under no obligation to join a "consensus" which I believe is flawed in conception. Or are you suggesting editors should be more receptive to editorial peer pressure? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- (edit conflict)Re #1. not "endless". 217 for "occupation of the Baltic states -annexation and 165 for "annexation of the Baltic states" -occupation. Yes, "occupation" is more frequent, but the difference is not dramatic.
- Re "Did I say "civilian occupation?"" Yes, you (or Martin) did that in past. However, if you want to discuss "non-military occupation", please, give examples (with sources).
- Re #2 (""consensus" is something to be achieved regarding fair and accurate representation of directly pertinent sources") Correct. In connection to that, could you please propose a way to accurately represent the directly pertinent sources (which I quoted endlessly during the past discussions) that describe this event as "annexation"?
- Re "I am under no obligation to join a "consensus" which I believe is flawed in conception." Correct. However, I believe you agree that it would be fair to apply the same to the others. I also feel no such obligations. However, the difference between you and me is that, whereas you insist on fair representation of only those sources you like, I insist on representation of all sources. In other words, whereas my vision of the article(s) about the history of the Baltic states does include your viewpoint as one of mainstream POVs, your vision implies that your, and only your POV should be represented.
- That is a direct result of the situation when some low importance articles are privatised by few users. Such a situation is impossible in popular articles. That is a bad sign, because that means that low importance Wikipedia articles may be non-neutral, and that their non-neutrality cannot be fixed using the standard WP tools.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Paul, you say "However, the difference between you and me is that, whereas you insist on fair representation of only those sources you like, I insist on representation of all sources." Please, feel totally free in presenting these "other" sources you believe are missing here and thus preventing the representation of all the sources you claim you want to represent. This is what I have been asking of Igny since the beginning without success. --Martin (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Re "civilian occupation": Please stop niggling everyone over the use of the term to describe a non-military occupation. No competent speaker of English would ever see such a term in this article and think of a 9-to-5 job. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, please stick to sources and stop editorializing about alleged behavior on the part of editors you don't agree with, now regarding article "privatization", which is your rather transparent euphemism for WP:OWNERSHIP. This is the last time I am asking politely. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, please stick to sources and stop editorializing about alleged behavior on the part of editors you don't agree with, now regarding article "privatization", which is your rather transparent euphemism for WP:OWNERSHIP. This is the last time I am asking politely. PЄTЄRS
- @Paul: All the previous discussion demonstrates is that you and Igny insist on disagreeing. That does not mean there is an actual content issue. PЄTЄRS
- @Paul: You implicitly postulate that "occupation" can only be a "military" occupation administered by the military, that an ostensibly civilian administration (regardless that it was put in place and kept in place by overwhelming military force) of "annexed" territory cannot be an occupation. That is wrong, plain and simple. PЄTЄRS
- @Paul, re: "are mutually exclusive in general" is immaterial, the Baltics set the precedent in international law, what generally applies does not pertain to this case. As for "not a military occupation" that is no better than the Russian Federation stating there was no declaration of war between the USSR and the Baltics ergo no occupation. Of course it was the Soviet military that secured the territory and kept it secured for the entire duration of the Soviet presence/ era/ occupation. Or was it my imagination, hectares upon hectares of still closed off territory and
Paul, it is generally accepted that Reichskommissariat Ostland was a civilian occupation regime as this source confirms[2]. The only one ignoring sources appears to be you when you ignore the wide selection of sources confirming the common usage of the term "occupation" in reference Soviet control of the Baltic states, for example:
- "At the same time, underground movements fighting against German occupation emerged in all three Baltic states. These partisan groups were later to form the core of the guerrilla movements which fought against the Soviet occupation forces in the postwar years" p33 The Baltic states after independence By Ole Nørgaard
- "Many aspects of daily life in Latvia still show the effects of the Soviet occupation from 1944 through 1991" p1084 World and Its Peoples Volume 8 of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland [3]
- "Soviet occupation included the control of the socio-economic system, the implementation of Soviet institutions and the deportation of Estonians, set against the fostering of Russian-speaking immigration to the Republic. As a result, significant demographic changes took place in the region between 1939 and 1989. During the occupation period, the percentage of ethnic Estonians in the total population resident in Estonia dropped from 88% to 61%" Conflict and security in the former Soviet Union: the role of the OSCE By Maria Raquel Freire[4]
- "Mr. Speaker, in 1991, after more than 50 years of Soviet occupation, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, acting peacefully, but with great courage, regained their freedom." Congressional Record, V. 144, Pt. 17, October 7, 1998 to October 9, 1998[5]
- "In almost 50 years of Soviet occupation, all three countries were subjected to the full force of ideologic, political and economic policies as republics within the Soviet Union" Latvia By Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Co-operation with Non-members [6]
- "In 1991 after 50 years of Soviet occupation, Latvia regained its independence." p81 Eastern European theater after the iron curtain, Kalina Stefanova, Ann Waugh [7]
- "Latvia remained under Soviet occupation for forty years. Its independent statehood, however, was never legally extinguished. … the Latvian Supreme Council declared the 1940 annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union illegal. … Under the Latvian-Russian agreements on army withdrawal, the last Russian troops left Latvia on August 31, 1994, thus formally bringing Soviet military occupation to an end." p146 Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: yearbook, Mary Kate Simmons, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers[8]
