Jump to content

Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: majority after 25 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) → Soviet occupation of the Baltic states – The current name is obvious, inflammatory POV pushing. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 02:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This option also has the benefit of WP:PRECISION. I think this is the way to go. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I changed the proposed title. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Suggested new name for the article, Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (or Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) if it is necessary to separate it from 1944 events), seems to be the most succinct of the suggestions while being the least potential POV bias. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Martin, there are several meanings to the word "legal". One means "permissible by law" (e.g. murder is not legal), the other means "concerned with the law" (e.g. the German legal system). The definition of annexation relies on the latter meaning, in that it is concerned with the legal aspects of incorporation, not the legality. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster even includes the word "legal" in their respective definitions of "annexation". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, there is no distinction as to legal or illegal in the definitions, that is associated with the specific act of annexation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
But what sort of "legal" is it? Is it the "in accordance with the law" sense? Or is it the "pertaining to matters of law" sense? Occupation is the physical act, but the filing of the "paperwork"—regardless of whether it is "lawful"—is the "legal" act of annexation. Not the "lawful" act of annexation, but the aspects of the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR that were not directly forceful—e.g. the rigged "elections". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In the sense that the Soviet Union never acquired sovereign title over Baltic states. The Baltic states as entities in international law continued to exist de jure while the Soviet Union merely exercised de facto control over them. At least three things are required for the acquisition of sovereignty, effective control, agreement of the people and general international recognition. The Soviet Union had the first but never the latter two, especially in 1940, hence the annexation was illegal. --Nug (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
....which is definition #1 ("in accordance with the law"). You have not addressed why definition #2 ("pertaining to matters of law") is not the relevant one here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It would appear to me that there is no such word that would sum up "not pertaining to matters of law". ~~Xil (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Lothar, it wasn't clear to be what you were after. If you want a definition "pertaining to matters of law", one related to the "paperwork" if you like, then the passing of amendments to the existing election laws that facilitated the elections were illegal because a) insufficient time elapsed between the passing of these laws and their promulgation as required by parliamentary procedure, b) the upper house of parliament never sat to ratify these amendments, so the whole basis of the elections were illegal from the get go. Additionally the constitutions explicitly required that any joining of unions had first be put to the direct vote of the people via a referendum or plebiscite, this was not done. So regardless of whether the elections were rigged or not, they had no constitutional power to decide on joining any union what so ever. --Nug (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I haven't once contested that the annexation was "illegal"; I have never asked you to clarify why the annexation was illegal. My contention is that annexation is a "legal" term, in that it pertains to the legalistic aspects of incorporation. The paperwork may have indeed been a total sleazefest, but it was still paperwork. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is the confusion between "incorporation" and "annexation". In international law, the term "annexation" has a specific implication, it is the uno actu that extinguishes the state and brings that territory under the other state's sovereignty. However, sovereignty never passed to the Soviet Union and the Baltis states were not extinguished and retained their personality in international law. So either the term "annexation" must be prefaced with "illegal" or the term removed as redundant since scholars like Mälksoo, Marek and others confirm that in the case of the Baltic states "illegal annexation" == "occupation". --Nug (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
@Lothar, the paper work of the occupier is immaterial. It is only material if you suggest it terminated or changed the status of being occupied, which it did not. Since you don't suggest that, then keeping annexation in the title in any form is in fact inconsistent with your views, no? (And feel free to use my talk, it's getting hard to find anything in here!) Recall that the Russian Duma passed a resolution reminding Latvia (and the rest by inference) it joined the USSR completely legally according to international law (which would include Latvian), not just Soviet law, a completely bogus contention. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I also can hardly be blamed in saying that the annexation was legal, so let's assume that we all have consensus at least about that. Upon reading the literature, I came to the same conclusion Lothar did (if I understand it correctly): "legal aspects of annexation" mean the procedure of placement of some territory under annexing power's domestic legislation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
PS. Sorry, Lothar, for interference, but I think it is necessary to clarify that my position on this aspect is close to your.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, let's stick with sources. Firstly, we have an Edelstein's definition of annexation:
"Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland. " (Edelstein, Op. Cit).
You see there is no de iure or legal there.
Secondly, to avoid any accusation in playing with sources, let me explain how did I find the next source.
Firstly, I went to google.scholar.com
Secondly I typed "definition of annexation" and got this
Thirdly, I threw away non-scholarly web sites and books containing "Lenin's definition of annexation", and I found the this
Fourthly, the source contained the following text:
"For annexation to take place, there must be a clear intent to annex and to acquire territorial sovereignty, through “a unilateral declaration after the conquest of the territory in question and the final defeat of the adversary. If either element is missing there has been no annexation”25"
Fifthly, the ref 25 says: "R. Bindschedler, “Annexation”, 3 Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 19-23, at 19 (R. Benhardt ed., 1982). This definition also adds the possibility of annexation by treaty, in which there was an element of compulsion."
In connection to that, I propose to stop this discussion, or to provide reliable sources that challenge what my sources say, or provide alternative definition of annexaion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
PS. I fully described the procedure I used to find this source. If you see some bias in it, please, explain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fully describing your synthesis procedure. Unfortunately Wikipedia policy prohibits your method, see WP:SYNTHESIS. For a sourced explanation of "illegal annexation" relevant to the Baltic case, please refer to Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR : a study of the tension between normativity and power in international law by Lauri Mälksoo. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, since I made no statements here (except explanations of the search procedure) I do not understand what synthesis are you accusing me in. Please, clarify or retract your allegations.
Secondly, I see the same trick here as I described before: to jump from narrow to general discussion and back. Let me remind you that you and Lothar were discussing some general issue, however, the amount of sources presented during that discussion was insufficient (Lothar provided just two dictionary definitions, and you provided nothing). Therefore, it was quite reasonable from my side to provide two definitions of "annexation".
However, you immediately jumped to Malksoo, thereby ignoring my argument. Do I understand correctly that by doing that you decided to choose the option #1 (to use only the sources that explicitly discuss the Baltic states) described by me below? Just say, "yes" or "no"? I will agree on anything you choose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS is clear: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This is precisely what you are doing, joining source A (Edelstein's definition) with Source B and Source C (Encyclopaedia of Public International Law) to derive a conclusion D that none of the three sources you cite state. On the other hand what I have said with respect to "illegal annexation" is verifiable back to Mälksoo's monograph. Please stop these apparent games. --Nug (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
How did I combine the sources I cited? Regarding Malksoo, as Lothar just explained, this thread is devoted to the issue in general. Please, return to your conversation with Lothar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, my intention with this subthread was to try a different, more general-conceptual approach that does not involve slicing and dicing "sources" in endless walls of wikitext. I don't appreciate that you have hijacked this discussion with more of the exact same stuff that we have hashed, rehashed, unhashed, and circumhashed below. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Lothar, that was not my intention. I appreciate your good faith effort to find a way out of an impasse. If you believe by applying common sense you will be able to do that, feel free to continue, I will not interfere. However, I see you yourself used dictionary definitions of "annexation" so I thought one more reliable source would be relevant to this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries. The dictionary definitions of "annexation" were provided as a more passing and auxiliary sort of support to demonstrate how the "common reader" would be inclined to interpret the term, not as a central focus of discussion. Thank you for disengaging. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW "For annexation to take place, there must be a clear intent to annex and to acquire territorial sovereignty, through “a unilateral declaration after the conquest of the territory in question and the final defeat of the adversary. If either element is missing there has been no annexation”25" seems to be against your position - if the adversary has formed government in exile that is supported by many countries it technically is not defeated. That said I hope you are not going to start dicing and slicing again and I think Edelstein, which you again brought up, has been proven irrelevant here - he both calls annexation an occupation and what you are citing is his reasoning for excluding it from analysis, a researcher's desire to find reason to get rid of something doesn't make good general definition. And I still maintain this should be moved because it simply does not follow WP:NC, I merely invite you not to call view that annexation was illegal POV as it is majority view (as stated in e-mail you provided before) ~~Xil (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Xil, I am not "dicing and slicing", I am quoting what the sources say. You again resorted to personal attacks. Not only that is prohibited by our policy, it also demonstrates that you understand weakness of your position.
Your major problem is that you believe that some single term exists that may adequately describe this case. In contrast, I insist that that case cannot be described in few words, and any oversimplification is unacceptable here. Since I am trying to discuss nuances, I have no need in "dicing and slicing".
Regarding your "if the adversary has formed government in exile, etc" Who formed a government? The Baltic states technically ceased to exist, and most states did recognise that fact. There were nothing even remotely resembling London Poles in the case of the Baltic states.
Regarding Edelstein, I have no idea where, when, and by whom he "has been proven irrelevant here" - you simply seem to prefer to ignore this source (as well as Galperin), because it does not fit into your concept.
I admit that some special terminology is being used by various authors to describe the Baltic case, however, no separate definition of occupation and annexation can exist that describes the Baltic case specifically. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
PS Re "I merely invite you not to call view that annexation was illegal POV " Do not ascribe to me the statements that I never made. When did I say that it is POV? BTW, have you read my post I made in 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I repeated what Lothar said right before this, if you are going to throw around accusations, don't be selective. As to London Poles - that's an opinion, most countries recognized continued existence of Baltic States in some form. Relevance of Edelstein was seriously questioned, so one would expect you stop bringing it up and find something new (you did one, but not the other). I have no idea who is the other source and I can't find a previous reference to it in text here. As to assigning you "statements that I never made" - this is exactly what you've been doing for most of discussion (probably one of main causes of text wall as it is hard to refrain from setting one's intended meaning straight), however I was not talking about you, you might have noticed it is original reason of move proposal. I feel uneasy to support something I don't agree with and that other users are wrongfully accused. This, however, is not position I am advancing as reason for move. As I just explained again I do not believe this title meets policy requirements. Oh, and your post - please find in history and link, I can't find it ~~Xil (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I threw no accusations. What I write is just a statement of fact: you accused me in "dicing and slicing" (i.e. in manipulation with sources). This is a strong accusation, and while unsupported by serious proof it is just a personal attack. Don't do that again.
Re "most countries recognized continued existence of Baltic States in some form" I would like to see your source.
Re "As to assigning you "statements that I never made" - this is exactly what you've been doing for most of discussion" Examples?
Re "however I was not talking about you, you might have noticed it is original reason of move proposal." Sorry, but your original wording was "I merely invite you not to call view that annexation...", so you falsely accused me in supporting the idea that annexation was legal. Please, do not pretend you meant something else.
Re "Oh, and your post - please find in history and link, I can't find it" Which post? Do you mean this: "The fact that many sources discuss illegality of annexation does not mean the word "illegal" must be in the title"? If yes, then I just followed Malksoo's advice: he recommended to add "annexation" to the title provided that its illegality is being properly discussied in the article's body. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
See what I meant was not what you do with sources (though with Edelstein... that was interesting), but walls of text, which mostly is result of dicing and slicing other user's opinions. If you want example refer to what you just said right after requesting examples. You did not recognize I didn't mean you specifically (and was not in fact accusing anyone, just asking people not to), might be because I referred to e-mail right after that, my bad - I was thinking what I am writing too long. Explained I meant something else. Done. Stop cutting up my post to prove, especially to myself, that I implied something else. And I do not know what post you were referring to, hence I asked. Now to the point - you disagree with most countries considering Baltic States "de iure" existing entity? I think not. So stop requesting me to prove what you know anyway. ~~Xil (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Since my opponents' posts contain, as a rule, more then one thesis, it is sometimes not easy to understand which concrete argument is being answered. That is why I find convenient to quote the beginning of the paragraph I am answering. That is my normal style, which I use during last four years. I find that convenient, and you are the first person who expressed displeasure with this style. BTW, look at this. The author of this article (see supplementary materials) found that that way to conduct discussion is rather common.
Re "you disagree with most countries ... etc" Since we do not discuss state continuity issues (it belongs to another article), de iure recognition doesn't matter. Most countries (except the US, Vatican and Ireland) recognised de facto annexation, and, implicitly, recognised new borders of the USSR. Since this article discusses political realities, de facto recognition of illegal (we all agree about that) annexation is sufficient for the purposes of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I was pointing to what your source says, remember? It requires defeat, this ought to exclude other power's continued existence. Just pointing out to you that it again says something slightly different than you are arguing for. Also annexation itself evidently doesn't belong to this article as it is not discussed here. So again - WP:NC require title to be on topic ~~Xil (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Lothar's proposal and Oppose Nug's idea. "Annexation of the Baltic states" is widely used in literature (compare this and that), and the title must follow commonly accepted terminology. The word "illegal" is definitely not needed per that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, there are plenty of sources that discuss "Annexation of the Baltic states" and the academic consensus is that the annexation was illegal. Nobody, other than Russian "patriotic-nationalists", claims it was legal. --Nug (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that many sources discuss illegality of annexation does not mean the word "illegal" must be in the title. In addition, since the word "illegal" was the primary cause of the current renaming attempt, the most reasonable way to resolve the issue would be to remove this word first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The term for and act of annexation makes no distinction as to legality, therefore the average person will assume it is legal and/or confers rights in some way. This is Wikipedia, not an international law journal. Simplest title is the best. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support RfC move as stated at start. Collect (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Whoop whoop pull up initial point was that the current title is non-neutral. However, the proposed title (" Soviet occupation of the Baltic states") is not the most commonly used term (gscholar gives just 120 results, whereas "annexation of the Baltic states" gives 497 results, and "occupation of the Baltic states" gives 343 results. In other words, proposed title is less neutral then the initial article's name (before addition of the word "illegal"). I strongly suggest closing admin to take this point into account, because simple vote count cannot overrule the requirements of our neutrality policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, "occupation of the Baltic states" -annexation yields 228 results, while "annexation of the Baltic states" -occupation yields 167 results. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, remember that "occupation of the Baltic states" may also refer to German occupation, whereas annexation refers to the USSR only. In any event, I do not propose to draw any far reaching conclusions from minor differences between gscholar results. My only point is that, since gscholar gives comparable amount of results for both terms, the neutral title must contain both words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert, it is the addition of the word "illegal" which clarifies and therefore de-POVs the word "annexation". There are two choices for title neutrality here, those are Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, 1940 and/or 1944, OR Soviet occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states, 1940 specifically. Editors not invested in the content conflict here (per your more of a Soviet "intervention") appear to be building a consensus without our bickering over whether simpler is better. Complaining that this is not voting is your complaining that your one vote objecting should veto consensus. I suggest you review the concept and implementation of WP:CONSENSUS. There is nothing which is not neutral in the proposed simplified title. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Whereas the article can and should discuss illegality of annexation, addition of the word "illegal" to the title is not as obvious as you think. Google scholar results demonstrate that persuasively.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You come up with a false contention, you then do irrelevant word counts, and then purport they support your contention. Your statement implies there is some doubt that annexation was absolutely illegal or that it in no manner conferred any rights on the occupying Soviet power. There is absolutely no doubt. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. In connection to that, I am wondering how my proper concern (expressed above) will be taken into account by renaming the article as it was initially proposed. I would say the opposite: by this renaming, my proper will be totally ignored, so we cannot speak about any consensus here.
