User talk:Vecrumba/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ARCHIVED ON DECEMBER 25, 2009

Can you help

Find sources and address the general points raised here and here? I thought it would be of interest to you, after our discussion of Nazi sources and undercover activities.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something on this. —PētersV (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you could try to mediate between Polish and Lithuanian editors at Talk:Dubingiai_massacre#Removed_info. I doubt we can find a common language there by ourselves.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brothers' Cemetery

Hi, you said you got something about bringing flame for enternal flame from Leningrad. I also found a note about that in a Soviet published encyclopedia, however so far I haven't found anything about lighting the enternal fire in any other source. Thing is it was lit in 1958, however the altar for the enternal flame was built in 1930s. Does your source say what had happened to fire and what was symbolical meaning behind bringing it from Leningrad ? ~~Xil...sist! 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sveiks, Xil! From "Brāļu Kapi" published 1959 by the Latvian State Publishing House (so, I believe a SSR government publication and should therefore be in the public domain...), p. 17-18:

1958. gada 22. jūlija svinīgajā sēru mītiņā, kad dzimtenes smiltājā apbedija no tāliem kauju laukiem pārvestos varoņu pīšlus, LKP CP sekretāram J. Kalnbērziņam Ļeņingradas strādnieks pasniedza lāpu, ar kuru Brāļu kapu altārī iedezināja mūžīgo uguni. Šī lāpa bija aizdedzināte pie mūžīgāš uguns Ļeņingrādā Marsa laukumā [so, St. Petersburg's "Field of Mars"], kur varoņu kapenēs kopā ar citiem cīnītājiem atdusas arī latviešu strēlnieki.

There's a picture of Kalnbērziņš lighting the flame with the torch from Leningrad, along with two others I don't recognize. Also, a picture on the previous page of the event with someone delivering an address, captioned:

Sēru mītiņš Brāļu kapos 1958. g. 22. jūlijā, izvadot us pēdejo dusu Lielajā Tēvijas karā kritušos tautas varoņus.

If we can confirm that as a Soviet government publication it's in the public domain, there are also pictures of proposed models of Brāļu Kapi which would be very useful for an article. —PētersV (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is in public domain - everything in Soviet Union was state owned, copyrights of this publication are governed either by Latvian law, in which case it is not in public domain or by the law which governed copyrights in LSSR at the time - I couldn't find law for that period, but I found out that under 1964 law copyrights of legal persons last forever (this was said in news article on scandal about seling rights on Soviet Latvian movies, the case is somewhat similar as the movies were produced by state owned studio, however maybe this concerns only copyrights on movies). Perhaps you'll make something out if you read [1] and Copyright law of the Soviet Union. My question on War grave concerned interwiki links in lv:Brāļu kapi not the cemetery we are discussing here - I needed an existing English article to link to - military cemetery would be a good choise as war grave refers only to burials made during short period of time, but it dosen't exist, so I linked to war grave. And last, but not least - could you please give me more details on your Soviet book so I can use this quote as source in the article ? (I'd prefer to fill out as much of Template:Cite book as possible) ~~Xil...sist! 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

War grave is probably find for the interwiki. Interestingly, using Lestene as an example, I turned up the following usages...

• www.daugavasvanagi.org -Second World War Fallen Latvian Legion Soldiers Brothers Cemetery at Lestene
• www.mfa.gov.lv - Lestene Brethren Cemetery
• vip.latnet.lv/lpra - Riga's Brothers Cemetery - but - Lestene War Cemetery
• www.am.gov.lv - Lestene Warriors Cemetery

The real problem in translation is that there is no English equivalent which encompasses the use of "brother" in all its variations in common Latvian usage, also including folk songs ("brāļu", "brālītis", "bālēliņš",...). Thinking of folks songs, "betrothed" and "brother/brethren" are the closest literal translations but have no feeling as compared to the originals in Latvian. If you compare to a cemetery such as Arlington in the U.S., "Brāļu Kapi" might more appropriately though less literally translate to "National Cemetery" or "National War Cemetery". Not to be solved here... On the other topic, the Brāļu Kapi book does list a number of editors, I'll post that on your talk when I next have a chance. —PētersV (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda

Since we were discussing this subject, I find the Nazi_propaganda#During_World_War_II section pitifully small and likely missing many, many important examples.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'm doing a bit of work on Dubingiai to try and pull together the multiple versions and conflicting accounts into a narrative that's representative that everyone can live with--that seems an editorial problem of manageable size. I see the Holocaust in Lithuania is going less well lately but I don't have the bandwidth for a major effort there. That will boil down to disparate sources--nowhere in Eastern Europe was the Holocaust inflicted without the direct management of the German Nazis, but the issue of the "Germanless" Holocaust is far bigger than the one article. —PētersV (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular fronts

Hello. I see you're now doing work on earlier decades, but I thought I'd let you in on what I did recently and hope to see more of. I wrote Popular Front of Moldova and put in a section on the Popular Fronts, but it seems to me that we woefully lack coverage on the Soviet republics' move to independence (say 1987-91). There's some of that for the Baltics, and now I've started Moldova, but more is needed, not to mention Ukraine and the Caucasus republics. The Supreme Soviet elections, the demonstrations, the negotiations, the reactions of the republican Communist Parties, the link to earlier dissident movements, the sense of reawakening, the impact of cultural figures - I could go on and on, but anyway, it's definitely an area for expansion. Biruitorul (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it in print, but Google Books offers generous excerpts, which I used for the Moldovan Popular Front article. Oh, and the Latvian link was news to me; I'll look into that. Biruitorul (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie of joint Soviet Nazi victory parade available.

I just found out that there is an actual movie of the joined Soviet-Nazi victory parade of 1939. I am downloading it but knowing net it could be deleted. I think you might be interested. [2] --Molobo (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

Its German two-phase withdrawals--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, Pēter, I'm not watching the article anymore, however I came accros an interesting fact - I've got history book which says that Stalin himself had ordered to eliminate the encicled army group until 7 November 1944 (so much for blocking to pass by), I thought you might find that interesting, though judging from the discussion only the original order would be considered source reliable enough ~~Xil * 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not planing to work on that article either (I'm not interested in military history and I already have some other things to do both in Wikipedia and real life), but such order would clearly show that those who say that Russians didn't realy plan to attack are wrong, so it might be worth to investigate this further, if you are waching the article perhaps you could mention this to people who are currently contributing to the article (t.i. tiem, kas piekrīt mūsu versijai, protams). I have used that history book as reference in few other articles - it's Freibergs J. (1998, 2001) Jaunako laiku vesture 20. gadsimts Zvaigzne ABC ISBN 9984-17-049-7. ~~Xil * 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiberniantears

Hi,

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiberniantears. Currently far from ready, but I reckon you might want to participate in its development anyway, so I'm notifying you early. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Red flag whistle blowing

I do find this section Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising#Nazi_forces absolutely unreferenced and WP:POV.--Lokyz (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, that I went for the sources and did not succeed finding any. After some googling attempts I've landed on some Polish forums, where half of the users declared that it is "obvious" and "well known fact", while the others asked for sources and did not get any. What makes me wonder most - is Lithuanian Security Police story. How could it land and what could it have done in Poland at the time?

IMO, it is the same problem as usual - a collection of popular mythoses, without even an attempt to read some research before posting accusations. And after it is posted, we'd get a cats and dogs of forum/tygodniks/"patriotic" literature referencing.--Lokyz (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read Ezergailis book, if it is avaylable online, I'd be glad to read it. If not - I'd be even more eager. And i hope, it is english, because, i have to confess, that despite our "braliukas" languages I'm more skilled in Slavic, Germanic, and English languages (me culpa). From the Lithuanian side there is an international Comission that does publish a lot of books (IMO - precedent-creatig wise action of Lithuanian Government to disestablish any accusaition on Lithuanian nationalism and let historians do their work (please note the partners of the project)). If the trend of prosecution the others will continue, I think I'll scratch my head and go to the nearest book shop or I'll ask my fromer history study fellows to share their libraries. Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The participation of Ukrainian/Russian/Baltic auxiliaries in the Uprisings is mentioned in various sources, we could use more info on that (it was probably a relatively small contribution, but the sources are not very clear). Ex. [3]: "a 337-man battalion of Ukrainian and Lithuanian fascist auxiliaries, called ‘Askaris’ by the German"; [4]: "Sammern-Frankenegg dispatched groups of Lithuanian and Ukrainian SS auxiliaries and Polish police into the ghetto"; [5]: "the remaining fugitives were discovered by SS troops and Lithuanian auxiliaries, who killed them all"; [6]: "From his car Stroop carefully studied the ghetto borders and checked the vigilance of the security forces just outside the ghetto area. They were mostly Ukrainian, Latvian, and Lithuanian Fascists serving under the SS command... known as Askaris." More about the Askari/Askaris: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I wonder if they are just another name for the Hilfspolizei? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bandwidth is low (coffee break!) but I'll take a look at your searches. Ezergailis has reviewed all the archival materials available and has not found any records of Latvian SD units or personnel being dispatched to Poland--I've heard the story personally, but I don't recall the exact "nickname" used. —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Weiner example

Just some quick feedback reading through the refs (your [7] through [11] "more about" refs):

First of all, you will note the confusion in references as to who are the Askaris. They appear to be Russian deserters, not Balts or Ukrainians. (Also, I would have recognized the term if I had heard it before). But it immediately gets far more interesting:

• 1st ref, Weiner and 2nd ref, Weiner: I believe his reference is incorrect (and he repeats the exact same text!), he is not taking Askaris to be the correct constituency

NOTE: Weiner's source for Askaris being Balts and Ukrainians is, surprise!, the Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History, so Soviet documentary source; given to the extent the Soviets went to equate the Balts and Ukrainians with Nazis, this source is fatally suspect

• 3rd ref, Edelheit & Edelheit: I believe are correct, this is the only answer that makes sense without further research (and given the source for Askaris NOT being Russian is Soviet/Russian)
• 4th ref, Reitlinger: The Germans love (der Spiegel does this regularly) to reprint Nazi propaganda, that is, Hitler's creation of the Germanless Holocaust where the Balts were already slaughtering Jews, where Balts were so "vicious" that appalled German SS "saved" Jews from their grasp, etc. Himmler's statements on savage Balts (et al.) are documented to be pure propaganda. Unreliable reference. Note, Askaris are, however, the Russian deserters, at least that is correct.
• 5th ref, Grobman: Maintains there was no difference between the Waffen SS and the SD units (incorrect), maintains they were all convicted at Nuremberg (incorrect).

Extraordinary claims (let's stick to Latvians and Lithuanians, which I know better) that Balts were actively engaged in the Holocaust so far from home territory require extraordinary proof, such as orders of stationing. These sources exhibit the following flaws:

• are wrong on who Askaris is (apparently repeating Soviet misdirection away from Soviet deserters),
• repeat Nazi propaganda, and
• equate the Waffen SS with the SD units and indicate all were convicted at Nuremberg.

Despite some of the glowing reviews printed on the covers, not as impressive when it comes to the Holocaust with regard to Baltic participation. —PētersV (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I forget in which one, but "Askaris" was also declined as "Askari" (plural of "Askaris") as if Askaris is a Baltic Latvian or Lithuanian word, which it categorically is completely not. —PētersV (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Tighina

I think the article Bender, Moldova should be moved to Tighina. See also my last comments in the talk page of the article. It's obviously that the city is mostly called Tighina in Romanian (Moldovan) language. --Olahus (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Encyclopedias reliable?

Perhaps you could comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Using all sources

Thanks Vecrumba, that's actually exactly what we're trying to do. My opinion is that we should not use a specific date (1931, 1937, 1939, 1941) and say that it is the true date which WWII started on; I'd rather present everything (within reason) and let the user decide. As a first step, I'm trying to get recognition that the sources I use which state something other then 1939 are reputable. After that, I'm going to head over to NPOV to get consensus that they do form, at least, a significant minority. Oberiko (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dictator FDR?

