Talk:Military occupations by the Soviet Union/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kuril Islands?

I did not find Invasion of the Kuril Islands and Kuril Islands dispute in this article. Should it be included? My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a long and unproductive discussion of terminology on this page ("occupation", "annexation", whatever), but the article misses the point: what was the difference between Soviet and other occupations in the wake of WWII? Of course one could easily compile a list of US occupations during the entire US history, which would make an interesting reading and be a legitimate list. But what was the difference between US occupations of Western Germany and Japan and Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe? Quite obviously, US helped/forced these countries to build free societies and market economies, but SU forced these countries to build the unnatural totalitarian systems bringing death and suffering to the population (and they would not let them escape according to the "Brezhnev doctrine"). That should be explained better. This is also one of the reasons why this article should exist. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The occupation of Kuril Islands was different in one important aspect: the entire Japanese population escaped the islands prior to Soviet invasion, so right now this is largely a matter of jokes debating if Russian population of the islands would like to live in Japan and hinting that they certainly would (the song: "Nash president ne p'et in ne kurit. Luchshe by pil i kuril. Mozet ot etogo bylo by luchshe zitelym Yuzhyx Kuril", hinting at statement by Yeltsin that he would transfer the islands to Japan). My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as long as Japan has sovereignty, it's occupied territory. (To be explicitly sourced, of course, not my "opinion.") VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kuril Islands and Sakhalin were occupied by the USSR and then annexed. That should be added to the article. Japan has no sovereignty over this territories.

Regarding your "the US helped/forced these countries to build free societies and market economies, but SU forced these countries to build the unnatural totalitarian systems", I would say that a little bit differently: each of two Cold War opponents country tried to install the regimes that would be closer political allied of their patrons. In some cases (e.g. in South Korea, South Vietnam or Latin America) the US supported obvious dictators (for which the US partially apologized later).

In any event, the sources that describe "Soviet occupation" as a specific subject would be quite useful in this article, which currently is a pure example of synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Explicit regarding specific

We have expended enormous energy arguing over what ultimately constitutes inappropriate synthesis. Well, perhaps it's just been myself with regard to Paul Siebert's editorial contentions. Regardless, I propose my own statement of principle for this article. Stated as a poll for rhetorical effect, voting not required—but welcomed, along with comments.

All sources cited for this article (and content created therefrom) must be specific to one or more of the occupations discussed herein by explicit mention of said occupation(s) in the source.

• Agreed as proposer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. We have expended enormous energy here. In fact we have gone over old ground, we discussed Edelstein's paper and annexation/occupation at length back in September last year[1]. It seems Paul may have forgotten that discussion, as he also apparently did when he claimed elsewhere on another page "I never found in literature a direct and unequivocal statement that illegal annexation is tantamount to prolonged occupation"[2]. even though sources were presented in January and October 2011[3] --Nug (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation regarding last September. I still have a feeling I had looked at Edelstein earlier.... regardless, an excellent example of a source that does not apply to this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be good, provided, but only provided, that NPOV and NOR requirement are met. Concretely, the article should be modified in such a way that (i) its major concept is supported by mainstream reliable sources (I failed to see any source so far that described "Soviet occupation" as some concrete and a specific phenomenon), and (ii) all mainstream sources, including the sources that provide alternative views of the came subject would be possible to include.

However, if the source will be provided that, e.g. describes "Soviet occupation" as a specific term to describe post WWII occupation of, e.g. Eastern block article, but tell nothing about, e.g. Afghanistan or Bessarabia, we cannot include these two events, even if the authors writing about Afghanistan or Bessarabia use the words "Soviet (noun) + occupation (adj)" together, because by just combining a noun and an adjective no new term is created, and "Occupation by the USSR" != "Soviet occupation" (a term).

However, if some author X in his article/monograph defined the term "Soviet occupation" to describe e.g. occupation of Hungary and Poland, and the author Y in his article about Afghanistan applied this concept (with explicit reference to X), we can and should add it to this article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't Wiktionary, that is located over here. --Nug (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't Wictionary, but it is not the place for publishing your own original research/reviews either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you.

1. You fail to introduce your WP:SYNTHESIS of types of occupations to apply to the content here, that after your contention that there is nothing similar about the occupations here (i.e., different types) and therefore they do not belong together in a single article.
2. That having failed, you now posit that "Soviet occupation" must exist as a "term" defined independent of an actual act of occupation. And if it does not exist separately as an independent term, then (I assume) the article itself should not exist. (This line of argumentation has been used at other Soviet or Communism related articles regarding content that has put the Soviet Union or Communism in less than a positive light in advocacy to delete those articles. Not an allegation or attack or surmising of editorial intent here, merely an empirical observation.)

An abstract definition of "Soviet occupation" cannot, by definition, exist outside an act of territorial occupation by the Soviet Union. I don't see what you are asking here and in your new section below. Do you want us to find a source that states: "Soviet occupation is an occupation by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" prior to discussing "Soviet occupation of X" explicitly?

Regardless, my proposition is straightforward: either we agree to use only reliable, reputable sources which discuss specific territorial occupations by the Soviet Union (whether singly or multiples, but explicitly in all cases)—or we don't. That, and representing those sources fairly and accurately (that is without introducing editorial bias), should be our only guiding principles here, and the only basis for introducing content into the article. No other stipulations apply. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, re yours below, I would note that the "non-trivial" features in common to Soviet occupations are the Soviet Union and Soviet military presence. Your request for (by definition) additional features is a WP:SYNTHESIS that such features should, and must, exist. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. Is the Soviet military presence more "non-trivial" that, e.g. American or French military presence?

In any event, since you have recognized that no such term as "Soviet occupation" can exist, then no article on that subject can exist, except a list article. By combining multiple sources (on Afghanistan, Nazi Germany, Czechoslovakia and Sakhalin) in some more non-trivial way then merely a list, you imply that there were something non-trivial in common between those events. That is exactly what WP:SYNTHESIS is, the sine you are trying to blame me in.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a strawman, where in this article is it advancing a position not explicitly stated by any of the sources? I don't see any section that does this. As far as I can tell, this article is nothing more than a verbose list of Soviet occupations. However, if you are looking for a common link, it would be that these Soviet occupations were intended to advance and secure Soviet hegemony. --Nug (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

By combining several topics together we imply there is something non-trivial in common between them. Therefore, such a conclusion should be explicitly made in some mainstream reliable source. If the source is non-mainstream, such a conclusion should be explicitly attributed to the author (as his personal opinion). If no such sources exist, the article should be either converted into a mere list or deleted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please articulate what you believe this synthesised conclusion is, so that we can verify that it does not exist in published sources. --Nug (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The synthesised conclusion is that occupation of Nazi Germany by the USSR, war in Afghanistan, occupation of formerly Russian territory of South Sakhalin, and annexation of disputed region of Bessarabia have some non-trivial common features that warrant their combining in one article. Although such conclusion is not made explicitly, it is implied, which is also prohibited WP:SYNTHESIS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream sources are needed that explicitly define "Soviet occupation" as a separate term

I think we need to make a decision about the general article's concept. It should be either the article about "Soviet occupations" as a specific phenomenon, which is not the same as just "occupation of some territory by the USSR", or just the list article, containing links to all events that have been characterised by at least one reliable source as occupation by the USSR. In connection to that, I invite everyone to provide the sources that define the term "Soviet occupation" (not just combine those two words together and a noun and adjective).
If no sources of that kind will be provided (I failed to find them so far), the article should be converted into the list article, and renamed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The literature does not use 'Soviet occupations' as a general term. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't Wiktionary, that is located over here. --Nug (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your arrogance is out of place here. This title fails WP:CRITERIA in terms of naturalness (readers will not search for this as a general term) and consistency (Wikipedia has list articles under German occupation and Japanese Occupation, redirects under British occupation and French Occupation, and no American occupation). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account that per Edelstein-Halperin occupation and colonialism are two quite different things, "British occupation" referring to the British Empire sounds awkward: Britain was not militarily occupying her own empire.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTHESIS of sources which do not apply. Please stick to the topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• My 3rd opinion. It would be a perfectly legitimate approach to create a List of military occupations by the United States, List of Soviet occupations, and so on. This is simply per WP:List. Whether this is a common terminology to justify an article can be determined even by a simple Google search [4], [5]. Yes, it seems to be. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A list article under this title would be consistent with German occupation and Japanese Occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except these lists do not satisfy our WP:List guidelines. This should not be merely a list or a Table, but we must provide a brief description of every item in the list (an occupation in this case). This could be a paragraph for each item.My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account that each of those topics have their own articles, the description may be limited with very basic facts (start and end dates, causes, results).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely permissible to write sufficient prose as required to adequately summarise the articles referred too. --Nug (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

