Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

POV title tag

Considering that the article covers occupation of the Baltic states by USSR and Germany as well as the annexation of the Baltic states by USSR as per multiple sources cited in the article as well as discussed in the talk page here, I am going to restart the discussion on why the annexation and occupation (clearly two diffferent phenomena) are mixed under this title. (Igny (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Seems that your multiple discussions in the past have not gained WP:CONSENSUS - from 2009 on, and consistently failed to cause any change in the title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What new arguments can you bring to the discussion, Igny? I seem to remember that the reason for the failure of previous discussions has largely been that Igny et al have not been able to back up their claims with sources. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to beat that particular dead horse again. --Sander Säde 06:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is, in my opinion, that no old issues have been resolved, and no consensus have been achieved. With regards\ to the lack of sources, that is simple a lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, there was no consensus to move the title and thus it remains as it is. Placing a POV tag because of an unsuccessful move attempt shows an inability to accept the community's view that a move is unnecessary. That the first thing Igny does after coming off a six month topic ban is to place such a tag exemplifies a level of disruptiveness which you seem to support. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I suggest you stop such personal attacks. We've gone over this numerous times and the issue has always been that Igny and you fail to bring solid, reliable mainstream sources that actively support your claims - at best there have been "but this author does not mention" type of sources - otherwise we would have been done with this issue years ago. You know this as well as I do.

I'd say say we've discussed this issue over and over and over - and unless there is even a single new idea, a new source, a new insight from protesters - I see no need whatsoever go over same arguments and sources once again.

--Sander Säde 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, which claim I was unable to support? That many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article? If that is the claim I failed to support, in your opinion, your statement is a lie. However, if you meant something else, please, let me know, and I'll gladly apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, stop being a WP:DICK and just apologise. Maligning the other party as being liars is immature and uncollegial. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re stop being a WP:DICK. Now, that is an insult. I see how usage of the term "personal attack" has evolved here. Apparently nowadays using the dick word in political debates is quite kosher. I also see that very little has changed in last months on WP. Same group of people is pushing their own agenda at all costs. (Igny (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

We have not only a WP:DICK, but WP:DUCK also. If it looks like a lie then it probably is a lie. However, you probably noticed I didn't call anyone a liar. I just wrote that if some user made a statement X, then the statement X is a lie. I admit that it might be a mistake, and, if that is a case, I am ready to apologize. The only thing I need for that is a proof that I failed to support my above statement ("many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article ") with mainstream reliable sources. The problem is, however, that I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far, and, frankly speaking, I don't believe it is possible to refute them, because I do not propose to remove some word and replace it with another one; in contrast, I propose just to supplement one word with another, and such authors as Lauri Malksoo (an author of the book that is considered as a reliable source by all parties of this dispute) explained us that that would be more correct. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the statement that I failed to support my claim with reliable sources is a blatant lie, and I, per WP:DUCK call it accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we have discussed this many times before, look in the archive. You are not bringing any new arguments, just exhibiting an apparent propensity to flog a well and truly dead horse. --Nug (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To unilaterally decide that the horse is dead is not a solution. I do not need to bring new arguments when the old ones are being ignored. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments have been thoroughly refuted. As I observed in a previous thread[1], you seem to have a tendency to abandon a thread when your argument fails and return some months later to repeat it all over again. You claim you have provided reliable sources to support your arguments, in the last instance it was van Elsuwege, when I pointed out that he also agreed that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years you disappeared from that discussion!! And here you are, claiming "I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far", well no wonder, you keep running away when ever some inconsistency in your argument is highlighted. What a joke. --Nug (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what dead horse are you talking about. It seems to be an unresolved editorial dispute. To claim that "no consensus" on the previous move discussions somehow resolved the dispute is not true, no consensus =/= keep. There have been many strong arguments for moving the article which have been largely ignored. Most of your counter-arguments have been addressed and dismissed as irrelevant. My main argument remains as strong as ever. The article in current form is titled with a strong bias to the Baltic nationalistic POV. Scores of arguments based on netrual and widely accepted sources used in support of "annexation" in the title have been ignored. (Igny (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

If you believe it is not a "dead horse" then present new and cogent arguments on the topic. Your prior arguments have not remotely gotten consensus, and at some point it is likely you should simply accept that not all decisions will conform with what you WP:KNOW to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember my old arguments had been refuted. What about the Malksoo's e-mail? I remember no logically correct refutation.

The same is true for my gscholar results. If many sources speak about "annexation", we cannot use a single term.

Position of all of you may be summarised as follows: "We do not like the word "annexation", and, based on that, reject your arguments. Please, provide new arguments". However, I see no reason to provide fresh arguments in a situation when old ones are being ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be dishonest Paul, we have listened to you repeated arguments many times, but it is you who ignores our responses and disappears when we attempt to refute them. As I indicated here, in the last instance you claimed van Elsuwege discusses "annexation", but when I pointed out (with page number) where van Elsuwege also concurs that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years, you abruptly abandon the discussion!! So no wonder you cannot "remember" your old arguments being refuted, you never hang around long enough to hear them!. --Nug (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(To Igny's initial post) Since occupation and annexation are different only as a matter of your opinion and Russia's proclamations that you can't occupy what belongs to you, there is no unresolved dispute regarding the title. Annexation was merely an act in the continuum of Soviet occupation. Let's not start this again.

@Paul, you've proven yourself incapable of rational discussion of the USSR regarding the Baltics. I don't see what you hope to gain, editorially, here by jumping on Igny's bandwagon. Your "old arguments" have been conclusively refuted and your grossly prejudiced POV clearly documented by your own words. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest?!