- "Lithuania came under Soviet occupation in 1940 after being autonomous since 1918 . It remained under oppressive occupation for more than 50 years. Soviet occupation was interrupted for several years (1941-1944), replaced by a different oppressive, occupying force, the Nazis" Advocating for children and families in an emerging democracy edited by Judy W. Kugelmass, Dennis J. Ritchie [9]
- "As the 50 years of occupation changed from overt repression to political, cultural and ideological control and the desire by the Soviet Union to create an atomised homo sovieticus, denying national or other cultural identity," Language Planning and Policy in Europe: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy edited by Robert B. Kaplan, Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. [10]
- "the USSR entered Latvia on 17 June 1940 and occupied the country for more than 50 years" Constitutional law of 10 EU member states: the 2004 enlargement, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, J. W. A. Fleuren, Wim Voermans, [11]
- "One of the major reasons is that in 50 years of Soviet occupation, the state of Latvia and constitutionalism could exist only in the imagination of the people." Encyclopedia of World Constitutions By Gerhard Robbers [12]
- "Secondly, the chapter lays out the attempt of the newly restored states to create a foreign policy 'from scratch', following fifty years of occupation. Why did the Baltic States seek to integrate into the Western political and security ..." Continuity and change in the Baltic Sea Region: comparing foreign policies By David J. Galbreath, Ainius Lašas, Jeremy W. Lamoreaux [13]
- "Fifty years of occupation have caused heavy ecological damage, both through military presence and activities as well ..." Remembering the Future: The Challenge of the Churches in Europe Robert C. Lodwick
- "In the meantime, the Baltics' natural resources were pushed to their limits. Lithuanians had always been proud of how well they tended their land, how much they made it produce. But under Soviet occupation, Baltic farmers used so much fertiliser that the land started falling apart" Baltic Pride, Russian Tears Page 22 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol. 50, No. 5 [14]
Paul, please recognise the weight of the sources is against your personal OR contentions. --Martin (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have to understand that we have recognized "the wide usage of the term occupation" and never pretended to ignore the sources you listed, and never argued to remove the term from the title. Now it is your turn to recognize a magnitude of reliable sources using the term "annexation" with respect to the same events. (Igny (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
- Igny, please be my guest, and post this "magnitude of reliable sources" using the term "annexation" with respect to the period 1940-1991 and not just the event of 1940. --Martin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are saying this as if annexation stopped in 1940 and occupation began. However even if you were right, do not forget that this article discusses not only the period but also the event. (Igny (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
- Igny, you are incorrect. The preponderance of sources which call it "occupation" for the duration put you in the position where you need to demonstrate not only the use of "annexation" (which does not preclude occupation) but also produce sources which specifically state that as of the completion of forcible "annexation" the Soviet Union could subsequently in no manner be regarded as an occupying power —otherwise "annexation" is merely one of a number of events directly associated with the Soviet occupation and requires no special mention in the title (aside from, as I've indicated, being inappropriate to the title in any event). You also have to leave out the official Russian POV, as that is that the Baltics joined willingly and were not forcibly annexed; that is, the Baltics joined willingly and legally according to international law. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Igny, you are incorrect. The preponderance of sources which call it "occupation" for the duration put you in the position where you need to demonstrate not only the use of "annexation" (which does not preclude occupation) but also produce sources which specifically state that as of the completion of forcible "annexation" the Soviet Union could subsequently in no manner be regarded as an occupying power —otherwise "annexation" is merely one of a number of events directly associated with the Soviet occupation and requires no special mention in the title (aside from, as I've indicated, being inappropriate to the title in any event). You also have to leave out the official Russian POV, as that is that the Baltics joined willingly and were not forcibly annexed; that is, the Baltics joined willingly and legally according to international law. PЄTЄRS
- You are saying this as if annexation stopped in 1940 and occupation began. However even if you were right, do not forget that this article discusses not only the period but also the event. (Igny (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
- Igny, please be my guest, and post this "magnitude of reliable sources" using the term "annexation" with respect to the period 1940-1991 and not just the event of 1940. --Martin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have to understand that we have recognized "the wide usage of the term occupation" and never pretended to ignore the sources you listed, and never argued to remove the term from the title. Now it is your turn to recognize a magnitude of reliable sources using the term "annexation" with respect to the same events. (Igny (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
- Sorry for the delayed responce, but I was preoccupied with something more important. By providing the quotes you hardly demonstrated your point, because your point is that the term "occupation" expresses the sole mainstream viewpoint. However, you definitely failed to prove that, because you just have demonstrated that this term is used widely (the fact that I never questioned). However, this term is not the sole term. The quotes below demonstrate that quite persuasively:
- "The first instances to revive an interest in recognition of statehood were those of the Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Their position was complicated because States had not taken a uniform view of their status after 1940 when the Baltic States purportedly confirmed their incorporation into the Soviet Union. The British government did not recognise de jure the incorporation but it did acknowledge the de facto exercise of Soviet authority in the three territories. By different processes, the three States asserted their independence throughout 1990 and 1991 and sought the recognition by other States to confirm their status. While the British government asserted that this was a matter with which it was legitimately concerned, its position initially was that they had not established their independence. Nonetheless, it looked forward to the time when, in the exercise of their right of self-determination, the peoples of these territories did establish their statehood."