...provided that is not a synthesis. However, if the sources used by you do not imply that "Soviet occupation" was a separate category, and that there were some significant non-trivial common features between each case of occupation by the USSR, your prose can be published only outside of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I mean a list of occupations in addition to this article. Frankly, talking that "Soviet occupations" was not a valid category is absurd. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is absurd, then some sources should exist that explain that "Soviet occupation" is not merely "occupation by the Soviet Union" (similar to the difference between Blue whale and a whale of blue colour). Can you provide some?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course this is "occupation by the Soviet Union", but the difference between "Soviet occupation" and "occupation by the Soviet Union" is exactly the same as between Blue whale and Balaenoptera musculus. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Balaenoptera musculus" is not translated as "blue whale", but as muscular winged whale. In addition, "blue whale" is not blue in actuality, it is gray.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And so, even in utterly irrelevant discussion you fail (!!!!) to be able to admit that "A=B", as Balaenoptera musculus is the scientific name for the animal we colloquially call the blue whale. Q.E.D. for combative attitude—and simply for the sake of being combative as there is no other possible purpose to be served here for such a display. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Do let me know when we discuss a source which explicitly mentions Soviet occupation and/or with specificity to respective territory involved. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do let me know if you find mainstream reliable sources that state that, e.g. Soviet war in Afghanistan, Soviet occupation Germany and Soviet annexation of Bessarabia had more in common than American occupation of Haiti, American occupation of Philippines and American occupation of Japan. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument and reference to the USA is irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless the request for reliable mainstream sources that link all events listed in the article together is valid. Please, do that.

PS. I am still waiting for sources that confirm your assertion that "illegal annexation == military occupation". Please do not evade clearly formulated questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I've already provided a source three times previously: Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR M. Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9041121773, p195. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Since only Russian and Estonian translations are available for me, could you please provide me with the quote from the English text (to be sure we are discussing the same fragment). In addition, as I already explained, we need a statement about occupation in general. If Malksoo speaks about the Baltic states only, which is a very unusual case (sui generis), this statement is hardly acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link[6]. Your argument regarding occupation sui generis is flawed, since we agree that the allied occupation of Germany and Japan were also sui generis, you are basically arguing that these were not military occupations too. --Nug (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I expected, Malksoo's words refer to the Baltic states only. In addition, Malksoo's wording is not fully clear for me, and I do not think he meant that "illegal annexation == occupation sui generis" in international law. To demonstrate this fact, let's turn to the German case. As you correctly noted, the term "occupation sui generis" was applied (by Guggenheim) to those case, however, the reason was quite different. Concretely, the need in this term was because the state of debellatio took place in those countries, i.e. a situation when the state institutes had been totally destroyed (in Germany, and in lesser extent, in Japan). In this situation, the defeated state is considered as not existing any more, so the Hague conventions are not applicable to this case. This situation cannot be considered as occupation, hence the term "occupation sui generis". (Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004 ISBN 0691121303, 9780691121307, p. 92) I believe Malksoo neither implied that the Baltic states were totally destroyed as a result of hostilities, nor he even recognized the fact of hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic states in 1940. Therefore, we have a clear evidence that "pccupation sui generis" is just an ad hoc term used to describe some very unusual situation, which has some traits of occupation, although (for various reasons) cannot be considered as occupation sensu stricto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Japan's case is very different to that of Germany. Japanese institutions such as the Emperor and government remained and there was no question with regard to the continuity of the Japanese state, so your argument regarding the loss of continuity as the basis of sui generis has no foundation. Ofcourse there were hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic states in 1940, the Soviet killed several Latvian border guards and shot down an Estonia civilian aircraft while maintaining a full naval blockade. Your "clear evidence" that sui generis" is just an ad hoc term is just your own original reasearch. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Malksoo does not describe those events as "hostilities", or "invasion". He uses the term "intervention". And, more importantly, since the major issue in the German case was the thesis about debellatio" I am waiting from you a clear proof that Gugenheim and Malksoo meant the same sui generis. You failed to provide it so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Malksoo's characterisation of those time events, see op. cit, chapter 3, section (c), third paragraph: "illegal intervention". He also describes the naval blockade by Soviet fleet as the act of aggression. However, for description of the case you mention (with Estonian aircraft) he uses the word "repressions". This is the wording we must stick with when we use Malksoo as a source. He also uses the term occupatio quasi-bellica to reflect the fact that no actual hostilities took place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. Your requirement that I prove Gugenheim and Malksoo meant the same sui generis is utter nonsense, as sui generis means "of its own kind", i.e. an occupation not in conformance with the sensu stricto definition of occupation. It is remarkable that you do not question the concreteness of the allied occupation sui generis of Germany and Japan, but dispute the Soviet occupation sui generis of the Baltic states. The requirement that hostilities need to have taken place is of your own making. The only requirement is the fact of belligerent occupation, which Gugenheim asserts occurred in Germany and Japan and Marek (which Mälksoo cites) asserts occurred in the Baltic states, saying with respect to Soviet actions in the Baltics: "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form." --Nug (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's compare two statements:

Mine:

"..."occupation sui generis" is just an ad hoc term used to describe some very unusual situation, which has some traits of occupation, although (for various reasons) cannot be considered as occupation sensu stricto.

Your:

""sui generis" means "of its own kind", i.e. an occupation not in conformance with the sensu stricto definition of occupation."

Frankly speaking, I see no difference (except that your wording is more concise and elegant). In connection to that, the reason for the dispute about "sui generis" is somewhat obscure to me.

Of course, many sources agree that we can speak about some form of occupation (although with reservations) in a context of the Baltic states, and I totally agree with that. However, it was not occupation in its classical form, so Peters' "occupation is occupation is occupation" is not applicable here, and all needed reservations must be added to all WP articles dealing with the Baltic states: if such occupation does not fit the legal definition of occupation, we must explain that.

Re your "It is remarkable that you do not question the concreteness of the allied occupation sui generis of Germany and Japan", I see no problem with the articles dealing with those two events, probably because many good faith contributors are working there.

Re "The requirement that hostilities need to have taken place is of your own making. " Probably. However, the absence of hostilities did not allow Malksoo to speak about belligerent occupation in that case, so he used the term "quasi-belligerent occupation" instead.

Re Marek, let's finish with the present dispute first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

PS As the concurrent discussion on the Military occupation talk page demonstrated, "occupation sui generis" in a context of Germany got almost zero popularity since the moment it had been coined in late 40s, and seems to be obsolete now. And, taking into account that, from very beginning, the term was aimed to reflect the absence of adequate legal solution, it by no means was a separate term. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. Your search results show that the books discussing "Soviet military occupation" as a term are published by Wikipedia mirrors (such as VDM Publishing House, Hephaestus Books, Books, LLC). Therefore, not only you are engaged in synthesis, you are advocating amplification of this synthesis by suggesting to reproduce what Wiki mirrors say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A half-minute search turned up this legal case where "Soviet Military Occupation" is a proper (capitalized) term (so, no confusion that this is just words strung together). Of course it is a proper term because of the context of referring to a specific Soviet Military Occupation. So, it is the territory and impact which make SMO a proper term. That is:

• absent of context, it's just a bunch of words, so asking for a definition is pointless
• in context, it becomes something specific; context is the definition

That is why we must stick to sources which explicitly provide that context. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly. What is a relation of the legal document about some Duerers painting, which is believed to be stolen during withdrawal of the American troops from Turingia, to the issue we discuss? I am not sure if it is possible to find a better example of cherry-picking.