In his last post, Nug mentioned such a category as honesty ("This appears to be dishonest Paul..."). In connection to that, I have to ask the following question:

We all regard the Malksoo's book as one of reliable sourcea, and Lauri Malksoo himself as a reputable author. We had had a long dispute about some statement from his monograph, and we got explanations from himself [here. In his e-mail he writes:

" 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."

Taking into account that we all agree that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal and created no extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR, and that the article in its present form explains that more than unequivocally, my question is:

"What is a reason for rejection of the Malksoo's recommendation?"

I tried to avoid using the term "dishonest" to describe the position of the users who rejected Malksoo's opinion (and who accuse me in incapability to conduct a rational discussion) however, I am afraid that that the word "dishonest" is the only appropriate characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, unfortunately your past arguments have then moved on to take Malksoo's precision and misapply it, arguing that annexation created less of an occupation, it was more of an intervention, et al. Malksoo is also quite clear that "annexation" is not to change the fact of occupation. Additionally, this covers the entire period, so let's not rehash the Malksoo discussion.

Lastly, your prior contention that there's no (Soviet) occupation to complain about since the USSR committed the same crimes against humanity against its own citizens as it visited upon the citizens of the occupied Baltic states (my paraphrase) disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything. Accusing editors of dishonesty in light of your own morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your first para, that is exactly what I meant: we have a clear and unequivocal explanation form Malksoo and vague and demagogic arguments from those who dislike it. And after that someone claim I am dishonest?

Re your second para, I believe that is a misunderstanding. I never claimed there were no occupation, or that the annexation was legal. My claim was that the repressions against the Baltic population did not differ in scale and brutality from the repression of the population of the USSR proper. I also claimed that, despite illegality of annexation, no specific occupation regime was established in the Baltic states, and that is also true. I see no morally outrageous contentions in that, just knowledge of the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize counter-arguments from my opponents so far.

• irrelevant ("no-consensus" argument)
• insults ("dick")
• personal attacks ("incapable of rational discussion")
• groundless (the "lack of sources" argument)
• provocations ("morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line")
• groundless accusations of Paul making personal attacks
• clear demonstration of OWNing the article ("disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything")

Did I miss anything? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

I would suggest to remove "dick", which was added by good faith Lothar, who seems to be satisfied with my explanations. With regard to the rest, I agree. I would add to that that no satisfactory explanation of the story with the Malksoo's e-mail has been provided (except vague references to some unspecified arguments that had allegedly been presented in past).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

So, Paul, let's see...

1. we have your contention that while Stalin invaded the Baltics, Truman bombed Japan and killed more innocents than Stalin killed in the Baltics, here; typical Soviet/Russian deflection tactics from the topic at hand, i.e., "Stalin a mass murdered? What about Truman?!?!..."
2. we have your contention that Latvians "semi-cooperated" with the Nazis because Hitler was gracious enough to consider them "semi-Aryan" here; actually Latvians were much closer to Jews than, say, the French on the official Aryan scale, but another topic; not to mention that after 700 years of German domination, there was no particular love for the Germans
3. we have your contention here that crimes against humanity committed against the nationals of occupied countries are "totally irrelevant," after all, Soviet citizens were subjected to the same crimes and we don't speak of the USSR being "occupied"; your backpedaling here that you merely stated that identical crimes against humanity were visited on all is a complete mischaracterization of your original statement--I regret there was no misunderstanding on my part

Igny, have I missed anything? I believe that covers all your references to my past statements.

Paul, as for "vague references," I am gobsmacked by your apparent amnesia. Perhaps you can save us time and re-read past discussions? I don't see any purpose to rehashing here simply because Igny showed up to continue from where he left off. Aren't there other articles of common interest to which we could both constructively contribute regardless of our editorial differences? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your 1, this was a part of totally different discussion, which had no relation to the "occupation/annexation" issue. If you want to continue it on the relevant talk page, feel free to do it.

Re your 2, that is just your personal contention. The sources say otherwise: "Because relatively few Germans could be spared for the vast territories Germany was to control, administrators would be procured from elsewhere: from the peoples judged to lie racially between the Germans and the Russians (Mittelschicht): Latvians, Estonians, and even Czechs." (Source: John Connelly. Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice. Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1-33). And, again, that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Re your 3, that is a direct misinterpretation of my position: there are occupations that are not accompanied with crimes against humanity, and some crimes against humanity are committed against its own population. Therefore, my argument is totally valid, and the fact that crimes against humanity took place in the Baltic stated during Soviet rule cannot serve as an argument in this dispute.

In summary, if there is no misunderstanding on your part, then it is a direct attempt to distract us from the subject of our dispute. However, I prefer to think that there is just a misunderstanding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, these all form a pattern of your POV perspective on Stalin (not so bad, no worse than elsewhere) and the peoples of the Baltics (Nazi-prone anti-Ally combatants):

1. Truman more evil than Stalin.
2. Your quote of procuring administrators has nothing to do with your blatant conjuring of "semi-cooperation" because Balts were "semi-Aryan". Any "cooperation" consisted of keeping your head down and continuing in your job to avoid being shot, a lesson learned from the Soviet occupation.
3. I don't see my misinterpretation here. Crimes against humanity on occupied territory are an act of war, not "totally irrelevant." Similar acts against one's own citizens are the irrelevant consideration here. You turn the world upside down; what you stated in the manner you stated it is morally offensive. I suggest you re-examine what you said versus your explanation.

This is not a distraction. I am simply not going to waste my energy debating you when you have clearly abandoned sources for the realm of offensive personal contentions. If you wish any editor to take your presence and contentions here and on related topics as other than WP:BATTLEGROUND Baltophobic provocation, more contrition, less explanation, would be a start. And please keep your personal opinions to yourself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Peters, that is a misinterpretation of my words.

