Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Battle of Tali-Ihantala
Status	Active
Request date	13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	— Mr. Stradivarius ♫
Parties involved	User:Wanderer602, User:YMB29, User:Whiskey
Mediator(s)	Mr. Stradivarius
Comment	Discussing issue 4, peace talks

Request details

Where is the dispute?

• Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Who is involved?

• User:Wanderer602
• User:YMB29
• User:Whiskey
• User:posse72

I, Mr. Stradivarius, am not involved. I am merely referring this discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

This is a neutrality dispute over alleged pro-Finnish bias. There are secondary issues of how to present contradicting reliable sources, and whether edits count as original research or not. More details can be found at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

This dispute has been referred here from the dispute resolution noticeboard. In that thread the previous steps were listed by User:YMB29 as follows:

There are long discussions on the talk pages that go in circles.[1][2][3][4] I tried third opinion[5] and the no original research noticeboard twice.[6][7] There were reports created in the incidents and edit warring noticeboards.[8][9] Comments were also made on an admin's talk page[10][11] and he eventually suggested to go here.[12]

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The conversation needs to have a better structure to avoid talk page discussion running out of control, in my opinion. I think we will probably have to go through all the individual points raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread one by one, and to look at the different sources being used and assess their strengths and weaknesses. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Provide a supportive structure for the editors involved to build consensus on the issues involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?

Mediator notes

Hello Wanderer602 and YMB29! I've decided to take this case on myself, if that is ok with both of you. I know that I'm technically the filer of the case, but as I am not actually involved in the dispute I don't think it should be a problem. It's a bit unusual, but hey, we have to ignore all rules once in a while. First I would like you to sign in the section below to indicate that you have read and agree to the ground rules. Once we have agreement on the ground rules, then we can progress to the mediation proper. I would like to progress by getting a short statement on the dispute from each of you, and then we can work through the issues involved one by one until we reach a consensus. If you have any questions about the process you can post on the talk page, or of course, on my user talk. I look forward to having a productive mediation with both of you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, we have agreement on the ground rules - thank you for signing them so quickly. The next step is to decide exactly what is being disputed, and I'd like to get a statement from you both on what you consider the dispute to be. Have a look below to see exactly what you should include. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And thank you both for the opening statements. Everything is going ahead nice and smoothly, so thank you very much for that. There is one thing that I'm a little concerned with, which is the somewhat negative tone of some of your opening statements. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you both that we should focus solely on the content of the article; it is really not productive to focus on the supposed motives of the other participants. If we just consider the article content and concentrate on how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relate to them, and keep an open mind, then we will have no trouble at all resolving this dispute. I will look over the statements, the DRN page, and the previous talk in the next couple of days, and decide how to proceed with the mediation. In the meantime, I invite you to kick back, relax, and maybe edit in a subject area you have never tried before. See you back here in a day or so. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

• Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
• Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
• When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both of you agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Agree -YMB29 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Whiskey (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - posse72

Mediation agenda

Hello again, and sorry to keep you waiting! It's strange how a couple of days in the real world can feel like a lifetime on Wikipedia, isn't it? I hope that you can both put your differences behind you, forget all the arguments, you've had on the talk page, and find the common ground that you both share. It's good to take a step back at this stage and remember that we are all here because we want to make Wikipedia the very best resource that it can be. I know that this is true for both of you, and I am looking forward to using the best of both of your unique perspectives and abilities to make these two articles the very best that they can be. Now, I've used a standard mediation schedule to show you how we will proceed through the mediation, and I've also drawn together a list of issues that we will cover. As you can see from the agenda, we will be going through each of the issues turn. First, here is the agenda:

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done

[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done

[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.  Done

[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, the naming of Vyborg/Viipuri. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done - referred to RfC

[22%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, use of sources. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done

[30%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, Baryshnikov. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done

[37%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, portrayal of peace deal talks. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  In progress

[45%] Initiate discussion on the fifth issue, Novyi Beloostrov. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[52%] Initiate discussion on the sixth issue, Soviet intent. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[60%] Initiate discussion on the seventh issue, the impact of the battle. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[67%] Initiate discussion on the eighth issue, the outcome of the battle. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[75%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.

[80%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.

[85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future

[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.

[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Key issues

This is a list of issues which I have drawn up based on your statements and on reviewing the dispute so far. This is also the order in which we will cover them in the mediation.