Re capitalisation, almost every proper name in legal documents of this kind is capitalised. For instance, "Soviet Zone" is also capitalised, so what? Please, show at least a little respect to your opponents, be serious, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the term occurs in both upper and lower case in the legal proceedings. As the term isn't defined in the legal document, it would appear that the law system knows what constitutes Soviet military occupation. What specific property is being discussed is irrelevant. As for cherry picking, your cherries are my low hanging fruit. I agree with the sentiment below that this is more a huge waste of time on the part of Paul to discuss anything other than sources which explicitly apply to the content of this article. Cherry picking? At least it applies. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• @Everyone. Please consider how much you would be able to do instead of conducting this fruitless discussion [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Vecrumba's interpretation of the document is far-fetched and proves nothing. For instance, American Occupation is capitalised, so what? Soviet occupation is not a proper noun and fails WP:CRITERIA. I can easily fix it for you, if you feel this is a waste of time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jaan, the problem is not only in capitalisation (although your notion is correct). A reliable source discussing Soviet Military Occupation as a proper noun is supposed to have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. What facts, legal issues and evidences have been analysed in the document found by Peters (as a result of a half-minute search)? The facts relating to some stolen Duerers painting. Is this source devoted to the issue we discuss? No. Has it any relation to the issue we discuss? I doubt.

I myself frequently encounter sources that may formally support a viewpoint I like. However, if such a source has only a tangential relation to the subject I do not use such a source (e.g., the article "Ethno-linguistic Relations in Contemporary Latvia: Mirror Image of the Previous Dispensation?", despite using the term "annexation" instead of "occupation" is hardly an authoritative source for legal status of the Baltic states). The reason is simple: I respect my opponents, and approach every dispute seriously. Unfortunately, I cannot tell the same about some other participants of this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple question, are all Soviet occupations unrelated happenstance? If not, then the article is meaningful and we should work on it and stop wasting time and energy here. The only question regarding formal definition is whether it gets bolded or not in the lead.

@ Paul, "It is remarkable that you do not question the concreteness of the allied occupation sui generis of Germany and Japan", I see no problem with the articles dealing with those two events, probably because many good faith contributors are working there - If you are implying there are few if any good faith editors to be had here (beside yourself), you should move on to some other article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Although it is a great pleasure for me to work on the articles where many good faith editors are active, the article of that kind are, as a rule, in a good shape, so my humble contribution is not required there. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "are all Soviet occupations unrelated happenstance?" From my experience, a request to prove opposite is not allowed per our policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you should have noticed that, after that Martin's notion, I looked at the German/Japanese issue in more details, and, according to what I read I conclude that the term "occupation sui generis" can be deemed obsolete, because it had been used only few times in late 40s-50s; it is not currently in use, because it explains nothing, and just serves as an euphemism, "which of course is no legal solution at all, but merely an acknowledgment that there is no solution"--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, WP:CRITERIA do not conclude with meaningfulness. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the policy page you refer to contains the following advice: "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. " That gives additional support to your argument about British occupation, and may serve as a counter-argument to the Nug's WP:OTHERSTUFF (which is just an essay).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The redirect British occupation was not subject to any discussion as far as I can see, so it is a poor example of "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent." thus is a rather light weight counter-argument. Again Paul engages in WP:OR by asserting the term "occupation sui generis" can be deemed obsolete on the basis of his own research, stating confidently "because it had been used only few times in late 40s-50s". Yet this search shows that with respect to "occupation sui generis" it is an ongoing topic of discussion particularly in German language scholarship[8]. I am somewhat surprised that Jaan appears silent over this persistent and chronic application of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in this discussion. As far as my understanding of "occupation sui generis", it is any occupation that falls outside the neat confines of the contemporary convention or treaty definition. --Nug (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nug for providing more sources in support of my thesis. Kristina Marek in "Identity and continuity of states in public international law" (the first English source in the list provided by you) on p. 79 notes regarding Guggenheim's " occupatio sui generis" :

"l. Since this new type of occupation only concerns Germany and Japan, it may perhaps be doubted 1) whether it still falls under the heading of belligerent occupation at all or whether it is not rather a case of debellatio, not followed by annexation, and 2) whether this isolated historical occurrence is sufficient to create a new customary rule.""

In light of that, and assuming that you and Peters are good faith users, the only option for you is just to apologize for false allegations, and to stop this nonsense, because all what I say is directly supported by many reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS According to Marek, "occupatio sui generis" is a "debellatio witout annexation". According to Malksoo, "occupation sui generis" is "forceful annexation". Do you see anything in common between those two things, and do you have at least a single source that confirms that such commonality exists?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This argument is irrelevant here, as we need to this into a list article or a redirect anyway. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, again you appear to be cherry picking sources to advocate your personal viewpoint. From a case at European Court of Human Rights (Recueil des arrêts et décisions: Issue 5; Issue 5, p423) in 2007: "occupation of Germany was not an "ordinary" war-time occupation, but an occupation sui generis, following a war and an unconditional capitulation". The common factor is that sui generis occupations are perpetrated outside the then current convention. --Nug (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, instead of apologies I get just more insults and accusations. Well, I'll address your question, but I also expect you to answer the question I asked you on 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC), and which you preferred to ignore as inconvenient.

The extended quote from the document you found says:

"Regarding the applicants' allegation that the expropriations were contrary to public international law, the Court notes that they were carried out during two distinct periods:

(a) between 1945 and 1949, at the instigation of the Soviet occupying forces in Germany. That occupation of Germany was not an “ordinary” war-time occupation, but an occupation sui generis, following a war and an unconditional capitulation, which conferred powers of “sovereignty” on the occupying forces. That special regime was generally recognised by the international community;"

From this extended quote we can conclude that the "occupation sui generis" regime was not an ordinary occupation, but a special regime in Germany, which was generally recognised by the international community (obviously, for this particular case only, because the very fact that it needs in specific ad hoc recognition implies that it neither was codified nor set a precedent; one of the reasons was, afaik, to make Nuremberg trial possible, which would be illegal under ordinary occupation regime). Therefore, your considerations about some "common factors" are pure synthesis, a sine you blame me in. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the next paragraph of the same document ("(b) after 1949 in the GDR, which was a separate State, distinct from the FRG, and widely recognised by the international community towards the end of its existence. The expropriations attributable to the GDR were carried out in respect of its own nationals and are not therefore governed by international law") makes absolutely clear that Soviet occupation of Germany ended in 1949, the fact that should be reflected in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The end of occupation requires the evacuation of the occupier's military forces and for the occupying entity to cease exercise over the domestic affairs of the sovereign state. That the sovereignty of the former Germany was split into two entities says nothing about the presence of Soviet forces or exercise of Soviet authority. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that Germany and Japan are still under American occupation? Nice piece of original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, the USA signed a peace treaty with Japan and Germany during the 1950's. However Russia, as the legal successor to the USSR is still technically at war with Japan and thus the Northern Territories continue to be occupied by Russia. --Nug (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

However, the US troops have not been evacuated from Germany and Japan, which, according to Peters' views is necessary to deem occupation terminated.

Regarding alleged "occupation of Kuril Islands (and, probably, South Sakhalin, it was also a Japanese land from 1905 to 1945)", could you please provide sources for this claim?

In addition to that, I noticed you have a habit to ignore the question you cannot answer. In future, I will treat the absence of adequate arguments from you as your consent with my arguments. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no question in the diff you provided[9], so I don't know what question you are talking about. Your unsourced assertion that the occupation of the Baltics is "was not occupation in its classical form" is in complete contradiction to Marek's published assertion "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form." Your assertion "the 1940 event was not invasion but intervention" is of no material effect, Roberts says the most common trait of military occupation is that military forces of a state intervene and exercise control over a territory beyond the internationally recognised frontier of that state.[10] --Nug (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff provided by me contains a comparison of your and my statements about "occupation sui generis", which, in my opinion, almost coincide. Then, by writing "In connection to that, the reason for the dispute about "sui generis" is somewhat obscure to me" I request for explanations from you on the concrete points of disagreement. However, if you also believe that there is no disagreement over "occupation sui generis", them what is the reason for your opposition to my viewpoint? In my opinion, it would be correct if you, instead of ignoring that my post, at least answered "yes, I agree", or "no, I disagree" (and explained the reason for disagreement).

Re Marek, yes, you reproduced the quote correctly. However, the conclusion you made is wrong. "Complete analogy to belligerent occupation" is not "belligerent occupation", it is closer to what Malksoo describes as "quasi-belligerent occupation".

Re Roberts, you should probably follow the advice of your fellow Peters, who suggested that we have to use only the sources that directly discuss a certain event. As far as I know, Roberts does not discuss the Baltic states, so please, refrain from committing the sine you are trying to blame me in.