1. I never claimed the Truman was more evil than Stalin, and your attempts to ascribe such a nonsense to me is a dishonest trick and a personal attack.
2. You misinterpreted my words. I wrote " I (partially) understand their semi-voluntary collaboration with Hitler, who saw them as "Semi-Aryans" and treated them much better then Polish, Russian or Belorussian population. " In other words, my point was not that the Balts, being semi-Arian, collaborated with Hitler, but that Hitler, who saw them as semi-Arians, treated them more mildly, hence their greater will to cooperate. Obviously, you attempt to ascribe racist ideas to me, which is a blatant personal attack.
3. This is a typical example of circular reasoning. "Since crimes against humanity on occupied territory are the act of war, then the Baltic states should be considered as occupied". Nonsense. If we assume that the Baltic territory had a status of occupied territory, then crimes against humanity is a violation of Geneva conventions, otherwise they are violation of domestic or other laws. However, the facts of crimes against humanity cannot serve as additional proof of anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I fell like I'm watching a train wreck in slow motion.

1. Truman more evil than Stalin. What other possible purpose could someone divine from your comparison that Truman killed more innocents (of an enemy, by the way) than Stalin (of a neutral country the Soviet Union invaded based on lies and on incidents it staged in order to give itself an excuse, by the way).
   What can we conclude? Fewer Balts than Japanese (in a single act) dead by the hands of Allied leaders (and rather implies the Baltic peoples are the enemy, consistent with your chiding the Baltic peoples for combating the Red Army instead of the fascist enemy).
2. Semi-Aryans and now Hitler, who saw them as semi-Arians, treated them more mildly, hence their greater will to cooperate. Treated them more mildly than what? Killing and cremating Jews or having them dig their own mass graves prior to being shot?
   What can we conclude? Not being exterminated outright by the second power to invade your homeland elicits Nazi volunterism and willing--meaning positive desire to do so--cooperation because you are higher on Hitler's racial scale as opposed to "cooperating" out of fear for your life having already survived one occupant who rained down murder and mass deportation? That's rich.
3. You dismissed Stalin's actions against the Baltic peoples as irrelevant to anything since Stalin killed plenty of his own citizens in the same manner. What else you state regarding occupation or not is not the main concern per your latest response, this is not about violations of conventions.
   What can we conclude? The Baltics had nothing to complain about since Stalin's infliction of mass extermination was egalitarian.

I am happy to debate you on sources. It gives me no pleasure to point out the Baltophobic essence of your contentions. I'm in no position to comment on your ideas or motivations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. That is lie: I never claimed that Truman killed more people than Stalin did, and I never made comparison between Stalin and Truman in that context. My thesis is clear for any good faith person: to make a conclusion about the global role of the USSR in the WWII as whole based on the events in the Baltic states is as ahistorical as to make a conclusion about American role in WWII based on the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, for almost every single example (e.g., for repression of Baltic nationals) can be found a counterexample, and this comparison proves nothing except the flaws of your approach. With regard to the Baltic citizens as enemies, you should decide: either they were conscripted against their will, and were just the victims, or they were heroes, who fought bravely against Bolshevist hordes as de-facto the allies of Nazi Germany. I will support any of these two theses, however, I cannot support both of them simultaneously per tertium non datur.
2. Treated more mildly then Belorussians, Russians, Jews, and other EE nations. I believe you will agree that the German occupation regime was much less painful for the Latvian population than the preceding Soviet rule, and they greeted Germans as liberators. As a result, many Latvians actively collaborated with Nazi (including collaboration in extermination of Jews). Anticipating your accusations, I declare that I am ready to provide needed source upon request.
3. No. I fully agree with many authors who see an outburst of anti-Jewish violence in 1941 as a result of Stalin's repressions during 1939-41. I also agree that active participation of Latvians in Waffen-SS was also dictated by a desire to prevent re-taking of Latvia by the USSR. However, I disagree with your quite illogical statement that repressions was an indication of the existence of occupational regime in Latvia.

Re Baltophobic, please, stop that. We are talking about Latvia, not about Estonia (whose representatives didn't participate in the Holocaust). Let me point out that I never called you a Russophob, or any other "-phob".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Really, this is getting a bit silly, no?

1. You clearly stated Truman killed more Japanese innocents that Stalin killed Balts. The context of your comparison is immaterial. Your comparison itself is ipso facto most unfortunate. As for conscripted victims versus heroic fighters against Soviet occupation, it is only your personal contention that there is a choice of one or the other but not both. In the face of Soviet and Nazi and Soviet invasions, the one constant is victims. By your logic, you contend that fighting against Soviet re-occupation absolves the Soviets of victimizing the Latvians since they can no longer be victims if we call them heroes. Your tertium non datur is fundamentally biased and misconceived, as the Latvian Legion were both victims and heroes.
2. You ignore that a week after Stalin's mass deportations the Devil incarnate would have been welcomed as a liberator. Stalin's use of Jews to replace Latvians in clerical posts put them in the cross-hairs of anyone whose family or relative disappeared without a trace. I do not condone vengeance, however, the dynamic at work where collaboration was concerned was not, as is contended, centuries old anti-Semitism waiting for an opportunity to kill neighbors. Another conversation for another time. To the topic at hand: your central thesis is that the Nazis weren't as bad, ergo cooperation including let's go out and murder Jews. If you have a source making this (outlandish) claim, please start a new discussion section. My response is that the Nazis were just as willing to shoot you as the Soviets, ergo cooperation. It's easy to judge others and ascribe imagined motives based on one's own prejudices when you yourself haven't already spent a year going to work every day with a rifle pointed at your head, being told what to do--and I don't mean that as a figure of speech.
   Perhaps you can clarify this apparent double standard for me: someone with a gun pointed to their head who cooperates with Russians is an OK person but the same person with a gun pointed to their head who cooperates in exactly the same way with the Germans is a Nazi collaborator?
3. You now prattle on about things completely unrelated. I originally stated that the Soviet occupation victimized Baltic innocents, to which you responded that Stalin treated everyone equally badly, so what? Bad treatment does not an occupation make.