1. What name to use for the city now known as Vyborg.
2. What sources we should use. How we should deal with foreign language sources; the various Soviet and Finnish sources, including Baryshnikov; and primary sources, #such as the war diaries.
3. If we are to use Baryshnikov, what his position on the outcome of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala is.
4. How to describe the Soviet response to the Finnish government's questions about conditions for a possible peace deal.
5. How to characterize the sources' accounts of events at Novyi Beloostrov.
6. How far the Soviets intended to advance into Finland, and whether the Soviet intent was unified.
7. How to characterize the impact of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala on the rest of the Continuation War.
8. How to describe the outcome of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

We will start with the naming issue of Vyborg. I've left an outline of what to do below. If you have any questions, then you can of course ask them on the discussion page or on my user talk. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Opening statements

The opening statements have been moved to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Temporary provisions for an opening statement from User:Posse72

To Posse72 - before you join the mediation, I would like you to write an opening statement, no longer than 300 words, outlining the following points:

1. What are your interests in regards to the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and related articles? How did you discover and start editing the articles? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
2. What problems do you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Please comment on how the issues you have relate to the key issues we have already outlined above.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

After you provide this statement, I will get the opinions of the other mediation participants, and then discuss the matter with other MedCab mediators to see if we agree on your participation. If everything goes smoothly, then we should just be able to continue from where we left off. I'm looking forward to reading your statment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue one - naming of Vyborg

Issue one discussion has been archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue two - sources

Discussion on issue two archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue four - peace talks

As promised, I think we should move straight on to issue four. We have talked about Baryshnikov quite a lot as part of our discussion of issue two, and in my opinion there's no real reason to have that discussion again as part of issue three. We can save our discussions of his opinions for the issues in which they are relevant. So issue four it is. Here is the wording of issue four:

• How to describe the Soviet response to the Finnish government's questions about conditions for a possible peace deal

As in previous issues, I would like all parties to make a statement, no longer than 250 words, outlining your opinions on this issue. What has the dispute on this issue been centered around? Are there any contentious points of view in the literature? As always I will be looking forward to your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wanderer602 on issue four

As per several sources (references are in articles) the actual Soviet intent with the response is obscure but actual response is very clear in its wording. It requires Finns to first surrender without any conditions before any discussions could be held. Which (as per several sources) amounts to unconditional surrender demand, nothing more, nothing less. The actual Soviet intent is not even relevant since the only thing carried across was the message which - when read word to word - demanded unconditional capitulation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by YMB29 on issue four

According to the Russian view, the claim that the Soviet government demanded unconditional surrender in June of 1944 has been developed by Finnish historiography to make it seem like the Finnish Army saved its country from occupation.

No where in the actual text of the Soviet message does the word "unconditional" appear, so the statement "as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender" is false.

Also if it was a written demand for unconditional surrender, why were the Finnish officials debating about how to interpret the message, with some wanting to continue the negotiations?

Even if we ignore Russian sources like Baryshnikov, there is clear evidence that unconditional surrender was never demanded. A good example is the recorded conversation between Stalin and the US ambassador (that took place after the Soviet message to Finland was sent), where Stalin suggests that the US try to clarify to the Finns that he has no intent to occupy their country. Quotes from sources are here: [13]

We have agreed before that the Finnish government simply interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender [14], and this is what is written in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. However, Wanderer602 decided to change his mind for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article... -YMB29 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Whiskey on issue four

I concur with Wanderer with this issue. I'd like to point out that contemporary players, working on the information provided by the Soviet message, Mannerheim and Swedish Foreign Ministry alike, considered it a demand for unconditional surrender. Also, the only available documentary evidence talks about Finnish unconditional surrender. There could be some informing documentary in Kremlin archives, but so far they have not been published for researchers, and it cannot be said which way they would tip the scales. I wouldn't put much weight to the public claims presented after Finns had rejected Soviet message. --Whiskey (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue four discussion

Thank you all for your statements. Let me start by summarizing the points on which I think we all agree:

• The Finnish government interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender
• The actual Soviet intent behind the message is not clear
• Some members of the Finnish government were in favour of asking the Soviets for clarification
• There are arguments by historians for both positions; a) that the message was a demand for unconditional surrender, and b) that it was not

By a process of elimination, then, it seems that all we have to do is find a consensus on the following points:

• Whether we should directly refer to the message as a demand for unconditional surrender (i.e. stating this as a fact in "Wikipedia's voice", without attributing it to a source)
• What weight to give to the arguments by historians for either position

I think the key to getting this resolved is in the details of the wording, so I have set up a proposals page for dealing with this issue. We can use this page to propose new drafts of the section in question, so that we can home in on a version that we all find acceptable. I would like you all to do two things next: first, please indicate whether you agree with my reading of the situation. Second, I would like you all to prepare a draft of the section in question that you believe is an accurate reflection of the coverage of this event in third-party, reliable sources.