Can you source that for me? Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. No hurry. Trekphiler (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification on Baltic/Soviet subjects

Thank you so much, Vecrumba, for your insights. I'm more than happy to adopt them as guidelines for my tagging. TFCforever (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moldovan business, again

Hello, Pēters - may I ask that you provide a bit of outside input here? Thanks, and much appreciated. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Estonia international rankings

I remember a long time ago you asked me about the removal of the table which you created and I replied that I will re-add it after adding some more sources and rankings. Now its done though just half of it. I hope it is okey. Also I made lot of copyviol. issue removals and added some new ones which should be 100% copyviol. free. Talk 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland administration

Could you comment on the edit war at Template:Administrative division of Poland? Thanks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: minor trivia (because I am too tired for more): smaller, but much more densly populated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Estonia

Hi, I know it's really none of my business, but I've been reading your exchanges on user:Victor V V's talk page, and I'm really impressed by how you've handled yourself. You obviously have a grasp of the facts, but more importantly you're displaying much more patience and kindness than many others (myself included) could muster, especially given the situation. Just thought you should know that... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on yours. :-) —PētersV (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointless squabbles

...still, I'm curious, would you build a similar table for the various kinds of Russians who are now spread over different countries? You know, White Russians, Little Russians, Rusyns... Or Jews and Palestinians? Or Chinese and Japanese? What about Serbs and Montenegrins?

Another interesting moment that is reflected in that table is that you acknowledge the existence of "Moldavians of old", but are quick to turn them all into Romanians in the next "step". From my understanding of the idea, its proponents maintain that the population of Bessarabia was "not there" when Romanianism culminated in the establishment of the Romanian nation (being a province of the Russian empire at the moment, pretty much isolated from the newly created Romania).

But the main point is, of course, correct - ethnic division is indeed political. Never ceased to be. --Illythr (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Romanian was called Moldavian in the principality of... more by the outside world. There's no suggestion that it's a case of anything except a rose by another name, so to speak. But, regardless. The bottom line is that at the dawn of the 20th century, every reputable source shows Romanians as the primary ethnic group inhabitants of the post WWI Romanian territory, including Bessarabia, including left-bank (Dniester) Transnistria. (We do have the Szélelys, pockets of Germans and Saxons, in the heart of Transylvania, as well Magyars of Hungary in the border territory, but that's a much longer story. I would mention that the post WWI redrawn Romanian border including Transylvania very closely followed the extent of Romanian settlement as the predominant ethnic group, the afore-mentioned heart of Transylvania aside.)

   So where claims of identity and rights are concerned with regard to modern-day Moldova, born of a historical lie created by the Soviet Union, including the Cyrillization of Romanian as a "language," my personal opinion is a pox on Moldovans as an ethnic group (as opposed to a group identity connected with the current Moldovan territory) and a pox on Russians' ethnic habitation based claims and rights to and in Transnistrian territory. I don't paint myself as a bearer of truth, but compared to extremists on both sides, my interests in the "ethnic" topic are unbiased. I do admit to a pro-Moldova disposition because of connections between Transnistria proper and more generally post-Soviet fall Moldova with the Baltics--and patently false Russian claims regarding events both recent and historical there. But I have no pan-Romanian or ethno-genesis-Moldovan extremist view to peddle. I'm just saddened that the extremists on both sides have hijacked identification as an ethnic group--something sacred to one's linguistic/cultural/historical identity--for nothing but political purposes. It's a whole lot of political posturing and invective creating nothing but bad blood (and here on WP) instead of a honest dialog over the actual issue: whether or not Romania and Moldova should be reunited and what that means to Bessarabian (Russian invention) Romanians who have had half a century to develop a Moldovan (Soviet invention) territorial identity apart from Romania. The adversity of 50 years of being occupied and annexed versus merely inhabiting a puppet state that on paper was still sovereign is going to have a major impact and create a schism in how people forced into those two groups subsequently view themselves. But let's not make that out to be anything other than what it actually is.

   As much as I'm rooting for Moldova, there's no "600 years". Voronin is in it for Voronin. Sad to say in that respect--financial self-aggrandizement and over-the-top rhetoric that fabricates history in direct support of the continuation of his own authority--he's more like Smirnov than not. And so a pox on politicians that use their authority for personal opportunity.

   Of course, a pox on me for using the word pox, but we're only discussing my personal opinion here. What I personally believe and what I contend and write editorially are two different things. I'm old enough to tell the two apart. —PētersV (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat that ethnic identification has always been a political tool. I see the situation with ... the population of Moldavia as a vivid proof of that: As Romanianism gained popularity in the three principalities to the point of becoming accepted inside and outside of the newly created state, Bessarabia remained unaffected by it due to it being am imperial province. However, since at that time nobody contested that the people on the two banks of the Pruth are the same, the new demonym was (externally) accepted for Bessarabia as well. The Bessarabians themselves (who were at that time 95% uneducated peasants) didn't care a whit about this development. Once Bessarabia joined Romania, a Romanianization attempt was conducted to bring the local population "into the fold". It failed for the same reason Russification had (largely) failed in the last 100+ years - education infrastructure, through which such ideas are implanted into popular consciousness was virtually non-existent in Bessarabia. The harsh economic conditions caused the peasants to think about feeding their families, not of "higher matters" of who they are. Once Bessarabia was Soviet once again, its authorities realized this and installed the education system, that was then used to "broadcast" the "right" national ideas. In the 1990s the unionists managed shake the foundation of the existing system, but failed to follow through, due to opposition from Snegur (who decided that ruling in Hell was much better than serving in Eden (and Romania wasn't much of an Eden too, at that time)), as well several major screwups of their own. Just how political this whole thing is is readily apparent: when I asked friendly...um, titular nationals (:-P) about their ethnicity, the first response was always "Why, X of course!" (X being Ro or Mo) immediately followed by some political slogan programmed into them either by unionists earlier or anti-unionists later. Only after a few provocative questions they became confused and confessed they really didn't give it much thought. Of course, I won't pretend to be a reliable source on that matter, as I have talked about this to, like, 5 people, but I think the situation had remained largely unchanged since the last couple centuries: the absolute majority of the people being largely inert, and a small but politically charged minority (elite) impressing their views (with varying degrees of success) onto the rest of the populace.

As for Transnistrian claims of "separateness", afaik, it's mostly centered on the current (i.e. since 1989) population proportions and the fact that upon independence, the Moldovan government declared the resolution that created the MSSR, and glued the MASSR to it, null and void (they also kicked the dead horse of the M-R pact too, for some reason). --Illythr (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

About the article Latin European peoples

On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard there is a discussion about this article where you've been involved too one month ago. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

M-R Pact

I wonder if your last post there makes you (and Whiskey) Russian nationalists. Probably not. But damn it was close... --Illythr (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. Hey, if it's good enough for Nikita (with swap in word order) it's good enough for me. It's during his reign that what's left of the family made it back from Siberia. More to the point, there's no point in the wailing and gnashing of teeth to come that the "inappropriate juxtaposition" by "ethno-fascist Baltic (et al.)" editors of "Nazi-Soviet" "insults the memory and sacrifices of those who gave their lives in the Great Patriotic War to rid the world of fascism." —PētersV (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian salad

Seeing as how you seem to enjoy it with at least some regularity, would you mind grabbing a camera and shooting one during one of those times before it goes in? As someone had correctly pointed out on the article's talk page, the present pic of the thing is not at all typical, leaves and all. --Illythr (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Have my little digital camera here somewhere. Next time I get a particularly appetizing looking batch, I'll be sure to update. In the current picture, the garnishes (lettuce, cucumbers) have taken over and there's only a little dollop of stolichny. Can't see a damn thing! —PētersV (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Livonia?

I've read through the talk page, and skimmed through the article history, and I'm still not completely clear on what you (and the others) are saying.

The Kingdom did exist, but nominally, and only for eight years, after which it was conquered and divided up among multiple new owners? Is that it? DS (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Not to be confused with historical Livonia. The "Kingdom of Livonia" of the article, as properly described in the talk section from my translation from the Latvian WP (and I have published sources that agree), was a plot of Ivan the Terrible to put Livonian (now Estonian and Latvian Vidzeme) territory under Russian suzerainty. No territory was ever conquered. No subjects ever owed allegiance. The plot failed utterly and miserably. No such kingdom ever existed. Hope this helps! —PētersV (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Something non-Baltic

This is a continuation of an off-topic off-shoot off that off-topic discussion over there.

Whether it was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference. - 500 years make no difference, you say? Then let's take another example...

I understand, you're a citizen of the United States - a vile regime of occupation, part of a more general ongoing European occupation of the Americas. The blatant illegality of this regime is readily apparent - it was established amidst mass enslavement and genocide of Native Americans - the only legal owners of the territories, which were taken from them by force, open fraud, and even what can be considered medieval biological warfare. Even the two nearest and dearest buddies, Stalin and Hitler, powerful and vile as they were, cannot boast the annihilation of an entire civilization on their otherwise impressive crime lists (although Hitler did make an honest attempt). Currently, what is left of the once populous tribes has been forced into concentration camps reservations and is being thoroughly USsified. They are also forced to learn a foreign language which makes them way below second-class citizens in their own countries.

As a person of utmost integrity, surely, you are utterly disgusted with this historical injustice and are doing all that is in your power to end it, so that more nations can enjoy freedom from their historic oppressors? While you're probably not a warrior to try and dismantle the entire utterly illegal legislative and military infrastructure of even one such occupation regime directly, surely, you are doing your part by helping to stop the McDonaldization of what little remains of Native American culture in your area...

...which is Wichquawanck, Lenapehoking, yes? So tell me, how's your Lenape? Are you going to teach your children Seneca? Have you considered teaching web design in Munsee? After all, when the hour of Freedom finally comes, the oppressive and illegal occupying Evil Empire collapses and the Sovereign Native American Freedom Union is established, only those languages will become official in your vicinity (plus another 20 or so; English, French and Spanish certainly not among them, being tools of oppression they are). Also, a number of political measures, strategically aimed at the increase of the proportion of Native Americans in America will have to be implemented (surely, you understand). Evidently, such an increase cannot be achieved without stimulating a big number of non-Natives to leave the country. No less important incentive for the remigration of all those Brits, French, etc, etc, are the ever declining birth rates in their respective home countries, which would certainly welcome the influx of titular ethnics, are surely waiting for their compatriots with open arms, and will be eager to provide for all their needs upon arrival. The young state will certainly follow the shining example of other, more experienced, young democracies, and will not automatically grant citizenship to any of the guests who have overstayed their welcome for just over 500 years and brought only death, disease and suffering to the previously flourishing lands. Citizenship will have to be granted only to those metics, who pass a university-level test on at least three local languages (really now, after the 500 years of ongoing occupation they could have learned ALL of the continent's languages, if they had really wanted to learn the culture of the lands they came to rape live in) as well as intimate familiarity with sacred totemic knowledge of the nearest major tribe. Part of the examination will also cover the knowledge of New History, a subject that will cover in great detail the misdeeds of such vile criminals as Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and, of course, the two intimate friends Hitler and Stalin - typical representatives of the rotting haven of oppression that Europe was during the last 500 years.

