Talk:Lia Looveer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Annexed vs occupied

I see that the same people who vehemently oppose to the use of the word "annexed" in a context of the Baltic states/the USSR are more liberal when in the case of Germany/Poland. By contrast to the Baltic states, Poland was attacked by Germany and during 1939-45 was officially at war with it. By no mean we can use the word "annexed" in this situation. The only appropriate term in this case is "occupied".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Poland was, indeed, occupied (by two nations, as a matter of fact). And got a US postage stamp for it. Poland had a "government in exile" in London, and issued postage stamps which were validated for a very short period post WWII in Poland. Collect (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And what the second nation was? The Soviet peoples? Ukrainians? Belorussians? How long did this occupation last? When did it end?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone interested in this period of history, you would be aware that at the inception of WWII, Hitler occupied 49% of Polish territory and Stalin occupied 51% of Polish territory, completing its partition, again. Perhaps you've forgotten Stalin's premature telegram of congratulations to Hitler on the fall of Warsaw? Asking such questions in (my perception) an impatient manner—if not accusatory tone—does not advance the dialog here. And regarding "annexed vs. occupied", you are an ardent opponent of "comparing occupations," are you not? Sources guide what things are called, not the personal contentions of editors.

And again, you mischaracterize the position of other editors, that being, that "annexation" (act) and "occupation" (duration of presence) regarding the Baltic states are not mutually exclusive. No one has stated that the Baltic states were not annexed, so cease and desist with your personal attacks alleging "vehemence" on the part of editors who might not agree with you on all counts. Refrain from painting yourself as the voice of reason attempting to stem the tide of vehement POV-pushing editors. I'm disappointed that every time we seem to take a small step forward you insist on taking multiple steps back.

Lastly, I am glad to discuss sources any time, however, your endless denigration of other editors must stop. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's congratulation didn't cancel the fact that Hitler declared a war on Poland and military occupied it after fierce fighting. Nazi Germany was at war with majority states, and its post-1939 borders were not recognised neither de jure nor de facto by most no-satellite states (except, probably, the USSR). In connection to that, to replace "occupied" with "annexed" is hardly correct, and this step is especially strange, taking into account that it has been done by the user who vehemently (sorry, I cannot find more appropriate epithet) opposes to the use of the term "annexed" in a context of another event, which fits this definition much better (according to what reliable sources say).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Soviet forces enter Poland? On what day? At whose direction? Did Germany occupy all of Poland on, say, October 1, 1939? If not, was anyone else occupying any of Poland? If so, who? I suspect simple questions may elucidate this quite a bit. Collect (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This question posed has not yet been answered. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, Stalin's congratulations recognized that Hitler and Stalin had agreed beforehand to carve up Eastern Europe and Stalin was happy for Hitler that things were going so well for him. @Collect: As I recall, Stalin invaded eastern Poland a week (or two, I'll have to go back to check dates) 16 days after Hitler invaded western Poland, ostensibly to protect national minorities, and seeing that the Polish authorities were no longer in control. Unfortunately, the Poles could not fight a war on two fronts, and by the time the two invasions were finished, the USSR had taken control of more of Poland than Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. @Paul: I suggest you consider that one editor's being vehement is another editor's being rigorous. It's safe to say we've contended the same sources "say" something different. So stop with the tiresome epithets. BTW, the appropriate description for what happened to Poland is "partitioned." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re " Stalin's congratulations recognized that Hitler and Stalin had agreed beforehand to carve up Eastern Europe". Although that is not your personal contention (using your own terminology), it is not a mainstream view either. See, e.g. Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.:

"There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland. This assertion cannot be definitively proven but there are a number of documentary clues which support it.

"The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war."

