Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Article time span and timeline

I propose the timeline of this article extend from 1940 to 1991, that is, the entire period spanned by the Soviet and Nazi presence, and starting with the events of 1939 which put everything into motion. Putting the Nazi occupation aside, my justification for the extent of the timeline is:

  • The Baltic States (and the EU in agreement) maintain they were occupied by the Soviet Union for the duration of Soviet presence
  • The Soviet position (and that of the current Russian administration) maintains the Baltic States were never occupied by the Soviet Union, that all acts including the absorption of the Baltic States as SSRs were legal according to international law
  • As the parties to the occupation/non-occupation and their successor (Russia for the USSR) both agree on the extent of the timeline, the current schism at the end of WWII does not apply. PetersV       TALK 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with this. Contemporary post-Cold War sources, such as that by eminent experts like David J. Smith concur[1] on the date range. In fact he calls the period for the Baltics as "the Long Second World War" and another author Patrick Brogan calls it the Fifty Years War in his 1990 book titled "Eastern Europe 1939-1989: The Fifty Years War". --Martintg (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten is the preparation of occupation in 1939 and the aftermath of occupation - Russian troops left 1994, the Skrunda Radar Station 1998. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Literature on article time span

  • Upmalis, Ilgonis (2006). Latvija, PSRS karabāze : 1939.-1998. : materiāli un dokumenti par Padomju armijas atrašanos Latvijā un tās izvešanu (in Latvian). Riga: Zelta grauds. ISBN 9984986365. OCLC 122977525.

Article title

Therefore I propose the article be retitled to "Occupation of the Baltic states." "States" needs to be capitalized as they are not states which are part of a federation, and "During World War II" does not apply as according to both so-called POVs there was no change in status of the Baltic States at the end of WWII. PetersV       TALK 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As no reputable scholarly evidence has been produced to indicate not an occupation (that is, specifically, support of the Russian Duma declaration stating legal incorporation into the USSR according to international law) the article title may continue to use the word "occupation." PetersV       TALK 01:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think almost everyone concurs on moving the title back to the original name in the archived discussion above. I thought we had this States/states discussion before? Are you saying "United states" is the correct capitalisation of "United States"? --Martintg (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a few countries keep "states" in their title. Consider Estados Unidos Mexicanos, for example. Personally, I think capitalisation here is of minuscule significance, but as an unorthodox solution, we might consider using a synonym such as Baltic nations or Baltic realms instead. Luckily, United Nations is not a country, and nobody is going to confuse Baltics with Commonwealth realms. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Unites States" is a country. "Baltic states" are countries. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

-In my opinion the article title is completely secondary at the moment, as Martintg has already pointed out, many sources say that WW II ended for Baltic countries only in 1991, therefore I don't see how the title contradicts anything. Main concern I think at this time would be addressing the tags. So whoever put it up there would need to explain what seems to be the problem?

  • what exactly in the article needs -additional references or sources for verification?
  • in case the article 'appears to represent a biased viewpoint' how to make it more neutral since all possible viewpoints are represented in the article already?
  • introduction may need to be rewritten? What's wrong with the current one? According to WP:Lead section :It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

So please anybody explain what is it exactly I'm missing here? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did you just say that WWII ended in 1991? Hiberniantears (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
He means that consequences of WWII (Soviet occupation) ended for Baltic States only in 1991. This is quite clear.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does he? Essentially, that's true for all of us. But I think he actually means WWII didn't end until 1991. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
As for "States" versus "states", I merely stated my understanding. But to the dates, whether one considers WWII did not "end" until "Soviet occupation" ended, or one considers WWII ended in 1945, "1945" is a date of no significance in the timeline (other than the Courland pocket was unable to maintain territorial sovereignty) regarding continuity/existence of Soviet occupation. I think most readers would take "during World War II" as ending in 1945, despite ambiguity in its interpretation. PetersV       TALK 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Termer is saying "sources say WW II ended for Baltic countries only in 1991". For example David J. Smith calls it the Long Second World War, while Patrick Brogan calls it the Fifty Years War in his 1990 book titled "Eastern Europe 1939-1989: The Fifty Years War", but as Peters states, most readers would take "during World War II" as ending in 1945. --Martintg (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say even stronger. All readers consider WW2 as ending in 1945, a handful of historical revisionists notwithstanding. I also wanted to note that the timing of this heated debate does not surprise me. I suggest to wait a few weeks and noone will care about this until next May. (Igny (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
What I said was many sources say that WW II ended for Baltic countries only in 1991. Other than the sources pointed out above by Martintg please see The Baltic question during the Cold War By John Hiden, Vahur Made, David J. Smith p. 189 Arquably the question was not resolved until 31 August 1994...it was only then that the Second World War finally ended for the Baltic peoples.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For the benefit of others, 1994 is when the last troops (Red Army now Russian Army) actually left. Many left the military and claimed their residences in Latvia, being that there was no pay and no barracks for them back in Russia. PetersV       TALK 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Richard Crockatt in his book The Fifty Years War contends that the Cold War and WW2 were parts of a wider conflict that spanned from 1941 to 1991. --Martintg (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
PS, in regard to Termer's point about the tags, I agree, although I can live with them at the moment. However the "additional references or sources for verification" tag seems out of place, given that this article must just about have the highest density of inline references I have ever seen in Wikipedia. Perhaps we can agree to use inline tags in the body of the text, as needed, as being more useful than a global tag? --Martintg (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is definitely not short on refernces, I would suggest removing the article tag and requesting editors fact tag specific items. One suggestion for improving the article has been to do a timeline at the start to outline the chain of significant events. That will help keep the rest of the article organized, it currently jumps around a bit. PetersV       TALK 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The title "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" is overly long, as there is no other event which has the "Occupation of Baltic states" as its common name. Therefore I strongly suggest the original name to be restored. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The Baltic states were always under influence of their neighbours and were occupied a number of times by Poland, Sweden, Germany, Soviet Union, even Teutonic Knights. Just wait a few decades and Occupation of Baltic states by EU will appear. (Igny (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
[joke on]"Yeah, let's vote on who occupies us next" - that article already exists, just follow the link...[joke off] Why isn't there a Wikipedia article called 1940 Latvian Soviet Union membership referendum? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
From history:
Poland and Lithuania formed a confederation for almost 200 years, and in 1569 they formally united. Russia, Prussia, and Austria partitioned Poland in 1772, 1792, and 1795. As a consequence, Lithuania came under Russian rule after the last partition. Russia attempted to immerse Lithuania in Russian culture and language, but anti-Russian sentiment continued to grow. Following World War I and the collapse of Russia, Lithuania declared independence (1918), under German protection.
See? Even a short independence period required German protection. And not because Germany liked the Baltic states so much.(Igny (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
The common name for the foreign rules listed by Igny is not 'occupation of Baltic states'. There is only one event which bears the name. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To be pedantic, there is either many events or there is none. Why being an autonomous republic, part of Soviet Union, is all of a sudden an occupation? Why not just foreign rule? What is wrong with the word annexation? Is New Mexico occupied by USA now? (Igny (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
Igny, you're off topic. The matter at hand is, what the article should be called. Per WP:NAME, the most common name of the subject should be given. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not off topic. I understand this article is about part of history of Baltic countries. Someone tendentiously combined Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany with Annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union into one big article, and now you naturally have a problem of how to name such a synthesis. I could suggest splitting this article in two, but I do not think estonian,latvian and lithuanian nationalists would approve. (Igny (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
This is not true, this article has always covered this scope and has been stable for years. Martintg (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Each occupation/re-occupation built on the consequences and acts during the prior occupation, so there is a significant component of the narrative which would be lost with a split. There's no synthesis combining occupations, only the recognition of a constant state of occupation, as is done in numerous scholarly sources. Combination and constancy are two different things. PetersV       TALK 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, then for consistency one has to write an article about nearly constant occupation of the Baltic states similarly to the history articles. Divide the article into subsections: Medieval times, Polish rule, Russian rule, German rule during WW2, Soviet rule post WW2. Do not just focus on the details of the Soviet rule in 1944-1991. One might be interested in history of independence of Baltic states as well, which might be a shorter article. (Igny (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
Where'd you get the silly idea that it's the Wikipedians who have summarised the events as occupation? It's not; this term comes from the historians who have been studying these topics. They research, we only report. We may cringe on some inconsistencies, but one'd have to become a historian and publish peer-reviewed papers to actually change the terminology. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to debate about who creates articles on Wikipedia. It is so easy that about anybody could do that. And I am pretty sure serious historians do not bother about creating articles on WP. And as all the previous edit wars show it is not hard to find references to advance whatever POV you got. And it has been so hard recently to argue against that many scholars agree that [state your POV here](Igny (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
You seem to forget that the "Baltic states" did not exist prior to 1918, so there were no states to occupy. What you suggest above has nothing to do with the title of this article. World War I brought the fall of feudalism in Europe, feudalism has nothing to do with nation states. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It is one more argument to write a story on independence ot Baltic countries. About their sacrifices and how they bravely fought Russian imperialism, German nazism, Soviet communism. (Igny (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
To be honest, that is one good suggestion, even though it should be Independence of the Baltics states. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been stable because noone cares about this topic other than in May each year. (Igny (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
Right, this is Day of madness. 60% are sick.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Semantically speaking, the word annexation is quite similar to occupation - the difference being that annexation is done when nobody cares or when empty territory is added, occupation is when there is an opposition that has been ignored. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 08:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is always opposition to anything what happens in life. The difference is whether the opposition matters. (Igny (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
That could not have been put better by Дядя (The Uncle) himself. Well, opposition is essentially what makes a democracy. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That would take three articles, as there were two periods of Soviet occupation: 1940-1941 and 1944-1991. Combined with the German occupation into one big occupation. And there's no problem naming it, as the synthesis has already been done by the numerous sources you can familiarize yourself with at the bottom of the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote, from [2]:

And there are many quotes like this. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The title "Occupation of the Baltic states" is the shortest and most precise. Adding "World War II" is double cream to some - like saying the same thing twice. Without "occupation" there is no article, the subject remains uncovered. Occupation of the Baltic states it is to me. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I agree. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding "World War II" only complicates everything. I saw a dispute at Mediation about the beginning of WW2. Some claimed that war did not start in September 1939. Now about the essence of the dispute. I understand the emotional involvement and POV of Baltic editors here, but I do not understand POV of Russian editors like Dojarca (who actually started the entire thing). It would be easy to think that modern Russia is a different country which is not responsible for the Soviet Union. Whatever the crimes (occupations, Holodomor, etc.), this should not be of any concern to Russian editors, beyond a purely historical perspective.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was involved at one point in attempting to reach agreement on text for that (when did WWII begin). There were valid perspectives based on earlier military conflicts which rolled right into WWII--conflicts which for those nations marked their start of WWII. IMHO, the issue is the innate Anglo-centric bias from this being an English language encyclopedia--WWII started with Hitler's invasion and Britain/France declaring war (actually Britain shamed France into honoring its commitment to Poland regardless that neither sent troops to assist). For parties in the Far East it was different, as in, earlier. PetersV       TALK 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title, arbitrary break # 1

A couple of thoughts regarding Igny's points above. First, in terms of an occupation determined to be illegal under international law (bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions), that is a 20th century phenomenon. Prior to the 20th century, warfare was a legal means for settling disputes between countries/regimes/et al. So the title here can only be applied, on a scholarly basis, to the Baltic states in the 20th century. Not my WP:OR, just the facts.
   I'm actually more intrigued by Igny's suggestion of "One might be interested in history of independence of Baltic states as well, which might be a shorter article." It suggests that perhaps the proper title and scope for Baltic states and the Soviet Union is Sovereignty of the Baltic states. I think that would be a NPOV title which would greatly assist in defining the scope of the article. PetersV       TALK 20:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one needs to do it more systematically. You have to determine which articles about the Baltic states are needed and determine their scopes. I would suggest to focus on

Divide the scope of

Some information will be heavily reused/cross linked but if one looks for specific type of information he should be able to easily find it. The aforementioned is just my suggestion out of top of my head, and it could be improved as time goes on. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps we should focus on the article at hand? What happened to your suggestion of renaming this article to Independence of the Baltic states? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would still support this. Let losers focus on how they were deprived/occupied/enslaved in the past One would feel better about himself if he thinks positively about his own history. But that would probably require a partial rewrite. (Igny (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
Liberation does not work because the Soviets occupied and annexed first, thereby reestablishing occupation. If only Stalin had left the Baltics well enough alone, he could have liberated them later; the first occupation voids the "liberation" POV. PetersV       TALK 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Just when I began to think that Wikipedians do not label events, scholars do, you dashed my hopes. Oh well...(Igny (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
I'll give you that Soviet and post-Soviet (of similar ilk) scholarship say "liberation." But then they never seem to deal with that first inconvenient invasion, just the "liberation from Nazism", the Baltics being ungrateful, etc., etc. PetersV       TALK 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
So it is ok for Wikipedia to advance POV of baltic nationalists and eliminate POV of Soviet scholars? So much for neutrality.(Igny (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
I think when Soviet and post-Soviet "scholarship" say "liberation", they actually mean the liberation of the Soviet puppet states set up in 1940, not the independent states proclaimed in 1918. That's pretty clear from this picture of T-34 painted with the slogan " For Soviet Estonia". Liberation of the Baltic soviets is not incompatible with occupation of the independent states. No doubt the Nazis viewed the Ardennes offensive as an attempt to liberate of a part the Belgian territory that was annexed to the Greater German Reich. That the Soviets occupied the Baltic states is the view point of the English speaking world. Martintg (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the POV of Soviet scholars lives happily together with any other scholarly source or POV in the article, take the State Department of the United States of America[nb 3] [nb 4], the U.S. courts of law [nb 5], the European Parliament,[8][9][10] , the European Court of Human Rights.[11], and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
At the same time the POV of the Baltic nationalists is actually still missing from the article. Since it has been brought up so many times, perhaps it should be added pr WP:YESPOV? namely according to Baltic nationalists the Soviet civil occupation of Baltic states has not ended yet. According to the nationalists, it would require full desovietization of Estonia, Latvia including forced repatriation of all 'illegal Soviet time immigrants' + prosecuting all Soviet collaborators as traitors etc. FFI see for example Ethnicity and nationalism in Russia, the CIS and the Baltic states By Christopher Williams, Thanasis D. Sfikas. --Termer (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess we don't have a choice. This POV may be a fringe viewpoint, but it keeps getting rehashed by people who want the mainstream position to be more radical (or the radical position to actually be mainstream). ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. Here is a citation from a Batic nationalist in case anybody wants to add a section The views of the Bltic nationalists into this article: Kaarmann expanded on his remarks about the Nazis and Soviets in an interview with the BBC "The difference between them was that the Germans enslaved us and took our land. But the Russians destroyed the Estonian nation. They opposed-and still oppose -Estonian independence." Reimagining civic education By Bradley A. Levinson, Doyle Stevick, p. 236--Termer (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Some more on Baltic nationalists: Juri Toomepuu, an official of a nationalist group whose slogan is Estonia for Estonians, said the Government made a serious mistake is allowing the Russians to vote in local elections. "The United States does not let foreigners vote," said Mr. Toomepuu, an American citizen who returned here from Chicago after independence. "This was a crazy idea, and we will pay for it in years to come, with all these Russians and former Communists on our city councils." NYTimes November 12, 1993.--Termer (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite redundant to quote sources when it comes to the title of this article, it just adds to the trench digging. The title of this article should be based on semantics used in the anglosphere since this is the en.wikipedia Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If by "semantics used in the anglosphere" you mean "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" per WP:NAME then I fully agree. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-arbitrary break

