Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RfC summarised

Let me summarise the RfC and subsequent discussion.

1. During the discussion, I provided the sources that confirm that in international law occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive: occupation is something intrinsically temporary, and it implies a control of some territory by hostile army. The term "non-military", or "civilian occupation" (in a context of the occupation of some foreign territory) is being used extremely rarely. By contrast, "annexation" implies absorption of the territory by another state, extension of the legislation of this states on this territory, and is deemed as something permanent;
2. I also provided the evidences that the Soviet regime in the Baltic states allows us to speak about annexation of these territories;
3. I also provided the results of the google scholar (not google) search that demonstrated that more reliable scholarly sources use the word "annexation" to describe these events than the word "occupation" (note, by contrast to google, google scholar database contains mostly reliable sources, not all web pages);
4. Nevertheless, a number of reliable sources that discuss the Baltic issue specifically have been found that claim that, by contrast to the normal practice, it would be not completely correct to speak about termination of the occupation after the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR. Let me reiterate it: in this concrete, very specific and unusual case we can speak about continued occupation of already annexed territories. However, this aspect was important mostly in connection to the issue of state continuity of the Baltic states, not as a characteristics of a regular life in the Baltic republics in 50s-80s: all citizens had standard Soviet passports, there were no difference in the status of the Baltic republics and other SSRs, and even the restoration of independence had been done following the procedures set by the internal Soviet laws (using the constitutional right of secession). Regaining of independence was accomplished by the decision of the SSRs' Supreme Soviets, i.e. the parliaments that were democratically elected based on the occupational Soviet laws. Would that be possible, had the regime been a purely occupational one?
5. Based on all said above, as well as based on the conclusions found in the detailed Malksoo's monograph I supported the idea to rename the article "Occupation of the Baltic states" to "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states";
6. Since some editors argued that, whereas this monograph per se was a quite reliable source, my interlretation of the Malksoo's book was incorrect, we obtained the explanations from the author (Malksoo), who, based on what his book says, supported the idea to add the word "annexation" it the title as more accurate. He also advised us to keep in mind that the article must clearly state that that annexation was illegal (the latter statement is currently present in the article);
7. After that, some editors ceased to object to this change, and others stopped to provide new arguments;
8. Finally, the discussion has become dormant.
   

If I understand the policy correct, consensus is not a right of veto, and only legitimate concerns (not bare objections) should be taken into account. In that situation the article should be renamed. Since some opponents of the word "annexation" seems not to object to the renaming anymore, whereas others are unable to provide reasonable counter-arguments, the article should be renamed accordingly. I am waiting for fresh arguments against addition of the word "annexation" to the title. If no arguments will follow in close future, the article should be renamed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The aim of holding an RFC is to get outside opinion to help resolve an issue. Unfortunately the RFC was only able to elicit the opinions of few uninvolved people before the regulars jumped in. Of the three uninvolved editors, two User:Dailycare and User:Bahudhara both supported the current title while User:Lihaas thought that "History of..." would be more neutral. Given that the article has a POV tag, no one presented arguments why inclusion of the term "annexation" into the title would make it any less POV. If we agree the issue is accuracy of the title rather than the POV, then the POV tag should be removed. The problem of wordcounts, even if it is Google Scholar, has been raised during the discussion. It does not give the context of the word usage. Many texts do use both "annexation" and "occupation" together, but use them with different meanings depending upon the context of the discussion, i.e. as an event or as an status. The fact that discusion had become dormant cannot be construed as ascent to your arguments, simply that people have been caught up in other activities. I suggest removing the POV tag now, allow a few couple of weeks to let things settle down, then do a formal move request. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is mostly accuracy but somewhat also the POV as, although annexation does not represent the Soviet POV, it is still substantially closer to it than plain occupation. I find removing the tag without any alterations to the title inadequate. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that annexation is more or less appropriate and may make the title more precise; however, occupation alone is not POV. We do not need to present the Soviet POV in the title; it is essentially WP:FRINGE at this point. WP:NPOV was thrown around so much with so little legitimate justification that I really think we should stop invoking it in this debate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In this phase, where all possible arguments are already presented and discussed, it makes absolutely no difference which policy the tag refers to. The current title fails to adequately describe the topic of the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it makes a difference if people object to misusing a POV tag to label an apparent accuracy issue. --Martin (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well "occupation and illegal annexation" would even be closer, but Paul is against using the term "illegal" as he contends the article already makes enough stress on this point, yet the article also stresses "occupation" too, so I find this objection somewhat incongruent. Note that Mälksoo also uses "illegal annexation" in the title of his book. --Martin (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Mälksoo accepts the proposed title without the need to add specifications, why don't you? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin. Initially, I didn't want to make a stress on this fact, but I feel it is necessary now. During our last discussion over the Malksoo's monograph we both quoted the same pieces of text and drew different conclusions, insisting that our opponent incorrectly transmitted the author's thoughts. However, thanks to Jaan, we obtained the explanations from the author himself, and these explanations demonstrated that my interpretation was more correct. It this situation, it would be correct if you, Martin, drew some more general conclusions from this fact. As I already pointed out, I didn't want to write what I've just written, because it could be not too comfortable for you to read that. However, unfortunately, I see I have to do that. Let me quote your interpretation of the Malksoo's opinion:

"Well "occupation and illegal annexation" would even be closer, but Paul is against using the term "illegal" as he contends the article already makes enough stress on this point, yet the article also stresses "occupation" too, so I find this objection somewhat incongruent. Note that Mälksoo also uses "illegal annexation" in the title of his book."

and let's compare it with the Malksoo's own words:

" If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States"."

In other words, Malksoo, whose book you refer to, sees absolutely no problem with the title" "Occupation and annexation..." (without "illegal"), provided that the article" (not the title) made clear that the annexation was illegal (and, obviously, the article does that). In that situation the word "contend" seems to be not the most appropriate term to describe my arguments. In connection to that, please, explain me, why are you still objecting and what your arguments are based on?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Jaan hasn't forwarded the email to me, so we don't how he framed his question. Not very transparent. We already have the article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) which very accurately describes the events of occupation and annexation, and that title is fully appropriate. This article Occupation of the Baltic states is an overview article that also includes the German occupation, and the Germans never annexed the Baltic states, so it is unclear how this would make the title more precise. --Martin (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Both arguments are absolutely artificial. Without any doubts, Dr Malksoo was quite able to read the talk page discussion by himself, so he is perfectly aware of the context the question has been asked in. In addition, you yourself can contact Lauri and ask him all questions you want (his e-mail can beeasily found in the Internet). In this situation, the burden of evidences in not on me or Jaan, and, frankly speaking, your request is not completely polite.

Regarding the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)" article, it is definitely a more specialised article, therefore, the name of this article, which seems to be a mother article for the latter, should be more generic. Since the annexation did take place, that fact must be reflected in the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Marting probably has Mälksoo's post in his mailbox now, although I agree it adds no value to the argument. Regarding the argument "Soviet occupation and annexation + German occupation ≠ occupation and annexation", it is simply a logical fallacy. Should an article discussing Soviet cats and dogs and German cats in the Baltic be called "Cats in the Baltic" although a third of it actually discusses Soviet dogs in the region?! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently only 400 words out of 6800+ are used to discuss the German cats. Considering that you can not discuss Soviet cats and dogs without at least mentioning the German cats, I say this article is no longer about cats, German or else. In fact, it seems like a significant effort has been made by certain editors here to push the view that Soviet dogs = German cats. If that is not a POV bias, I do not know what is. (Igny (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