Please do not mix "consensus" with WP:VOTE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The act of annexation is superfluous from the standpoint of the state of occupation. Occupation without annexation in the title clarifies the illegality of Soviet presence and that no rights were conferred to the USSR, which one might infer with both terms in the title. "Annexation" is neither a substitute for, competitor with, partner with, nor modifier of "occupation." "Annexation" being "widely used" is immaterial with respect to the title. I suggest that the most neutral title here is also the simplest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. @ Paul Siebert, you muddy the waters with syllogistic and therefore bogus Google search contentions. For example,
  • "food in paris" = 748,000 results
  • "dinner in paris" = 1,340,000 results
Therefore an article about food (type and content of cuisine) in Paris must mention dinner (serving time and customary selections of cuisine) in the title as when the food is served returns more results than what it is that is being eaten. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm going to leave my comments responding to Paul Siebert's contentions for now, if any editors have further questions on the issue of "occupation versus annexation" -- itself a complete syllogism as there is no choice or even relationship outside the specific context here, please read through prior discussions or feel free to contact me on my talk page. I personally would like to see us arrive at a consensus with a simple, neutral, title. I believe I've made my case, and it's based on simple facts, not machinations based on self-referential self-fulfilling Google search contentions. Acceptance of some of the Google search results presented here has, as its prerequisite, acceptance as factual and neutral the contention(s) ascribing meaning to the results. The results themselves are a misdirection at best. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The act of annexation is by no means superfluous from the standpoint of the state of occupation (please, re-read our old discussions, and the sources cited therein). Moreover, according to those times' standards, annexation ended the state of occupation.
I do not muddy the waters, and I request you to stop your continuous personal attacks. Firstly, I never use google results (only google scholar). Secondly, whereas "dinner" and "food" belong to the same category, "occupation" and "annexation" are two different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The point is that you use word counts instead of scholarship to support your syllogistic and utterly inappropriate comparisons of occupation and annexation. That you've limited the set of materials over which you conduct your word count matters not at all. Insisting you use "google scholar" not "google" is merely an attempt to ascribe scholarship to your contention by association.
And as for your two different things, illegal annexation is merely an act during the span of occupation, occupation is a superset of annexation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"occupation is a superset of annexation"? You perfectly know that that is simply untrue. I refuse to assume you good faith in this situation: the arguments and the sources had been provided, for several time, that demonstrate that this your statement is totally false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
My contention is completely true, of course. Occupation came first. Annexation followed, changing nothing regarding the status of the Baltics as belligerently occupied territory. Soviet Union fell apart, end of annexation, end of occupation. It then took several year for occupying forces (now Russian) to leave. The act of and duration of annexation was completely contained within the period of occupation and it subsequent military disassembly. Your contention of falsehood on my part is, unfortunately, utterly false. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • Comment. It seems to me that we are simultaneously discussing two different renamings:
  1. Present title -> Soviet occupation of the Baltic states
  2. Present title -> Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) (back to an old title that was unilaterally changed by Nug).
In connection to that, could every participant of this discussion do the following: (i) specify which concrete renaming he supports (because it is not always clear from heir posts), and (ii) provide his rationale (why the title he supports is more neutral/accurate then the present one). Please, remember, we are not voting here, and every opinion must be supported with sources/arguments.
In addition, I also suggest to consider a third variant Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (1940), which is (i) shorter than the version #2, (ii) more precise then the version #1 (because it specifies that the article deals with 1940 events only), more neutral than the version #1 (because it more adequately reflects what majority scholarly sources say).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Problem with your (ii) solution that it still directly involves the statement which led to this discussion in the first place - in other words there is quite distinct possibility that it solves nothing and only postpones the matter. Furthermore it becomes apparent from State continuity of the Baltic states that using the term annexation might not be accurate - and instead could be considered to be POV issue - since the annexation was not de jure widely accepted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The title needs to explicitly disambiguate that annexation was illegal or not mention it as all, as it changed nothing regarding the status of the Baltics as occupied territory. With all respect to @Paul Siebert, if editors believe the rename is simpler and preferable, I can respect that consensus. Asking everyone to rehash their position is like mounting a filibuster attempting to kill a piece of legislation you don't care for. I find what editors have stated regarding their positions perfectly clear. And you've stated your position that it wasn't even really an occupation perfectly clearly elsewhere, that "annexation" is used more than "occupation"—that's like saying discussions of cuisine mention the plate more than the food.
I thank the editors who have spent their time to contribute here to cut through the penchant for argumentation to descend into minutia and lose focus on the big picture. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
@Wanderer602. I already demonstrated, quite persuasively, that more sources describe that event as "annexation". The statement that lead to a discussion was a word "illegal" in the title: whereas it is hard to deny that annexation was illegal, the source, as a rule, do not use the word "illegal". See, for example, the monograph authored by Malksoo, one of leading experts in the field: he does not use the word "illegal" in the title (and, btw, he does not use the word "occupation" either).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
And as shown also very persuasively is that annexation was not widely accepted. Hence just as it maybe from certain POV to add 'annexation' to the title it does seem equally valid to clarify that matter with term 'illegal' when considering the matter from another POV. Hence to maintain NPOV it would be best for all involved to drop the excess terms like 'annexation' and 'illegal'. Having sources to back some statement up does not make it into a neutral statement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand you. Who concretely demonstrated that the term "annexation" is not widely used? I would say the opposite, "annexation" (illegal, forcible, whatever) is the major term to describe this event. See, e.g. Illegal Annexationa nd State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. By Lauri Mdlksoo. Therefore, if you want to be precise, the term "illegal annexation" is more adequate than "occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Paul, strength of persuasion is ill-judged by the person trying to do the persuading. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Though it is perhaps noteworthy that no illegal annexation happened in 1944 and that it was rather a reoccupation, this title is too long and unnecessary as just "occupation" is common way to refer to the event. Also disagree billing "illegal annexation" as POV pushing, it is recognized as illegal by many sources for example, notion that annexation was violation of constitutional and international law is part of Latvian constitutional rights as it was legal basis for restoration of independence. Annexation can be legal as it means any incorporation of one country into another e.g. Texas annexation apparently was result of agreement between both countries supported by their citizens ~~Xil (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That is untrue. As I demonstrated, using gscholar (see above), "annexation" is even more common term. In that case, an arbitrary choice of one of two common terms is a violation of our neutrality policy. Therefore, both "occupation" and "annexation" should be in the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
While Wikipedia:Search engine test is often a good way to test a theory, it is not very reliable and should not be the main point in making a choice, especially, if there isn't owerwhelming diffrence between numbers (as the fact that other users had different results shows). In this case is likely that both words will show up in description of the events, as opposed to cases where you need to choose best synonym. You imply that this is such case, but in fact occupation is entry and presence of foreign military in a country, while annexation is the act of incorporation of a country into another country. Both events took place and the later was result of the former. If you want to know what it is called, you need at least limit search results to tiles and doing so you get 260 results for Soviet occupation of the Baltic states -annexation, 6 for Soviet annexation of the Baltic states -occupation and 70 for Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states ~~Xil (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Soviet annexation" is hardly an adequate term. "Annexation of the Baltic states" (497 results) is a more adequate term. We do not need a word "Soviet" in this case, because the Baltic states had never been annexed by anyone else (although they were also occupied by Germany).
Regarding the essay you cite, please, keep in mind that the essay tells that gscholar is a quite adequate search engine for this purpose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Re your "in fact occupation is entry and presence of foreign military in a country, while annexation is the act of incorporation of a country into another country. Both events took place and the later was result of the former", a situation is not as simple as you think. In actuality, annexation ends a state of occupation, and some territory cannot be considered as occupied and annexed simultaneously. See, e.g., David M. Edelstein Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer 2004), pp. 49–91. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it can, if the annexation is illegal and the previous country continues to be a legal entity. Also note the article is not about annexation, but manly occupation. And, inadequacy of Google in cases with small result diffrences, unfortunately is fact of life, essay provided merely for your entertainment and because it explains how this test has nothing to do with neutrality (as you implied) and doesn't beat the due process ~~Xil (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Paul Siebert has wheeled out David M. Edelstein's "Occupational Hazards" article a least three times already in the past, in May 2010, January 2011 and in June 2012. And on each occasion it was pointed out to Paul that Edelstein does not talk about the Baltics specifically. So in other words, applying Edelstein to the Baltic case is OR. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You probably noticed that Xil made some general statement. Therefore, we do not need to restrict ourselves with the sources dealing with the Baltic states specifically. In addition, no specific term "occupation" can exist that is applicable to the Baltic states only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody suggested that there is some definition of "occupation" that applies to Baltic States only. Occupation is presence of foreign military force. It is well known that Soviet military force was present in Baltic States until 1990s. Since the annexation was illegal it is viewed as never having taken place. Source you provided does neither discusses particular example nor even annexation in general, in fact it apparently seeks to exclude prolonged military presence from analysis, hence excludes any kind of annexation. And also while I appreciate that scholarly theories are important they cannot outrank current constitutional and international law. Plus this never was my argument why move is needed, I was merely pointing out that "illegal annexation" is neutral term and I hence disagree with reason given in the original proposal ~~Xil (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Xil is correct, as I have also explained. The sense that "illegal" is a pointy term added to the title, whether that sense is correct or not, is addressed by removing the mention of annexation to simplify the title, again, as annexation was merely something that was done during said occupation. It appears to me that Paul Siebert's rehashing of his personal POV is not advancing of the discourse here.
I Move we advance the discourse here to a consensus decision before the editors who have made the time to positively contribute here lose interest or run away making the sign of the cross behind them. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if Siebert is pushing for a view where annexation automatically ends occupation, your notion of "merely something that was done during said occupation" will not do for him. I think adapting the view would cause quite some domino effect as we'd need to come up with novel explanation of what happened after annexation, but before Nazi occupation etc. Not really something Wikipedia usually does ~~Xil (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
@Xil. Your "Since the annexation was illegal it is viewed as never having taken place" is a strong statement that needs in serious support. So far, most sources agree that annexation, despite its illegal nature, did have legal consequences. Regarding "foreign military force" it is not always clear which force is considered as foreign in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, I told you I was referring to actual law and which foreign military force too. Plus, I clearly indicated that I did not put it up as point for discussion. My original point was that the new title is exceedingly precise, especially given that article doesn't even discuss annexation past definition in the lead. Superfluous offtopic discussions in which you try to discredit another user regarding a side note they made are neither nice nor can lead anywhere. ~~Xil (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, the content of the article is also problematic. The wording of the "Red Army invades" section creates an impression that the annexation occurred via direct military invasion (similar to what occurred in Poland), whereas the actual events are described by Malksoo as intervention. Malksoo speaks about a forceful annexation under a treat of force, not about military invasion. The only thing that allowed him to speak about a real usage of force was naval blockade. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
We are discussing title not content. Changing one line in lead wouldn't change what article is about. Per Wikipedia:Article titles titles should describe actual topic of the article and should not be overly long. ~~Xil (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The actual topic of the article is illegal annexation. It included "sovetization", and all excesses that accompanied it. All of that resembled annexation or absorption, except one thing: the initial step was illegal. Therefore, if you want to make the title shorter, which would be correct, the most correct title would be "illegal annexation", or "forceful annexation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not. The article specifically concerns 1940. Sovietization was gradual process taking many years. The illegal annexation was a formal legal process (in fact three separate cases here) only briefly touched upon here. As for rest, please note that policy I linked in previous post says that article titles should not be pedantic and common form is to be chosen over technically correct forms. ~~Xil (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"Sovetization" can hardly be considered as a part of occupation, because the occupying power considers the occupied territory as foreign, and takes no steps to assimilate local population. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sovietization not part of Soviet occupation? Not in any reputable source I've read. Rather, Sovietization and Russification were integral to the Soviet occupation. More of more of an intervention? Clearly you are taking an action ("Sovietization") and applying some general concept of occupation having nothing specific to do with the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Try to understand what I write: since occupation is intrinsically temporary (per Edelstein, Jones et al), and since the occupied territory is deemed foreign by both party, an occupying side does not attempt to bring the legal status of local population to its domestic standards. In contrast, Soviet authorities attempted full sovetization, which meant that they treated the Baltic states as integral parts of the USSR. This is an immanent trait of annexation, not occupation. Try to re-read Malksoo's e-mail.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, Edelstein deals in expectations of the occupier, not the "intrinsic" nature of the occupier's actions. By your logic, WP:SYNTHESIS applying a resource which pointedly avoids the Baltic case, annexation terminates occupation, which was not the case regarding the legal sovereign status of the Baltic states. You insist on mixing apples and oranges. The act of annexation was immaterial to the status of the Baltic states being occupied territory. And I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your contention the USSR domesticated the Baltic states.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Which two or more sources I combined? Do not trow random accusations.
I am not mixing anything. If you don't know whether to laugh or cry, try to read, e.g., Malksoo. Then, when we will (hopefully) come to an agreement to choose one of two options outlined by me (to avoid random jumping between general and Baltic specific arguments).