You may disagree with that conclusion, however, what you may not is to speak about my personal contentions on that account. I am just reproduce what reliable mainstream sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And I can quote sources which specifically speak to the Hitler-Stalin pact, while ostensibly a nonaggression treaty, was a "war pact by which the two signatories divided the prospective territorial booty. In view of these facts, the opinion that the responsibility for World War II was entirely one sided can only be maintained with respect to western Europe. In a wider sense, the war guilt was about equally divided between Berlin and Moscow who planned together for the new conflagration." So, don't pick one source supporting your position, position it as "mainstream sources" and denounce whatever I say as being merely my personal opinion. I prefer to represent what sources (plural) state, while you appear content to represent a source (singular) as what "mainstream sources" (plural) state. Since you perpetually contend that anything I state is some fringe POV view unsupported by mainstream sources (I'll spare you the endless diffs), that prevents any further meaningful discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely, you can. What you cannot, however, is to pretend these sources to express the scholarly consensus. That viewpoint is just one of viewpoints, and should be treated as such.

Re "don't pick one source supporting your position, position it as "mainstream sources" and denounce whatever I say as being merely my personal opinion." Read carefully what I wrote: "Although that is not your personal contention (using your own terminology), it is not a mainstream view either." By writing that I meant that, whereas your statement is supported by reliable sources, these do not represent a sole majority viewpoint. You will not find anywhere in my post the claim that Roberts' viewpoint is the sole mainstream POV (I just wrote that the source is mainstream, and it is hardly possible to refute this claim). I am not so stupid to state that the majority viewpoint on this subject exists. It is well known that at least two mainstream viewpoints exists on the Nazi-Soviet relations, and the POV you share is a viewpoint of so called "German school".

Your claim ("don't pick one source supporting your position") is simply false and offensive. Please, redact it and apologise, otherwise it will be hard for me to further assume your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "I prefer to represent what sources (plural) state". Well, we have two statements, one from the source provided by me, and another from the (unnamed) source provided by you. How do you propose to combine them? (I fully understand that this question belongs to another talk page, however...)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything here, we are entirely off topic, we are agreed there. When you stop contending I'm a fringe theorist, we can discuss sources more constructively. BTW, Robert Ingrim, 1946. I didn't cite the source to avoid an enervating exchange of dueling sources, which is what you took it as (after all, I didn't name my source). You ignored my observation that (according to you) you're only quoting "mainstream sources" and I'm always off engaging in some POV prattle. You really ought to break your habit of "me=mainstream" every other word, the other word being "you=fringe." You didn't used to behave that way, your constant denigration of other editors instead of simply discussing sources is unbecoming. Perhaps you don't even realize you're doing it. I regret you seem to have picked up some bad habits while you didn't have me around to keep you honest. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't blame others in your sins. Whereas I never claimed you were a fringe theorist, your statements about my "personal contentions" can be found at virtually every talk page where we interact. For instance, during the current discussion I never called your sources fringe (despite the fact that you provided no references), because I know these sources, and I know that such authors as Raack or Nekirich are reputable scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop defending yourself by attacking others (my "sins"). I'll spare you the diffs on calling my views unsupported and fringe because then I'd have to call you a liar and this conversation would simply degenerate. Let me know when you're ready to discuss sources without editorializing about other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. That means, eliminate endless contentions of "mainstream", "fringe", and "so-called" from your discussion of sources for a bit. Your discourse might be more collegial. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my words: I do not defend myself, because I simply do not need to. I admit I could forget something, but I do not remember when I called you a fringe theorist. With regard to your "the diffs on calling my views unsupported and fringe", I cannot rule out that I called some your points unsupported, however, I am always ready to withdraw these my statements if needed evidences of the opposite will be provided. One way or the another, we will be able to speak concretely only if you will give me some examples, because I simply do not remember what concrete my words you mean. Btw, you can freely call me a liar, because, as I already wrote elsewhere, I am not going to report you in any event (independently of whether your accusations are substantiated of completely baseless).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, if you have no need to defend yourself then you should have no further need to denigrate other editors and the unfortunate exchanges over the past several months can be considered closed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: RE: Did Soviet forces enter Poland? On what day? At whose direction? Did Germany occupy all of Poland on, say, October 1, 1939? If not, was anyone else occupying any of Poland? If so, who? I suspect simple questions may elucidate this quite a bit. Collect (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Soviet forces entered Poland on 17 September 1939...
2. ...at Stalin's direction.
3. Nazi Germany did not occupy all of Poland. (16 days following Hitler's invasion from the west, Stalin invaded sovereign, unoccupied Polish territory from the east. According to Molotov, Polish sovereignty had ceased to exist, so technically the Soviet Union did not invade another sovereign country.)
4. No other foreign power occupied (parts of) Poland between 1 September 1939 through 16 September 1939 aside from Nazi Germany. (By the end of September, however, the partition of Poland between Hitler and Stalin was complete, formally, October 6th.)