Igny, continuing to malign other editors at the close of a protracted, heated debate is just plain rude. Show a little decency, please, and stop thrashing the dead horse. A title is not made POV just because you disagree with those who support it and read nefarious intent into their viewpoints. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the name change as the best possible. TFD (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank Jaan for the email. Jaan makes direct reference to this article and talk page, providing the URLs of the two when addressing the question to Professor Mälksoo. So the assumption must be that he has at least read the article when he replied (my own parentheses) ""If the article makes that aspect (of illegality) clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States", which implies that the article does not currently make that fact clear. And it is true, the term "illegal" is only mentioned twice, both times attributed as a viewpoint rather than a clear fact of international law. We are somewhat putting the cart before the horse here, we should first be thinking how to make that aspect more clear than it presently is, before thinking about renaming. Article names are relatively stable compared with the text which can undergo immense revision churn, so even if we do first make an effort to make that aspect clear in the text, there is no guarantee that this will remain clear into the future, particularly since some Wikipeditors strongly disagree that the annexation was illegal. Therefore I can only agree to renaming the article Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states, since the proposed title "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states" would be misleading should the aspect of illegality become less clear in the text in the future. --Martin (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo implies nothing on the current quality of the article, that's just in your mind. Would he have written "When the article...", your case would problably stand, but never ever with "If". And "should the aspect of illegality become less clear in the text in the future" is a straw man as nobody is proposing to make the aspect less clear, vice versa. Therefore it is correct to say the title supported by Dr. Mälksoo is not misleading.

And which procedure are you actually suggesting? Do we vote and get just one vote for Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states]] and the rest against it? Do I contact Dr. Mälksoo again and ask: "Oh, there is this one editor, he now thinks Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states would be the best title, what do you think?"? I mean, let's stay constructive, otherwise we'll be tossing in titles for ever. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"If" means "in the event that" or "on the condition that"[1]. Article churn is a valid concern. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are trying to pull is ridiculous. Mälksoo makes no statement or implication on the current article quality. I strongly suggest you stop your wild semiotic interpretations and stick to what he directly says. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede currently states:

"...these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated..."

"the Baltic states have remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940–91"

I would say, the aspect of illegality is even overemphasised in the article (by contrast to the fact, that this occupation was not a military occupation, and the life and the legal status of the population of the Baltic states did not differ from that of other Soviet citizens). Therefore, I see absolutely no ground for your last post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If some guy kidnaps a girl and keeps her in his home for an extended period of time, we can all agree that this is a blatantly illegal act. But if he treats her somewhat decently, does this make his actions somehow less illegal? I should hope not. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The main point remains, the lead and the article emphasize the illegality enough to fulfill Dr. Mälksoo's criteria. Or does anyone have anything to add into the text to make it adequate in the matter? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is not quite correct, the lede mentions it just twice, but not in the article proper. Regardless whether or not Mälksoo's statement is an indicator of article quality, his approval of the proposed title is qualified by the conditional "if". As for Paul's comment, there is a difference between domestic law and international law. I have no doubt that domestically the legal status of the population of the Baltic states was not different from that of other Soviet citizens, but that has no impact on the question of illegality in international law in the specific case of the Baltic states. Perhaps if the section "Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941" and the related sub-article were to be renamed "Soviet occupation and illegal annexation 1940", it may make the issue of illegality more clear. --Martin (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that the amount of mentions of the illegality of the annexation directly correlates with the emphasis on the illegality. As regards to addition of new sections, they may be relevant to this article, however I see no direct connection between that issue and this RfC. Let's rename the article, and then focus on its improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Being late to the party and having missed the RFC I would like to point out this article`s title is fines as is. Tentontunic (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you familiarized yourself with an ongoing discussion? (Igny (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC))

Why would I? I have read the article, am familiar with the subject, and I know the USSR occupied the baltic states. Tentontunic (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest not to initiate an edit war before you are familiar enough with the matter, and are able to properly follow the WP:BRD cycle. (Igny (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC))

Marting, there is no evidence Dr. Mälksoo even visited the article page. Therefore your linguistic analysis based on that assumption is invalid. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jaan, even if he never laid eyes on this article, it makes no difference. He clearly qualified his approval of the new title upon the fulfilment of a conditional: IF ..., I WOULD ... "If the article makes that aspect clear (that Soviet annexation remained illegal), would I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article." Paul, I am mindful of unintended consequences. Instead of first renaming the article and then focusing on its improvement, why not focus on improving the article first then rename. It would be easy enough to put the current title out of your mind and focus on the content of the article as you think it should be. Let's see where that leads us. Usually real world authors write the text then decide on the title. --Martin (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have concrete propositions on what is missing from or unclear in the article, go ahead, let's see if we can fix it. Otherwise we'll go for the title change. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, although Malksoo sets the condition that should be met, he made no comment on the current article, so we cannot conclude from his post if he believes this condition has currently been met or not. I personally interpret his opinion as the reminder that we do not have to forget that the article should give a due weight to the fact that the annexation was illegal, and that we have to take that into account during future modifications of this article. In other words, the Malksoo's e-mail can also be understood as if he reminded us that the mention of the illegality of the annexation, which is already in the article, should not disappear from it during subsequent modifications (the point I fully agree with). Let me also remind you that, as the Malksoo's e-mail demonstrates, my interpretation of his words usually is more adequate than yours.

In connection to that, I propose (i) to change the article's title, and then (ii) to discuss if a due weight has already been given to the discussion of illegality of the annexation, because it is not obvious that it hasn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I don't see how you can say "Malksoo's e-mail demonstrates, my interpretation of his words usually is more adequate than yours", nor is it very helpful,

Your interpretation is that it was an annexation that had the characteristics of an occupation, but the book actually states it was an occupation that gained characteristics of an annexation, hence "occupation sui generis". Your interpretation is temporally flawed. No one disputes that the Baltic states were occupied in 1940, but then to assert that after annexation the status of the Baltic states then gained the characteristics of an occupation just is not logically sound. After the Baltic states were occupied, the Soviet Union claimed these states joined voluntarily, denying any annexation took place. There was no formal act of annexation like in the case of the Texas Annexation where a formal resolution was passed in the US Congress. The international community disputed the legality of this accession into the USSR, stating it was in fact involuntary and the process illegal. Therefore it remained an occupation, but over time, this occupation gained some characteristics of an annexation.

Paul, as I understand your position, having the term "occupation" alone in the title may mislead readers into believing it was some kind of military occupation, because that is what the general reader associates with the term "occupation". I expressed my concern that adding the term "annexation" may mislead readers into believing that the annexation was legal because that is what they associate with the term. But you dismissed my concern while believing yours to be more important. Is that reasonable and fair?

This RFC was called and four uninvolved editors commented, three of those uninvolved held the view that the current title should be kept. I have to concur, as do a number of regulars. There simply is no consensus for a title change at this stage. You are flogging a dead horse. I think pushing for a title change, particularly when some of those advocating the title change disparage those who disagree is not conducive to building consensus. The way to build consensus is to find common ground on the content. Only then can agreement be found for a suitable title. --Martin (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for clearly articulating the difference between our positions in the third paragraph of your post. However, I don't think the "Occupation and annexation..." will be misleading. Both "occupation" and "annexation" can be legal and illegal: for instance, the occupation performed in accordance with the Hague convention may be quite legal, whereas, in other cases (prolonged occupation, occupation accompanied by numerous violations of the laws and customs of war) it is illegal. Therefore, this title per se implies no legality or illegality of these two acts. By contrast, the word illegal in the title would imply that the article devotes a special attention to the legal aspects of the annexation (which is not the case, because this issue is, or should be analysed in details in another article, State continuity of the Baltic states, which, imho, has a perfectly neutral title). In addition, the title "Occupation ind illegal annexation..." would be misleading because it would imply that occupation was legal...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put in about 80 hours at work over the last 5 days, I can't believe we're still at it here. The Soviet Union and Germany both occupied the Baltic States, that should be sufficient. There is no need to change the title, if it mentions annexation it is no longer appropriate to both occupations. Done. Let's all go work on some content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 08:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell something concrete (other than simply "object")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with a title like "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States"? Since the Blatic states were occupied and annexed as Soviet republics by the Soviet Union, then occupied and annexed with the Reichskommissariat Ostland by the Nazi Germany, and then again by the Soviet Union, such a title would be just fine.