As for labels for your contentions, as I said, I have no insight to your motivations so I can't call you a Baltophobe or characterize you as being anti-Latvian. I can only tell you the repugnant net effect of your contentions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not talking about the choice for the conscripts. I am talking about the choice for you and for other users who edit Latvia related articles: you either are talking about forceful conscripts (so simply had no choice but to fight for Nazi Germany. Noone can blame them, or more precisely, those of them who committed no war crimes, in that), or you are talking about the "defenders of Latvian independence". In the latter case, we are talking about Nazi co-belligerents, whose activity postponed the end of WWII and lead to additional victims among the Allies. In other words, no glorification - no questions, however, if you want to present them as freedom fighters, let's also explain about direct and indirect consequences of this fight.
2. I don't ignore that, and I perfectly know that in any EE society the first reaction on any political disaster is to to accuse Jews in that. However, you your self forget that after Ulmanis coup d'etat massive discrimination of non-Latvian, and especially Jewish population started, which included massive economic repressions against Jewish population. Therefore, some of Soviet actions should be considered as restoration of justice (for source see Bella Zisere, THE MEMORY OF THE SHOAH IN THE POST‐SOVIET LATVIA. East European Jewish Affairs, 2005, 155-165). You also forget that not only notorious Arajs brigade but far-right group Perkonkrusts, established before German occupation, also volunteered to help Germans to kill Jews (ibid). Therefore, to put all responsibility for genocide of Jews on the consequences of Stalin's regime is somewhat misleading.
3. Re your "Bad treatment does not an occupation make," I totally agree. What I do not understand, however, is what did you want to say when you put forward the argument #3?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we all know that if Stalin hadn't collaborated with Hitler in the first place between 1939 to 1941 and contributed to the start of WW2 via the MR pact and his territorial ambitions, the loss of 80 million people may have been avoided in the first place. In any case this article talk page is for improving the article, not general debate. --Nug (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. However, if you want to play the "what if" game, let's be consistent. If Britain, France, Latvia and Estonia had collaborated with the USSR, the tripartite pact could be signed, and MRP would never be signed. Instead of that, Latvia and Estonia openly demonstrated hostility towards the USSR, and made reverences towards Germany. Of course, I do not blame these two small states in unleashing of the WWII, however, it is obvious that all participants of that story behaved dishonestly and simply stupidly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul's amnesia

Paul, we have discussed thia many times before, back in March 2011[2] and September 2011[3] It seems extraordinary that you think Wikipedia policies are dishonest, because while Dr. Mälksoo provides a valuable opinion, at the end of the day we must comply with policy. In case you have "forgotten" between the time you clicked my links above and this point in the text, I will re-iterate: "reliance solely on Dr. Mälksoo's opinion is contrary to WP:TITLE policy, which instructs us not to rely on a single source, but a whole range of sources when determining an article name per WP:COMMONNAME." --Nug (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My amnesia? What about numerous sources provided by me, which use the term "annexation", "incorporation", "absorption", and do not use the term "occupation"? We return to this again and again, and you reject A because of B, and then reject B because of A. And then you are trying to accuse me in dishonesty...--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Google search result "word math" has been extensively discussed and disproven. Don't make me dig out my last "XOR" analysis of your contentions. If you make all the same arguments again you will get the same results. Returning to argue the same position over and over when you have not gained consensus in the past is disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Did something happen that you've suddenly dusted off all the stale anti-Baltic crap complete with a fresh dash of Nazi-sympathizers across a front of several articles ranging from Soviet occupation of the Baltics to the Waffen SS and Latvian Legion, and to World War II in general? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Discussed", yes, but "disproven"??? The sources use "occupation" and "annexation" interchangeably, and your attempts to eradicate one of two term look at least odd, especially taken into account Matrin's WP:COMMONNAME argument. His reference to WP:COMMONNAME works against him, haven't you noticed that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We established that the common name for the Soviet occupation of the Baltics was "occupation." We also established that various euphemisms for the occupational presence or associated administrative acts (incorporated, absorbed, became part of, were taken over by, were annexed, the Pribaltika acceded--umm, that would be the only other bona fide (per the official Soviet account) contention regarding what actually happened, not of the words you offer as alternatives) do not change the occupational nature of, nor are they suitable alternatives for describing, the Soviet occupation. As we also cover the Pribaltika acceded account still popular in some Russian circles and amongst the sycophants of Soviet supremacy of yore, Soviet occupation versus voluntary Baltic accession completely and conclusively covers both interpretations of history. All the other terms you bring up are historically irrelevant. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this has been all discussed before. In addition using both terms "Occupation" and "Annexation" together would violate policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming: "Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged." Given the evidence of the wide usage of "occupation" presented in the last move request and many other places, there is no need to add an additional term which would break policy in any case. To our Russian Patriotic Nationalist friends who still think "occupation" is POV, policy WP:POVTITLE allows POV titles it the term is in common usage as has been demonstrated. Since no new argument about POV issues have been presented the tag should be removed. --Nug (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the points stressed in the policy that you linked here applies to this particular dispute. "Break policy"? You must be kidding. (Igny (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