Is this the nature of clarification you're looking for? Or perhaps you were looking for Igny or Paul to represent their understanding, in which case I would be interested as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re denigration. Yes, I had no, have no and will have no need to denigrate anyone. If you know any example of denigration, please, let me know, and I withdraw my denigrating statements and bring my apologies. However, AFAIK, I never denigrated anyone (of course, unless a legitimate notion about incorrectness of the policy of double standards is denigration). What I write is truth, at least, you haven't demonstrated the opposite so far. Re your ##1-4,

1. Correct;
2. Correct;
3. Correct;
4. Partially correct (you forgot Slovakia). However, more important, you forgot to explain when the occupation of Kresy ended. You probably know that this part of Poland became the part of the USSR both de facto and de jure, and now it belongs to Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. In connection to that, could you please explain me if the annexation of Kresy lead to the end of occupation (as it was usually the case according to those time international law) or it lasted after that? If the second is true, then when did the occupation ended? Or you believe that Lithuania continues to illegally occupy its own capital? Or you believe the occupation magically ended with dissolution of the USSR?

And, finally, let me remind you that we are talking about German occupied Danzig, which had never been under Soviet occupation (except, arguably, the short period in 1945). In connection to that, what is the reason of this your post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Truth"? Even I don't contend I'm the keeper of any "truth." Regarding the massive shift in the post-war borders of Poland et al. wrought by the USSR and all related including the issue of Kresy, that is an entire topic unto itself and off topic here. Regarding Vilnius, it is described in pre-WWII Western sources as being occupied by Poland. At least this is a case where it would be far more factual to state "Нельзя оккупировать то, что тебе принадлежит" with regard to Vilnius' position today. What do your questions have to do with Looveer?PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

What your "Even I don't contend I'm the keeper of any "truth."" means? Is it a Freudian slip, or you know something that other mortals don't? (You don't need to ask, that was obviously a joke).

Regarding the rest, I fully agree that it is absolutely irrelevant discussion, that, by the way, was started not by me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a Freudian slip, merely that hubris is not one of my vices. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

About pages 404-406

I received a most cordial correspondence from the eminent Ansparg Diller in response to my wishing to find out more about Reichssender Baltikum. It is most odd that he indicates the passage from pages 404-406 about Baltic collaborators ("produzierte mit Hilfe von 10 Kollaborateuren Nachrichten, Propaganda und Unterhaltungssendung in den Sprachen des Baltikums") that has been the source of charges Looveer collaborated with the Nazis is not in his book; however, he does have a single sentence later in the book devoted to Radio Ostland. ("Leider findet sich der von Ihnen zitierte Text an keiner Stelle meines Buches auf den Seiten 404-406. Mein Buch enthält auf Seite 431 nur einen Satz mit dem Hinweis auf die Sendergruppe Ostland, zu der auch Estland gehörte."). Out of respect for his privacy, I am not quoting further, reproducing his Email in full, or sharing his Email address. This is the sum total of his correspondence regarding the passage in question. Herr Diller did suggest additional reading which I will follow up on personally. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean that the passage quoted by Pantherskin (talk · contribs), which he claims is from Diller's book[1], doesn't actually exist? --Martin (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case. In my correspondence, I was quite careful to quote everything accurately as represented. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Appears to have been re-added - and I removed the clearly contentious bits which appear to fail verification per WP:V Collect (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like anyone to explain me what is wrong with this

