Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

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.

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))

I've added a secondary source. --Martin (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence by removing the word "acknowledged" absent in the sources. (Igny (talk) 13:06, 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 [1] 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" [2], 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 J V ►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 J V ►TALK 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right PЄTЄRS J V, the point is in no place did Putin claim anything about "voluntarily joining".--Termer (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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[3]. 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)

Here is a book that surveys the treatment of Baltic history in Russian textbooks[4], it may give us an understanding of this complex. --Martin (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

very informative source Martin! Do you want to take your time and integrate this with the article or is it done already?--Termer (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took care of it and made it clear from where this voluntary stuff comes from [5]. 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[6] 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)

He is not new by any means [7] (Igny (talk) 22:43, 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)

Ok to summarize the recent talk archives... I have been insisting on biasedness of the article's title because it lacked reference to the annexation of the Baltic states by Soviet Union. Later Paul Siebert widened the scope of the tag by pointing out that the whole article was biased. It remains biased since then. (Igny (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

The annexation was illegal though right? So how is it POV to exclude that from the title? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Illegality =/= it did not happen. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

That makes no sense, I was mugged, that is illegal, it did happen. Just because something is illegal does not mean it did not happen. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Igny, we all well know you think the article title is biased but you have never told us why. A subsequent move request indicated that there was no concensus for a move. So failing the move, the POV-title tag was replaced with a POV tag. Now you need to explain why you think the article is biased, we can't read your mind. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I sm ok with just a POV-TITLE tag on this article, and I have provided plenty of sources and other evidence why. You can ask Paul why he thinks the POV tag is more warranted for this article. (Igny (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I've reviewed the archive and have not found any evidence that you have provided any sources what so ever, can you provide a diff? Also the only argument that you appear to have made was to offer of a Socratic Method, which you apparently failed to follow through when other editors accept your offer [8]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Igny's phantom Socratic Method was just a dinner invitation. He had prepared some fish in tomato sauce, and thought that we should all come over and have a cordial meal with him. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you re-read the archives more closely, you would notice that I made that offer to you and you failed to accept it. So there was nothing to follow through on my part. (Igny (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't own the article, others had accepted your offer, I was busy with real life. But you failed to follow through. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has real life, e.g., I had even less desire than you to waste my time, that argument of yours does not fly. But that is ok, I understand. You just got scared and wanted a way out of a potentially binding conclusion of a debate which was not going to be in favor of your cause. (Igny (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Translation: Igny only wishes to debate so long as it continues a personal feud with Martin, without regard to article improvement or anything so mundane. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if I convinced all editors but Martin, the next RM would still be "no consensus". So what part of "I did not want to waste my time" didn't you understand? If Martin chose to stay out of debate that was his problem, not mine. (Igny (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

The RM failed because you failed to convince a number of uninvolved editors who subsequently opposed the move. You need to formulate and target your argument (supported by sources) to a wider audience rather than personalise this. That means going beyond "I don't like it". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)If there are to actual reasons given for the tags inclusion then it ought be removed, So someone had better give a reason for it being there posthaste The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to repeat one of the reasons once more. There is no word "annexation" in the title. So rephrase your proposal by suggesting a solution without a threat of an edit war. (Igny (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

That was suggested during the RM and rejected, no consensus = default. The default title being Occupation of the Baltic States. Just because you failed to garner a consensus does not give you the right to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely, and the edit warring has been conducted by yourself, I looked at the article history you have edit warred this tag in for months now. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:you have edit warred this tag in for months now. Thank you for reminding me about me reverting sockpuppets and IPSocks for months now. You are right the RM ended with a "no consensus" to move. The default action of keeping the status quo however did not validate the title. But this is not about the title only. This is about the POV tag. Do you see how fast a consensus is forming to remove the tag? I don't. No consensus to remove the tag means no resolution to the dispute. That means the tag stays by default per very same argument you provided here. (Igny (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Default means the last stable version, which is prior to the tag. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No. The tag stays until the dispute is resolved. I meant that default. (Igny (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I`m afraid not, just because you personally feel the title (or article which is it?) does not say that which you want it to stay does not mean you get to keep a tag in place for such an extended period of time, and you have reverted it in against established editors as well as IP`s and some known socks (and did you know they were socks at the time?) The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

against established editors. Thanks for reminding about the EEML too. "Extended period of time" is a rather subjective thing. For some a day might be too long, for others 50 years is nothing. Remember there is no rush, we just have to do it right. (Igny (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Ooooh, EEML! Scaaary! Please, don't try to bolster your argument by slinging old ArbCom mud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:to bolster your argument. Exactly what argument am I trying to bolster here? Oh wait, I am not allowed to defend myself against unfounded accusations by TLAM, is that it? (Igny (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I recall, during the discussion about the article's title we considered two options: (i) to add the word "annexation" to the title and, following the Malksoo's advise, to make an emphasis in the article on the fact that the annexation was illegal and by no means interrupted the continuity of the Baltic states, or (ii) to leave the title unchanged and to make clear in the article that we cannot speak about pure military occupation in that case, because these states were de facto annexed by the USSR, and became the full members of the latter, and this annexation was de facto (although not de jure) recognized by majority of states. I myself supported the second option, expecting that the good faith and common sense would prevail. However, as I can see, that hadn't happened. Therefore, the POV tag is totally warranted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The policy WP:COMMONNAME requires us to use the most common name used across multiple sources such as major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias and scientific journals. So unfortunately that prevents us from using a single source as the basis of choosing a name. That usage was demonstrated during the move request and subsequently all uninvolved participants agreed the current name was sufficient, hence the move request failed. Of course there are many different types of occupation defined in international law. For example Guggenheim defines three types:

1. belligerent occupation sensu stricto, which is what I think you are referring to when you state "pure military occupation"
2. occupation following an armistice, and
3. belligerent occupation sui generis

Now Prof. Mälksoo identifies the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states of the type sui generis, a Annexionsbesetzung, and this is exactly what is described in the first paragraph of the lede, which Igny himself added[9], so I don't understand why you think nothing was changed since the move request. So the POV tag is wholly unjustified. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

90 per cent of the article discusses annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. And yet there is no "annexation" in the title. Per COMMONNAME policy you cited, annexation should be in the title. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

The article (starting from the first sentence) makes a redundant sreass on the term "military occupation" to describe the event in Baltics, although that is not what many (if not majority) of reliable sources say. In addition, the opinion of Malksoo (espetially the opinion expressed in his e-letter to Jaan) has been misinterpreted by you. The tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, nobody disputes the Baltic states were militarily occupied on 14 June 1940. We have discussed this before. You interpret Mälksoo as saying: the Baltics were miliarily occupied in 1940, then subsequently annexed, however over time this annexation acquired the characteristics of an occupation. You interpretation is flawed, how would an annexation get more characteristics of an occupation over time? Did the olypmic games in 1980 have more occupation characteristics than in 1950 when the Forest Brothers were fighting the Soviet military? Clearly not. What Mälksoo is saying is: the Baltics were miliarily occupied in 1940 then subsequently annexed, but the annexation was illegal so the occupation continued, however over time this occupation acquired the characteristics of an annexation. This interpretation fits with the reality of 1950 and 1980. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malksoo, as well as some other authors, devoted his attention primarily to the state continuity of the Baltic states, and, from that point of view the thesis about occupation provided a legal ground for speaking about uninterrupted continuity. However, since the article is devoted not only to the state continuity issue, it is necessary to stress the fact that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR, and that their status within the USSR was identical to that of other members of this union. There are some additional changes that should be made before we can speak about removal of the tag, and if you are ready for concrete discussion, just let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what additonal changes are required, we already have a section Under Soviet rule 1944–1991, but please list them here. If you want to stress the fact that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR, and that their status within the USSR was identical to that of other members of this union, then we will have to also stress the fact that the Baltic SSRs were regarded as puppet creations imposed by force and opposed by Balts worldwide, and the long history of violent and non-violent resistance to Soviet rule. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul and "no different"—We already know the Soviet version of history, e.g., all "rights" "enjoyed" by other republics and citizens of those republics. The Latvian SSR article is available for content about "de facto" life. De facto does not change that Baltic nationals were deported illegally, that Baltic nationals continued to be illegally conscripted (as they were during war-time) into the armed forces of an occupying power, that Soviet occupation led to "Sovietization" permeating every aspect of personal and professional life, etc., etc., etc. Both "de facto" and "identical" are material only insofar as they underscore the complete displacement of rightful sovereign authorities on Baltic territory by the Soviet Union, i.e., the definition of occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And, once again, the ongoing presence is the occupation, the annexation by the Soviets is merely an act committed as part of that occupation. Annexation does not displace occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of clear equating ("identical") in respect to other Soviet republics? Even under purportedly "equal" status the Baltic states were subjected to further unequal mass deportations and repressions against Baltic citizens. Let's not pretend that "identical" was anything but in word only. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, then the tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not if this viewpoint you are suggesting is unsupported by published reliable sources. We already have the respective republic level SSR articles, so it is not clear to me precisely what changes you are proposing. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I never suggest or advocate the viewpoints that are not supported by reliable sources, and you are perfectly aware of this fact. The sources supporting my viewpoint had been presented during the previous discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please list your concrete suggestions for text changes here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename the article, remove the tag. Further improvement will naturally follow (Igny (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

I would prefer to follow the second way (outlined by me above): to leave the title unchanged but to modify the content. For the beginning, I suggest to modify the first sentence of the lede, which currently tells about military occupation. We need to tell that the Baltic states were forcefully incorporated into the USSR via signing ostensibly mutual assistance treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states with subsequent stationing of the Red Army troops on their territories, followed by the full absorption of these states by the USSR using the mechanism of rigged elections. If this proposal is supported, we can move further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The current first sentence states:

"... refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states .... on 14 June 1940[1][2] followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics."

Are you saying the Baltic states were not militarily occupied in June 14? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem weird to anyone else that "or Annexionsbesetzung as described by Lauri Mälksoo" is so prominent in the first sentence of the article as amended by Collect? Is the term Annexionsbesetzung widely used? A cursory Google search finds that it's usage is basically non-existent in English. Undue weight to this term is being given in the lead of the article. And it does nothing to solve the POV problem that is inherent with the article. I can only second the thoughts of other editors who are miffed at why the term "annexation" is not used in the title? And why, when it is implied the term "incorporation" is used, but with the POV "illegal" immediately before it. This is followed by the term "internationally unrecognised constituent republics" - that in itself is a matter of contention. This is only the first sentence, and there are already 3 things I can see wrong with it. This needs to be discussed. Additionally, why is it in the lead there are some 40 references? The lead is supposed to succinctly summarise the article, so references are not required, as the information will be contained within the article itself, and therefore referenced. If information is not within the article itself, the information should not be in the lead at all. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Serious questions require serious responces. If you don't mind, I'll analyse the sentence as whole. It says:

"The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940 followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics."

Is see several problems here. "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940..." Firstly, according to the viewpoint you advocate, "occupation" refers mostly to the state, whereas "annexation" to the event. In this particular case, however, the term refers to the event. However, since this article devoted to the whole period of 1940-91, to start it with the words "The occupation of the Baltic states (in bold) refers to the military occupation ... on June 14. " would be incorrect. Secondly, not all sources agree that these states were annexed "under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact", and, taking into account that Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step, we cannot add these words to the lede (despite the fact that some sources do say that). Thirdly, I do not understand why the word "annexation" was replaced with "incorporation", although the former is very common term in the sources discussing the Baltic states. Fourthly, the words "internationally unrecognised" need to be specified: majority of states did recognize the annexation de facto, and some of them (e.g. Britain) did that explicitly. These are the issues with the first sentence as I see them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you are taking the first part of the sentence out of context of the second part, there is no full stop (or even a comma) after "... on 14 June 1940" but continues on "... followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics.[3]", the beginning of the sentence "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to" relates to both parts of the sentence and the entire paragraph should be considered in the same context. Secondly the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, so obviously it must be brief and succinct. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And now you suggest that the first sentence called annexation of the Baltic states "occupation". There are multiple sources which differentiate between the two (as in "occupation and annexation"), but this is the first time I hear "occupation refers to annexation".(Igny (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I have a feeling that Martin and I started to understand each other, so some possibility of consensus exists. Martin, before we move further, can you tell me if you see anything factually wrong in my 01:24 post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you may be commiting a contextomy. Rather than attempt critique each phrase of the lede out of context, one has to look at the entire paragraph: "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to" (the name of the article being bolded), then follows is the scoping of the article by referring to: the military occupation on June 14 1940, the incorporation into the USSR, the Nazi occupation of 1941, the Soviet re-conquest in 1944 and rule until the restoration of independence in 1991. Admittedly it is rather brief, but remember that this is only suppose to be a summary of the whole article and the subsections are there to give detail. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no contextomy here. The WP:LEDE says "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition" The first sentence looks like such a definition, and therefore is misleading. If we speak about OoBS as a period of time when these states were under foreign dominance then the first sentence should openly tell that. For instance, in a such way:

"Occupation (annexation) of the Baltic states refers to the period of the history (1940-1991) when these states were under foreign (Soviet or German) dominance as the de facto members of the USSR or parts of the Reichskomissariat Ostland, accordingly."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The current lede is quite accurate and encom passing. Your insistence on your precise wording goes well against the principle of WP:CONSENSUS even if it reaches the proverbial "hold my breath until I turn blue" stage. The consensus is now that the lede is neutrally worded, and that is sufficient to remove the tag. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede is according to Baltic historiography; if we add those words, then yes it is accurate. But to call the annexation and incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union illegal is obviously but one POV. Because the other POV is all but ignored. Tsgyankov says it perfectly...

The U.S. support for the Baltic states’ vision of Russia’s role during the Cold War was apparent when the Kremlin invited 50 foreign leaders to come to Moscow on May 9, 2005, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of victory over Fascism. Two Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, refused, viewing the end of the war as the beginning of their occupation by the Soviets. Separating victory over Fascism and the occupation by the Soviets did not turn out to be possible for the small Eastern European nations. Their leaders insisted on their version of history, presenting Russia as unable to relinquish its “imperial ambitions.” The United States exerted additional pressures on Russia, and President Bush, while traveling to the region, strongly condemned the Soviet annexation and occupation of the Baltic republics as a result of World War II. When the Kremlin begged to differ,66 Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, expressed America’s frustration with Russia by telling reporters that the only “true narrative” of World War II is “ours” and what the Russians “don’t like to remember is what they were doing from 1939 to 1941.”67

Now look at this article, whilst remember those words, and the irony is amazing. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, we have opinion such as Sergei Kortunov (Что стоит за мифом о «советской оккупации»), Andrei Tsgyankov, and a whole host of other experts in their fields and academics whose opinions are ignored in the lede. We have only Baltic historiography in the lede, with other POV being totally omitted. Additionally +1; the lede does not summarise the article at all. Take for example:

The Governments of the Baltic states,[6][7] the United States[8][9] and its courts of law,[10] the European Parliament,[11][12][13] the European Court of Human Rights[14] and the United Nations Human Rights Council,[15] have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions[16] of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941–1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944–1991.

None of this is mentioned at all in the article proper. Why is that? The article is an absolute mess, and the POV problems are massive with it. It should now be obvious that the "POV" tag is no badge of shame, but a signal to the absolutely real POV problems existent right here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the claim of "Baltic historiography" is somewhat undermined by the quote by Daniel Fried, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs stating: "true narrative” of World War II is “ours”", I don't think Daniel Fried is a Balt. Not only the USA, but also the EU explicitly supports the Western view, as do Canada and Australia. That view is also supported by the various independent courts in these western countries, as well virtually unanimous support amongst various Western scholars and historians. It is even found into the definitive reference work published by Oxford University Press The Oxford companion to the Second World War [10]. So please, no more talk of "Baltic historiography", it is "Western historiography"

The Russian viewoint/historiography has coverage in the lede and article. There is no unanimity amongst Russian scholars We have Russian scholars like Professor and Dean of the School of International Relations at St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley who characterises it as an occupation[11]:

"When, in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic governments to sign the Treaties on Bases that allowed Soviet troops onto their territories, Stalin announced that he did not intend to establish Soviet rule in the Baltic states. In reality, he was simply biding his time. By June 1940, the time was ripe. The great powers, shocked by Germany's defeat of France, had their attention focused on Western Europe. No one was able to oppose Soviet policy towards the Baltic states. It is likely that Stalin wanted to occupy the Baltic states and Bessarabia (including Bucovina, which was not mentioned in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) as quickly as possible. It is assumed that he was afraid of the rising power of Germany (nobody in Moscow expected France to fall so quickly) and the possibility that Germany might renegotiate the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact in its favour.

On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.

In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression. The occupation bolstered anti-Soviet public opinion in the USA and United Kingdom - potential Soviet allies in case of German aggression — as well as engendering resistance in the Baltic states themselves. Nationalisation of industry and services, imposition of communist dogmas in cultural life, declining living standards and, most especially, mass deportations all created a backdrop for mass hatred of the Soviet Union, and led some circles to express sympathy for Germany and the Nazi regime. The subsequent guerrilla movement in the Baltic republics after the Second World War created domestic problems for the Soviet Union, using up already limited military and economic resources during the 1940s and 1950s."