"However, the position of the British government is that the act of 27 August was an act of recognition and it has yet to take a position on whether the present Baltic States are simply revivals of the ones existing before 1940. From a purely legal point of view, the outcome will depend to an extent on what view is taken of the legality of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and the subsequent incorporation of the territories into the USSR.7 Diplomatic relations were quickly established; British ambassadors were sent to the Baltic States on 9 October 1991, and they were admitted to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) on 10 September and the United Nations on 17 September." (Recognition of StatesAuthor(s): Colin Warbrick Source: The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), pp. 473-482) - "The Estonian and Latvian independence proclamations each stated that the country had been occupied illegally by Soviet forces and annexed by Soviet rulers and that the people had the right to restore their statehood. This implied that the hundreds of thousands of mostly ethnic Russians that had migrated to the Baltic republics following annexation were suddenly ‘non citizens’, even if they had lived there for decades or were born there. With strong support from their nationalist constituencies, the new regimes in both countries initially opted for highly exclusionist citizenship policies. Ethnic Russians would have to reapply and meet certain stringent demands including a language exam. This created domestic tensions, as well as highly critical responses from the Kremlin." (Crisis Management in Transitional Democracies: The Baltic Experience. Eric Stern1,Bengt Sundelius2,Daniel Nohrstedt3,Dan Hansén4,Lindy Newlove5,Paul 't Hart6 Government and Opposition Volume 37, Issue 4, pages 524–550, October 2002)
- "The Baltic states were integrated into the Soviet Union by Stalin against the wishes of their populations and without the recognition of major Western powers" (The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force Author(s): Mark W. Zacher Source: International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring, 2001), pp. 215-250)
- "The policy of non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries in 1940 has differed from country to country and even from government to government. The US, for example, never recognised this incorporation" (The Continuity and Succession of States, by Reference to the Former USSR and YugoslaviaAuthor(s): Rein Mullerson Source: The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 473-493)
- "With the exception of Nazi Germany and Sweden, no state gave full de jure recognition to Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic states, whose incorporation into the USSR after 1940 was condemned as a process of forcible annexation." (Empty Spaces and the Value of Symbols: Estonia's 'War of Monuments' from Another AngleAuthor(s): Stuart Burch and David J. Smith Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 6 (Sep., 2007), pp. 913-936)
- "While the Soviet annexation transformed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania de facto into Soviet republics and thus quasi-effectively into “usual” territory of the USSR, a considerable part of the Western states refused to accord de iure recognition to the Soviet annexation. As a symbol of the non-recognition policy, the Baltic legations in the US continued their activities throughout the whole time of the Soviet annexation" (Lauri Mälksoo. Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law Leiden Journal of International Law (2001), 14: 757-787)
- "Undoubtedly, the most difficult period for Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania began with 1939 and the consummation of the Hitler-Stalin pact, part of which assigned the Baltic states to a Soviet "sphere of influence," a move that would lead to the outright Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940. Andrei Vishinskii, already notorious for his roles in the Moscow purge trials, was dispatched to Riga to supervise the annexation of Latvia. The massive Soviet propaganda machine worked at full bore to present this to the world as a freely made choice on the part of Latvia's working class. The Stalinist police state was not shown in the newsreels of Soviet troops entering Riga but operated from the beginning of the annexation to ensure that Latvians complied with rule from Moscow." [15].
- "The first instances to revive an interest in recognition of statehood were those of the Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Their position was complicated because States had not taken a uniform view of their status after 1940 when the Baltic States purportedly confirmed their incorporation into the Soviet Union. The British government did not recognise de jure the incorporation but it did acknowledge the de facto exercise of Soviet authority in the three territories. By different processes, the three States asserted their independence throughout 1990 and 1991 and sought the recognition by other States to confirm their status. While the British government asserted that this was a matter with which it was legitimately concerned, its position initially was that they had not established their independence. Nonetheless, it looked forward to the time when, in the exercise of their right of self-determination, the peoples of these territories did establish their statehood."
- The latter source is especially persuasive, because, although one may argue that the scholars, whose articles I quote, frequently have a leftist point of view, the Hoover Institution is a rightist and anti-Soviet think tank.
- I suggest you to stop, because you insist on the "A", whereas I insist on "A and B". Whereas you totally reject my point, I do not reject your, and I only insist on complementing it with what other sources say. Your position is doomed to fail, and the only reason why it haven't so far is that the article you is out of scope of a broader WP community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Paul, I appreciate your effort to present an argument based upon sources. It seems your insistence of "A and B" seems like you believe they are alternate concepts in competition with each other, but "occupation" and "annexation" describe concepts that are actually related due to the fact that non-recognition of the latter meant that the former continued until 1991. In other words the Soviet Union's failure to gain international recognition of its act of annexation after it occupied the Baltic states in 1940 meant that this period of occupation was never terminated in law but continued until 1991, but as time past this occupation gained some characteristics of a legitimate annexation. This is why both "occupation" and "annexation" are discussed in the same articles, the former term as a period while the latter term as an act. I'll comment on each of your sources in turn.
- Not withstanding that this source dates from 1992 and hence is a bit outdated in terms of the ultimate response of the British government, this source's excerpt mentions neither occupation nor annexation, but of incorporation and the exercise of self-determination in the establishment of their independence. However as Loeber states, these Baltic countries have already exercised their right to self-determination in 1918 after seceding from pre-revolutionary Russia. Under international law the right to self-determination is conceived as a permanent and continuous right and it is not necessary to re-exercise a claim to self-determination.
- This source describes the Soviet Union as an "occupying empire": "Their joint past as involuntary parts of the Soviet Empire left the three Baltic states with a few disturbing legacies besides their weak and immobile economies. Artificially induced ethnic pluralism and deep-seated popular distrust of the former occupying empire proved to be particular sources of vulnerability and polarisation."
- This source discusses the rearrangement of borders through force but does discuss occupation during WWII: "Second, some scholars argue that the occupation of foreign territory is more difficult and costly in an era of national consciousness, and therefore states are less prone toward territorial expansionism.106 This view is true in many circumstances, but as Peter Lieberman’s study has pointed out, the occupation of foreign territories can be beneficial as long as the occupying states do not meet large-scale military resistance and are willing to use considerable force to suppress local populations. In World War II foreign occupiers were certainly willing to adopt such policies of suppression."
- This source also states: "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 and their incorporation into the Union was not, at least de jure, recognised by most Western countries. Accordingly, their struggle for independence, which developed in 1988, was not fought under the banner of self-determination but, rather, based on the necessity to end the illegal occupation."