In connection to that, I can formulate the violation of our policy by you and Peters as follows: whereas the Baltic case is seen by most authors as complex and controversial, who believe it poses significant challenge for conventional imternational laws (state continuity of the Baltic states is a legal fiction), you try to present those events as a simple military occupation ("occupation is occupation is occupation"). This is a violation of our neutrality policy, and, since this violation has been explained for you,I expect you not to commit it again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, as usual, you accentuate nuances into mountains separated by chasms and ignore the basic thread uniting all scholarship except that pandering to pro-Soviet views of history on the occupation of the Baltics. On the contrary, it is you who constantly steer the ship of discussion into irrelevant seas. Odd you should admonish Nug on Roberts, so do you admit to your own synthesis regarding Edelstein, Roberts, and perhaps other authors in discussion here? And while you advise Nug to take my advice on sources, are you prepared to make an unequivocal commitment to same regarding content here?

Lastly, don't waste our time on more personal attacks, this time alleging policy violations, again. My well of indulgence for such obvious deflections away from the discussion at hand is not bottomless. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and on your "state continuity of the Baltic states is a legal fiction", it's a shame that all three took steps to maintain continuity of powers of sovereignty in exile. So, "fiction" is open to definition, perspective, and context. You take words, lift them from their context and state your own conclusions with the certainty of words carved with stone. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not right. I am not "accentuate nuances into mountains", and I do not ignore the basic thread. I simply separate general issues from concrete nuances. We have several general claims made by you and your fellow, and several concrete issues, and my point is that jumping from the former to the latter (and back) is not the best way towards achieve consensus. The general claims are:

1. That the thesis about intrinsically permanent nature of annexation and intrinsically provisional character of occupation is my own invention ("personal meme"). This general statement was made (repeatedly) by you.
2. That illegal annexation == occupation. This statement was made by Nug, and it also was a general statement.

I have persuasively demonstrated that I didn't invent the first thesis, which is fully supported by reliable sources. Nug failed to demonstrate that his thesis was correct: no sources have been provided that support this claim in general. Therefore, both your and Nug's claim appeared to be wrong. And what is your next step? You write: "please stop synthesis, and let's discuss only the sources telling about the Baltic case specifically". Are you sure to change the subject of the discussion when your arguments appeared to be exhausted is a correct way do conduct a discussion? I am not sure. Since you made several general claims, let's finish with them first, and then we can continue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time please indicate a question with the use of a question mark. By saying sensu stricto definition of occupation it is meant as occupation regulated by the Hague convention. As I pointed out the common definition of occupation, as described by Roberts, is the intervention and exercise of control by military forces over a territory beyond the internationally recognised frontier of that state. Now given control of foreign territory, and occupier can decide to abide by the the Hague conventions on occupation, thus being an occupation sense stricto, or they can decide to set aside theses international laws on occupation in which case it is an occupation sui generis. How they actually go about setting aside the Hague convention is what makes sui generis occupations different from each other. In the case of Germany the allies declared that the legal sovereignty was held in trust until the allies decided that the Germans were prepared to take the responsibilities on a democratic and peaceful basis, in regard to the Baltics, the Soviet Union claimed the Baltics willingly relinquished their hard won sovereignty. Fundamentally different justifications but inherently the same intervention and exercise of control by foreign power. The point of difference is that you seem to be arguing that sui generis occupations are not real concrete occupations.

With regard to illegal annexation == occupation, I've always maintained this in respect to the Baltic states and supplied an appropriate cite.

You take a minority opinion, that continuity is a fiction, and claim most authors believe it, which of course is giving WP:UNDUE weight to that POV. The flaw with this minority POV is that in order that continuity be a fiction the state must have become extinct. However international law requires extinction to be definite and final in the case of illegal annexation, which means that any hope has disappeared and there is no reasonable chance of regaining independence. In regard to the Baltic states that final point was never reached, the population never acquiesced and diplomatic representations continued. As history has shown the chance of restitute in integrum was never destroyed and has led to the Baltic states re-establishing their independence in 1991. --Nug (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your first para, what is, in your opinion, in common between the occupation sui generis of Germany and occupation sui generis of the Baltic states? What allows you to combine these two into a single category? (I wrote "you" because I never saw any author to do that).

Re "I've always maintained this in respect to the Baltic states..." However, a general term cannot have different meanings in each specific case. Moreover, the quite provided by you does not support your claim: Marek wrote "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form". However, "X is analogous to Y" and "X = Y" are two different statements. In any event, did I understand you correctly that you do not claim that (in general) "illegal annexation == occupation"?

Re "You take a minority opinion, that continuity is a fiction, and claim most authors believe it..." No, my point is quite different: all non-fringe opinia should be presented. By contrast, you declare that the thesis that the Baltic states were militarily occupied from 1940 to 1991 is the sole mainstream viewpoint. You should provide a serious proof that the viewpoint you advocate is really a sole mainstream view. Can you do that? (for your convenience the question marks are in bold)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, it is only through WP:UNDUE that the situations your bring up and which we discuss are as "complicated" as you make them out to be. Moving on, regarding:

"That the thesis about intrinsically permanent nature of annexation and intrinsically provisional character of occupation is my own invention ("personal meme"). This general statement was made (repeatedly) by you."

You repeatedly contend annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive and then apply that to the Baltics states, and when I call you on that on a conversation regarding Soviet occupations, including those of the Baltic states, you mischaracterize my statement as a personal attack. (I have already explained this to you once, yet you insist on attacking me again.) That occupation is generally viewed as temporary is immaterial, both with respect to the Baltic states and the Warsaw pact countries despite their sovereign status. Your repeatedly bringing up the temporary nature of occupation and annexation terminating occupation does constitute your "personal meme" that this somehow applies to the case at hand, Baltic states in particular:

• You state meme, that indicates you believe it applies to the topic at hand—regardless of your contention: "Oh, I only meant 'generally'!"—otherwise, why even mention it?
• You state meme, I am an idiot for misunderstanding that you only do so "generally"—in which case the application to the discussion at hand is WP:SYNTHESIS at best or simply WP:IRRELEVANT. If you admit it's irrelevant, why even mention it?

You postulate that a position you have taken repeatedly regarding the Baltics (said meme, along with your ultra-minority POV "more of an intervention") was brought up in discussion here only "generally." You then attack me regarding my specific statement in the context of the article and discussion here as being a "general" misrepresentation of your "general" position which is, of course, "generally" supported in sources which discuss occupations and annexations in "general"—all outside of the article, discussion, and context here.

Quite frankly,

• your past implications that editors of bad faith are at work here (as opposed to editors working in good faith elsewhere) and
• your litany of preconditions for simply sticking to explicitly applicable sources implying editors of bad faith are at work here

testify to a most unconstructive attitude. If you do not mean to build up the article, one is tempted to surmise by your "well, that didn't work, let's try this instead" manner of presenting objections here that you mean to tear it down. Certainly, I would not think well of myself were I to give in to such base temptation—no matter how deep our philosophical disagreements may run. I invite you, again, to offer your unequivocal support for the guideline that we apply only sources which explicitly examine one or more of the occupations included in the article. Once you agree, then we can have a reasoned, constructive discussion and move forward on improved content. So, which is it?

1. YES
2. NO

Think it over and let the editors here know. One word answer only. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I would fully support (per our policy) the option #1, provided, but only provided, that the sources would be presented by you that demonstrated that the whole topic is not a synthesis (which is prohibited per our another core content policy). Instead of arguing voluminously, go to your local library and find such sources. That would resolve the issue: if such sources exist, and they are mainstream, I will withdraw all my objections, if the source is a minority views, the article should be re-written to reflect that fact. If no sources exist that combine, e.g. annexation of Bessarabia and war in Afghanistan into the single topic "Soviet occupations", the article should be either deleted or converted into a list.

Re the Baltic states issue, I think that may be not the most appropriate talk page. We should probably move this discussion to the more appropriate talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Providing a context for all Soviet territorial acquisitions (occupation, occupation+annexation,...) relevant to the scope of this article so as to make it more than a list of (ostensibly) disparate and otherwise unconnected events except for Soviet involvement is reasonable. There are numerous sources which discuss relevant Soviet policy, stated or perceived, with regard to one or more of the occupations described. This, for example, looks to be interesting, explicitly relevant, and historically inclusive: Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991, by R. Craig Nation. Nation is a doctored historian and professor specializing in Russian and Eurasian studies; this particular text is published by Cornell University. (To your question of combination, both Bessarabia and Afghanistan make their appearances.) I have not yet read the text itself.