The only consistent opposing viewpoint appears is a political viewpoint of the Russian government that claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic states. On the other side we have a Western viewpoint supported by a very large base comprising of political resolutions, court decisions, books and scholarly papers, including Russian scholarship, that agree that occupation occurred. What some editors here appear to be asking for is to give more weight to a minority Russian viewpoint at the expense of the body of Western authorship. That is not how NPOV works. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if the Russian government's viewpoint is minority (which is not the fact, since Russia as legal successor to USSR has far more relation to the matter than Western countries and their scholarship combined), it is highly significant viewpoint, and thus according to NPOV should be decently represented alongside the primary viewpoint. GreyHood ^Talk 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you haven't answer my question. Does it mean that you agree with Collect, or you just overlooked it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, while Russia may have a direct relationship, so do the Baltic states. Due weight is given according to what has been published in reliable sources. Western scholarship on the matter fills library bookshelves while Russian foreign ministry declarations would fill no more that a single A4 ring binder at best. So this indicates how much weight ought to be attributed to the view of the Russian government, which is already given a generously sized section. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Baltic foreign ministry declarations would also fill no more than a single A4 ring binder at best. But what you are forgetting is Russian scholarship. I see that no Russian scholarship is used on the article at present. I have provided one such source from Sergey Kortunov (unfortunately died last year), a graduate from MGIMO, a Kandidat Nauk in politics, professor and head of the International Relations department of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow (now a national research university). And he writes quite scathingly about the Baltic historiography. And I am able to produce many other high quality, academic sources which provide a much better insight into academic, scholarly opinions from Russia - not political think-thanks as much of western opinion is taken from, but actual academic sources. Would editors like me to provide more? I am sure the RAN would have more publications - i'll see if I can gain access to another database which has many papers, dissertations and books and publications and provide more sources which can be used. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I need to mention about Friedman. The information I quoted is from a book called "Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Andrei Tsygankov, a professor at San Francisco State University (which would count as Western scholarship would it not????????) - and is from a chapter of the book which deals specifically with Baltic historiography and how the Balt lobby and the anti-Russian lobby in Washington work hand in hand, and the American anti-Russian lobby takes Baltic historiography and uses it in their own Russophobic campaigns. And the same goes for much of Europe. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact you appear to see Russophobia from everyone else might, conversely, mean that it is your POV which is in the minority. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not giving my own personal opinion, it is the opinion of Andrei Tsygankov --- he is one of the most notable scholars in relation to American foreign policy as it directly relates to Russia. So it's not my POV, but the POV of a Western scholar. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, that person was born in Russia. And lived in Russia for most of his life. Cheers - you should be more careful is making assertions that he is "Western." Collect (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, 80 percent of the sources, Martin referred to as Western (shelves and shelves of books) are actually Baltic. Whenever I did a search in English language GScholar (an example), most of the English sources which came up have been authored by the Baltic nationals or expatriates.(Igny (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Collect, that is stupid: the source is considered western or eastern not based on the author's birthplace, or even not based on his country of residence, but based on the publication place. The work published by the Oxford University Press is a western source independent of whether the author is an American, Chinese or Japanese. The Tsygankov's "Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy" has been published by Macmillan, and therefore, is a western source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me also point out that your last post just confirms the thesis that you are trying to debunk: namely, that the accusations in Russophobia put forward by Russavia do have some ground.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, the idea is to call the other person's post stupid and that ends the matter? Sheesh Paul -- that sort of ad hominem silliness and inanity ill-serves you entirely. You should, moreover, note that I expanded the claim to the exact quote found in the cite. It is not my, or anyone's, task to "debunk" anything, nor have I tried to "debunk" anything, - but only to give each position proper weight in an article. I would have hoped you understood the Wikipedia policies thereon. BTW, the OUP does not say "Western views only are published" last I checked - that assertion by you is "interesting." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with calling a stupid post "stupid": a scholar working for UCSF and whose books are published by Macmillan is a western scholar, and any attempt to characterise him otherwise is either stupidity or racism (or Russophobia). I prefer to think it was just a stupidity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, these types of comments do not encourage a collegiate atmosphere. I think Collect was referring to the proposition put forward that Tsygankov is saying "Russophobia" is behind Western scholarship, which really is no more than a minority viewpoint. As for Igny's assertion that "80 percent of the sources are actually Baltic", a check of the article bibliography confirms that to be false. As for Tsygankov, his stance has been criticised as playing up the "paranoia card"[12] with his tendency to level the charge of "russophobia" at any critic of the present political course in Russia, as Umland states, "much of the more competent criticism of current Russia comes from people who not only know and study, but actually like or even love the Russian people, culture and customs - not to mention the various Russians and half-Russians among the critics". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ReAs for Igny's assertion I have never asserted anything of the sort. I do remember your (of Vecrumba's, it does not matter here) argument for usage of occupation in the title citing Gscholar statistics (or ngrams or something of the sort). I would like to point out to you that significant portion of the English sources which contributed to that statistics were authored by Baltic nationals or expatriates, and thus it weakens your argument of the "pre-dominant Western" support of "occupation" vs. more neutral alternatives. Basically that statistical argument of yours was obviously skewed by the fact that Baltic scholars published more articles in English than the Russian scholars. (Igny (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I think we have all reasons to call Baltic authors "western", because they are Europeans. However, we need to keep in mind that from the point of view of majority of Earth population Russian are western too. In addition, there is not western - non-western division according to our policy. According to our policy and guidelines, English sources are preferred over non-English ones, and academic peer-reviewed sources are preferred over all others. If you use some English scholarly sources, the accusations similar to the Collect's accusation he put forward against Russavia are not in accordance with our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree, Martin. Although collegiate atmosphere assume politeness and respectfullness, it is sometimes necessary and useful to characterize obviously stupid posts as such. To call a scholar working for the Western university and publishing his works in Western publishing houses "not Western" is a tantamount to racism, therefore I preferred to call it "stupidity", which is not a serious accusation: every person can make a stupid post, but only reasonable persons are able to recognise and fix his mistake.

Regarding your arguments about Tsygankov, I found them reasonable, but irrelevant. I admit his vision of Russophobia can be criticised by his peers, however, that does not make his viewpoint not "Western". For instance, the works of another Californian professors, Richard Raaks, whose views are extremely anti-Russian and pro-Baltic (probably due his origin) have also been criticised, however, that is not a reason to call them a "not-Western" scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I suggest to return to something more productive. Yesterday, I proposed a new version of the first sentence of the lede, which could serve as a first step to the consensus. However, you totally ignored it. Could you please comment on this my proposal? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should return to something more productive, given all the other accusations levelled at User:Collect, an observer may think the intent was to drive him off. But let's get back to the core issue here. We appear to be going around in circles, your injection the word "annexation" into the lede appears to imply that you still hold the POV issue to be of "militarily occupied" vs "forcefully annexed". As I stated before, there are a number of forms of military occupation, ranging from sensu strict to sui generis. I also explained before that your usage of "annexation" in this context is misleading. The definition of "annexation" is "de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity", that is why it is perfectly correct to speak of "illegal incorporation" in the lede, since "annexation" = "legal incorporation". Your contention that "under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" is not supported by all sources, pointing to "Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step" is your synthesis, since the source you refer to states expressed initial "disquiet" at the move and implying that this means it wasn't done "under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" is synthesis. Which follows on to the next point of "internationally unrecognised", which I agree is not entirely correct, since Nazi Germany was the first country to internationally recognise the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR via the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement, which somewhat refutes your contention that "Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From annexation,

annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies

Given that this exactly what happened and that it was even recognized de jure by a number of states, and given that the term was applied to the event by a number of RS including Malksoo, international organizations and bodies, and given that there is no Russian POV in usage of this neutral term, your argument simply does not hold water. (Igny (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I support this assessment Igny. The article needs to have annexation both in the lead and title IMHO. Annexation doesn't imply one way or the other whether it was recognised/unrecognised/legal/illegal - it definitely needs to be in the lead, and without any qualifiers. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Igny, you forgot to quote the leading sentence of the article annexation: "Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous)." The part you quote is inaccurately cited from Britannica, which actually states: "Annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition."[13] i.e. general recognition is taken as granted. Mälksoo stated that it had to be made clear that it must be qualified as illegal. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Malksoo is this. And its the same with a lot things on both sides of the equation. It is but opinion. Britannica states "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition." Now transplant it to this subject. The formal act is the USSR proclaimed sovereignty over the Baltic states. The annexation was a unilateral act. It was made effective by actual possession. Now, this is where the opinion sets in. There are some who regarded it as legal with recognition, and there are some who regarded it as illegal by withholding recognition. To call it illegal in the lead is POV, because there are others who regarded it as legal. The body of the article is where the for/against POV/opinion (Malksoo included) is placed. We should not be starting the article as it is now. Do you agree with this general approach? --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate in the sources has never been about legal/illegal (the academic consensus being that it was illegal), but freely joined/forcibly incorporated. The official Russian position is that the SU never annexed anyone, the Baltics freely joined. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the position of the USSR and of Russia (per Duma declaration) is that the Baltics *joined* legally according to international law, that is, it was a voluntary act of the sovereign country of Latvia. (And it was also at the request of the Supreme Soviet of the "sovereign" Soviet Latvian Republic that the Abrene region handed to the Russian republic). The Soviet/Russian position that every act of the Soviet Union was initiated at the request of Latvia (i.e., all acts were legal and not forcible) and supported by the Latvian people.

Subsequently, whether or not the uniformly regarded forcible (and illegal) act was recognized as constituting de jure sovereignty (e.g., Australia/Whitlam, such recognitions subsequently rescinded) is completely different. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you Martin for your responce. Let me point at three facts that you seem to overlook. Firstly, in contrast to what your write, I do not insist on addition of the word "annexation" to the title provided that the article will be made more neutral. Secondly, all discussion of the term "annexation" are made based on post 1949 examples, after the Fourth Geneva Convention applied additional restrictions on this process. Thirdly, let me reproduce again the letter written by Lauri Malksoo in a responce to the Jaan Pärn's request:

"I have been told that a debate has unfolded in wikipedia over whether an article should be entitled "Occupation of the Baltic States" or "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In my opinion, the debate demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of the whole topic. However, I do not think that choosing any of the two titles would result in the 'victory' of any of the political fractions.

In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.

However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States.

Many thanks for your interest and with greetings to all wikipedia editors,

Lauri Mälksoo,

Professor of International Law,

University of Tartu."

It is clear from this letter that the issue that seems to be clear for you is seen as not so unequivocal by the author you cite. I reproduce this letter for two reasons. Firstly, we all believe this author to be a reliable source and are constantly arguing about the interpretation of his words. In connection to that it is useful to keep in mind his explanations that would allow us to interpret his words more adewuately. Secondly, some new people joined the discussion, and they may be unfamiliar with this letter which went to the talk page archives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. It falls directly into what I wrote in my post directly previous to this. We agree that an occupation occurred. We agree that an annexation occurred. The part about it being "illegal" is where the opinion comes in...that it was illegal is opinion, and such opinion in the article needs to be attributed, not stated as undeniable fact. That is how we achieve NPOV. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo's letter was related to the title of the article, but it was subsequently determined during the move discussion that article titles are determined by Wikipedia policy, like WP:COMMONNAME, which means that we cannot rely upon the opinion of a single source to determine the title. Since we are not discussing a new title, then this letter is moot.

The predominant viewpoint, as shown in the opinions of various governments such as the EU and USA, institutions like the OSCE and PACE, in the court judgements by the ICHR and domestic courts, and reflected in both in the media and general and academic books, reference works and paper encyclopedias, is that the Baltic states were occupied in 1940 and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union, which was disrupted by the German occupation in 1941, where upon the Soviet Union re-occupied these countries in 1944, and which remained effectively under occupation for the duration of a subsequent 12 year guerilla war and beyond.

The minority view, held by the Russian government and some Russian academics (not universally in the Russian academic community), is that the Baltic states freely joined the Soviet Union after inviting Soviet troops onto their territory under the terms of their mutual assistance pacts. Thus their position is that the Soviet Union did not occupy and did not annex the Baltic states at all, but since they joined of their own free will they were legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union,

What is essentially being argued here is counter-opinion that does not exist published sources but is a viewpoint held by a group of Wikipedians which is basically a synthesis of two published viewpoints above. They hold that the Soviet Union did occupy and legally incorporate these states in 1940, thus they were annexed in the classic sense of the word, and thus these states were subsequently legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union. This is synthesis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy. Could you please comment on the text I (and Russavia) posted, not to focus on the views advocated by some imaginary opponent? In particular, could you comment on the Malksoo's words:

"In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. "

Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, we have previously discussed a move, so I am unsure what the point is in selectively quoting an email relating to the issue of the title, are you now suggesting changing it again? Interestingly the following quote appears to have been overlooked:

"However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal."

And yet we see that attempt be reverted[14] and the assertion that to call it illegal in the lead is POV, as if legality/illegality appear in the sources as opinions of equal weight and treated as such. But who regards it as legal? Official Russia? No, they contend that the USSR did not occupy nor annex the Baltic states. So it is a viewpoint more minor than that of Russia. If it cannot be attributed then it is fringe. But yet some editors are attempting to attribute equal weight to it as the mainstream view. Given that this POV tag is maintained on this basis, and no new arguments have been given since the last discussion during the move request, I see no justification to retain this tag as all significant viewpoints are already represented. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reare you now suggesting changing it again?. I am, so please stop avoiding a debate yet again. Contrary to your claims, nothing was determined in the previous RM, it was closed as "no consensus", so no point raised in that discussion is moot, moreover, everything discussed there is very much relevant here. (Igny (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Martin, I believe Malksoo's point is quite clear: it is correct to use the word "annexation" in the title, however, the article should make clear that that annexation was illegal. Malksoo neither says the article in its present form does not make the thesis about illegality clear enough, nor that that fact should be additionally stressed. In my understanding, his point is that the idea about illegality of the annexation should not disappear from the article (the idea I totally agree with). In any event, if we accept the Malksoo's opinion, the sequence of actions should be as follows: (i) to change a title by adding the word "annexation"; (ii) to check the article to make sure the idea of illegality of this annexation is clear from the article's text. BTW, the latter idea is already absolutely clear from what the article says, so I see no reason for not changing the title.

Nevertheless, my proposal is different. As I already wrote, we could follow another way. We can (i) leave the title unchanged, and (ii) change the article text to explain that the "occupation" was not the occupation sensu stricto, that the territory was annexed and seen as a part of the USSR both by the USSR itself and by many other states that de facto (although not de jure) recognised this annexation (although not by the Balts themselves, by the USA, Vatican, and some other countries). That approach would also be in accordance with the idea Malksoo expressed in his e-letter and in his published works (and in accordance with many other reliable sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Malksoo's letter addresses only the Soviet presence, those titles already include annexation, again, this article is about the continuous period of occupation of the Baltic states by cooperating, then warring, powers, Nazi Germany did not annex the Baltic states. Malksoo's letter is clear that illegality of Soviet action makes it an occupation for the entire period. Lastly, as to "opinion," some here would interpret that as merely personal opinion whereas that "opinion" is based on juridical interpretation of international law. "De facto", again, does not in any way ameliorate Soviet actions. We already reflect the "opinion" of the Russian Federation regarding legality--an opinion for which no one, including the Russian Federation (and Duma declaration), has produced evidence which stands up to any objective scrutiny. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re this article is about the continuous period of occupation of the Baltic states by cooperating, then warring, powers. You are at the wrong place. You probably meant that "state continuity of the Baltic states is about the continuous period of occupation of the Baltic states by cooperating, then warring, powers". Outside the context of state continuity of the Baltic states there is no reason to put the Soviet occupation followed by incorporation into Soviet Union, followed by the Nazi occupation, followed by the liberation from the Nazis into one article, and especially no reason to use the current title. (Igny (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, I'm not in the wrong place. There are plenty of sources which discuss the entire period, the influences of each occupation on the next, and, last but not least, the decimation of the Baltic states a mere two decades after their last decimation was the result of the collusion of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. There is every scholarly reason to cover the period as a whole. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure these sources you refer to do that to advance the "state continuity" theory. I have yet to see the source which put Soviet annexation together with Nazi occupation of the Baltic states and without mention of the state continuity of these states. (Igny (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I've lost count of how many times I have posted these sources that you seem not to have seen:

• Entry on the Baltic states in The Oxford companion to the Second World War published by Oxford University Press.
• Chapter 2: The Long Second World War: Estonia under occupation 1940-91 in The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by Dr. David James Smith of the University of Glasgow
• The Baltic States, years of dependence, 1940-1980 published by University of California Press
• The Baltic countries under occupation: Soviet and Nazi rule 1939-1991 published by the Facualty of History at University of Stockholm

--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

These sources only illustrate my point. (Igny (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

Basis of the POV tag

After reading the discussion above, I've come to the conclusion as to the basis of this POV tag. Unlike the consensus in Western scholarship, Russian historiography seems to be divided into the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) camp and and the the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camp. The liberal-democratic camp is essentially aligned with the Western consensus view that the Baltic states were occupied and forcibly and illegally incorporated into the USSR, while patriotic-nationalist camp contends that the Baltic states voluntarily accepted Soviet troops and joined to the USSR via the free will of the Baltic peoples. It appears that because of this split in internal Russian discourse and the apparent dominance of patriotic-nationalist POV on ru.wiki, their article is titled "Joining of the Baltic states to the USSR"(Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР). However Western scholarship has debunked this Russian patriotic-nationalist POV and one scholar goes as far as calling it the "The Myth of 1939-40". An yet despite the demonstrated consensus in Western scholarship regarding the occupation of the Baltic states, it appears that some editors want us to attribute equal weight to this Russian patriotic-nationalist myth. This myth is already covered in the article, therefore there is no basis for retaining the POV tag. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer a simple question: the author both you and I recognise as a reputable scholar expressed the opinion that the word "annexation" should be in the article's title. Why do you oppose to that? I understand that that would be just one of several possible ways to make the article more neutral, however...--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've answered this already several times above. Wikipedia policy requires us to select the most frequently used terms for the topic name, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources. If you believe this article is not neutral, then the implication is that there is some POV of equal weight competing with the mainstream viewpoint expressed in this article. Can you articulate what this competing view point is, Igny has so far been unable to do so beyond "I don't like it". Moscow native Alexander Statiev has no problem referring to the two soviet occupations in his book The Soviet counterinsurgency in the western borderlands[15], evidently he of the либерально-демократическое camp. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you prefer to selectively ignore the viewpoint of a reputable scholar (whom you consider reliable in other cases)?

