Template talk:Soviet occupation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirect to Talk:Soviet occupation[edit]

I removed the redirect. As I understand it, template discussion links are suppose to link only to the discussion about the template, not to another articles discussion page. Remember 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A diff., for context. - Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Finnish case[edit]

Dojarca: can you explain the edits? I'm sure a couple of guys will have something to comment about them.. --Pudeo 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A diff., for context. - Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia was deleted [1], Estonian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Finnish Democratic Republic are not articles about occupation, so the links are misleading. What constitutes an occupation is disputabl, so we should keep only historically existed zones of occupation here. And please refrain from occusations in Stalinism [2] this is offensive behavor.--Dojarca 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course Soviet Union did not occupy any parts of Finland in 1950, nor Russia does occupy now because Finland has signed Paris Peace treaties, 1947. But, USSR did occupy parts of Finland indeed as part of Finnish Democratic Republic during the 1939-1940 war. The puppet regime consisted only of parts occupied from Finland, and Finland had not ceded any of those parts to USSR. When Finland actually ceded the areas (thus not occupation anymore), it was already a part of Karelian ASSR. The articles are of unrecognised occupated states, relevant I'd say. --Pudeo 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have redirected Soviet occupation of Finland to Finnish Democratic Republic. --Pudeo 11:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the USSR occupied parts of Finland. But we do not have an article about the occupation. In my view the Finnish Democratic Republic does not belong to this template, it existed after the occupation as well... Although if you have another opinion, please share your considerations.--Dojarca 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you have some misunderstanding there. Finnish Democratic Republic was merely a client state, or rather a puppet government for occupation. See:
  • Winter War: November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940
  • Finnish Democratic Republic: December 1, 1939 - March 12, 1940
So they quit it because they did not need to occupy the territories anymore, instead they annexed the areas to Karelo-Finnish SSR, after Finland had ceded them in the Moscow Peace Treaty. But as seen, Soviet occupation of Finnish areas is a very short period in the Finnish history, but if this article is supposed to list all occupations, then this should be included too. But I don't see anything controversial in this occupation because a state of war existed between Soviet Union and Finland. Finland on the other hand occupied Russian territories 1941-1944, although it did not establish any puppet government or state. But that's war, different case than the rest, except Afghanistan.--Pudeo 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it may be even very disrespectful to refer it as "Soviet occupation of Finland", because only less than 10% of Finland's area was occupied by the Soviet Union. Therefore I'd strongy suggest re-adding Finland to the template, but as [[Finnish Democratic Republic|Finnish Karelia]]''' --Pudeo 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well. Your arguments are reasonable. But don't you think it would be better with redirect to the Winter War rather than the FDR? If occupation existed it was a part of the war and performed by the Red Army and the FDR was surely not an occupation administration (although it was a puppet government). Just for comparison: American occupation of Iraq should be better redirected to the invasion rather than post-invasion Iraqi government. Note also the concerns poited out by Mikka below.--Dojarca 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template moves from "Soviet occupation" to "zones"[edit]

Timeline, for context (all times UTC):

9 September 2007 : template created by Digwuren as "Soviet occupation".
4 October 2007 : nominated for deletion by Dojarca (diff.).
21:01, 14 October 2007 : TfD for "Soviet occupation" closed as "Keep / no consensus. [...] If there are problems with specific links on the template, then they should be discussed on the template talk page / removed from the template."

An edit-war follows over the name and scope of the template. Compare the two versions.