While you are preparing your drafts I would like to remind you of our neutral point of view policy, which will be a very useful tool for us to find compromise here. As I'm sure you are all aware, this policy means that your personal preferences and biases should not affect your editing; we should all forget our biases and concentrate solely on accurately representing what is written in reliable sources. Statements that are widely reported as facts in reliable sources, we should also report as facts in Wikipedia. Opinions, or statements of fact that are contradicted by other reliable sources, should be attributed to their authors, and be given appropriate weight.

I would also like to remind you all that any comment that is not focused on the content at hand could be misconstrued. The pages involved here have a history of arguments, and so it is natural that people will react strongly if they suspect a comment is critical of them. To get these issues resolved as quickly and painlessly as possible, it is extremely important that you all refrain from negative personal comments. If you do feel that someone in the mediation has made a negative comment about you, then I recommend leaving a note about it on my talk page, or by emailing me, rather than replying directly. That way I can sort things out myself, and it should save us a lot of drama. Also, just in case you were wondering, positive personal comments are perfectly fine - especially when directed toward the mediator. ;-)

So, to recap, I would like you to:

1. Let me know if you agree with my assessment of this issue.
2. Create a draft at the proposals page that you think most accurately sums up all the arguments made on this issue by reliable third-party sources. If you think the current version suffices, then you don't have to create a new one, but instead please leave a note below so that I know what's going on.

I'll be looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Yours, as always — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I'd like to point out, that this stuff doesn't belong to the scope of this article, there should be only a very short mention about this here, and more thorough discussion presented in the Continuation War or Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive articles. --Whiskey (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with similar notes as presented by Whiskey. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment. I created a draft with some notes. -YMB29 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I read all existing drafts and though i'm satisfied with current version (draft 0) i find the one presented by Whiskey (draft 1) to be better. Therefore I see no point in posting yet another draft. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask a comment from other participants to a point which greatly affects to this issue: This interpretation affects many articles, including Continuation War, Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Battle of Tienhaara... So, do we A)Copy this thing to every article or B)Concentrate the handling of the issue in depth in one article (CW, V-P O or it's own) and create a short reference to that article from other articles? Please answer A or B. --Whiskey (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

B. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question, and I will go with whatever the consensus here turns out to be. However, I think that for drafting purposes we can just stick with the long version for now - it will be fairly easy to agree on a shortened version once we've agreed on the full-length one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry for the delay in my replying. I've had a look at the drafts, and I can definitely see how a compromise between them could work. Before we work heavily on the compromise part, though, we need to get the drafts complying fully with Wikipedia policy - there are a few things that I think don't quite meet the policy standards as they are. I've listed some points below, and I would be grateful if you could comment. Also, feel free to split this post and reply to the individual parts - it will probably be easier to follow that way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• In both draft 1 and draft 2, the first two sentences are unsourced - so we have no way to verify things like "the Finnish government asked about the possibility of peace" and that this took place "during Ribbentrop's visit". Do we have any sources that can back these things up? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen 1988 (translated, abbreviated) p. 66: On 22 June Finnish ambassador to Stockholm, Gripenberg, was sent to inform Soviets that Finland was ready to end war and sever ties to Germany. Finnish government did not need to wait for long since answer was received already on the following day, 23 June 1944. Moisala & Alanen 1988 (translated, abbreviated) p. 68: Reich-chancellor von Ribbentrop arrived to Finland 22 June 1944... ...Negotiations started with generic negotiation with Ryti in evening of 22 June and on the night of 23 June... Lunde (2011) p.301-303 describes the same issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I added sources for that in Draft #3. -YMB29 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• In draft 1, the sentence "This demand of capitulation was similar like the one presented to Italy which led to signing of Italy's unconditoional surrender at September 29" is sourced to the actual declaration that Italy signed. As a primary source, this can only be used for citing basic facts about the declaration. It also does not explicitly state that the two demands for capitulation were similar. To include this claim we would need a reliable third-party source that explicitly claims that the two demands were similar, otherwise we can't include it per WP:OR. Are there any other sources that we could use to suitably cite this claim? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the source for that. --Whiskey (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• In both draft 1 and draft 2, it is not clear how much material citation notes 3 and 4 (Moisala & Alanen (1988); Lunde (2011)) (notes 1 and 2 in draft 2) are supposed to be backing up. As this section is being disputed, would it be possible to add an inline citation at the end of every sentence, even if it points to the same source? I think it's extra important that we note which sources the material is coming from when we are discussing possible compromises. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the citation/quotes i provided above should do nicely as citations for those statements, at least for the second half of the section in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the citations. -YMB29 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some of the older sources here could have been affected by the opening of the Soviet archives, which I think happened in 1991 (correct me if I'm wrong here). For statements like "the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written" in draft 1, which are sourced to pre-1991 sources, might there also be post-1991 sources which state the same conclusions? This would strengthen the case for this wording, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The demand itself was not contained (solely) within Soviet archives so their status does not really matter - what matters was what the Finnish leadership received. However Lunde (2011) discusses (p.302-303) of the demand as 'demand for an unconditional surrender.' - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lunde simply writes: ...June 23 - when the Finns received the Soviet answer, basically demanding unconditional capitulation. And cites this to Mannerheim's memoirs. -YMB29 (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, he also states on p. 304 "Finland did not have much choice. Its leaders had to accept the Soviet demand for unconditional surrender, or the German demand for binding alliance...". Ignoring further statements and dismissing his comments does not benefit any one, least of all this mediation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well what really does not help is not understanding the issue being discussed. Not only does Lunde not discuss the Soviet response, but his only source for unconditional surrender is Mannerheim's memoirs, which are not a post-1991 source... -YMB29 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Only the first instance is sourced to Mannerheim's memoirs, the second instance is not, instead it appears from all accounts to be Lunde's own text. Which does make it post-1991 source stating that it was demand for unconditional surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you are both right here - he uses Mannerheim as a source, but the wording "unconditional surrender" is his own. However the wording "basically demanding unconditional capitulation" is his own as well. He leaves things a bit vague, and doesn't discuss this issue in any great depth, and he doesn't make any strong case that either the Soviet demand was for complete surrender or whether there wore more complicated factors at work. (Maybe there is more detail on pp.301-302, which I can't access on Google Books.) I don't think we can count him as having a strong opinion on our issue here - really we need to look at sources that have more detail on this, if we can find them.