In addition, the term "Annexation" is being used in literature almost even more frequently that "occupation" 459 vs 360. In actuality, I am seriously disappointed with your attempt to re-iterate the same arguments that had already been put forward (and addressed) in past. That is an indication of you unwillingness and unpreparedness to accept the arguments from other side, which might serve as an indication of the lack of good faiths. Note, we can speak about consensus only if all parties are playing fairly.

Let me also note, that I do not insist on the change of the article's title provided that some changes will be made to the article's text. Are you ready to discuss them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Occupation, seizure and illegal annexation" covers all bases? (BTW, "Annexationbesetzung" really translates into a nice compound noun "Annexation-Occupation" as near as I can tell, and not into "Annexation sui generis"). I doubt anyone, even from Russia, would assert that the acts were legal at this pooint in time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not lead a discussion to a wrong direction: noone here speaks about legality of this annexation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we ought call the article Occupation and Illegal Annexation of the Baltic states Then Igny gets to have annexation it the title and the POV issue is resolved. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. "Illegal annexation of the Baltic states" gives just 10 hits. In addition, it would be highly unencyclopaedic to add such a qualifiers to the titles: we have the Invasion of Poland article, not Unprovoked invasion of Poland, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Um -- nope. Try "Baltic" "illegal annexation" getting 661 hits in Google books, not just 1. A long phrase generally gets fewer hits - "occupation of the baltic states" gets under 2K hits, and "annexation of the baltic states" under 3K. "illegal annexation of the baltic states" gets 36 hits. Using Scholar finds Baltic seizure -epilepsy getting 12,600 google scholar hits. Annexation is at 10,600 -- or significantly fewer than "seizure". "Baltic" and "illegal annexation" gets 129 scholar hits. 'illegal occupation" at 268. Which proves not a lot other than making a long phrase reduces the number of hits. Sorry, Paul - the argument you advance, fails. Collect (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I always like a discussion that stick with some concrete points, so thank you for turning it to this direction. I do not see what mistake I made, however. Thus "annexation + the Baltic states" gives 8130 hits, and "illegal annexation + the Baltic states" gives only 109 hits. In addition, the characterisation of the event belongs to the article's body, not to the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul, I am disappointed in your continuing to push the POV that since the Baltics were like any other Soviet republic, that means they were not singled out for special treatment (e.g., even if it were "occupation" it is a "special case" of "occupation" since the Baltics were treated like "normal" republics); while true at face value, that ignores everything about the Soviet presence that (a) made it an occupation and (b) singled out the Baltics for special treatment, e.g., deportation of their authorities to the USSR even while they were ostensibly sovereign, subsequent mass deportations, et al. And, again, the article is about the impact of the succession of three occupations. Your veiled personal attacks against editors who do not agree with you for good reason are unwelcome ("That is an indication of you unwillingness and unpreparedness to accept the arguments from other side, which might serve as an indication of the lack of good faiths."). I would also note that the official Russian POV (and historians supporting) regarding the Soviet occupations (plural) is well represented in the article. As it has no demonstrable basis in international law either before 1940, as of 1940, or subsequent to 1940, it is more than adequately represented. Whether or not the Soviet occupation was eventually recognized de facto or de jure (and thus perhaps affecting subtleties of "occupation" as viewed by parties other than the USSR or the Baltic states) is ultimately not material to the story here, as the Soviet and official Russian positions are, still, that the Baltics joined willingly and legally in full compliance with international law, that is:

1. legal according to the sovereign Baltics' constitutions,
2. legal according to the Soviet constitution, and
3. legal according to all treaties and pacts to which the Baltic states and USSR were signatories.

To clarify, the two sides are:

1. legal, ergo no occupation, and
2. illegal, ergo occupation.

How third parties chose to view events belongs in discussions of state continuity, not here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What POV pushing are you talking about? More sources tell about "annexation" that "occupation" (at least, these terms are used about equally frequently). In that situation it would be more correct to speak about your POV pushing, because you vehemently refuse to agree on usage of the word "annexation" at all.

In addition, your viewpoint on occupation and annexation is quite weird. In actuality, both occupation and annexation can be legal or illegal (for instance, American occupation of Iraq was an example of legal occupation, and annexation of the Vilnius Region by Poland was illegal annexation, according to the Lithuanian point of view).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It ewwould be nice if your post has some accuracy about my position, Paul Note particularly [16] and [17] where I specifically used Igny's suggestion. Your suggestion that I hold a POV here against the word "annexation" is thus proven errant in the extreme. Cheers - and please remember to make sure that what you state is actually true about other editors. Collect (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you, as you correctly noted eslewhere, are a new participant of this discussion, I can only guess what is your position on that account. My last post was addressed to Peters, not to you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your position, I do think your proposal to intorduce the term proposed by Malksoo was a genuine attempt to find a way out of an impasse. The problem is, however, that this term is not common in literature (even it this form), and even the author himself had used it just one time (or few times) in his monograph. It is more a word play rather than an attempt to introduce a new term. Therefore I found usage of this term neither helpful nor desirable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, this has all been explained before. Some English words derive their meaning from the context of usage, "occupation" is one of those terms, it can be an event or period. "Annexation" on the other hand is an event. Placing "occupation" in the context of "annexation" transforms the meaning of "occupation" from a period to an event. If we have "occupation and annexation" in the title scope changes immediately to specifically the 1940 occupation and annexation events and we must exclude the German occupation period. I am ready to discuss changes but first you have to articulate what is the basis of these changes in terms of the published POV you think needs to be balanced, since these changes are being proposed under the aegis of a POV tag. You cannot expect others to follow in baby-step changes without knowing the final destination. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all your arguments had been addressed before. The "event vs state" dichotomy does not work, because, as I already demonstrated, some sources use the term "period of annexation" (i.e. the period from the moment the Baltic states had been annexed by the USSR to the moment their independence had been restored). And, as I already explained for many times (with sources) the difference between annexation and occupation is much deeper.

Importantly, you totally ignored my major point: the change of the title is not needed if you will agree to seriously discuss the modification of the article's content. I still got no answer on this my proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul regarding "what POV pushing", I was referring to your "it is necessary to stress the fact that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR, and that their status within the USSR was identical to that of other members of this union" morally grotesque construct of "equal status" which implies equal treatment, which was absolutely not the case. Regardless of formal annexation or not, neither the Soviet occupations or Nazi occupation have ever been characterized by anyone anywhere except in Nazi and Soviet propaganda as being beneficent to Baltic nationals. As for my balking at "annexation" in the title, that is an utterly false and misleading accusation, as annexation does appear appropriately in Soviet occupation and annexation (1940) articles. This article is not just about the Soviet occupations, hence "annexation" is wholly inappropriate for the title. The act of annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR is not in dispute, so obviously there is another basis for my objection to "annexation" in the title, as that gives undue weight to the Soviet occupations over the Nazi occupation. Additionally, one needs to make clear it was the Soviet-occupied Baltic states which were then Nazi-occupied (that is, not the Baltic SSRs) which were then re-occupied by the Soviets. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re equal treatment, the treatment was really equal, the only difference was that whereas the peoples of the USSR proper suffered from the Civil war, collectivisation, Great purge and similar events during 20 years, the same events occurred in the territories annexed in 1939-40 in much shorter period of time. I do not think overall scales of sufferings of the Estonians and, e.g. Russians were considerably different. Regarding suppression of the Baltic nationalism, let me remember that Russian nationalism was being suppressed in 20s-30s too.

Re benefits from occupation/annexation, I do not think it is a good criterion at all.

Re Soviet vs German, it is well known fact that, for some reason Nazi separated Baltic nationals from other Easter European untermencshen, and treated them much more liberally than other occupied nations. However, I do not understand what concrete conclusion do you want to draw from that fact. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, all your WP:OR basically stating that since the USSR was catastrophic for its citizenry, it was no more catastrophic for the Baltics does not apply. You ignore that the Baltics were preemptively occupied by the Soviet Union; there was no reason for the Baltics to join in the Soviet catastrophe. Your advocacy that the disaster that befell the Baltics (deportation of majority of government officials and legislature, dispossession of property, mass deportations, murder, etc.) is no worse than, say, the starvation of the Ukrainians (paving the way for completion of collectivization) or heads rolling during the Great purge, is morally bankrupt. As for "special treatment," by the Nazis of Baltic citizens, I will only say that those that were shot--and there were fields full of corpses--would disagree with you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Paul, you still need to articulate what this implicitly competing POV that compells you to claim this article is not NPOV. Is it that annexation was legal according to domestic Soviet laws? If so, you need to point to a published source that articulates this viewpoint, otherwise it is just a personal opinion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For the beginning, let's return to the first sentence of the lede. Recently I proposed a new version of this sentence, however you preferred to avoid any discussion. What concretely is wrong with the version I proposed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be steadfastly ignoring my request to articulate the underlying viewpoint you want to balance with these baby-step alterations. This isn't an issue of style, the tag supported by you is a POV tag. Let's be clear on which direction you want to lead us to. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the direction is as follows. Whereas I don't think that it is absolutely necessary to change the title of the article (many sources use this term to describe that period of the Baltic states' history), it is necessary to articulate that the territory of the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR, who considered them as a part of its own territory. No separate occupation regime was established there (as opposed to, e.g. Reichskomissariat Ostland or General Governorship), and the Baltic SSRs were de facto recognised by many states (such as Britain) as the parts of the USSR. Since the article in its current version correctly explains that this annexation was not recognised de jure by most foreign states, and that served as a ground for the thesis of the Baltic states' continuity, so I do not think anything else should be added to that.

I have some other comments, however, we can discuss them later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that probably best goes into the respective SSR articles. Note that "annexed" means "de jure incorporation", so given the fact that mainstream scholarship asserts that no legal title was transferred to the USSR, probably the best term to use here is "incorporated". That are these other comments you think we should discuss later? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "Annexed" means de jure incorporation, however, which jus is meant? You believe that that is some "international law", i.e. recognition of this annexation by the considerable amount on foreign states. However, that is not the case. In actuality, "de jure incorporation" means expansion of the annexing country's legal system onto the newly acquired territory, and that constitutes a difference between annexation, occupation (placement of the territory under control of some temporary, usually military administration without attempts to annex it), and colonisation (formation of special permanent administration that acts based on the laws different from those in metropolia). Such annexation can be legal (recognised by foreign states) or illegal (non-recognised), however, independently of that, illegality of annexation does not make it occupation. Example? Annexation of Austria. The contemporary source (Questions of State Succession Raised by the German Annexation of Austria Author(s): James Wilford Garner Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1938), pp. 421-438) discussed the consequences of this annexation for international obligations of Austria and Germany, despite the fact that the annexation was not recognised by majority of world states. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Annexation" is defined by two things: 1)a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and 2)legitimization by general recognition, so it must be both de facto and de jure. However, the Austrian case you cite may throw up some new arguments, so I will need to read it, I'll get back to you about that. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The occupants or colonizers also de facto possess the territory they occupied or colonized. The difference between these two events and the annexation is that the annexing state permanently expands its domestic legislation on the new territory. Such annexation can be internationally recognised (forceful annexation of Goa by India), or not recognised (peaceful annexation of Austria by Germany), however, in both cases it is annexation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a source that defines "annexation" as "the permanent expansion of its domestic legislation on the new territory", or is this what you interpret from your reading of the paper Questions of State Succession Raised by the German Annexation of Austria? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I presented the quote from this source on this talk page about a year ago. Below, I reproduce that post in full:

Below is an extended quote from the David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press)

"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the :occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened.

In other words, the source provided by me outlines several important distinctive features between occupation, colonialism and annexation, that make them mutually exclusive. I believe I sustained my burden of evidence, so the article should be changed to conform to the sources and to the common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. By the way, looking through the archives I found the following post:

"As I already wrote, during this discussion (and after reading sources) I changed my initial opinion. Now I think that although the term "annexation" is the most appropriate, it nevertheless does not fully adequately describe the situation in the Baltic states in 1944-91. Therefore, it would be incorrect to use only this term in the title. In addition "annexation" is the process, not a state: the article with such a title is supposed to tell only about the process of illegal annexation (i.e. 1940, and, probably 1944-45 events), not the full period of 1945-91. With regards to German occupation, if majority of editors will decide that moving these events to a separate article will make the text clearer, I have no objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)"

In my opinion, this is an example of my ability to accept the reasonably built and well sourced arguments from the opposite side, and of my good faith. Note, after writing that I never changed my mind back, and I never advocated the removal of the word "occupation" from the article completely. In connection to that, can you present similar example of your good faith?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, regarding "it is necessary to articulate that the territory of the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR, who considered them as a part of its own territory. No separate occupation regime was established there", this is part and parcel of the all legal, voluntary, joining initiated by Baltics, etc. национально-патриотическое viewpoint. We cover that in quite some detail in the body of the article. It was not the act of annexation (forcible or not) by which the Baltic states came to be considered part of the USSR by the USSR (and we know that was for show, the USSR was perfectly aware of its own actions faking election results, et al.), it was by the (alleged to be) active, self-initiated actions of the sovereign Baltic states requesting to join. We've covered that version of history in the article. From the viewpoint of Western, Baltic, and либерально-демократическое scholarship, that scholarship is clear on "belonging" being an utter sham, with properties seized, Baltic nationals subjected to illegal mass-deportations, etc. There is nothing more that needs to be said regarding the Soviet Union welcoming the Baltic states as "sovereign Soviet republics."

On Edelstein et al., per similar dialogs I have had with Vlad Fedorov, unless a source specifically speaks to the Soviet and/or Nazi Germany occupations of the Baltic states, applying those sources and what they contend to the situation of the Baltics is WP:OR and inappropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "this is part and parcel of the all legal, voluntary, joining" Why? I do not understand your logic. For example, Austria was annexed by Germany illegally, however, that does not mean that separate administration (similar to General Governorship was established there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, occupation and colonization (whether or not annexed) are not mutually exclusive. Again, unless these sources specifically address the Baltic states and situation by name, we are only inappropriately debating over WP:OR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The source presented by me demonstrates that, strictly speaking, these three events are mutually exclusive, however, since some authors do not use the legal terminology carefully, they mix these terms. In addition, since the Baltic case is rather unusual, it is correct to speak about occupation in a context of the state continuity. However, it is necessary to remember that that was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source not discussing Baltics = WP:OR. Personal contentions of "commonensual" = WP:OR. Let's stick to sources that directly apply. If the Red Army stands behind you as you work with rifles with safeties off, seems to me that's an occupation from the "commonsensual" standpoint--so let's avoid such personal contentions as being scholarly opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, from "Baltic Postcolonialism" by ed. Violeta Kelertas, author Karl E. Jirgens (p. 47.):

...two inter-related points: 1) that a deeper historical reading reveals that the colonization of the Baltics includes the occupation and subsequent attempted genocide not only by the Soviet Union during the 20th century, but also roughly one thousand years of intermittent colonization by wave after wave of aggressive foreign forces, and 2) that the act of forcibly re-defining a cultural identity through systematic censorship and propaganda results in a form of cultural genocide which, when it is simultaneous with an agenda of physical genocide, serves to colonize the minds of any survivors.

Violeta Kelertas (editor) is Associate Professor at the Department of Slavic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at the University of Illinois at Chicago. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this point of view can be included along with other viewpoints fairly and proportionally. The problem is, however, that this viewpoint does not reflect the majority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we gather more, identify what is appropriate content to add, and stop personal contentions of what is, or isn't alleged to be a "majority" view as such contentions are open invitations to shouting matches, yes? Oddly, most of my recent contributions have been with regard to viewpoints that are more opinion than scholarship. Let us take care not to confuse the two (opinion versus scholarship). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, given that the Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR as constituent republics with at least the nominal constitutional right to succeed from the Union at any future date, can we say it "denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland" as Edelstein states? On the other hand these Territorial changes of the Baltic states than resulted in land being absorbed by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic could be deemed annexation stricto sensu. Presumably the republic level constitutions provided each Soviet Republic with its own set of domestic legislation different from the core Russian federal republic. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree. We cannot speak about any "permanent acquisition" of the territory that is currently under control of sovereign Baltic states. To write that would be tantamount to the claim that the Baltic states continue to be a part of the USSR. In addition, Edelstein meant not the Baltic states, but "occupation" in general, so to use this source directly would be synthesis.