So far, only Pudeo & Dojarca have discussed the issue on this talk page. Again, for clarity, here's the comparison between the two versions. - Regards, Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a bone to pick in this fight, I was reverted a move that was done without consensus. Once such a bold action is challenged, it should be discussed before reverting again. The closure of the TfD did not say to move the title of the template, nor was there a requested move filed. There are better ways of handling this than saying Wikipedia is not a democracy and promoting unilateralism. Work it out amongst yourselves, I have nothing else to contribute to this debate. Keegantalk 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that DrKiernan construes your revert, as a totally uninvolved admin, as edit warring. However for what it is worth, it should be noted that DrKiernan had actually voted to delete in the TfD. DrKiernan's actions here have effectively rewarded this kind of non-concensual out-of-process behaviour. Martintg 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You know full well that I am not accusing Keegan of edit-warring, and you know full well that you moved the page yourself without discussing it. Stop your jibes at me, please. DrKiernan 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So who are you accusing of edit warring? I only moved the template once, to fit in with the original title, and Keegan also moved the template once to return it to the original title. Dojarca moved the template three times after he lost the TfD debate. What I see here is one editor engaging in WP:POINTy behaviour just hours after losing a TfD. There is a clear process for controversial moves, and it is clearly controversial judging by the reaction. Therefore I ask you to return the template back to the original title and invite Dojarca to follow the process. Martintg 11:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am merely following policy. It is not up to the protecting admin to re-arrange pages in an edit war. I've already told you what the protection policy says. By moving the page around I would be involving myself in the dispute. That is not for me to do. You have to discuss it and come to an agreement or consensus.
You should be discussing reasons why the page should be moved not attacking administrators for doing their job. DrKiernan 11:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
what is there to discuss?, I don't think the page should be moved, that's why I asked you to restore it back to the original. You claim there was an "edit war", yet you also state you were not accusing Keegan of edit-warring, who only moved the template once, as did I, so obviously you are not accusing me of edit warring either. As Keegan mentions above, the closure of the TfD did not say to move the title of the template, nor was there a requested move filed, the initial move was done without concensus, so moving the template back to its original title as both Keegan an I attempted was entirely proper, and therefore can in no way be seen as "edit warring". Martintg 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the ultimate point is that I did the prudent thing, DrKiernan did the prudent thing in a good faith attempt to prevent a move war, and neither one of us chose to wheel-war because we both know this will be worked out. It's all good as far as admin accountability goes, Marintg. Keegantalk 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a significant difference between the names? I prefer so to soz but only because it is shorter.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Piotrus. Why is that "zones" needed there, ie. what does it add to a simple navigational template? -- Sander Säde 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I see a significant difference, on two counts:
First, for our readers the template would be easier to read, understand & use if it reflects the scope & terminology of the main article with which it's supposed to work (Soviet occupations, currently up for deletion).
Second, a combination of the words "Soviet", "occupation" & "zone" immediately brings to mind a very especific subject, the Soviet occupation zone. Thus, following the principle of least astonishment, a template with the plural "zones" would only be appropriate if it's restricted to the former & similar subjects (i.e. Allied-administered Austria, Allied occupation of Korea & Occupation of Japan - that is, the planned but not implemented division of Japan, plus the issue of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin).
In any case, I think that the validity, name and scope of the main Soviet occupations article should be discussed in the corresponding talk page & AfD, and this template, instead of being treated as a sepparate issue, should merely follow whatever arrangement is agreed there. - Best regards, Ev 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I already made myself clear that atleast Finland should be added to the template again. I also edited the Finland section in Soviet occupations to make things more clear. Why the template does not link to Soviet occupations in the title? That's very silly and (intentionally?) un-useful. So, why do we need to remove Afghanistan too? You see, it was a war, occupation is a natural thing between countries which have a state of war. Are you doubting it? I would think occupations in wars are way less controversial than the situation with Soviet satellite states during the Cold War. Also, as it seems there are references for the term Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in the main article, so why to remove it here? You should resolve the content dispute in the main article, not operate this template. So I'd say the "one man edit war"'s edits were very useless. OK, change hammer and sickle to Soviet flag. (the name Soviet occupation zones is incorrect, it only refers to zone'd Austria and Germany). Otherwise, please restore the former version. --Pudeo 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop original research. The template is a navigational tool. If you have an article specifically says "Occulation of X by the Soviet Union", then add it here. We don't have Occupation of California by the United States, Occupation of TExts by the United States and so on. This has long been a normal history of countries: grabbing pieces of each other. Of course those whose parts were grabbed cry dearly, but when they themselves grab something they try to justify this. there are plenty of terms that describe various forceful actions: annexation, intervention, invasion, irredentism, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to have templates for each of them. `'Míkka 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources about the [Occupation of California by the United States]], then I invite you to create such an article. Martintg 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Occupation" is not a subjective term: either Soviets forcefully had their military in some other country's territory, or they didn't. If I or anyone else has sources indicating they had, what's the problem? --Pudeo 11:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well while I agree that there was an occupation of (a portion) of Finland, it is not so certain for Afghanistan. The USSR helped one side in the civil war there. Regarding occupation of Finlind do you insist it should necessary point to FDR? Occupation is usually performad by military (in this case by the Red Army), so it would be better to be linked to the Winter War in my view as we do not have an article cpecific about the occupation and military administration during the Winter War (probably because it is not so notable).--Dojarca 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you doubt the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, here is a book published called Afghanistan: First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. Martintg 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it is point of view of enemies of the USSR in the cold war. It cannot be considered neutral.--Dojarca 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case, english Wikipedia is written in the language of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War, is hosted on servers located on the territory of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War, in fact Jimbo Wales and the paid staff of his Wikipedia organisation are citizens of the enemies of the USSR during the Cold War, and are paid in the currency of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War. Martintg 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This is a fact. But official policy of Wikipedia is neutrality. Jimbo Wales said it many times.--Dojarca 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations[edit]