...this edit [2]. No additional explanation is needed, because the edit summary is self-explanatory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Carefully following an English language source, I've changed the text as follows:

She became engaged to Robert Tasso on 31 December 1940, but he was arrested by the NKVD and deported to Siberia for fifteen years.... On 19 September 1944, Lia Looveer escaped to Germany, and on 30 September 1944 she married Leonid Looveer (Looberg) in Danzig.ref "Australia Loses a Great Lady" (PDF). Lia LOOVEER (née Saarepere) BEM JP (1920-2006). Michael Darby. 8 November 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-16..

Note that there's a piped link to Nazi Germany as that's the article for the historical period, but the source says Germany so that's what we should show. This edit by User:Paul Siebert had the edit summary Danzig was not more German than, e.g. Vienna. Nazi occupation has to be mentioned, because preceding sentence tells about the Soviet period. Not everyone knows about the fact that Estonia was okkupied by Nazi– that's obvious original research and is unacceptable – if you want to make that point, find a source that makes it explicit. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)<ec>

By the way, the preceding paragraph does not mention Soviet occupation. While the source notes her fiancé was nabbed by the NKVD and deported to Siberia, so we show that, it does not in itself state that Estonia was occupied by anyone. Readers can always follow the links, including the link to Nazi Germany. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Danzig, I asked for clarification from a person that seems to know that better than I do. Let me point out, however, that the source you use is a reliable source for the details of Looveer's biography, hot for the history of Poland.

Re NKVD, you must concede it is ridiculous: your text literally says that Lia's fiancé was deported to Siberia by NKVD and she worked for radio. The first thing that comes to mind that she worded for Soviet radio. I believe the fact that Lia lived and worked under German occupation must be in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. In future, please, be more restrained with your edit summary: what edit warring are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you "believe the fact that Lia lived and worked under German occupation must be in the article" (In fact you inserted "Nazi occupation"), when the article makes no mention of the Soviet occupation (or "Bolshevik occupation" for that matter)? --Martin (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, do please work from reliable sources and don't use original research. As the cited source says,

1940, December 31 –engaged to Mr Robert Tasso. Mr Tasso was arrested by the NKVD and deported; spent 15 years in Siberia
1941-44 -announcer/broadcaster State Broadcasting company, Tallinn
1944 (September 19)–escaped from Estonia to Germany
1944, September 30 –married Leonid Looveer in Danzig

It shows the sequence, as does our article. Nothing there about occupation by anyone. Note that she escaped to Germany, she could have gone from there to Danzig if you think Danzig wasn't in Germany, though the occupants at that time seem to have thought it was. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably do not understand what OR means. Wikipedia cannot be written based on a single source. The source you refer to is reliable for the fact of Looveer's biography, but it is not the most reliable about the history of Estonia, or Danzig. If another source says that in 1941-44 Estonia was under German occupation, and if that is relevant, it should be said in the article, and the fact that the source you use does not say that in not an argument. Or you maybe question the fact that Estonia under German occupation during that period?