- This source speaks of a period of occupation: "A significant step in this direction came during 1998, when all three Baltic states established historical commissions. Composed of academic experts from home and abroad (in the Estonian case exclusively the latter), these bodies have been called upon to produce an independent assessment of events during the Nazi and Soviet occupations of 1940 - 91"
- This source also speaks of a period of occupation: "The present article deals with international law problems that have arisen in the process of legal clarification of the state crimes committed during the Soviet occupation in the three Baltic states. Following the restoration of their independence in 1991, the Baltic states have sought to establish the historical truth about the mass crimes committed during the Nazi and Soviet occupations"
- This source confines its scope to 1939-45, yet it still characterised the period as German and Soviet occupations: "It includes the manuscript of his book on Baltic history and materials on a number of Latvian subjects, including important documentation of the Latvian national resistance against German and Soviet occupations during the Second World War."
- Paul, at the end of the Move discussion you conceded that the current title is acceptable after a couple of uninvolved editors you respected indicated their acceptance and you stated that you would focus on the content of the article rather than the title. But it seems that because Igny remains unhappy with the title and placed a POV-title tag, many thousands of words have been written on the issue of the title which could have been better spent on actually discussing the content. What a waste of time and effort. I welcome your intelligent contribution to the content of the article, feel free to expand and give due weight on the impact of the unrecognised annexation in the appropriate places, but lets not go around in circles over the title. --13:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me re-iterate: I do not insist on changing the title. My point is that the article's content should be made more neutral. Re your other points, you just demonstrated what I mean: the sources discuss the event using both terms (as well as "absorption", "incorporation", etc, which are closer to "annexation" than to "occupation"), and, since they mix them, we must do the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, the entire talk page discussion since March has been about Igny's objection to the title. Rather than spend that time more constructively in discussing how we can make the content even more neutral, we have been stuck here going no where because Igny refuses to accept there is no consensus to change the title, and so registers his objection by placing a POV-title tag as a badge of shame. This tag is acting as a road block to further discussion on the content, and should be removed as it serves no purpose other than as an irritant to what could be a fruitful collaboration. --Martin (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- We are not supposed to discuss Igny here, let's focus on the article instead. Upon meditation, I came to the conclusion that no change of the article's title is needed, provided that the article's content will be modified (although not dramatically) to meet neutrality criteria. If you agree with that in principle, let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've always agreed in principle that we should work on the article's content, but before we do I ask you to remove the POV-title tag as it serves no purpose. --Martin (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a rule, the tag is removed when the issue has been resolved, not when the intention to fix the issue has been declared. I promise to start to propose concrete changes soon, so I have a hope that the issues will be resolved, and the tag removed, in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've always agreed in principle that we should work on the article's content, but before we do I ask you to remove the POV-title tag as it serves no purpose. --Martin (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- We are not supposed to discuss Igny here, let's focus on the article instead. Upon meditation, I came to the conclusion that no change of the article's title is needed, provided that the article's content will be modified (although not dramatically) to meet neutrality criteria. If you agree with that in principle, let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, the entire talk page discussion since March has been about Igny's objection to the title. Rather than spend that time more constructively in discussing how we can make the content even more neutral, we have been stuck here going no where because Igny refuses to accept there is no consensus to change the title, and so registers his objection by placing a POV-title tag as a badge of shame. This tag is acting as a road block to further discussion on the content, and should be removed as it serves no purpose other than as an irritant to what could be a fruitful collaboration. --Martin (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me re-iterate: I do not insist on changing the title. My point is that the article's content should be made more neutral. Re your other points, you just demonstrated what I mean: the sources discuss the event using both terms (as well as "absorption", "incorporation", etc, which are closer to "annexation" than to "occupation"), and, since they mix them, we must do the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Paul, at the end of the Move discussion you conceded that the current title is acceptable after a couple of uninvolved editors you respected indicated their acceptance and you stated that you would focus on the content of the article rather than the title. But it seems that because Igny remains unhappy with the title and placed a POV-title tag, many thousands of words have been written on the issue of the title which could have been better spent on actually discussing the content. What a waste of time and effort. I welcome your intelligent contribution to the content of the article, feel free to expand and give due weight on the impact of the unrecognised annexation in the appropriate places, but lets not go around in circles over the title. --13:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the POV tag serves no purpose, other than showing the world the Kremlin has problems with the subject. So I wouldn't worry about the tag, it speaks for itself quite nicely.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I personally accept that this article may remain controversial to those imbued with a "certain historical perspective" and the tagging issue is rather entertaining in that light, this tag is never the less used in a way contrary to Template:POV guidelines, where the neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of perspectives in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among a couple of dissenting Wikipedia editors . --Martin (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Re couple editors, this argument violates the WP:DEMOCRACY policy; in addition, since, by virtue of its topic, this article is out of scope of broader WP community, it is not surprise that the users advocating a national POV prevail here. Obviously, the idea that the Baltic states joined the USSR voluntarily is laughable, however, the idea that these states were under military occupation during a whole period of 1940-91 is incorrect either. The neutral point of view, determined based on what mainstream reliable sources tell on that account, requires us to describe these events in somewhat different way, although I do not think the article requires complete re-writing. However, until that has been done, the tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I personally accept that this article may remain controversial to those imbued with a "certain historical perspective" and the tagging issue is rather entertaining in that light, this tag is never the less used in a way contrary to Template:POV guidelines, where the neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of perspectives in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among a couple of dissenting Wikipedia editors . --Martin (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, you were right. I've just realised that the tag we are talking about was POV-title, not POV. I changed it accordingly. Are you ready for a discussion of the article's contemt now?