If you don't want the whole book, tell me, and I'll point at the specific section in this book that is relevant to our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • Roundup This move request has been opened for two weeks now and I count at least 12 editors (many being third party) supporting the move to Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (with a few wanting 1940 added), while one editor Paul Siebert is implacably against. With regard to Paul's objections, he has raised these same points three or four times in the past and we have discussed them all each time in great detail, see the archives. Consensus isn't unanimity, thus I'd say that we have achieved the necessary consensus to move the article as proposed. --Nug (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. There are two editors (Lothar and I) who supported return to the old title (before your unilateral rename). In addition, I proposed several other titles, and you failed to explain why those titles are not acceptable. Regarding my objections, they were essentially ignored by you, not addressed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes Paul, we have addressed these same old objections of yours repeatedly many times in the past, but you seem to have developed a tendency of abruptly abandoning the discussion and disappearing when confronted with the flaws of your arguments. Whether that behaviour is attributable to a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I'll let others draw their own conclusions. Lothar stated: "If there is a general desire to drop the "annexation" bit, I'd be amenable to that" while pointing out he would prefer to add 1940 to the title in that case (which I think is a good idea). It is only you who is implacably opposed. --Nug (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, accusation in disruptive editing, even indirect one, is a rather strong thing. You should either continue this story (at AE, or using another relevant procedure) or shut up. In addition, since you resorted to accusations in bad faith, let me say few words in response. I have no illusion about your (I mean Nug's and Peters) good faith: you two, in contrast to overwhelming majority of users I am dealing with, are absolutely not ready to accept any argument that do not 100% coincide with your own position (I realised that several years ago, but I preferred not to throw such accusations without serious reasons). I fully realise that you continue discussion with me just pro forma, to demonstrate to admins that you are making good faith efforts to achieve consensus. However, again, I have no illusion about possibility of consensus with you two. In that situation, I reserve a right to join and abandon the pro forma discussion at any convenient moment.
By saying that, I by no means question the good faith of other participants of this discussion. For those who joined the discussion recently it would be interesting to read the following e-mail written by Lauri Malksoo, one of leading experts in the field. Nug and Peters are perfectly aware of this e-mail, where prof Malksoo explains his position, expressed in his articles and monographs, especially for us. However, for some reason (probably because of their persistent adherence to our content policy) those two glorious users prefer to ignore explanations from this reputable author. The Malksoo's e-mail says:
""I have been told that a debate has unfolded in wikipedia over whether an article should be entitled "Occupation of the Baltic States" or "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In my opinion, the debate demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of the whole topic. However, I do not think that choosing any of the two titles would result in the 'victory' of any of the political fractions.
In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic States were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.
However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States.
Many thanks for your interest and with greetings to all wikipedia editors,
Lauri Mälksoo,
Professor of International Law,
University of Tartu"
I can summarise this e-mail as follows
  1. Prof Malksoo believes that the word "occupation" does not adequately reflect the complex political realities in the Baltic states under the Soviets;
  2. Prof Malksoo, who is a persistent proponent of the thesis of illegality on the annexation, does not mention the need in the word "illegal" in the title (although he believes, and I fully agree with that, that the article's body should explain on illegality quite unequivocally);
  3. Prof Malksoo believes that addition of the word "annexation" to the title would be beneficial for the article.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Annexation is an act which was used in WW II to deprive occupied people's existing rights, then again the Soviet Union did not respect the rights of the occupied countries to begin with. For that matter Mälksoo also agrees that annexation was and remained illegal and also notes that the Soviet annexation could be equated with extended occupation. Wanderer602 (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Since nobody here, including myself, questions illegality of annexation, I do not find your argument about illegality as productive. We all agree that annexation was illegal, so the question is how to describe this situation (illegal annexation) more adequately. Obviously, Malksoo believe it is important that both occupation and annexation took place, and the latter changed the nature of occupation. However, currently, the most important question is the legal aspects of annexation, and Malksoo argues, quite correctly, that illegal annexation had only minimal legal consequences, and we can speak about restitution ad integrum (although this point is not universally accepted so far).
Once again, in a context of the issue of state continuity of the Baltic states we can and should speak about occupation. However, in a context of actual state of things during 1940-91 (de facto, not de jure) we should speak about the Baltic states as about parts of the USSR, and Malksoo makes this point quite clear.--
To summarise. The articles about state continuity of the Baltic states should stress the fact that illegal annexation is (de jure) tantamount to occupation, and we can speak about restoration not re-creation of the Baltic states (which is almost universally accepted point of view). However, in the articles about historical events in the Baltic states, the stress should be made on the fact that annexation did occur, and this annexation (despite its illegality) did change (de facto) the nature of occupation. Since this particular article, as well as several other articles on this subject, is devoted to the historical event, not to legal aspects, the word "annexation" is absolutely necessary here. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is not possible to discuss of restitutio ad integrum - assuming i understood what you are referring to with 'full recovery' - since rights of the people in Baltic states were trampled first during the occupation and second when their rights were set into those of the Soviet Union's citizens via illegal annexation. De facto recognition is not legal or official - contrary to de jure recognition - which means that the whole definition is vague. Also i can't see Mälksoo stating other that Soviet rule in the Baltics was complex in his e-mail. What he does state is that article should make it absolutely clear that annexation was illegal. Also Mälksoo is quite specific when he mentions which were the Soviet views and which were not - something which should not be mixed as generally accepted views as shown by state continuity of the Baltic states. Interesting point is that Mälksoo just stated that illegal occupation can be equated with prolonged occupation so according to that statement 'occupation' is enough to describe the event since 'illegal annexation' can be understood as 'occupation' - so as per Mälksoo's email 'annexation' is not required here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe we can discuss the restitutio ad integrum elsewhere, so let me leave this your point unanswered.
Re "Also i can't see Mälksoo stating other that Soviet rule in the Baltics was complex in his e-mail." He says, for example that "The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities." Since this concrete article discusses not legal aspects but political realities, the word "annexation" is quite relevant to the title.
Re "Interesting point is that Mälksoo just stated that illegal occupation can be equated with prolonged occupation..." Yes, since the authors are currently focused mostly on the legal aspects of this problem, the Baltic states should be deemed as having been occupied. However, again, this article is not devoted to the legal aspects.
Re "...so according to that statement 'occupation' is enough to describe the event..." Sorry, but, following your own terminology, you twist Malksoo's words. He writes: "...I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States." The only reservation he made is that the article should make clear that "the annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. " Since the article does make it clear, this provision is met, and the only thing we can do is just to follow Malksoo's advice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually i wasn't twisting what Mälksoo said, he stated both of those things however he added conditional to the latter one presented by you which stated quite clearly "If the article makes that aspect clear" - 'that aspect' being the illegal nature of the annexation. Regardless that does not mean that we are not presented with just single avenue to continue like you phrased. Even if Mälksoo does recommend certain option with distinct reservations it does not represent the sole available option we can take. Even in that case the easiest way to take the necessary reservation would be to include 'illegal' to the topic of the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In actuality, you were. The proposal to include "annexation" is the concluding sentence of Malksoo's e-mail, and he wrote that he suggested such a change.
Regarding "illegal", please, tell me if I understand the situation correctly. Initial title contained the words "annexation and occupation", then Nug added "illegal", and, as a result, it has been suggested that the title, which became redundantly long, should be changed in such a way that the word "annexation" disappeared completely. In other words, the if the word "illegal" makes the title too long, the first step is to remove this word, not the word "annexation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
"However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate." - stated there as clearly as possible, annexation in the sense of the illegal Soviet annexation of the Baltic states equals extended occupation. Just because his last sentence discussed something else it does not invalidate the rest of his email. -Wanderer602 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Also Mälksoo clearly believes that the article is about entirety of Soviet era, including after WWII, as he discusses events in 1980s, it appears to me that this is why he considers situation more complex and extended title more precise. However neither the article is about events after war, not does it explain the majority view of annexation being illegal properly, which he suggests ought to be the case in case it was added to the title. In any case his views of it being extended occupation don't conflict with dropping the word from title. They do however conflict with your idea that annexation ends occupation and that we should judge the legal status of Baltic States by how Soviets judged it as evidenced by Soviet actions ~~Xil (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, when Nug and Peters rejected Malksoo's advice, they argued that "occupation" refers to the regime, whereas "annexation" refers to the event, so the article about the whole period should not contain the word "annexation". Following their logic, the title "occupation and annexation ..." is more appropriate for the article about 1940 events rather then to the whole period. Therefore, you've just demonstrated that their rationale was wrong...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
PS. Please, keep in mind that the thesis that occupation end annexation is not my idea. The source I cited (Edelstein, International Security 29.1 (2004) 49-91) says:
"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizing mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indefinitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."
In other words, this author argues that the intentions of the occupying/annexing power is the key feature that distinguish occupation from annexation. Since acquisition cannot be deemed simultaneously temporary and permanent, annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and Support Lothar's counter-proposal. Nug's unilateral move before this request to add "illegal" before "annexation" seems to be a door-in-the-face technique to get people to support removing the "annexation" label. Most non-involved editors who support this proposal are doing so because they think the term "illegal" is not neutral; if they read the discussion more thoroughly, they might realize (as I have) how Baltic-centric and anachronistic the term "occupation" is, too.

    By the standards of the time, the decision whether to occupy or to annex was entirely the decision of the Soviet authorities, and it appears - from their laws, intent, and program of assimilation - that they chose the latter; to annex. The term "annexation" was demonstrated to be quantitatively (search engine) and qualitatively (isolation of quality sources like Malksoo and Edelstein) more common for this type of event in the scholarship. But since Wikipedia has a duty to cover fringe, nationalist and revisionist points of view, the term "occupation" may be included in the title as a compromise, so that the actual facts may be elucidated in the article text. Shrigley (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is fringe and nationalist to claim that Baltic States were not occupied. One of the scholars cited has clearly indicated that they believe that extended occupation took place. The other talks about something else in the source cited - not only it doesn't mention Baltic States, it also does not discuss annexation and related legal issues, it rather gives working definition to exclude prolonged military presence from analysis. If, as Nug has suggested, this source has been repeatedly brought up before, I propose one should consider backing their ideas back with yet another sources, otherwise it seems like there is lack of sources supporting the view. Baltic States annulled the acts of puppet governments by which they joined USSR and this was recognized by most other countries. Therefore annexation being illegal is constitutional and international law, while declaring the annexation as legal and Soviet military presence as something other than occupation is POV. Nobody here argues that Baltic States were not de facto part of USSR, but that current title best reflects current majority view of what happened, however there is no important reason to include annexation in title, because as it was illegal and therefore null and void it is just a minor part of what USSR did to justify it's actions and it is only briefly mentioned in the article. This is not a forum discussion where we discuss your unique views of history, nor Wikipedia should reflect minority views prominently, we are trying to agree on what title best fits article's content, which concerns year of Soviet military presence up to Nazi occupation, thus description does not end with certain even it summer of 1940. And search engine test was demonstred to be flawed numerous times ~~Xil (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I see some logical inconsistency here. You write "Nobody here argues that Baltic States were not de facto part of USSR", however, occupied territory is not considered (both by the occupying and by the occupied parties) as a part of the territory of the occupied state. In actuality, many participants of this dispute insist that the Baltic states were not part of the USSR, but militaruly occupied foreign states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
If you see an inconsistency it means that you do not understand what is being argued here. It is important that you see difference between fact and law. Your proposals are based in fact - USSR acted as if it had annexed Baltic States, hence you think it did. However the legal procedure it carried out conflicted with constitutional and international laws. If some legal procedure is illegal it is viewed as invalid. Hence in 1990s Baltic States simply declared, exactly as you say, that they were never legally part of USSR and moved to restore independence in fact. Now if annexation did not legally take place then we just drop back to previous state, which is occupation ~~Xil (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Whereas foreign states are free to recognise of not recognise some territorial changes, the fact that those changes do occur does not depend on international recognition. Non-recognition of the annexation of the Baltic states was important after they re-gained independence, however, that does not change the fact that they were de facto parts of the USSR (and were not under some special occupational regime). By the way, if you look at the sources, most authors of late 80s-early 90s spoke about secession of the Baltic states. The thesis about restitutio ad integrum became popular later. Again, yes, we speak about "occupation" when legal issues are being discussed, and we speak about "annexation" as soon as those times' political realities are concerned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wouldn't go so far as to label "occupation" as a "fringe" viewpoint. While Mälksoo does recommend inclusion of "annexation" because it more accurately reflects the complex nature of the incorporation, he does not support removing "occupation". My Gscholar results also show that the two terms are closely associated with each other—an author discussing the annexation of the Baltic states is very likely to also talk about the occupation of the Baltic states, and I'm not at all convinced that this can only be chalked up to the Nazi occupation. "Occupation" is hardly a fringe viewpoint, and you'd do well to stop dumping more sludge into the already thoroughly-muddied waters here by labelling it so.
That said, I do have strong reservations about Martin's unilateral move. Had I seen it earlier, I would have reverted it on sight. But I didn't, and a third party stumbled upon it and started one of the most ill-advised RMs I have ever encountered. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Totally agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley's contention that I "added "illegal" before "annexation" seems to be a door-in-the-face technique to get people to support removing the "annexation" label" is just plain off the wall, as if I could predict that someone would start an RM. Now on to some issues:
  • When Shrigley contends occupation is some kind of anachronistic fringe nationalistic Baltic-centric viewpoint, he has in fact articulated the Russian "patriotic-nationalist" view point in a nutshell, because that is what they (and only they) claim. Across the board, from the EU and US declarations down to scholarly papers and monographs, occupation is the mainstream view, while Shrigley is articulating minority viewpoint.
  • Mälksoo's letter is related to the entire fifty year period discussed in the article Occupation of the Baltic states and was written specifically in response to that article, this article is related to 1940-41 when Nazi Germany was the only country to recognise the incorporation, absolutely everyone else rejected it. The Baltic states still remained members of the League of Nations and the expectation of the coming war between Germany and the Soviet Union meant that this issue was far from permanent or settled.