In my opinion, what Edelstein meant is that annexation is an act of acquisition that is deemed permanent at the moment it occurs (because nothing can be permanent in our constantly changing world), and that is one of the features that distinguish annexation and occupation. As far as I understand, the second feature is the incorporation into the homeland (the same legal status, according to the domestic law) vs separate legal status. Accordingly, annexation is permanent incorporation into the homeland, occupation is a temporary control of the territory having a separate legal status, and colonisation is a permanent acquisition under a separate legal status (a separate administration is formed in colonies, in particular, the population of the colonies had no right to elect the central government, different passports, different civil rights, etc., i.e. they are not full citizens). As we can see, the Baltic case more resembles the annexation. The only two issues (which are mutually connected) were the illegality of the way these territories were acquired, and, as a result, refusal of major world states to recognise the act of annexation, which served as a ground for a conclusion that the USSR failed to fully annex these states. That is why the word "occupation" can and should be used to describe this period of the Baltic states' history, however, to use this term exclusively would also be deeply misleading, because, for example, that may create an impression that the Balts were the "second sort" peoples in the USSR, that they had different civil rights, etc. Obviously, that was not the case (except for those who were repressed under Stalin's rule, however, that is a separate story).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Edelstein talk about the Baltics specifically? And on "second sort," that is exactly what Baltic nationals became as Russian colonists were first in line for everything. (Not my words, the words of reputable sources and not Baltic ones.) And, as you acknowledge, Baltic nationals were singled out for mass deportations. When every Baltic national lives in constant fear of being taken away at any time—and being taken away for 15-20 years was common, if you were lucky to survive—repression is not a separate story, it is the heart of the story. There is nothing "obvious" about any of your contentions being correct. I am compelled to reject your attempts to apply sources which do not speak of the Baltics directly to construct a historical fiction that purports not occupied for the duration and reject your applying personal interpretations of "colonization" contrary to how colonization is used in reputable sources regarding Soviet actions in the Baltics. Please produce reputable scholarly sources that talk about these matters specifically with regard to the Baltics and I will be glad to discuss how to include that content. Neither my nor your personal conclusions regarding what is or isn't obvious or what are or aren't occupation and colonization are admissible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Edelstein in his analysis, asking regarding prior intent of an occupying power: "Did it plan to return sovereignty to the occupied population in relatively short order, was it planning to stay for a longer duration, or did it have no particular goals for when it would withdraw?" specifically leaves post-WWII Central and Eastern Europe OUT of his analysis, stating only that were one to look upon the degree of control the Soviet Union exercised on the Warsaw Pact countries (I won't debate if that was more or less as compared to the Baltic states) and "code those cases as occupation", it would be difficult to state when occupation ended other than 1989—that is, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Amazing how I read the same source and get "difficult to argue other than occupation for the duration" as the author's conclusion. This is precisely why we need to limit ourselves to sources which speak specifically to the case of the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's separate two things: (i) the general statement "illegal annexation = occupation", and (ii) the opinion of the scholars on the Baltic issue specifically. Since my opponents frequently re-iterate the general arguments that, since the annexation had not been recognised de jure by majority of world states we can speak only about occupation, I simply had no choice but to respond in the same vein, namely, to demonstrate that, according to the reliable sources, the difference between annexation and occupation is much deeper. My only goal with respect to this issue is to come to a consensus that the thesis "illegal annexation = occupation" is wrong. If such a consensus has been achieved, we can stop the general discussion, and start to discuss what do the sources tell about the Baltic states specifically. In connection to that, can you tell me please is we achieved consensus about the first issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Edelstein's footnote on the page 55, I think you misinterpret what he says. He excluded French occupation of Syria because they saw their presence as more permanent than temporary, so it would be more correct to speak about colonialism than occupation. He excluded the Eastern Europe, because it is impossible to determine the exact moment the occupation ended. And he told nothing about the territories the USSR annexed, simply because that had no relation to the article's subject. Note, he speaks about 1989, the year when the Soviet influence in the Warsaw bloc countries vanished once and for all, not about 1990-91, when the Baltic states re-gained independence. He simply does not consider the Baltic states as occupied at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Edelstein not having mentioned "Baltic", "Lithuania", "Latvia", or "Estonia" you have divined his position on the matter. I believe that's called WP:OR. Please stick to sources which actually mention the "Baltic states" together or individually, otherwise we will argue endlessly over interpretations which, oddly, fit our general respective editorial positions. I don't think I misinterpreted Edelstein at all: considering degree of control, only place it makes sense for occupation to end, if we consider it occupation, is 1989. I suggest we move on to a more applicable source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am more interested to know your opinion on my first paragraph, because that would allow us to move further. However, if you prefer to focus on less important things, let me point out that Edelstein writes specifically about the Warsaw pact states, and not on the members of the USSR itself ("I also have excluded the cases of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. In these cases, the Soviet Union retained a considerable amount of control over the states of the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. If one were to code these cases as occupations, it would be difficult to identify when, aside from 1989, these occupations ended. ") The fact that he speaks about 1989 (the year of the de facto Warsaw pact's dissolution), not about 1991 (the year when ex-Soviet republics gained independence) is just an additional demonstration that you are wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me also point your attention at the fact that by writing in a subjunctive mood ("If one were to code these cases as occupations,") he thereby does not endorse the thesis of their occupation. He also does not state this "occupation" ended in 1989, his point is that the only strict date we can speak about is 1989, because after that date it is impossible to speak about any occupation. In any event, since he does not include the Baltic case even as a hypothetical example of occupation, we can safely conclude that he does not consider the Baltic states as occupied by the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Extrapolating Edelstein's viewpoint to the Baltic states is pure synthesis, Paul. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I am a little bit disappointed with your last notion. I thought we both understood that we discussed the Edelstein's opinion in a context of the general issue if illegal annexation can be considered as occupation or not. Since I proposed no concrete changes based on the Edelstein's article, to accuse me in synthesis is hardly a demonstration of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, your synthesis does not match my synthesis, so do not accuse editors of bad faith when they disagree with you. Your interpretation of Edelstein's use of the subjunctive is immaterial, as Edelstein is ultimately saying "if I were to deal with this case in my work here... BUT I DON'T...", so your "safely concluded" speculation is no more materially accurate than mine as Edelstein does NOT deal with the topic explicitly. Move on. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The apparent crux of the above

RE: Paul's "My only goal with respect to this issue is to come to a consensus that the thesis 'illegal annexation = occupation' is wrong." is your synthesis arguing that the "part" is not part of the "whole." The occupation was the occupation (illegal presence) punctuated by illegal annexation (as viewed by third parties per all prior treaties and covenants in effect) -> = "forcible" -> "illegal" -> "occupation". Whereas the Soviet/official Russian version is a "joining" unencumbered by any Soviet pressure or instigation or organization, freely initiated by the Baltic states -> "voluntary/requested" -> "legal" -> "not occupation." Your thesis is a synthetic syllogism which by its very contention cannot be adopted. Annexation does not change the fact of occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please. And, since you started to argue in general, I expect you to provide reliable mainstream sources that discuss the issue in general. One source has already been provided by me, and it defines "occupation" not as illegal presence (by the way, you are simply wrong. Occupation is regulated by strict international conventions, and in many cases it is absolutely legal; the most recent example of legal occupation is Occupation of Iraq).

It worth a mention that the examples of legal occupation have already been provided by me here. Do you think it is possible to conduct a discussion with a person who does not read the posts he is trying to refute?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, my "generalities" are summaries from sources which specifically discuss the Baltics while your "generalities" are rife with synthesis from sources discussing occupation, et al. but not specifically discussing the Baltics, e.g. the discussion here of Edelstein who (a) does not apply and (b) who, with regard to the mention of his not dealing with post-WWII Central/Eastern Europe, you interpret one way and I another, leading to more speculative life-sapping debate irrelevant to the article. Your examples of "legal occupation" are synthesis with regard to applicability to the topic as there is no source which specifically discusses the Baltics and characterizes the Soviet presence (or Nazi Germany presence) as "legal occupation." Your insult that I'm just here to verbally abuse you (my take on your allegation that I don't read anything you write) is merely more acrimonious speculation on the intent and conduct of other editors in no way advancing the discussion except, again, for the increasing level of acrimony on display. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. You cannot speak about "occupation" in general using just what the Baltic related sources tell. The only reasonable generalisation you could make would be: "According to the authors writing about the Baltic states, their illegal annexation was tantamount to occupation". That would be theoretically an adequate summary. However, that is a summary of what only part of the sources tell, so even this summary seems to be inadequate. In any event, I can discuss this summary seriously only if you will provide the list of the sources you tried to summarise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baltic and Western sources, which happen to agree with the Baltic version of history, not the Russian nationalist-patriotic version of history. I read "Soviet occupation" not "Soviet presence tantamount to occupation" in Western sources, so I don't understand what constructive compromise you are suggesting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Having gone through the article archives, it is obvious that 1) the POV tag is going to stay here forever and 2) everyone is going to continue to be a parrot, repeating over and over everything that obviously has now been said....polly want a cracker?

It is obvious that there are two sides to this coin. One side says that the article title is NPOV. The other side says that the article is not NPOV. I have a suggestion. Why don't we initiate a requested move. Both side provide their argument before the move is requested. After providing their arguments, the RM can be requested, perhaps a message is left at WP:VP to get further truly outside and neutral input, and ALL editors from the EE topic area stay away, and let the neutral community reach a consensus. For purposes of ALL editors from EE topic area, this would include anyone who has been involved in the long discussions here, anyone who has edited the article in any major way, and anyone who has been involved in EE disputes in the past (we all know who they are). After providing our short and succinct arguments for against a move, it should be up to the neutral and uninvolved community to discuss and decide this, in order to get a true consensus. Would you all be agreeable to that? Perhaps then we can move forward to dealing with the rest of the article. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No. the present name is well established, and has been generally cnsidered NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is not well established, as in there is no WP:COMMONNAME here; a little common sense also goes some way. Also, the claim it is neutral is not right, because it discounts another well established alternative POV that the Baltic states from 1940-1991 were not occupied for the entire period. Introducing annexation, without qualifiers, into the article title, would go a long way to reaching NPOV in the article title. When POV is poisoned right from the article title, it really does make it difficult to even think about reaching that in the rest of the article. Hence, my suggestion of leaving it up to the rest of the community, whilst partisan editors take a back seat, is obviously the right suggestion. I could very well ask for an RM unilaterally, but seeing that in the past partisan editors (on both sides) have made true consensus impossible to reach, this is where true community-wide consensus can come into play. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This alternate POV that the Baltic states from 1940-1991 were not occupied for the entire period is indeed well established within internal Russian discourse. Boris Vadimovich Sokolov describes this POV to be of the национально-патриотическое camp, however this POV has been debunked by Western scholars as a Russian nationalist myth. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As with all discussions of historical viewpoints, it's always better to have more information than less—somehow it always winds up being myself that expands the Russian viewpoint as opposed to its proponents. And the "debunking" is also by Russian scholars who don't toe the Kremlin line, not just Western scholars. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'm not partisan, I'm merely well informed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There is no need to move anything, any move request will merely be an invitation for yet another debate what is opinion based on nothing and what is opinion based on fact. The title is perfect as it is. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think refusal of some editors to accept Russavia's proposal is an indication that they do not believe that neutral WP community will find their arguments persuasive. In contrast, I agree with Russavia's proposal. Moreover, I think, in the case if this proposal will be crowned with success, that would be a good tool to resolve disputes over other controversial EE subjects.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding Paul? Have you forgotten that two univolved editors User:Angusmclellan and User:Srnec opposed the move in the last request[18] and in the RFC related to that move, two univolved editorsUser:Dailycare and User:Bahudhara both agreed the current title was okay and opposed any move. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What Martin said. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not kidding. I myself agreed to leave the title unchanged and to focus on the article's content. However, my first proposal (the new version of the first lede's sentence) has been totally ignored by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba, despite the native language skills of Igny and others, it was left to him to uncover what the actual Russian discourse is, being split between the liberal-democratic and patriotic-nationalist camps in published sources and to articulate these viewpoints in the article. So I think all viewpoints are now covered with due weight and there is no reason now to maintain this tag. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that indeed you think so, but I would say that you haven't succeeded to persuade anyone, including me, to change their mind. Don't you agree? (Igny (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

Given what Associate Professor of International Affairs David Mendeloff states about the "Myth of 1939–40", I suspect that it would be quite difficult to persuade you to change your mind in any case. Luckily consensus isn't unanimity. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

NO U. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's wrong and goes against WP:Consensus to exclude from voting and discussion all editors who worked most on this article. They must be first to vote and discuss. Biophys (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Per our policy, vote is not binding, so I don't understand your point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with Russavia's suggestion, but I also go one step further and suggest to allow partisan editors (and yes we know who we are) participate in the discussion if they changed their mind about the bias in the title (or lack thereof). (Igny (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

The policy WP:POVTITLE permits any percieved bias in the title to remain, as the last couple of unsuccessful move requests have demonstrated. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate here is over what is more common. Like I said RMs demonstrated nothing other than the POV in the title is present.(Igny (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

WP:POVTITLE also states that instances when we ignore so-called common names in favour of neutrality include "Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues" - this is a recent, still-active contentious advocacy issue, and hence POVTITLE wouldn't necessarily apply. This is why I think it is good to get wider community input and the community can make suggestions. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if I, just as an example, am being painted out to be an "advocate," I am completely unaware of anything I have contended that is not in line with mainstream scholarship. As a favor to the opposition, I have even expanded the fact-free Russo-nationalistic anti-Baltic fantasy that passes as scholarship in some Russian circles.

There is no bias in the title, adding annexation (not applicable to the entire period in question) or removing occupation (completely erroneous) would constitute bias. There is no partisan slogan here, no political polemics, simply statements of facts backed up by reputable scholarship. Once official Russia catches up with the rest of the planet, this entire "problem" will go away. Until then, this entire "problem" is going nowhere. As for Igny's et al. what term is more common, that's like doing a word search on red and yellow and drawing a conclusion on color preference. That comparison presupposes completely erroneously that annexation and occupation are interchangeable in meaning and concept, just two different labels for exactly the same thing. They are not, plain and simple. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The last example of your advocacy is the statement "There is no bias in the title, adding annexation (not applicable to the entire period in question) or removing occupation (completely erroneous) would constitute bias." We have an opinion of an established scholar who, based on the careful study made by him and published by the respectable university, believes that the addition of the word "annexation" would be more correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And how is my position "advocacy?" I state (1) the title should not include a term that does not apply to the entire period as that is misleading (Malsksoo is referring only to the Soviet presence, which you continue to misconstrue to apply to the entire Soviet+Nazi+Soviet occupation period) and (b) not calling the period "occupation" flies in the face of all reputable scholarship, Igny's POV-laden searches for Освобождение Прибалтики notwithstanding. So, where is there even the slightest taint of "advocacy" on my part? We already include "annexation" where it pertains to articles which cover only the Soviet occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re (1), I see no problem with that, because Germany occupied not the Baltic states, but the SSRs, which were de facto the part of the USSR.

Re (b), I think you dispute with some imaginary opponent, because nobody proposes to remove the word "occupation" from the title.

In summary, you advocate the point of view that the only appropriate term for the events we discuss is "occupation", and you totally reject the studies that demonstrate that the situation was more complex. I believe I was clear enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yours on my (1), well, as the Soviets completely evacuated their illegal occupying administrations and troops well ahead of the German invasion, there was no Soviet presence in the SSRS for the Nazis to occupy, they occupied the Baltic states which the fleeing Soviets left in Baltic hands (in some places as much as a week); that is also confirmed by the Estonians fighting Germany and the USSR on two fronts attempting to retain control later in the war. Your position = unsubstantiated unsupported official Russian propaganda, that is, yours is the flip side of the same coin that states the Soviets liberated the Baltic SSRs from the Fascists (as opposed to reoccupied and resubjugated the Baltic states which only wished to retain their independence). But thank you for unequivocally confirming you are a member of the Russian nationalist-patriotic camp supporting the Soviet and now official Russian version of history.

Yours on my (2), well, once the renaming starts, my experience is that's not the end, the next will be to advocate for annexation only since Освобождение Прибалтики is an equally valid opinion, it's all just he-said she-said in the Russia versus the Baltics politically motivated private spat regarding history.