The only counter argument I could see, wikipedia claims Annexation is the de jure incorporation of some territory. And de jure seems is what those annexations lacked.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I almost agree with you. Let me point out, however, that the Reichskommissariat Ostland had never been a part of Germany proper. Its status was closer to that of the General government or of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, i.e. it had a status of subordinated territory. German citizenship had not been automatically granted to Baltic peoples, and, if I am not wrong, even a currency was different from that in Germany proper. Therefore, we have no reasons to draw any analogy between Soviet annexation and German occupation.

Re de jure, that refers not to the legality of this act from the point of view of some international law. That means that the annexing state expanded its jurisdiction onto the annexed territory, which becomes the integral part of the annexing state proper according to the domestic laws. For instance, the USA annexed Texas, and it became a full member of the US. By contrast, Guam is just an unincorporated territory of the US, and this territory has a different legal status than the US proper. Of course, one may, quite reasonably, argue that in the case of the Baltic states the legal status, which was equivalent to the status of other parts of the USSR was "granted" to them against their will, and in violation of international laws, however, illegal annexation still differs from illegal occupation or illegal colonisation, and still remains the annexation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

well, the Soviet Baltic republics were not a part of Russia proper either, exactly like Reichskommissariat Ostland was not a part of Germany proper. And de jure speaks for itself, no need to add any Point Of Views by anybody.--Termer (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. although I can agree with "we have no reasons to draw any analogy between Soviet annexation and German occupation" since I hear the Germans were considered the liberators from the 'Soviet annexation' and therefore the majority of Baltic citizens joined the fight on the German side against Russia during WWII.--Termer (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Other WP articles are not a reliable source. The only source given for the article is Encyclopedia Britannica.[2] It seems that de jure probably means according to the laws of the occupying power which in this case was the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TFD for pointing it out, it's clear now Paul Siebert has interpreted de jure in the context incorrectly since Britannica spells it out: "annexation is...legitimized by general recognition".--Termer (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "the Soviet Baltic republics were not a part of Russia proper either" Yes, they were the part of the USSR according to the USSR domestic laws (Moreover, as I already pointed out on this talk page, they got, or re-gained independence according to the procedure defined by the Soviet laws: the Soviets, elected according to the Soviet laws, declared independence as stipulated by the Constitution of the USSR: each SSR had a right of secession). De jure just means "concerning law". However, it does not specify which law is meant. For instance, Nuremberg laws made German Jews de jure non-citizens of Germany. However, was that step legal according to the international laws?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

re-gained independence according to the procedure defined by the Soviet laws -that's just wrong. None of the Baltic states used "the procedure defined by the Soviet laws" to regain their de facto independence in 1991.--Termer (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul seems to be confusing domestic and international law. It is self evident that annexations require de jure recognition under international law, not least because annexations change international borders, impact bilateral treaties between the annexed state and the international community and alter diplomatic relations. --Martin (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Termer brings up an important reason why adding the term "annexation" to the title is not a good idea. The default understanding of English speaking readers is that annexation implies legal incorporation of territory, like for example the Annexation of Texas, therefore it would be misleading to include it in the title of an article related to the Baltic states. --Martin (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "None of the Baltic states used "the procedure defined by the Soviet laws" to regain their de facto independence in 1991." The independence was declared by the Soviets of the Baltic SSRs, which were elected according to the Soviet laws, and according to the procedures stipulated in the Constitution of the USSR (Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.) The national independence of Estonia was declared on August 20, 1991 by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Estonia (Nordic Journal of International Law 69: 289–316, 2000); the Estonian Supreme Soviet was elected according to the domestic Soviet laws, and it had a full right to issue such a declaration, because that was stipulated by the Soviet Constitution. Of course, according to the wording of this declaration, it was not secession, but restoration of the independence. However, since the concrete wording was not specified in the Soviet laws, it also was not in contradiction with the Soviet constitution. Again, the Baltic Soviets had a right to declare independence, and they used this constitutional rights in 1990-91.

Martin seems to be confusing the terms de jure and legal. If we cannot speak about the annexation that has not been recognised de jure by foreign states (i.e., if annexation cannot be illegal), then the term "illegal annexation" becomes an oxymoron. However, this term is very frequently used in the reliable sources [3] in a context of the Baltic states. For instance, Rein Mullerson in the article "The Continuity and Succession of States, by Reference to the Former USSR and Yugoslavia" published in the law journal (The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 473-493) uses the following wording "They were illegally occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union and the territorial changes occurred during the illegal annexation." You can see that to use word "annexed" causes no discomfort for the English speaking writers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Let me also point out that Mullerson applies the term "illegally" to both "occupation" and "annexation" ("illegally occupied and annexed") not to "annexation" only (not "occupied and illegally annexed"), and concedes that the territorial changes did take place (which is a synonym of annexation, because occupation doesn't change the borders).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, what is the point you are trying to make with regard to the Baltic Soviet? It seems to be bordering on synthesis as I know of no source that suggests what you seem to be suggesting. You symantic arguments about the term "illegal annexation" being an oxymoron is confusing. Obviously "annexation" implies a legal act, "legal annexation" is a tautology, therefore authors like Mullerson qualify the term "annexation" with "illegal", hence we have "illegal annexation". Are you now suggesting a title Illegal occupation and annexation of the Baltic states? --Martin (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, could you please provide a source that says annexation only occurs when recognized under "international law". TFD (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I said annexations require international recognition to be legal, see the Handbook of International Law, on page 36 in the section titled "Conquest and annexation" [4]. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. You are perfectly aware of what I propose: just to add one word ("annexation") to the title. Of course, the title can be made more precise, for instance [[Illegal invasion of the Baltic states by the USSR with subsequent illegal annexation of them, which had not been recognised by the international community, occupation of the Baltic states states by Germany during the WWII, their re-occupation by the USSR until re-gaining of independence]]; of course, that is just a reductio ad absurdum, however, since you proposed to add this detail, why cannot we add others, and who knows were this process will stop?

Re "I said annexations require international recognition to be legal" According to the post 1949 laws, yes. However, that was not necessarily the case in 1940. In addition, you miss the fact that the acquisition of the territory of the Baltic states (by contrast to the example used in this dictionary, the South Kuril islands) was not a conquest. Moreover, out of the listed a), b) and c), only c) was not completely met, because in 1940 the laws allowed forceful acquisition (condition "a" is partially met), the USSR did established the effective control of the territory of the Baltic states (condition "b" is met for sure), and some reputable Western stated did recognise the annexation de jure (condition "c" is partially met, because no standards exist for how many stated should recognise the annexation); in other words, the Baltic annexation is a borderline case, and, although most lawyers and scholars are inclined to believe that the annexation was illegal (with what I agree, btw), this case is not too obvious to speak about omission of the word "annexation" from the title.

With regard to my alleged original research, I draw no conclusions that are not explicitly stated in the reliable sources: (i) the Supreme Soviets of the Baltic republics were elected in accordance with the domestic Soviet laws (no sources disagree about that); (ii) the declarations about independence of the Baltic states were issued by these Soviets (I provided the source); (iii) according to the Soviet constitution they had right to do that (I provided a quote from the Constitution). I do not want to draw any conclusion from that, I am just asking if secession/regaining of independence of the Baltic states took place in violation of the Soviet laws, or in full accordance with them? IMHO, it was the central Moscow regime who was violating the Soviet law (like in the notorious case of Riga OMON).