As for the wider issue, I think the problem here is that we are attempting to describe the Soviet intent behind the memo twice: first with "demanded a signed statement of capitulation" and second with "as it was written". I think it would be much easier to just attempt to describe it once, and drop the wording "as it was written" to just say "the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as a demand for unconditional surrender" as it is in drafts two and three. We can include different interpretations of Soviet intent in the first instance along with "demanded a signed statement of capitulation" if we need to. We could have wording like "some scholars interpreted the Soviet memo as a demand for unconditional surrender, whereas others pointed to more complex circumstances involved" to show this. (Of course, to do this, we would need strong evidence that scholars have taken a position one way or the other.) How does this proposal sound to all of you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a couple.. Lunde p.317: While these preliminary terms did not demand unconditional surrender as had been demanded in he terms of June 23... Lunde p.270: ...the Allies had agrred to demand unconditional surrender not only from the Germans but also from her allies. After the rejection of the April 1944 peace offer, Finland fell squarely into the unconditional capitulation category

No, he does not appear to be vague at all unless quoted selectively. And the fact remains that the Soviet demand explicitly demanded Finns to surrender first before knowing the terms. Which is analogous or synonymous to unconditional surrender. As it was written part only refers to the fact that the Soviet demand included such a clause. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't obvious in my opinion the statement must included mention, clear and direct mention, that the demand was a demand for surrender without conditions. There is no word weaseling out of that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I see - does this mean that you would prefer to change the initial wording of "demanded a signed statement of capitulation" as well? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"...demanded a signed statement of capitulation without any conditions before delegation could be sent to Moscow to hear Soviet terms..." - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Apunen & Wolff (2009): Surrender demanded by Russians, capitulation, was as a concept more unconditional than anglosaxon term surrender. Factual difference between the allies were not, because the instrument of surrender was the first phase of the process for unconditional surrender prepared by western allies, after which the representatives of the defeated country would be given the conditions of peace, which were unnegotiable. Unconditional surrender meant also, that surrendered enemy couldn't appeal to any principles of justice or rights presented in Atlantic charter --Whiskey (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good quote - thanks for digging that up. This conversation is starting to get a little hard to follow, so I'll reply down at the bottom. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the conditions for surrender were not negotiable once the surrender was accepted, but the defeated country had a chance to see the main conditions before accepting the surrender, and this is what was different from unconditional surrender. If the Soviets wanted unconditional capitulation (безоговорочная капитуляция), they would have written so. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Finns did not have chance to see any of the conditions before accepting the surrender in June 1944. Signed statement of surrender by Finnish government is already a surrender document, not a promise of surrender. As stated the Soviet demanded Finns to surrender without being able to see the any of the conditions, hence it was an unconditional surrender demand just like it had been written. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If I can just butt in here for a second... it appears that you are both arguing about your own interpretation of events here. While of course it is important to formulate your own opinion on events, this should have no influence at all on how you edit Wikipedia. At Wikipedia we structure articles depending on how the sources characterize events, not on how individual editors characterize events. We need to keep our analysis to that of the secondary sources, rather than trying to interpret the primary source documents ourselves. Also, there seem to be significant discrepancies as to how the different sources interpret the Soviet memo, so we should concentrate on characterizing the different positions taken by scholars, not trying to present one narrative that may be disputed. Have a look at the new section at the bottom of the page for more details on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text of the response the Finns received that I posted before: [15]

We respect Boheman and believe in his peacekeeping mission. However, since we have been deceived by the Finns several times, we would like to get from the Finnish government an official statement signed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. In the event we receive such a document from the Finnish government, Moscow would be willing to receive a delegation from the Finnish government.