It is ridiculous that the article with the title "Occupation of Baltic states" is being redirected to russian article "Incorporation of Baltic states" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous or not, the solution you just implemented is rather impracical as it directs to a blank page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a blank page! A deleted page.And unfortunetely the russian article "The incorporation of Baltic states into USSR" is blocked. Welcome back to the USSR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I sustain my point. Rather than pointing to a deleted page, although from a different perspective, 'Annexation of Baltic states' deals with the same event. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously expect political realia to change if you "fix" an interwiki link? This reminds me of some anons on the Russian wiki who demanded the deletion of all interwiki links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, because of its "chauvinist POV". Anyhow, resistance is useless - bots will change the interwiki complex to link existing articles regardless. --Illythr (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of editing the article when title yet unknown

What is the point of editing the article when the new title of the article is still unknown? We need to convince an administrator to move the article, how are we going to achieve that when we edit the article into opposite directions without consensus when it comes to the title? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point isn't bad. I guess the editors just have faith that an administrator will do the Right Thing. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Your answer reminds me of the fourth point in the Homo Sovieticus article:
"Obedience or passive acceptance of everything that government imposes on them (see authoritarianism). Avoidance of taking any individual responsibility on anything".

administrator = authority | no authority = anarchy

no responsibility = people are blocked | responsibility = articles gets written

Rhetorical question: Why is it post-Soviet people in general have no way of being civil unless "Big Brother" threatens them? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't really understand your new point, but I can assure you that the New and Better Wiki I've been developing makes much less use of administrators than MediaWiki. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear about your wiki, hope it works for you. Where can I see this new wiki online? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It isn't ripe for a public release yet. But if you're willing to discuss half-assed ideas, drop me an email. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not communicate outside wiki talkpages. The things I am doing in my "real life" takes up far too much time. But do give me a heads up when there will be something to see. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try to remember to tell you when I have anything more than just a little test site up and running. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I thought we all had agreed that this article be moved back to the original title Occupation of the Baltic states (which btw has be stable since 2004). Martintg (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's been my basic understanding on how we are going forward, this to be events and the "other" to discuss relationship, sovereignty, and all. Hopefully Hiberniantears et al. will see the modified split (the other to discuss the full range of the Baltic-Soviet relationship) as a positive step and some kind admin will step in to return this title to the original. The timeline also needs a fair amount of work--both removing items that aren't that relevant and adding more key dates and events. PetersV       TALK 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we just push "redirect" and move it to its agreed name?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because the history of the article will stay here, with new edits being reflected at the article that you redirect to. An admin move brings the article and the article history over. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of using words known to be challenged

Guys, guys, guys... Do you really expect an administrator to approve a title containing words known to be POV-challenged? (PS. and yes, it's me from a public PC) Lettonica (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my favorite straight man. Is it a POV based on historically verifiable fact (best served up by non-Baltic, non-Soviet, non-Russian sources)? :-) We do have the other article to explore the relationship details. PetersV       TALK 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The article title must meet consensus - regardless of what the POV is based on. What we have is up to consensus Lettonica (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I should mention there are a voluminous number of article using "occupation" in the title, so the use of the word should not be challenged based on "feel good/feel bad" implications in the use of the word, only on its factual verifiability. I know I overuse it, but what would be the consensus regarding
  1. the moon is made of rock POV versus
  2. the moon is made of cheese POV;
or
  1. Man stepped foot on the moon POV versus
  2. Man did not step foot on the moon POV?
Consensus must be informed by reliable sources as to facts, not reliable sources as to opinions of facts or opinions of fabrications. (And note how adding "POV" to all above changed the fundamental nature of "consensus.") PetersV       TALK 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason why many articles are using "occupation" in their titles is because that is consensus on those titles. To answer your questions: Geology of the Moon and Colonization of the Moon. Lettonica (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Say no more... we have got consensus. And by the way Peteris, I do agree. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

I understand that in your opinion this article may be balanced, but tags show that there are people who disagree. I disagree, so the tag stays. (Igny (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

If you tag an article, the obligation is to provide specific reasons why. Altenmann has edited the lead, so I don't see what your issue is now. Martintg (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I restored the tag to draw attention of uninvolved editors to this biased article. I am not in the mood to participate in the edit wars over this article with you or Digwuren, but once I see that the bias is removed I would be happy to remove the tag myself. The intro is ok for now, but it would probably be edited for the better later anyway. (Igny (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
Igny, what was wrong with this [3] ? Peltimikko (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The tags are not indicators of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have no specific reasons, there should be no tag. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking to write an article on Baltic states and revisionism (or may be historic revisionism) to underline the most offending biases of this and similar articles. Any suggestions? (Igny (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Dear Igny, I am well aware of the charges of "revisionism" by the (current) Russian authorities. These charges can be documented in the Baltic-Soviet relations article if you wish to expand the section on the position of the current Russian administration, regarding items specific to the Baltic (that is, not the "ungrateful for liberation from Nazism" generalities). You do realize that, for example, no foundation has ever been produced for the Duma declaration of "legal according to international law." In terms of a wider article, you might try Allegations of revisionism regarding the Soviet legacy. I regret that you find "occupation" an "offensive" bias. It is simply factual. If you want to place blame, place it on Stalin for invading first while he and Hitler were allies.
   Quite honestly, I do not understand the Russian preoccupation for rehabilitating the Soviet Union. What's your opinion of the restoration of Dzerzhinsky's bust to the courtyard of the Moscow police? If Goebbels' bust were restored to the courtyard of the Berlin police, there would be international outrage. PetersV       TALK 01:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would note that charges of revisionism started as soon as captured Nazi-Soviet correspondence was published by the Americans and British unilaterally after the Soviet Union refused to divulge any documents that came into its possession. The revisionism mantra, that is, falsifiers of history!, is as old as Stalinism. PetersV       TALK 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am more concerned by rehabilitation of Nazism by the Baltic states. And I did not see any mention of blaming Baltic countries for historical revisionism in these articles. All I could find here was blaming Russia for contradicting something. (Igny (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
I am sorry, but Nazism is not being rehabilitated in any manner whatsoever in the Baltics. Those are false charges, that is, the Waffen SS convicted at Nuremberg being glorified mantra. Latvian Waffen SS were, in fact, posted as Allied guards at Nuremberg. PetersV       TALK 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that charging the Baltics of pro-Nazi "revisionism" is nothing but Russian revisionism and Soviet anti-nationalist campaigns continuing to live on long after the Sovuet Union is gone. PetersV       TALK 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally have little to do with this. But I can find sources which blamed Baltics for historical revisionism, and you've just said Medvedev and Co blamed Baltics for the revisionism falsely or not. Just google "Baltic revisionism" and you will see what I mean. What I continue arguing is that this article says nothing about the historical revisionism in connection with this whole occupation/liberation issue. And I was not going to show just one side of this. I think we need a big article on Soviet history and revisionism describing all instances from all sides. But you can not say that Baltic nationalists are innocent in this attempt to rewrite the history, embellishing their glorious past and tarring anything connected to the Soviets. (Igny (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
(od) Of course you can find sources that label Waffen SS marches heinous support of Hitler, it's as if Hitler himself were strolling down the boulevard in the sunshine, et al. Doing your "Google" provides the usual Pravda boilerplate as the top match, very few of the rest of the matches appear to have anything to do with the Baltics revising history. Personally, I'm not rewriting anything. I haven't contended anything not backed up by historical fact and non-Baltic objective interpretation. What "revisionism" is missing? Nothing is being glorified here, this was one of the most tragic chapters in Baltic history. That Stalin invaded three peaceful neutral countries is not revising anything, so I'm now rather confused about what's "missing". PetersV       TALK 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The search for the exact phrase "Baltic revisionism" gives exactly two matches: [4], both of them Russian discussion forums. So, Igny, apart from the Soviet/Russian propaganda, what are you talking about? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When I said google for it, that is what I meant. Just google, and you will find books like this which is far from being a blog. Admittedly, I do not have the book, but its existence alone should convince many in necessity to write an article about this phenomenon. (Igny (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