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Finally some small progress, thanks for resolving the specific issue of the POV-title tag. With regard to the comment about "national POV" I would like to make the observation that it is only the national government of Russia that continues to deny the Baltic states were occupied for the period in question, while the EU and North America continue to urge the Russian Federation to end that denial, so I leave to the observer to draw their own conclusion on who is advocating a "national POV" in this current dispute. But I am always ready to discuss the article's content due to the potential educational value. --Martin (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your description of a conflict is incorrect. The conflict is not over "occupied" vs "voluntarily joined", but in "militarily occupied" vs "forcefully annexed". Now, when I explain that, I expect you to avoid continuous references to the Russian official POV. In addition, official POVs (Russian/Soviet of Western) is hardly relevant, because we rely on the writings of the scholars, not on the official statements (which are the primary sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
RE:PAul the idea that these states were under military occupation during a whole period of 1940-91 is incorrect and we rely on the writings of the scholars Really? here you go: Holoboff, Elaine M . -- Centre for Defence Studies, CDS. University of London. King's College Reversing Soviet Military Occupation. Just one more source to show your claims have no basis whatsoever. Kevin O'Connor (historian) refers to the period of 1944-1991 in his book about Baltic states as Soviet Occupation [16], it's pretty much standard in works published in English. Sorry that you have problem with "national" things, this however is English wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, such an opinion is supported by many scholars. However, another opinion is that three Baltic states were the republics of the Soviet Union:
- "The three other aspiring members of NATO—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—would in the normal course of events have been prime candidates from the very start, but their status was complicated because they were republics of the Soviet Union until August 1991." (Mark Kramer. NATO, the Baltic states and Russia: a framework for sustainable enlargement. International Affairs, Volume 78, Issue 4, pages 731–756, October 2002)
- Yes, they never joined the USSR voluntarily, their annexation was not recognised de jure by most states, however, almost all states except the US, Vatican and Iceland did recognise that de facto, and many scholars speak about them as about the part of the USSR. That fact has nothing in common with Russian official position, and this fact is hard to deny.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, such an opinion is supported by many scholars. However, another opinion is that three Baltic states were the republics of the Soviet Union:
- I must be missing something! who says there's a contradiction between "Baltic states were the republics of the Soviet Union" and "Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union"? And in the future, please always refer to a WP:RS while claiming something, otherwise its often very difficult to understand what exactly are you talking about. The quote you gave above doesn't explain the logic you're currently using, read: the way you personally interpret the quote at all.--Termer (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, the paper you quote (Mark Kramer. NATO, the Baltic states and Russia: a framework for sustainable enlargement. International Affairs, Volume 78, Issue 4, pages 731–756, October 2002) states:
In June 2000 the Russian government declared that the Baltic republics had ‘voluntarily’ joined the Soviet Union ‘in accordance with international law’ and had ‘invited’ Soviet troops to occupy their territory at the beginning of the 1940s. In a formal statement that was reaffirmed in the spring of 2001, the Russian foreign ministry claimed that ‘assertions about the “occupation” and “annexation” of [the Baltic countries] by the Soviet Union ignore the political, historical and legal realities and are therefore devoid of merit.’ ….. Moscow’s stance on this matter has been motivated in part by a desire to avoid any liability for reparations (which all three Baltic states have been pursuing), but this does not wholly explain the comments. After all, the Russian government could plausibly argue that post-Soviet Russia should not be held accountable for the crimes of the Soviet regime. The whitewashing of Soviet rule in the Baltics is instead symptomatic of Russia’s broader failure to come to terms with the Soviet past, and it also reflects a widespread sense in Moscow that the Baltic states should remain in Russia’s ‘sphere of influence’, a term used in March 2001 by Russian President Vladimir Putin. ….. Russia’s misrepresentations of the past, along with many other points of contention over the decade since Baltic independence, have given even greater impetus to the efforts by Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to join NATO.
- Here the author is stating that Russia's denial of "occupation" is a whitewashing and misrepresentation of the past. --Martin (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, the paper you quote (Mark Kramer. NATO, the Baltic states and Russia: a framework for sustainable enlargement. International Affairs, Volume 78, Issue 4, pages 731–756, October 2002) states:
Synthesis tag
The leading paragraph constitutes synthesis in its pure form. Several separate concepts were melted together to convey an idea not present in any of provided sources. (Igny (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC))
- nonsense!--Termer (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- RE Paul [17] Tag spamming an article without good reasons isn't serious. The tags should be removed since there's no reasonable explanation to have them. The only thing, mentioning of the Courland Pocket in the lede, if anybody really thinks removing such a fact from the lede would considerably improve the article, go ahead and take it out. (Not that it makes any sense).--Termer (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it is not serious, prove that no the talk page.
- If the needed proof have been provided, and that had no effect, warn the users who do not accept your arguments against continuation of the activity that is, in your opinion, disruptive.
- If that has no effect, report these users to appropriate noticeboard, and request for sanctions. I would be glad if you will do that, because the article, and the behaviour of some users definitely needs to be examined by WP community.