  • The illegality of the annexation is also a settled fact, see Mälksoo's own monograph. Other authors like Yaël Ronen's 2011 book Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law discusses it, as does Smith, Marek and others. There is nothing POV about adding "illegal" to this title. There are no scholarly sources that asserts annexation of the Baltic states was in any way legal, otherwise Paul would have presented those sources long ago, instead he relies upon synthesising Edelstein and misusing a letter from Mälksoo intended for another article. --Nug (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely, there is nothing POV in the word "illegal". However, this word is not essential for the title, so if addition of this word will eventually lead to removal of the word "annexation", then the most correct way to do is to return to the old title, as Lothar suggests.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The word "illegal" is an absolutely necessary qualifier, since "annexation" is defined as the de jure incorporation of territory and thus without the "illegal" prepended would be tantamount to wilfully misleading readers that the incorporation was somehow legitimate. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly do you feel "annexation" in itself is essential? Sure, moving article on highly controversial topic without discussion was questionable, still it seems that some users indeed feel that excluding notion of unlawfulness is POV. Thus we arrive to having exceedingly long title the accuracy of which is questioned (not without reason - it seems we all agree it was illegal), all the while the event you seek to include is hardly even discussed in article ~~Xil (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Nug, I do not find your comment a good faith comment, because this question had been addressed before. De jure doesn't mean "according to international law", it means "the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland" by means of extension of domestic jurisdiction onto it. Moreover, the WP article you cite mention "some degree of coercion" that accompanies annexation (although I personally disagree with that).
PS. I modified the lede of the Annexation article you constantly refer to by adding sourced definition of annexation. Please, do not resort to the same argument again.
PPS. Your idea that the word "illegal" is absolutely necessary is not as obvious as you think. Thus, Malksoo does not see any need in this word in the title (provided that the article itself says about illegality clearly).
Xil, I feel "annexation" in itself is essential, because, as Malksoo says, it changed the nature of occupation. After annexation, the Baltic nationals got exactly the same rights as other Soviet citizens, they were not some opressed minority within the USSR (in actuality, they were oppressed, but in the same extent as, e.g. Moldavians, Russians or Belorussians. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This is your personal OR, you cannot provide a source that directly asserts this but rely upon your own synthesis of unpublished letters related to another topic of wider scope and authors like Edelstein who do not discuss the Baltic case. It is irrelevant if Balts had exactly the same rights as other Soviet citizens (which is debatable), what matters is whether incorporation achieves international recognition. --Nug (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Annexation stripped the rights of the people as citizens of the Baltic States as well as the additional safeguards which are involved during military occupation. With annexation the rights of the people were set to those of the Soviet Union (generally recognized to be lower than elsewhere) and the safeguards related to military occupations were removed. Also for that matter the Soviet Union did persecute people also according to the ethnicity regardless of their 'Soviet' nationality - take for example the expulsion of Finnic Ingrians. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"Annexation was bad, therefore it was occupation"?! But that is nonsense. Annexation replaced the right of Baltic nationals as Baltic citizens with the rights of Soviet citizens. Of course, that meant that they were subjected to political repressions, at the same extent as other Soviet citizens were. However, I see no difference between expulsion of Volga Germans and, e.g. Estonians. Moreover, Krimean Tatars or Chechens were subjected to much more severe repressions then the Latvians were, however, that does not allow us to speak about Soviet "occupation" of Caucasus or Crimea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is rather currious how one can agree that Soviet actions were illegal, while failing to recognise consequences of that notion and pushing for recognition of Soviet views by which their actions were legal. However, if your sole concern indeed is Soviet citizenship, it didn't come about as direct result of joining USSR, but by a law adopted afterwards ~~Xil (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, following your logic, if annexation is illegal we cannot speak about annexation. What about occupation? If occupation is illegal, then it also should be considered as having never occurred?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is not my logic, but law. What you fail to understand is that concept of Soviet actions being illegal and therefore null and void is central to Baltic States regaining independence, citizenship laws etc. - as I said it is constitutional law. If we were to claim annexation was legal it would mean we'd be also proposing that Baltic States have no legal right for independence, their citizens are stateless persons and so on. This is why it is extremely worrisome that some people see this as nationalist POV and try to push forth different interpretation (isn't that OR?). Nobody here is trying to claim here that autocracies Soviets committed in Baltic States were any more or less severe than those they committed elsewhere, or indeed that this legal issue even has anything to do with what could be described as Soviet violations of human rights, except perhaps you mentioned it being a way to deprive population from rights population in occupied territory - I don't see how that conflicts with notion of annexation being illegal, though. Your notion that occupation not taking place in territories, that, I believe, were Soviet to begin with, is somehow comparable to this case also is extremely strange - are you now claiming that Baltic States too did not exist during inter-war period? And anyways, you didn't answer my main question - you indicated that annexation is essential, because by it Baltic citizens became de facto Soviet citizens - this is not true, there was a separate citizenship law adopted in September, months after the fact. So your reasoning here doesn't seem to have a real basis. Is there any other reason why it is essential to mention annexation in article were it is not really discussed? ~~Xil (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Bravo! By writing "it is not my logic, but law" you made my life much easier. If you believe it is a law, then could you please cite which law (that was in effect by 1940) you mean? I expect this law to clearly and unequivocally support a following thesis: "Illegal annexation is military occupation". If you will be able to provide such a reference, that will make the whole dispute senseless, and I'll withdraw all my objections. I am waiting for the reference from you with great impatience.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, it is you who tries our patience. The occupation was executed under military force, maintained by military force (with far more Red Army stationed per capita than anywhere else), that military force eventually left (becoming Russian army) after the fall of the Soviet Union. Under the circumstances of forcible and unlawful occupation, the annexation was equally illegal and conferred no rights or privileges to the occupier. Oh, and your de facto citizen is two generations of Baltic citizens de jure illegally conscripted into the Red Army. Or Baltic citizens illegally deported to the territory of a foreign occupying power. Deportations continued even after the USSR signed the Geneva Convention which recognized such actions as an act of war. Well, actually, there are also the deportations of Baltic citizens while the just-invaded territories were still ostensibly sovereign--that necessary to perpetuate the Soviet fiction that the Baltic states voluntarily ceded their sovereignty to the USSR. Unless you believe their constitution that says all republics remained sovereign and could leave any time. Of course until you tried. Oh really, why does anyone care about what the Soviets said or wrote since any match to the real world was for expediency only? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As for your "If occupation is illegal, then it also should be considered as having never occurred?" you have exceeded all your prior achievements in syllogistic argumentation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
High per capita number of troop was due to the fact that the Baltic republics were the border regions. The main purpose of those troops was to oppose NATO, not to contain local population. With regard to the rest, you could easily finish the dispute by citing a relevant clause from some legal document (as I requested). Your failure to do so is a demonstration that your position is not as strong as you pretend.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. What "legal document" purporting what? What "relevant" clause? What weakness in which of my positions? You make syllogistic if not outright outlandish arguments, then failing those, claim that those who think other than you do (pretty much the lot here) have proven nothing. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW, what exactly was the Email which you sent to Mälksoo in the first place? We can discuss on my talk to not get sidetracked (further) here.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul states "Baltic republics were the border regions", bordering what exactly? Were Soviet troops deployed to defend against Baltic herring? --Nug (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody ever argued that "Illegal annexation is military occupation", what was said was that 1. there was occupation - illegal or not (BTW, I think "not", but am not sure, since it is not relevant to discussion, let's not dwell on it), which by now is recognized by virtually anyone including Russians 2. During the occupation illegal annexation occurred 3. Illegal acts can be treated by law as if they never happened, which is the case here. Hence "de facto" annexation is treated as "de iure" continued occupation. This was confirmed to be the case and academic consensus by external expert opinion you yourself provided. You seem to understand "illegal" to mean breech of law, but what you apparently fail to understand is that no rights can be acquired by breaking law, any claim of rights that can be proven to be illegal will be ignored e.g. if someone steals something from you, they are in fact in possession of that item, however they have no legal ownership rights. Now, sorry for going off-topic again, but let me make a comparison to this case using that example as it seems significantly easier to grasp - let's pretend we are discussing a theft of some item; assuming the best of faiths it seems your original argument was that the new title is something akin to "illegally stolen". Other users' concern is that term used actually is more similar to "changed hands" not "was stolen", therefore noting that it was illegal seems extremely important, because otherwise it would seem that the thief is the legal owner of the stolen item. And by now both sides seem to suspect that opponent is trying to disregard the crime - you because we say that legally the item never changed hands and thief didn't become its owner, we because you insist that it can be observed that thief was in possession of the item and acting as if he owned it, hence unknowing by-passer would assume he was in fact the owner. And my own concern is that the article only mentions the crime briefly, while title should reflect the overall topic of the text. ~~Xil (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty much the most cogent summary yet that has been provided, my sincere thanks for that.
My concern with Paul Siebert's advocacy here is that, to follow the same example, his past characterization of occupation more of an intervention would be neither rightful possessor ("changed hands") nor thief ("was stolen") but beneficent caretaker (his "more of an intervention" granting Baltic citizens all the rights and privileges of Soviet citizenship).
Frankly, such fringe position advocacy calls into question even the need to consider his position in determining consensus.
Regardless, I am glad to support the neutral omission of "annexation" from the title to avoid concerns that "illegal annexation" is beating a dead horse or that "annexation" alone implies some change in the status of being an occupied territory. That is all best left for the article, including, as Xil indicates, expanding content that deals with the act of annexation itself. (And more on "annexation" does not then mean it belongs in the title.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the literature does not discuss the recognition of annexation as "de facto" or "de jure", but rather discussion is about recognition of de facto control versus recognition of lawful annexation. There is no such concept as "de facto annexation" in the literature. In any case we have 11/12 supporting the original proposal while 2/3 against (depending upon Lothar). Is unanimity required to achieve consensus? I'd say the proposal is carried. Can we close this RM or should we ask an admin? --Nug (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
No vote, please. Consensus is not unanimity, however, all reasonable concerns must be addressed. You failed to address my concern so far, and false statement that the proposed title is "more neutral" is based on nothing.
BTW, I am wondering why you preferred to exclude from you vote count the opinion of Shrigley, who re-iterates my arguments. Regarding Lothar, do you have anything to comment on his opinion about your own steps (which caused this ridiculous rename request)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you purposely mis-read people's posts? Shrigley opinion was counted. Your accusation I "excluded" the opinion of Shrigley is just bs. I just read Edelstein, and it seems that you may have misled us by portraying his paper as a definitive definition of the difference between "annexation" as permanent and "occupation" as temporary, as you omitted to say that Edelstein excluded other types of occupations such as where the occupier intended permanent control:
"I also exclude two other types of occupations from this analysis. First, wartime occupations straddle the line between military occupation and annexation. Although German control of France during World War II is usually referred to as an occupation, this was only apparent once Germany had been defeated. Germany intended on maintaining control of France, not simply occupying it temporarily."
While the Soviet Union intended on maintaining control permanently, it was apparent it was an occupation when it was defeated in the Cold War. --Nug (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No empire in human history was able to maintain control permanently. Every empire was eventually defeated and split apart. Does it mean that we can speak about British occupation of Ireland, Spanish occupation of Cuba, Russian occupation of Finland, etc?
In addition, you write "it was apparent it was an occupation when it was defeated". Does it means that the past time political realities depend on today's events?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The question remains: why did you omit the fact that Edelstein excluded some types of occupation, namely the type where the occupier had every intention of maintaining permanent control, and tell us here that Edelstein defined occupation as exclusively temporary in nature? --Nug (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, you've failed to illustrate how the title you propose is more neutral or better in any way, while it has been shown to you that there are varied sources who recognize that the annexation was illegal and you yourself seemed to agree with this. A title that states well recognized fact is neutral, even if it is too long. However title that does not reflect article contents does not follow the guidelines. Nug, WP:NOTUNANIMITY may be entertaining read for you ~~Xil (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
@Xil. You write ""de facto" annexation is treated as "de iure" continued occupation", and we come back to my question. Where in the international laws (that were in force by 1940) can you find the statement that illegal annexation is treated as occupation (more precisely, as "military occupation")? I believe, you will not be able to find such a statement there, otherwise the whole Malksoo's monograph would be pushing against an open door. I think you should recognise this fact, and after that we will return to the discussion of this really complex issue, including the discussion of your the example provided by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The numerous bilateral treaties in force between the Soviet Union and the Baltic states, or do you think only multilateral treaties form "international law". --Nug (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You are continuing to pursue issue not relevant to our debate. I'll grant you small victory in saying that no law in 1940 probably said that, "illegal annexation is treated as occupation", even I never claimed that this automatically always happens, I said that it seems to follow from logic of ignoring illegal moves and dropping back to state of events prior to illegal action, just like in case of theft we would consider the stolen item still being property of original owner. Answer my question as to why it really is essential to include the word in title even when your citizenship argument fails to meet reality. ~~Xil (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Re "I'll grant you small victory in saying that..." Please, do not continue in that vein. I am here not to win some "victory" but to find truth. Frankly speaking, by asking for the source I really had some hope that you are able to find something that can end this dispute. And, despite the fact that the result would be opposite to what I support, I would be really satisfied (I am honest now).