It would be helpful to do a bit of reading and reflection rather than us rushing off to immediately debate online snippets of choice. That would be a much better use of our time than our arguing of late over whether or not there is some "definition" of Soviet occupation absent of acts of Soviet occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not sustained your burden of proof. Obviously, the USSR, as almost every big state conducting active foreign policy, happened to occupy, for more or less prolonged periods, the territories of other states. However, that does not make different "occupations by the Soviet Union" (i.e. just "occupations by some state") the manifestation of some generic "Soviet occupation" (a specific term). In connection to that, and taking into account that each event discussed in this article already have their own WP article, what is the reason for grouping these events together in this article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, I produced a possible source of interest. I'm going to go do some reading (although you don't seem to think I do that, on the whole, per your snide comments earlier) and further research. I believe there are connections which merit grouping together, which connections would appear as part of expository content. What I personally believe those connections are is immaterial; what is material is what reliable and reputable sources state on the subject matter—e.g., you can find both Bessarabia and Afghanistan covered in the same source for a "more than a list" reason. Once we all spend some time on sources that explicitly apply in that regard, we can reconvene our conversation. Unfortunately, there's been hardly any discussion of explicitly applicable sources; sadly, we are all at fault for fueling that paucity as long as we have.

Your insistence that there must exist "some generic 'Soviet occupation' (a specific term)" is one possible prerequisite, but it is not the sole possible sine qua non. All that must exist is scholarship that draws these occupations together as part of a larger whole, for example, pursuit of an expansionist policy. And I've already stated that it's perfectly reasonable that such scholarship should be identified and included to merit this article being more than a list. I fail to see anything you've alleged that finds actual fault with what I propose as a constructive course of action. Furthermore, the world will not stop spinning with us all falling off if we agree on such reasonable course of action. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I've been informed that the laws of physics predict that we'd all go flying only for some relatively short distance owing to inertia and then fall to earth with a thud.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I believe, upon meditation you will retract the word "snide", I'll leave it uncommented.

Regarding the remaining part of your post, if one can find mainstream sources that discuss "Soviet occupations" as a specific topic, yes, the article can stay in its present form (mutatis mutandi). However, it would be interesting for me to see a mainstream source that finds some non-trivial connection between annexation of Bessarabia and a counter-guerilla war in Afghanistan.

Re pursuit of an expansionist policy, I am not sure such sources exist, simply because not all occupations were dictated by expansionism, and not all expansionism was achieved via occupation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Snide", of course, re your: "Great. You eventually decided to read some sources." Old Chinese proverb say you are who you seem to be. I was simply tired of constantly repeating "personal attack" when faced with your derisive and combative (you even have to create a dispute over the scientific name for the blue whale) expression. "Snide" works fine for me.

You are not budging on your position regarding your "term" argumentation. There does not have to be any source that discusses Soviet occupation as a defined term independent of acts of occupation. That is a syllogism asking that there be a source that defines something as itself. What I have indicated is appropriate for the article to be more than a list is to require scholarship that binds Soviet occupations into a greater whole.

I clearly stated that what I personally thought regarding anything that binds Soviet occupations together is irrelevant. Therefore any example I offer up as an example is illustrative only. It's quite possible not all occupations were expansionist. However, I would venture that most, if not all, occupations can be examined with regard to an overall security policy/ perspective/ philosophy, one, in fact, whose origins predate the USSR. After all, before the USSR was ever formed, Bessarabia had already been annexed once (conflict with the Ottoman Empire) and Afghanistan had been a scene of conflict for the better part of a century (the British Empire viewing Afghanistan as Russia's path to India, with the British warring against Russian interests and expansion in the region). Again, I suggest more reading and research and and less arguing for the moment. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My posts are neither derisive nor combative, they are just a statement of the fact: your posts contain mostly your speculations, and you bring new sources very infrequently.

I do not see why the source provided by you makes the article to be more than a list: this source is about Soviet security policy, so the most appropriate of the article which is based on this source should be "Security policy of the USSR".

I am not sure I can agree with your notions about Afghanistan and Bessarabia: in the first case invasion was definitely not dictated by long lasting security needs, that was just a stupid mistake made by several top Soviet marasmic gerontocrats (off the top of my head, some authors believe that was a masterful provocation by CIA); in the second case, the annexation of Bessarabia by Russian Empire was a part of the larger plan devoted to combining all Orthodox lands (including former Greek Constantinopolis) into one Orthodox empire, and Stalin simply decided to restore old borders of Russian empire. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

(continuing on from above...) Really, there is no need for new sources when the ones we have have served us well. Of course, there's an impetus for new sources if you need to contend that there's some bit of content that's broken--or if one is feeling an overwhelming need for heavy reading.

As I stated, I am not going to immediately launch into debate of another source, I believe there are plenty more that apply to "this article is more than a list." I was going to tell you not to immediately suggest that, then, based on one source, that this article is misnamed if it's all about security policy, but I've obviously let that opportunity slide by. Well, no, actually, I wanted to see how quickly you could come up with a new title which didn't juxtapose "Soviet" and "occupation". (Not long, by any standard.)

Again, it's not what we contend, it's what sources contend. If particular/all invasions/occupations appear together in particular sources, it is for a reason; our remit is to represent those reasons fairly and accurately. I suspect we would find our mutual dialog more tranquil (and not drive off other editors who think we just like to hear ourselves argue endlessly) if we didn't view each other's postings as an itch which requires immediate scratching--that doesn't leave much time for more thoughtful consideration of the topic at hand. (I do think your "restoration" characterization is grossly oversimplified.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You just named one source that, in your opinion, demonstrates that a "Soviet occupation" is some separate subject. However, I expect you to present some analysis of this source to prove that that source really supports the idea you advocate.

Re "If particular/all invasions/occupations appear together in particular sources, it is for a reason" ...and the reason may be trivial: all those events have a relation to the country of interest. However, if the source you use is devoted not to this subject, by selective usage of this source you perform your own original research, advocating some particular viewpoint. As I already demonstrated during previous discussion, the only sources dealing with "Soviet occupations" as a separate subject are ... Wikipedia mirrors. I think we should stop that dangerous tendency.

In particular, I expect you to explain why this article should be kept in a situation when

• Nazi occupation redirects to WWII;
• American occupation does not exist;
• British occupation redirects to British Empire
• Japanese occupation is just a dab page;
• French occupation does not exist;
• Chinese occupation does not exist;
• and none of them exist in plural forms.

I recall Martin already put forward a counter-argument citing WP:OTHERSTUFF; however, the page he referred to is just an essay. In addition, this essay refers to deletion discussions. In our case, the most appropriate solution is not deletion but renaming ("Soviet occupations" -> "Soviet occupation") and conversion to the dab page (by analogy with Japanese occupation). Therefore, Martin's argument is irrelevant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a train leaving the station that we now need to immediately decide to dab this article into oblivion? Not supported. Considering your line of arguing is "prove there's any association," I counter that it's your burden of proof that "Soviet occupation" is "just like" any of the occupations you list per reputable sources, preferably more than one. Surely you don't maintain that the Soviet Union and its acts of occupation are indistinguishable from one or more of the sovereign entities listed and their respective acts of occupation.

You keep pressing for alternatives which eliminate or gut the current content. Give it a rest until more research can take place and more work is done on the current content. Either it will gradually improve, which resolves the issue; or it won't improve (pull the occupations together explicitly) and it will eventually become a list. The operative words are gradually and eventually. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the train is leaving, and this train is numerous Wikipedia mirrors that spread the original research made in this article in a form of various books.

Re burden, the burden is on those who adds or restores material. I do not want to add anything, because most materials (except synthesis) presented in this article already exist in Wikipedia. In contrast, for some reason you want this additional article (including the synthesis it contains) to exist in Wikipedia, therefore the burden is on you.

Re "Give it a rest until more research can take place and more work is done on the current content." See WP:BALL (Example 4).

Re "... and it will eventually become a list." No. Just a disambiguation page. If no sources (with satisfactory explanation of how they support you views) will be provided soon, I'll tag the article. If that will not help, I'll convert it into a dab, similar to Japanese occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your threat to turn this article into a dab page is disruptive, given that the alternative is a List Article. Per Wikipedia:LIST#List_articles:

"List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items. The titles of list articles typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject"

As I said previously, this article as it stands is no more than a verbose list. It has a lead section followed by a list divided up into section headings containing additional information about the listed item along with a link to the relevant article. The fact that the article is not titled List of Soviet occupations is of little consequence, since while list articles typically have "List of ..." in the title, it is not necessarily a mandatory requirement.