Good thing that most of the surviving tribes still have their chieftains whose ancestors were legally appointed by gods to be stewards of their sacred lands - legal continuity won't pose a problem once the SNAFU is firmly established and Functioning Normally. --Illythr (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• This up here is a complete soapboxing. Just that changing some words would put things into a different perspective. So I'm sorry for this trolling here but I couldn't resist:

I understand, you're a citizen of the Russian federation - a vile regime of occupation,[1] part of a more general ongoing Russian occupation of the Finno-Ugric peoples and Indigenous peoples of Siberia. As a person of utmost integrity, surely, you are utterly disgusted with this historical injustice and are doing all that is in your power to end it, so that more nations can enjoy freedom from their historic oppressors?
The fact is, both USA and Russia have similar history. Europeans colonized the lands of indigenous people of America, Russians colonized the lands of Indigenous peoples that lived east of Novgorod and Kiev.--Termer (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not a citizen of that particular Evil Empire. Been there for, like, a year tops some 20 years ago... Integrity? Didn't you know I'm a KGB employee? I'm also evil enough to not recognize these long-term occupations as such, so the second mirroring won't work. :-P

But you are, of course, correct about similar history of those two EEs. Except unlike other European powers, Russia/USSR was fortunate enough to have its colonies right nearby (including the lands of the indigenous peoples that lived to the northwest of the two cities you mention). --Illythr (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

not recognize these long-term occupations as such?? That's fine as long as you're not evil enough to apply double standards to native Americans of European descent whose ancestors just arrived to Americas a bit later over the Atlantic ocean than the ones that were pushed from Siberia into Bering Sea a bit earlier and were forced to swim across and had colonized the lands that belonged to dinosaurs and mammoths--Termer (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, an excellent point! Surely, all of the land modern humans live on had previously belonged if not to someone, then to something else! With but a minor extension of the same "still an occupation after X years" logic from X = five hundred to X > five hundred thousand, we can make use of your ingenious suggestion and conclude that the entire human species is, in fact, an illegal occupant here on Earth (just think about the fate of the poor Neanderthals... or the mammoths! Or the dodos! Or, or, or...) by some divine law. Shame on us! And may a holy bolt of divine power strike me down if I dare to assume that you apply similar double standards by failing to extend your definition of occupation to all of the still ongoing occupations in the world, as long as they involved a forceful change of local leadership by a foreign entity and happened at some point (-5e1, -5e2, -5e5) of human history! --Illythr (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can ensure you no double standards from my part. I've always known that history is written by the winners and therefore, only the winners are allowed to call their former oppressors illegal occupants. Starting with a loser Mongol Empire who illegally occupied Russia for about 200 years once, ending with USSR losing the cold war and therefore Eastern Europe can call their former Soviet oppressors illegal occupants now. As another example, since the indigenous peoples of Russia and Americas are still losers, they don't have that kind of opportunities to call anybody illegal occupants. So, the bottom line, no double standards, just one standard, only the winners can call their former oppressors illegal occupants.--Termer (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a most shrewd choice of standards there! Applying a single standard selectively (just to the "winners") obviously doesn't count as "double standards" because what is single can't be double!

On a slightly more serious note, you are, of course, correct about the winners being the writers of history, but in the original post this "discussion" is building upon, no hint of this was given in the (rather categorical) last sentence. If Vecrumba here will agree with your assessment that only winners are entitled to establishing the (il)legality of a given territorial transfer, this discussion can be closed without further... diatribes trolling constructive comments. --Illythr (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my choice of course, it's the way the World works. If it was up to me I'd make it so that a lion and a lamb would be the best of friends. And surely, I took a look at the(rather categorical) last sentence and what came to my mind was that Whether Tataro-Mongol occupation in Russia was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference. At the same time I'd bet, when Russia was a part of the Mongol Empire, I hear the Mongols said you can't occupy what belongs to you. Since Russia doesn't belong to the Mongols and for example Eastern Europe to Soviet Union any more, there you have it: it means there was an occupation that has ended and Whether it was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference.--Termer (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point that I am not the one to recognize these illegal occupations as such. That particular one is commonly known as the "Tataro-Mongol yoke" in Russian (and, apparently, just "Mongol yoke" in English), the change to "occupation" was made hours before your post. The actual occupation occurred only during the first few years, after which the Mongol hordes withdrew and left the Russian states largely to their own devices as long as they paid their tributes, making this more of a sovereign-vassal relation. Some Russian historians even claimed that the invasion didn't happen because of the Mongols' rather tolerant attitude (after all the pillaging and looting, indeed). This is actually written here, albeit the tone is kinda pro-Mongol... --Illythr (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I keep missing the point how is this relevant to anything what do you personally recognize? As of calling the periods under foreign domination yoke instead of occupation, that's very common as well: either 'Mongol yoke' you mentioned or Soviet yoke or etc. --Termer (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original post of this topic is addressed to Vecrumba, and deals with an example of what clearly is an ongoing occupation according to his own logic (the 500 years thing, specifically). Since you jumped in, you've been trying to conduct a mirroring, failing to realize that, aside from a few local nationalists (and, interestingly enough, some Western historians), the things you've been producing are not normally recognized as occupations (certainly not by me).

"Soviet yoke" is already a step in the right direction (at least it's something that can last longer than 5 or so years). Still, the Mongol influence on the Russian state(let)s has been rather modest over the years (aside from the initial invasion, of course) and pretty much one way - mostly taxes and punitive expeditions when someone didn't pay (enough). The states to which you'd want to apply this definition were, on the other hand, fully functional and integral parts of the country, sharing everything fully - their economies and cities (re)built from scratch, receiving state-sponsored projects and facing the same repressions and ideological indoctrination. --Illythr (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Illythr (and to Termer, trolls welcome here!)

Illythr, you must be confusing me with someone else, as my parents were citizens of Latvia at the time that Latvia joyfully and freely petitioned the USSR to join the great Soviet family, they thus became Soviet citizens, regardless of what they did or where they went thereafter. As the child of Soviet citizens, I am therefore myself a Soviet citizen (former), and regret to inform you that I am, in fact, aligned with the other vile occupying empire.

   And so, to what I believe is your point, if I could be so bold as to oversimplify (!):

“ Great rhetoric is timeless. Wikipedia rhetoric is endless. ”

P.S. "uSSified" is the proper spelling regarding inculcation by the other vile fascistly-individualism-erasing occupying empire. I'll reply in more detail when I've had a chance to more thoroughly regale myself over digest your diatribe tome monograph.

P.P.S. And I'm sure it won't be lost on Termer that there's only one letter difference between uSSified and ... :-) —PētersV (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you mean you still use one of those as a legal ID document in your day-to-day life? o_O

"uSSified":Naaw. While some of them did serve within the ranks of the occupation forces, I highly doubt any could advance that high. The cultural influence is readily apparent, however...--Illythr (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

“ Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
Musik kommt aus dem Weißen Haus
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Maus... ”

PS: I agree with your oversimplification above, although I have to admit that in "great rhetoric" I see an appraisal similar to "beautiful murder" or "flawless robbery". --Illythr (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting

Hi there Vecrumba. You left a response here to a proposal to make the dates plain rather than blue-linked in the article. I'm unsure whether you're in favour or not, since the removal of the link/autoformatting will render all dates as almost all of our readers see them, i.e., in the raw format that was input. We hope it's the appropriate one for the article. Shall I go ahead, then? Tony (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Hello Pēteris. Just found this book in English that is right up your alley:

• Rislakki, Jukka (2008). Case for Latvia : disinformation campaigns against a small nation. Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers. ISBN 9789042024236. OCLC 233026199.

It is well written, enjoy! ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz edits

Hi, Vecrumba. I edited your version somewhat, because it seems clear that neither Gross nor Margolick in any way support a "Germanless Holocaust" perspective. Margolick clearly is describing what he calls instances of Poles "applauding", pitching in", "watching approvingly or even helping out," etc the Nazi actions. And Gross in all of his writings clearly has never supported such a view. Cheers. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Margolick does also cite Jan Karski, among others, and its not clear that he entirely accepts the Nazi reports veracity, nor does he base his statements solely on them (in fact, he is largely basing them on Gross' account). So its still a little skewed--if you want to clarify it, I think that would be good. I won't make any further changes for now. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the article went through a revert war few weeks ago, one that ended when Boody got blocked for 3RR and other editors reached an agreement that fewer the quotes the better. We have removed emotional anti-Polish quotes from the newspapers and their criticism from PIAST institute; now it starts over again... I strongly suggesting keeping unencyclopedic quotes out; we can ref the reviews, link them in external links - but Wiki is not a book review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please don't argue a point by casting one-sided aspersions on other editors to bolster your POV. In fact, you participated equally in a revert war, and were not blocked yourself because unlike you, I tend to not like to use 3RR as a weapon. Please note as well that for a long time, the article contained nothing but strongly worded negative reviews from critics, which you or others supporting your view did not find to be a problem--it was only when some of the many positive reviews were added did you complain about a "quote farm," and attempt to remove only the positive reviews (while leaving in truly non WP:RS self published reviews such as the ones Piast Institute, who held a so-called "Symposium" which doesn't even have any participants, dates of the supposed symposiium etc even listed.) So please stick to the actual history of this article, without self serving rewrites of the history if you are going to argue a point of view. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated here, the problem is that quotes are emotional and non-encyclopedic; in other words they can be used by POV pushers to "sneak" claims and language that would otherwise not be found on Wikipedia. Perhaps paraphrasing of Margolic could be kept, but his original quotes are not neutral enough for the encyclopedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at...

Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II: there is a brewing revert war, and we could use some mediation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest you to begin looking from this: [12].--Lokyz (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force

Hi Peters,

this is suppose to be a joint taskforce run between Wikiproject Films and the national WikiProjects, so you may want to look at the discussion on this page. Martintg (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I could use a neutral opinion re this. You wrote that "I have not found Greg park avenue to be an extremist in past interactions." Neither did I, but perhaps I/we are missing something here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to read through more history between the two, but the thread in question is to me an example of exasperation on the part of Greg park avenue, not anti-Semitism. See my comment here. The tag "anti-Semite" is thrown about all to easily and without consequences in matters of editorial disagreement. Growing up, all my very closest friends were Jewish, I celebrated Sedir--I'm tired of coming to WP and being called a Nazi, Hitlerite, fascist, etc. only because of my ethnicity and standing up for the facts. (Sound familiar?) —PētersV (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Greg can be too flowery and emotional, but I saw no antisemitism in his posts. He is "guilty" of using a word "Jew", perhaps - and we know that's a loaded term... One of my best friends is Jewish(-American). I will ask him to review greg's comments when I see him. He recently assured me that he never heard an accusation that Poles (or Balts) are especially anti-semitic. On wiki, we are too often dealing with extremists - and we forget that they are only a small, sad sample of the general population.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish "scholars"

In a note on my talk page, you made reference to Jewish "scholars" going through Soviet and Nazi archives. Which scholars are you referring to (names, refs etc), and why is "scholars" in quotes? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For example, one author in his book regarding the Holocaust in Eastern Europe described Russian deserter units as Ukrainian and Lithuanian--in direct contradiction to other encyclopedic sources, taking as unchallenged materials in a Russian archive whose mission is to preserve Soviet materials and with it, the Soviet "version" of history. See the discussion of Weiner, above. "Scholars" is in quotes because this author published false information based source information he did not validate, presenting "facts" which are in direct contradiction to reputable--and, moreover, accurate--Judaic and other historic research on the very same topic.

   "Scholars" is also in quotes because many authors who study and write on the Holocaust are not trained as historians. Someone might be an excellent journalist, but that does not make them qualified to be a Holocaust scholar. A relatively recent (within the last 1-2 years) informal, but well documented, survey regarding the Holocaust in Poland, for example, showed (majority opinions):

• popular Jewish opinion and in non-historian writings on the Holocaust = Poles are anti-semitic, actively supported Holocaust,...
• popular Polish opinion = Poles are not anti-semitic, Poles were actually the first to suffer in Nazi labor and concentration camps and among Eastern European collective ethnic memory can most closely identify with their Jewish neighbors who also became Nazi victims,...
• opinion among both Jewish and Polish trained historians = generally speaking, a middle course and in much closer agreement with each other than popular Jewish and Polish opinion are to each other (basically, diametrically opposed) ***

Published last year I believe, I'd have to go back and find the author of the book (not that it matters, but Jewish), I attended a seminar on the topic featuring the author as speaker.

Not the detailed answer you wanted--my time is limited with family health issues--but hopefully useful.

*** It was not pretty when one Jewish person in attendance at the seminar asked, during Q&A, "Do you think Jewish death camps would be just as successful in Poland today?" and a Pole in the audience countered asking if they were remotely aware of who first died at the hands of the Nazis at Auschwitz.