So first of all, the text does not contain the word "unconditional", so "as it was written" is false. It can only be interpreted as unconditional surrender, not be claimed to be directly "written" as so.

Secondly, I thought that original research should be avoided? Asking for a statement signed by a top official to confirm that Finland is willing to surrender and asks for peace is not asking for unconditional surrender. Interpreting it as a demand for unconditional surrender is original research. And if a reliable source makes the same exact interpretation (based on the same logic), it is the author's conclusion, not a fact.

As for Lunde, again, he does not in any way analyze the Soviet response. He just says that it was basically an unconditional surrender demand. Citing Mannerheim the first time and not citing nor analyzing anything the other times the Soviet demand is mentioned, indicates that he simply based his conclusion on what Mannerheim had written. -YMB29 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Lunde actually establishes it as a demand for unconditional surrender before stating so, furthermore there is not citation regarding Mannerheim's memoirs attached the to the statement that it was understood as demand for unconditional surrender (on page 302: The answer was interpreted by the Finns as a demand for unconditional surrender, something they were not ready to accept). In other words there is no basis to claim that Lunde's statement would be based solely on Mannerheims account like YMB29 has depicted. Mannerheim is only cited in third (or so) occasion Lunde refers to demand, even then it is clearly not there because of the statement that the demand was for an unconditional surrender but because the start of the statement is based on what Mannerheim states in his memoirs (start of the statement which ends to the page 303: The German position was strengthened the following day - June 23 - when Finns...). For that matter official statement signed by Finnish leaders that it capitulates is a full surrender, not a promise of surrender. And Soviets demanded that it would happen without conditions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is again your OR, unless you provide a source that makes the same interpretation.

The start of that sentence is not available in the preview, but it still does not make the citation to Mannerheim not refer to unconditional surrender. There is still no indication that Lunde makes use of any sources that became available after 1991, which was the whole point of this discussion. And that quote from page 302 actually supports what I am saying, that the Finns interpreted it as unconditional surrender, not that it was written as so... -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Using half-a-source is hardly a valid excuse. Lunde uses the term unconditional surrender before (and even in separate paragraph) than any citation to Mannerheim. There is only your flawed original research that it would be solely based on pre-1991 sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you to prove that Lunde does use post-1991 sources, otherwise your mention of him here is just a waste of everyone's time...

However, the Lunde quote you provided supports what I am saying... -YMB29 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually you made the claim so the burden of proof is yours to carry, not any one else's. I only showed that the claim you made was false. I eagerly await for more proof on the matter from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What false claim have I made? You brought up Lunde so you have to prove that he is relevant in this discussion. So far you have only proven that he supports me. -YMB29 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

False claim that Lunde's statement regarding unconditional surrender would be based solely on Mannerheim memoirs. I showed that his statement regarding unconditional surrender was not based solely on Mannerheim. If you insist that Lunde does not use post-1991 sources you actually need to prove it. It is your claim, no one else's so the burden of proof is still yours. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to tell me to prove that the Earth is not flat too? Once again you brought up Lunde here, so it is your problem to show that he does indeed make use of sources that became available after 1991. The person who makes the claim has to prove it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if you press the issue. Lunde is a source published after 1991. By going your standards, there cant be anything that could have been written after 1991, since all the primary sources are of pre-1991. For that matter Lunde does use Vehviläinen (2002) as a source in his bibliography but according the standard you are applying i doubt that matters to you. -

Hi YMB29, Wander602 - before you continue this conversation further could I ask you to take a look at the new section on #Showing both sides of the debate I started near the bottom? If we can collaborate on that I think it will be a lot more efficient in finding a compromise. Remember, you did both agree to keep an open mind on this case when you agreed to the ground rules. This kind of arguing back and forth while giving no ground at all is a textbook example of how not to resolve a dispute - I think we need a different approach than the one you have been using here if we are to find a solution that is acceptable to all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• In both draft 1 and draft 2 the it says that the Soviets denied the Finnish interpretation in a 1944 article in Pravda, but in both drafts these statements are cited to the contemporary newspaper sources Dagens Nyheter, July 3, 1944 and Svenska Dagbladet, July 3, 1944. This is enough to verify this statement, in my opinion, but I think it would be useful to know if this fact was picked up by any historians, as that would strengthen the case for its historical relevance. Are any of you aware of such sources, by any chance? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who added that. It is probably true, but I removed it from my last draft for now. -YMB29 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the statement in draft 1 that "no other documents or minutes were published about the decisionmaking of Stalin and his government regarding this issue"? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't. I was trying to goad our Russian friends to provide additional sources to this discussion.