That said, reading the last AfD, many uninvolved editors kept the article because it was a reasonable summary article and not synthesis. --Nug (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation in disruptive activity is noted. Thanks. However, let me note that nowhere in our policy can you find a statement that a choice between a dab and a list is disruptive activity.

If this article is no more than a verbose list, then why it is not titled accordingly?

In addition, a list should fit notability criteria, that says that "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...". Therefore, we came back to my request addressed to Peters.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PS The choice between dab and verbose list articles is a choice between adding/removing some content. Since the burden is always on those who adds/restores, please address my arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to keep talking at each other without discussing any content we've created because we're just arguing down to once a day. Dabbing or listifying a worthwhile article because you keep moving along an endless litany of accusations against the article, no sooner is one dealt with that you lodge another, is disruptive when editors have indicated there is a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts and they would like to do some research and add content instead of deal with multiple attempts daily lobbying to gut or delete the article. You complain your concerns have not been dealt with. Fine, come back in a few weeks and check on any progress. Perhaps you can research and suggest explicitly applicable sources.

Well of course Soviet occupations have been discussed in a stream of academic sources. You allegation of failing notability is misguided, unless you are just doing a flavor of "no such term." They certainly are, whether via expansionism, protectionism (e.g., eliminating the inter-war cordon sanitaire), creating bridges for the export of revolution, so-called "restoration" of tsarist territorial integrity, etc., etc., etc. Those are just sample areas of potential research of sources regarding the sum of Soviet occupation being greater than the parts. (It goes without saying that those occupied deem the event(s) most notable.)

As for the train leaving, there is no WP:OR here. There is no new scholarship here. The article does need beefing up, that will occur over time. There is nothing you have asked that requires answering at the moment, you are merely tossing out allegations. Do come back to critique when there are content updates to review. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is no original research here, please, demonstrate that by providing the source that explicitly supports your thesis.

Regarding the rest, I do not plan to convert the article to dab right now. How much time do you need to find needed sources? I can wait (if the waiting time will be reasonable). Will be two weeks sufficient for you?

Re "the sum of Soviet occupation being greater than the parts" Exactly. Try to demonstrate that mainstream sources view the issue in this way.

Re "It goes without saying that those occupied deem the event(s) most notable." Sorry, but Wikipedia, being the international project cannot be written based on minority national POV.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus here for turning this article into a dab page. --Nug (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requirements of our three core content policies can be superseded by local consensus. In addition, the only legitimate concern (except my concern about synthesis) expressed here is a Peters' suggestion to wait for a while to find some sources that would make the article's existence (in its present form) legitimate. If you have other legitimate concern, please, share with us, otherwise, please do not disturb the consensus building process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that there is no consensus that the article conflicts with the three core content policies. You need to find consensus that a problem exists before finding consensus on the solution. --Nug (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say, there is no consensus that it complies with them. This is a situation when the burden in on those who wants to add/restore some material.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

However the burden is on those who want to delete/remove some reliably sourced material. --Nug (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuous improvement

We have finally arrived at the point where editors appear willing to allow for improving the article. Just to be clear, I do not believe for a nanosecond that any WP "policy" is being violated by current content or titling thereof, it is not a question of consensus overriding policy, it is whether allegations regarding violations of policy have any merit. That is not an invitation to rehash allegations from the top, let's please spent time on content. Any rehash now and at least for the next few weeks will be viewed as intentional and disruptive. (And yes, there is WP:ALPHABETSOUP for that, words are simpler.) Thanks to all for indulging monopolization of the conversation as we sorted through bits and pieces to get to this point, no such monopolization intended on my part (nor, I am sure, on the part of any other editors). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that policy is not violated, please address my legitimate concern: I failed to identify such a topic in scholarly literature [11]. The sources from this list, either discuss Soviet "occupations" (professions, Multidimensional Ratings of Occupations. Author(s): Peter H. Rossi and Alex InkelesReviewed work(s):Source: Sociometry, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1957), pp. 234-251)), or mention Soviet occupation as a historical context for discussed event (such as D Stola. Jedwabne: Revisiting the Evidence and Nature of the Crime- Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2003 - USHMM), or are totally irrelevant (such as B Carr. Mill Occupations and Soviets: The Mobilisation of Sugar Workers in Cuba 1917–1933. Journal of Latin American Studies (1996), 28 : pp 129-158). What improvement are you talking about in this situation? Original research, even carefully made, is still original research. The more I am looking for sources the more I feel that this article should not exist in other form then a dab page. In connection to that, my question is: how much time do you need to find sources justifying existence of this article in the present form?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no original research. You appeared to agreed to allow for improvement of content. Because you "fail" to find a source, that does not prove the negative (i.e, that no such sources exist.) "The more you look at sources"? What sources are you looking at that explicitly apply to the discussed improvement of content? None, as you contend they do not exist. And if you haven't agreed to allow for improvement of content, you're only diverting attention away from improving the article to your incessant (and now repetitive) allegations.

As for how long, that's been discussed. As this will likely include ordering or physically borrowing sources, it's certainly not going to be overnight. Do please stop repeating yourself—which wastes editors' time repeating themselves in response instead of doing something—anything—more constructive. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading Paul's, perhaps I have been unclear. If you

1. can't find anything that applies to improving the article (proof of the negative)
2. believe nothing will be found that applies to improving the article (faith in the negative)
3. found something, but it doesn't apply to improving the article (corollary to proof of the negative)

then please refrain from WP:SOAPBOXING about it, as such pronouncements have no bearing on improving the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I found your statement illogical. We are here not to improve the articles that advances certain viewpoint, but to improve Wikipedia as whole. Original research, especially, the meticulously written original research advancing some concrete viewpoint is harmful for Wikipedia as whole, therefore, Wikipedia will only benefit from removal of such content.

Regarding your allegations, let me remind you that, in contrast to you, I reveal the procedure I use to obtain sources. Thus, I presented the list, which I obtained by typing quite unbiased keywords "Soviet occupations", which cannot give a biased set of the sources. You can see that this list is relatively long, and I haven't examine it fully yet, however, upon reviewing first 5 pages I found no sources that may be used as a support for the article in the form you advocate. I believe, it should be clear for every unbiased and honest person that I made good faith effort to find the sources that support/refute your views, and thereby to resolve the issue in an unbiased way. The way I am working with sources is neutral, open and transparent, and, if you are not satisfied with the procedure I use, please, explain me the reason of your dissatisfaction. However, if you dissatisfaction is based on the arguments that you cannot clearly articulate, you have no other choice then to accept my arguments. And, please, stop accusing me in your own sins.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRITERIA. Denial of that, even if appealed on WP:CONSENSUS, will have absolutely no consequences. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Both, I can't do research on improvement if I'm constantly responding here.

@Paul, Google is not responsible research. I am not here to further any of my viewpoints, I am here to further whatever is in sources. And re: "in contrast", it me took all of 30 seconds to find a book which draws together all Soviet occupations. That source remains to be read as to whether it in fact unifies those occupations.

@Jaan, either those sources will be produced which support the position that the article is not synthesis, OR, etc., or after a more exhaustive search than editors posting a you can't prove a negative Google search, they will not. If they are not, I will be the first in line to support listifying the article.

@Both, there is no agenda here. Until more work is done to confirm scholarship, anything we say about what policy the article violates or doesn't is our personal opinion no matter how much WP:ALPHABETSOUP we invoke. The question is, are you both willing to observe that process? (@Paul, again, that process is not one Google search no matter how exhaustive you claim your actions are to find support for my contentions.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Peters, you should have noticed that I used not google but google scholar. This search engine is being used by scientists (including myself) and scholars in their regular work, and it is an adequate free alternative to Scopus and ISI.