I should mention it is for this reason--a plethora of sources on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe many of them incompletely researched and less than accurate but containing the most sensational and grievous of charges against entire ethnicities and nations which we are expected to simply accept at face value--that I see both your willingness to jump to the charge of anti-Semite (Greg park avenue) and that your charge is accepted as proof of anti-Semitism, as both being poorly informed editorial actions. —PētersV (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell from what you wrote which Wiener you are talking about. You also mentioned Jewish "scholars" (plural), Is there more than one scolar you are referring to? And what is the significance of Wiener being Jewish? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First Weiner book referenced in the discussion above the section linked to is "Landscaping the Human Garden", on page 11 in the intro, calls Askari (incorrectly implied Baltic-language plural if "Askaris" were a Baltic language word, which it is not) Balts and Ukrainians, cites (his note 31) RTsKhIDNI, f. 17, op. 88, d. 376, l. 5. (Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History). "Askaris" were, in fact, Russian deserters, plain and simple. Any Soviet-originated materials indicating they were Baltic and Ukrainian nationals are likely to be fabrications. Recall that in the Soviet Union, "history served politics." Post WWII, those politics were a concerted campaign against all the Eastern European nationalities resisting the Soviets either at home or in the diaspora.

   That section I pointed to discusses other errors besides Askaris, for example, what SS units were convicted in the Nuremberg war trials. Hence plural of "scholars." And in quotes because someone who has "studied" the Holocaust is not then a qualified historian of the Holocaust. I believe I already answered this question above.

   The "significance" of Jewish writers on the Holocaust is that the connection in their personal background to one of the greatest crimes and tragedies in human history (and which may include direct familial connections to Holocaust victims and survivors) can garner a sense of implicit trust on the part of the reader regarding the ultimate veracity of materials the author presents when, as we well know, ethnicity and nationality, while strong motivators to dig for the truth, do not in and of themselves guarantee accuracy. —PētersV (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the significance of Weiner being Jewish is, particularly if what you are objecting to is what you consider to be a mistake in his book regarding "Askaris." How does his being Jewish fit relate to this issue, which may or may no be a mistake in his book? And are you saying that Jewish writers cannot be impartial on the subject of World War 2, the Holocaust etc? Or only those connected with the Holocaust in some way? Is Weiner a Holocuast survivor? I'm still not clear what the relevance of his being Jewish is with regard to your dispute with him over the Askari issue. If this is indeed an error, did he make the error because he was Jewish? Please clarify. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the significance of an author's ethnic heritage engendering trust on the part of readers. Someone Jewish writing of the Holocaust, someone of native American Indian descent writing of the massacre at Wounded Knee, someone Japanese writing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, someone German writing of the fire-bombing of Dresden,... That trust is not always rewarded. It's as simple as that.

   You're asking me whether I'm making a whole pile of contentions which I'm not. Try to take my response at my word, not as hiding some agenda you seem to be intent on unearthing. There is no agenda. —PētersV (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My question was simple--do you think Weiner cannot be trusted because he is Jewish? That no Jewish historian can be objective? That view wuold certainly put you in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:RS and WP:V, where no such assumption is made. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your "question" and your offerings of my potential opinions reprehensible. The words you would put into other people's mouths speak volumes of your own. —PētersV (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Your words: "The "significance" of Jewish writers on the Holocaust is that the connection in their personal background to one of the greatest crimes and tragedies in human history (and which may include direct familial connections to Holocaust victims and survivors) can garner a sense of implicit trust...trust is not always rewarded." In other words, Jewish writers cannot be trusted on the subject of the Holocaust? I don't think I'm putting these words in your mouth; they are, rather, apparently from your own mouth? It would seem you are saying, in response to my asking why it was important to note that Weiner was Jewish, that Weiner cannot be trusted on athe subject of the Holocauset because he is Jewish. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question multiple times, consistently and clearly. Nowhere have I made any of the reprehensible blanket contentions you say I "seem" to be saying "in other words," so of course you are putting those words in my mouth. —PētersV (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a blog

I would take it as a compliment that you were able to invoke such an action from a non-compus-mentus. Bandurist (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, own user page vandalism should be generally taken as inspiration, although the "non-compus-mentus" part kinda spoils it. --Illythr (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting on arb

In case you arent aware, you should post in your own section, not other editors, as you did here. I've asked that it be moved, or you can do it yourself.

Read the instructions at the top:

"This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move."

Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your post was removed by a clerk. This is SOP for ArbCom; you have to make replies in your own section or on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I try not to be a regular at these affairs. Apologies. —PētersV (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional clarification

Just catching up on some conversations, and just read through an exchange from a few days ago. Regarding Greg park avenue's post of "Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor" (a post which was removed as a BLP violation), you wrote:

"Come now, if someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim when they are not, exactly what is "anti-" that person's ethnic background to point that out? That's a ridiculous contention."

However, Rosenbaum actually is the son of Holocaust survivors. He has never claimed to be a Holocaust survivor himself, or any kind of victim, Could you explain exactly how you see him "(falsely) portraying himself as a victim?" Thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually responding to your rather long rant about Poles would be up in arms if accusations were slung in the other direction, etc. Mine was a general comment that if someone does indeed portray themselves falsely as a victim (and unfortunately there have been those where the Holocaust is concerned), to point that out has nothing to do with a person's ethnicity. Your retort about Poles was not the appropriate response.

   If I had meant Rosenbaum specifically, I would have mentioned him specifically. (I've read his review of Gross' work, I'm aware of who he is.) I do have grave reservations regarding authors who write fiction based on the Holocaust--it relieves them of the need for accuracy and objectivity--but that is a separate issue. Hope this clarifies. —PētersV (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Greg park avenue as for whether this is what he meant, but the point can be made that fictional characters based on and suffering in the aftermath of the Holocaust do, to use his word, masquerade as victims. —PētersV (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why else this would be being discussed other than with respect to greg's example of Rosenbaum; otherwise why would you bring up an example of "someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim" out of nowhere? The whole point was in regards to greg's defamatory claim about Rosenbaum; there is no ther reason to be having some abstract discussion of people "masquerading as victims"--greg was talking specifically about Rosenbaum, and that was what I was responding to, and the fact that his post was defamatory is why it got deleted. In any case, I assume we can agree that Greg made a entirely false and defamatory claim about Rosenbaum when he accused him of being someone who "masquerades as son of holocaust survivor"? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Rosenbaum's parents died when he was young (just after completing college, I believe), both were Holocaust survivors. This is quite well known. Since you seem to want to discuss this in detail... Greg park avenue's comment (intent) was either:

• misinformed,
• unfortunate over the top language regarding reaction to Rosenbaum's fictionalization based on the Holocaust, or
• intentionally and falsely accusatory.

You'll have to ask him which, I can't answer that, I have no basis for speculation.

   As I can gather, Rosenbaum's use of the Holocaust as a literary device and expression of his POV--God died, Shindler's list is an "insulting inversion" of truths (the Holocaust is about death and not about anyone who tried to save anyone), creating characters whose having survived the Holocaust pardons their subsequent moral indiscretions,... has both its admirers and its critics. Nor is Rosenbaum the only author writing in the offspring-of-Holocaust-survivor genre. As I've said, I have my own personal concerns about creating fiction based on the Holocaust. Some parts of the collective human experience should be sacred and beyond use as a literary device for fiction. —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on arbcom

It is my experience arbcom members may not read talk pages. Posting in mainspace may be useful, posting on talk - much more of a waste of time... of course, I myself post a lot on talk, but I think those posts are much less useful than mainspace ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I have to disagree with some of your arguments at the talk page. Please see this discussion. You should separate conduct issues such as WP:DE, and content issues. In the latter case one should prove that a user was lying about the sources (for example), and I am not sure you provided evidence about that.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I concur with Biophys in his sentiment as I was totally bemused, as I expressed at the evidence' talk page, by your posting to the arbcom pages some stuff that is utterly non-arbcom matter. I explained my position towards Conquest in a great detail at talk:Holodomor and if you have anything to say on the matter, please use the appropriate pages.

Now, that you recalled how I several months ago characterized your behavior (I indeed used the term vicious), if you think that my characterizing your conduct on the issue that took place back then as vicious was so inappropriate that it warrants the ArbCom attention within this case, you are free to resurrect that old matter with diffs at the evidence page and I will then post my opinion on why I think your behavior warranted such characterization (for the very same conduct you were reprimanded by several completely uninvolved admins back then.) In my last post to which you replied, the term "vicious attack" was not used. You bring it completely out of the blue, from the remote past and without diffs. If you think that old issue belongs to this ArbCom, please bring it in properly so that I can respond to it. If not, please try to keep all discussions on topic. Thank you. --Irpen 21:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen. I was remarking on the ease with which you assume bad faith on the part of some editors while you have quietly reprimanded other editors (whose POV you support) and removed their potentially offensive remarks for them. "Harmony" starts with all editors treating each other first of all equally. And with respect and always assuming good faith--even if it hurts to do so. This ArbCom, like all of those, and there have been so many of them, before this, is little more than a rehash along relatively familiar lines of editors on one side or the other who are active in Baltic/Eastern/Central Europe. I am tired of the endless emphatic spleen venting expending more effort on on trying to censure/get rid of editors than working on content. I am dismayed you have chosen at your latest return after a hiatus to jump into this fray, but that is your choice to make as you see fit.

   To Biophys, I did have a particular sequence of edits in mind on that issue. —PētersV (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, Wikipedia:Assume good faith does not say "be a fool" anywhere inside it. You are an experienced editor. You know what pages should be used for what purpose. Nevertheless, you make a post to Wikipedia_talk:Evidence that you certainly know to not belong anywhere but talk:Holodomor. Where is any room for assumptions here? Don't you know what belongs where on Wikipedia?

As for improving the climate here, I passionately share your concern. I just happen to know, or at least think that I know, where the hurdle is. The hurdle is dishonest conduct of the editors and not their differences of opinions. I am now having a discussion with Piotrus at my talk about the possibility to come to an agreement about the rules of conduct. Perhaps, Piotrus and I would arrive to an amicable solution now. We will see. You are welcome to follow the discussion Piotrus and I are having but I would ask you not to join it for now. This is only because I want to do all I can to prevent it from straying of topic. And I never aimed at ridding of editors. I did not call for a block even of Digwuren, who I consider to be the worst nightmare we had at the EE corner of this project. YMMV, I understand. But please do not just make stuff up. --Irpen 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already noted your exchanges with Piotrus and remain hopeful. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, M.K. has added his evidence section, citing some discussions you were involved in and helped to mediate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right - there is little point in using arbcom talk pages to try and make Boody change his mind. The discussions in workshop, at the very least, may be read by arbitrators - I don't think they tend to read talk pages with as much attention.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your honorary membership in Polish cabal

Also mentioned here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT

Particularly when they are confined to a cage. I know how addicting getting the last word/upper hand can be, but he is blocked. The community has finally stepped in and agreed with us. Take a deep, deep breath, and step away from that cage :) You'll feel better. PS. On the other hand, adding more evidence to arbcom wouldn't go amiss and would be actually constructive :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Did my last feeding on someone' talk page. We'll see what comes of things. —PētersV (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lettonica est non legitur

To say that my Latvian is not so great would be an exaggeration. I don't speak a word. But I wonder if Image:Riga iedvesmas pilseta.jpg says "Riga - city of inspiration"? Unless there's something weird about Latvian copyright law, I am thinking this would be a speedy deletion candidate as a copyvio. Am I right? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Angus! "City of inspiration" would be accurate. The squiggly lines abstract of the Riga skyline along the Daugava was first used for Riga's 800th anniversary celebration logo, and yes, this is a new city organizational motto/logo, see here, the logo is shown among the "Organizers" ("Rīko"). —PētersV (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Vecrumba/Presentation of evidence

A tag has been placed on Vecrumba/Presentation of evidence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba/Presentation of evidence, change of plan

I had put a speedy deletion tag on this page as having no context and because it was a subpage, but then noticed that your user name is Vecrumba, and it occurred to me you might have intended to put it into your own user space, especially since you seem to have mastered the art of the subpage. So I removed the speedy tag and moved the page to User:Vecrumba/Presentation of evidence (and then put the original page up for speedy deletion as a redirect to a user talk page).—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, seem to have mucked up your move/redirect! PētersV (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, forgot the User: part! more caffeine... PētersV (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions ARE important

Re [13] (although not the edit per se), do look at some point at Ethnographic Lithuania (it's edit history and talk). No hurry - it's stale now - but it should give you some interesting insights.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Extension"

I choose to mostly leave other people's entries at the arbitration cases stand as they are as they speak for themselves. On rare occasions I respond to them and this is one of such rare cases.