RE:Igny I am more concerned by rehabilitation of Nazism by the Baltic states. Thatone has been addressed several times and nobody has put it better than Edward Lucas in his Aug 16th 2007 Economist article: [5][6] "What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another."--Termer (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My point here is precisely that this particular POV of a certain interested party (Kremlin and probably sizable chunk of Russian population) was largely ignored here and at the same time the Baltic nationalist POV was advanced. (Igny (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
This article is based upon published reliable sources such as David Smith, who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He is certainly no "Baltic nationalist". The position of the Kremlin is already covered in the article, as is the position of the USA and EU. The USA and EU has a combined population of 800 million, a sizable chunk of which supports the view of authors like David Smith, why should we give the position of the Kremlin more weight? --Martintg (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ok I give up. The population of US and EU is larger, so it is ok for Wikipedia to ignore some measly Russian POV. (Igny (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
Igny, the POV of the Russian government is not ignored, there is a whole section devoted to it. Note that the People's Republic of China, with its population of 1300 million, also did not recognize the legality of the Soviet annexation. So the Russian viewpoint really in the minority. Martintg (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Igny seeks approval rather than mere coverage. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I see revival of generalized accusations on certain national groups, I feel duty to remind to involved parties of existing Arbitration warning:[7]. M.K. (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm... What's about it? (Igny (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
Igny, we cover the evolution of the Soviet to current Russian position. Were it to be based on verifiable historical facts, objectively interpreted (non-Baltic, non-Soviet, non-Russian...), it could be represented as being more factual. As it is, the position of the current Russian administration is an opinion held by many, but not a view or interpretation of verified historical events. Hope this helps. PetersV       TALK 21:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not pursue it any further, but just to make it clear what I mean, I wrote some of my thoughts in User:Igny/Annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union (Igny (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Comment to your thoughts: "Red Army liberated (according to some scholars "re-occupied") the Baltic republics in 1944." I am glad Wikipedia do not have an article Occupation of the Finland, where someones seriously would claim that Red Army "liberated" Finland in 1944. (Why this didn't happen? Read Battle of Tali-Ihantala). Peltimikko (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the article

As was already noted, this article should be shorten a bit. Few suggestions. Sections Pre-1939 and The Soviet ultimatums in 1939 should be merged into, something like Background Such section should briefly discuss situation of BS before '39. I also suggest withdraw as separate section Beginning of World War II. Essentially anyone can click few Wlinks and have same info on WWII, rather then have separate section here. Same thing with Finland invaded. Few sentences about invasion of Finland would be enough IMO. Biggest emphasis should be made to RM Pact.

Section time line needs attention too, like a) removed b) converted to table c} converted to picture. M.K. (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Policy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation and Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Official_position_of_the_Russian_government could be merged into one section. Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Timeline could be split off into a separate article Timeline of the occupation of the Baltic states perhaps. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started {{Occupation of Baltic states}}. Such a navigational aid should permit us to move some background exposition to separate articles, thus splitting the whole topic into easier-to-manage pieces. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Significant views

Hi, Martin. What exactly makes Oleg Platonov's views "significant" on the Baltics? What about Mr. Platonov in regard to his being a "significant" source? PasswordUsername (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oleg Platonov is notable (he has his own Wikipedia article), and viewpoints that can be attributed to notable people are thus significant enough for inclusion, with regard to due weight. Please read the relevant policies on NPOV. --Martintg (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov is notable as an individual, not as a Baltics scholar or a spokesman for Russia's opinion. What he is known for is his self-published anti-semitic literature and Holocaust denial; including his view in an article on Baltic history would happen to be just like mentioning Ernst Zundel's commentary on Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. His general significance as a Holcaust denier/anti-semite publisher do not translate into significance for his views on Baltic history. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a viewpoint shared by many people none the less, and Platonov is the identifiable holder of that view, and has been accorded due weight within the article. Nowhere does it mention that he is a "spokesman for Russia's opinion", but appropriately qualified as a "Russian chauvinistic approach". Can you not see a distinction? --Martintg (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov's views are popular – or "shared by many people" – to quote your own words? According to whom? What constitutes "many" – and at what threshold does "many" become "significant"? Once the author of such views attains Wikipedia prominence as a Holocaust denier? Do we have anything to back up this claim? This is seriously disconcerting, because the section violates WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, to say nothing of WP:UNDUE (the largest paragraph in the section is given to Platonov's views) – and the use of the passive voice to introduce Platonov's words does not help the situation much. Characterizing inclusion of such material as NPOV is, as a matter of fact, precisely what WP:NPOV warns against. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You are contending that Russian chauvinism is popular or that Russian chauvinism does not exist? Or is it somewhere in between? Platonov viewpoint represents the Russian chauvinist viewpoint, how widespread that viewpoint is needs to be determined so that due weight is given. I've seen surveys that suggest one thing, what evidence do you have? Martintg (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not a social scientist, so I won't be making pronouncements either about "Russian chauvinism" or the lack thereof – and this is not the issue here, at any rate. The "Russian chauvinist viewpoint" – credited to one self-published Holocaust denier without any established credentials as either a spokesman, political scientist, or historian – violates the aforementioned principles of Wikipedia's stance on NPOV, for all of the reasons I have just now supplied you with. See WP:RS. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov is the Director General of the Moscow-based think tank Institute for the History of Russian Civilization. You claim he is self-published Holocaust denier without any established credentials as either a spokesman, political scientist, or historian. What are your credentials that qualify you to make these WP:OR allegations? What WP:RS have you supplied to support your synthesis that his viewpoint is WP:FRINGE? --Martintg (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov's "Institute for the History of Russian Civilization" is simply his own publishing company. See Oleg Platonov:

"Since 2003, Platonov's encyclopedia publishing center was transformed into the independent think tank Institute for the History of Russian Civilization (short name Russian Institute), whose goal is stated as research and dissemination of the ideas of Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg and Ladoga (Ivan Snychev) (1927-1995)[10][11] with Platonov as the Institute's Director General.[1]"

PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that is a good start. Where is a source that states his views as director of the "Institute for the History of Russian Civilization" are fringe? Martintg (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
How is the burden of proof here on me? The challenger here is me – one might as easily ask for a source that states that the Flat Earth Society is fringe. I'm in favor if of deleting the reference as the self-published opinion of a marginal figure, not citing him on Wikipedia as a "fringe" source, if this is the idea here; if you believe that Platonov is taken seriously by any reputable organization, feel free to enrich this discussion with your evidence. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
What evidence do you have he is a "marginal figure", he must have financial backers if he runs a think tank and book publishing company. Martintg (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ernst Zundel and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review also have financial backers; after all, they publish journals, web-materials, and books. If your argument is that anyone who has published anything is a "significant" source, I would see that as a poor argument indeed. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You keep referring to Ernst Zundel (who BTW does not run the Institute for Historical Review), but Platonov's views of the Holocaust is not central to the main activity of his Institute for the History of Russian Civilization. Looking at this site it is pretty clear that Platonov is not a one man show. --Martintg (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The Institute for Historical Review is also not a one-man show – and if you think that I have asserted that Ernst Zundel was responsible for running it, you're quite mistaken. The book you're quoting from is a source published by Platonov's own company. (The degree of others' collaboration in his pursuits is immaterial here.) Having encountered the book previously, I must say that it's a rehashing of anti-Semitic propaganda; what Platonov devotes to the Baltics is practically nothing, anyway. I am still asking you to show how this source is appropriate. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[od]Wendy Slater cites Oleg Platonov extensively in the article The Orthodox Ethic: Thoughts on the Russian Economy from the Nationalist Opposition, published in the Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 34, No. 3, pp383-397 (1999), making no mention that Platonov is a "marginal figure" or a "holder of fringe viewpoints" as you claim:

  • "another national patriotic writer, Oleg Platonov. Platonov (b. 1950) was a trained economist who, in 1994, published a compendium of Russian economic thought from the tenth to the twentieth centuries in a series of articles for the major national patriotic monthly journal, 'Nash sovremenni'" and
  • "Introducing his compendium of Russian economic thought, Oleg Platonov summarized the Russian economic tradition as ‘the pre-eminence of spiritualmoral principles over material ones, the cult of goodness and truth, spontaneity, the development of original collective forms of democracy, embodied in the commune and the artel’ ’ (the pre-Revolutionary peasants’ or workers’ co-operative)."

while the Washington Times characterises him as "Professor Oleg Platonov, a prominent Russian ultranationalist thinker" and the Washington Post characterizes him as "Oleg Platonov, "the most prolific of reactionary nationalists". You don't use words like "prominent" or "most prolific" to describe a "marginal figure" as you claim. --Martintg (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Washington Times is somewhat problematic. But this does not appear to undo the main point here: Platonov may hold some strange views, but he's certainly not a non-notable fringe loner. Even discounting WT entirely, an abundance of other sources has given significant coverage to himself and his views. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any sources that have given abundant coverage to his historical views, other than as a representative of extremist views? The other matter here is that the quoted material was self-published. Not exactly a positive thing, from Wikipedia's perspective; that's neither here nor there. No academic reliability or political clout in that: it's just one lunatic publishing things through an "institute" all of his own. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, your sources say it all, Martin. Wendy Slater's article and Interfax report on him as an economics expert (his field). The headline for the Washington Times, is "Russian extremist's U.S. visit vexes foes." (That 1994 article predates the foundation of his lunatic Holocaust denial company.) The Washington Post's characterization of him as "the most prolific of reactionary nationalists" is a bit like the American press labeling William L. Pierce, a commendable figure as far as his contributions to work in nuclear physics, the most prolific of America's white nationalists. (Kooky Arthur R. Butz, mind you, is a quoted figure in electrical engineering.) Neither of these would pass muster at all as a spokesman for America or American views on history; for all their notoriety or standing in other fields, they are still marginal figures. As said before, WP:FRINGE views are not acceptable encyclopedic material. Let's get real here. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be continuing to labor under this false notion that Platonov is presented as the spokesman for Russia, when it has quite clearly been stated that his view point is that of a Russian nationalist. Do you not understand that Russia is not a country with one single monolithic viewpoint, that a country where there are differing viewpoints? It is permitted to cover differing viewpoints, that is the basis of NPOV. You seem to be wikilawyering on the basis of WP:FRINGE, but the fact remains that Platonov is a prominent figure of Russian nationalism and it is relevant to cover the Russian nationalist viewpoint in regard to the topic of this article, nor is the coverage undue in my opinion. --Martintg (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I am assuming no such thing. All I'm saying is that Arthur R. Butz's or William L. Pierce's views would not be cited as an example of American opinion outside of the scope of an article dealing with nationalist-extremist views. Whether he is representative of a monolithic Russia or a non-monolithic Russia is irrelevant: the issue is whether the opinion is worthy of inclusion per Wikipedia standards. If his perspective on Baltic history is notable enough to be backed by respectable organizations, you should say so. If it is just the fringe opinion of a crazy nutcase who's irrelevant as far as his opinions of Russian and Baltic history, he should not be included. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Mention of Arthur R. Butz's or William L. Pierce is really an Ignoratio elenchi argument. The central issue is whether the viewpoint as exemplified by Platonov is representative of the Russian nationalist viewpoint of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. You keep asserting he is an irrelevant crazy nutcase with a fringe opinion, that is your opinion. How about you provide a reliable mainstream Russian language source to back that opinion. All the English languages sources indicate otherwise. --Martintg (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you're going to quote somebody who publishes "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and "The Secret History of Freemasonry", you'll need some extraordinary proof that this opinion is suitable. (Even then, WP:UNDUE would apply.) It's your own sources that paint him as an extremist nut. This article, as it just so happens, is about the Soviet incursion into the Baltic states, not extremist interpretations of what happened there and then. We don't have an opinion from Mr. Pierce as representative of what American extremists think about certain events in U.S. history. We don't need an extremist opinion from Mr. Platonov either. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I can walk into any large retail chain bookshop in Australia and purchase a copy of Mein Kampf, that is not proof that the book shop is extremist. So what if his company publishes "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and "The Secret History of Freemasonry", this is just argumentum ad hominem. You are the one making the claim he is an extremist nut, provide extraordinary proof that is the case. This section of the article attempts to discuss the range of viewpoints on the issue of the Soviet incursion into the Baltic states. Please nominate another person who is more representative of the Russian nationalist viewpoint if you think Platonov is unacceptable. --Martintg (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments are really losing it, Martin, no matter how much Latin verbiage you throw into the mix. I'm really sorry. (One would think you were a contemporary of Cicero based on your fine Latin.) Enjoy:

"Overt anti-Semitism-mostly at the fringes of society-has been evident in Russia ever since the mid-’80s, when Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost unleashed grassroots chauvinism. The circles propagating anti-Semitic ideas in Gorbachev’s time ranged from relatively moderate Siberian writers and Russophile revivalists to more virulent purveyors such as Pamyat and other extreme nationalist groups... Most of these are newsletters with small readerships... A recent example is the two-volume study by an obscure contemporary monarchist historian, Oleg Platonov, Russia’s Crown of Thorns: The History of the Russian People in the 20th Century (O.A. Platonov, Ternoviy Venets Rossii [Moscow: Rodnik, 1997])." (AJC)

Am I done belaboring this point as of now? I am not sure where your obsession with "another person who is more representative of the Russian nationalist viewpoint if you think Platonov is unacceptable" quite fit in. It isn't my job to do research based on your assumptions about things, though you're welcome to find whatever Wiki-worthy sources you can get hold of. We generally stay away from fringe points, whatever ideology they stand for. Feel free to RFC if you're still adamant about this. Were you considering inserting fringe Baltic sources here too (for fair play)? PasswordUsername (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Platonov is an extremist. It might not be established well enough for WP:BLP, but I can go with it, for argument's sake.