You do not need to respond constantly, because I already let you know that I do not plan to take any actions right now. BTW, I myself haven't finished yet with the sources from the above list, and the issue is not 100% obvious for me. However, you should tell us how much time do you need, and this time should be reasonable. The later is important, because if the topic is covered by mainstream sources, it should be easy to find them. You also may ask for help from Martin, who seems to have an access to some non-free data bases such as jstor, although, I am not sure that will help, because otherwise he would already come out with some good source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. And one more point. During last deletion discussion, Carrite made a quite correct notion about the title: "Soviet Occupations" brings to mind Plumber, Painter, Mechanic, Retail Clerk, and so forth. Interestingly, my google schoolar search demonstrates that that is the case: many source from the above list deal with occupations/professions, and majority of others tell about "German/Nazi and Soviet occupations" of some concrete country. In connection to that, I plan to swap the redirect "Soviet occupations" -> "Soviet occupation", without changing the article content (so far). That will be in accordance with other articles of that type German occupation (single) and Japanese occupation (single). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for some time to explore sources. Considering there's at least one book that's not readily available which I will likely order, at least a couple of weeks. Of course I'd report and vet what I consider any substantial progress in the meantime, so the "deadline" may be longer if we believe, collectively at some point, that there is progress to be made.

I do have to say, I don't take seriously that someone might mistake territorial acquisitions for positions of employment, no more than "Soviet government posts" would be mistaken for poles (small "p") driven into the ground or blog entries or lists of correspondence mailed via post by Soviet apparatchik. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Any mucking of with titles and redirects is premature. Your proposed swap of singular and plural is valid only if and only when it is decided that this article should a dab as opposed to a list or a full article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Too vague. I expect you to name more concrete time you need. The article is synthesis now, and such a violation of our policy cannot stay indefinitely simply because you cannot find needed sources. In addition, the very your approach to the issue is highly questionable: instead of writing Wikipedia to reflect what mainstream source say, you insist on keeping the content for which you still have no sources. That is hardly the best way to create unbiased content. In addition, the lack of results is also a result: my good faith failure to identify a source in support to your viewpoint is a strong argument that your views are minority views at best. Moreover, one of the article from the above lists speaks about "twin occupations of Korea by the US and the USSR", which implies there were nothing specific in the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@Jaan, your statement "The article is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRITERIA. Denial of that, even if appealed on WP:CONSENSUS, will have absolutely no consequences." is seems rather off the mark. At best all that can be stated here is that there is no consensus that article is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRITERIA, otherwise the article would have been deleted at the last AFD. If you and Paul wish to virtually delete this article by turning it into a dab page, then you should submit a third AfD request. --Nug (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have only proposed to turn it into a list article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, I told you twice how much time I need, give it a rest. In the meantime perhaps Jaan can explain his views on synthesis/criteria. Simply stating something is "X" doesn't explain much. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint advanced here is that Soviet occupations are some kind of a general phenomenon. The title fails WP:CRITERIA in terms of naturalness (readers will not search for this as a general term) and consistency (Wikipedia has list articles or redirects under '... occupation' and no 'American occupation'). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is your own singular opinion. there was no consensus in the last AfD that this article advanced any kind of viewpoint, contending rather that it is a reasonable summary article. As one said in that AfD: "This is not OR, but straightforward history". --Nug (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not proposed this article for deletion, so I don't see the direct relevance of that process here. Your confidence should be backed with at least a single source, otherwise it is empty. A summary by a Wikipedian, however straightforward it may be, is called OR. And you have ignored my legitimate concerns over the violation of WP:CRITERIA. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see issues over WP:CRITERIA having just re-read that. Regardless, as I indicated, if I (and others) fail to produce sources which bring these occupations together in a "whole > sum of part" fashion (in the timeframe I've mentioned more than once), I will support listifying the article, which, Jaan, I believe you would also support based on prior comments. So perhaps we can have some quiet time here for a bit. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is a straightforward history, it should be possible to find this history not only in Wikipedia or its mirrors, but somewhere else. If you have such sources, please, share with us. If not, just stop your baseless arguments.

In addition to that, you mix two things: deletion of some content from some concrete article, and deletion of the content from Wikipedia. Even a total deletion of this article does not delete its content: the article's content (except synthesis) can be found in several WP articles, and noone proposes to delete it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Transforming this article into a dab page, which you propose, is tantamount to deletion, since turning pages into redirects and dab pages is not an uncommon outcome of successful deletion debates. --Nug (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we give this discussion a rest as Vecrumba has suggested? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, however, I would like to make one comment. The Nug's and Peters' positions can be summarised as follows: "Currently, we have no source to support main article's idea, however, we believe the content is not a result of original research, so it should stay, and everyone advocating its deletion is engaged in disruptive activity". However, in actuality, good faith and polite editors use quite different wording: "I fully realise that I have nothing to present as a support for my views, however, I believe the source X, which I've ordered and which I expect to get by XX.XX.XXXX, contains all needed information. In connection to that, may I ask you to do a favour for me: do not alter the content until YY.XX.XXXX to give me an opportunuty to modify the article. Meanwhile, if you by any chance have an access to the source I ordered, you may try to read it by yourself: the source is "Adam Bruice. Soviet Occupations. Aberdine University press, 2010". Thank you." That is how good faith editors are supposed to behave, in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the accusations from the editors with absolutely nothing on their hands are getting to me as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This view of Paul (which you apparently support) that the article is implying some kind of "main idea" and thus there needs to be a unifying source otherwise it is synthesis and OR is simply a straw man. As I pointed out before, this same argument was given as the justification of the last AfD, and Paul presented the same line during that discussion. However that AfD demonstrated there was no consensus to Paul's view that this article implies some kind of "main idea". Additionally Paul willfully misrepresents my viewpoint even though I had clarified it earlier, I've always maintained that this article is a reasonable summary article, verbose list of other occupation articles, if you like. --Nug (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement "I've always maintained that this article is a reasonable summary article" implies that some non-trivial commonality exists between the listed events. For example, World War II article is a typical summary style article. Therefore, I do not understand what straw man are you talking about.

The reference to the AfD is irrelevant, because the disambiguation page "Soviet occupation" (or a "List of Soviet occupations") should stay, and I do not question the need of such a page. The fact that majority of users believe the page should stay is not a carte blance for adding various synthetic statements.

And, finally, my notion about the need to maintain at least minimal decorum remains in force.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement "The fact that majority of users believe the page should stay is not a carte blance for adding various synthetic statements." is non sequitur, as nothing substantive has been added since the last AfD. --Nug (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the last AfD is non sequitur, as the present discussion is not about the deletion of the article, just about its (extensive) modification. AfD result was not an approval of the article's content, these are two quite different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to move further

I think, we gave enough of time to Peters to come out with needed sources. Since no sources have been provided, I'll start to convert the article into the list/dab page. The question is what option is more preferrable. In connection to that, my questions are:

Does anybody have any arguments in support for the list article, not a disambiguation page similar to Japanese occupation page? What was specific about Soviet occupation that makes it dramatically different from the US, German, British or Japanese occupations?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for turning this article into a dab page. You have not obviously listened to any of the objections expressed on this page. As I said earlier, per Wikipedia:LIST#List_articles:

"List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items. The titles of list articles typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject"

This article as it stands is no more than a verbose list. It has a lead section followed by a list divided up into section headings containing additional information about the listed item along with a link to the relevant article. The fact that the article is not titled List of Soviet occupations is of little consequence, since while list articles typically have "List of ..." in the title, it is not necessarily a mandatory requirement. --Nug (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not merely a verbose list, as unlike Japanese occupation it does not merely list the occupations with separate comments but takes the liberty to synthesise the quite different occupations into a 'Variations' section. Losing this section would be a great step forward. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nug, you had a chance to present your arguments and sources in support of your version of the article, but you provided nothing. Therefore, you have no right to refer to any "consensus", because we need no "consensus" to remove original research from Wikipedia. Currently, the subject of our discussion is not to keep this article or convert it to the dab/list, but which of two options is more appropriate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. We need no "consensus" to remove original research from Wikipedia, however consensus needs to be established on whether a given piece of text actually constitutes "original research" or not. Paul, this you have not done here (or in the previous AfD where you presented exactly the same arguments of synthesis and OR, which was rejected). Given that the "Variations" section has been removed as the only identified piece of "synthesis" by Jaan after hundreds of lines of discussion, I trust that this issue has now been concluded. --Nug (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for personal life busy. I do have a source for occupations being seen as driven by revolutionary expansion or security concerns (or both) and an excellent source on Soviet security policy. Hope to get to a proposal in the next week or two, some of us have life outside WP. I'm at a historians'/archivists' conference this week/weekend. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't see an issue here anymore. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see an issue anymore, although you should have informed us timely (as simple politeness rules require).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if Vecrumba still plans to come out with the sources he announced. It would be great if he started to work on the article within next week. If he is still busy, he may simply drop a references to those two excellent sources, and we will try to update the article by themselves...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No sources have been provided so far

Few month ago a user Vecrumba promised us to provide sources in support for the article in its present form. No sources have been provided so far. In connection to that, I am going to convert the article into the list or dab. I believe, I'll be able to start in a week or so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I strongly object to your proposed action, per Wikipedia:LIST#List_articles which states:

"List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items. The titles of list articles typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject"

This article as it stands is no more than a verbose list. It has a lead section followed by a list divided up into section headings containing additional information about the listed item along with a links to the relevant articles. The fact that the article is not titled List of Soviet occupations is of little consequence, since while list articles typically have "List of ..." in the title, it is not necessarily a mandatory requirement.