In connection to that, let me rephrase your words "I'll grant you small victory in saying that no law in 1940 probably said that" in the following way: "I agree that the issue we discuss cannot be simply resolved based on 1940 laws, and, despite the fact that the Baltic states were restored in 1990s as if they were merely under military occupation, political realities of Soviet rule were more complex". If you agree with that, let's continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Truth seems to be not unlike to one claiming the Earth was flat in times of Ancient Greece, because the Ancient Greeks have reported so. If I was honest - I am starting to lose my good faith capabilities - I would point you to relevant articles, but I am worried that you edited almost unrelated articles on occupation and annexation to suit your agenda, plus I am half suspecting that you, having taken part in various discussions on topic before, are well aware what I am talking about and are playing stupid. I am not sure I can agree with your statement, because the view that Baltic States were incorporated illegally and remained independent was common enough before 1990s. But on top of that I still think it is irrelevant - the annexation with all its complexities is not discussed here, it is just mentioned once or twice, why is something that is not the subject of the article in the title in the first place? ~~Xil (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Soviet action in the military occupation, forcible intervention and incorporation constituted an act of aggression within the meaning of Article 2 of the Conventions for the Definition of Aggression of 1933, according to Marek in Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (1968) (p390). --Nug (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Also what I said before cannot be rephrased that way. What I said was that the statement is relevant to particular case and follows from common interpretation of law. Laws are written to give general guidelines, they don't predict every case imaginable. The fact that all cases cannot be imagined by authors of law and therefore are not detailed, does not mean that in particular cases law cannot be applied e.g. if law says "you shall not steal", it does not mean that I can't say that John's bike was stolen, because law doesn't specifically mention John owning a bike. I know some current laws that more or less include the particular statement, which is why I am concerned of this described as other users' POV. I think though this idea stems not from laws directly regulating warfare, but from principles like National sovereignty that were developed during enlightenment i.e. the decision to join USSR should have been made by Baltic nations, but it was not, it was made by USSR and Nazis by dividing amongst themselves lands they did not own ~~Xil (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we close this RM per WP:NOTUNANIMITY, Paul seems to be immovably entrenched in his view that "annexation" should be in the title, and I don't think progress on this article should be held hostage to a single vocal editor. As you rightly point out, this article does not actually discuss the topic of "annexation", that is treated in the state continuity article. This topic is about acts in 1940 that are deemed to be aggression within the meaning of Article 2 of the Conventions for the Definition of Aggression of 1933 according to scholars in international law, and the proposed title is the most succinct name for that aggression. --Nug (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

@Paul Siebert, as I recall, nowhere does Edelstein mention the Baltic states, so applying him here is completely WP:OR. And this is not the first time I've had to point this out to you. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I discovered Edelstein excluded certain types of occupations in his analysis, such as where the occupier intended permanent control:
"I also exclude two other types of occupations from this analysis. First, wartime occupations straddle the line between military occupation and annexation. Although German control of France during World War II is usually referred to as an occupation, this was only apparent once Germany had been defeated. Germany intended on maintaining control of France, not simply occupying it temporarily."
Paul apparently omitted this fact while telling us that Edelstein's paper defines the difference between "annexation" as permanent and "occupation" as temporary. Now that we know Edelstein has defined another type of occupation that have the characteristics of an annexation.--Nug (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he excluded some types of occupation. However, he does that after the general definition has been provided. In other words, he didn't write: "I consider the events X, Y, Z as occupations, and, based on that, I define occupation as ...". In actuality, the structure of his article is quite opposite: "I define occupation as XXXX. Below I analyze several forms of occupation, but I exclude two other forms." This structure does not allow us to claim that some forms of occupation were excluded from his definition (and the quote below demonstrate that other authors do consider his definition as a general one).
In addition, the quote provided by you is irrelevant. Occupation of the Baltic states was not war time occupation: both the USSR and the Baltic states were neutral states when the occupation and subsequant annexation occurred, and there were no war in 1950s-1990. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, it seems that Edelstein is acctualy coming up with narrower definition for purposes of his work. I did not register to me though he acctualy says things he excludes are occupations too. Please note that Siebert has also gone to change lead of military occupation to suit this narrower definition ~~Xil (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This your conclusion is incorrect, and the following quote (which Nug is perfectly aware of) demonstrates that.
"Accordingly, a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’ (Benvenisty, 1993: 4). Edelstein (2004) adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future (see Lustick, 1993)." (Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59)
As your can see, the authors synthesize Benvenisty's and Edelstein's opiniae onto the single general definition of occupation, and, based on that, they draw the line that separates occupation and annexation. Nowhere in the article the authors speak about some narrow character of this definition. Re Nug's old argument, that is ridiculous: if someone proposed some general definition of some phenomenon, it would be ridiculous to question this definition based on the fact that some concrete instances of this phenomenon have not been explicitly discussed. In addition, a possibility exists that Edelstein didn't discuss occupation of the Baltic states simply because he didn't consider this event as occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
PS. The statement "Please note that Siebert has also gone to change lead of military occupation to suit this narrower definition" is highly inappropriate and offensive. You de facto accused me of POV pushing, which is unacceptable. I changed some unsourced statement to what three or four reliable sources say. Obviously, I have done that when I realised that the sources I found contradict to what Wikipedia says. In other words, I improved the article (by adding several good quality sources), and, although I concede that that was done as a result of the dispute over the Baltic states issue, there is nothing here that can be considered as POV pushing. If you have reliable sources that contradict to what my sources say, feel free to present them. If you believe I twisted the authors' words, please, explain what my mistake was. I expect you to do that in close future. If you will not do that, I expect you to withdraw your highly offensive statement and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, regarding "Occupation of the Baltic states was not war time occupation: both the USSR and the Baltic states were neutral states when the occupation and subsequant [sic.] annexation occurred" this is, I regret to observe, utterly bogus WP:OR worthy of little more than pro-Kremlin inspired blogs (where I've seen these exact contentions pretty much verbatim). There is no aspect of international law which requires that formal war must be declared for one entity to belligerently occupy another and for said occupation to be considered as such. I am sorry to see your contentions here descend to such an unscholarly level. Not to mention you continue to insist on applying sources which do not discuss the Baltic states when I've already requested you cease such WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I corresponded with Edelstein when his work first became known and he indicated it didn't apply. Regardless, that his work EXPLICITLY LISTS THE TWENTY FOUR OCCUPATIONS IT DOES APPLY TO, there's not much wiggle room here for Paul Siebert to contend he is not engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
On the other matter (military occupation) I should note that should you read Edelstein and not spot-quote him, "colonialism", for example, does not replace occupation, "colonialism" is the intent of said occupation. (So, Edelstein's analysis has Egypt and the Philippines "occupied" for longer than the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Fixed that. Edelstein, BTW, states occupations are "intended" to be temporary while Paul Siebert's representation of that portion of Edelstein's work substituted "intrinsically" temporary. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If that was a war time occupation then there should be a war between the Baltic states and the USSR. In actuality, the USSR was neutral during that time, and the Baltic states maintain that they were neutral during the whole WWII (at least, it is an official Baltic position).
Re Edelstein, please, re-read my response to Nug. If I define the term "table" as "a form of furniture with a flat and satisfactory horizontal upper surface used to support objects of interest", and then discuss wooden tables only, that does not mean my definition is valid for the wooden tables only. However, that is exactly the same type of arguments you resort to. Note, that directly contradicts to what reliable sources say. The quote (see above) discuss Edelstein's definition as a general one, so your conclusion is a pure original research.
I fixed the "occupation" article, because your edits do not follow from what Edelstein says. In actuality, the word "intrinsically" was taken from another source, I need to refresh my mind on that account. However, the term "intended" is even more relevant to this case: acquisition of the territory of the Baltic states was intended to be permanent, so the Edelstein criterion is met.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
To your first point, "war time" is immaterial. There is no equivalency of "war time" and "military" and/or "belligerent" occupation nor prerequisite of formal declaration of war for same. This is an non-academic POV. Please leave such contentions to the Russian foreign ministry: there was no occupation "because there was no state of war between the USSR and the Baltic states and no military actions were being conducted and the troops were introduced on the basis of an agreement."
To your second, it's quite simple. Edelstein either specifically mentions and pertains to the Baltic states or not. Same for any other source. (Edelstein does not.)
To your third, whether one "follows" Edelstein is clearly subject to your personal interpretation, considering he lists these occupations which he does consider in his analysis:
  • Egypt (United Kingdom) 1882–1954 [i.e., 72 years]
  • Philippines (United States) 1898–1945 [i.e., 47 years]
with the "Primary Occupier" listed in parentheses. It is quite clear that the role of occupier (and hence resulting state of one being occupied by the occupier) does not change regardless of short term ("occupy"), long term ("colonize"), or permanent ("annex") intent. There is no "Edelstein criterion" to meet, that is just an obfuscation of your overt WP:SYNTHESIS on top of misinterpreting Edelstein. This is merely a variant of your prior contentions of
@Paul Siebert, BTW, if you now concede that Edelstein's statements are "general" and I contend that you cannot apply Edelstein because he is not specific to the Baltic states—these would appear to be opposite sides of the same coin—then how can you contend that Edelstein is "even more relevant" while my stating "no mention of Baltic states = not applicable" is "original research"? — VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"War time" is not immaterial, because Nug provided the quote that allowed him to draw some implicit parallelism between German occupation of France and Soviet annexation of the Baltic states. I argued (in responce) that Edelstein wrote about war time occupation, and, since the Baltic case cannot be considered as war time occupation, Nug's argument was wrong.
To your second point, that is really simple. Edelstein made some general statement, the statement that is considered as a general by other reliable sources, therefore, to argue that the scope of the statement is limited only with the cases he discussed later would be totally ridiculous (see my example with tables).
To your third point, if I understand you correct, you argue that, since Edelstein describes the whole period of British or American rule as occupation, then these two territories are considered by him as "occupied" despite the fact that they were "annexed" or "colonized". Did I understand that correct? If yes, then I'll disappoint you. British Mandate for Palestine was an intrinsically provisional regime (Britain controlled this territory "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Therefore, your first example is wrong. Regarding Philippines, they were conquered during the Philippine–American War, and became an Insular area (which is closer to the definition of a colony). However, according to Tydings–McDuffie Act Philippines were supposed to get independence in distant future, so American rule was considered as provisional from this moment. I do not know what other reason forced Edelstein to consider the whole period of American rule as occupation, however, we can just accept his opinion, not to draw conclusions from that. In any event, since Edelstein does not include other instances of colonialism into his table, he probably has some separate opinion in the Philippine case. In any event, your examples hardly prove anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I was pointing change in other article out, because while I remember you pointing out you edited annexation article, you did not mention occupation. It is not like other users don't use Wikipedia as quick reference, so it may appear that same thing was understood by another uninvolved user, when in fact it was you. As Nug made an implication that you may have misinterpreted source, it seems important that other users know that sourced statement in another article might be an error. What concerns me is that you might be inadvertently biased to interpret statement in article on more general topic in a way that it applies here, but doesn't apply elsewhere it should. E.g. annexation, although unsourced, apparently referred to current understanding in international law, while you here have been campaigning for possible 1940 interpretation. Which brings us to this - the events of WWII were interpreted after it, using laws that apparently were in force back then, drawing further conclusions from them, which are now considered international law. I suspect you are going to say this does not apply because it wasn't 1940, but it still stems from laws in force in 1940. Just for example - after WWI Kellogg–Briand Pact was signed in which countries agreed not to wage war against each other. This served as basis to further international rights, which resulted in declarations of war no longer being used i.e. now to make a war you need to find a formal reason, proving that you are just defending yourself (it is worth to note USSR did so even in 1940), so simply declaring war would be breech of international law. Claiming declaration of war as requirement for occupation also means claiming that virtually no occupation has occurred since WWII. Also I would like to propose that annexation being or not being occupation is not relevant - as I've said countless times before, it is not claimed that annexation is occupation, but that annexation was illegal therefore null and void, and occupation continued. It is also claimed by the whole idea of the continuity that sovereignty of Baltic States legally remained intact, so argument that occupation is foreign military presence in sovereign country, but Baltic States were not sovereign, also fails. Now, furthermore - it is highly questionable to use source that explicitly excludes analysis of annexation, after brief explanation why, to define what annexation is. And constraining us to 1940 law, when legal consequences were judged by scholars after the war, means that you are in fact trying to force us into doing original research. I think it has been demonstrated well enough that illegality of annexation and continued occupation is majority view. There is nothing wrong in some of minority views being represented (not in title though), but you haven't really made clear what your view is anyways. Therefore I suggest you drop this irrelevant quest for "truth" and demonstrate why "annexation" is needed in title when - why do I have to repeat this again - it is not discussed in the article. ~~Xil (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Your explanations have been understood and accepted. Thanks.
Re annexation, I added a sourced statement to it, and the source is 2004 Edelstein's article. I do not see how can I introduce 1940 bias by citing 2004 source.
However, in general, I would not be surprised to learn that I am biased. However, that can be established only during polite and respectful discussion, where all opponents treat each other's arguments seriously. In connection to that, could you please summarise, which my arguments did you find convincing, and which arguments are wrong?
Regarding "minority views", we need to establish first what is majority and minority view. A view of Edelstein and other authors cited by me are not minority, they definitely are mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Let us start with Edelstein being a red herring with respect to the topic here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul has long contended that there is a conflict between the definitions of the terms "occupation" and "annexation", that the former is intrinsically temporary while the former is intrinsically permanent based upon Edelstein, and he has been applying this to the Baltic case. Yet Edelstein also mentions another type of occupation that blurs the distinction with annexation. Therefore Paul's contention collapses, because the definitions are not so clear cut as he originally suggested. --Nug (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
One more point, Xil. As you probably understand, my major point is that there is a conflict between the definitions of the terms "occupation" and "annexation", which does not allow us to use just one of them in this particular case. I believe this my explanation will help to avoid future misunderstanding...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And all others were saying was that there is difference between "annexation" and "illegal annexation" too. However I don't see how this is relevant debate, when proposal largely supported here is to drop annexation altogether. It is not clear, at least to me, why you want "annexation" in the title and how it is relevant to content of the article. ~~Xil (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I found almost no sources that discuss a difference in status of legally and illegally annexed territories. In actuality, from 1940 till present time, history knows just few examples of illegal annexations, so the Baltic states set a new and very interesting precedent. The only things we can speak almost with certainty are that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, and it is more correct to speak about restoration of the Baltic states then about their re-creation. With regard to the status of the Baltic states within the USSR, I am not sure majority sources agree that they were under prolonged military occupation. Thus, Edelstein simply leaves them beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
At least we agree on the precedent-setting nature of the Baltic states, that precedent being illegally occupied for the duration, and that sovereignty never passed to the USSR, and that said continuous sovereignty was eventually territorially re-vested. I see that you also now agree that Edelstein does not apply.
However, your research on other uses of "annexation" is WP:SYNTHESIS, whether or not you found something; nor is indicating you haven't found much of anything an indicator with respect to the Baltic states. Equally, your underlying thesis of "military occupation" not equal "occupation" is also WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS as there is no dispute regarding the use of military force to subjugate and maintain subjugation of the Baltic states. Being that special administration was set up for the Baltic states regardless that it was ostensibly civilian, confirms the Baltic states' status as different from other "republics" even within the Soviet machinery.