Yes it does. --Nug (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since I cannot be considered as a "Russian Patriotic Nationalist", I have a right to disregard the last post, which seems to be addressed not to me. Let me point out, however, that "occupation" and "annexation" are hardly alternative names, although some sources used them interchangeably. However, the distinction between these terms does exist, and it is significant. As Malksoo demonstrated, illegality of annexation of the Baltic states and its forceful nature allows us to speak about some traits of occupation, and, therefore, about state continuity of the Baltic states. However, he explains (specifically for us) that it would be more correct to add the word "annexation" to the title, because that would describe the essence of the events more precisely. Therefore, we are talking not about two alternative names (despite some sources use them interchangeably), and the cited guidelines are not applicable to this case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I not just explain to you the primacy of Wikipedia policy and the requirement that article names be derived from multiple sources? So why do you continue to insist we name this article on the basis of a single email from one author in clear contravention to policy? How you can continue to misrepresent Malksoo after it has been explained to you multiple times is astounding. As stated before "annexation" refers an event and "occupation" refers to a period. You don't seem to quite understand the semantic difference between the two terms, but it has been explained to you several times already. Malksoo does not appear to have difficulty understanding the difference, on page 193 of Illegal Annexation and State Continuity he states:

"Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic states implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991."

As you can see by the context of usage, "annexation" refers to an event in 1940 while "occupation" refers to the duration of a state that existed for a period of time up until 1991. We already have an article about the annexation event Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), this article is about the regimes of Nazi and Soviet occupation that existed up until 1991. --Nug (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, from the point of view of international law the Baltic states' continuity is not a matter of serious debates in the West. However, that does not change the fact that the Baltic states were annexed and were de facto a part of the USSR, the fact recognized by most states. By ignoring that fact, you mislead a reader, and I have already explained why. For the same reason, Malksoo, whom you cite, explicitly recommended to add the word "annexation". You are talking about my amnesia and dishonesty, however, you reject the opinion of the author you yourself cite. I refuse to understand that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Paul, regarding my "choice"

I am talking about the choice for you and for other users who edit Latvia related articles: you either are talking about forceful conscripts (so simply had no choice but to fight for Nazi Germany. Noone can blame them, or more precisely, those of them who committed no war crimes, in that), or you are talking about the "defenders of Latvian independence".

alas, commenting on editors as if we were meatpuppets and didn't have historical facts on our side. I've read neutral accounts of WWII indicating that action in the Courland Pocket did, arguably, delay Hitler's defeat. Did the Latvians force Stalin to throw in division after division into Courland to their slaughter in an attempt to take it to stamp out the possibility of a Latvian bridgehead to restore independence? Odd how despite Stalin's continued assurances to Churchill and FDR that the Courland Pocket would shortly be exterminated, it's just a wart in the post-war Soviet account of the war--owing to the abject failure of the Red Army to move the Courland front more than a few kilometers over seven months. Don't blame the Latvians for defending their homeland. Still victims, still conscripts, still heroes. Your syllogistic "either or" scenario POV-denies that the Soviets were the first aggressors in attacking Latvia. And, oddly in view of your past contentions, you corroborate that the Soviet account of the Courland Pocket conflict is a load of crap.

Lastly, need I remind you of Stalin's very words to Munters that as far as Hitler was concerned, Stalin could invade Latvia "tomorrow."

At any rate, this changes nothing about occupation. Please at least keep your anti-Latvian Legion agitation on the appropriate articles' talk pages. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that conscripts were the victims of German regime, who forced them to fight in a war that had no relation to them themselves. However, if we assume that they were freedom fighters and heroes, that means they had common interests with Germany: to stop Russians. In that case, Germany appeared to force them to act in their own interests, and that means they were not victims, but co-belligerents. Were the Finns victims of the USSR during 1941-44? I doubt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: and I completely missed your reprehensible contention that in any EE society the first instinct in any political disaster is to blame Jews. What I stated is that Stalin (and this was surely not by chance) put Jews into the role of Soviet collaborators when all anyone was trying to do was to stay alive during that first Soviet occupation. What a vile, wretched, and hateful twisting of what I stated.

I thought that your rhetoric had just gotten sharper from collaborating essentially unopposed for a year with more extremist editors. It appears now that your passion is not objectivity but prejudice. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not my contention, that is a fact. Considerable part of ordinary people in Europe was profoundly antisemitic, and the idea of Jewish conspiracy was quite common. Soviet steps during first days after absorption of the Baltic states were directed against the economically dominating part of population (due to Ulmanis' dictatorship high and middle class were almost purely Latvian), and, as a result, the Jews benefited more than other groups from that. Partially, that can be considered as restoration of social justice (a reaction of extreme Ulmanis' nationalism).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's only because I've respected your editorial conduct in the past that I suggest you bow out gracefully from discussing WWII and its legacy regarding the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What problems with my editorial conduct to you see currently?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct regarding representations of "facts" is crystal clear just from the discussion here. "Upper and middle class almost purely Latvian"? This, on Latvian society between the wars, is just another in your stream of utterly bogus contentions. And your "profoundly anti-Semitic" smacks of the fringe position that all the peoples between Germany and Russia were just waiting to slaughter their Jewish neighbors, having somehow completely not taken the opportunity to do so over the many centuries past. (I can't even count up how many sources I've read that advocate for your (centuries old) "profound anti-Semitism" on the basis not of societal studies or scholarship but that the Holocaust could have wiped out the Jewish community so completely only with widespread active collaboration which only could exist if the Jews has always been viscerally hated beneath a microscopically thin veneer of civility--but another discussion.) WP is not a forum for your polemical advocacy.