Again, my question is: why, in your opinion, the fact that Estonia was under German occupation should be removed from this article? I already explained why this fact is relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS If you believe I am engaged in original research, please, demonstrate what concrete "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories" did you find in my edits "for which no reliable published source exists". Accusations in original research must be substantiated, otherwise they have a zero weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SYN, which is of course part of our no original research policy. It's no good finding sources about Estonia or Danzig if they don't specifically discuss Lia Loovers. It's policy, don't try to break it. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In connection to that, please, explain what concrete conclusion (which is not stated by any on the sources) is implied by the text: "During 1941-44, when Estonia was under German occupation (a source about Estonia), Lia worked for Radio Broadcasting (a source about Looveer)". Let me also note that the source you cite is simply misleading: what state does it mean? Estonian? German? Instead of quoting the policy that is irrelevant to this case, you should provide satisfactory counter-arguments, because a discussion on the WP:NOR will hardly lead to the outcome you expect to get.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen, sunshine, you've clearly been trying to imply Looveer chose to move and work in a Nazi occupied area. Find a source that makes the connection, and then we can show it, but without such a source you're evidently trying to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", or even worse, using your unsourced original research to add in something not in any cited sources. Biographies should have exemplary sourcing, so go forth and find sources that specifically refer to Looveer. . dave souza, talk 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. Looveer lived in Estonia, and, when Germany occupied it started to work for State radio. By omitting any mention of Germany, we imply that she worked for Estonian state radio, which is not correct, because the Estonian state did not exist by that moment (few consulates throughout the world were not sufficient to speak about any government in exile). That is simply misleading. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the fact that the country was under a control of Nazi German authorities during this time. She was not a doctor or farmer, worked for radio, that implied some deep connection with the authorities (when we speak about totalitarian authorities), therefore, that needs in clarification. Generally speaking, a fact that the country some person lived was occupied is an important detail, and I do not understand why this fact is irrelevant. The same is true for Danzig: it was not a part of Germany from the point of view of international law: it was conquered, and the war hadn't ended by that moment, so we simply cannot speak about even theoretical recognition of its incorporation into Germany.

Re "find sources that specifically refer to Looveer." I do not think to write "German occupied Estonia" we need a source that specifically tells about Looveer. That is against both the letter and spirit of our policy, which says "do not combine sources to reach a conclusion that is not present there", not just "do not combine different sources in one article".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you wish to imply that Looveer actively worked for the Nazis in some manner? Can you provide an RS so stating that as a fact, or just that you wish it to be implied? She is dead, so you are free to toss BLP out the window, I suppose. Collect (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put this another way. As I've mentioned my mother's last job in Latvia was assistant postmaster (so mail, phone, telegraph) in Talsi. She had that job in an independent Latvia, then under the Soviets (where the staff she managed eavesdropped on all conversations at rifle-point). That does not make her a Soviet collaborator, nor subsequently a Nazi collaborator after that invasion. Escaping the second Soviet invasion to the south Baltic shore did not make her a Nazi accessory. @Paul, you insist who and where were in power is important, that is your WP:OR. It is abundantly clear from the same-said circumstances that (a) people continued to do what they did prior assuming the occupying authorities had some need for you, that was better than being dispensable and dead—many of my mother's staff simply disappeared, and (b) you flee what you perceive to be the greater danger to yourself; Looveer did it fleeing on the last boat to leave Tallinn, my parents did the same fleeing the Courland pocket with Soviet bombs dropping around them.

To "explain" who was occupying what in the manner indicated ultimately encourages the reader to infer the worst, having been given no guidance as to the actual circumstances of individuals who, sadly since they are dead, do not have WP:BLP to protect their reputations. Unfortunately, WP cares only about who might litigate against it as opposed to having a standard for biographies, since there is no logical reason that the standards upheld for living people should not apply to the dead, who, arguably, are in less of a position to defend themselves. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The very first reference in the article, Academic Library of Tallinn University[3], mentions she worked for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling", which translates to Estonian State Radio. But Paul seems to dispute this source injecting his personal OR: "By omitting any mention of Germany, we imply that she worked for Estonian state radio, which is not correct, because the Estonian state did not exist by that moment (few consulates throughout the world were not sufficient to speak about any government in exile)." Reliable sources assert that many Estonian state institutions continued to exist despite Soviet and German occupations. --Martin (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of dealing with Looveer's time in the DP camps and emigration to Australia? @Paul, I suggest you abide by consensus as you can't appear to avoid making the Nazi connection by circumstance in the absence of specific sources. Elsewhere, your "absolutely voluntarily" fled to Nazi occupied territory as opposed to "absolutely vountarily" remaining to be occupied by the Soviets, ergo preferring Nazis renders you, IMO, incapable of objectively editing in the topic area of the Baltic states and actions/legacies of the USSR and Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that the lovely argument of both of you is the reference to OR when we speak about something you dislike. Sometimes this habit assumes absolutely ridiculous forms. Thus, to claim that the statement "in 1941-44 Estonia was under Nazi occupation" is my original research is simply nonsense. With regard to the "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling", I see no problem to write that. However, I see a problem with something else, namely, what concrete "state" is meant when we speak about Estonian State Radio? Do you mean the Estonian state? If yes, then you must concede that Germany did not occupy Estonia, and in 1941-44 Estonia was an ally or co-belligerent of the Nazi Germany. If no (the latter is, in my opinion, correct), then we should speak not about the Estonian state, but about some other, unnamed state. I've done some original research and synthesis of sources, and I came to a conclusion that during 1941-44 Estonia was not an independent state, but the part of the Reichskommissariat Ostland, a form of German occupation regime, and the German administration was the only state regime that existed in Estonia during this time. If the source from the Academic Library implied the opposie, it is obviously unreliabe, because we cannot speak not only about independent Estonian state, but even about a puppet state.