Lastly, there is no conflict in the definition of occupation and annexation which precludes their simultaneous use, that is your personal contention, of "occupation XOR annexation", more simply stated as, aka, "annexation terminates occupation." That position is simply not supported in mainstream literature explicitly pertaining to the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 4

Yet more extended discussion

(New section since I am not responding to Xil's above.) @Paul Siebert, I direct you to the official site of the Russian foreign ministry, here. Since you are parroting the Russian Foreign Ministry and not reputable scholarship, don't accuse others of POV (or accuse others of falsely accusing you of POV) when you're the one passing off discredited propaganda as encyclopedic substance. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, apologise. Immediately. You have 24 hours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please explain where your statement, with regard to occupation, that there was no state of war, the Baltic states and USSR were neutral, etc. differs from the statement on the official web site of the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissing the notion that the Baltic states were ever occupied. Of course, should you retract such contentions as perhaps not supported by reputable scholarship, we can return to being more respectful of opposing viewpoints derived from and mirroring reputable scholarship. I have no desire to be disagreeable in this matter. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I considered refactoring my statement to indicate you might be unaware that, regarding the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, your mention of circumstances of no state of war, of the Baltic States and USSR being neutral parties, etc. is (a) immaterial (b) discredited with regard to any scholarship regarding said occupation and (c) nearly verbatim (that is, indistinguishable) from similar statements on the official site of the Russian Foreign Ministry regarding said occupation/situation. But sarcasm would be unbecoming to this most serious of topics. Lastly, a "personal attack" would be my accusing you of ulterior motives serving outside interests. I certainly know better than to do so. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, it would though help to understand your point, if you illustrated how your views are different (or not) from Russian policy. In any case Russia's views here seem to be minority view and they misrepresent the views of "Some European Politicians" ~~Xil (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Xil, a simple comparison of what the Russian site says and what I write makes a difference obvious. By asking me to show a difference between what the official Russian position and my views you in actuality request me to debunk libelous accusations, which is hardly appropriate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
By writing that, I do not mean that I am refusing to answer your concrete questions. If something in my views is unclear for you, feel free to ask, and I'll gladly respond.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely hard to get your point. I am not accusing you of anything and I doubt other users would, if they understood your point. Because at points you claim things that match majority view, like that annexation was illegal, and then at other points you go into completely different direction - it seemed to me too that in your opinion occupation did not occur. You did indicate above you are uncertain about prolonged occupation, but do you also disagree with occupation occurring at all? And still it does not explain why you prefer "occupation and annexation" in title, if you agree there was illegal annexation, but then again disagree there was an occupation. ~~Xil (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I do not disagree regarding occupation. You yourself saw that both annexation and occupation is being used by the sources almost equally frequently. I also agree that annexation was illegal (btw, I have looked through the Russian MID web site and I found that for every good faith person the difference between my views and official Russian position must be obvious).
Secondly, you had a chance to receive an evidence that, according to contemporary views, occupation is temporary control, whereas annexation is a permanent acquisition (and the "permanence" is determined by the intentions of the annexing state). Therefore, we have a problem: how can we characterise a status of some illegally annexed territory from this point of view? As an occupied territory? However, in this case an "occupier" claimed permanent rights on that territory. As an integral part of the annexing state? But the annexation is considered as illegal by foreign states that didn't recognize that territorial change. This situation creates some ambiguity, and that is why different authors use different terminology. And that is why both terms must be used: none of them is fully correct, and both of them are applicable to that case.
To demonstrate my point, let's consider Anschluss. Was it occupation? Austria was annexed, albeit forcefully and illegally, into the German Reich. However, later, the Allies decided to speak of Austria as of Nazi occupied country. Finally, Austria was restored as if it was occupied, however, that does not change a fact that it was a part of the Greater Germany during 1938-45.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please Paul, why do you insist on continuing the line "according to contemporary views, occupation is temporary control, whereas annexation is a permanent acquisition" when Edelstein clearly states "wartime occupations straddle the line between military occupation and annexation"?
Austria is not comparable to the Baltics. In the chapter titled "International Recognition of the Anschluss and of Austria's Extinction" on page 346 in Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law by Krystyna Marek[1], states:
"The position of Austria prior to the outbreak of the Second World War may be summarised as follows: a) there was an effective absorption of Austria into Germany; b) that absorption had achieved international recognition; c) no organ, however rudimentary, of the Austrian State was left to assert and carry on her legal continuity. The extinction of a state could hardly seem more complete"
In the case of the Baltic states, the USSR only achieved a), while it failed to achieve b) and the continued existence of Baltic diplomatic representatives made c) not applicable. You are basically arguing that only a) is important while ignoring b) and c), however scholars like Marek argue all three factors are important.
And yet even with Austria's extinction, the international community withdrew their recognition with the outbreak of WW2, and the Austrian state was resurrected at the war's conclusion, underlying the power and importance of international recognition in the question of whether states are deemed to have been occupied and maintain continuity as in the Baltics or become extinct and be resurrected in the case of Austria. --Nug (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Re wartime occupation, which war, lasting from 1940 till 1991 are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, I think you will agree that occupation is one sovereign country controlling territory of another sovereign country. Annexation is transfer of sovereignty to another country. In republics sovereign power belongs to the citizens of the country, who elect parliament to represent their interests. What USSR did here was to announce that three other sovereign countries had formed a military alliance and were plotting against it and make ultimatum that these countries change governments and allow Soviet troops into their territories. The countries did so, which resulted in Soviet control over their territory - the occupation. Then USSR installed puppet governments who in turn pleaded with Soviet government that Baltic States wish to join Soviet Union. This is the annexation. This annexation is illegal not so much because of laws of war, but because the puppet governments did not represent citizens. As they did not represent the citizens, it is believed the sovereign power never really was transfered - citizens should have been able to choose to do so in some way, instead they apparently were forced to vote in elections (the results of which were likely faked anyway), in which there was only one list that never indicated intent to give up sovereignty, nor was a referendum held. This is where the idea of state continuity comes from - without citizens agreeing to transfer sovereign power to another country, the Baltic States de iure remained sovereign countries. This was recognized by many Western countries and later served as reasoning for restoring independence (as opposed to creation of new countries with the same name). Now - if sovereign power was never transfered to Soviet Union and Baltic States remained sovereign, but their territories were under Soviet control - where do you propose there is a difference between this and what occupation is? That Soviet Union, and possibly modern Russia, claim that sovereignty was transfered seems to be minority view. And your concern of their post war actions doesn't really apply here as this is about events during WWII. And as for war taking place or not - while no significant hostilities took place between Soviet Union and Baltic States (somebody killed Latvian border guards, though), Soviet Union did claim Baltic States were hostile. ~~Xil (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Xil, let stick with the definition from reliable sources. I quoted this definition, and it differs from what you say. There are several differences between occupation and annexation, and the most imporatnt one is the intended permanent character of the latter. I agree, and I always was agreeing with the fact that no sovereignty was transferred to the USSR by the governments of the Baltic states - and that is why I do not insist (and I didn't insist in the past) on omission of the word "occupation". My point is that the word "annexation" must also be duly represented (both in the title and in the article's body), because the thesis that the Baltic states were annexed is not a minority point of view. Regarding your notion that those events took place during the WWII, Ecuadorian–Peruvian War also took place during the WWII. Does it mean it was a part of WWII?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There we go again. Please prove that de iure annexation is not a minority point of view. In all other cases, as I explained at least ten times, occupation is valid description, especially in this case - it ended about a year later and thus was temporary as you insist. Soviet wishes by themselves did not create any sovereign rights for them. The notion of events taking place during WWII was indeed reference to time period, not war itself. I provided arguments on how this wasn't USSR taking over neutral countries for their own protection afterwards. And provide a good reason why we need it when article does not describe annexation ~~Xil (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking I am not sure I understand you.
  1. De iure annexation - what it is? Annexation, recognised according to international law or expansion of annexing power's jurisdiction onto the annexed territory?
  2. "occupation is valid description, especially in this case - it ended about a year later and thus was temporary as you insist." I do not understand what you mean. Could you please rephrase this sentence?
  3. "Soviet wishes by themselves did not create any sovereign rights for them." Probably. However, is there any well established universal mechanism that endows some state entity with some rights? International recognition is not an instrument for granting sovereign rights.
  4. "And provide a good reason why we need it when article does not describe annexation " Why did you decide that this article does not describe annexation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, international recognition is paramount. If that recognition is not forthcoming, then it defaults to de facto control, and if that control is against the will of the people, then it's occupation. --Nug (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Since sovereignty is held by the citizenry, a referendum would be required to pass sovereignty to the annexing state.--Nug (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
These two general statements need to be supported by mainstream reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Annexation still needs to be recognized as legal. Most Western countries never recognized it as such. I explained to you how sovereign rights might have come about before and obviously international recognition also is important. Neither occurred. And that the article does not describe annexation is obvious - it is mentioned exactly twice, in the lead sentence that necessitates the mention due to page name. If you disagree to annexation being specific act of joining USSR, but a land grab resulting in permanent control, then again - this did not result in permanent control as the territory was soon occupied by Nazi Germany ~~Xil (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It does not follow from the definition of occupation and annexation that unrecognised annexation is not annexation. By the way, most western powers did recognize that the Baltic states were de facto the parts of the USSR (i.e. de facto annexed/incorporated).
Re "this did not result in permanent control as the territory was soon occupied by Nazi Germany" Since all states in history eventually disappeared (and all existing states will disappear sooner or later) we cannot speak seriously about any permanent control. What the definition says is intended temporary of permanent control. The USSR claimed permanent control - and that is a key point. (Again, by writing that I do not claim that the thesis that there were no occupation is minority or fringe; in actuality, it is a second mainstream opinion).
Re "And that the article does not describe annexation is obvious - it is mentioned exactly twice" that is a big omission. I believe the text of the article should be modified accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no such concept as "de facto annexation" in the literature, it does not discuss the recognition of annexation as "de facto" or "de jure", but rather discussion is about "recognition of de facto control" versus "recognition of (lawful) annexation". --Nug (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
""His Majesty's Government recognise that Estonia has de facto entered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but have not recognised this de jure (Tallinna Laevauhisus and Others v. Tallinna Shipping Company and Estonian State Shipping Line (1946) 79 LI.L.R. 245)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I see your primary source makes no mention of "de facto annexation". On the other hand this secondary source describes: "Furthermore Sir S. Cripps could tell the Soviet Government that we were prepared to recognise them as de facto in administrative control of the Baltic States and to deal with them on that basis in matters affecting those States." Ernest Llewellyn Woodward in British foreign policy in the Second World War - Page 482 --Nug (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom held the official view that the Baltic states had ceased to exist and had become de facto part of the Soviet Union." (GN Barrie - JS Afr. L., 1994 - HeinOnline)
"the international community supported the secession of the Baltic states only after they had achieved de facto independence" (LS Eastwood Jr. SECESSION: LAW AND PRACTICE. DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE & INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol 3:299])
"The Soviet Union officially annexed all three Baltic states after the populations of the three countries were coerced by the Soviets into voting in favor of annexation." (ibid)
"With the exception of a brief period of Nazi occupation during World War II, the Baltic states were de facto part of the Soviet Union from the time of annexation up until they achieved independence in 1991.121 Members of the international community continued to recognize diplomatic representatives of the Baltic states in exile and refused to recognize the validity of their incorporation into the Soviet Union." (ibid)
"As the only new EU member states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, the Baltic states provide an ideal case on which to demonstrate the distinct character and yet inter-relatedness of these different analytical levels." (Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 23-46)
"Although the Western world never officially recognised the illegal Soviet annexation of the Baltic states from 1940-1991, their post Second World war recognition of western borders of the Soviet Union indicated that West had actually accepted the Baltic countries as being part of the Soviet Union." (Birthe Hansen, Bertel HeurlinThe Baltic States in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 1998 ISBN 0312215274, 9780312215279, p 7.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, you found a couple of sources expressing a minority viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Or, rather, you could finally recognize the fact that the article's content is not directly related to issue we been discussing here and we could move it to more appropriate title. And I also would like to propose that disambiguating it by adding 1940 is sorely needed as there's two other articles with similar titles (honestly - perhaps a merger would be in order) ~~Xil (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(od, continuing) I agree that splitting the initial Soviet occupation "(1940)" from subsequent re-occupation is a needless bifurcation of the topic—there is also the problem that the title of the "second" occupation article should specify "Soviet reoccupation of the Baltic states" or similar to properly indicate (a) that the Soviet occupation was replaced by the Nazi occupation which (c) was then replaced by the Soviet re-occupation. This eliminates fringe contentions that the Nazis occupied Soviet Baltic states as opposed to occupied previously Soviet-occupied territory. Rather, it was the sovereign Baltic states which both parties occupied/re-occupied. I would also mention that the Soviet-imposed administrations fled to the Russian interior and subsequently returned, do there was no difference between Soviet occupation #1 and reoccupation #2 meriting separate articles. Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (merged) avoids/solves all those issues. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
On "general statements", I would just note that in the case of Latvia (I haven't checked the Estonian or Lithuanian constitutions), any change in sovereignty required a majority plebiscite. That was not done, and so the bogus parliament's request to join the USSR was constitutionally null and void regardless that the parliament usurped power in an election whose results were very precisely reported before voting took place. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
But that's just the thing. We have Occupation of the Baltic states which treats the occupations properly as a continuous unit. However, there were three distinct instances of it: 1940, by the USSR; 1941, by Nazi Germany; and 1944, by the USSR again. That it was a reoccupation restoring the status quo before Barbarossa doesn't make it not a distinct event. There is no "bifurcation" of events that occurred years apart and in markedly different geopolitical climates. They are intrinsically separate events, regardless of whether Soviet rule was established or re-established. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In 1944, the USSR occupied a Nazi occupied territory of the Baltic states. Of course, the annexation (illegal annexation) occurred only once. However, the question we discuss is totally different. The sources provided by me (see above), as well as many others, demonstrate persuasively that the Baltic states were de facto parts of the USSR (and most states, except the USA, Vatican and Iceland, did recognise that fact). Note, the occupied territory is not a part of the occupied state according to neither domestic nor international law. That is why the word "annexation" must be in the title, and, since the article deals with 1940 events, it must reflect the fact that the Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR via annexation (although the procedure was illegal).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
IMO, Lothar, chopping up the theme does it no favors. This article in itself is about three separate events. The only value in reflecting these in one article is to show USSR had one policy for all three states (with similar results), this didn't exactly start with Soviet occupation and end with Nazi occupation. It is now too fragmented, especially given that editors from each state don't really know much about events in other two countries. ~~Xil (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, we have an article for the broader theme. Nothing is being unnecessarily "chopped up". The component parts of the extended occupation are examined in greater detail in these sub-articles so as to go into greater detail than would be acceptable on the main article. Should we not have any sub-articles for things? That's absurd. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(od) I don't have a huge stake in whether or not we have Soviet occupations #1 and #2 as distinct events or not. Nevertheless, I do strongly believe that two articles bifurcates the narrative of Soviet occupation which was continuous in its nature and execution regardless of the Nazi occupation between the two. I invite Lothar to persuade me otherwise, I think that would help clarify for everyone the advantages/disadvantages of one or two articles regarding the Soviet occupation. (And perhaps it's simply a matter of ultimate article size, that is acceptable if we have a consensus for that simple basis for two articles.)