But is Platonov fringe?

After all, at times, extremists can become mainstream politicians. And scientific fringe and political fringe are two quite different things. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Platonov is fringe on account of the fact that he represents fringe, self-published theories (as far as his work on history, to say the minimum). He is an "obscure monarchist historian," an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, a proponent of the blood libel, a publisher of works on the "Masonic conspiracy." An extremist can become a mainstream politician. Mr. Platonov is not one as yet. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I must admit that I know nothing about this Mr. Platonov but I know that's not the way Wikipedia works like you think it does. You can't just remove sourced material. In case you have a secondary published source that labels this Mr. Platonov as "obscure monarchist historian, an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, a proponent of the blood libe" feel free to add this info to the article. The only difference, it would add up, as he is clearly "anti-Baltic", if he is also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier it would just complete the picture.--Termer (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not work by including anything that has appeared somewhere else in its own articles.
Don't worry, there is a learning curve to all this. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It's interesting to note how users who I might expect to cry the wolf in case of such an article, claiming that 'the other side' is not duly represented, now argues for the removal of alternative views with regard to the occupation. I'd keep Platonov, he's quite a specimen of the Russian chauvinist POV on the Baltic question. That's why I added his opinions some months ago, also noting that it's a not a general POV, but that of Russian chauvinists (someone later removed those comment as per neutrality, but this was ovedoing the neutral wording stuff). --Miacek (t) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Alternative views should be represented with critical commentary. If the commentary wasn't critical enough, then fix it but do not remove it simply because it is based on a different set of moral values and interprets the facts in a different manner. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To Miacek and Jaan Pärn: Wikipedia is not a forum, nor should it be. You might have reasons for wanting to keep Platonov here based on your politics, but Wikipedia's policies do not share your views. Don't take it too personally. For the record, I don't care about Estonian and modern Russian politics, but I can spot violations of Wikipedia policy when I see them. And I won't accept them passively. Nor do I see any good in consensus that violates Wikipedia policy – there are things consensus does not override. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course it isn't a forum. I was discussing, why Platonov is relevant and why I had inserted some comments into the article, instead of just writing 'Russian historian Platonov' etc. --Miacek (t) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and you were discussing how he is relevant to the Russian extremist fringe. That's very different from him or his radical-extremist fringe being relevant to Occupation of the Baltic states. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The article on Holocaust includes a wikilink to the article on Holocaust denial. Why is that not a violation of WP:FRINGE? Notable ideas have a place in every article. It's only a matter of presenting them in a critical manner. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Because Holocaust denial has its own article and get significant attention. Oleg Platonov's views on Baltic history don't. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
All in all, Platonov's ideas on the Baltic states are (lamentably) shared by many Russian people, incl. a number of Wikipedia users. Similar ideas are promoted by various pseudo- and semi-historians. E.g. Valery Shambarov who claims Estonians and Latvians led the repressions of Cheka - a blatant lie, which he also artificially connects with what he regards as the 'myth of Soviet occupations' [8]. That some phenomenon is ugly, does not mean that it does not exist. Miacek (t) 10:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You'll need a source that says Platonov's views are shared by many people – your own allegations or interpretations of their stances simply don't count here per protocol – see WP:OR. My experience is completely different from yours. I've already demonstrated that Platonov is "obscure." If you find someone less obscure and fringe, that might be able to pass muster on its own terms. Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"obscure" or not, you PasswordUsername have demonstrated nothing. In your own words "our own allegations or interpretations of their stances simply don't count here per protocol – see WP:OR".--Termer (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that he is described as "obscure" in the link provided above. What has not been demonstrated by my opponents here is Platonov's notability. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov is notable, even exemplary of his ilk, see scholarly source here. Settled, Platonov stays, fairly representing his POV per scholarly source. In the future, PasswordUsername, please keep personal contentions of "obscurity" based on nothing but your denigration of individuals (in this case Platonov) out of article content discussions and stick to scholarly sources. PetersV       TALK 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you read what you linked to, PetersV? The description given by your source is as a prolific pusher of conspiracy theories. This does not justify his inclusion according to Wikipedia's guidelines: the locution "prolific" is not – and never has been – the antonym of "obscure." I am not denigrating anyone – I have provided a link in which Platonov is described as obscure by a third-party source. Please read this discussion over again if you're still not at the point of grasping this. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Platonov's writings were analyzed for SEVERAL PAGES, all of which I read (plus leading and trailing for more context). Meanwhile your citiation alleging "obscurity" is a Rube-Golbergian construct of who said what published by whom with what motives, etc. etc. etc. You haven't produced any link to a scholarly source which indicates that Platonov is so obscure as to be non-notable. PetersV       TALK 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could stick to the discussion instead of ending each of your commentaries with an insult alleging mental feebleness on the part of other editors here. PetersV       TALK 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:Notability of this Oleg Platonov guy can be easily established. Other than the source provided by PetersV, there are 187 returns at google books and 43 at google scholar. For example another similar fringe theorist Johan Bäckman who also got himself an entire article on Wikipedia doesn't even get close to Platonov considering "Significant coverage" pr WP:Notability.--Termer (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If you read what WP:Notability says, you'll notice from the outset:

"Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or 'worthy of notice'. It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."

I am not disputing Platonov's notability. I am disputing his relevance to this article. And the Wikilawyering doesn't look right now. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. in case you PasswordUsername are here to question Oleg Platonov's WP:Notability, you have come to a wrong place. Feel free to list the article Oleg Platonov for WP:AFD and once you succeed, please come back here to remove his opinions. Until this has not happened, there is nothing much to discuss here.--Termer (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not here to question Platonov's notability. I'm here to question his relevance to Occupation of the Baltic states – the title of this article. Thia has already been explained. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov clearly has something to say about the occupation of Baltic states, so what's the problem, I'm not getting it?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
See below. PetersV       TALK 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A notable person is not necessarily a valid reference