If you wish for me to spend time on diffs of your escalating rhetoric, I won't be providing that on article talk. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We have no "escalating rhetoric" from my side. In contrast, your arguments really escalating a tension. My "contentions" about the Latvian middle class are based on what reliable source say. Thus, the source already cited by me says:

"During these years, the official political slogan was “Latvia to Latvians,” which resulted in economic repression of the Jewish population along with other minorities. Today, there is a strong tendency within Latvian population to idealize the periods of the First Republic and the Dictatorship and to view them with a certain nostalgia."

obviously, your last posts are the example of such idealisation and nostalgia.

Re "thin veneer", if you have sources that identify the "microscopically thin veneer", please, drop a reference, please. That is in sharp contrast with what I read.

I don't want you to spend more time for search diffs, but I suggest you to spend more time to read sources, preferably non-nationalistic ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your quote does not support your WP:SYNTHESIS regarding upper and middle class nearly exclusively Latvian--not in source. Or your prior "semi-cooperation" because Latvians were "semi-Aryan"--not in the source.

You, who contended Truman killed more innocents in one blow than Stalin in all the Baltics, which in the context of that specific discussion could only be taken as contending Truman was more murderous than Stalin, have the gall to lecture me on sources and accuse me of escalating rhetoric? That's rich. Lastly, don't engage in disparaging personal attacks alleging I only read nationalist sources. You have no clue what I have on my bookshelf.

I recall you once indicating that you go on the pro-Soviet anti-nationalist offensive to "balance" the nationalists. Since you feel free to slander my editorial viewpoint regarding my contentions and sources, it seems to me you've just dusted off that POV behavior again.

With regard to the discussion regarding this article, I see no issues. I've requested Igny provide reputable scholarly sources supporting legal Baltic accession, which is the only alternative to occupation. As has been extensively discussed, other terms may be alternatives for how one might refer to the period of Soviet presence, but it is your WP:SYNTHESIS that they are appropriate alternatives to describe the situation of Soviet occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Semi-cooperation" because Latvians were "semi-Aryan"" is a misinterpretation of my words. My original statement was " I (partially) understand their semi-voluntary collaboration with Hitler, who saw them as "Semi-Aryans" and treated them much better then Polish, Russian or Belorussian population", and you misinterpreted my major idea: I never discusses racial origin of the Latvians, my point was that Hitler saw them "Semi-Aryans" (according to the weird Nazi scale), and treated accordingly. Your attempt to ascribe racist ideas to me are the gross violation of WP rules, especially, taking into account that I have already explained your mistake to you, I request you retract this statement and apologize. If you will continue in this way, I'll report you.
2. Stalin vs Truman. That is also a misinterpretation of my words. I explained your mistake to you, however, you didn't stop.

Both ## 1 and 2 are the arguments from the WWII talk page, and they have no relation to the present discussion. If you want to renew the discussion of the thesis #2, feel free to do that on the WWII talk page. If you want to continue discussion of the thesis #1, be prepared to answer on the AE page.

"Economic repressions of Jews and other minorities" means that economical life was dominated by Latvians. If you believe that had no affect on the wealth distribution, please, explain why.

Regarding "legal Baltic accession, which is the only alternative to occupation", you are not right. In mid XX century, the situation was more complex: such phenomenae as colonies, protectorates, dependent territories, etc were quite common. In addition, most countries recognized the fact of de facto incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, which implies the factual state of things there could not be considered as "occupation". That does not mean that retrospectively the legal status of those states is not seen as a legal status of occupied territories. However, that is more a reflection of present-days political realities.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi!

I was invited to comment on this article.

I think it now represents the views of only one side, the Baltic states. The idea that those states were occupied during the Soviet period is used to justify the currently imposed restrictions of the rights of the ethnic Russians. A significant proportion of the population of these countries (up to 40%) is legally considered occupants or their descendants. They are stripped of their citizenship and having imposed harsh restrictions on them, strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews. They not only cannot participate in elections, but also cannot occupy various positions such as lawers, firefighters or pharmacists.

It should be noted that the only way to get the citizenship for them is to pass the exams which not only include the language test, but also require them to explain the official interpretation of history, that is to call their parents "occupiers" and to count the Latvian Waffen SS as heroes. Not all people are ready to do so.

It also should be noted that all those people were not citizenship-less initially. In addition to the Soviet Union citizenship they had the citizenship of the respective republics which was guaranteed by the constitutions of the respective soviet republics. So loosing their citizenship was not a natural process of the USSR dissolution, but was organized deliberately, after the dissolution of the USSR, by the legislative bodies which they themselves voted for.

If the theory of occupation rejected and the countries considered annexed in the USSR those countries would not have any justification to regard a portion of their modern populations as "occupiers and their descendants". So keeping this theory as an official is necessary for maintaining the current caste system.--UUNC (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your objections are flawed and dated, starting with your contention that this is "Baltic POV" as opposed to "not official Russian POV". All western scholarship agrees with the account presented here.

Your contention of "strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews" is polarizing and uninformed vitriol.