Basically, there seems to be only three primary sources available which provide insight to the Soviet intentions without the taint of Finnish rejection:

• June 22: Soviet original response to the Finnish inquiry
• June 26: The Committee of marhall Kliment Voroshilov, which prepared a document for Finnish unconditional surrender
• June 28: A letter(?) with accompanied draft for Finnish unconditional surrender

I presume the contents of the last two are practically the same, but I haven't seen the text of the Voroshilov's committee, so I don't know for sure, how it relates to that 1943 draft accompanied by the letter from June 28, 1944.

We have minutes from the meetings of Finnish government, but we don't have anything else from the Soviet side. I'd really appreciate if YMB29 could dig something up. Minutes, diaries, notes, anything written at the time, not afterwards. --Whiskey (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also feel free to add any more policy concerns with either of the drafts below. However, please refrain from making arguments based on neutrality or undue weight just yet - we can save that debate for when we are working on compromising between the different versions. We are just in the preliminary stage now, so please keep your arguments limited to the policies of verifiability and no original research. Once we have all these issues ironed out I'm sure we can work together to create a version that's acceptable to everyone. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is any one going to comment on the issues on draft talk page? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that. Let's keep all the discussion here, otherwise it will be difficult to keep track of it all. I've moved your comment over here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(This comment is about Draft 2 - moved here from the talk page there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫) Churchill's statement shows what the Allies were offering to nations aligned with the Axis. "...to receive Soviet terms..." & "...to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms..." - no indication that anything would have been discussed or negotiated, Soviet dictation of terms is therefore valid description. Term unconditional does not need to appear in the text. The demand explicitly stated that Finland needed to surrender without conditions before a delegation could be sent to Moscow. Surrendering without conditions is synonymous to unconditional surrender is it not? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is your original research. See above. -YMB29 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly in it is original research? Every statement in above can be verified from the cited (and reliable) sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So provide quotes from sources... See below. -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that maybe we have been approaching this in slightly the wrong way - I have a feeling that we are getting sidetracked by focusing on individual sources, and losing track of the big picture. Let's keep our attention strictly on the drafts, and to working towards a version that is acceptable to everyone. I notice that YMB29 has made draft 3, which has dealt with all the sourcing issues that I brought up previously; I think we can now use this to make a start on finding a compromise. To this end, I have a task for Wanderer602. Wanderer, would it be possible for you to create a new draft 4, based on draft 3? I would like you to change the wording and/or the sourcing so that you find it acceptable; but I would also like you to write it so that you think it would be acceptable to YMB29 as well. If possible, I would also like you to post back on this page with an explanation of why you changed what you did, and of how you think it will be an acceptable compromise for everyone. Does this sound like something you would be willing to do? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, i never agreed with drafts 2 or 3 (3 which is based on 2). So i would be basing my version more on draft 1 than to draft 3. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, posted a new one, the changes i made are explained the the previous posts here, but here is a short rundown: Made it more clear that the demand explicitly called for signed statement of surrender/capitulation from Finnish government and that it allowed (according to the demand) only delegation to arrive to Moscow, there were no guarantees of any kind of any discussions. As for Ryti & Tanner, they would have preferred to repeat the request of terms to the Soviets, since there were no discussions/negotiations going stating it like there would have been is misleading. Added back the note regarding Paasikivi's 'negotiations' of April 1944 which were only Soviet dictation of terms (as per sources). Same goes with the 'as per written', Soviet demand explicitly stated at Finns needed to sign a statement of surrender without conditions before terms could be received, in other words unconditional surrender. Churchill's comment is a counterbalance for the Stalins statement to Harriman, both are of equal value, if either should go then both should go. Also since the document from the archives was dated on 28 June (summer 1944) i fail to see the relevance of keeping the mention of other treaty drafts (of 1943) in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The draft was written in 1943, and June 28, 1944 is some date on it or on a letter that was attached to it. It is not clear from the sources that were provided before what that date means.

Soviet demand explicitly stated at Finns needed to sign a statement of surrender without conditions before terms could be received, in other words unconditional surrender

Please provide a quote for this interpretation from a source. In the context of the sentence in the response (...we would like to get from the Finnish government an official statement signed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace.), the word "capitulates" means "admits defeat" or "stops fighting" so that peace talks can begin; it does not mean a formal surrender. This is the point that Baryshnikov makes.

As for Ryti & Tanner, they would have preferred to repeat the request of terms to the Soviets, since there were no discussions/negotiations going stating it like there would have been is misleading.