Regarding the dispute in the previous section, I am afraid some you are confusing notability of a person with his qualifications as an expert in a given area. There are quite a few famous people who hold... er... unorthodox views in areas beyond their recognized expertise. Even Nobel Prize winners sometimes utter nonsense. While Platonov may be notorious, he is not a recognized expert in history of Baltic states, if I am not mistaken. Hence his views are irrelevant in this article. At the same time, his views may be fully explained in his own page, "Oleg Platonov". - Altenmann >t 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you are touching on the source of confusion here. If Platonov is indicative of a certain type of opinion held by more than just himself (as I believe is indicated by the source I cited), and that expression of opinion is in an area he expresses a lot of opinions (that is, such pronouncements are his primary area of activity), then he does become relevant. The question is not "is he a recognized expert." This is no different than quoting Putin in saying that even as a drunken student he knew the Baltics were not occupied. Putin is not qualified in international law, but he is notable, he is identified with the expression of that opinion (and expresses it frequently), and therefore he is relevant and merits inclusion as to his pronouncements. The litmus test in this instance is notable and relevant, not Platonov's qualification as a historian, nor Putin's qualifications as a jurist specializing in international law. You inappropriately (in this instance) conflate "not expert" with "not relevant." PetersV       TALK 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Platonov is too bizarre a person to be considered expert. He's merely used as an illustration of a particular type of POV.
As you surely recall, the difference between an expert and a pundit is that becoming an expert is requires hard study, but to become a pundit, all you need is to have an asshole an opinion. Both types can be quoted in Wikipedia, but the standards for inclusion differ considerably. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Went back to add clarification lost when disconnected, in blue above. PetersV       TALK 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. If a scholarly secondary source quotes Platonov for a number of pages as an example of a specific type of POV, exactly how is it that editors here are contending that WP cannot quote Platonov as an example of a specific type of POV? PetersV       TALK 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. My fault. Indeed, one has to distinguish views and facts. Now, Views of Putin, as well as of Russian government (and Baltic governments and officials) are directly relevant since they are prime parties in the issue. Views of, say, Nursultan Nazarbayev or De Gaulle, or even Barack Obama, are not. Views that represent particular significant groups of societies are important. You are saying that Platonov represents a certain POV of some notability. Please provide references of notable politologists who say that Platonov's views on Baltics are shared by many today. I am pretty sure you are right: there are plenty of extreme nationalists in Russia. Still, rules of wikipedia do not allow us to accept a wikipedian's unreferenced opinion that Platonov speaks for many. - Altenmann >t 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Platonov would not be cited extensively in a scholarly source if he were a fringe whacko in whose pronouncements absolutely no one took any stock. We've already established he is notable as a source of pronouncements in the political arena, there's nothing else extra that needs to be proven regarding the Baltics in particular. That's a bit like saying, I accept that Platonov is notable as a carpenter and hammers nails, but prove that he is an expert on 2-penny nails in particular. PetersV       TALK 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you contradict yourself. Either he is a fringe wacko unknown to scholars or he is a notable source. PLease choose one. - Altenmann >t 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. There were complaints earlier that the article is not balanced enough because there are existing views claiming that the Baltic states were actually never occupied. Now once someone actually found a scholar, fringe or not, who claims so indeed, and such a guy is cited in the article, it's a problem again. It is the most difficult task to keep everybody happy all the time.
In my opinion this Platonov case here is a non issue. In case the POV that "the Baltic states were never occupied" needs to be in the article according to some wikipedians, it doesn't matter really who gets cited in order to bring such a POV forward. And as far as I'm concerned, this Platonov guy seems to be the most prominent fringe theorists in the field. Unless someone thinks that Platonov should be replaced with some less significant guy, with Johan Bäckman perhaps? In any case I think it's a bad idea to remove such a POV from the article because that would start another circle of complaints...--Termer (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand, "Baltic states were actually never occupied" is not a fringe theory in Russia, and you need not to involve a fringe theorist. If I am mistaken and it is a fringe theory, then it has no place here. If I am right and it is not a fringe one, then there should be no proble to find scholars who criticize this theory. - Altenmann >t 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue is, Altenmann, that you consider Platonov as "fringe" = WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE et al. regarding inclusion here. It's completely clear, however, from scholarly sources quoting Platonov extensively that his framework for viewing the world is significant and notable and that he is that framework's most prolific author/prominent spokesman. Any of our personal judgements that Platonov is a lunatic theorist on the fringe ready to fall off the edge of the flat Earth are therefore completely immaterial here. Bottom line: if all we had were Platonov's writings and he were NOT DISCUSSED extensively in scholarly sources, you would have the option to contend for exclusion. As he (specifically) and his writings (quoted, specifically) ARE discussed extensively, that option is not available.
   On a slightly different topic, somewhere along the way in all of these, I recall seeing a source cited authored by a Russian historian (not Platonov) with something about "not occupied/legal" referencing a book (not online) source in Russian. If anyone can track down and translate, I'm more than happy to include as to the Russian nee Soviet "version" of history.
   The only way to write a balanced article regarding this topic, especially given the move by the Duma to criminalize what is being written about here, namely, that the Soviets "occupied" the Baltic states, it's more urgent than ever that we (a) describe the reputably verifiable historical facts and (b) describe the "version" of history out there. As far as I'm concerned, Putin saying as a drunk student he knew the Baltics were not occupied is just as fringe (as it's based on nothing but the empty husks of Soviet era lies) as Platonov. That doesn't, however, argue for excluding either. PetersV       TALK 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't assume what I think, rather read what I write. I don't have an opinion whether Platonov is fringe theorist. What is more, my opinion that the views in question are not fringe in Russia. Further "Putin saying" is not fringe, because he is a leader of the power with direct interests in the issue, and his opinions are of consequences. Anyway, after re-reading the section in question now I see that the major problem in it is not the inclusion of the "revisionist historian Platonov", but failure of Russian wikipedians to include positions of "non-revisionist" historians and missing critical discussion of the POV exemplified by Platonov. In particular, it would be interesting to know what textbooks say. Therefore I am going away from this discussion of Platonov, seeing it as an insignificant issue compared to what I've just said. - Altenmann >t 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. An additional problem of inclusion of "revisionist Platonov" in the section as it is now is that it may leave an impression that the rest of Russian historiography does not subscribe to this opinion. Which may be seen questionable in view of the official position of the Russian state described in the subsequent section of the article. - Altenmann >t 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Altenmann >t I do read what you write but I have no idea what are you saying. There are several Russian scholars cited in the article. Lets say Irina Saburova who has written an entire work on the subject The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States available also at jstor.org. Then there is Pavel Petrov, the head of the Russian State Archives of the Navy in St. Petersburg whose works are cited in the article on the military occupation of the Baltic states. So what is this ...questionable in view of the official position of the Russian state described in the subsequent section of the article all about, I have no idea. Are you suggesting that scholars in Russia exclusively should advance the political views of the Russian government or something? There are some who do, and some who don't, and all major authors available to us are cited in the article. In case you are aware of any other scholars who have had anything to say about the subject, please do not hesitate to bring those forward. the bottom line, the more POV's represented in the article, the better for the respect of WP:NPOV&WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And if there are several Russian scholars cited in the article, where is the need for including a WP:FRINGE figure – the aforementioned Oleg Platonov? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Very simple! There are very few Russian authors who have covered the Baltic question in depth, and Platonov is apparently one of the more notable representatives of the Russian nationalist POV on this matter. We cannot exclude a POV that is shared by plenty of people, now can we?! --Miacek (t) 05:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
But I've already explained: Platonov does not cover the Baltic question in depth. He mentions it briefly in a voluminous and notorious book (rife with anti-Semitism and accusations of Judeo-Bolshevism). Out of a multi-volume book devoted to other unsavory things he mentions the Baltics for less than a chapter.
Did you read my comments? PasswordUsername (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You probably didn't get the point of my last comment: there are hardly any Russian books that deal in depth with those issues. The book edited by Kiselyov that I also mentioned in the section Post-Soviet historiography and the works by Sīpols: they all devote less than a chapter for Baltics. --Miacek (t) 06:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: PasswordUsername "where is the need for including a WP:FRINGE figure – the aforementioned Oleg Platonov?" Again, fringe or not, he is one of the few Russian scholars who actually claims that the "Baltc states were never occupied" and "voluntarely joined the Stalinist paradise" etc. the POV that has been still somewhat supported by Russian nationalists and hard line communists. And there is no reason to eliminate a scholar who supports such a POV from the article due to WP:YESPOV. We do want as many viewpoints as possible represented in the article in order to maintain WP:NPOV], and the reader can decide and make up his/her own mind what's up with all those conflicting perspectives.--Termer (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are the quotes?