On citizenship, you fail to account for:

• The majority of "bezpilsoņi" Russophones, if you take them as a group (applies to Estonia and Latvia), have gotten citizenship; they are not considered "occupants"; for example, they were able to claim property which did NOT belong to them but which they acquired "legally" during the occupation; governments provided compensation to those who lost pre-WWII family property in this manner (in many cases that compensation was worthless "certificates" that were sold for pennies on the dollar; but if you had thousands of them you could cheaply buy your way into privatized enterprise; this concentrated any enterprises remaining viable after independence in the hands of the former administration's apparatchiki)
• Many remain in "bezpilsoņi" status because they pretty much have all the same rights and privileges (except voting and certain government positions) AND they get preferential treatment by Russia (formerly this also included being exempt from military service when military service was mandatory)
• If they do not wish to subscribe to their homeland's version of history and instead subscribe to official Russia's version of history, that is their choice
• I should mention that citizenship requirements for the Russian Federation are far more draconian than anything the Baltic states have concocted

Your contention that there is a caste system is without merit. One only has to visit Riga and listen to the language being spoken by the the well-heeled drivers of late model Mercedes. Losing the artificial privileges during Soviet occupation is not discrimination, it is equality.

Since you arrived to denounce the article as Baltic nationalist claptrap and occupation as a Baltic-only "theory", I can only respond that your contentions here are, at best, misinformed, at worst, reek of the Official Russia party line ("40% occupants" et al.) -- VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And invited off-wiki to sign up to Wikipedia only to denounce the Baltic myth of Soviet occupation. This just gets better and better. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peters here. It would be correct if UUNC explained us about this invitation: who concretely did invite him? In addition, taking into account zero edit history of UUNC I doubt his opinion can have significant weight. We expect UUNC to edit Wikipedia a little bit to make sure that they are not an WP:SPA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment noted and thank you. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Less yourself, myself, and (surely not) Nug, Sander, or Collect, we're left with Igny or some agitator interjecting from the sidelines (the latter regardless of invited or not invited). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"I was invited to comment on this article." Sounds a bit WP:MEATy to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely a sock of someone recently banned, I'd say. --Nug (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who edited this area and was recently banned? The UUNC's arguments seem to be fresh, so I am inclined to agree with Lothar here. However, I think we have not much information about UUNC to speak seriously about that. Let's wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"and annexation" - another failed attempt to produce constructive discussion

I am going to restart the main topic of this discussion in order to let my opponents focus on one main concern, not some other tangential topics, such as discussing "occupation" (we are not discussing removal of that term from the title here) or my or Paul's personal qualities, that may stop now (move it to another section if you want to keep discussing that).

There were some references to some policy which would be broken by changing the title. I would like to ask Martin what specific letter of that policy applies here and how.

Second thing I would like to know why and in what context the period 1940-1990 was referred to in mainstream (with wide acceptance) as occupation. More specifically I would like to know the sources which explain why it was an occupation. I would like you to focus on sources which discuss this "occupation" outside the debate on Baltic state continuty and/or current status of Russophones and/or Russophobic "Russia is evil". You see if they use the occupation argument in debates on national identity, or to justify certain treatment of Russian speaking minority, or to plainly attack Russia, that is one thing. I want to see the sources which discuss this "occupation" from the point of view of international law rather than the current political situation.

The most interesting sources would be the ones which do not mention "annexation" at all or state explicitly that "annexation" did not happen.

Hopefully such sources would explain the POV of my opponents here, and I would finally have something concrete to address/refute. (Igny (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Discussed at length in the past. Titles are expected to be concise and not be something like "Baltic states, their collaboration with Nazis and rescue by the Soviets who annexed them, though some Western ideologues called it an occupation" or the like. WP:CONSENSUS for the current title has been iterated in the past, and seems quite likely to be unchanged now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Igny, per Collect, and per WP policy rehashing of past discussions when nothing has changed is disruptive behavior. Please produce sources other than Russia Duma pronouncements that Latvia et al. joined the USSR legally according to international law. In the absence of legal joining we have illegal occupation, it's as simple as that.

The current agitation over contemporary "Russophobia" has been, unfortunately, invented and fomented by official Russia itself. Scholarship on that is readily accessible--but a topic for a different discussion at a different article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Collect, your title left out the initial Soviet occupation, so I'm afraid an appropriately descriptive title would be even longer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"and annexation" - 2nd failed attempt to get constructive discussion going

I am going to restart the main topic of this discussion in order to let my opponents focus on one main concern, not some other tangential topics, such as discussing "occupation" (we are not discussing removal of that term from the title here) or my or Paul's personal qualities, that may stop now (move it to another section if you want to keep discussing that).

There were some references to some policy which would be broken by changing the title. I would like to ask Martin what specific letter of that policy applies here and how.

Second thing I would like to know why and in what context the period 1940-1990 was referred to in mainstream (with wide acceptance) as occupation. More specifically I would like to know the sources which explain why it was an occupation. I would like you to focus on sources which discuss this "occupation" outside the debate on Baltic state continuty and/or current status of Russophones and/or Russophobic "Russia is evil". You see if they use the occupation argument in debates on national identity, or to justify certain treatment of Russian speaking minority, or to plainly attack Russia, that is one thing. I want to see the sources which discuss this "occupation" from the point of view of international law rather than the current political situation.

The most interesting sources would be the ones which do not mention "annexation" at all or state explicitly that "annexation" did not happen.

Hopefully such sources would explain the POV of my opponents here, and I would finally have something concrete to address/refute.