"Legal annexation" is not a tautology, because, as the quote provided by me says, the change of the border as a result of illegal annexation is still a border change. You also overlook the obvious fact that the refusal to recognise the annexation was not so anonymous as you try to present: some Western stated did recognise that act, and we cannot totally ignore it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You somehow missed the part that says "Even in the period between the two World Wars, it was not clear if a State could acquire good title by conquest and annexation". Many sources refer to the soviet conquest of the Baltic republics, for example on page 152 of Akehurst's modern introduction to international law: "the United kingdom also recognised (although only de facto) the Soviet conquest of the Baltic republics in 1940". Whether or not regaining of independence of the Baltic states took place in violation of the Soviet laws, or in full accordance with them, is apparently irrelevant, since I have not see any author discuss this aspect. --Martin (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't, and the source confirms my thought. It states "Even in the period between the two World Wars, it was not clear if ...", so the Baltic states' case was in a gray zone. Of course, that is insufficient to speak about legality of annexation, but it is definitely insufficient to claim that we can ignore the fact of annexation. For instance, the United Kingdom did recognise the annexation de facto (and did that explicitly), although it didn't recognised (equally explicitly) annexation de jure. However, they spoke about "annexation", and we have to do the same.

If you want a precise wording, here it is:

"The policy of non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries in 1940 has differed from country to country and even from government to government. The US, for example, never recognised this incorporation. Therefore in 1943 the New York Supreme Court, Queens County, held that in view of the non-recognition of the absorption of Estonia by the USSR, the Acting Estonian Consul-General was competent, by virtue of the Treaty between Estonia and the US, to appear before courts on behalf of Estonian nationals (Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank 41 N.Y.S.(2d) 752; Misc. 155, in H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law (1948), p.432). In a case decided by an English court in 1946, the British Foreign Office informed the court that "His Majesty's Government recognise the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic to be the de facto Government of Estonia, but do not recognise it as the de jure Government of Estonia", and that "His Majesty's Government recognise that Estonia has de facto entered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but have not recognised this de jure"". --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, your source says, "Whether annexation now provides good title will therefore depend on... international law". It does not say that annexation requires "internal recognition", only that it requires international recognition in order to be legal. TFD (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me. --Martin (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. Therefore, we came to an agreement that the term "annexation" can be used even when its legality is not recognised by foreign states, and, importantly, that many reliable sources use this term to characterise the events in the Baltic states. That means that dispute needs to be summarised, because it seems to come to its logical end. The opponents of the word "Annexation" in the lede seem to exhaust their arguments, so all their old arguments have been addressed and no fresh arguments have been proposed. In connection to that, I suggest to rename the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A significant majority of non-involved editors who commented in this RFC think the current title is fine. Your requirement that opponents of the move have to constantly provide fresh arguments is somewhat artificial given that you yourself have not apparently offered any thing new beyond google word counts and the argument that the term "occupation" alone is somehow misleading (while dismissing the argument that inclusion of "annexation" without the qualification "illegal" is also misleading). There is no consensus for a move. Try again in six months. --Martin (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is quite simple. The reference to non-involved editors is irrelevant, because they just expressed their opinion, and polls are prohibited by WP policy. My requirement that the opponent of the move have to provide fresh arguments is quite natural, because all old arguments have been addressed (even several times). With regard to "illegal", this issue has also been addressed (it is not a normal style to have such characteristics in the title, and you have an opinion of the expert who states that no additional epithets are needed in the title is the article pays due attention to that issue of illegality). In summary, if we consider consensus as a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised, then we do have it. Consensus has nothing in common with the right of veto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, which these people did do and the majority argued that the current name is perfectly okay. Now you can simply dismiss this, but Wikipedia is about respecting the opinions of others. Sure, you could doggedly persist so that others soon grow tired and give up, but that is not building consensus. You seem to have this process back to front, expecting people to offer fresh arguments against renaming, when in fact the onus is upon you too provide the fresh arguments in support of the move. In fact your latest quote in regard to the British position exemplifies the unsuitability of the term "annexation" (which denotes an event) in a title that denotes a period of time: "The policy of non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries in 1940 has differed from country to country and even from government to government". Perhaps it is because you are not a native english speaker that you do not see the temporal distinction between the two terms, but TFD acknowledged above that "annexation" usually refers to an event not a period[5]. If these seem like old arguments to you, well perhaps it is because you have not addressed them adequately. --Martin (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the opinions of uninvolved editors are extremely valuable, much more valuable then the opinion of an uninvolved expert. Especially when the former support your POV and the latter contradicts to it. With regard to the event-vs-state nuances, if you care about accuracy, you should have to support the addition of the word "annexation", which would stress the fact that these states were de facto annexed (the fact recognised by majority of states), and the actual regime there had a little in common with classical military occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have ignored the issue of temporality of the terms. However the unqualified term "Annexation" generally refers to the event of the de jure incorporation of some territory. Note that you need to qualify the term "occupation" with the term "military" to get a specific meaning, however the article is not called Military occupation of the Baltic states, and the term "occupation" alone does not imply "military occupation", that term has a multitude of meanings, I could occupy a house or a parcel of land as a civilian. --Martin (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant in the given context. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. In English, the word "occupation" has many different meaning, and one of them is "occupy a house or a parcel of land as a civilian". In that sense, the Estonians occupy their own land (similar to what the Russians do in Russia, of the Americans do in the US). However, any good faith person agrees that the term "occupation" in this and related article refers to military occupation, because the term civilian occupation simply does not exist (I found just three examples of usage of this term, all of them have no relation to the issue we discuss). In connection to that, I recommend to read WP:TE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument. I see you continue to ignore the issue of how the terms are used in the literature (occupation being a state or term of control while annexation being an act or instance) and instead insinuate WP:TE. I suggest to read WP:AOTE. Let me remind you, it is not I who wants to make an edit to change the article name, I'm merely defending the status quo that existed long before I joined the project. --Martin (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the general usage of the terms is on the brink of original research: as another opponent of the word "annexation", Peters, noted, let's avoid general considerations and let's stick with the sources dealing with the Baltic issue specifically. The terms "annexation" and "occupation" are used in this context almost equally frequently. The latter, by the way, refers not only to the state, but to the act also (as an act of occupation); you can easily check that with dictionary. Accordingly, "annexed" refers to the state, not to the act. One way or the another, since the sources use the word "annexation" / "annexed" very frequently, and, taking into account that "occupation" implies "military occupation" (which was not the case during 50s-80s in the Baltic states, this term alone is misleading, and we provided more than exhaustive evidences of that.

With regard to your "Let me remind you, it is not I who wants to make an edit..." you are absolutely right. The burden of proof rests with the user who wants to make an edit. However, that does not mean that other users have a right of veto: they cannot and should not oppose to the proposed change when the burden of proof has been sustained (and it has been sustained in this particular case). And the fact that they do not like one or another word is not an argument. If you want others to continue to assume your good faith in future you must stop that your behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the postulation at the top of yet another enervating discussion that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive "in international law" was only good up to the start of the 20th century, while war was a legal means for settling disputes between sovereign nations. The Baltic states set the precedent in international law that annexation and occupation are, in fact, not mutually exclusive. I suggest editors read Hough's widely cited treatise on the topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. You mix two things. "Occupation" means that the territory is under a control of hostile military administration and the territory is treated as foreign one. "Annexation" means that the territory became a part of the annexing state and is not treated by it as foreign one. The former is inherently temporary, whereas the latter is (or is deemed to be) permanent. I provided the sources (contemporary sources) that outline this difference. In other words, the territory cannot be simultaneously under a control of foreign military and civilian domestic administration, it cannot be treated simultaneously as foreign and the state's own territory. That is just a formal logic, and that is what the sources tell. Another question is that, according to contemporary (post 1949) laws, forcefully occupied territory cannot be annexed legally. (In actuality, even that is not completely correct: India annexed forcefully occupied Goa, and this annexation has been considered as legal). Therefore, the status of territories that were annexed after they had been militarily occupied remains unclear: from one hand, there is no military administration there, the territory has all traits of annexed one except the international recognition of this fact, from another hand, to recognise that de jure would mean to undermine international laws. In that situation neither of these terms can be fully applied to such territories. That is why different sources use different terms (or combination of these terms: "annexation with traits of occuaption", etc). Accordingly, we have to stick with what the mainstream sources tell, and, since they use a mixed terminology we have to use both terms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While both terms are used in the sources, they are predominately used in different contexts. "Annexation" is most often used in the discussion of the events of 1940 and its consequences, while "occupation" is most often used in discussing the period or term of control over a span of years. You interpretation of a paricular source "annexation with traits of occuaption" is simply wrong. I explained this to you before. How can a territory that was occupied, then annexed (thus presumably ending military occupation) then subsequently gain the traits of occupation, where the Baltic states remilitarised in the 1970/80's? The correct interpretation is "occupation that gained the traits of annexation", ie. territory was occupied and as time passes it gains some traits of annexation. Certainly there was a strong military presence there long after WW2 and used to suppress any dissent in the local population, in fact a serious insugency lasted well into the 1950s, on a scale that some authors compare with the post-war insurgencies in South East Asia. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Annexation" is most often used in the discussion of the events of 1940 and its consequences,. I am sorry, isn't that what this article discusses? Or are you suggesting to write a separate article on annexation of the Baltic states? (Igny (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