"Repeat the request of terms to the Soviets" can still be considered negotiating... The source I cited explicitly says negotiations.[16]

When the Finnish government recalled Paasikivi's negotiation trip to Moscow in March 1944 (initiated by Mrs. Kollontai), which had merely turned out to be the Soviets' dictation of terms,^[4][5] the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written:^[6][7] a demand for unconditional surrender^[4][3]

Is this synthesis? Or can you quote a source that makes the same point?

Churchill's comment is a counterbalance for the Stalins statement to Harriman, both are of equal value, if either should go then both should go.

Not quite... Churchill did not determine Soviet policy, Stalin did that... I am not sure that the statement regarding Churchill is accurate since the allies agreed on a separate peace for Finland at the Tehran Conference.[17]

-YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You have evidence it that the exact draft in question was written in 1943? Unless you do the whole statement is irrelevant.

There is no need to provide quotes, Soviets demanded surrender without conditions exactly like the demand had been written. Also feel free to use wiktionary or other tools, capitulation = To agree terms of surrender; to end all resistance, to give up; to go along with or comply. It does not make mandatory allowance for negotiations like you imply.

No, there was no negotiations, only suggestion of repeating request.

What it in would be synthesis? Could you please specify? All statements are supported by the sources cited.

Churchill's comment is just as relevant since UK was also at war with Finland.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So I guess all you have is original research? I was specific about what I was asking.

About the surrender draft being written in 1943: [18] -YMB29 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what you are this time interpreting as original research. Statements that say that March/April 'negotiations' were actually one sided listing of terms (ie. dictations) were provided. Last i checked if i do provide a source for a specific statement that statement is not original research.

Using term 'negotiate' seems to be POV pushing to imply that Soviet demand would have only been invitation to negotiations. Therefore using more neutral and much less misleading expression would be preferable.

Writer in the quote does not say that the draft would have been written in 1943 - he says it could have been written already in 1943. However there is no proof of that nor does the source that there would be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is known (from Baryshnikov) that such drafts were written in 1943, so it is not just "could have been written".

I guess the Finnish author I cite is "POV pushing" when he says negotiations...

Every statement, interpretation and conclusion you make for the draft must be backed up by a source, so to make sure this is so I asked you for quotes from sources. So far you fail to provide them, so it can be assumed that much of what you say is your own OR. -YMB29 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that exact draft would be from 1943? If you do not then it does not matter that there were other drafts.

That i can not answer, but proper expression would be to state that requested repeating the inquiry of the terms (which was their intent) not to state that there would have been negotiations.

Actually, every statement in the draft has a citation so i still can not see what you are after. What exactly are you after? Please do note that quotes for 'dictation' part have been provided several times. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Provided but did not match your claim, which is probably the case with your other claims that you stick citations to... So unless you provide quotes that exactly back up what you say, I will assume that this is your OR.

The source clearly says negotiations. proper expression would be... - proper according to who?

Do you have evidence that this exact draft would have been given to Finland in June of 1944 had they answered the Soviets? -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In which exact way did not match the claims? Since these are not primary sources there is some leeway in writing what the source is stating.

According to what the word negotiate means perhaps? There was no Soviet side, there was nothing being negotiated. Finns requested peace and Soviets sent demand for unconditional surrender. Only thing Ryti & Tanner were thinking was repeating request to see the terms. Moisala & Alanen argues that Ryti & Tanner were hoping to use the demand as starting point for negotiations (ie. stating that there were no negotiations going on at the time).

That draft handles Finland during summer of 1944. It clearly is relevant to the Finnish situation of summer of 1944. However the other drafts, from the text apparently even referring to other nations, are not unless you can prove that this draft was also written in 1943. Just because some drafts were written in 1943 does not mean the draft in question would have been unless you can prove it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we agree to make this chapter a little longer, so we could include more information, as we seem to agree (YMB29?) that there should be a deeper version of this which would be referred elsewhere? In that sense, could we agree, that the issue is divided to four paragraphs: Messaging, Finnish response, Soviet response, documentary evidence/scholarly interpretation? It would be easier if we handle each paragraph separately, so we could move to something like incremential changes instead of totally different versions? (I guess we could agree on some text?) --Whiskey (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, yes. Before we start expanding this text a lot, however, I would rather get some basic agreement about the part that has been disputed. My spideysense tells me that it will be easier to agree on a shorter version (though we will probably have to make it more wordy to find an agreement), and that it will be easier to expand it once we have an agreement. Does that sound reasonable? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I see it other way around: This is so complex issue and our views are so far away from each other, that we have to establish some sort of consensus what happened before we could provide a short version which could be acceptable to everyone. Otherwise we would repeat these things over and over again in this discussion and lose the bigger picture.