As for needing "annexation" in the title, that is no different from insisting the title be Soviet occupation and de facto control of the Baltic states. Well, duh, of course there was de facto control. There's nothing to make note of here in the title regarding "annexation" unless you wish to purport that "annexation" or "de facto control" terminate "occupation", which they do not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not suggest having no sub-articles. I just think that more appropriate would be three separate sub-articles on each country. This article, apparently a result of split, is in rather sad shape as standalone piece, however I suspect further expansion would result in unnecessary mirroring of other content. Especially if specific year from title is dropped ~~Xil (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Occupation also pretty much means "de facto" control. The problem, as I gather, is belief that difference is made by foreign power's intention to keep (or not to keep) the land for themselves. While, I guess, the rest of us believe that difference would be made by whole world believing foreign power can keep the new lands ~~Xil (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Having only three separate sub-articles for each country and no "Baltic states" article breaks the entire "Occupation of the Baltic states" paradigm. If we are to treat each country separately in the context of each occupation event (40, 41, 44) with no unifying "Baltics" article, we should then split the main article into Occupation of Estonia (sub-articles Occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union (1940), Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany, and Occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union (1944)), Occupation of Latvia (sub-articles Occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union (1940), Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, and Occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union (1944)), and Occupation of Lithuania (sub-articles Occupation of Lithuania by the Soviet Union (1940), Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany, and Occupation of Lithuania by the Soviet Union (1944)). Problem is, you'd have a hard time finding the requisite scholarly support for this sort of splitting; historians tend to treat the Baltic states in this context as a unit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
What is a need to interpret strict and concrete definitions? Occupation means a temporary control by foreign power, annexation means a permanent acquisition of some territory. I presented two sources that make that absolutely clear. And, as I demonstrated, many sources say that the Baltic states were de facto part of the USSR, and most foreign states did recognise that, many sources speak about "occupation and subsequent annexation", and I simply do not understand your persistent refusal to recognise what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec)@Xil: In reverse... well, Edelstein (who doesn't apply) doesn't actually restrict the state of being occupied by the intent of the occupier, that is, you can call an occupation "occupation" or "colonization" or "annexation" by intent. It's quite clear the USSR had no intent to ever give up the Baltic states (so, more like "extermination")--alas for the USSR, the Baltics wound up being the poison pill swallowed by the bear. Intent has no bearing on the Soviet presence as occupation for the duration.
I am leaning your way, that the parent should be the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states—that is, #1 and #2, and perhaps the merged article needs to be pared down—with a stronger focus on developing the individual articles related to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, no, no, and no. "Occupation" is the displacement of a sovereign power by the occupying power. As long as the rightful sovereign power is prevented from exercising authority, a state of occupation persists. Your timey-wimey contentions here regarding occupation and annexation are simply not appropriate to the topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"Occupation and subsequent annexation" speaks only to chronology, not to replacement. That is your POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"Accordingly, a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’ (Benvenisty, 1993: 4). Edelstein (2004) adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future (see Lustick, 1993)." (Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59)--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Well that definition excludes the Nazi occupation of France and the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, both of which the occupiers intended permanent control. --Nug (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It has been proven time and time again that Baltic sovereignty remained intact, please stop bringing it up again and again. And Paul, there is this little issue with your idea about temporary vs. permanent - the article does in fact describe temporary state until Nazi occupation. Just for thought exercise - had the Baltic States not been re-occupied, would you also insist on annexation? ~~Xil (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the statement "there is this little issue with your idea about temporary vs. permanent" (and its variants) started to become annoying. This is not my idea, this is a verbatim quote from what Halperin sees as a currently common definition of occupation. In addition, as I explained earlier, "temporary" does not mean "something that will end in future (everything in this world will end sooner or later), but intended temporary/permanent.
The Germans and Iraqis intended permanent control of France and Kuwait respectively when they occupied those countries. --Nug (talk)
...and that is why Edelstein explained that war time occupation is a border category. However, you failed to explain why you believe "occupation of the Baltic states (1940-91)" falls into a category "war time occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You rely on papers that make no mention of the Baltic situation and synthesis a connection, whereas this is what David Smith, Professor of Baltic History and Politics at the University of Glasgowm writes specifically on the topic: [2]. --Nug (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
By writing that, I do not claim that in this particular case the fact of annexation necessarily terminated the state of occupation: my claim is that there is a conflict between the definitions provided by me and the political realities, so some authors speak about military occupation of the Baltich states during the whole period from 1940 to 1991, others speak about annexation (albeit illegal), some of them use both terms etc. As a result, I do not understand your obsession with the idea to remove one of two terms (in contrast, I insist that both of them should be used, because I agree that sole "annexation" is also inadequate).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
??? This article is about 1940, why are you talking about the whole period from 1940 to 1991? Seems to me that rather than focus on improving this particular article you appear to be using it as a forum for a wider discussion. As Xil rightly points out, the Soviet control was interrupted by the Germans in 1941. Also in September 1944 the legally constituted government of Estonia proclaimed the restoration of the Estonian state and published that proclamation giving it legal force between the time the Germans left and the Soviet arrive. Additionally there were territorial changes in 1945, so was there continuity between the pre-1941 and post-1944 Soviet puppet states? FWIW, I don't think this article should be split up. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me remind you your own argument about "annexation as and event vs occupation as a state".
Re "Seems to me that rather than focus on improving this particular article you appear to be using it as a forum for a wider discussion." I simply don't want my first edit to be immediately reverted. However, currently we are discussing a very concrete issue: you insist that the word "annexation" should be removed from the title, whereas I argue that it should stay. This is a very concrete issue, directly related to the article's improvement. In connection to that, I find your statement non-productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec) @Paul, since you yourself have agreed above that the case of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states set precedents in international law, I fail to see why you then insist on applying sources which do not discuss this specific precedent-setting case. And you quote a source which cites Edelstein, who you have also admitted does not apply here. What is written about occupation and annexation in general terms has no bearing on the case here. Your contention that there is an inherent conflict in sources because there is a mix of usage of occupation versus annexation is, again, a red herring because the continuity of Baltic sovereignty (which you also appear to recognize as not ceded to the USSR) renders such annexation impotent. It could not be more clear cut, based on your own admissions to circumstances here, that annexation had no effect on the status of the Baltic states being occupied territories. There is no need for "annexation" in the title, as, again, its mere presence suggests a change to the circumstance of the state of occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul claims Edelstein's definition of "occupation" as temporary means that the Baltics could not have been occupied since the Soviet intended to permanently control these countries. When it is pointed out that Edelstein also defines a type of occupation where the intent is permanent control, with examples being German occupied France and Iraqi occupied Kuwait, Paul counters that these were wartime occupations. Well I must confess there is a difference between the occupation of Kuwait and the Baltic states. Eminient scholar in international law Joe Verhoeven articulates this difference between the case of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and that of the Baltic States from 1940 to 1991 is the time factor. Verhoeven states the main difference is that Kuwait was occupied for six months while the Baltic states for fifty years. --Nug (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
We are discussing occupation that lasted a year ~~Xil (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
On Edelstein, my reading is that occupiers occupy; if the intent is short term we call the occupation an occupation, if the intent is long term, e.g., exploitation, then it's colonization; if the intent is permanent, then it's annexation. So, "occupation" is both an occupier taking control of a territory preventing the sovereign authority from functioning; it is also the occupier intending to occupy temporarily. There are two separate senses/uses for the same word. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What is going on? I thought you had a clear consensus to move. If not, why would not you just go edit something else? Let us keep the current title. Who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought we had it as well, as the move solves or avoids a host of real or perceived issues. A this point we are just rehashing Paul Siebert's self-contradictory (among other issues) challenges. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What is going on? The same ridiculous game of circuitous argumentation that happens every time there is a naming discussion on any of these pages. I've found that having Yakety Sax playing in the background as you read the endless threads makes it a little less painful, because Yakety Sax makes everything funny.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Nug, it was not me who "countered" that, but the author (Edelstein) himself. The quote has been already provided for your convenience. Anyway, you failed to demonstrate what relation do Kuwait and France have to the issue we discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's you that countered, as your reading of Edelstein stating "occupation is temporary" is not my reading, it is merely how we are likely to describe the occupation based on intent of length (short occupation = "occupation", long term/exploitative occupation = "colonization", permanent occupation = "annexation"). In none of those cases is an "occupier" still not an "occupier," nor the "occupied" no longer "occupied." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Edelstein says:
"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism."
The statement is totally unambiguous. However, if you disagree with that, re-read thus:
"Accordingly, a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’ (Benvenisty, 1993: 4). Edelstein (2004) adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future (see Lustick, 1993)." (Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59)
This is a reading of a reputable scholar, so, if your reading is different, it is your own personal problem, which has no relation to this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
All Eran Halperin et al. is doing is describing Edelstein's viewpoint where Edelstein's adds "temporary" to Benvenisty's definition for the purpose of his analysis. Edelstein clearly excludes certain types of occupation: "I also exclude two other types of occupations from this analysis. First, wartime occupations straddle the line between military occupation and annexation." Why do you insist on synthesising a connection between this narrow definition and this article? --Nug (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Enough already - Is the "occupation" generally recognized name for the event? Check, Does it describe the content of article well? Check, Is the proposed title concise? Check, Is it neutral? Check, Is Paul Siebert filibustering? Well... given the lack of any other vocal and well founded oposition, I suggest we move it. Now. ~~Xil (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Is the "occupation" the sole generally recognised name for the event? No. Therefore, the proposed title is not neutral. Are you going to act simply because you have majority of votes? Please, demonstrate that my reasonable concern have been addressed. If you believe I am filibustering, take it to WP:AE (the article is under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions), otherwise stop that allegations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your concerns are reasonable, given that you seem wedded to Edelstein's apparent narrow definition of "occupation", despite the fact that Edelstein doesn't even discuss the Baltics so any application of Edelstein to this article violates WP:SYNTH in any case. I notice that you seemed to overlook the viewpoints of other scholars, such as Roberts who defined 17 types of military occupation in 1985 and "prolonged occupation" in 1990:
"Roberts (1990) argued that the legal definition of occupation is based on an implied assumption that it is a temporary state that may end or change status within a short period of time. Accordingly, he suggested that ‘prolonged occupation’ must be regarded as a category that is entirely distinct from temporary military occupation. He defined prolonged occupation as lasting more than five years and continuing even when military hostilities subside or cease. In addition, prolonged occupation raises legal questions concerning the aims of the occupier, who may intend to change the status of the occupied territory. This situation may occasionally lead to pressure from the international community calling for termination of the occupation"(Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 60)
--Nug (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul is essentially WP:SYNTH insisting that the USSR could not have occupied the Baltic states for the duration both on time span and imputed intent of the USSR as demonstrated by the act of annexation. That is a minority view discredited in serious scholarship on the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Neither Baltic States are in Eastern Europe, nor do I believe in taking last resort actions. Chill out. Or at least provide a counterargument outlining why the suggested name is wrong, instead of agreeing to everything, except move ~~Xil (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
If you believe WP:DIGWUREN does not cover the Baltic states, feel free to ask the arbitrators. However, I am 100% sure the answer will be "yes, it covers". As far as I understand, for this article AE is not a last resort, but a normal way to resolve disputes.
Regarding your "least provide a counterargument outlining why the suggested name is wrong, instead of agreeing to everything, except move". In actuality, I do support move to "Occupation and annexation ..." (without "illegal"). The argument is simple: that is a common terminology used by majority of reliable sources (they use either "occupation", or "annexation (absorption, incorporation)", or both). That argument is almost unbeatable, and your counter-arguments are flawed: you argue that, since "occupation" is used by many sources, this term solely can be used in the title.
In addition, you yourself started a discussion about the difference between occupation and annexation. Since your statements were purely unsourced, I provided a current common definition (sourced) of military occupations, which does not completely coincide with your own definition. Since this definition contradicted with your major idea, you preferred to ignore this definition and claimed that I misinterpreted it (although I just quoted it verbatim). I would say that, if the term "filibustering" is applicable to this case, it should be applied not to me, but to the opposite side.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, you seem to be ignoring the fact that your application of Edelstein's narrow definition of occupation to this article is pure synthesis, since his paper does not mention the Baltics at all. You seem to be cherry picking Edelstein's definition over other definitions such as Robert's definition of "prolonged occupation" in order to support your argument, which you seem to have an over inflated opinion of the strength as indicated by your statement: "That argument is almost unbeatable", yet you have failed to persuade any of the 12 editors who support the move. To re-iterate Paul, all your arguments seemed to be based upon either original research (google searches) or synthesis (Edelstein) while ignoring concrete sources that explicitly discuss the Baltics such as this[3]. --Nug (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no chilling will occur. I did not start discussion about difference between occupation and annexation. I said that occupation is common name, while the illegal annexation is regarded as minor pseudo-legal part of it. You never proved that it is majority view. You played around with Google results, which I showed can be turned upside down using different parameters - they are unreliable as annexation is part of occupation likely to be mentioned along with it (that nobody doubted, but we can't put every event occurring in 1940 in title). I did not claim you misinterpreted it, Nug did, but frankly going by just one definition that suits you when other people start questioning it is strange. And I suggest you check what filibustering means - I don't see why I should talk ad nauseum to prevent move majority supports, when I am the part of that majority. And I don't see why I should provide any sources to support views you agree with, you haven't really made clear what you don't agree with ~~Xil (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, not Google, but google scholar. Secondly, I didn't play with it. Your "upside down" was a result of usage of wrong keywords (and I've already explained your mistake to you).