Such an article does exist and has been brought up before: Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You reproduce old arguments again and again. "Occupation" and "annexation", which by most scholars are seen as mutually exclusive refer not only to state vs act, but to different aspects of the problem. For instance, Lauri Malksoo, whose reliability is not disputed by anyone of us used the term "annexation" to characterise a period of time:

"The case of the Baltic countries is in nature comparable to these cases, with only the “minor” difference that the period of annexation (and, correspondingly, its non-recognition) lasted not just 10, but 51 years." (Nordic Journal of International Law 69: 289–316, 2000.)

The Martin's idea that the Baltic states had been annexed in 1940 and then were under occupation is purely his own invention (at least, I never saw that in the RSs): the sources use both terms in parallel (or they use just one of them) because none of these two characterises a situation adequately. Therefore, we must do the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. My response to Igny was not meant as an endorsement of either side, but merely as a counter to his rhetorical request for an "annexation" article. Re "whose reliability is not disputed by anyone of us": This should be "whose reliability is accepted by nearly all of us"– When we use the term "mainstream" we are referring to academic and legal opinion, not political opinion of states or academics in the states affected (emphasis mine). We seem to even have a dissenting opinion on Mälksoo's reliability, though I don't give it any serious weight.

That said, I find myself neutral leaning towards rename on this issue. I don't think we will be able to find a title that is 100% accurate or 100% accepted by all editors here; the situation is far too complex for a simple solution. However, Mälksoo's opinion and the removal of the "NPOV" codswallop have given me pause and I am re-evauating my position on the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo's Usage of term "annexation" to characterise a period of time is very uncommon:

• "period of occupation" +baltic 308 book hits, 315 scholar hits
• "period of annexation" +baltic 10 book hits, 11 scholar hits

Nowhere have I said " the Baltic states had been annexed in 1940 and then were under occupation". I've always maintained what is written in the literature, that this annexation was illegal from the very beginning and had no effect on the status of occupation, but due to the passage of time this occupation gained the traits of an annexation. If you can't recall my arguments who can you say these are old arguments. This "annexation with traits of occupation" was your argument which I explained was wrong, and posed the question "how can an annexation gain traits of occupation?" which you have seemingly ignored, again. As others have said, we already have Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). --Martin (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the question was not in which of two terms to use, but in if one of there terms refers to the act, whereas another one to the state. I am glad that you have conceded that both of them may refer both to the state and to the act.

Secondly, I believe the answer on the question "how can an annexation gain traits of occupation?" has already been provided. I'll try to reproduce it, because the talk page discussion is so long, that it is easier for me to explain it de novo: "The USSR forcefully incorporated the Baltic states as Soviet Socialist Republics, placed them under the jurisdiction of domestic laws and established civilian administration there, which was organised in the same way as in all other parts of the USSR. This fact was recognised by majority states. For instance, Britain did recognise that the government of ESSR was a de facto government of Estonia (not "foreign military administration of Estonia"). Therefore, the status of the Baltic states within the USSR had all traits of the status of annexed territories except one: international recognition. However, the absence of international recognition didn't make civilian administration military, and it didn't cancel the fact that these territories had no separate status, their population had no special IDs, etc. Of course, it was not sufficient to consider these territories to be annexed legally, and the use of the word "occupation" was primarily needed to indicate this fact. This is the only aspect the word "occupation" was needed for, because in all other senses this term is simply misleading (Malksoo provided a good example with the Olympiad).

Regarding the article "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)", the argument is moot, because this article deals not only with military aspects of these events. Since this article is a general article dealing with the history of the Baltic states in 1940-91, the single term "occupation" is simply misleading here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting too long to edit

Re Paul's: Incorrect. You mix two things. "Occupation" means that the territory is under a control of hostile military administration and the territory is treated as foreign one. "Annexation" means that the territory became a part of the annexing state and is not treated by it as foreign one. The former is inherently temporary, whereas the latter is (or is deemed to be) permanent. I provided the sources (contemporary sources) that outline this difference. In other words, the territory cannot be simultaneously under a control of foreign military and civilian domestic administration, it cannot be treated simultaneously as foreign and the state's own territory.

No, you use narrow historical definitions of terms to postulate they are mutually exclusive. "Temporary" proved to be half a century, yet "temporary." That the Soviet Union administered the territory under civilian administration does not mean it was not being held by a foreign hostile military force (i.e., the Red Army). Note that the occupying military forces, now Russian, only left a number of years after sovereign authority was restored. Except the 40,000 or so that retired there because summers on the Jūrmala beaches beat winter in Moscow.

From the perspective of the Soviet Union now Russia, the Baltic states were never occupied by the Soviet military and were always under sovereign civilian control. From the perspective of the Baltics and everyone else, the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet military, a continuous presence until the demise of the USSR. (And for some years after as the Russian army.) From neither perspective was the territory of the Baltic states ever treated "simultaneously as foreign and the state's own territory." What you are contending, and regarding which there is no disagreement, is that the Soviet=Russian versus Baltic+Everyone Else versions of 1940 to the fall of the USSR are mutually exclusive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I wrote "the latter is (or is deemed to be) permanent". Occupation is temporary not only because it is short, but because it is considered to be temporary by both sides: the territory is being treated as foreign by the occupying state, and it does not (and does try to) establish long term civilian administration there. By contrast, when the territory is annexed (legally or illegally, no matter), they are placed under a sovereign civilian control, and this step is deemed permanent. That is exactly what occurred in the Baltic states. Regarding the duration of the period of annexation, let me remind you that even some quite legally formed states may have a very short lifetime (for instance, Dominion of Newfoundland, or the Republic of Texas existed even less then 50 years, however, that does not mean that their administration was not deemed permanent by the moment of their formation.

The argument with the foreign Red Army that had been withdrawn is moot, because that is what took place in many CIS republics, e.g., in Georgia. However, you should know that Georgia is not considered to had been being occupied by the USSR.