- In any event, removal of tags without discussion is hardly appropriate, and it is especially inappropriate to remove Synthesis and NOR tags under a pretext that the verifiability criterion has been met. You are too experienced user to make so stupid mistake.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article proves the tags are not serious, any reader can see it by reading the article and the sources. But then again they say an excessive tag spamming is done in order to attract viewers. So in that sense, good job! Keep it up making sure the article attracts viewers thanks to its colorful heading!--Termer (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Termer is correct, synthesis issues are easily solved via the verifiability criterion. The relevant cites to reliable sources have been added to the text, thus closing this issue. --Martin (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. Otherwise there would be no need to separate these two policies. I expect Igny to explain what concrete OR problems does he see in the article, and after that we can discuss the fate of the tags more concretely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Termer is correct, synthesis issues are easily solved via the verifiability criterion. The relevant cites to reliable sources have been added to the text, thus closing this issue. --Martin (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article proves the tags are not serious, any reader can see it by reading the article and the sources. But then again they say an excessive tag spamming is done in order to attract viewers. So in that sense, good job! Keep it up making sure the article attracts viewers thanks to its colorful heading!--Termer (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- RE Paul [17] Tag spamming an article without good reasons isn't serious. The tags should be removed since there's no reasonable explanation to have them. The only thing, mentioning of the Courland Pocket in the lede, if anybody really thinks removing such a fact from the lede would considerably improve the article, go ahead and take it out. (Not that it makes any sense).--Termer (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- nonsense!--Termer (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone point me to a page in a RS that states that Soviet occupation of the Baltic states in 1940 is the occupation sui generis? (Igny (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC))
- Not to anticipate Igny's latest objections, but let's not revisit the USSR+Nazi Germany+USSR occupations together in one article is a "synthesis," which is where I see this heading. I can't see what other "synthesis" the article might be accused of. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)- RE:Igny -sui generis? I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT either. Feel free to remove it if you like. Especially since in the lede it reads like a fact despite being just an opinion of a scholar.--Termer (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. The article presents a POV which fails WP policy. TFD (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you invoke "policy" to state the article should not exist. There is no "POV" that is being "presented," the article is properly sourced according to policy and does not "synthesize" anything regarding a period of continuous occupation by two powers at times working together, at times at war with each other, and in the aftermath of WWII. Your statement appears to throw mud without providing any detail. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 05:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)- @Paul: More personal attacks ("the article, and the behaviour of some users definitely needs to be examined by WP community")? I assume you are not referring to yourself. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul: More personal attacks ("the article, and the behaviour of some users definitely needs to be examined by WP community")? I assume you are not referring to yourself. PЄTЄRS
- No, you invoke "policy" to state the article should not exist. There is no "POV" that is being "presented," the article is properly sourced according to policy and does not "synthesize" anything regarding a period of continuous occupation by two powers at times working together, at times at war with each other, and in the aftermath of WWII. Your statement appears to throw mud without providing any detail. PЄTЄRS
- This has been discussed before. The article presents a POV which fails WP policy. TFD (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- RE:Igny -sui generis? I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT either. Feel free to remove it if you like. Especially since in the lede it reads like a fact despite being just an opinion of a scholar.--Termer (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
@sui generis. You keep referring me to some consensus gained here after long period of talking. And then you just go and make a drastic change without any sort discussion? What is up with that? (Igny (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC))
- Can anybody explain me this. An editor claims, -Igny: Could anyone point me to a page in a RS that states...occupation of the Baltic states...is the occupation sui generis as the basis for his synthesis tag and verification concerns. sui generis gets removed [18]. Just that Igny just restores it [19] by complaining at the same time it is [failed verification] [20]. So you add something to the article that in your opinion failedverification, how does it make sense exactly?--Termer (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- An explanation for who has just tuned in the conversation. Sui generis per se does not fail verification, as there are sources to support usage of sui generis wrt "prolonged Soviet occupation". What fail verification here if presentation of the views to come to a synthesis of the various ideas, more specifically application of sui generis to an event in 1940. (Igny (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC))
OK, let me put it this way: why exactly did you refer to Sui generis as "an event in 1940" with your edit [21] and then question it with failedverification [22] instead of making it clear that the proposed Sui generis refers to "prolonged Soviet occupation"?--Termer (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I hope this edit would clarify your confusion. It was reverted earlier on a ground that then current version was consensus approved. When I pointed out the factual error in the so called "consensus approved" version, Martin made an unilateral edit "against the consensus", which in my opinion justifies now my rewrite per sources. Thanks for lettimg me make myself and the leading paragraph more clear. How that hideous first sentence could survive that long is beyond me. (Igny (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC))
Sorry, still non of it makes any sense to me but since it seems issues have been resolved, it looks like it doesn't really matter any more.--Termer (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Drawing conclusions from the primary sources is an OR
I have a difficulty finding secondary sources which support the following statements
- However, Russia acknowledged Soviet "occupation" of the Baltic states upon joining the Council of Europe.[29][not in citation given] Additionally, when Russia signed a separate treaty with Lithuania, it acknowledged that the 1940 annexation was a violation of Lithuanian sovereignty[30]
The first sentence was based on a primary source a resolution and an opinion of the assembly of the Council. Nowhere it was stated that the resolution was worded by Russia. Is the wording of the correpsonding passages in Russian documents similar? Did the official Russian documents contain the word "occupation"? Are there any secondary RS which support this statement?
Second sentence is supported by another primary source which states
- And being convinced that once the Union of Soviet Socialist republics annuls the consequences of the 1940 annexation violating Lithuania’s sovereignty, created will be additional conditions for mutual trust between the High Contracting Parties and their peoples,
Besides being a primary source, it is not clear whether the annexation violated the sovereignty, or some of its consequences did, whether the sovereignty is contemporary (of today's Lithuania) or concurrent with the annexation (Lithuania of 1940).
Again a secondary source would bring some light to these issues, at this moment it clearly an OR based on primary sources, it contradicts a number of other RS, and as such it should not belong to the lede. (Igny (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC))
voluntarily joined
Not this again: The present Russian government and its state officials continue to maintain that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the Soviet Union after their peoples all carried out socialist revolutions independent of Soviet influence
Never heard or seen any Russian government nor state officials speaking of "socialist revolutions independent of Soviet influence" these days. It seems all this is an opinion of certain Bugajski, Janusz (2004). Much closer to facts seems is the other source simply saying "The Putin administration has stubbornly refused to admit the fact of Soviet occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia following World War II. Nobody other than some extreme nutcake would speak about "socialist revolutions" and "voluntarily joined" in modern times. This is more from the era of pre-perestroika Soviet historiography.