And, in addition, taking into account that the described events took place during the war, and all territories we discuss were under military occupations, to mention the occupying state in not only desirable, but event necessary. If the sources about Lia Looveer do not do that, it is not an argument against the mention, because, whereas these sources are reliable for the details of Looveer's biography, they are not necessary reliable for more general facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary section for radio station names 1941-44

There was no such thing like "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" between 1941-44, the station operating in Estonia at that time was called Landessender Reval (official name Reichs-Rundfunk GmbH Landessender Reval).--Termer (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Termer, hmm, interesting but offtopic without a source about Looveer, and the sources refer to the State Broadcasting company in Tallin. It rather depends whether she started her part-time broadcasting (while still a law student) before September 1941, see the conjecture below. Got a source about Looveer? . . dave souza, talk 06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Occupying administrations

@ Paul Siebert, nope. Mentioning occupying administrations is unnecessary and unjustified unless a source about the life of Looveer specifically mentions the occupation. Having looked into the history a bit, it's complex though informative. If we did mention occupations, we could have something like the following:

"While Loover was at law school, Tallin was invaded and occupied by Soviet forces and on 31 December 1940 her fiancé was arrested by the NKVD. In 1941 she began working as an announcer/broadcaster for the State Broadcasting company in Tallin, later that year German Nazi forces liberated Estonia from the Soviets and occupied Tallin. She continued work with the broadcasting company until 1944. When the Soviets again invaded in 1944, she escaped to Nazi German occupied Germany and got married in Danzig. She then worked for Baltic Radio, Reichsrunfunkt in Nazi Germany and in Thorn, Nazi German occupied Poland. When Soviet forces invaded the area she and her husband moved to American occupied Austria."

Silly, eh? And a lot of unacceptable original research. . . dave souza, talk 06:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not silly. Almost everything is correct. The only original research is the statement the moment Looveer started to work in Tallinn. Did she start to work under Soviet regime or under Nazi? I am not sure the source gives us this information. It states: 1941-44, however, it is unclear if 1941 refers to pre-June period also. With regard to the rest, my only objection is "invaded and occupied by Soviet forces". In actuality, that was formally peaceful, although de facto forceful incorporation of Estonia into the USSR. Accordingly, Nazi did not liberate Estonia from the Soviets, they forcefully and militarily occupied it. This wording is redundantly anti-Soviet and pro-German, however, after minor modifications the text proposed by you can be added to the article. I support it.

Let me explain that again. It is quite ok to combine sources, unless we do not want to push any specific idea that is is not present in any of them. By adding the information about a historical context of the events of the Looveer's life we do no original research, because we imply nothing in addition to what the sources say. Without this background the article is completely obscure. "Arrested by NKVD". Was NKVD acting in independent Estonia or it became a de facto part of the USSR by that time? "Escaped to Germany". Why "escaped" if the reason of this "escape" has not been provided? "worked for Eesti Riigi Ringhääling (Estonian National Broadcasting)" How could she work for the radio station that was established after her death (in that sence, I agree with Termer)? Which state funded this radio station?