On complexity, that is all fine and good, but you would argue that those complexities fundamentally change the nature of occupation whereas I argue those complexities merely change the mechanics of occupation. What is of most prominence is the noun (occupation) not the adjectives one can argue might be applied. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re you (1), I cannot discuss that seriously, especially "the Estonians fighting Germany and the USSR on two fronts": I do not think a minor skirmish in Tallinn during last few days of of German withdrawal can be considered as serious "fighting", and noone has provided other examples of Estonian resistance. Let be honest, I do not accuse the Estonians in massive collaboration with Nazism or in massive contribution to the Holocaust, I do understand that this small nation suffered from Stalin's rule, and despite a considerable liberalisation during late Soviet time considered themselves as an occupied nation. However, to claim that, despite the massive, although semi-voluntary Estonian participation in WaffenSS (approved by underground Estonian authorities), and despite their impressive military successes that significantly delayed the Soviet advancement towards Germany, and therefore, delayed the end of WWII as whole, this small nation, in addition to that, managed (i) to fight against the Germans, for whom they fought so bravely, (ii) to remain a neutral nation is too much.

Re your (2), that is also cannot be taken seriously. Does it mean that you accuse everyone who disagree with you in some agenda and in the lack of good faith?

On complexity, no matter what you and I are arguing, much more important thing is what the sources tell. And you have absolutely no ground for saying that I use wrong sources, or that I misinterpret them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You ignore the Soviet authorities vacated the Baltics ahead of the German invasion, there was no SSR, from a legal or practical point, to occupy. The Baltics were neutral. If the Soviet Union had not occupied them, they would have remained neutral. Don't blame the Baltic peoples for the enemy of my enemy is my friend (recall Latvians were conscripted, and Estonians went along with conscription as Soviet re-invasion was inevitable); you also ignore the reality that the Baltic Waffen SS had as their ultimate goal driving both invaders from their homelands. Re, (2), what is not to be taken seriously? You parrot the official nationalistic Russian position and state that if I don't meet you in some (fictitious) middle, you advocate for arbitration as a solution. That is gaming the system to control content, plain and simple, and you communicated your clear intent to consider employing that tactic. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm thanking you for clarifying your editorial stance and that you consider venues outside the discussion of content an appropriate means for enforcing your viewpoint. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "the Soviet authorities vacated the Baltics ahead of the German invasion..." do you really think this argument is serious?

Re "The Baltics were neutral. If the Soviet Union had not occupied them, they would have remained neutral." If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour the US would be neutral, so what?

Re "you also ignore the reality that the Baltic Waffen SS had as their ultimate goal driving both invaders from their homelands." I do not question that the goals were quite noble, however, the goals of Communists (declared goals) were even more noble. The tendency to judge about your compatriots based on their goals and about others based on their deeds is a pure example of double standards.

Re "You parrot the official nationalistic Russian position" Leaving the blatantly insulting tone beyond the scope, let me point out that I can neither agree with this your statement nor refute it for a very simple reason. I do not read Russian nationalistic literature, because all nationalistic literature is equally disgusting. I have no idea on what they say, I build my argument based on the Western sources only, with, probably, minimal exceptions.

Re "I don't meet you in some (fictitious) middle, you advocate for arbitration as a solution" This "middle" is not fictitious. For instance, I believe Lauri Malksoo expressed some ideas that are close to my vision of the subject. And I do not see what is wrong with arbitration (in a case if other means will prove unsuccessful).

Re "what is not to be taken seriously? " The idea that any concession from your side will lead just to additional demands, and that the ultimate goal of your opponents is to re-write the article based on the concept of "voluntary joining...". That is a pure example of blatant assuming the opponent's bad faith, and I would prefer not to develop this theme any more.

Re "I'm not accusing you of anything..." Probably. Does that mean that the rest part of your post was addressed to someone else?

In summary, I suggest you to take some break. People are not so bad as they sometimes look. Just assume other's good faith, and everything will be fine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul and "I think refusal of some editors to accept Russavia's proposal is an indication that they do not believe that neutral WP community will find their arguments persuasive" mind your tone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. By agreeing to transfer the right to make a decision about the article's title and content to previously uninvolved editors, who will make their decision based on the sources and arguments provided by you and me I place both you and me in equal conditions. I also believe my sources ans arguments are strong enough (and if that will be not the case, I am prepared in advance to accept the decision even if it will not be favourable for me). By contrast, you refuse to do so, and the only explanation for that (except a weird hypotheses that you enjoy this endless dispute) is that you feel not as confident as I do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, I feel no need to debate a topic which has been debated for half a decade on WP and which always ends up with the Western/ democratic Russian/ Baltic scholarship being that which is validated. This may be your first such debate but it would probably be my 10th, including having to explain to people why "occupation" is not a "bad" word which we should avoid because it doesn't sound nice. I am tired of the endless onslaught which a priori labels me as a stonewalling extremist and editors who search for Освобождение Прибалтики as seekers of truth and NPOV. Or am I missing something here? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The debates will continue independently of your feeling. The only solutions are either Russavia's proposal, mediation or arbitration. I am ready to follow any of these ways.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here at all, and certainly nothing which requires a proposal, mediation, or arbitration. What I do see is a lot of agitation from editors who have not done much in the way of contributing positive content regarding the Baltic states, and now, who explicitly confirm their pro-official-Russia versions of history combined with threats of arbitration if I don't bow to their editorial will. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't see, but I do. Usually, in this situation good faith editors resort to the dispute resolution process that includes, inter alia, mediation and arbitration. In that sense, your phrase about my threats of arbitration sounds especially ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your argument "Germany occupied not the Baltic states, but the SSRs, which were de facto the part of the USSR" fails because those few countries that did afford de facto recognition, did so only after the conclusion of World War 2, there is no retrospectivity in international law. No only that, there are in fact no published source that supports your view point in any case. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @ Paul, No, you are insisting there is a dispute which cannot be resolved by discussing content. There are quite a number of beliefs I've had regarding the Baltics which I've changed since researching further. If you haven't persuaded me that it was, inter alia, the Baltic "SSRs" which were occupied by Nazi Germany, it is not because I am set in my ways. It is because you are simply wrong. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So we still have an impasse. Several reasonable suggestions (4 only on this page) on how to resolve this dispute have been shot down. I say we are wasting our time, Paul. (Igny (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

No. That is not an impasse. That is a problem, concretely, that is an indication that some low importance WP article, which are outside of the scope of broader WP community, can be privatised by few highly motivated users, and that that can be done in full formal accordance with out policy (note, this trick does not work with highly popular articles, that, as a rule, are rather neutral). This situation poses a serious danger for WP as whole, and we need to elaborate a mechanism that would allow us to fix this type problems in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be that, but it is more likely that the национально-патриотическое (Russian nationalist) viewpoint does not have traction in English Wikipedia.The last move request and related RFC had five uninvolved editors opposing any move (a record participation rate), and the previous two unsuccessful move requests[19],[20] during the enforced EEML "holiday" of those so called "few highly motivated users" debunks the notion "privatisation". After multiple failed move requests, move warring and blocks, Igny should really Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, rather than continue to divert our time away from building content with endless circular discussion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The major article's problem is not the title, but the content, so your references to the RMs are irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, continued allegations such as "privatised" which are accusatory and do not hold water, per Martin, are not helpful. Please desist from further portrayals of yourself as seeking to dislodge bad-faithed editors who have article ownership issues. It is only your personal contention the article is not neutral. I have explained in some detail while I contend the article is completely neutral, even going out of its way to relate viewpoints which are not, objectively, grounded in historical fact. If I'm among those privatising an article, rather odd that I am expanding the opposition viewpoint, no?PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cite needed and unreliable source

As per Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#cite_note-85 a citation is needed if possible. I don't know who added the info, but I can't see it in the source. Maybe I am missing it.

However, the source itself is not reliable. It is a working paper, not a peer-reviewed piece of work. It is essentially the brain fart of the author of the piece; if in fact the information is found in his source.

Additionally, the statement itself is a falsity. All international organisations have not "cleared" the Baltic states of discriminating against their Russian-speaking population - on the contrary, many organisations have accused Estonia and Latvia of systematic discrimination. Amongst these are Amnesty, the Council of Europe, the UNHCR, etc. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the source published by a reliable source using the Wikipedia definition? Wikipedia does not require that articles only use "peer-reviewed" articles, by the way - you would have to make a case that the source is not RS. As for what you "know" to be the WP:TRUTH - that is nice - but it is not a valid basis for editing articles. Wikipedia says we are to use what is clearly stated in the source. Also try WP:AGF. I will look ansd see if an independent confirmation of what is n the source backs the claim. If the claim is not backed, it gets yanked. If it is backed, it stays. OK? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All cites vetted. Now can you remove the POV tag or is it now a matter of super glue? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We actually need page numbers. We also need to attribute opinions to their authors. We also need to ascertain whether the author is indeed an expert in their field, given that it is a working paper. That whole section is POV - describing laws as liberal, when the opposite POV is missing. Other POV problems to do with the tag will be discussed in the section above. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask at RS/N if you feel the source is not WP:RS. The source, moreover, supports the simple claim now given to it. Meanwhile the "elites" claim is now properly cited to its author, as required by WP policy. The solution to the POV you seem to note is to find sources specifically saying the laws are not liberal - rather than removing the first source per WP:NPOV. In either case, the POV tag is clearly no longer needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the above section in relation to the POV tag that is on the article. The POV tag is very clearly needed, as is the tag noting that the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with article guidelines. As I say above the article is a POV mess. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that the article is NPOV, instead of removing the tag, when it is clear that other editors are disputing that -- meaning there is no consensus, please consider using WP:RFC to get truly uninvolved, outside opinion on the matter. (POV issues that is) --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I am an outside neutral observer, please accept my assurance that the POV tag is actually non-utile here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are an outside neutral observer, then I also am. And I testify than the POV tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Each of my six edits has been with the goal of obtaining NPOV, so that part is a bit weird for you to sideways accuse me of being non-neutral. You have made more than twenty edits. I suggest that your claim that you are as neutral as I is errant. On this talk page, all of my edits are visible, and I daresay no one can find the posts non-neutral. You have made FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO edits on this talk page. Neutral? Really? Sorry, Paul - that dog don't hunt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point of view can easily be deduced from the your editorial pattern on other WP pages, and this prediction works perfectly. Therefore, independently on the number of edits you made here you have some concrete viewpoint on the issue (Soviet Union and Communism) in general, and, therefore, are not more neutral than I am. Your statement that your edits are aimed to achieve neutrality is noted, however, in my opinion, all my efforts on this talk page pursue the same goal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

According to that edit counting logic I am about as neutral regarding this page as you, Collect. And I don't find the removal of the tag justified either. GreyHood ^Talk 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, here's an apt video. You can't honestly say that you are a neutral observer -- especially not when I have seen you at quite a few threads at different avenues where you have pushed for me to be sanctioned, whilst ignoring other misdeeds. And you attempt to portray yourself as neutral and uninvolved. As you can see, the video is quite apt. This is the only time I am going to address you as an editor in this regard. Just please don't put across that you are an uninvolved observer, when that is obviously not the case, as per the above. Enjoy the video, it is analogous to your comment and its reaction. But just a little bit funnier ;) --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all -- tell me where I have "called for you to be sanctioned" in "quite a few threads." Please. I think you are being a tad over-touchy when I have been scrupulous in attempting NPOV here. Again - I do not recall asking for you to be sanctioned, and most certainly not at multiple places. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have stricken the above, I may have mixed you up with someone else. Anyway, the video is apt don't you think? Replace the word Brian with neutral ;) And with that, let's get back to content. The points I raised in the section above are still very much valid in terms of the POV problems. Continue discussion there please. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What remains is that my edits have been neutral, and that I remain a neutral observer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits are also NPOV. But at least I am able to admit that I have biases. The difference is that I don't allow my own biases to creep into my editing, as truly uninvolved editors have attested to in the past. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I will clarify this. I am not saying that your edits aren't accurate or sourced or POV or whatever. I am saying that one should recognise and admit that they aren't neutral - it's ok to have biases, it's admitting those biases, instead of claiming neutrality, when one knows they aren't. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, admission of bias is easier when it's built into your name.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well not really. Would you believe that some people thought the Russ stood for Russell lol. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re RFC: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Much ado about exactly what?

Just to put the alleged POV title debate into perspective:

1. Occupation one = "Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941" = article section title
2. Occupation two (of the Baltic states, not Baltic SSRs) = "German occupation 1941–1944" = article section title
3. Occupation three = "Under Soviet rule 1944–1991" = article section title

So, what we have, is

• "Soviet, Nazi, and Soviet rule over the occupied Baltic states, 1940-1991", or more succinctly,
• "Occupation of the Baltic states"

Soviet annexation (1940) is appropriately represented and mentioned in the section title where it belongs.

There is no need to change the title of the article nor the scope of article content. While I have quietly expanded the section on contemporary Russian (BTW, polarized) scholarship on the topic with respect to the Soviet aspect of the above, my editorial opposition insists that mediation and arbitration will be necessary if I don't start to see things their way. What, exactly, is missing that requires the threat of mediations and arbitrations, when I myself (who is regularly portrayed as a rabid nationalist ignorant of mainstream scholarship) have added and expanded национально-патриотическое versions of history which have no basis in fact and have done so without denigrating the proponents of those versions in article content?

De jure and de facto recognition all belong in the article on state continuity; neither, with respect to the act of annexation, have anything to do with the Baltic or Soviet or Russian positions on the so-called "joining" of the Baltic states to the Soviet Union, which are:

1. Soviets/Russia/национально-патриотическое - workers revolutions overthrew the Fascists and demanded a government friendly to the USSR; Baltics originated/petitioned to join; (and Latvia originated/ petitioned to give away Abrene to Russia); joining was completely legal according to all international law = hence, no occupation
2. The rest of the planet and including либерально-демократическое - annexation was forcible, joining illegal = hence, occupation

Any points editors wish to make over de facto or de jure belong in the state continuity article. As far this article is concerned, there are no tangible POV issues, there are no censored or suppressed controversies (whether or not they even have merit). As for myself, I have been constructively expanding appropriate content while editors with fluent Russian language skills don't lift a finger. So, exactly who has the interest of objective and inclusive content at heart? Judging by the addition of content representing reliable (and where not reliable to fact, at least reliable and representative as to opinion) sources fairly and accurately represented, that would be myself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin and I have started what can become a polite and fruitful discussion. If you have some sources and facts to present, feel free to join.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have commented there; avoiding personal contentions will hopefully keep such conversation constructive.

I also suggest we table any moves to rename the article per the reasons I have outlined. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tsygankov

I would only note that per the quoted "Separating victory over Fascism and the occupation by the Soviets did not turn out to be possible for the small Eastern European nations" rather puts him in the национально-патриотическое camp, as he ignores the crux of the issue in a monumentally biased fashion, which is that the USSR invaded first and that neither the USSR nor Russia has ever acknowledged occupying the Baltic states, making his statement incongruous at best. His bias unmistakeably brands him a prideful Russian product of the Soviet system. Where he is currently employed does not render his scholarly opinions to be "Western" scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, he makes for interesting reading, but his understanding of the rise of identity in the latter half of the 19th century of Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians; including Baltic Russians; including the impact of autonomy and of Alexander III's russification campaign and post-revolution fears of losing identity under the Bolsheviks, is cursory at best; and so, combined with ignoring the Soviet role as initial aggressor in occupying the Baltic states in WWII, his conclusions reflect his socio-geopolitical belief system more than objective, dispassionate—and in cases, informed—scholarship. And, as I indicated, in no way to be construed as "Western." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By all criteria, Tsygankov is a reliable source, so, for Wikipedia purposes, it absolutely irrelevant what camp this reliable western writer represents. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, getting off a boat does not make Tsygankov a "Western" writer. Tsygankov, who was schooled in the Soviet Union, is accurately said to represent the национально-патриотическое camp based on an objective examination of his writings. Which camp he is in determines where he goes in the article and what his position is stated as representing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you insist, we can always start a subsection on Russian populace including scholars in the diaspora who cling to the национально-патриотическое view of the so-called "victory over Fascism" in the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the scholar working for UCLA (or UCSF?) and publishing the books in western academic publishing houses is a western scholar, and to claim the opposite is racism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where someone is employed does not determine the ascribing of their viewpoints. You and other editors, certainly, ascribe a Baltic viewpoint to myself, yet I was born and raised in the United States and am certainly far more "western" in every way than Tsygankov. So, shall I accuse editors of racism when they state I have a Baltic/pro-Baltic/in keeping with official Baltic viewpoint? Shall I accuse editors of racism whenever they state an emigre scholar is "Baltic" and has a particular POV? I don't know whether your statement is simply a pathetic and cynical attempt to misrepresent mainstream Western scholarship or just grossly offensive beyond all words. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think discussing what school of thought a particular scholar belongs to is "racist". It is clear that Russian historiography is deeply politicised and split between the "liberal-democratic" and "patriotic-nationalist" schools. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that moderating observation, I suggest we get back to content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Tsygankov believes the Baltic states were subjected to 50 years of colonial rule: "In August 1940, however, Latvia's, as well as Lithuania's and Estonia's, period of independence was also terminated following the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939. The pact's secret protocols defined respective spheres of influence, the the Baltics falling within Moscow's area. Fifty years of colonial status led to dramatic changes in Latvia's domestic economy and composition of trade."[21]