The result of this AfD was an emphatic Keep. Can we now move this template back to Soviet occupations please, since the template was created as a companion to the article. Martintg 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be strong consensus (ie everybody but Dojarca) to name the template Soviet occupations. -- Sander Säde 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see such "consensus"?--Dojarca 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me make you a table:
Soviet occupations Soviet occupation zones Unclear/no opinion
Pudeo Dojarca Ev
Martintg   Keegan
Piotrus   DrKiernan
Sander Säde   Mikkalai
So, looks pretty clear-cut to me. -- Sander Säde 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, Dojarca mentioned moving the template as an alternative to deletion in his TfD nomination, but nobody agreed to it, and the outcome was Keep/No concensus, not Move. So there was never any concensus for Dojarca's original move. Martintg 22:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it is only your company of POV-pusers with predictable position (except Pudeo). Wikipedia is not a democracty.--Dojarca 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of your uncivil personal view, there was no concensus for your unilateral move. Martintg 00:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not "democracty". Nor is it anarchy. And one more uncivil comment from you, Dojarca, and I think we need to apply a certain ArbCom decision. -- Sander Säde 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sander Sade, threatening a fellow editor is the least productive method of communication. So as ganging up to bomb him drawing pretty tables. --Irpen 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know who that "Sander Sade" is, so sorry. But apparently you accept incivilities toward others when it comes from an user that you approve - and you expect me to do the same. No, sorry, I don't like incivilities - and I don't plan to lie down and accept them. And how are my actions "ganging up to bomb him drawing pretty tables"? He said there is no consensus. I demonstrated that he is the only user supporting his version of the template. Please stay within acceptable behavioral limits in Wikipedia, Irpen. -- Sander Säde 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(copied here from WP:ANI:) You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.
If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. 13:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact some uers like Martintg justify the template's caption on the basis of its name.--Dojarca 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Move protected[edit]

Yeah, this has just gotten incivil and POV from all sides. The discussion above and the outcome of the AfD merit the consensus that the template should stay at Soviet occupations, special consideration to the keeping of the parent article of the template. Move protected. Keegantalk 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no discusson on move on the AFD in question. Most non-involved users voted for deletion of the template.--Dojarca 07:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dojarca, the discussions took place in three different venues, and you were the only user advocating and edit/move warring the page to the title you prefer. Wikipedia is not a democracy, AfD is not a vote, and you must edit with a neutral point of view. If you or other editors involved in this dispute, cannot edit without claiming bias perhaps you should consider Wikinfo. This fork of Wikipedia allows editing with a sympathetic point of view. Happy editing to all. Keegantalk 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes the template should be written from the neutral point of view, not some nationalist or anti-Soviet bias. This is rule of Wikipedia. Adminiatrators should enforce established rules, noit help turn Wikipedia into mess of propaganda.---- Dojarca (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that you walk in your shoes and the other users walk in theirs. You perceive the title to be biased and POV because of your own point of view. As I've stated before, I have little to no passion for this subject and I like to think of myself as a neutral third party here (before this I have never had any interaction with any user on this page, including DrKiernan). I assure you, Dojarca, that there is nothing incorrect with the title of this template biased or otherwise. "Soviet occupation" vs. "Zones of Soviet occupation" is just playing symantics. Everyone is welcome to debate how information is presented here and that's what these talk pages are used for. Consensus is to be the end result. My point is that in my point of view, both sides of this argument are exerting way too much passion into a discussion that is moot and unnecessary. There are better topics to debate on the presentation of the USSR than this. Martintg, Dojarca, Sander Säde et al. please move on and have a quality discussion rather than dueling nationalism from both sides. I take great pains to emphasis that as no one "won" this conflict and I have not protected The Wrong Version. I have used the power of discretion placed in myself by the community to decide consensus in this discussion. Let us all move on, or take it to Requests for comment if interested parties would like to engage in dispute resolution. Keegantalk 06:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do with Dojarca?[edit]

Despite obvious consensus (no one supports his changes and viewpoint) he keeps pushing his POV. What shall we do about it? He sees nothing wrong in his actions whatsoever. I am out of good faith and ideas. -- Sander Säde 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who pushes POV here is you, not me. Neutrality should be enforced in Wikipedia.--Dojarca 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
So where is the POV? You've been crying that all the time - and yet you haven't managed to bring any sources to support your point of view while others have literally dozens of sources. How about some verifiable, independent sources before you start accusing other editors? -- Sander Säde 07:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Reminds me of evolution-creationism topics all over again. Creationists crying "POV! POV!" and try to delete everything about evolution - while "evolutionists" give and give sources, slowly, carefully and tirelessly explain evolution, worldwide and scientific views - and Wikipedia rules. And all the time new creationists prop up on Wikipedia with moronic views and statements. -- Sander Säde 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is you who delete any sources from articles which do not confirm with your point of view, claiming that you have "consensus" on not to include the source.--Dojarca 08:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Care to give an example? Or just empty words again as always? -- Sander Säde 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In every article you claim you have consensus. Any arguments rejected based on no rules other than that "you have consensus"--Dojarca 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the great omnipotent "everywhere" argument, without any actual diffs as usual. How nice. I wish I had a dollar for every time this has been said and those users have then failed to come up with any actual evidence - I could retire and go to some tropical island every winter. -- Sander Säde 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Headers in table[edit]

Why are Austria and Germany listed under "Allies", with a link to Allies of World War II? Also, why put those two countries in a separate row from Europe?? None of this make sense to me. Maybe we should have Eastern Europe and Western Europe as row-headers (besides Asia)? Also, where to fit Finland in all this? I think this is a useful template, but we need to rethink those headers — any better ideas on what to do? Turgidson (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Ukraine[edit]

can be mentioned in this template events before II World War e.g. Occupation of Ukraine? --Riwnodennyk 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)