The Putin administration has stubbornly refused to admit the fact of Soviet occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia following World War II, although Putin has acknowledged that in 1989, during Gorbachevs reign, the Soviet parliament officially denounced the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact of 1939, which led to the forcible incorporation of the three baltic states into the Soviet Union.

This is a direct quote from Dick Combs 2008, pp.258-259, and yet, no quotes appear in the article. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, are you saying this text is missing from the article? --Martintg (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
He probably mean that a "word for word quote" must have quotation marks. (Igny (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I see now, I couldn't find it in the main text, it was in a footnote. I'll add the quotes now. --Martintg (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I put in quotes and then reverted myself as this is one among numerous refs citing texts—and they are likely all direct quotes from those texts. If I put quotation marks on only on one, that implies none of the rest are quotations from the texts cited. Personally, I don't care either way. A couple of things.
  1. If we can word concerns more clearly, as in: Even if you use the {{ref|...}} template, you should make sure you place quotations around any text that is being cited which appears verbatim in the cited text. This is required to avoid plagiarism and copyright infringement.
  2. Since we are putting in quotes (and you see my reason for self-reverting), assuming we need them, do we have all the materials available/are the editors still active who had them to insure we quote anything else that requires it?
Thanks. PetersV       TALK 21:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just re-phase this in our own words so that it is no longer verbatim and hence quotes are no longer required? What is the convention here? --Martintg (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, paraphrases are perfectly acceptable, but they are sometimes more difficult to write and often require attribution, i.e. "Henry Smith said..."Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
{{#tag:ref|{{cite book |quote=... added.--Termer (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

International community

It's written now that:


The citation is faithful but I believe that the author didn't mean exactly what this passage taken out of context says. Here's the overview of the official positions of different countries and entities made by User:Vecrumba in the course of the 'Occupation of Baltic states' mediation. According to that table USA and EU countries did not recognise the incorporation of Baltic states in the USSR. However besides Sweden and Nazi Germany there were also Finland and all the Warsaw pact countries that did. And what about the rest of the world? Did any other country explicitly recognise or not recognise the incorporation? Alæxis¿question? 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The info is already presented in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed I've overlooked it. But then there are several issues here:
  • What China is meant? The flag is of PRC but R of China then (in 1960) controlled the UN seat. Since the source is not available online could somebody check what is written there. It would be also interesting to know in what way China did not recognise the incorporation (no relations with Baltic states, no final decision, explicit declaration,...).
  • Netherlands are mentioned among the states that didn't grant de jure recognition in the 'The Baltic question during the Cold War' (with no official relations with Baltic governments in exile and without a final decision) while according to another provided source Netherlands 'seemed' to recognise the incorporation de jure.
  • The countries like Dominican republic, Nicaragua and Cuba were under very significant US influence at that time (and far from being democracies). So imho we should list the Warsaw pact countries also here (besides it would be interesting to know what was the position of Yugoslavia, neither puppet nor Warsaw Pact state).
Given all this I think that the assessment given in Talmon's book (Most of the states refused to recognize the incorporation of Baltiс states) is more accurate than the Smith's one that is currently in the lede. Alæxis¿question? 18:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is fine. I will add a bit more information regarding observations regarding the international community and the uniqueness of the Baltic states case in international law. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Communism

This site would be relevant for articles like Communism and Criticisms of Communist party rule. The topic of this article on the other hand is much much narrower. We cannot add a link to this site to every article about USSR and its history. Alæxis¿question? 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vercrumba, there are millions of links over internet. Wikipedia needs text and references; it is not a web directory of what is written or shown everywhere. - Altenmann >t 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if this Global Museum of Communism is notable, why not write an article about it, see Museum of Communism? - Altenmann >t 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How is a link to a museum web site under "additional reading" which contains specific information regarding the occupation making WP into a web directory? If you and Alaexis (welcome to the Baltics from South Ossetia et al.) feel that strongly that this link must be deleted, please create an RfC here for uninvolved input, as I've already suggested, and let's see how that goes for you.
   In the meantime, deleting completely appropriate pointers to additional directly pertinent information is little more than vandalism. When I have some time after the proceedings I'll definitely look into putting the article you suggest on my short list of things to do. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from insulting fellow wikipedians. Please show me where the webpage The Global Museum on Communism contains "specific information regarding the occupation". - Altenmann >t 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As the site is the online museum presence of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established as a non-profit educational organization (in addition to the monument part) by the United States Congress, that is notable enough. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on the topic of this discussion; implying that Altenmann or I are somehow involved does not help us in this discussion at all.
This link is not something that has always been in the article and what we suddenly want to remove. It has only been added today and the burden of establishing consensus should be on the side of editors who want to add it, not remove it.
However I have absolutely nothing against an RfC and am willing to file it. Alæxis¿question? 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Alaexis, you have been editing in a generally pro-Russian interests manner (my perception) ever since I first starting following the frozen conflict zone some years ago. At that time I rather had my hands full with one, then two, paid propaganda pushers regarding Transnistria, so I didn't have any time to deal with South Ossetia. Altenmann has reverted edits in the EE sphere to match PasswordUsername's, so both of you are "involved" in the EE area and, more widely, how Russian interests/opinions are represented regarding the Baltics and Eastern Europe. There is no "implication," it's a simple statement of fact. A RfC works best when soliciting the input of uninvolved editors, that is outside EE article involvement. That is not you, Altenmann, or myself. Let's see what develops, there's no rush, perhaps you'd like to make the case for deletion and I can provide a counterpoint (presenting my own case, not picking apart yours, such presentations of editorial viewpoints tend to quickly degenerate along predictable lines based on editors involved). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So my main arguments against adding the link to the Global Museum on Communism site to this article are as follows:

  • The topic of the article is much narrower than the scope of the site. Adding this site to every USSR-related article would be clearly inappropriate (although there are a few articles where this site would fit nicely in the ELs). WP:ELNO, #13 deals exactly with this situation.
  • Whatever valuable information this site contains on this topiс could be incorporated in the article text with proper attribution and thus adding it to EL section is not needed (per WP:ELNO, #1). Alæxis¿question? 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot see how this propaganda site is relevant to the topic. Why not to link Chineese Communist Party site as well or site of Communist Party of Russian Federation? Anyway I will not war with you on this issue. This article is already of low quality so one more low-quality link does not add anything to it.--Dojarca (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Only think it should be properly labelled as an anti-Communist site, not as something dedicated to the glory of Communism.--Dojarca (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_4&oldid=1137054064"