--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Tsygankov is interesting, if intellectually conflicted, reading, as on the one hand he appears to recognize the circumstances and effects of Soviet occupation to some degree, but when those circumstances are pointed out by the Baltics (or anyone else) to the detriment of Russia's image (as in Russia not acknowledging occupation), he savages them, hence his ultimately being unable to fully relax his embrace of the nationalist-patriotic defense of Mother Russia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Tsygankov sees a distinction between colonialisation and occupation (I suppose it is possible to occupy a nation without colonising it), and believes it was more a case of the former than the later? In any case, as you say his views are complex. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he repeats his Baltics not separating victory over fascism from occupation theme pretty much verbatim in more than one work. In his book on Russophobia, he speaks poorly of the Baltic "anti-Russia" Lobby (capital "L"); he disparages the Baltic account (occupation et al.) as "ignoring the issue's historical context" but doesn't actually state what is wrong, just as he alleges discrimination against Russians but provides no detail. When scholars profess as to situations but do not provide the basis but simply state those situations as facts, they have strayed from the principles of rigorous scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Tsygankov cites content from Peter Lavelle's now-defunct (no response by web site) personal blog ("Untimely Thoughts") retrieved from the web. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To Martin's above and below, regardless of Tsygankov siding with the nationalists-patriots when it comes to situations where Russia and the Baltics go head to head, one-on-one, even Tsygankov uses "colonized"—rather means occupation as the territory colonized is not the colonizer's and the colonizer is deporting and murdering the indigenous citizens of another sovereign nation). Of course others who maintain it's not possible to "occupy" territory for half a century will differ. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since Tsygankov is already quoted in the article, I added the bit about "colonial status" as well to round out his position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sergei Kortunov (Что стоит за мифом о «советской оккупации»)

Thank you for the link to Kortunov's polemic railing against the myth of occupation, it will be good material for the article's национально-патриотическое (substantiated by fanciful interpretations and overt omissions of historical facts) section. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede corrected

I corrected the lede to indicate that the "Russian" position, if you will, is not monolithic. That should address any POV issues with the lede, as it should not have purported all persons/scholars/officials of Russian extraction or holding some position of governmental or scholarly authority subscribe to the (well-named) "nationalist-patriotic" position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that based on an actual examination of sources, Tsygankov's and Kortunov's positions are already well represented (i.e., not absent) in the lede. If desired, they can be cited as additional references for the "nationalist-patriotic" position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating better English usage, "national-patriotic" -> "nationalist-patriotic", word order doesn't affect meaning either way. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag continued

I have looked over the long discussion on the POV tag above, and have failed to see that the dispute was resolved. If anything, it demonstrated that several ways to resolve the dispute was rejected by the pro-Baltic-POV editors here. I guess we would have to wait for more reasonable editors join the discussion to break an apparent impasse. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, do you really understand what the POVs are? Tsygankov claims the Baltic states had the status of a colony in the USSR[22]. Does that mean you will now claim Tsygankov is pro-Baltic? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I am not "pro-Baltic" I fail to see your post as anything other than "anti-Baltic editors are needed for balance because the current consensus is pro-Baltic". WP:CONSENSUS does not say "anyone can maintain a POV tag just because they do not have consensus on their side." Really. Yet that appears to be the sole remaining argument for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: I am not "pro-Baltic". Does it mean that you support or reject the proposals to resolve this dispute (proposed by me, Paul and Russavia earilier?). Re anyone can maintain a POV tag just because they do not have consensus on their side. It goes two ways. You can't really remove the tag just because you do not have consensus to remove it. The tag unambiguously says to resolve the dispute first. It is not resolved, it is not stale, what possible argument do you have for removing the tag? None, other than your POV. Which ironically is what the POV tag is for.(Igny (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

I made an edit which was suggested by you. That would scarcely make me "pro-Baltic" I would suggest. The purpose of the tag is to indicate an actual discussion about any POV problems. Your assertionis that the poroblem is that there are "pro-Baltic editors" is grossly insufficient on that basis. It appears the only way to get Russavia to approve of an article is to strictly conform to Russavia's views. Alas - that is not how the POV tag is supposed to work. Cheers - and again note my earnest attempt to include your own proposal in the article. Which you appear to find insufficient. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to repeat an edit made by me. The information you "added" was and still is in the first paragraph, there is no point to repeat it in the first ten words of the article. There is a clear dispute here which Russavia has very little to do with other than to propose just one of the ways to resolve it. If you want to make the edit suggested by me and truly incorporate one of my proposals into the article, then rename the article to "Occupation and annexation of the baltic states". (Igny (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The RM to your preferred title failed, your insistence that a POV tag remains on the article until such a time as you get your way is contrary to policy, as such I have removed it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV tag sidebar

Regarding the most recent restoration with the edit summary: "(sorry, no, it doesn't look like the issue was resolved and accepted by both sides on the talk page)", really, the notion of sides is acrimonious at best. Greyhood, please summarize what issue(s) you see which require the POV tag you restored. That there is (by your edit summary, my characterization), a disagreement based on ("both" = two sides):

• tag not deserved
• tag deserved (i.e., those who oppose those who believe that tag is not deserved)

is not a justification for getting involved in edit-warring over the tag. Do not take edit-warring as an accusation or that I am threatening you with enforcement actions as other editors have threatened myself and others. I am merely pointing out to you that as an interested party, saying nothing about the merits of the POV tag in restoring it only amplifies the acrimony and identifies you as a participant of one of the "sides," rendering your restoration a partisan action. So I invite you to explain what it is about/in the article that requires the POV tag you restored (your words, your editorial position, not referencing editors on either "side").

Oh, and still waiting for Igny's Socratic method, BTW. I haven't forgotten. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion on presenting the view points in this article in the discussions above, and not very much time passed since. My concerns have been to a certain extent addressed, though, thank you for the work. Nevertheless I don't find the amount of the word "illegal" in the lead appropriate, since it looks like a too strong POV pushing, given the fact that there is significant Russian POV which contradicts the illegality statement and now is presented in the lead. Also, I don't find the references to Boris Sokolov appropriate, he has rather bad reputation as a historian. GreyHood ^Talk 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless I feel that some of the recent edits really made the article more neutral and there are proscpects for further improvements, and if the other supporters of the POV tag, such as Paul, will find the new changes enough, I'll avoid further meddling in. GreyHood ^Talk 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral and uninvolved editor its clear there is still a concern over POV that hasn't been resolved here. A quick look indicates to me that there has been no attempt to look at dispute resolution and edit warring to remove a POV tag seems a remarkably stupid thing to be blocked for. Might suggest you talk a deep breath and stop sniping at one another. Perhaps you should seek mediation at WP:Medcab. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, "dispute resolution". Like that time I started an RfC here only to have it driven into a wall by the regulars and my "intent" in starting the RfC questioned by another user in a gross assumption of bad faith. Heed the "Notice to new editors" at the top and look through the archives. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Lothar, firstly, keep in mind that, whereas one editors accused you, others supported you RfC, so everything is not so bad. Secondly, WCM proposes not an RfC, but mediation, which is a second step in dispute resolution. In my opinion, this proposal is absolutely correct. I believe all users who are really confident in the strengths of their arguments should agree on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

'No attempts" Try looking at the NPOV noticeboard <g>. Most certainly there have been attempts. Look at the article history - Igny removed the POV tag with his only change being renaming the article to include "Annexation" -- that is the sole POV issue he has - and I suggest that where he rejects just having "annexation" in the lede, but is happy if it is in the title, that such is an insufficient reason for an eternal tag. And again there most certainly have been attempts at dispute resoution just look at the noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will at least thank Greyhood for almost conforming to my invitation, which included not naming any editors to avoid aligning one's self with a "side." Still, it is helpful you clarified your position that "illegal" is disputed by a portion of Russian public and scholarly opinion and by the Russian state (described as the "nationalist-patriotic" position) and therefore the presence of "illegal" in the lede is problematic. Hopefully it is equally helpful that I observe that the disputing of "illegal" is an opinion, as even the Russian Duma never produced any evidence supporting its declaration that (in the case of the specific declaration) that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. In the absence of supporting documentation of "legal" and the presence of overwhelming scholarship and documentation confirming "illegal," it would be undue weight for the lede to remove "illegal" in deference to the position of the Russian state and those who support it. Personally, there is far too much on the "nationalist-patriotic" position in the lede given its lack of foundation, but so be it. If you have evidence for your contention of poor scholarship regarding Sokolov, please feel free to express your concerns here or in private. In this area of polarized views regarding the Soviet legacy, you will appreciate that one person's "bad reputation" is anther person's "badge of approval." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you read Russian, you may just look at the Russian article on Sokolov and check the sources listed there. GreyHood ^Talk 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit politicized, still, I'll do some more checking. I wonder what he said in The Soviet Story to contribute to the Russian furore over it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the WP:NPOVN[23] where another user expressed a concern about the article's language. I find this concern quite reasonable, and I believe it should be addressed. In addition, I think all labels ("national-patriotic" or "liberal-democratic", "western" or "Russian") should also be removed as inappropriate: the sources cannot be western or eastern, they are reliable (can be used in WP) and inreliable (cannot be used).
In addition, the article contains a huge section devoted to the Soviet/Russian position, and no sections devoted to the position of the Baltic states themselves, as well as to the position of the Western countries. I do not propose, however, to expand the article, my proposal is different: move the most of the Soviet/Russian position related text to the appropriate daughter article.
The statement: "Baltic legations or governments in exile formally vested with sovereign authority functioned throughout the Soviet period." is incorrect. There were no Baltic governments in exile, just several embassies or consulate, whose status was quite vague in most western countries. The sentence should be fixed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor commenting at NPOVN appears to be a newbie with only 93 edits, while it is always good to have a fresh set of eye, I'm not sure as to the degree of their understanding of NPOV policy. Many newbies tend to make the mistake in believing NPOV is about synthesising a "neutral viewpoint", rather than just reporting the viewpoints per due weight. There is nothing wrong with identifying schools of thought, how else do we identify and attribute due weight to viewpoints if we don't identify them? As for the "Baltic legations or governments in exile" issue, that can be addressed, but it is complex and needs some thought, do you have some concrete suggestions here? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This user is a newbie, but I am not. I agree with most of what he writes, and I believe the overall article's tone is far from neutrality.

The schools of thought usually are not identified by adding politicised labels. For instance, I would not support the statement "Prof X, a libertarian historian", or "Dr. Y, a left-wing thinker". The school should be identified, but not labelled.

Not only the issue with the embassies can be addressed, it should. It must be simply said that few Baltic embassies or consulates in some western countries, whose status was indefinite, were the only representatives of the pre-war Baltic states abroad during 1950s-80s, however, their presence had contributed to the thesis about legal continuity of there states that had been put forward in 1990s.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The labels are as reported in reliable sources, I have no idea if these labels are "politicised". Indeed, I'll think of some more appropriate words in regard to the embassies. Sokolov has an English language paper titled "The Baltic States in 1939–1945, in Russian Historiography: Counter-nationalism" beginning on page 93here. Perhaps your suggestion of creating a sub-article on Russian historiography has some merit. Do you have a view on the reputation of Sokolov? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sokolov has been criticized for a number of implausible claims which can easily be proven wrong, and either he is a very poor specialist or just intentionally making stuff (he has been accused in falsifications). He is clearly falling to the opposite of the "Nationalist-patriotic" camp, and certainly not the best source to neutrally and honestly describe "camps" in the Russian historiography. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I also find the language far from NPOV. There should always be more preoccupation with telling the facts, rather than pushing labels. The multiple mentioning of the word "illegal" and it's derivatives in the lead is rather funny and POVish. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess not having this talk page on my watchlist confirms I'm a newbie. Missed completely the discussion going on. Anyway, I've given my comments on the tone of the article, I leave the discussion to the more experienced editors. DS Belgium (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have some opinion on Sokolov, however, I would like to not express it because of lack of serious documentary evidences. The only thing I can tell for sure is that his views on the Soviet losses during the WWII is totally unsatisfactory and it contradicts to what both Russian and Western sources (e.g. Emmman, Maksudov etc) tell. In connection to that, I would prefer to see some review on his works made by some reputable Western scholar before using it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "The labels are as reported in reliable sources," If the sources use non-encyclopaedic language, we don't have to follow them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures can be difficult to determine, however Greyhood mentioned implausible claims by Sokolov that can be easily disproved. Can you provide specific examples? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The totally implausible casualty figures, such as 26,4 mlns suggested by Sokolov, are easily disproved by the simple demographic data, and by the fact that it is impossible in an army that had just 27 mln persons actually taking part in any fighting, where many millions were left standing after the war, to have such casualties. At the same time he used a different method of counting for Germans, diminishing the number of their casualties. It is all either utmost non-professionalism or direct manipulation. GreyHood ^Talk 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, given the wide range of casualties with anything related to communist regimes, I am not surprised. But we are not citing Sokolov here for a WW2 article about some battle. Sokolov's views in regard to Russian historiography can be verified by other sources. For example David Mendeloff states: "A survey of the latest generation of history textbooks that are most widely used in Russia's schools reveals a view of the events of 1939-40 that is greatly at odds with the general historical consensus"[24] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sherlock's "History and Myth in the Soviet Empire and the Russian Republic" on page 233 provides an overview of the coverage of the Baltic states in Russian textbooks, showing the split within in Russian historiography and how it varies compared to the general historical consensus[25]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While our doggie's veggies simmer

Like the ringing phone or simple itch, I find myself compelled to respond to Paul's above.

• Re "the Soviet authorities vacated the Baltics ahead of the German invasion..." do you really think this argument is serious?
  • There were no "Soviets" around to occupy, regardless, as the Soviets abandoned the Baltics ahead of the German invasion, that rather indicates the Soviet occupation concluded (at least temporarily), to be replaced by a German one of the Baltic states

• Re "The Baltics were neutral. If the Soviet Union had not occupied them, they would have remained neutral." If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour the US would be neutral, so what?
  • Really, you must read your history. You might even take Hitler at his word in launching his invasion of the Soviet Union was driven, in part, by the Soviet Union taking "spheres of influence" just a bit too far in the Baltics. So, at least your example does conclude, by your application thereof, that the Soviet Union did attack the Baltics and it wasn't "more of an intervention" as you have advocated in the past, so we are making progress on this point.

• Re "you also ignore the reality that the Baltic Waffen SS had as their ultimate goal driving both invaders from their homelands." I do not question that the goals were quite noble, however, the goals of Communists (declared goals) were even more noble. The tendency to judge about your compatriots based on their goals and about others based on their deeds is a pure example of double standards.
  • In the words of Count Shuvalov, "The historical mission of the Baltic provinces is to serve as a battlefield for the problems of the highest politics in Europe." Your qualification of "declared (!) goals" as being more noble than some of the smallest nations/peoples on the planet attempting to save their ancestral homelands for millennia from two predatory powers that outnumbered them 46½ to 1 (in 1939) is laughable. One must judge intent by results (mass murder, mass deportation,...) not by self-serving statements of motivation. What you are really doing is confirming that, in your view, Soviet pronouncements of saving people are more noble than Soviet actions murdering the same people. As far am I as aware, the Baltics harbored no territorial ambitions despite the USSR accusing them of same. You also ignore the Baltic peoples, drove out both the Germans and Russians before to gain independence, so there was a real basis for holding on to tenuous hopes regardless of circumstances.

(P.S.'s responce) The declared goal was to promote the World Revolution and to liberate the proletariat and peasantry. If we speak about the goal, not the implementation, it was really noble. Shuvalov's opinion is an example of realpolitic that had no relation to the subject of our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) I find your perspective disturbing, when unfulfilled words, indeed words betrayed, appear to be more significant to you than a statement by the governor of the Baltic provinces which was as true then as it is today in the dichotomy of positions, official Russian versus reputable accounts of history. Shuvalov's comments speak to the heart of the "dispute" here. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "You parrot the official nationalistic Russian position" Leaving the blatantly insulting tone beyond the scope, let me point out that I can neither agree with this your statement nor refute it for a very simple reason. I do not read Russian nationalistic literature, because all nationalistic literature is equally disgusting. I have no idea on what they say, I build my argument based on the Western sources only, with, probably, minimal exceptions.
  • A shame, nationalistic literature is often quite interesting especially after you learn to separate polemics from the grains fof truth and how those grains are interpreted. I have to say, I know of no one who has used mainstream Western sources to come up with the Soviet invasion and occupation being "more of an intervention." I can't comment whether it is your selection or interpretation of sources which are (to my mind, admittedly) lacking.

(P.S.'s responce) To me, both Russian and Baltic nationalists are equally disgusting, and I found nothing attracting in their literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) This to me shows a lack of intellectual curiosity. Some of the most informative works I have read on the Soviet era are pure propaganda. I find such works (a) may bring up an event which I am unaware of and prompt further research as to the event and (b) always speak to the motivations of those for whom history serves politics. I find your profession of disgust an easy way out and a blanket position for denying any "nationalist" source you personally deeem as such. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "I don't meet you in some (fictitious) middle, you advocate for arbitration as a solution" This "middle" is not fictitious. For instance, I believe Lauri Malksoo expressed some ideas that are close to my vision of the subject. And I do not see what is wrong with arbitration (in a case if other means will prove unsuccessful).
  • Of course the middle is fictitious. Either the Soviet presence was legal or not; both Baltic and Soviet historiography agree on the position of the other: legal presence therefore not occupation; illegal presence therefore (illegal) occupation. You bring up irrelevant discussions of "legal occupations." That is a fictitious middle which does not exist in this scenario regardless of how you slice the intellectual pie.