In summary, the article seems to be written no for the broad audience, but for rather limited amount of readers, mostly Estonians, who are aware about the history of Estonia. The article tells about the person who was a persistent proponent of Estonian independence and the opponent of Communism, however, any historical details that demonstrate that are being carefully removed from the article, because otherwise it will become clear that the same person was more tolerant to Nazism and ex-Nazi that someone wanted.

If you want to write the article specifically for nationalist Estonian audience, feel free to do that. However, in this case the article should be supplemented with the tag that explains this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, above you quoted WP:SYN policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", yet here you are doing precisely that when you say "it will become clear that the same person was more tolerant to Nazism and ex-Nazis". There is no source that states she was "more tolerant" to Nazism and ex-Nazis, that is purely your attempt to imply a conclusion based upon your use of sources unrelated to Looveer. Don't you see the irony of your position? --Martin (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to radio station names

RE:dave souza One source about Looveer [4] refers to the "State Broadcasting company" in Tallinn between 1941-1944, another [5] without giving any dates to "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling". Only thing I'm saying, the discussion above is waste of time since she couldn't work for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" between 1941-1944 since such a station didn't exist during the period. So she may have worked for "Eesti Riigi Ringhääling" before 1940, but it's just my best guess. The point is that all questionable facts that are based on not so WP:RS should be removed from wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Eesti Rahvusringhääling is not a useful link as our article dates the organisation from 2007, and I've not found any articles about earlier Estonian radio stations, so have removed the link. As the source says "State Broadcasting company, Tallinn", it seems reasonable to call it "Estonian State Broadcasting". You're welcome to propose an alternative name, guess we could always call it "a radio broadcasting company in Tallin". . . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is still not addressed. Which Estonian state the source means? --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, one of my comments has gone missing. As for other sources, Eesti Ringhäälingumuuseum supports the point that the State Broadcasting Company (Riigi Ringhääling) was on the go in 1937, and also uses that name (in English) when describing the 1926-1944 section. However, http://www.ringhliit.ee/english/facts/ says "1941-1944 - in Tallinn the Nazi occupation force launched Landessender Reval, a propaganda station". Not conclusive and not clear if that's a reliable source, but enough to omit info that looks dubious. Have now rephrased it as "She did work for the radio Broadcasting Company at Tallinn from 1941 to 1944." That allows for the point that she still seems to have been a law student at the time, so presumably wasn't a full time employee. If preferred, we could always use lower case, changing it to "She did work for the radio broadcasting company at Tallinn from 1941 to 1944." Either version leaves it more open, without going beyond the sources that specifically mention Looveer or implying anything that the sources about her don't state. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in other words, in your opinion, only the sources that explicitly mention Lia Looveer can be used in this article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Think we've been here before, WP:SYN is policy and requires that we "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To adapt the example given in that section of the policy, "To make the statements consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the life of Looveer and makes the same point about the Nazi and Soviet occupation of places she lived in. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." If combining these two issues is significant to her life story, then a reliable source will have published that combination of issues. Without such a reliable source, we cannot combine other sources in a way that implies anything about her life. If it's not significant enough to have been published, it doesn't belong in the article. Get it? . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No. "If combining these two issues is significant to her life story, then a reliable source will have published that combination of issues." The sources about Looveer are very scarce, and tell almost nothing about her. In connection to that, the article that is based only on the (highly fragmentary) facts of her biography, and leaves beyond the scope even quite obvious facts (such as the occupation of Estonia by Nazi) makes the article obscure and misleading. Thus, the article implies that NKVD was acting freely in (according to the article) independent Estonia, because it contains no mention of the incorporation of Estonia into the USSR, and the next sentence tells about some state radio. The article tells nothing about the historical background of the 1944 events: Looveer escaped to Danzig, but the reason of this escape is unclear. Again, the article is written for the Estonian audience, and only for those who know the XX century history of Estonia. It presents the facts from the nationalist Estonian viewpoint and therefore deserves a tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that Australia has a nationalist Estonian viewpoint, but that's irrelevant. If this aspect of Looveer's life is notable, then someone will have published it about her, go thou and find that source. If it's not significant to her, it doesn't belong in the article, if it is significant then we need a published source. End of story, you're looking increasingly tendentious. Try looking over WP:NOR carefully and be open to accepting what it says. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Occupying administrations resumed