Also, since the lede claims Russia insists that incorporation of the Baltic states gained international de jure recognition by the Helsinki accords it would need to make clear that a number of countries declared by signing the Helsinki accords it means not recognizing the Soviet incorporation of Baltic states de jure--Termer (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- RE: Lothar von Richthofen [23] official russian opinion is that (insert prefix here)ation was voluntary.). Again, not true, no serious source claims anything about "voluntary joining" being the "official Russian opinion". The official position if anything is declaration of the Baltic States being a "former legitimate part of the USSR" [24], it doesn't automatically translate into voluntary of anything. The Russian president at the time Putin by himself has commented comprehensively on the question (in Russian) Putin vs Estonian journalist. This is in line with secondary sources that do not speak about voluntary joining being the "official position".--Termer (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Termer: Official Russian historiography is unchanged from the Soviet version. In that regard, a more rigorous approach regarding sources would be to inquire as to what the Great Russian Encyclopedia (post-Soviet GSE) states in this regard. The spontaneous uprisings of the Baltic peoples (lent friendly assistance) fueled by a desire to reestablish Soviet republics (harkening to the post WWI Bolshevik's ultimately failed attempts) and join the USSR is widely documented. Are there official sources which state the USSR forcibly annexed the Baltics (as opposed to their petitioning to join, i.e., voluntary)? No, just that the MRP in the abstract was not legal, absent of acknowledging the consequence of Soviet occupation—that is, while Nazi Germany and the USSR dividing Eastern Europe was illegal, that did not invalidate the (unrelated) choice of the Baltic peoples to join the USSR. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 18:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC) - Official Russian historiography generally lines up with the old Soviet version. Pēters has said all that I was going to say. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems the mistake is to have "forcibly annexed" contradict with "volutarely joined", like the "official Russian position" could be only one or another. There's clearly more to it. The Russian government has acknowledged the MP pack, at they same time they say a "former legitimate part of the USSR". If I'm getting this correctly, Putin on on the video says the MP pact was in accordance with international law at the time.
- If it's a fact that Russian historiography lines up with the old Soviet version, that's another story and should be clearly spelled out so according to available WP:RS. Just that this would have nothing much to do with the "official position" of the Russian government and state officials but the historiography in Russia instead. Please, find a source that confirms this and spell it out.--Termer (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another way I'm reading this Russia may have 2 "official positions", one for the international audience that acknowledges the MP pack just says everything was legal according to international law at the time. Another "official position" for the domestic audience in the form of "official history" basically following the Soviet tradition. But this is just my reading and all the facts in the article should come from WP:RS. But again, I think it's important to see this difference instead of claiming the official Russian position just follows the Soviet tradition, which is not a fact.--Termer (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- On page 109 of Janusz Bugajski's book Cold peace: Russia's new imperialism states: "Russian officials persistently claim that the Baltic states entered the USSR voluntarily and legally at the close of World War II and failed to acknowledge that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were under Soviet occupation for fifty years." --Martin (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I was talking about. Janusz Bugajski may say so but it contradicts what Putin has said. So Janusz Bugajski's claim is dubious. Unless it can be verified who exactly were those Russian officials who have claimed so?--Termer (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding of Putin's position is, when pressed for further acknowledgement of Soviet actions (my paraphrase): "What more do you want? We've acknowledged the MR pact was illegal. We're done here, let's move on." There is no statement regarding Soviet aggression against the Baltic states or the rest of Eastern Europe directly affected by the MR pact. Correct me if I'm wrong. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)- You're exactly right PЄTЄRS
JV, the point is in no place did Putin claim anything about "voluntarily joining".--Termer (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're exactly right PЄTЄRS
- My understanding of Putin's position is, when pressed for further acknowledgement of Soviet actions (my paraphrase): "What more do you want? We've acknowledged the MR pact was illegal. We're done here, let's move on." There is no statement regarding Soviet aggression against the Baltic states or the rest of Eastern Europe directly affected by the MR pact. Correct me if I'm wrong. PЄTЄRS
- That's exactly what I was talking about. Janusz Bugajski may say so but it contradicts what Putin has said. So Janusz Bugajski's claim is dubious. Unless it can be verified who exactly were those Russian officials who have claimed so?--Termer (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- On page 109 of Janusz Bugajski's book Cold peace: Russia's new imperialism states: "Russian officials persistently claim that the Baltic states entered the USSR voluntarily and legally at the close of World War II and failed to acknowledge that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were under Soviet occupation for fifty years." --Martin (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another way I'm reading this Russia may have 2 "official positions", one for the international audience that acknowledges the MP pack just says everything was legal according to international law at the time. Another "official position" for the domestic audience in the form of "official history" basically following the Soviet tradition. But this is just my reading and all the facts in the article should come from WP:RS. But again, I think it's important to see this difference instead of claiming the official Russian position just follows the Soviet tradition, which is not a fact.--Termer (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems the mistake is to have "forcibly annexed" contradict with "volutarely joined", like the "official Russian position" could be only one or another. There's clearly more to it. The Russian government has acknowledged the MP pack, at they same time they say a "former legitimate part of the USSR". If I'm getting this correctly, Putin on on the video says the MP pact was in accordance with international law at the time.
- @Termer: Official Russian historiography is unchanged from the Soviet version. In that regard, a more rigorous approach regarding sources would be to inquire as to what the Great Russian Encyclopedia (post-Soviet GSE) states in this regard. The spontaneous uprisings of the Baltic peoples (lent friendly assistance) fueled by a desire to reestablish Soviet republics (harkening to the post WWI Bolshevik's ultimately failed attempts) and join the USSR is widely documented. Are there official sources which state the USSR forcibly annexed the Baltics (as opposed to their petitioning to join, i.e., voluntary)? No, just that the MRP in the abstract was not legal, absent of acknowledging the consequence of Soviet occupation—that is, while Nazi Germany and the USSR dividing Eastern Europe was illegal, that did not invalidate the (unrelated) choice of the Baltic peoples to join the USSR. PЄTЄRS
here is a quote, and again nothing about voluntarily joining, and this even says it's according to Soviet Historiography: The Baltic states in world politics By Birthe Hansen, Bertel Heurlin
the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Accords incorporating the Baltic states into the Soviet Union were almos unanimously described as an attemtp to move the expected Soviet-German front-line as far from Moscow and Leningrad as possible.