Re your "Soviet=Russian versus Baltic+Everyone Else versions", that is not correct, because some states did recognise the annexation even de jure, so your "everyone" is simply false. However, what is more important, most states did recognise annexation de facto, and that was in accordance with the fact that the Soviet Union considered these territories under a control of civilian adminiistration. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am continuing our discussion in this section due to the length of the previous section. I perfectly understand your thesis of "The USSR forcefully incorporated the Baltic states as Soviet Socialist Republics, placed them under the jurisdiction of domestic laws and established civilian administration there, which was organised in the same way as in all other parts of the USSR. This fact was recognised by majority states", hence that is why the term "annexation" must be included in the title. However this viewpoint is contrary to the mainstream international acceptance of state continuity of the Baltic states, since annexation extinguishes the continuity of states. As Ineta Ziemele concludes on page 132 of her book "State continuity and Nationality":

"In conclusion, one could say with some authority that the first part of the Baltic claims — not to be considered as successor States to the former USSR — was accepted by the international community. The identity between the pre-1940 States and the 1990 States was also accepted. The unlawfulness and non-recognition of the 50 year long occupation was emphasised. In view of these conclusions, it is difficult to say that the international community considered that the Baltic States have ceased to exist and that in 1990-1991 they restored their statehood. The evidence points in the direction of the acceptance of the claim to restored independence and suggests that this is a unique case of State continuity without interruption in statehood for a considerable period of time spent under an unlawful foreign authority."

In other words, because the international community recognises state continuity rather than state succession, adding "annexation" to the title would be misleading. --Martin (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources do use the word "annexation", and they do characterise these events as annexation. I demonstrated that with sources, quotes and references many times. We also have an explanation from the author of one of the sources we use in this article. That is not just an opinion of an uninvolved person, that is explanation of what the reliable source states in actuality, made by its author. This explanation demonstrates that you misunderstood what this source says, and, accordingly, a non-zero probability exists that you misunderstand other sources as well. The word "occupation" is used predominantly in a context of state continuity, therefore it is highly relevant to the articles devoted to this subject (such as "state continuity of the Baltic states"). However, this word alone, without the word "annexation" is misleading in more general article, like this one, for the reasons I, and not only I, have already explained on this talk page (several times).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Paul, is that you implicitly contend that the use of "annexation" in a source explicitly indicates the extinction of Baltic sovereignty (ergo, end of occupation). I understand the sources completely. You are pushing a POV. "Everyone else", certainly everyone else today. If Poland recognized annexation as de jure, that's irrelevant as being a Soviet puppet. As for the Swedes, they have apologized for their extraordinarily bad judgement, and Australia's dabbling in de jure was the decision of one person based on (a) their personal hatred of Baltic emigres in Australia because he identified them with his political opposition and (b) sucking up to the Soviets, bucking for Secretary General (the "de jure" announcement was done in Moscow). Anyone else we care about of significance regarding de jure? Let's get real, here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is how you understand that. It is generally accepted that the sovereign states that werede facto extinct due to Soviet annexation, have been restored, not recreated, because the annexation was illegal, and, in that sense, it could be considered as occupation. Therefore, as I already wrote, the term "occupation" is quite relevant when we discuss the question if the present-days Baltic states are newly created state entities, or they are a legal successors of pre-war states. This question has a clear and almost unequivocal answer, although, judging by the amount of literature on that account, the answer was not as obvious as someone used to think. However, by using the word "occupation" solely we obscure another side of the problem, namely, the internal status of the Baltic states within the USSR. It had nothing in common with classical occupational regime, therefore, by omitting the word "annexation" in the article devoted to general, not international law aspects, we confuse a reader.

Regarding Sweden, let me point out that even God cannot cancel the event that has already happened. Sweden, as well as some other Western countries did recognise annexation de jure, and their apology do not cancel the fact that they had that done in the past. Generally speaking, I agree with you that we shouldn't focus on the issue too much, because, as many sources say, the recognition issue was considerably affected by political conjuncture, and, accordingly, change of the conjuncture affect the position. However, if we disregard recognition some states, how can we use the fact of non-recognition by other states as an argument?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Sweden: You are wrong, unless the sources on the State continuity of the Baltic states article are either wrong or ridiculously misrepresented. Sweden took no official position until 1989, when it decided that it did not de jure recognise Soviet control over the Baltics. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:the sources on the State continuity of the Baltic states article are either wrong or ridiculously misrepresented. Yes you are correct here. See p. 81 of this book by Malksoo, which corresponds to p.53 of its english version. (Igny (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

Quote:Швеция также признала инкорпорацию балтийских государств Советским Союзом. Полный перечень признаний см. в: R. Pullat. The Restauration of the Independence of Estonia // 2 Finnish YBIL 1991, p. 529.

Sweden had also recognized the incorporation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. (Igny (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

It states otherwise on page 166 of The Finnish yearbook of international law, Volume 2, published by Martinus Nijhoff in 1996, so obviuosly R. Pullat got this bit wrong when he wrote his paper in 1991. --Martin (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You forgot that Malksoo published his book in 2003 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Leiden/Boston, 2003). So obviously, your bit about Nijhoff is wrong. Basically, that is an unnamed author endorsed by Martintg, versus Pullat endorsed by Malksoo. Only in WP, anonymous opinion has more weight than scholars' publications. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Nothing anonymous about it. It's in Pekka T. Talari paper "State Succession in Respect of Debts" starting on page 134, see footnote 117 on page 166, Pekka cites Swedish Foreign Ministry documents[6]. --Martin (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the internal status of the Baltic states within the USSR in terms of the applicability of domestic laws makes no difference on the international status as long as there remained prospect for the restoration of the Baltic states. Now if the USSR survived another 30-50 years and the Baltic states had remained in the USSR for that period, then the prospects for restoration would have been irretrievably lost, and most if not all international states would have recognised the incorporation de-jure, thus resulting in the extinction of the independent Baltic states and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

After the Anschluss Austria's internal status was no different in its domestic administration compared with the the rest of Germany, being a part of the former Third Reich it certainly had nothing in common with classical occupational regime, yet the allies deemed the Anschluss null and void and vowed to liberate Austria. The occupied French regions of Alsace and Lorraine are two other area that were incorporated into the Germany, split between the provinces of Westmark and Baden with no difference in the internal status and the applicability of domestic laws. Yet these regions were never the less deemed to be occupied and were restored to their pre-war status. Annexation ends occupation, it also extinguishes the prior state, however the international community accept that the Baltic states were not extinguished, hence the annexation was invalid (even though the USSR maintained it never annexed the Baltic states in the first place) thus the territory remained occupied in terms of international law. --Martin (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Anschluss, let me point out that the scholars throughout the world prefer to use this term (in German, Anschluss means "annexation" or "incorporation"), by contrast to "occupation". Why the term "occupation" is used comparatively rarely, and what was the need to use a German word in this case? The answer is rather simple: it was not occupation, it was incorporation or annexation from all points of view but legality of this step. The latter aspect appeared to be important for making a decision about a post-war fate of Austria, however, to describe the situation inside Austria the term "occupation" appeared to be inadequate, hence the use of the word "Anschluss": the German origin of the word emphasized the fact that this act had all traits of annexation but legality.. Therefore, in actuality this example just demonstrates my point.

Moreover, generally speaking, I would avoid analogies with Germany in this case: the decision about post-war territorial division of Germany was made by victorious Allies in a situation when no sane person would dare to raise his voice for Germany (taking into account the Holocaust and others numerous crimes). Many Allied steps were rather questionable, including division of East Prussia among Poland and the USSR, some decisions of Nuremberg trial, etc. In the former case the fact that East Prussia was transferred to the USSR and Poland does not mean that it was not a de jure part of Germany before and during the war. Most decisions of the Allies were politically dictated, and highly questionable from the point of view of international laws: for instance, what about Kresy? Was their annexation more legal than the annexation of the Baltic states? However, noone rises this issue now. Therefore, I don't think these example are the best ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Anschluss" was a word coined by the Nazis. Just because Adolf Hilter calls it "Anschluss" (Hitler is hardly going to call it occupation) does not mean the Allies agree, which they didn't and reversed the "Anschluss" at the end of the war. The situation in the Baltics is commonly compared in the literature with Austria, for example Pekka T. Talari states: "Following the example laid down by Austria it can be stated that the Baltic states did not lose their identies during the years of the Soviet rule"[7]. --Martin (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re ""Anschluss" was a word coined by the Nazis." Wrong. "Anschluss" is the word from German vocabulary, and it means "incorporation" or "annexation". Although Hitler applied this term to Austria, that applied no obligation on western writers. However, they prefer to call this event "Anschluss", not "occupation". Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) More on Lothar's the sources on the State continuity of the Baltic states article are either wrong or ridiculously misrepresented. The source is mis-cited. The page 166 in the The Finnish yearbook of international law, Volume 2 refers to a paper State succession in respect to debts: the effect of state successions in the 1990's on the rules of law by Pekka T. Talari (p.134-179). Talari's credentials? It says "researcher" in the footnote of the article. The only Pekka T. Talari I found online was a lawyer from Tax Counsel at Roschier, Attorneys Ltd, Finland. Wrong or ridiculously misrepresented? You bet it is. (Igny (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