(P.S.'s responce) Of course, it isn't. As I persuasively demonstrated (with sources), it is generally believed that "illegal annexation ≠ occupation", that both occupations and annexations can be legal or illegal. Therefore, even if the Soviet presence was illegal (which is probably the case), it was not necessarily occupation. I would add more to that, but I prefer not to do that, otherwise that would require me to comment on your directly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) And, again, there is no support for the Russian position (per Duma proclamation) that e.g., Latvia joined legally according to international law, and hence not illegal hence not occupation. There's no illegal displacement of sovereign authority but not occupation. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "what is not to be taken seriously? " The idea that any concession from your side will lead just to additional demands, and that the ultimate goal of your opponents is to re-write the article based on the concept of "voluntary joining...". That is a pure example of blatant assuming the opponent's bad faith, and I would prefer not to develop this theme any more.
  • I was merely relating past events on this topic. Those events are a reflection of the official Russian position on Soviet glory, so as long as there are editors who explicitly or empirically support that position, the sequence of events I describe will, unfortunately, follow as certainly as the day follows the night.

(P.S.'s responce) What relation does it have to me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) "Voluntarily joining"=legal is, of course the official position of the Russian government. However, failing to achieve that, there is the advocacy for dilution of occupation (your efforts, specifically, such as your "more of an intervention") which serve to empirically make the Soviet Union to appear less bellicose with regard to its intent or actions regarding the Baltic states. Malksoo uses the word "crushed." Let's make sure we included that in the article narrative. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "I'm not accusing you of anything..." Probably. Does that mean that the rest part of your post was addressed to someone else?
  • I was making the point I have no intent to do anything other than debate the subject as opposed to arbitration, your constant threats of enforcement actions against editors.

(P.S.'s responce) If someone takes a step that violates ArbCom decision, I simply have to inform them about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.s response) Threatening enforcement and debating content are mutually exclusive. I would not have had my stimulating debates with Vlad Fedorov if every other post by either of us was threatening sanctions against each other over our use of rhetoric in debate. If you want to debate, debate. If you want to breed acrimony, threaten sanctions. There's no middle ground. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In summary, I suggest you to take some break. People are not so bad as they sometimes look. Just assume other's good faith, and everything will be fine.

• Quite honestly, I was on a break for a year and returned to (IMHO) a far more radicalized Wikipedia in the positive portrayal of the Soviet legacy, protecting communism from its detractors, etc., etc. Regardless, I am always glad to debate editors on the sources no matter their position, no matter what their self-characterization of their position. Obviously we did not agree on Edelstein, but at least that was still a debate of a source (which unfortunately did not ultimately apply).

(P.S.'s responce) Let's try to continue in this way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) Well, we currently appear to be going through one of our periodic rehashings which ultimately prove to be less than cathartic. Hopefully the current discussion over sui generis which is buried in there somewhere is of some constructive value. We could have that without all the rest of the crap. Personally, I'd archive everything here except for that thread and move forward. As for the tagging, I'm sorry, but when even Glantz (whose extensive use and command of Soviet sources is sometimes held against him) states it's a military occupation in every way, really, we're done. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't mind me to wedge my posts after some of your posts that deserved a response, otherwise that would lead to dramatic inflation of the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll get back to yours in a bit. This might get interesting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should an article retain a POV tag for the better part of one year? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• No it should not, policy is quite clear and say it may not be used as a badge of shame. Policy also says if the discussion has petered out the tag ought be removed or if there is no section to discuss the issue on the article talk page the tag ought be removed. Whenever the tag has been removed per policy it has been reverted back in. I am of the opinion that after one year it really needs to be taken down. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• POV tags are intended to show that an ongoing discussion exists (whether titled "POV" or not - the existence of a clear conflict about POV is sufficient). Where no such ongoing discussion is apparent, the tag has outlived usefulness. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• RfCs are worthless and you just hit a hornet's nest with a stick. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It would not be the first time I have done so :o) But what of your opinion of a POV tag being on an article for the best part of a year? Do you not think it overly long? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is some discussion and the reasons have been clearly enumerated when asked for, then it is fine. Otherwise no. And with that, I end my participation in this mockery of a "dispute resolution" technique (no offence to you). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The last post have been made by Peters in late September, and in this post he promised to respond soon. In this situation it should be clear for every reasonable person that the discussion has not finished, so I simply do not understand the reason for this RfC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The last post was off-topic to the issue of the POV tag IMHO. The last substantive post was concerning Sokolov's views in regard to Russian historiography, which is supported by other sources. For example David Mendeloff states: "A survey of the latest generation of history textbooks that are most widely used in Russia's schools reveals a view of the events of 1939-40 that is greatly at odds with the general historical consensus"[26] Also Thomas Sherlock's "History and Myth in the Soviet Empire and the Russian Republic" on page 233 provides an overview of the coverage of the Baltic states in Russian textbooks, showing the split within in Russian historiography and how it varies compared to the general historical consensus[27]. It may well be that this seemingly intractable POV issue may be tied up with the educational backgrounds of some people. What do you think this "general historical consensus" is that is being referred too, Paul. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the views of the last author, who speaks about "coercive incorporation" more or less coincide with my views. The problem is, however, that another party insists on the concept of "military occupation", and any attempt to balance this POV are represented by them as pro-Soviet view pushing. That is the subject of the discussion, and that is why the neutrality tag should be in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments have been convincingly refuted before, Paul. There are many forms of occupation: military occupation stricto sensu, occupation following an armistice and occupation sui generis, for example. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

By correctly arguing that my viewpoint is close to the views of the author you have just cited, you thereby conceded that the my arguments haven't been refuted neither convincingly nor inconvincingly.

I would like to learn more about those "different forms of occupation" you are talking about. Could you please provide a reference to some secondary source that give definitions of these separate forms of occupation? I am especially interested to see a definition of the "occupation sui generis" you refer to. In addition, I have a feeling that you simply do not understand the meaning of the words "sui generis": the very meaning of this term implies that it cannot be applied to some general phenomenon, so no "occupation sui generis" as a separate form of occupation can exist.

In any events, despite the fact that yours arguments have been convincingly refuted you either refuse to accept my arguments, or are simply unable to understand them. The tag should stay, because the dispute has not been resolved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Volume 2 (1948), pp 926-927. This article is not about some general phenomenon, but specifically about the Baltic states, which Mälksoo explicitly defines as an "occupation sui generis". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What concrete piece of Guggenheim's text are you referring to? Could you please provide a quote to make sure we are talking about the same things?

Re general phenomenon, I am started to be little bit annoyed with this trick: when I speak about the Baltic states, you start to talk about "many forms of occupation" (which mean some general concepts), when respond in general you suggest to switch to the Baltic states. That is not correct. Let's finish with that ones and forever. Tell me please, what forms of occupation did you mean? Please, list them (provide a source, author, page, year, quote). Your refusal to do that will be interpreted as an indication of your inability to find an adequate counter-arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How many time do I have to post quotes before you accept what reliable source say? Lauri Mälksoo in Illegal annexation and state continuity p193: "The prolonged Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was an unorthodox occupation sui generis". What Wikipedia policy permits you to reject this? Unless you have a published source that directly refutes this, your argument has no basis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with this text. However, never in this monograph (and in the scholarly literature as whole) can you find a statement that "occupation sui generis" is some separate form of occupation. Moreover, "sui generis" in this case means "some specific and unique form of occupation", or "pseudo-occupation", of annexation-occupation. Malksoo uses the term of occupation in the monograph devoted to the legal continuity of the Baltic states, and this term is supposed to demonstrate a legal basis for their state continuity. By no means that means that the USSR established and maintained some specific form of occupational administration in the Baltic states.

In connection to that, can you explain me, what concrete pieces of text have been added to in this article to demonstrate the fact that the occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR was a very unusual form of rule, and, along with few traits of occupation, this phenomenon had many traith of annexation? Maybe, the first sentence of the lede makes that clear?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to think it is necessary to contain the entire topic in the first sentence of the lede, which is unreasonable. Igny himself has added a sentence about "occupation sui generis" in the lede[28], I've explained all this before so I don't understand why you continue to think the lede is POV bringing up all these old arguments. Krystyna Marek discusses Professor Guggenheim's classification of the different types of belligerent occupation here. Mälksoo also defines the Baltic case as a "occupation sui generis" (which is not a "pseudo-occupation" as your unsourced contention implies). --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Coming from rfc: Yes if the problem is unsolved.Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• IMHO until Russia describes the Soviet presence for the duration as an "occupation" the "POV tag" will likely remain. Mälksoo, per his "unorthodoxy," does not indicate it was not an occupation, he only recognizes unique aspects. Since "occupation" still applies, the only reason to keep the tag would appear to be that not enough merit is given to the (unsubstantiated at best) official Russian position. As for "and annexation" being added to the title, annexation is both superfluous and does not apply to the entire period of occupations. @Paul, the operative word is "occupation." Националист-патриот ►TALK 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The POV tag can be removed if there is no ongoing dispute about the POV issue. Editors who wish to keep the POV tag must provide a specific explanation of the reasons, including identifying the material in the article that is of concern, and they should include indications of what steps need to be taken to remedy the POV issues. Simply saying "this article is biased" is not sufficient: specific words, sentences, and examples must be provided. Editors who oppose the POV tag should feel free to remove the tag if specific rationale is not provided upon request. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reasons have already been provided. The fact that they have been diluted with numerous comments does not mean these concerns had been addressed. I already summarised the reasons in details, and I don't see I have to do that again. Just look through very recent talk page discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not rendering an opinion on whether or not sufficient rationale has been providing for this article or not. I was simply outlining the general criteria to use to make the decision. (That is why my comment is titled "Comment" rather than "Yes" or "No"). If editors have identified specific sentences and words that they believe are POV, then, yes, the POV tag should be retained. The next step would be for all editors to work together to come up with improved text to make those areas more neutral. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For the beginning, the first sentence of the lede is not neutral. The reasons have been (re)explained in my post on 18:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)---Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has a very generic statement: "Should an article retain a POV tag for the better part of one year?". Was it the intention that this RfC focus on a particular aspect of the POV issues of this article (e.g. the article lead)? If so, the RfC statement above should be amended to identify the specific POV issue. That way, when uninvolved editors arrive here from the RfC lists, the RfC statement will provide better guidance on where input is desired. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue was with the lede there are more appropriate tags that can be used, rather than an article wide tag which appears to be used for nothing more than a "badge of shame". This is evident by the fact that when we try to determine what the issue is we end up with pages of circular discussion without arriving at specific explanation of the reasons. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• In essence this dispute is about giving what a scholar describes as a Russian "nationalist myth" equal weight as what the same scholar describes as general historical consensus"[29]. Thus this tag is without foundation since the text already gives coverage with due weight to this Russian nationalist viewpoint. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin, but even the source you selected by yourself tells about "annexation of the Baltic states" (although the term "occupation" is also used). In connection to that, your persistent refusal to recognise the "general historical consensus" about the 1939-40 events is astonishing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, have you purposely WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? I've lost count of the number of times where I have explained to you the difference between annexation and occupation. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the difference in general? If yes, I believe I have already explained to you the difference between occupation, colonisation and annexation, and you failed to provide the description of alleged "different forms of occupation", as I requested. In this situation, the accusation in refusal to get a point should be addressed to you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided a description backed by source above[30], but it seems you have chosen to totally ignore it. This, it appears, is direct concrete evidence that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably missed your last post, sorry.

I have looked through the Marek's description of the Guggenheim's views, and I have to concede that the division onto three different forms of occupation was not your own invention. I apologise for being wrong.

However, you seem to misinterpret the Marek's book. She speaks about belligerent occupations, namely:

1. Belligerent occupation sensu stricto;
2. Belligerent occupation following the armistice;
3. Belligerent occupatio sui generis.

I see some problems with the application of this classification to the Baltic states, because any belligerent occupation implies some bellum, however, consensus exists (that is shared by even Russian nationalists, afaik) that there was no belli between the USSR and the Baltic states.

In addition, is we focus at the #3 (because ## 1,2 are not relevant at all), we will immediately see that Guggenheim and Malksoo mean under occupatio sui generis two quite different things. Guggenheim defines the occupatio sui generis as a situation when a "debellatio has in fact taken place, but victorious powers refuse to go to the lenght of annexation"(p. 79, Op.cit) The example of the occupatio sui generis, according to Marek, was the occupation of the Third Reich by the Allies (ibid.), which, obviously, had nothing in common with the "occupation of the Baltic states". In other words, if we accept that "occupation of the Baltic states" was an occupatio sui generis with a reference to Guggenheim, we must concede that (i) there was a war between the Baltic states an the USSR, during which the latter conquered the former, (ii) the debellatio has in fact taken place in the Baltic states in 1940, and (iii) the USSR decided not to annex these states. Since (i - iii) are obvious nonsence, I conclude Malksoo haven't used the Guggenheim definition, and he meant something else. I do not have his monograph in my computer right now, so I suggest you to check if this monograph contains a reference to Guggenheim. In any event, the only way to resolve a situation is to directly address to Lauri Malksoo and to ask what concretely did he mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I it necessary to add, Martin, that I appreciate your attempts to find new sources. The Marek's monograph is an interesting reading, and I believe it would be useful for me to read it in full.

Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS I found more sources that apply the term "occupation sui generis" to post-war Germany (e.g. M Rheinstein - Michigan Law Review, 1948), and only one source, Malksoo, who applied this term to the Baltic states. We definitely need to get explanations from him, because there is absolutely no analogy between the Baltic states and Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any explanations. "Sui generis" means unique unto itself. With regard to the Baltics, they were unique, for example, in setting the precedent in international law for the first widespread non-recognition of occupation/forcible annexation. Nothing to do with the post-war German occupation "sui generis." (Therefore no analogy, as you stated.) Националист-патриот ►TALK 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I also initially though that the term "occupation sui generis" means refers to some event that is unique in its characteristics. However, Martin disagreed with that, and he claimed that occupatio sui generis is one of three forms of belligerent occupation. Moreover, he found the source that supported his claim. We cannot reject this source, which meets all RS criteria. The problem is, however, that the definition of the "occupatio sui generis" provided in this sources is applicable no the occupation of Nazi Germany, and, obviously non-applicable with the Baltic states. I have no idea how to resolve this problem, and I suggest to ask the author, Lauri Malksoo, the only person who applied the term "sui generis" to the Baltic states, to explain his point.