I am not asking for an extension. I am simply saying that I will post my proposals in two-three days. Arbs are free to close the case as they see fit.

And I am not "working on this case for weeks". I have other things on to do than thinking of Piotrus or working on his case. I get back to the case only when sufficient time passes after my previous attempt since dealing with this whole matter is greatly unpleasant.

Next, I leave your speculations about my motives unanswered as they speak for themselves.

On spending more time on smth vs smth else, I assure you that I spent by far more time writing my responses to Piotrus during the discussion we were having on my talk, than writing my entries for the case pages.

On your comparison of myself with Piotrus, this is not about who is better. I have a problem not with someone's POV but with the way one comports himself on Wikipedia. I emphasized and reemphasized three points that I want changed, in Piotrus. He should stop "collecting evidence" instead of resolving the problems as they happen since the latter contributes to the improvement of the situation while the former can only be done with one goal, preparing to hit your opponents at the opportune time to achieve their sanctions. Second, I requested him to stop conducting off-line coordinated revert wars. Again, this is not about talking with people. It is about his known same Gadu-Gadu partners arriving to the articles they never edited before, precisely at the time when Piotrus is "out of reverts", always reverting to his version (often doing it more than once), and then leaving an article never editing it ever again. This is called off-line coordinated revert wars. And third, I asked Piotrus to stop using off-line channel to help sanction his enemies in various ways.

Now, you talk about symmetry. Very well. I have not done any of that stuff. Still, the remedies that I will propose aimed at this activity conducted by Piotrus may be extended to anyone if arbcom wishes. I would have no problem with that since I do abide with the remedies I am going to propose anyway since I do not ask off-line for reverts, I do not email/IRC/email people asking for blocks and sanctions and I do not log what other people do to use it at the opportune time. As for other remedies I am going to propose, I would actually want them to be applies EE-wide or even Wikipedia-wide. So, no problem with that.

As for your "restoration" of the confidence of myself, I can't help you think what you want. Just one thing. I act honestly and openly. This, I can assure you, will continue. I am sure, a lot of people will see this post. Now, I will leave the field to their comments. --Irpen 16:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, this is as much about perception as it is about reality. I do not consider myself to have ever acted in bad faith on Wikipedia, yet I've been accused of it many times, including by yourself.

   If over time I have formed a personal opinion that you are one of the key instigators and fomenters of discord and divisiveness in our area of contention, that is mine to keep to myself and in no way affect our interactions, whether in public editing and discourse or private correspondence. I regret that, for now, I cannot take your statement of always acting openly and honestly at face value--although I expect you don't take mine regarding never acting in bad faith any differently. I should also mention regarding your "black book" contentions that I've regretted more than once that I don't keep a running log of evidence myself, but that's neither here nor there. In the end, I'm too old for, and don't have the time for, investing that much effort into these conflicts. As for revert wars, you've participated in them too, we all have. You focus on the HOW, not that they shouldn't happen in the first place. Red herring.

   You've been on the conflict task force. You are more aware than most of both the subject areas of contention and in how the conflict is waged and been involved in numerous such conflicts. If your wish to end these conflicts and for us to be productive Wikipedians is sincere, then state your proposed remedies in a manner that we all agree can, and should, apply to everyone. In the end, all the evidence you present still requires bad faith a priori to be considered evidence. Because of past contentiousness--regardless of motivations or POVs--I am, for one, also willing to hold ourselves to a higher standard of ethical and behavior and demonstrations of good faith--even in the face of our personal perceptions to the contrary.

   My hopes and wishes for you to rise above the fracas and prove my evidence wrong are completely sincere. Call me a WP:ROMANTIC, but I still believe that somewhere you do still believe we are all here to create content, not conflict. I would not have asked you to prove me wrong if I didn't think it were possible for you to do so. —PētersV (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I do not take it upon myself a task to convince you of anything. Your opinion of myself is neither here nor there. I simply came here to offer the explanatory statement in response to your post. That I did not manage to convince you is beside the point. That you openly say now that I lie ("I cannot take your statement of always acting openly and honestly at face value") is your judgment that I am not going to use to have you sanctioned or to do anything at all as expulsion of the opponents has never been my modus operandi. I simply find it ironic that while with one hand you even make calls that people should "AGF despite the evidence to the contrary", with another hand you accuse me of lying and other things. I know what I did and what I did not do. You know what you did and what you did not do. As for the rest, we can all only think of what others but ourselves did based on their actions. You say that I lie. I live with it. That's part of life. --Irpen 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, it's about perception, not reality. Our mutual perceptions and mutual realities clearly do not coincide--my observations and personal honesty in that respect were neither an attack nor an accusation that you lie. As I've mentioned, it's my personal belief your long-standing involvement in these sorts of battles has poisoned your perspective to believe that all your editorial adversaries bring bad faith to the table and are only intent on setting upon you at every opportunity. Your leap here to your self-observed self-attributed magnanimity to not have me "sanctioned" et al. (!!!) only proves my point. It would be laughable if I didn't know you well enough to know you are dead serious (or deserve an Academy Award for lifetime achievement). You've often stated how tolerant you are. You're not. You are completely intolerant but believe you act in an overly tolerant manner only because you don't attack back every time you perceive an attack--which you do all the time, regardless whether or not there's an attack. Mere inquiries and observations are vicious attacks on your character.

   And so I find no "irony" in my evidence and my call for "AGF despite evidence to the contrary" since you are in the process of collating and presenting such evidence. If you are not, then you will have happily proven me wrong and I will be the first to observe that I did not have the faith to practice what I preach. Unfortunately, at the moment, I am held to low expectations borne of past empirical results that anything new or constructive will come out of the latest RfA.

   I am happy to make or support a motion that going forward adopts certain measures, perhaps including my six-month no RfA cool-down period, perhaps constructive community-wide remedies you (and others) have proposed or will propose--which I will accept in good faith, and we all agree to close the RfA, live under the new rules, and go back to creating content. —PētersV (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deacon hasn't said boo on the RfA in ages. The new hangers-on aside, it's back to the battle between you and Piotrus. You're in the driver's seat. Your choice. —PētersV (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Vecrumba, you do not call accuse me of lying, you merely "perceive" that I lie if this change is of any difference. In any case, this seems to lead nowhere. I simply tried to explain to you something that, from your latest post to the evidence, seemed not apparent. If I failed to do so, it may very well be my own fault. --Irpen 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. You revert war with the rest of us (thinking of your past support of now banned Anonimu). You misrepresent (my opinion) sources, we have the whole "Stalin's personal interest" interpretation of Davies and Wheatcroft where we both believe each other to falsely represent sources, etc. There are of course our content disputes over Soviets occupying, or not, various territories (not limited to the Baltics), not all disputes backed by sources. ("Occupation is judgemental" is one of your favorites, whether or not sources support "occupation.") There's my expressing exasperation at your tagging an article with no justification provided and Khoikhoi magically appears to threaten me and you chime in "I might not like the results" if I pursue a complaint against Khoikhoi. Let's not pretend that for whatever reasons we don't find ourselves in an editorially adversarial relationship.

   If I have perceptions, you have contributed. If you have considered me your adversary from the start based on your equating me with the gobs of the fact-free über-nationalistic POV-pushers you have run across in your travels, then if I have failed to differentiate myself from them, it may very well be my own fault.

   If my editorial relationship were as combative as that, historically, between you, Ghirla, others, and Piotrus, then believe me, I would do everything I could (in Piotrus' position) to protect myself and insulate my position from attack. I've read through the past RfAs and been appalled. If you take exception to Piotrus' tactics and WP:SEIGE mentality, they are your own fault, you and others have made him. —PētersV (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See, if it weren't for the RfA we could be discussing something constructive. Hope springs eternal. Perhaps we could take up the subject of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states for the entire duration of the Soviet presence, based on reputable sources only. —PētersV (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this in the car later today...

It hasn't helped my perception that when I note what something looks like, you accuse me of "vicious" conduct. Or when I found your multiple assistances to Anonimu's reverts frustrating and asked for a friendly objective voice in your ear (specifically stating no blocks) you accused me of "block-shopping". I've been around for a while and I have learned that those who immediately leap to accusations tend to be those who are most guilty themselves.

• I didn't know what a sock-puppet was until Mauco (a now-banned editor I was sparring with on Transnistria, another area of contention) accused a fellow editor (and he masqueraded under multiple identities for months)
• I didn't know what a meat-puppet was until same-said Mauco accused me (Mauco being as far as anyone could verify, including journalists, a paid propaganda pusher, editing along with other such paid individuals)
• I didn't know what "block-shopping" was until you accused me (I've read the past AfDs, if they are not block-shopping to get editors out of the way, I don't know what they are)
• Finally, I didn't know what "vicious" conduct was until I found it was anything that questioned anything you did (when someone's first reaction is to attack with full force, that's a touchstone)

If you didn't spend so much time attacking other editors or constantly blessing them in your magnanimity in not retaliating for attacking you, I would surely have a completely different perception.

And so, the very best thing that could ever happen for the current RfA would be for you and Piotrus to shake hands like Begin and Sadat, declare it all a huge misunderstanding based on a history of bad faith contentiousness in the B/C/E European editing sphere, and commit to work together to come up with constructive community suggestions. —PētersV (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I am awarding you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation of you hard, arduous and at the same time stressful work on all Eastern-European topics. I do appreciate your contributions, you are a voice of reason in the slowly degenerating world of Wikipedia. Tymek (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nostalin.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nostalin.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted due to the bot's mistake.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Endeks etc

Do you really think that comments like this one [14] are making dialogue any easier? Especially when they are way off the mark. To call Endecja antisemtic is anti-Polish extremism? This is not serious. M0RD00R (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited sources indicate the Endeks were little more than a hotbed for recruiting razor-blade club-carrying university thugs rumbling in gangs down the streets looking for Jews to attack. There were far stronger forces driving the Endeks than antisemitism. My point, and I'm sorry to not fashion it in a more moderate fashion given other parties in the conversation, is simply that multiple sources are needed to paint a historical perspective. You can't simply say "ABC per reputable source XYZ", done. —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your offer

Thanks, I appreciate your offer. I'll take you up on it when I'm a bit less busy than tonight. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Siuru -- Baltic culture?

Hi,

do you think Siuru ought to be included in Category:Baltic culture ? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, culture includes both folk tales and modern literary tradition. :-) —PētersV (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And added a small contribution. :-) PētersV (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Peters, thank you very much for your spelling corrections. Dc76\^talk 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to completely agree to make sure your proposal is taken seriously instead of people pointing to meaningless spelling errors. :-) PētersV (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

E-pasts?

Sveiks, Pēter! Mēģināju sazināties ar Tevi pa e-pastu 13.10.2008. Vai saņēmi? —Zalktis (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sveiks, mamma ir bijusi dikti saslimusi, vairākas dienas netiku pie E-pasta, varbūt pārskatījos vēlāk... paziņošu! —PētersV (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Diemžēl neatradu, lūdzu nosūti atkal--vaktēšu "inbox"! Paldies! PētersV (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in this hilarious coordinated attack on myself from last year, as it doesn't seem to have come up in the present coordinated attack on Piotrus. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, if I may: It is a typical attempt by someone (otherwise well aware of WP subtleties) to hijack and own the term "anti-Fascist". ("Noone should contradict me, I am anti-Fascist") Ditto sometimes happens with "Anti-antisemite" ("Noone should contradict me, I am fighting antisemites"). Isn't it that in response to such cases as yours that last year, in the Digwuren case, ArbCom asked explecitely to tone down accusations of fascism and self-atribution of "anti-Fascist" as an all-exonerating quality? At least this is what I recall. Dc76\^talk 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps ArbCom can be kindly asked to repeat this again in the present ruling. Dc76\^talk 15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not surprised at all to see Ghirla in the middle of that one. Oops, discussing the editor not the edits--another principle used as a weapon! And, of course, anti-(anti-fascist) means nothing other than Nazi. —PētersV (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps Piotrus isn't aware of this, either. Might be a good idea to show him. I wonder how many other of these attacks have disappeared into the archives? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia issue in the "Soviet Occupations" article

The simple and undeniable fact is that the problem of Bessarabia didn't emerge simply due to Stalin's revaunchism as the article in question implies. Your explanation for removal of my "tidbits" doesn't seem well argumented. The article, in the way it is right now, implies that the Soviet Union simply bullied Romania for some land. We definately need more perspective there, probably a short summary of the history of Bessarabia. As for your argument, most land changes occure due to war (hence undermining the 1812 annexation doesn't work - for the Romanians annexed Bessarabia as the result of war (WW1 and Russian Civil War) as well); the legal issue of Moldavia being an Ottoman vassal has little if anything to do with the argument (because de-facto the situation was simple - loser lost land to the victor). Basically, I don't want to revert before hearing your opinion about how we approach this matter in the most objective and informative way we can. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get my point that if we wish to discuss who took/occupied what then your parenthetical example is just a way-point in a longer narrative. Russia lost what it annexed from Moldavia and "gained" by treaty from the Ottomans (which they had no rights to cede). Whatever the reason the Romanians and Bolshevik Russians/later Soviets did not sign a post-WWI treaty that recognized the transfer of sovereignty is immaterial, as in the context of historical settlement by the Romanians/Moldavians, the land had been theirs for centuries and Russia was the territorial usurper.