Please address my question here, if you want to make personal attacks or repeat other unrelated arguments, see the section above. (Igny (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Re-arguing the past when nothing has changed is disruptive behavior. Please bring sources which indicate the Baltic states joined any of the occupying regimes legally if you wish to contend "occupation" is not the proper term for the duration of the period in question. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, per your argument, since nothing has changed there is no reason to remove the POV tag, removal of the POV tag would mean that the dispute has been resolved. This is clearly not the case here.(Igny (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Consensus was reached. It is fatuous to insist on a "pov" tag when consensus is that the title does not violate NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with WP:EEML before making any conclusion about some "consensus" here. (Igny (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

I read the case. And later decisions. And note that it is not remotely applicable to your tendentious re-opening of the title discussion here. What you do when you make such attacks is not helping your position on this issue much at all. In fact, it likely makes me view this as an ongoing tendentious crusade on your part. Unless, of course, you wish to assert that I am on any mailing list of some sort? Or that such a mailing list exists? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I just pointed out the case where this tactic of "there is a consensus", when there was none was actively exploited. (Igny (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

"Tactic"? Sheesh! Look at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_13#POV_tag. with discussions covering thousands of words - and where your position failed. Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_8#POV_title where you tried as well. Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_9#Title_and_first_paragraph more. Gee whiz - archives 3 onward all seem to have renewed claims by you - and you seem to have failed on WP:CONSENSUS each and every time LOL! Let's count the number of times you aded the tag: more than 35 times. I think most people would consider adding the same tag more than 35 times to be "pushing the envelope" by a mile! Collect (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of Newton's laws of motion#Newton's third law? Removing the tag by the tag teams and WP:SPA and WP:SOCK 35 times is pushing envelope no less. (Igny (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

On international law, I highly recommend William Hough's "The Annexation of the Baltic States and its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory" published in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1985 Winter edition. It is widely cited regarding the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to look for this article next week. (Igny (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

I am not aware of any substantive dispute requiring a POV tag. Again, speaking of the Soviet Union, please provide sources countering occupation, that is, supporting the position of legal "Pribaltika accession" (to translate the Russian). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See, that is where we disagree. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

We disagree on there being a dispute or we disagree that there is no scholarly support for "Pribaltika accession"? If there is no scholarly support for such accession, by definition there is no dispute regarding the alternate, i.s., occupation. We've already exhaustively dealt with euphemistic names for the Soviet era, none of those are pertinent to the state of occupation. So, what is left to dispute? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute is in the title of this section. The article discusses occupation as well as annexation (two different phenomena). It argues that annexation was illegal, and that occupation lasted until 1990. I explicitly claimed and still claim now that by dropping "and annexation" from the title of the article, it became biased, and tagged the article appropriately. There is a dispute, it might be that you did not understand what the dispute was about. (Igny (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Titles do not include the entire content of the article. They are there for readers to find the article. Period. That you wish the title to be long and quite likely useless does not help - you are being well past tendentious here now, and I suggest you redact some of your attacks on editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My only "personal attack" here was pointing out (with evidence) violations of WP policies by my opponents here, ironically, including personal attacks on me and Paul. Titles do not include eniter articles, no. But just dropping one word from the title can easily result in a bias. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

THIRTY FIVE TIMES is a lot of times to re-insert that same "pov tag" -- yet you seem here to accuse me of "personal attacks"?? Trally? Does WP:DEADHORSE mean anything at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"To repair the economy destroyed by a war, one has to destroy it first, and that is why a war is needed" Re-insertion of the POV tag would be impossible if someone hadn't removed it first. Someone seems to believe that unilateral removal of the tag is tantamount to resolution of the POV dispute, which is not the case. Instead of removal of the tag one should bring at least one fresh counter-argument, because references to alleged consensus are not an argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um -- one editor adding a tag THIRTY FIVE times, reverted by a substantial number of other editors -- the word "annexation" is in the title of one subarticle, so there is no question that the term is mentioned as appropriate - to that subsection. The topic has been discussed many times and never with support for the tag being in place. Literally dozens of times the exact same claims were made - and never found to be valid here. Yet you balme the numerous other editors for disagreeing ewith Igny and the one other editor who stopped editing at the same time Igny started here? Nope Paul - it is he who is the problem at this point, not "everybody else." Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re :it is he who is the problem at this point. You asked me whether I accused of a PA above. Well if you read my comment more closely, you would notice that I did not accuse you of a PA personally. I accused you of violating [[[WP:TEAM]] and abuse of WP:CONSENSUS and since you admitted that you did not forget WP:EEML, and since you have been involved in numerous cases involving the WP:EEML members, you violated these rules knowingly so, that is on purpose and not by a mistake. And now with this particular comment you crossed the line and I can accuse you personally of making a personal attack on me. I would recommend you redact your comment above. (Igny (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Dead horse would be applicable (perhaps) if all my arguments have been properly addressed and I were the only one who thinks that "annexation" should be added to the title. (Igny (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

If you wish to avoid another topic ban you will not level personal attacks invoking EEML again. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is rich. A baseless accusation in disrupation of WP is coming from a person known for his disruption of WP in the past. Just do you know, a dispute on the talk page can not be considered a disruption by any WP policy. Your baseless "is a dusruptive behaviour" is just a personal attack usually aimed at editors new to WP, who easily give up when facing such attack. I am not new. I am aware that I am not in violation of any WP policy. I am aware of one WP policy which you are all in violation, that is edit warring and team tagging. I also pointed out to a WP case where it all was discussed in detail, including (a) personal attacks on opponents (b) empty threats of prosecution (c) baseless accusations (d)owning the articles. That was not a personal attack, even though I do not find it a concidence that the editor who disrupted the WP before, is doing the same again now. (Igny (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Clearly you're here to discuss anything except the content, as you've produced not a single source which indicates the Soviet Union (there's no debate on Nazi Germany at least) did not occupy the Baltic states for the duration--that being the legally acceded, according to the Soviet now Russian, account. Repeating the same dispute over and over IS disruptive and you are well aware of that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are not hearing what I am saying. Why would I bother with such requests, when it is just a straw man argument? I am going to repeat it again. I am not arguing for removal of "occupation" from the title. (Igny (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Agreed. See also my responce to VєсrumЬа in the previous section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)