The source is not mis-cited, I posted the link in response to you above. The Finnish yearbook of international law is a peer reviewed journal, I'm sure the editorial board of that journal is better placed to make a judgement on the credentials of Talari than User:Igny --Martin (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to modify your so obviuosly R. Pullat got this bit wrong when he wrote his paper in 1991 then? Or you now value your opinion higher than the editorial board of the Finnish YBIL? (Igny (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Why? They both cannot be correct. Probably Pullat did not have access to the Swedish Foreign Ministry documents. --Martin (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What was so special about the contents of those documents? Did Sweden secretly refuse to recognize the incorporation and revealed this fact only after Pullat published his paper? (Igny (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)The Talari's chapter states that by 1977 Sweden had not decided if to recognise annexation de facto or de jure, but its positions came closest to de jure recognition. Therefore, to say "this source states otherwise" is a misinterpretation. Interestingly, in Talari's views, the Baltic states were annexed, and this annexation had much in common with Anschluss of Austria. The latter event is characterised as Anschluss, not "occupation", and, accordingly, Talari prefers to use the English equivalent of this word (i.e. "annexation"). Interestingly, he is doing that even in a context of state continuity, therefore, according to him this word reflects the situation more adequately. Moreover, Talari represents the thesis about state continuity as a stand taken by the Baltic states themselves (not by the international community). If you Martin believe that Talari's alleged thesis about Swedish non-recognition can be taken seriously, you must also accept other Talari's points. You are trying to bring new sources, however, you must remember that these sources do not cancel what the sources that had already been presented tell. They tell that we can and should speak about annexation (although illegal), therefore, this word must be in the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You omitted that "its positions came closest to de jure recognition" was attributed to Hough by Talari. Why don't you cite the rest of it: "However, 1989 Sweden declared that it had not recognised the annexation of the Baltic states to the USSR, but it seems that this is only reference to de jure recognition, see Documents on Swedish Foreign Policy 1989…" Nobody disputes that the term "annexation" is used in the literature, the problem is the context. Here Talari mentions "annexation" as an event in 1940, not as a period or term of control, as do the majority of other authors. As you said above, "Occupation" can have two meanings, either as an event or as state or period, but that just isn't the case with "annexation". As a native english speaker I tell you it is just simply idiomatically incorrect to use the term in the context of "period of annexation". By having "occupation" in context of "annexation", as in "occupation and annexation", the meaning of "occupation" changes from a term of control to an event in 1940, and then the scope of the article becomes the same as Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). --Martin (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The very page 166 by Talari says Moreover the Baltic states were annexed to the USSR for a longer period than their independence lasted before the annexation. Where do you see reference to 1940? That is just another flaw in your counting argument for "period of annexation" you mentioned above. Did your search pick up this page there? (Igny (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)The chapter contains the opinion of the scholar that Sweden was close to de jure recognition, and it is not important whether it belonged to Talari or to another author.

Re "Talari mentions "annexation" as an event in 1940, not as a period or term of control" I thought we already resolved this issue: "annexation" may refer to both (see above). Moreover, Talari explicitly used this term to describe a period of time:

"Moreover, the Baltic states were annexed for a longer period than their independence lasted before the annexation" (p. 166, op. cit)

Your persistent refusal to accept the obvious is on the brink of disruptive editing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Expressing my honest opinion on an article talk page is not disruptive editing, but continuing to uncompromisingly pursue a name change in the face of no clear consensus, may well be. I never agreed that "annexation" may refer to both, that's just your assumption, and any dictionary will confirm the usage of the terms. Talari uses the transitive verb "annexed", but uses the term "annexation" in the context of the event when he states "lasted before the annexation". --Martin (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Expressing my honest opinion on an article talk page. Well playing the card of the "native English speaker" is merely a manipulation which at best works on the little kids, I really do not know what you were thinking here. This is by no means "expressing my honest opinion", and even if it was your opinion, which you may very strongly believe that means little to nothing unless you provide a published expert's opinion. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Re "Expressing my honest opinion on an article talk page" I wouldn't say it is appropriate. You may express your honest opinion on general forums devoted to the article's subject, not here. You are not required to change your honest opinion even if the facts and the sources suggest the opposite. However, that is irrelevant to the current discussion, which is devoted to the change of the article's title. We cannot keep this title just because according to your honest opinion it should not be changed. Let me summarise: we accumulated a large amount of arguments that confirm that the word "annexation" can and should be added to the title: that step is supported by the sources, it will not be OR, and it is neural. Therefore, any attempt to start one more round of the same discussion referring to: (i) "annexation" vs "occupation" as an act vs the state (already addressed), (ii) illegality of annexation (already addressed) (iii) German case (already addressed), (iv) non-recognition (already addressed), (v) a more specialised "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)", etc. will be interpreted as a disruptive behaviour. Please, provide fresh arguments, or do not prevent us from changing the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you forgot one more argument of your two opponents, (vi)lack of consensus. I fail to understand why these editors fail to see the apparent consensus here. Probably, these two editors are willing to treat WP:CONSENSUS as a right to veto. (Igny (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

For what it's worth, you yourself were tossing around "no consensus" in a nearly identical way a few months ago in the face of substantial opposition against your tag. But consensus does change, it seems... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what lack of consensus Igny is talking about. Consensus is needed to change a title, not to preserve it. However, if we remember that all legitimate concerns have been successfully addressed during this discussion, and all required sources have been provided, I don't see how the personal opinion of some users can be relevant in this case. I myself also am not always satisfied with the edits I have to endorse, however, if all needed sources are provided, and these edits are neutral and contain no original research I have to accept them irrespective to my own honest opinion (which is my personal business).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your apparent presumption that having an opinion that is contrary to your own opinion is "disruptive" is highly inappropriate and I wonder if you would be similarly dismissive of processes such as Wikipedia:Third opinion. I ask that you refractor these comments lest it be seen as an attempt to intimidate. You claim all these issues have been "successfully addressed" but I don't think you can be the judge of that because of your conflict of interest. For the most part these issues have not been adequately addressed, rather just dismissed, in my opinion. For example a majority of third parties in the recent RFC were of the view that a move was unnecessary, yet this is dismissed. This is why we usually have a uninvolved admin to judge if there is consensus in contentious move discussions, not a partisan editor who wants to push through a particular outcome in the face of disagreement. This current discussion was borne out of Igny's application of the POV tag, which most agree is inappropriate since as you agree the issue is one of precision rather than POV, but it seems is being used as leverage to get this article moved. Given the high importance of this article there should be at least a formal move request so that there is a higher level of visibility rather than have this go under the radar. --Martin (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Come again, what majority? (Igny (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

The aim of holding an RFC is to get outside opinion to help resolve an issue. Unfortunately the RFC was only able to elicit the opinions of few uninvolved people before the regulars jumped in. Of the three uninvolved editors, two User:Dailycare and User:Bahudhara both supported the current title while User:Lihaas thought that "History of..." would be more neutral. --Martin (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "Paul, your apparent presumption that having an opinion that is contrary to your own opinion is "disruptive"" Obvious straw man argument. I believe I clearly wrote that I concede that everyone can and should have his/her own opinion, and I see no problem when it doesn't coincide with mine. Moreover, I respect the users who has an opinion that differs from my own, provided that they play honestly. Under "play honestly" I mean the desire to convince the opponent and the readiness to be convinced if the opponent's arguments appeared to be stronger. I have a lot of positive experience with the editors of that kind, sometimes I was able to convince them, sometimes I had to accept their point of view, and in both cases that lead to increased mutual respect. Sadly, I cannot say the same about this case: by no means can I characterise the later discussion as a fair play: it is obvious that you were not prepared to accept the opponent's point of view (independently of presented sources and arguments). Although I always assume good faith unless the evidences of the opposite have been provided, I also remember that the users are not required to always assume good faith, and this discussion is a rare situation when my faith in the opponent's good faith had been shaken (although not dispelled completely). I would be glad if you abandoned your current behaviour, which, I believe, is not your standard behaviour.