@Paul, your "carefully removed" is another editor's sticking to sources and not stuffing the article full of crap directly or indirectly stating Looveer was a Nazi sympathizer, "war criminal supporter", or "collaborator." You will also note that Estonian Radio under the Nazi Germany occupation was not part of the "Empire" broadcasting system. Of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't censorship, but again, all speculation. I suggest you disengage and allow other editors to formulate objective content based on what's been stated in sources. Cease your "same person was more tolerant to Nazism and ex-Nazi that [sic., than] someone wanted" smear campaign that Looveer thought Nazis were more OK than the Soviets and that there are editors here who are engaged in a campaign to suppress bona fide reputably sourced (naming Looveer) allegations of Nazi sympathies—of which there are exactly zero. Don't repeat this line of argument again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You see on my posts only what you want, not what I write. Please, explain, where in my post did I write that Looveer was a Nazi sympathiser? I wrote she was probably more tolerant to Nazism than to Communism, and by escaping to Danzig she demonstrated that she preferred Nazim as lesser evil. Who can deny this fact, and on which ground? Btw, for you, who believes that Nazism and Communism were essentially the same (if I correctly understand the essence of your edits), to react on that my statement so violently is somewhat odd. She made a choice between about similar evils, for some reason she preferred one of them, so what?

With regard to "war criminal supporter", I also cannot agree. I never wrote that. However, the fact is that some of her colleagues were alleged Nazi collaborators or war criminals, and that is hard to deny. She did not refuse to deal with them, and she arguably had no similar contacts with Communists. That is also obvious. The facts of Looveer's biography clearly (the evil the Soviet regime made to Looveer, her escape to German occupied territories, her post-war contacts with ex-Nazi, her anti-Communism) clearly demonstrate that she saw Communism as a greater evil (which implies that she saw Nazism as lesser evil). Whereas I do not insist on addition of these facts to this article, to blame me in anything for making such obvious statements on the talk page is ridiculous.

And, finally, please, be more restrained with your edit summaries. By making such summaries you do not make your arguments stronger.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

After the war Nazi Germany no longer occupied the Baltics, only the Soviet Union. There is no implication in her opposition to Soviet occupation that she therefore saw Nazism as not so bad. Don't dig yourself deeper, consider that my edit summary was appropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, your statement "However, the fact is that some of her colleagues were alleged Nazi collaborators or war criminals, and that is hard to deny. She did not refuse to deal with them, and she arguably had no similar contacts with Communists." is just more unwarranted WP:SYNTHy speculation. We have covered this ground before. As the secretary of various Liberal Party ethnic councils she necessarily came in contact with many thousands of European immigrants. How would she, an Estonian from Northern Europe know that a particular fellow migrant council member from Southern Europe was an alleged war criminal until after the fact of his exposure, and there is no evidence in the sources that she supported him after his exposure. Note that the Liberal Party of Australia awarded her a Heraitge Award in 2002, long after the Migrant Council scandals of the 1970's, so obviously she was untainted by this in the view of the party. --Martin (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Page archiving

Can somebody please set this up and archive the older threads? I have a reasonably fast internet access, but this talk page is taking ages to load. I'd set it up myself, but I'm a bit clueless with this archiving caper. --Martin (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick and dirty copy and paste archiving done, as requested. Maybe someone technical will set up an arhivebot if this remains a hot topic. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I did it recently for one of the other articles. Will do. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)