You write "...frankly going by just one definition that suits you when other people start questioning it is strange." In connection to that, let me point your attention at the fact that I didn't select any definition that suits me: I found the source(s) that contained what some authors believe is a "currently common definition". I look thorugh the literature, and I found no indication that that definition had been contested by any serious author. In connection to that, your accusations are hardly honest, and can be directed against you yourself: when you found that the definition provided by me does not suite you, you started to develop your own definition, which is not supported by any reliable source. I am not sure such behaviour is compatible with your attempts to accuse me of filibustering.
You write "I don't see why I should provide any sources to support views you agree with" You don't. However, if you make some unsourced statement that contradicts to what the source provided by me says, I expect you to provide a reliable secondary source.
Re "you haven't really made clear what you don't agree with". During this concrete discussion I disagree with removal of the word "annexation" from the title and with addition of the word "illegal". I believe I've already explained that previously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no need in chilling because I am pretty cool. To demonstrate that, let me describe my vision of the development of the conflict. I have been a witness and a participant of several rounds, which develop according to the following scheme:
Step 1. You (under "you" I mean the opposing party, whose participants may be different at different times; under "I" I mean myself and the users who share my views) attempt to remove the term "annexation". In response, I provide the sources that use this term in a context of the Baltic issue, and the quotes that demonstrate that the term is essential for understanding of those times' political realities. Based on that, I argue that the term should stay along with the term "occupation".
Step 2. You argue that, since "annexation" was illegal, it is equal to occupation, so the term "annexation" should be removed as incorrect and redundant. In response, I provide a commonly accepted definition of "occupation", which makes clear that the difference between annexation and occupation is much deeper then mere illegality/legality.
Step 3. Despite the fact that it was you who switched from the discussion of the local issue and started to speak in general, you accuse me in using the sources that do not discuss the Baltic states specifically. However, that means that we need to go back to the step 1, so the dispute is doomed to follow the same cycle endlessly.
In connection to that, don't you find that the accusation in filibustering should be directed not to me, but to the opposite party?
In connection to that, I request all participants to choose between two options:
1. to use only the sources that explicitly discuss the Baltic states. In that cases, no general argument such as "occupation means ..." are allowed, or
2. to use general argument, and the sources that discuss the difference between occupation and annexation in general. In that cases, no arguments such as "your argument is wrong because the source it is based on does not discuss the Baltic states" are allowed.
Once the choice between the option 1 and 2 will be done, I expect all participants to strictly stick with it, and not to switch between type 1 and type 2 argumentations when you find it convenient.
I do not think I request something extraordinary: this is an elementary requirement of intellectual honesty. Do you agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me rephrase - you have provided what you disagree with and what you want to achieve, not why you dislike the proposed title. Once more - nobody is questioning if the event occurred or not, but why a minor event not described in article needs to be in title. It seems to me that you are not focusing on the particular article, but issues in previous debates and Baltic States in Soviet Union in general. And, yes, in general it is important Baltic States became part of Soviet Union, but in this particular case article discusses temporary Soviet Presence that ended within a year. The only reason to include it here is an unlawful legislative act. But as was demonstrated before illegal acts don't create any rights and in general short intended annexations that are not recognized as legal by anyone else are regarded as occupations. Therefore you might as well leave it to articles that describe either the act or later post-war status of Baltic States that equates legally not recognized annexation, because it is not clear why event creating no rights, that is not even properly described needs to be in focal point of attention. ~~Xil (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Re "you have provided what you disagree with and what you want to achieve, not why you dislike the proposed title" - sorry, but that is exactly what you requested for ("you haven't really made clear what you don't agree with"). You get what you ask for.
Re temporary, Soviet presence was terminated by military means, therefore its duration is irrelevant. In addition, no second annexation took place, so this article is the most appropriate place to discuss that.
Re "The only reason to include it here is an unlawful legislative act." Wrong. The reason to include it is also a discussion of Soviet policy in the Baltic states.
Re "you might as well leave it to articles that describe either the act or later post-war status of Baltic States that equates legally not recognized annexation" Those articles can discuss that too.
Re " that is not even properly described needs to be in focal point of attention." I do not propose to focus of that too much. However that aspect is rather important.
Finally, I would like to remind you that the major problem as I see it is a tendency of my opponents to switch between two type argumentations when they find it convenient. In connection to that, I remind you that I asked a quite concrete question. Could you please give me similarly concrete answer and let me know which option (#1 or #2) do you prefer? Please, keep in mind that our guidelines do not encourage ignoring reasonable questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"You get what you ask for." Giving Mathematician's Answer is complete waste of time; you indicated you are not trying to waste everyone's time, right? "terminated by military means, therefore its duration is irrelevant" no, it's not, because in case of intended annexation it is unlikely to end otherwise "it is also a discussion of Soviet policy" no, the parent article is discussion of policy, this is split off that discusses events of one year and mentions the event only in definition, which directly reflects the title. Per article naming guidelines it should be other way around - title should reflect content, not content the title. And, finally, per the same etiquette rule and also that you should provide good reasons why you think someone is wrong I suggest you address Nug's concerns with your sources rather than questioning if if there are valid reasons to have concerns (as I said IMHO he has a pointion). As to the specific detail - NPOV and OR are content policies, however I don't see much use in relying on sources you cannot use in the article. ~~Xil (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, it is rather disingenuous of you to attack your opponents for flip-flopping given your on again off again regarding Edelstain and other lines of discourse. No one here who disagrees with you is flip-flopping. You yourself are creating a moving target and now using it as an excuse to accuse your editorial opposition of intellectual dishonesty. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing this discussion

I have never made any edits in this area before, and I am reasonably well versed with WP:AT after extensive work with other article title disputes, I am also happy to get involved with controversial disputes. I also have 25,000 edits. However I am not an administrator, so if anyone objects with me closing the discussion let me know by Friday.

If a real admin wishes to close this in the meantime feel free - it looks like a beast :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well at least 12 editors support the move while 2 outright oppose, so I don't see the move proposal as controversial at all. Just because one single opposing editor writes miles and miles of text about why we twelve supporters have it all wrong does not mean this request cannot be closed. As another editor pointed out: WP:NOTUNANIMITY. --Nug (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What about WP:DEMOCRACY? I alone provided more sources and arguments then all other editors taken together - and all my reasonable concerns remain unaddressed. Do you suggest to convert Wikipedia into another experiment in democracy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this has been closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Not connected with the topic of the thread
In connection to that, I ask the same question (see the hidden section above) again: which or two formats of the discussion do you prefer? Do you agree to limit ourselves with the Baltic related sources only, or you prefer also to include the sources that discuss the terms "occupation" and "annexation" in general? You seem to avoid this simple question, which is hardly an appropriate way to conduct a discussion...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note though that an apparently uninvolved user already tried to move the page and was unceremoniously reverted with comment that an admin should close this.
Re: "all my reasonable concerns remain unaddressed" Vecrumba provided nice explanation as to how come right at end of previous section.
Re: "which or two formats of the discussion do you prefer?" I answered to that, does an answer that does not follow as expected equal a concern not addressed? ~~Xil (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Re Vecrumba, if you mean his post he made on 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC), he just reproduced the same fallacy. He says "there is no conflict in the definition of occupation and annexation which precludes their simultaneous use, that is your personal contention". This is a general statement, and any reasonable person must agree that Edelstein/Halperin's definition of occupation clearly and unequivocally say that occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive. If you disagree, let's go to some relevant noticeboard and ask. Moreover, after falsely accusing me in original research, Vecrumba says: "That position is simply not supported in mainstream literature explicitly pertaining to the Baltic states". That is a logical fallacy. The meaning of the term "military occupation" is the same for the Baltic states, for Poland, Iraq and all other cases. In other words, to claim that we can omit "annexation" because "illegal annexation equals to occupation" is a general statement, which contradicts to what the sources provided by me say.
Re your answer on my question, I am sorry, but I am not sure I was able to find it. Could you please, answer again, just one word: an option #1 or an option #2? In addition, this question is addressed to all participants: please, tell, which of two options you prefer?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
See the green title above? Click show to the right. ~~Xil (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Futuretrillionaire's move was simply done with the summary "POV". That's it. No notice on the talkpage, no closure of the move request—not even a mention of the RM. It might as well have been a !vote. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Call it a technicality, but that was an inappropriate move. I almost scolded Lothar for reverting it until I noticed that Futuretrillionaire didn't bother to close the discussion. He or she could have called it a non-admin closure and it would've stood unless overturned at move review, but as such, it's just disruptive. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Although it would have been better he or she had left a note on talk page, rest is just bureaucracy - he might have meant well, but didn't know this procedure - and POV was original reasoning for the move proposal. So how is it more disruptive than reverting when likely result seems clear? !vote policy is rather against agreeing without explaining your opinion (which I think no one here did), instead of a requirement for unanimous consensus ~~Xil (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, process is important. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You did notice, of course, that the essay itself acknowledges there being opposing views to that? :) ~~Xil (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but some of us are sticklers. Don't get me wrong—I really want to see this request closed, but I never like to see articles that are the subjects of ongoing RMs unilaterally moved, and I really can't think of a case where it's appropriate to do so. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should open an RfC to resolve this issue? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah. Last time we had an RfC for this topic area we went backwards in terms of consensus building. It automatically devolves into the same walls-on-walls-on-walls of text as you see above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Lothar, I believe I found the solution. Before moving further we just need to agree about one concrete point: do we simply present what various sources say about the Baltic states specifically, or we rely on some general sources/statements/definitions also. Again, both options satisfy me completely, however, my opponents seem to abstain from making a choice. IMO, after all participants will come to an agreement on the preferrable approach, we will be able to avoid the walls of text in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Above you asked about limiting discussion to certain sources, which is rather unreasonable. As far as article content goes we obviously use what majority of sources on topic say (per WP:SYNTH). Exactly what I said before. Nug, on the other hand, spent half of discussion asking you to limit yourself to sources that mention the Baltics. The only thing your more or less polite opponents have been abstaining from is using verb to describe more concisely your failure to come up with description that would reflect what actually has transpired. I do invite you to try to succeed in doing so in the future ~~Xil (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you twisted my words. I never asked about that. I asked about making a common decision: either we limit discussion with the sources that explicitly discuss the Baltic states, or we take into consideration also the sources that discuss the issue in general, not necessarily in a context of the Baltic states. I am still unable to understand your position: do you agree with Nug or not? If yes, let's ask Vecrumba. If you all three agree to limit our scope with the sources that discuss the Baltic states explicitly, I am pretty comfortable with that. However, if we all will come to such an agreement, I expect all of you to realise all consequences of this decision, and to stick strictly with the obligations it imposes on all of us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Limiting other people's freedom of speech does not equal trying to stay on topic, which you fail to do anyway as you are now pursuing unneeded framing rather than addressing points of actual debate. And if you still don't get it, then I am sorry, I explained as best I can; please quit repeatedly asking this to me ~~Xil (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, given you agree the Baltic states set a precedent in international law, it's odd you insist on sources which do not specifically and directly speak to the topic. Limiting discussion is only "unreasonable" if you wish to take the discussion off topic, which appears to be where we've spent most of our time of late. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, you responses plunge me into cognitive dissonance. You Xil accuse me of attempts to limit other's freedom of speech, and you Vecrumba allege that I am insisting on usage of too broad range of sources. Can you explain me: am I too broad in my selection of sources, or too strict? (You must concede that those two accusations are mutually exclusive).
I thought I was clear enough: I suggest you yourself to decide which type of sources we all will use during subsequent discussion; I'll accept your decision independently on what it will be; my only requirement is that that decision must be observed by all participants of the discussion.
Regarding you, Xil, let me point out that Wikipedia is not a forum. We have no freedom of speech here, and, if your primary concern is freedom of speech, you should look for other Internet resources. Our "freedom of speech" is strictly limited with our content policy, and the fact that this talk page turned into walls of text is a clear indication that we have too much freedom of speech.
We have to move further, gentlemen. Again, which option (out of two) do you prefer? Just tell me, #1, or #2? Is that so difficult to give a simple, short answer?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Look who's talking... It is content policy, as to your jump on forum thing, it implies we should talk about the article and issue at hand, not or opinions on events described, other users, Anschluss and how discusions should be structured. And as to your little habit of bending what others say to suit your purpose - shall I follow the example and accuse you, say, of being sexist for assuming every single person here is gentleman or can we get back to the point? ~~Xil (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I accept that I totally missed a possibility that some ladies may be here. My apologies to the ladies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec) @Paul Siebert, really, there's nothing more to discuss here. Everything that can be said has been said regardless of stricter (apply explicitly) or looser (apply by contention) application of sources. My position on the original topic is clear: "Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)" (include year while we continue to have two articles for occupations #1 and #2) removing mention of annexation simplifies the title and avoids a host of real, imagined, and alleged issues around the inclusion of annexation in the title. You've registered your discontent. And it seems to me that it's you at the root of our "wall of text" with your moving target of contentions requiring a response. And now you ask us to reboot the rehash from the top. I think not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am more interested to see your sources than to hear (again and again) your position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move (follow-up for date)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. WP:DISAMB. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Soviet occupation of the Baltic states → Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) – (option 1) or Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) (option 2). The current title fails WP:PRECISE by not disambiguating the year of occupation from the second (re)occupation in 1944. Title 1 is in accordance with the results of the last RM, while title 2 preserves the structure used by other articles within this series. Multiple people had stated that they thought it better to retain the year, and I don't feel as though the closure took that into account, being closed due to simple "majority".

Please—no discussion on "annexation". Save that for another time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support (any) as I already said above there is another article on Soviet occupation of Baltic states, yet another on occupation and it is not unimaginable someone could eventually write article on both Soviet occupations ~~Xil (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adding a date to disambiguate isn't a problem what so ever, and this article is related to 1940. In fact the requestor could have probably moved it without a formal request but given the previous discussion above I can understand his caution. --Nug (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, date is needed to tell the two articles/commencements of Soviet occupation apart. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_(1940)/Archive_2&oldid=1085920571"