   Your parenthetical addition and contention here that the past prior to your addition does not apply makes it out to be that the Soviets took back what belonged to them. They did not. I'm quite happy to expand the historical treatment of Bessarabia in the article, but if you are seeking not to revert war, the resolution you are seeking is that we go all the way, or not at all. That's the objective solution. —PētersV (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of engaging into a yet another pointless dispute it might make sense to use some of the existing formulation, say, from here. Something like this:

The Soviet Union had been disputing the sovereignty over Bessarabia with Romania since it was joined to Romania in 1919. On 28 June 1940, Romania received an ultimatum note from the Soviet Union demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the disputed territory, as well as from the northern part of the Romanian province of Bukovina.

This way we can avoid the nationalist rants of who it belonged to in the first place (dinosaurs?) and stick to the last major event - union with Romania, disputed by the USSR. --Illythr (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it goes something like this... first of all, representatives from the province of Bessarabia declared a representative government, the Moldavian Democratic Republic as a member of the Moldavian-Russian Democratic Federative Republic. That national assembly subsequently voted to join Romania. Basically, happy to join Russia, then scared off by the Bolsheviks. This, and other events related to Bukovina and other national assemblies, eventually led to the Alba Iulia declaration, signed December 1, 1918. The peace treaty with Hungary, signed June 4, 1920 officially made the western territories in Romania Romanian. Romania's sovereignty over former Bessarabia was recognized in the treaty signed October 28, 1920 by the Great Powers and Romania.
   Да, да, да, we all know about the Soviets "disputing" Romanian control over Bessarabia. However, it was in fact Moscow which failed to live up to prior commitments. At Russia's request, the Council of the League of Nations could be empowered to arbitrate the dispute between Russia and Romania over Bessarabia at the convention leading to the 1920 treaty. That Russia did not sign the treaty thereby had little significance with respect to assignment of Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia by the parties which were signatories to the treaty. The creation of the MASSR four years later was the Soviets' first salvo signaling their intentions regarding Bessarabia.

The Soviet Union, which had signaled its intent to retake Bessarabia as early as 1924 with the creation of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, issued an ultimatum to Romania demanding the evacuation... works for me. Or if we'd like a less "predatory" less "nationalistic" ranting version:

The Soviet Union, which refused to acknowledge the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia recognized by treaty in 1920, issued an ultimatum on 28 June 1940 demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the disputed territory as well as from the northern part of the Romanian province of Bukovina. Pick one, pick the other, or just leave out prior history all together. For myself, the "disputing" version doesn't convey enough useful context and is too open to interpretation. —PētersV (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Scared not so much by the Bolsheviks themselves, but by their inability to restore order in the young republic, as repeatedly asked.

Eh, Russia wasn't invited to the convention...? And anyhow, the Romanian government had made it clear, that the question of Bessarabia is closed to them, permanently. You might be interested to learn that the Treaty of Paris (1920) never came into force. So, the following would be good:

The Soviet Union, which did not recognize the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia since the union of 1919, issued an ultimatum on 28 June 1940 demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the disputed territory as well as from the northern part of the Romanian province of Bukovina. - leaving the history altogether is bad because, as Kosoi X noted, the Soviet actions will look like a random act of evilness, instead of a logical continuation of their previous policy. I think using "disputing" is right on target, because that's what actually happened - one party claimed the territory, the other never agreed to it and they were bickering over it ever since. --Illythr (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Illythr's version is good enough. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Once Russia indicated it would accept arbitration, whether they showed up or not was a moot point. And in the end, those who joined the union had voted to do so. Ah... another discussion.

   I agree this latest version will do. —PētersV (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just one minor adjustment, I think "evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the contested territory" captures the sense a bit better if you don't mind. :-) PētersV (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some more immediate background might be in order as well, to highlight the reason why did the Soviet Union choose that particular moment to act: The Soviet Union did not recognize the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia since the union of 1919. After Romania's guarantor states, France and Germany were either unable or unwilling to support it, the Soviet Union issued an ultimatum on 28 June 1940 demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the contested territory as well as from the northern part of the Romanian province of Bukovina. --Illythr (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not support that accounting of the situation as Stalin was the aggressor in Eastern Europe before Hitler. Stalin's hand was not forced in any way that an ultimatum somehow was required to be issued to the Romanians. —PētersV (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, what's the problem there? The idea is to explain the Soviet aims (as the article is called "Soviet occupations"), and that's what that passage would do: RSFSR/USSR never recognized Romanian dominion over Bessarabia and wanted to reclaim it from the outset. However, 1) it lacked the military strength to do so in 1920-1938 and 2) Romania had mutual agreements with France and Germany, and the last thing Stalin wanted was to be at war with both Germany and the Western allies. So, after the Munich Agreement, Stalin chose a rapprochement with Germany instead, getting German "disinterest" in Bessarabia via the M-R pact. Then Germany conquered France and ended British presence in continental Europe, practically delivering Bessarabia to the USSR on a silver platter. All Stalin needed to do now was just take it, and so, a large number of troops was concentrated at the border to do just that. However, Romania, having just lost all support and being pressured from all sides, realized the hopelessness of its situation and decided to yield to the ultimatum, avoiding needless bloodshed. Germany said it's not gonna last anyway. --Illythr (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right, wiht 2 small caveat. 1) the "dominion" is very strange. all mainstream scholars call it "union". A Scotish nationalist maybe agianst domination of Scotland by England, but everybody still calls Union of England and Scotland. That's sort of what happened in Romania in 1918. And to know whether Romania and Moldova would be or not one country is sortof (b/c of western Moldavia) like to know whether England and Scotland would be forever one country. That's sort of tricky, you know. I wouldn't bet my money on E&S staying together for all eternity. There are so-so many factors, so many checks and balances... 2) Romania NEVER had and agreement with Germany before WWII. It only had with France, Britain, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Turkey, if I am not mistaken. Maybe also Italy, but Mussolini answer in June 1940 was so outrageous that Hitler was a delicate gentlemen in comparison. And of course the Briand-Kellog and London non-agression treaties, signed also by the USSR. But I must remark, that in rest, Illythr has captured very correctly not only the legal surroundings but also the atmosphere.Dc76\^talk 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Whatever gets the message across. 2) Hm, I must have confused things. But I do recall reading about Germany and Britain talking about ensuring Romanian independence and stuff... --Illythr (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the earlier version that Illythr proposed would do, with that word changed as Peters said:

The Soviet Union, which did not recognize the sovereignty of Romania over Bessarabia since the union of 1918, issued an ultimatum on 28 June 1940 demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from the contested territory as well as from the northern part of the Romanian province of Bukovina.

I also made the change 1919 --> 1918. A detail, but important. Also, we might add that USSR threatened Romania with invasion, and that according to Meltyukov's book, the Soviet military was ready for military invasion, they did not expect Romania would prefer not to fight. I.e. to add:

, threatening Romania with a military invasion."

Do we really need to elaborate more on the issue in the "Soviet occupations" article? It seems that by now 9 or 10 WP articles would have the full account of Paris treaty in respect to Bessarabia, etc. Links to articles wouldn't do?

Also, just as a note, the treaty did not come into force only in USSR POV, it did from the POV of Romania and France. The disputed thing here is not the territory, but whether the treaty came into force, whether that was enough for the union to be recognized by the USSR or they wanted more confirmation in a referendum or smth like that. USSR's discourse in 1920s was not to demand the territory, but to try to make Romania bring more justifications, and then to pick on details. That's why, Romania, on France's advice, refused to discuss the issue with the USSR other than outright recognition of the union (in exchange for some diplomatic support etc ?) France even made more pressure on Romania: France feared that every treaty signed with USSR legitimized the Bolshevik government. You do remember Lenin saying that Entente, not Germany was their biggest enemy? (He said it was because of huge Russian war debts.) Dc76\^talk 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW. Baltic states were occupied 2 weeks before Bessarbia, isn't is so? The subsections are in different order. Not that it matters much, just an observation in case the other parts of the article are chornologically ordered. If the other parts are not, then no problem. Dc76\^talk 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1) On 1918 - yeah, thanks, I kinda missed that one. 2) No, there is no need to mention the treaty there. Had it come into force, then maybe... 3) The treaty not coming into force is not POV but fact: its text states that it will come into force once all the signatories ratify it. Japan never did. So there. 4) Invasion: the text of the ultimata never makes an explicit threat, so the current formulation, "with the implied threat of invasion in the event of non-compliance" is just fine. 5) USSR had (twice) demanded a referendum as a condition of its recognition of Bessarabia as part of Romania. Romanian officials refused. This, AFAIK, disturbed the Brits and the French, but they decided to support Romania anyway, due to Russia's separate peace talks with the Central Powers (the ongoing non-recognition of the RSFSR played a role there too). --Illythr (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1)2)4) absolutely agree 5) Britain - yes, France - I'm in doubt, I think it was on France's support that Romania was so stubborn about referendum. As for Russia demanding referendum, that of course is well documented, I don't think anyone doubts. Although to be sertain i don't know exactly how many times and when exactly. 3) Maybe yes. But don't you agree that without having a mainstreem scholar sourse making this leal conclusion for us, it is original research for us to do it here. I retain my oppinion that the treaty did come into force, but I will not attempt to impose it on anyone, and would definitevely accept to even change my oppinion if proven and convinced I am wrong. For now, I would agree to disagree, w/o attempting to contradict anyone. Dc76\^talk 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really think I'd try to pass this as fact, if it were just my opinion, without as much as an "...I think"? This here isn't my opinion. "In diplomatie, trei din patru fac zero", footnote 26. These two guys look like pretty serious Romanian scholars to me, without any kind of hidden pro-Soviet political agenda. --Illythr (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The first one. The second one is Moldavian and has a hidden agenda, but it is not Soviet. There are half-a-dosen arguments agaisnt considering the seocnd writing at sufficiantly high level. Among these is total failure to mention how did the national awaikening came in Bessarabia (it was not a 1917-18 phenomenon), it started in 1904-5, the repeated qualification of all moldavians as nationalist (she olny distiguishes radical nationalists vs moderate nationalists. Well, if Dicescul was moderate Romanian nationalist, then Putin should at least be pro-Yushchenko...), telling incorrect info, like as if USA was part of the paris treaty (it was not), mentioning her grand-monther as a sourse (obviously, in protraying negatively 1918), etc. I am not saying she did not try, but she failed even to read the sourses she cites. I am not holding anything ahgainst her, just I think she is underqualified. Obviously she did not read enough.

As for the second sourse, the key point is why did Romania wanted to have the Parice treaty ratified by all 4 powers at the Paris conference: "el n-a putut fi invocat de români în 1940. Si nici în 1947. Si nu poate fi invocat nici azi". [= the romanians could not invoque it in 1940. neither in 1947. and can not be invoqued today.] They want to invoke it in relation with Russia/USSR. But there are other things you can invoke with Russia, like Briand-Kellog and Treaty of London. Not a second they thought to invoke it in respect to third countries or to the people of Bessarabia. People of Bessarabia were their own sovereign, they were not subjects of Kremlin.