Regarding the third opinion, I don't think the opinion of uninvolved editors who presented no fresh arguments or sources have any serious weight: that resembles a poll, which is not allowed by the policy. However, we do have a third opinion of an uninvolved expert (Malksoo), which, for some reason has been ignored by you as inconvenient.

Re precision vs POV. I am not sure such a dichotomy is justified: POV issues usually stem from inaccuracy (not all significant opinions are adequately reflected), therefore, it is simply incorrect to formulate the issue in such a way. In my opinion, it is no the brink of POV, because it reflects the point of view of those who believes that there were no annexation, just pure occupation. Many, if not majority of sources state otherwise, so the title is POV charged.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PS Re User:Lihaas' opinion, I agree that complete change of the title to something like "History of..." would be the best solution, and I myself proposed something of that kind in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am saddened by your apparent need to assume bad faith and insinuate unfair play in the face of disagreement in order to further your case for a rename. It exemplifies an approach that I thought was beneath you. Resorting to ad hominem arguments is never a good way to build consensus and only increases my reservations.

You now claim the current title is POV charged, yet previously you allowed Lothar believe issue not as "non-neutral vs neutral title", but as "inaccurate vs more accurate title" apparently in order to gain his support. Is this what you mean when you say participants should "play honestly"?

Let's list some of the issues with your arguments which I have mentioned previously: You argument that google scholar searches are the objective summary of the frequency of usage of the terms "occupation" and "annexation" in a regard to the Baltic states is flawed because it gives no sense of of the context of the usage.

Following from that you address the context of usage in terms "annexation" vs "occupation" as an act vs the state through Proof by assertion that both of them may refer both to the state and to the act when examination of the sources indicate otherwise, and then you misleadingly claim I conceded that point

You claim the term "occupation" is misleading because it had nothing in common with classical occupational regime, ORishly citing texts such as the Hague convention, yet the term is used extensively in the literature to denote the period of Soviet rule by numerous scholar such as John Hiden, David J. Smith, James Mace, Ineta Ziemele and others, not to mention the more accessible sources that would likely be more familiar with the general reader such as the news media. Malksoo is just one of many authors on this topic.

You assert that the term "annexation" needs to be in the title to reflect the internal status of the Baltic states within the USSR and claim "defacto extinction" when no source discusses annexation in those terms[8]

Then your way of addressing illegality of annexation, which Malksoo states should be made clear, is to claim the article already makes this clear when in fact the term is mentioned only twice in the whole article, in fact one sentence is identical to a sentence removed from the continuity article by Igny and this was dismissed by yourself as irrelevant even thought that article is a component sub-article spun out from this article and thus should be considered in its totality. The fact of this sourced text removal does not bode well for the future development of this topic should the name change be pushed through.

Several compromises were offered, like developing the series of articles first to work through the implications of a name change before deciding upon the change, or even simply inserting the term "illegal" in the title, but all were rejected by you. Perhaps even a rename of of the sub article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) to Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) may even be sufficient, though I concede that more thought may need to be given to this. Added to this your apparent resort to ad hominem arguments disparaging editor's opinions on the matter and ugly accusations of WP:TE when it is you wanting to make this edit, makes me more disinclined to support a move at this stage. --Martin (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:even thought that article is a component sub-article spun out from this article and thus should be considered in its totality. You got it way wrong here. A number of scholars, Malksoo included, have written works on the state continuity of the Baltic states and its consequences, and only mentioned occupation as an argument (annexation was illegal) to prove the thesis (sovereignty was continuous). I should say these articles are certainly connected, but it is not like one is part of another. Oh, and kudos for giving your own spin for the overwhelming evidence for the article rename. (Igny (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Re "You now claim the current title is POV charged" I do not care under which pretext the title will be fixed. When Lothar suggested to consider the title as just inaccurate, I had nothing against that. However, when you started to resist to fixing this inaccuracy, implying that that inaccuracy should stay, I had to remind you that this inaccuracy is close to POV.

Re "...google scholar searches are the objective summary of the frequency of usage of the terms "occupation" and "annexation" in a regard to the Baltic states is flawed because it gives no sense of of the context of the usage." I provided several concrete examples of the usage of this word, and I just supplemented them with the gscholar results. Yes, the context of usage of the word "annexation" cannot be established based on these search results, however, the same is true for "occuaption". Moreover, since "occuaption" may refer to German occupation, and because these two events are so tightly connected, it is hard to separate these two by simple gscholar search. Therefore, the possible artifacts connected to "annexation" and to "occuaption" are likely to balance each other.

Re "Then your way of addressing illegality of annexation, which Malksoo states should be made clear, is to claim the article already makes this clear when in fact the term is mentioned only twice in the whole article" To make some fact clear, it is sufficient to mention it just once. "WWII started with the German invasion of Poland", "The Earth rotates around our Sun", "2x2=4", "E=mc^2" - all these statement have to appear only once in corresponding articles to make these facts clear for an ordinary reader. Do you think prospective readers of this aretice are exceptionally stupud, and they need the same idea to be repeated several times to be clear? I don't think so. In any event, that issue is not relevent to the current discussion.

Re "You assert that the term "annexation" needs to be in the title to reflect the internal status of the Baltic states within the USSR and claim "defacto extinction" " The word "extinction" was taken from the Peters' post (19:03, 4 March 2011). I just added de facto to indicate that I agree that we cannot speak about de jure extinction (I believe noone will argue that the Baltic states did not exist de facto during 1940-90, because most states, such as the UK, did recognise the annexation de facto, although not de jure). let me also point out that I initially didn't plan to use this word, and I see no need in its usage.

Re WP:TE, not only a person who wants to add some material can be a tendentious editor. An editor who resists to obvious changes despite the fact that all arguments have been addressed and all needed sources have been presented can also be considered as a TE.

Re ad hominem. My post that caused this your reaction had a relation to a prospective behaviour of some unnamed editor. I wrote:

"Therefore, any attempt to start one more round of the same discussion referring to: (i) "annexation" vs "occupation" as an act vs the state (already addressed), (ii) illegality of annexation (already addressed) (iii) German case (already addressed), (iv) non-recognition (already addressed), (v) a more specialised "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)", etc. will be interpreted as a disruptive behaviour. "

thereby indicating that some steps that some users may, although non necessarily will take may be considered as a disruptive. You preferred to interpred that in absolutely wierd way:

"Paul, your apparent presumption that having an opinion that is contrary to your own opinion is "disruptive" is highly inappropriate ..."

which was a typical straw man argument, because nothing in my posts allowed you to conclude that I see the issue as a collision between my and your opinions. Our opinions means nothing unless they are not supported with reliable sources and logical arguments. You failed to do that, and, nevertheless, you insist on your (unsupported by majority sources) opinion. That is unaccetable.

Re "Several compromises were offered" ... and some of them by me. For instance, I support the idea (initially put forward by User:Lihaas and supported by you) to rename tha article to "History of...." However, for some reason you ignore it.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)