It would be interesting, is there a source out there spelling it clearly out saying the modern Russian history lessons at schools claim the Baltic states joined the USSR voluntarily? I've been looking for it, so far no luck.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well David Mendeloff describes the Russian viewpoint of neither occupying nor annexing the Baltic states. He terms this the "Myth of 1939-1940" which he states as being deeply embedded in Russian historical consciousness[25]. There was another paper which I recall reading which examined how Russia's education system perpetuated this mythical viewpoint, I'll try to find it and post a link here. --Martin (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I took care of it and made it clear from where this voluntary stuff comes from [27]. Also, I added a new section Reversing Soviet Military Occupation pr Elaine M. Holoboff from Centre for Defence Studies, CDS. University of London. King's College to put the question how long the occupation actually lasted to rest.--Termer (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Military occupation" is one of existing POVs. If you insist on this wording, the improvement of the article is highly unlikely, and the tag will stay forever. I am not sure that is the outcome we all want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I insist on sticking to what WP:RS say, not interpreting the sources which is WP:OR. And this goes no matter if it's about "voluntary joining" in Russian textbooks or "Military occupation" in western scholarly sources.--Termer (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I insist on sticking to what majority reliable sources say. Since some of them call that "occupation", other describe that as "annexation", or "incorporation", or "absorption". Other sources speak about "annexation that had some traits of occupation", etc. Only small fraction of sources call that "military occupation", and, whereas your edits correctly reflect what this particular sources" says, they do not reflect what all mainstream sources tell about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We been through this, speaking of "occupation", "annexation" "incorporation" or "absorption" is just semantics and I personally don't see anything wrong with adding the word "annexation" to the title. Just that I'm not getting it what's your problem with sources speaking about military occupation? How else were the countries annexed and kept annexed by the Soviet Union unless not by the military occupation?--Termer (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Paul, you are engaging in synthesis and you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what NPOV means. The source cited by Termer states in the chapter titled Reversing Soviet Military Occupation: "At the beginning of their independence, the three Baltic states found themselves burdened with approximately 150,000 Soviet troops. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia in its self-defined role as "successor to the Soviet Union" assumed the burden of this occupation and reluctant responsibility for rectifying it", yet you replace his edit with this piece of synthesis[28] with the edit comment "Changed the wording to more neutral. Do you want the POV tag to stay forever?". NPOV isn't rewording sources to remove words you do not like such as "occupation", it is accurately reflecting published POVs. If a small fraction of sources call that "military occupation" it is because only a small fraction of sources actually discuss military aspect as Elaine M. Holoboff from Centre for Defence Studies does, as opposed to the legal or political aspect as other authors do. --Martin (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
POV tag.
Why is it still on this article after all this time when there is no section on the talk page for it? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Now there is a section on it. Are you satisfied now? (Igny (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
- No as no reason has been given for the tag being in place, either give one or remove said tag. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The reasons for the tag are the same reasons that have been given a thousand times on the talk page in the past. Nothing is yet resolved, and as such the tag stays put until such time as the POV dispute is resolved. Resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- i.e., the tag stays forever. muahahahahaha! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Either a reason within policy is given or I shall remove the tag, it is not meant to be used as a badge of shame. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Re it is not meant to be used as a badge of shame. I can assure you, it is not. (Igny (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
- And yet you appear to be incapable of articulating an argument for it`s inclusion? Last chance, give a reason within policy for it`s remaining or I shall remove it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think one would be capable of searching the archives of the talk page. Just because an issue has found its way to the archive, does not mean that that issue has been resolved. Having perused the archives myself, I can see exactly where the POV dispute is. Please don't come back off a long block, only to engage in attempted article ownership, and the removal of the POV dispute tag will be seen as disruptive. Discuss the obvious POV problems with the article, and then remove the tag. Not the other way around. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The ownership issues are with the few editors who seem to insist on this badge of shame remaining, I see no reason to search the extensive archives for snippets which you may have posted, either let me know what you think is POV about the article or not, your choice. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Editors must restate the POV issues for editors who are new to the talk page. TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- My choice? I see no need to repost long conversations between other editors, when almost all 12 pages of the talk page archive are related to the very POV problems with this article. If you can't see that, then I am unable to help you. However, if you take the time to read the archives yourself, as is suggested as a matter of courteous editing, you could come back here with your own synopsis of what the dispute entails, and how it can be resolved. Have you thought of doing that? Coming to an article, demanding things from other editors, and threatening disruptive behaviour is not making for a collegial environment. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you ought read the POV tag rules? And please do not accuse me of being either threatening or disruptive as I do not appreciate it. The rules are quite clear, either state what you feel is POV or not, up to you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, lighten up, Russavia. Would it kill you to give the new kid on the block a rundown of what has been going on here? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The ownership issues are with the few editors who seem to insist on this badge of shame remaining, I see no reason to search the extensive archives for snippets which you may have posted, either let me know what you think is POV about the article or not, your choice. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think one would be capable of searching the archives of the talk page. Just because an issue has found its way to the archive, does not mean that that issue has been resolved. Having perused the archives myself, I can see exactly where the POV dispute is. Please don't come back off a long block, only to engage in attempted article ownership, and the removal of the POV dispute tag will be seen as disruptive. Discuss the obvious POV problems with the article, and then remove the tag. Not the other way around. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- And yet you appear to be incapable of articulating an argument for it`s inclusion? Last chance, give a reason within policy for it`s remaining or I shall remove it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Re it is not meant to be used as a badge of shame. I can assure you, it is not. (Igny (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
- The reasons for the tag are the same reasons that have been given a thousand times on the talk page in the past. Nothing is yet resolved, and as such the tag stays put until such time as the POV dispute is resolved. Resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- No as no reason has been given for the tag being in place, either give one or remove said tag. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to forget i was unjustly blocked for the last three months, I had no time to follow any debates before my block. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)