The problem becomes even more complicated taking into account that the source provided by Martin clearly says that the third type of occupation (occupatio sui generis) concerns only Germany and Japan (Op.Cit., p.79). In other words, we have three sources that claim somewhat mutually exclusive things (Guggenheim: "Occupatio sui generis is a specific form of occupation when, despite debellatio, no attempts to annex the occupied territory are taken by the occupying party". Marek: "Occupatio sui generis refers to Germany and Japan only, so it is unclear if we can speak about a third type of belligerent occupation". Malksoo: "Annexation of the Baltic states can be considered as the Occupatio sui generis". I have no idea on how to reconcile these three sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, my first point remains unaddressed: Guggenheim clearly speaks about belligerent occupation, but there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR. How the sources resolve this controversy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The view that "there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR" is a viewpoint based upon Soviet historiography, which has been disproved in scholarly literature. For example Marek in the same book cited above, after analysis of Soviet actions in the Baltic during 1940, concludes that "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form."(p567) --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's finish with one issue first. Do you maintain that the "occupation of the Baltic states" was the occupatio sui generis as Guggenheim defines it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what is written in a published source. On what basis do you refute this, you have not presented any sources so far that contradicts this. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't understand. What source do you mean, Guggenheim (who defined a separate form of belligerent occupatio sui generis as debellatio without annexation), Marek (who states that "occupation sui generis" is applicable to Japan and Germany only), or Malksoo (whose point is that the annexation of the Baltic states may be considered as occupation sui generis)? As you can see, they tell quite different things...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you "don't understand". You began this thread claiming there was only one type of military occupation, I provide a source from Guggenheim/Marek that demonstrates there are several different forms of occupation, the classic stricto sensu form and the sui generis form. Since Sui generis means "unique unto itself", the definition applied to Germany is not applicable to the Baltic states, and vice versa, obviously. Mälksoo asserts occupation sui generis in the case of the Baltic states. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Guggenheim provided a very strict definition of the occupatio sui generis, and you implied the same in your initial post. However, if we agree that occupatio sui generis are simple the Latin words to describe "some very unusual form of occupation" (in this particular case, annexation with traits of occupation), then the reference to the occupatio sui generis are simply misleading in the lede (because someone may confuse it with the Guggenheim's definition), and we need simply to explain that that was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view, because it had some (many) traits of annexation, and there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR. Essentially, that was my initial point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think "someone may confuse it with the Guggenheim's definition", since you did not even know of it until I pointed it out to you. But since you now claim "Guggenheim provided a very strict definition of the occupatio sui generis", please describe what this definition is here and now. And no, we cannot explain "that was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view" because this is your synthesis, no source actually states this. I have already pointed out to you that Marek concludes on page 567 in regard to the events of 1940 that "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form.", and you continue to persist with the unsourced assertion "there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR". This is what David Glantz (an author you apparently respect) states in the preface to Oleg Aleksandrovich Rzheshevski's book Stalin and the Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940: "the Red Army invasion of, and ensuing war with, Finland fits into a far broader pattern of belligerent Soviet behaviour during the initial period of the Second World War. This broader pattern included Soviet participation with Germany in the dismemberment of Poland in September 1939; its military occupation of the Baltic States in October 1939; and its invasion and annexation of Romanian Bessarabia in June 1940"[31], so please do not continue with what has been described by scholars as a Russian nationalist myth that the Baltic states were not militarily occupied in 1939. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some sources characterise the event as military occupation. However, other sources (non-Russian nationalist sources) speak about "annexation" or "incorporation", and you cannot arbitrarily select the sources that support your POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(indents getting a bit deep) We need to be clear about the application of occupation sui generis to a situation or situations versus those situations being some sort of de facto definition which can be reverse-engineered regarding what are common aspects of sui generis. Legally speaking there are no common aspects, period. The application of the term is in one direction only and, as Martin indicates above, any particular application of sui generis does not inhibit the occupation of the Baltics sui generis (over its term) being belligerent in every way just as if there had been a formal state of war declared—which lack thereof reputable scholarship has emphatically concluded is totally immaterial with regard to the bellicose nature of the military invasion and occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there was nothing in common between the Guggenheim's and Malksoo's sui generis. Therefore, it is necessary to agree that Martin's attempt to use "occupation sui generis" as some concrete and self-explanatory term is totally misleading, so this term should be used only in the same way Malksoo did. Namely, it is necessary to explain that this occupation was very unusual, and should be considered occupatio sui generis. It is necessary to write in the lede that "the USSR annexed three Baltic states as the Baltic SSRs, whose legal status within the USSR was identical to other members, however, illegality of the act of annexation allowed many authors to speak about continuous occupation of these states, which had been characterised as occupatio sui generis to demonstrate the uniquiness of the situation with the Baltic states". If this text is accepted (and I see no rational reason for not doing that), that would be a serious step towards removal of the POV tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be wilfully misrepresenting my arguments, I already explained to you I mentioned Guggenheim's sub-typing of "belligerent occupation" when you claimed there is only one type, a third type is occupation after an armistice. You are also synthesising two POVs that don't actually exist, that some sources speak of "annexation" to the exclusion of "occupation" and vice versa, as if the "annexation" view was one POV and the "occupation" view was another competing POV. This is a gross mischaracterisation of the sources, as generally the discussion of "annexation" is about the events of 1940 when the USSR forcibly incorporated the Baltics, and the discussion of "occupation" is generally about both the act of military occupation in 1939 and the status of the Baltic states during the period 1940-1991, and both terms co-exist in the sources side by side as they are about different aspects of the same topic. You contention that there are two competing POVs of "annexation" vs "occupation" is your personal synthesis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I misinterpreted anything; however, I concede I could misunderstand something.

Re " I already explained to you I mentioned Guggenheim's sub-typing of "belligerent occupation" when you claimed there is only one type" I already agreed that the thesis about three types of belligerent occupation appeared to be not your invention, and apologised. What else do you need? However, since we need to move further, I started the discussion of the applicability of Guggenheim's classification. As you see, none of three forms of Guggenheim's occupations assume the attempts of the occupying party to annex the occupied territories, and Guggenheim speaks about that explicitly, in the case of occupatio sui generis. Since the attempts to annex the Baltic states did take place (although they were not internationally recognised), the Guggenheim's occupatio sui generis is not applicable to the Baltic states, moreover, per Marek, Guggenheim's occupatio sui generis is applicable'exclusively to Japan and Germany. Therefore, I agree with Vecrumba that we cannot use occupatio sui generis as some self-explanatory term.

Re "You are also synthesising two POVs that don't actually exist, that some sources speak of "annexation" to the exclusion of "occupation" and vice versa" I already presented the source that explains the difference between (inherently temporary) occupation and (inherently permanent) annexation. We discussed this source in details, and I do not understand what synthesis are you talking about.

Re " the discussion of "occupation" is generally about both the act of military occupation in 1939 and the status of the Baltic states " What status do you mean? A status according to the domestic Soviet laws, a status according to international laws, or the status according to the positions of some concrete foreign states? A spectrum of opinia was wide, and we need to explain everything.

In any event, I see that you constantly repeat the same arguments again and again, and force me to do the same. I see no reason to continue this discussion, and suggest unformal mediation. I suggest to start it in mid November. Do you agree? If I get no answer within a week after your next edit, I will assume that you rejected my proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, general explanations are nice, but your arguments over "inherently" anything applied to the Baltics is your personal opinion and not in keeping with majority Western portrayal of the Soviet presence regarding the Baltics, specifically. There is no need to explain Soviet law et al, it is already overly explained. Still occupied. The violations of international law (prior treaties) are voluminous. Certainly occupied. "Incorporated?" Still occupied. "Legal status same as other Soviet republics?" Still occupied. Националист-патриот ►TALK 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• RfC statement should be amended - The purpose of the RfC is to solicit input from uninvolved editors. The RfC statement must contain a brief, neutral statement of the issue. This RfC needs to be reworded: the current wording implies that input is desired in generic POV policy guidelines, when in fact the questions are about very specific sources, passages, and statements in the article. The RfC should identify the specific POV issues with the article. Leaving the RfC statement as-is is misleading to editors that will be arriving here from the RfC pages. --Noleander (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the conduct of some editors here, an RFC/U would be more relevant in this case. It appears to me that an article level tag is being misused when a more relevant section or inline tag could be used if necessary. The background to this is that a number of editors could not gain consensus for renaming the article despite a couple of move requests and an RFC, so now we have a perpetual dispute without those editors tagging the article actually articulating a specific explanation of the reasons or identifying the material in the article that is of concern beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So in that sense the current RFC is probably hit the nail on the head. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

...and this is why RfCs are absolutely worthless. Good day to all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a typical situation when all users who are interested in this subject have already joined the discussion, so any RfC will be unable to provide serious fresh input. I think this is a typical situation when good faith editors resort to mediation (informal mediation, for the beginning). I am not ready to participate right now, and I propose to postpone the start of mediation to late November. Of course, such a mediation will have positive effect only if all participants are good faith users. However, since Martin expressed a concern that that is not the case, maybe, it is really reasonable to start with RfC/U first. In connection to that, Martin, can you tell us if you have some specific users on mind, or your statement had a general nature?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• (commenting as someone previously almost uninvolved here). This most recent discussion looks very much as WP:Consensus to remove the tag, and I do not see any valid reason provided to keep it, except maybe a couple of POVish words. Fixed. Biophys (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Do you imply that I, as one of major participants, agreed that the article has no neutrality issues, or that all my concerns had been addressed? If that is your claim than you definitely hadn't read the discussion carefully.

I would say, the opposite is true: despite none of my concerns have been addressed, all changes proposed by me have been either rejected or ignored. Thus, I argued that no Baltic governments in exile existed during the Soviet period, and even few consulates had unclear status. However, no attempts to fix this problem has been made. I've just fixed it, let's see how long it will last.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, as a user who has been deeply involved in EE disputes for last several years, you can hardly be considered as uninvolved here).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul has just given us a demonstration of how this POV tag is being, in my perception, tendentiously mis-applied[32], citing an issue of Baltic governments in exile that could have been flagged via an inline "cite" tag. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say, that is the example of the opposite: despite the fact that Martin agreed to fix the inaccuracy, he decided to do anything only after I removed an incorrect statement, and made that in absolutely unsatisfactory manner. His text says:

"Most foreign governments maintained that Baltic sovereignty had not been legitimately been overridden and thus continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations appointed by the pre-1940 Baltic states, which were still functioning in Washington and elsewhere."

However, the source says something different:

"The position (that Baltic legitimacy had not been legilimately overriden- P.S.) was taken despite the fact that Estonia and Latvia were unable to sustain a government in exile during the period of the occupation. The United States, like some other powers, entertained Latvian and Estonian legations, but did not deem them to represent governments-in-exile. Although the United Kingdom recognized the incorporation only de facto, it entered into an agreement with teh USSR whereby Baltic state assets in UL banks were used to satisfy Britons who had had assets nationalized by the USSR"(p. 327)

In other words,

1. "USA and some powers" became "Most foreign governments"
2. "Latvian and Estonian legations" became "the Baltic states legations"
3. "entertained Latvian and Estonian legations" became "continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations..."
4. "but did not deem them to represent governments-in-exile" became "continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented"

At least 4 (four) POV charged misinterpretations of a single source!

Definitely, the tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the text you removed and added an additional cite. You should know by now I never add unsourced text. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not blame you in adding unsourced text, I blame you in misinteroretations of the sourced texts. I respectfully disagree with your last edits[33], because they reverted the statements that were directly supported by the reliable source and were quite relevant to the article. In connection to that, I respectfully request you to self-revert mutatis mutandi (since the new source you provided confirms that we can speak about "the Baltic states", not "Estonia and Latvia" only, the latter words can be replaced with the former). However, other statements are properly sourced and relevant, so they should stay.

Let me also point out that the habit to misinterpret a reliable source, that has been provided by yourself, and, after being caught in flagranti to reject the edits made based on your own source is a bad habit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul. I think you fight against consensus here (no one supported you in thread above). As about me, I never edited this article during last two years and made only 2nd comment per last thousand comments by others. Biophys (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, I think you do not understand the essence of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. No matter how many participants support one or another point, much more important thing is the strengths of the arguments and the sources presented. For instance, taking into account that you presented no new arguments and no new sources, your own opinion has almost zero weight. No vote, please.

And, last but not least, I am not the only user who advocate this viewpoint. The fact that TFD, Igny, Greyhood and others have not been active here during last few days means nothing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing sources and not editors. I would not want to feel obligated to respond with my editorial opinions on some past positions which have been espoused within the community of editors you claim support your viewpoint. Your fulmination over no new arguments is utterly specious. Nothing has changed regarding the historical facts of the circumstances of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. So there is no reason for arguments based on historical facts to change. Whereas--as we have digressed into personal perspectives--there appears to be a continuous flow of creative advocacy for less than occupation (your "more of an intervention"), unique occupation, not occupation for the duration or once annexed, etc., etc. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You started with "I would suggest discussing sources and not editors." and ended with "there appears to be a continuous flow of creative advocacy". Do you see any logic here? The only thing I advocate is the advocacy of what majority of reliable sources tell.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible shame you did not feel that way regarding majority of sources saying Holodomor was man made. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, once again our interpretations of what a majority of reliable source are or what they say (as in our Edelstein discussion) are more opposed than in congruence. My reference to "creative" is the practice of applying ostensibly reliable sources to a situation they are not specifically discussing and/or drawing conclusions which are not reflective of historical facts. Националист-патриот ►TALK 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious ref

In ref " Kavass, Igor I. (1972). Baltic States. W. S. Hein. " the weblink leads to text that does not seem to match its wikidia footnote; even the year is way off: 1956 vs. 1972. Please fix. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor grammar and style

It seems that the cross-POV edit wars have led to creeping deterioration of the text. See my pref note. Also I fixed a slightly illogical phrasing in the fist sentence. Next secons, and my eye has caught the sentence I have read three times and still cannot find neither subject nor predicate: Up to the reassessment of Soviet history in USSR that began during Perestroika, before the USSR had condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Germany and itself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries.

So instead of posting at WP: RFC I would suggest to send it to the copyedit cabal. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you are correct. Unfortunately copy-editing tends to change the entire timbre of content, so better any issues regarding representation of content be dealt with first. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Returning to several recent points by Paul regarding POV and content

Adopting the following as a step toward removing POV tag:

"we need simply to explain that that

• "was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view,"
  • "commonsenual" = WP:OR. Regardless of sui generis it has all the characteristics of belligerent occupation (Glantz et al.)
• "because it had some (many) traits of annexation,"
  • "annexation" in the case of the Baltics is a continuation of occupation, as it continues the displacement of rightful sovereign authority; "annexed" or "incorporated" do not change occupation; only "joined" (of their own free sovereign will) renders the Soviet presence not an occupation--which is the official Russian position
  • there is no debate over the viewpoints of other sovereign states or in international law outside contentions of the Russian Duma that the "joining" was a sham
• "and there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR."
  • the biggest POV load of [expletive] of it all, as you are using this to maintain less than an occupation (I keep having to bring up your morally grotesque "more of an intervention"); this is precisely the official Russian position, there is no reliable Western source that makes out Soviet actions to be less belligerent, less bellicose, because there was no "formal" declaration of war.

Regarding

"Yes, some sources characterise the event as military occupation. However, other sources (non-Russian nationalist sources) speak about 'annexation' or 'incorporation"',"

• none of these change the fact of occupation, occupation does not cease upon annexation; it does not cease upon incorporation; it ceases only upon the restoration of original sovereign authority or upon the willful joining by the sovereign authority (only happened in the Soviet and official Russian account)

And to

"Guggenheim clearly speaks about belligerent occupation, but there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR. How the sources resolve this controversy."

• There is only the "controversy" you appear to seek to create as if there is any genuine doubt regarding historical circumstances. No formal declaration of war is, again, immaterial to the act of occupation. There is zero controversy regarding this aspect of Soviet occupation unless you support the official Russian position.

If I keep repeating the same arguments, it is because nothing about the 50 years of Soviet presence in the Baltics has changed:

• there is no bridge between the Baltic and Soviet/official Russian positions; there is no in-between or continuum of scholarship, it's one or the other;
• there is no broad continuum of Western scholarship which exists across pretty much normal (my paraphrase of your "intervention", minor aspects of occupation, just like any other Soviet state, "incorporated", "annexed", etc.) to Malksoo's "crushed and occupied"; nor is there any need to explain such a non-existent continuum in detail.

You can come up with all the new arguments you can synthesize, they do not change the historical past. From Glantz to Malksoo, a belligerent occupation. An occupation kept in force by a massive military presence (including conducting later mass deportations to Siberia of men, women, and children) where Baltic citizens became a lower class as their homelands were "colonized" (Tsygankov, actual words are reduced to "colonial status"), sovietized, and russianized. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I am able to address all your above points. The problem is that almost all of them have already been addressed; therefore, I think the problem is that one (or both) parties are not going to accept the other side's arguments. Taking into account that any fresh input is unlikely, I suggest mediation. I have suggested if for the third time. Are you ready for that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you address my points by restating your personal viewpoint of all the many reasons why less than a real occupation (my paraphrase, feel free to correct me if you feel that is a misrepresentation). Your arguments don't hold water. That is not the basis for moving on to mediation. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We can always break down things to discussing one sentence at a time, phrase by phrase (per my dissection of what you postured as being acceptable content for the article to not be POV). A mediation will just be an excuse to rehash all of the above, yet again. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's try again (one more time).

Re ""commonsenual" = WP:OR. Regardless of sui generis it has all the characteristics of belligerent occupation (Glantz et al.)" "Commonsensual" is not OR. Occupation sensu stricto is something quite concrete, and it is regulated by various international conventions. For instance, Guggenheim lists three different forms of occupation, and one of them refers to something quite unique. Therefore, we can speak about the "occupation sensu stricto" and "occupation following an armistice". That is what I mean under "commonsensual" occupation, and that is how a reader will understand it.

Re belligerent occupation, I do not deny the fact that some sources do describe it in this way; however, other sources (majority of sources) use different terminology. Therefore, the reference to one more source that uses the terminology you like does not change a picture much. I propose to present both viewpoints - you reject the very opportunity that a second viewpoint exists. Therefore, it is your arguments that do not hold water.

Re Malksoo, please, re-read his works again. And, since both you and I can draw different conclusions from different pieces of Malksoo's text, below is a quote from his own explanation of his own position, made specifically for us:

" The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.

However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States."

What else do you need? Malksoo clearly says that in the case of the Baltic states both occupation and annexation took place, and we can speak about continued occupation in this sense (but not in others. P.S.) llegal annexation equals extended occupation. In other words, we can speak about occupation in a context of the state continuity of the Baltic states, and I never argued against that. Again, what synthesis you accuse me in?

Re "there is no bridge between the Baltic and Soviet/official Russian positions; there is no in-between or continuum of scholarship, it's one or the other;" Wrong. There is a Baltic position, position of different foreign states (which was different from state to state and from time to time), positions of scholars (western, Baltic, Russian), Soviet positions (different during 1950s-70s and during Perestroika) and official Russian position.

Re "From Glantz to Malksoo, a belligerent occupation." Glantz is an authoritative expert in the military aspects of the WWII, not in the legal aspects; Malskoo does not consider Soviet intervention in 1940 as a military operation at all. The only aggressive step, according to him, was a naval blockade.

Re "Baltic citizens became a lower class as their homelands were "colonized"" Probably. However, other sources tell that the real economic and political situation in these republics were much better than in other parts of the USSR, hence extensive influx of migrants. Was it possible if they had a colonial status?

I expect you to treat my arguments seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)