Both sourses you gave me say that Britain and France recognized the union and that they recognized USSR only in the borders it had before 1939. The non-recognition of the union by Soviet Russia is IMHO simmilar to Iran and Syria's non-recognition of Israel: it is a tense situation, but the only way out is to recognize, there is no option of pushing Israel into the sea. And Soviet Russia understood that, too: they wanted something "paid" by Romania to them in exchage for recognition, somthing spectacular, something that would hurt Britain and France and give USSR bigger weight. They would have recongnized the union if that would open them a door into Europe to a higher level of political influence.

The second sourse tells, i quote, that for Romania the union was not a matter of recongnition by a treaty, but a matter of historicl right. If that right is recognized by all except an outcast - well, be it.

The same applies today: it is the people of Moldova that are sovereign, as they were in 1918. It will be as they want and decide, not as Romania or Russia tells them. Other countries can recognize or can not. But if the majority of the world does, that's it. An outcast may not prevent normality from going on. Otherwise we give to much power to people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Iran has a problem with non-recognition of Israel, it is not a problem for Israel.

Yes, Paris treaty couln not be invoked against the USSR in 1940 becaue Japan did not ratify it. You are not suggesting that USSR would not invade if Japan would ratify?! A much more useful deterent against USSR would have been the determinance to fight an open war rather than second thought of attempting to solve it cheaper. The price Romania paid for this is it does not have Moldova now, and it can not invoke anything. As I said, whatever will happen is for Moldavians to decide. Romania has historical rights only if Moldavians want to share them with the entire nation. Otherwise, zero. Today, I do not really see Moldavians eager to share anything. Things might change in a generation, but definitevely not overnight, and there are certain things Moldavian would never share again. Exactly, to the extent, and only because there is a risk it can be shared further. Dc76\^talk 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The roots of political nationalism are mentioned as having appeared in 1905.

"repeated qualification of all moldavians as nationalist" - how so? Where? The whole book makes the opposite impression.

About USA - actually, the current version of the article about the treaty says that the US had initially refused to sign it. I wonder if we can ask user:Nergaal to clarify what he meant by that.

Mentioning own grandparents, even for minor points is a bad idea, I agree. Still, when it's correctly attributed, you know how much weght you can give to a statement, as opposed to a sweeping "the people have decided," which is the trademark form of propaganda (regardless of political color).

Yes, obviously, the Treaty was aimed at seeking international recognition to gain at least a semblance of protection from the USSR. Unlike Iran, SU had all the potential it needed to claim Bessarabia. Considering the realia of 1940, the treaty, were it ratified by all parties, would be completely useless anyway, but that was not known until 1938 or so.

On the rest: At the core of your idealism lies the belief that "the people" actually have a complex opinion and that it is their own. It... is a nice belief. --Illythr (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia had already voted by representative body for the union with Romania. Any sort of "referendum" would have been open to Soviet agitation--remember, Stalin already attempted a coup in Estonia in 1924. Hmmm, funny, the same year Stalin created the MASSR in "protest" of "Moldovans" not having self-determination. (And yes, the Soviet Constitution is a magnificent document, I've read it.) —PētersV (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, France was pressuring Romania to not do anything that indirectly would legitimize the Bolshevick government. Meltyukov also mentions this. Seems that only his Soviet-Polish War writting is (apparently very) controversial. Dc76\^talk 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the treaty "in force," I have not run across any sources supporting the Soviet POV (that post-WWI Bessarabia was "occupied"). I suspect that is because the territory was ethnically Romanian and had formed the union through a democratic process--and, of course, "technically" never belonged to Russia as the Ottomans were not the sovereign entity in the settlement of their war.

   The 1920 treaty was a rubber stamp on the union in that regard, and regardless of treaty in force or not "technically" (which I have only seen argued vociferously on WP), scholarly sources represent the treaty as formalizing and recognizing Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia. (And, as I mentioned, Russia had already stated they would accept arbitration.) —PētersV (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And I'm genuinely glad for our microcosm of proof positive here that editors who don't necessarily see things the same way can work together to improve content. :-) PētersV (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On "any sort of referendum" - yes, that's exactly what the Romanian officials replied, too. Funny that they were so sure a real democratic vote will not be to their liking, despite Bessarabia being under Romanian military control and having just "democratically voted" to join Romania.

On the "treaty in force" you seem to be confusing two separate matters - the validity of the treaty as a legal document (or rather, lack thereof) and what happened to Bessarabia in 1918 (not an occupation - the government wasn't overthrown (aside of a number of executions of its pro-Soviet members), the internal irredentist lobby just managed to capitalize on the moment).

On the "treaty of Bucharest" - so far I've noticed the idea only in virulent Romanian nationalist discourse (Flux etc). The notion about the treaty of Paris having no legal binding is something I've read in books by serious Romanian scholars. --Illythr (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen it implied here on WP that the Bessarabian vote to form a union with Romania was done by a puppet government aka your irredentists and/or was an action coerced by the Romanian military. Worth exploring more as to what reputable scholarly sources state, as Romania was choice #2 after formal declaration #1 in the opposite direction.

   Just to note, I was considering the 1918 union and the 1920 treaty as two separate (and pretty much unrelated except for scope of territory involved) events. —PētersV (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Wasn't the Bessarabian vote for the union a plebiscite? —PētersV (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Internal irredentists =/= puppet government. There was a group in Bessarabia that vouched for a union since 1905 or so. They were a rather weak political force until the fortuitous (for them) events of the Revolution, general chaos and mayhem caused by the retreating Russian troops and the failure of the Soviet Russian government to restore order (armies got bogged down in Ukraine). Something similar had happened in 1991, but this time the leadership decided that ruling own little county is nicer than having a seat in the neighbour's parliament.

On treaty: You have put the two together there (On the treaty "in force," I have not run across any sources supporting the Soviet POV...), so I assumed you thought I was trying to build some kind of "illegality" case there.

On PS: No, it was the representative body. Check out the Bessarabia article (or any other one dealing with Moldova's history - they're currently very redundant), or better yet, read the English source I dropped above for a rather neutral take on the events (although it primarily focuses on the national identity, it does describe the atmosphere and circumstances well enough). --Illythr (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my exact problem with that "English" (in fact half-king, half-you know who from Moldova) source: it does not have a neutral take, just tries to bring useful facts under an already formed conclusion, and by no mean it captures the atmosphere. It fails totally to capture the atmosphere. it is like we are talking about Bessarabia without people, as if those people just stood by and only reacted 3 or 4 times a year to outside events only. Things were happening in Bessarabia b/c of Bessarabians. In a thousand years wouldn't Bessarabia be so Romanian in 1940 if the locals were even 1/2 reticent. Romania gave Bessarabians what they wanted - land, cultural and educational prosperity, local autonomy, gave a sense of greater security (a bigger army than if it were just Bessarabia by itself), and knew to ask little in return (to respect authority - Moldavians are more libertine, more "rough riders" in this sense; to pay bribes). Being Moldavian in Romania would not make you second class citizen as it made you in Russia. That is the core of the problem. Dc76\^talk 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and yet again, I can only admire your naive idealism. :-) Still, about "by half-you-know-who-from Moldova" - do you mean, perchance, Stati? Mrs Petrescu is rather dismissive of his favorite subject in that book of hers. I like the book's style exactly because it indulges neither in Soviet discourse of "boyar imperialist Romanian occupation" nor in the Romanian nationalist discourse of "glorious emancipation of the Romanian people." glorifying and reviling nobody. Instead it provides a dry research that does talk about the people - a significant portion of the book is based on interviews with families who had lived in the area at the time - and were no friends of the Soviet regime, having fled from it to Romania. The only thing that may be subject to criticism there is lack of coverage and possible unreliability of personal experience due to comparatively small sizes of the group, as is stated by the author (footnote 9 and the conclusion). --Illythr (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) Appears to be worthwhile reading, but as stated it can only be for personal experience--what those experiences "mean" to their posessors reflects personal opinion, preferences, and prejudices more than historical fact. It's only when enough of those experiences are gathered and facts/events culled out from interpretations and suppositions of motives and cross referenced to additional historical research that a scholarly narrative is built. —PētersV (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the target group has fled the Soviet rule to Romania and generally supported the unification of ro and md, it is actually likely biased in the opposite direction. the culling and cross-referencing is also abundantly present. --Illythr (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You said, "glorious emancipation of the Romanian people". IMHO, "emancipation of the Romanian people" is factually correct, but "glorious" is inaproprieate for a dosen reasons: 1) it was not glorious, 2) 100% of it describes emotion and oppinion, 0% of it describes fact. etc 3)4)5)... Even in Soviet history books they called it October Revolution, not Glorious October Revolution. Sometimes they've given this qulificative to it, but never with capital letter. Emancipation is a very tidy, difficult, open-end process. It can, in plinciple, also fail. Only instances where it did not fail are recorded in this encyclopedia. Dc76\^talk 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Vecrumba, if we keep this up, you might want to create a subpage at user:Vecrumba/Random_Rants for all this stuff 'ere your talk page become unmanageable all too quickly. Or perhaps issue a special Devecrumbeficator - a topic ban specifically concerning politics and history posts of certain users... --Illythr (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, my talk page is semi-neutral ground (despite my anti-Stalinism not being any secret) since folks stick to sources. I'm always glad for these exchanges which likely would be less civilized elsewhere. :-) PētersV (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:-) Dc76\^talk 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again

I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In Latvia, there is an official designation for the deported, "represētie." They have specific privileges, for example, a small one I know of is free public transit. I think it would be important to state not unworthiness but to specifically categorize the acts included. Certainly, being ripped from your house and deported for no crime whatsoever is one such act.

   I don't know about other countries and definitions for those "repressed," but if there is a parallel, it would be useful to start the article with what the definition of someone who has been "repressed" is in each country affected and build up from there. —PētersV (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have redirected the Soviet repressions to Soviet political repression.--Termer (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there's Soviet political repression. As for the category, in Estonia it's not in any law but the property reform, but there are several organisations that represent the repressees, and various governments have been consulting with them. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make the article about the repressed, note in the following definition (Latvian unfortunately) specific countries (citizens and permanent residents of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland up to and including June 17m 1940) are mentioned along with a definition of what it means to be repressed (a bit busy at the moment, perhaps someone can jump in and translate!):

2.pants. (1) Par komunistiskā režīma politiski represētām personām atzīstami esošie un bijušie Latvijas, Igaunijas, Lietuvas, Somijas un Polijas pilsoņi un līdz 1940.gada 17.jūnijam Latvijā legāli iebraukušie un pastāvīgi dzīvojušie iedzīvotāji, kā arī šo personu pēcnācēji (izņemot personas, kas iebraukušas Latvijā saskaņā ar Latvijas un PSRS 1939.gada 5.oktobra Savstarpējās palīdzības paktu), latvieši un lībieši (līvi), kuri tika represēti Latvijas teritorijā vai ārpus tās, kā arī Latvijas pastāvīgie iedzīvotāji, kuri pēc 1945.gada 8.maija tika represēti Latvijas teritorijā, ja viņi šā likuma 1.pantā minēto iemeslu dēļ laika posmā līdz 1991.gada 21.augustam:

1) nogalināti vai miruši represiju rezultātā;

2) apcietināti, ieslodzīti cietumos, koncentrācijas, PSRS filtrācijas (pārbaudes) un labošanas darbu nometnēs vai piespiedu kārtā ievietoti iestādēs, kur viņiem tika piemēroti medicīniska rakstura piespiedu līdzekļi;

3) izsūtīti, nometināti vai pārvietoti no pastāvīgās dzīvesvietas (izņemot personas, kas tika evakuētas vai pārvietotas no frontes joslām vai karadarbības apdraudētajām teritorijām, bēgļus un kara laikā darba dienestam pakļautās pilngadīgās personas), dzimuši izsūtījumā vai nometinājumā - ja viens no vecākiem vai abi vecāki bija izsūtīti vai atradās nometinājumā - pēc vecāku noņemšanas no speckomandantūras uzskaites līdz tam brīdim, kad tika saņemta atļauja atgriezties Latvijā, bet ne vēlāk kā gadu no dienas, kad vecāki tika noņemti no speckomandantūras uzskaites.