Moreover, since you removed the only conceivable piece of OR on Jaan's suggestion[12] resulted in him no longer seeing any issue with this article[13] as well as your agreement that you do not see an issue anymore as well[14], it seems somewhat untoward that you still intend to delete a significant amount of this article. --Nug (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a pure demagogy. You took our words out of context. Both Jaan and I wrote what we wrote as a response on the Vecrumba's post (12:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)) where he notified us that he obtained needed source and would present it soon. However, since no source have been presented, I assume the source appeared to be not as good and Vecrumba initially asserted. Therefore, the article will be converted into list/dab soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you and Igny have been occupying my time elsewhere, and, empirically, I've observed I don't have as much time as yourself to spend on WP, you'll need to be patient until other content discussions which mutually involve us are worked through to resolution. I have, indeed, located references (on another computer at the moment) for territorial expansion as part of policy from the perspective of security as well as the expected fomenting of world communist revolution. (So, if someone else has the time for similar searches, references are out there.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to be patient. You have had enough time. You either show me your source or I convert the article into the list or the dab. We have no reason to keep synthesis in the article in a situation when a user who advocate it refuse to provide sources despite several requests.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug is correct, the article contains no OR in its current state. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, please, provide some mainstream source that draws some non-trivial connection between such different events as occupation of East Germany, annexation of disputed province of Bessarabia, and occupation of Iran.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, not sounding very collegial when you are the cause of my being WP busy elsewhere. A spot of warm tea, perhaps. But thanks for the reminder, I do recall actually ordering a couple of books which weren't available online. If you have a reminder for me, especially if you're establishing some deadline, please remind me at my talk. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute over "Occupation of the Baltic states" has started only recently, so I doubt you were busy during the whole period from 25 April 2012 till now. Instead of that, you preferred to start a new thread on the WWII talk page on 23 May 2012. If you are not interested in discussion of this article, do not prevent others to purge it from original research. If you believe there is no original research here, add needed sources as you promised. If you do have such sources but you have no time to work on this article (which seems strange taking into account the time you spend on other pages), you could at least provide us with the reference to the source you found.

I always asked you, and I ask again: please provide us with the reference to the source you found. We have a right to know what this source(s) is (are).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I merely made what I considered a simple, NPOV, suggestion at WWII regarding the infobox which I thought solved a host of sins (NPOV as it also gave up information I would personally prefer to keep in the infobox).

At the moment, I only see you contending there is WP:OR as the article currently stands, if I am wrong, please, other editors, feel free to jump in.

Unfortunately some of the books I ordered as references are not with me at the moment. Regardless, the general structure I envision is:

• expansionism and security in the Russian empire ->
• the Soviet Union continuing that heritage ->
• territorial expansionism/occupation provided:
  • security, a concern dating from the Russian empire, via buffer states/territories,
  • for the spread socialist revolution

For example, David Christian, in "Imperial and Soviet Russia: Power, Privilege, and the Challenge of Modernity" published by Palgrave:

"By 1945 Soviet armies occupied much of Eastern Europe. Here was the opportunity, at last, to solve the security problems that have haunted all governments of Russia. Victory offered two new ways of defending the Soviet Union's precarious borders. First, it allowed the creation of a large buffer zone of weak or friendly states. Second, victory spread socialism, and thereby ended the isolation of the world's first socialist state."

So, there is a unique Russian dynamic at work here, that is, imperial expansionism feeding directly into socialist expansionism. Content to be written. In the meantime, perhaps some other editors would like to offer some thoughts.

Based on my research so far, I don't believe the article will be going away or getting listified, so I'd appreciate constructive feedback on content structure. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I suggest you to immediately withdraw your statement about "Russian dynamics" as a denigrating statement directed at some particular nation, and apologize. I insist on apologies. Your next Freudian slip will result in AE request.

Secondly, the structure proposed by you would be more suitable for the article Soviet expansionist policy. In connection to that, let me remind you that our policy requires that "descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic", so the more appropriate title would be Soviet foreign policy (which should contain all pro et contra regarding the concept of Soviet expansionism). However, this article already exists, so the article proposed by you would be a POV fork.

By writing that, I have absolutely no objection against the dab/list "Soviet occupations".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What Freudian slip? I'm not stating anything that's not sourced. "Russian" pertains to the country, Russia, and its historical regimes. The continuity which is "unique" is that after the overthrow of royalty and its associated imperialism, the tsarist territorial imperative continued unabated--this has been described as "historical pressure" on the Bolshevik regime. There's nothing denigrating in that.

Regarding my violating WP policy, I welcome you to comment further when I've added specific, cited, content.

Regarding reporting me to AE, please consider a spot of warm calming tea instead. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

USSR was not Russia, and if you meant the country, I strongly suggest you to replace "Russian dynamics" with "dynamics of Russia".

Re "specific dynamics", there was nothing specific in Russian expansionism (the only difference between Russia and, e.g. Great Britain or France was that the latter were conducting their colonial wars overseas, whereas Russia expanded their borders in Eurasia).

Regarding your "specific, cited content", you added just one source that tangentially supports your POV. I strongly suspect that your "For example, David Christian" means that that was the only source you found so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I quotes Christian because he's:

• an expert;
• the source is accessible online and easily checked;
• and it's well worth a full read.

Again, when I provide specific content, I welcome your comments. Your speculation is, well, speculative. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian says that the USSR capitalised on its military successes during WWII. That is a well known fact. How does it prove your viewpoint (about "a unique Russian dynamic")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for a source that demonstrates existence of Soviet expansionism as a manifestation of "a unique Russian dynamic at work".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Have to go pre-WWII for that in sources I don't have handy at the moment. Patience. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. However, I would like you to take into account that the sources you will (I believe) find will not contradict to the mainstream views about Litvinov's collective security concept.

In addition, the Afghan section is a POV-fork of the Afghan war article. The article does not tell about "Soviet occupation" of Afghanistan.

And, please, keep in mind that Christian does not support your contention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Points all taken. Christian supports expansion for (a) security and (b) fomenting revolution. The character of Russian expansion (driven by geographic considerations, history with surrounding territories, a tradition of expansionism by the ruling class,...) is in other sources. This already feels far more civil as compared to our recent encounters, thanks for that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure the article about Russian expansionism have any chance to survive in Wikipedia per our neutrality policy. Therefore, the most likely, your attempts to find sources are futile. Please, note, that the article that seems to be a non-neutral piece of original research stays for several month awaiting for proper sourcing, and this sign of my good faith should be taken into account in the case of future disputes (if, contrary to my expectations, they will follow).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is not determined by personal perceptions of connotations. Should you not like the improved content when it comes, you can always nominate it for deletion—which I expect would engender a vigorous and spirited debate which might even expand beyond our perennial participants in such dialog. I'd not devote a lot of energy on speculation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I pointed at the problems with the article, and you asked me not to change anything because the sources would be provided soon. I have been waiting for several month, but no sources have been provided so far. I strongly suspect you have no such sources and you simply are trying to gain time to find the sources supporting your POV. That is not how Wikipedia works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My schedule precludes me from responding to work-week prodding, so I'll get back to you this weekend. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This thread is moot. As I have stated all along, this article is simply a list and there is no requirement to find such a source. The topic of "Soviet expansionism" you and Peters are discussing really belongs in an article like Soviet hegemony, not here. --Nug (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is a list, then let's turn it into a list as I described below. Regarding "Soviet hegemony", I agree with Nug.

By the way, to dispel any doubts that the article is a list, I suggest to rename it into the "List of countries occupied by the USSR" (because "List of Soviet occupations" is ambiguous, as it can be understood as "List of Soviet professions".)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)