In a short version we cannot have everything anybody wants. The only way we could find a compromise is to provide as large as and as detailed as possible article/section. It is much easier to compromise if one sees the whole picture and realise how some details are more important than others there. --Whiskey (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I do see what you mean, and I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of a process that will help everyone find a compromise. I do also think that you're right about a longer version being needed for everyone to have the best chance of agreeing, and that such a section would work well in the Continuation War article or somewhere similar. I think YMB29 has spelled it out quite clearly down below, however. His problem is with the wording "as it was written", so if we can change just that part of the statement so that it's acceptable to everyone - maybe making it longer, as you say - then we will have solved our problem. Everything else will just be normal editing. On the other hand, if we make a large, well-sourced section that covers all the different aspects of these events, but still includes the text "as it was written", then I doubt YMB29 will be happy with it. Here it may be instructive to ask YMB29 what he thinks of draft 5, as it seems to demonstrate what you're proposing quite well. (Thanks for the work you've put into it, by the way.) YMB29? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Showing both sides of the debate

Hi again guys. Thank you for all your comments and work on creating drafts - it has been very helpful, and I think that we now have a much better handle on what exactly the issues are here. Now, I have been discussing this with some of the other MedCab mediators, and we have come to the same conclusion: the dispute over this particular issue stems from a discrepancy in the sources. On the one hand we have Lunde (2011), who uses "unconditional surrender" and "basically a demand for unconditional capitulation", and Apunen & Wolff (2009) who are even more explicit in their description of the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. On the other hand, we have Maude (2010) who says the memo was "far from a demand for 'unconditional surrender'". There are also undoubtedly other sources with various opinions on this issue. In cases like these, we cannot pick sides. The neutral point of view policy says that we must include all major points of view, and that means that we cannot and should not try and simplify this debate to make it look as if the sources agree on how to interpret the Soviet memo.

So, I have some more homework for you, if you will humour me some more. I would like you each to suggest a wording for the sentence(s) in question that describe both sides of the issue. It might look something like this: "In their 2009 book, Apunen and Wolff argued that the Soviet memo should be interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender; however, Maude (2010) was of the opinion that there could have been some room for negotiation". You can have a look at WP:ASF for some more hints about how to do this. This kind of writing will be the key to finding a compromise that we can all live with, in my opinion. As usual, let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that this is making it more complex than it needs to be. The main problem I have is with the phrase "as it was written" (the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender). Since sources don't agree on this, there is no reason to have that phrase there. With it removed, the statement will look neutral and won't suggest that any side is wrong.

Furthermore, Lunde is contradictory about this. He not only writes that the demand was unconditional surrender and basically a demand for unconditional capitulation like you said, but he also states that it was interpreted by the Finns as a demand for unconditional surrender (page 302).

The Apunen & Wolff quote does not say that the Soviet demand was directly asking for unconditional surrender, but that conditional surrender to the allies basically meant unconditional surrender. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are after with this. That is Soviets demanded Finns to surrender without conditions, or at least without knowing any of the conditions, which as it happens is by definition an unconditional surrender. It simply does not matter what the actual demand said in this regard (ie. surrender/capitulate/unconditional surrender), as it explicitly demanded Finns to surrender/capitulate without knowing the conditions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer, let me stop you there just one moment. Previously in the discussion of issue four many of your arguments have been based on what actually happened at the time - "the Soviets demanded Finns to surrender without conditions", "Finns did not have chance to see any of the conditions before accepting the surrender in June 1944", etc. I've been trying to break this to you as gently as possible, but arguments like this are actually totally irrelevant to the decision of what we should put in the article. We can only include what has been written in reliable sources, and those should preferably be third-party sources, especially for a subject like this. We simply cannot include interpretation of events by individual editors. If you take a look at our page on verifiability, not truth you might start to see the logic of this approach. Following on from this, when there is more than one viewpoint expressed in the sources, we must express all the major viewpoints, as outlined in our neutral point of view policy. If there is a discrepancy in the sources, as in this case, then according to Wikipedia policy we cannot present one single narrative. It is very important that you understand and accept this before we move on, because this is really the key to finding a version that we can compromise on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Except both of those statements are as per sources. In June 1944 demand the terms were not shown to Finns, instead it demanded surrender without seeing the conditions. ALL sources support this statement so there is nothing wrong with that. That combined with the demand of surrender demand (which was included in the Russian note) means by definition that the demand was a demand for unconditional surrender (even if it was by accidental phrasing of the matter by Soviets or more accurately the Soviet representative in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai). As the demand was written refers to the fact (again supported by the sources) that Finns did not seek clarification from the Soviets and instead made their decision according to the written note. Both facts are supported by plenty of sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)