(2) Šā panta pirmās daļas noteikumi neattiecas uz personām, kuras piedalījušās komunistiskā vai nacistiskā režīma politiskajās represijās.

So to Termer's point and redirection, there's nothing necessarily "political" about the repressed above. We should consider an alternative title and perhaps using the official Latvian definition as an initial scope. —PētersV (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Termer has no particularly strong point in replacing my stub with the redirect; it's just that he thought it would be same topic, so he spared me from recreating a lot of material.

I tend to agree that not all repression was political, and it's probably a good idea to split the article. Only repression of dissidents would go into Soviet political repressions, the other kinds of repression -- such as "elimination of class enemies" would go into Soviet repressions. Would this work? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's really about repression of ordinary citizens who posed no threat to the Soviet regime. Of course, the Soviet POV as expressed by former Red Army still living in Riga is "they were all spies, they deserved it" (or something to that effect, not a direct quote). I really don't see how infants qualify as enemies of the state. —PētersV (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although, to the point, the Latvian law does state "political"--that could be the basis for expansion of the main article with waht we're talking about as a sub-article. :-) PētersV (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is the WP rule in categorizing victims of Soviet repressions, but in my own mind, in order to make order when I stamble upon different information that I can use on WP, I divided the victims in several categories. (I noticed that most sources that go into more detail also do make the division into the first 4 categories: some of them count category 5 into category 2, others discount 5 altogether; some of them count for 4 only 4a, others count both 4a and 4b.) :

• political victims, e.g. arrested and emprisoned, executed, sent to Gulag, victims of massacres (for example for Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, not just Moldova, there were roughly 80,000 such)
• deportees, that is generally people sent away on forced settlement and work together with their families. They were not part of Gulag, although they had the possibility to move only in an area of several villages at most, and were oblidged to fulfill harsh norms in work (cutting wood, mostly) Again, the case I know is B&NB, from where ca. 200,000 where deported throughout the entire Stalin's period.
• famine victims (in B&NB, incl. southern Bessarabia, ca. 250,000)
• those somehow associated to WWII
  • e.g. POW from the Romanian army and (quite a few) people arrested in other circumstances (not POW) but gathered in camps together with POWs, and from then on, treated likewise. All Romanians in this category were ca. 160,000. It is assumed that ca. 1/4 were from B&NB, but most probably it is incorrect to make such assumption and it only remains the number for all R.
  • cannon fodder (died) in 1944-1945 in the Soviet Army, but perhaps there would be objection to this sub-category, so I'm not sure if this is approriate (ca. 100,000)
• work consignments, i.e. generally poorly educated young males, consigned to work places, such as mines (many uranium mines), large construction sites, infrastructure projects, where they were used as cheep and dispensable labour force. One American scholar counts these as victims and arrived at huge numbers for the total, like 300 to 500 thousands from B&NB for the entire Soviet period. As a result, under pressure, this category is generally removed from victims, dispite the fact that their work conditions were similar to Gulag, and their freedom was only formal (they would have serious trouble if they'd leave these labor camps; also they were generally among the poorly educated and hence unable to find their way along great distances)

Important note: categories 1,2,4a,5 had survivors, although not the majority. I presume that the numbers for other countries were somewhat proportional in these categories. Also, the numbers I gave were not ethnically selected, and ca. 30% of the victims in categ. 1, 2, 3, 5 in B&NB were ethnic minorities (Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Gagauzes, Bessarabia Bulgarians, etc).

IMHO, the subject "Soviet repressions" is too large to be included into one article, even when it is about one country only. 3-5 articles according to these categories is IMHO more appropriate. Plus sevaral general but small articles, like represētie to give the definition of the terms. Please do note, that thousands and thousands of English words have WP articles explaining them in short. Just google! (I stumble on this often, when I don't know a spelling or the exact meaning, I am surprized that WP definitons pop-up, and not some Webster-like dictionary) So, my understanding is that "Soviet political victims" only covers category 1 (is this correct?), which is the more variated in means and in types of persons, it generally includes the elite of the nations. Although, deportees were also mostly from among the educationwise and economically upper strata.

In Romanian, we have two words "deportat (sing) / deportaţi (pl)" and "represat (sing) / represaţi (pl)", meaning deportee, respectively repressed. Deportee usually refers to category 2, repressed to 1,2 and 4. I know that they do have privelege of free transport in Moldova, but I do not know by which laws or norms, sometimes local authorities made such provisions. They however are not very tended by the government, on the contrary the governments we had try to avoid them b/c they brought only head-ache to govnmt. Most of them by now are died. 80% of survivors are those that were deported as cildrden, and are now 65-70 years old. Political victims are 80 or more years old now, so vast majority is long since died.

Also we have a funny thing in Moldova, veterans of Soviet Army and Romanian Army are given the same formal rights, although different political attention. The funniest of all is when some gvnmt bureaucrats used to write "veterans of the Great Patriotic War in the ranks of the Romanian Army" not realizing that Romanian Army fought in both East and West direction. Dc76\^talk 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we and I'm sure other editors appear to have pretty good access to each country's views of what it constitutes to be a victim of Soviet "political" repression, we should consider:

• Limit the (parent) scope to Eastern Europe (so Baltics, Central, Eastern)
• Parent article discusses summary of all the types of individuals considered (codified, so governmental laws and regulations, according to the bylaws of fraternal societies of the repressed, etc.) to have been repressed. This is not WP:OR, it's simply re-stating official (government or NGO) definitions. This eliminates needing to debate who is and isn't "included" as there will be the eventual wailing and gnashing of teeth over "numbers" of "victims." The article content itself would, of course, be completely based on reputable sources.
• Subsidiary articles can then go by type or by country. It's probably worth discussing how best to cover that and what the "story" is in order to not overlap/create unnecessary forks of other content.

Soviet political repression in Eastern Europe can be the summary article described here, in turn, it can be a sub-article of the main one. That would help keep the scope of each individual article manageable. —PētersV (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since my opinion was asked like it seems, I would first expand the current article Soviet political repression with appropriate subsections and once there is enough material together so that the content dictates creating new main articles, only then proceed with it.--Termer (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, expend that one, and in mean time let's keep working on Peters' article in Sandbox only. Of course, that is the extent I can commit to it, I do not want to tell you not to commit more if you can and wish. I have had in the past the unfortunate experience of starting articles and loosing myself in them, not being able to logically finish them: did not find enough sourses, or not having enought time, or simply interest for a particular article. Or sometimes, when I finally get sourses, there are so many of them I need to work a year to read them all. That's why I suggested elsewhere Operation Yug (July 6-7, 1949 deportation). We can actually make that article in 2-3 pages, very nice and very informative, and - which is very important - a rounded article, not an open-end article. Building such smaller articles helps even ones ego ("finally I got something finished") We (at least I) never got any of the Soviet/EE articles to DYK. Maybe we should.Dc76\^talk 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doing a bit of expansion in the current main article and setting the stage for sub-article expansion (per Termer) would be the proper way to move forward. I'll be glad to offer a sandbox for collaboration. :-) —PētersV (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

never got any of the Soviet/EE articles to DYK. Well, I do have 2 articles which have been through DYK that touch the subject Soviet political repression: In case anything might be useful for the central article, please check out Estonia_in_World_War_II#Soviet_regime_of_terror, Estonia_in_World_War_II#Soviet_repression_of_ethnic_Russians and Joakim Puhk a Rotarian, a member of the International Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the International Olympic Committee under Category:People_executed_by_the_Soviet_Union. Hope that it helps.--Termer (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! What is the rule for DYK, is it true that the articles should be only 5-days old? Dc76\^talk 03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks! for DYK rules please see WP:DYK--Termer (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language merge

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [15] and gave its rationale [16]. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\^talk 01:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

White Tights/Anti-Russian attitudes

Since this was deleted as "nonsense", I wanted to keep a record for myself...

I indicated the Wiki-link supported the text. Your revert of mine was nonconstructive ("who cares about other articles"). All that had to be done was to transplant the existing references, both book and news. It was not necessary to make the initial baseless and accusatory charge of own unreferenced research, followed by nonconstructive revert comments including complaining about my tone which has been far more civil than yours.

   If you have an interest in contributing to topics relating to Baltic-Russian relations and history, a more helpful attitude would go a long way. You could have just as easily transplanted the references rather than delete content and revert restoration all the while providing edit comments with SHOUTING capitals and suggesting other editors are being uncivil. Cheers! PētersV (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

... it is when editors refuse to engage in dialog (I have seen "nonsense" used as a code word for justifying deletion in bad faith of feedback from editor to editor too many times) that polarization of the editorial community takes place. PētersV (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to ensure my message is received: Mind your tone and never do such things again. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mind your tone" is also not a very civil tone in itself. :) Why does it have to be focussed on the individuals and not on the issues? Dc76\^talk 08:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't discuss individuals, I only point at inapproriate tone. Relevant place for edits' discussions is the article's talk page. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Beatle Fab Four. I was pointing out for your benefit what I unambiguously took as confrontationalism and dismissiveness on your part. Admonishment of the tone of a particular editor is discussion of the editor. You're not an admin the last I checked—it's inappropriate and unconstructive toward building dialog to address other editors as if you are in a position of superiority/authority. That builds walls, not bridges. Now that this is out of the way I look forward to more constructive interchanges in the future. PētersV (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiev to Kyiv...

Hi there... just added my point of view to the debate... lemme know if any important change or update occurs... Cya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.124.203 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Once BGN common changes over. :-) PetersV       TALK 04:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

BGN standard...

Hi there... Im pushing for the page named "pescadores (islands)" to be named after their chinese name, "Penghu", which is consistent with the BGN policy, the britannica encyclopaedia, google maps, live maps, and, well, its the name they use in their official sites...

Just wanted to know... Is the BGN standard the general standard for the site? If not, is there any movement within contributors to make it the standard?

Just answer here, ill pass by and read it...

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.223.195 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BGN is as close to an independent objective place-naming body as there is. Unfortunately, as of now it is just one more bit of data, no better or worse than a Google search. What makes BGN valuable is three-fold: first, it is quite comprehensive; second, it differentiates common usage from standard (local) usage, hence Kiev (BGN conventional) versus Kyiv (BGN standard); lastly, their preferred policy is to frown upon any instances of use of a "BGN conventional" (common usage) name, that is, defined and used only where felt absolutely necessary. The "BGN conventional" name is the one that the state department (desk officers) use for interactions with the public, where clarity of common English usage takes precedence over other variations.

   The hierarchy of preferred English use is: conventional, standard, then variant(s).

   I would certainly support WP adopting BGN as the English-speaking place naming standard. It's reviewed and updated regularly, it's non-partisan, and it's maintained by experts in the field.(There are a lot more complicated issues regarding place names than just my mainly transliteration example, all of which the BGN standard seeks to deal with.) PetersV       TALK 17:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The BGN conventional name (preferred English usage) is Pescadores:

• Pescadores (BGN Conventional)
• P’eng-hu Ch’ün-tao (BGN Standard)
• Hoko Archipelago (Variant)
• Hoko Group (Variant)
• Hokoto Islands (Variant)
• Fishers’ Islands (Variant)
• Penghu (Variant)
• Bokoto Islands (Variant)
• Pheng-hu (Variant)
• Penghu Qundao (Variant)
• Penghu Cyundao (Variant)
• Bōko Islands (Variant)
• 澎湖群島 (Script BGN Standard)

So, the current title is the one that is supported as common usage. PetersV       TALK 17:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Since maps are for navigation, they will nearly always have the local name, for example, Google maps has "Wien" for "Vienna." Oh well, the bad news is it's still the Pescadores, the good news is that you also have the BGN standard alternate for properly representing the Chinese. :-) PetersV       TALK 19:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! I Wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia! to you as well.;-) PetersV       TALK 19:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment#Baltic states

Hi,

the section Anti-Russian sentiment#Baltic states had become rather scorched due to longish wikibattles. I rewrote it, and removed most of what were once arguments but are only peripherally related to the issue.

Could you take a look at the result? Perhaps, I took out something that I shouldn't have? I don't read Latvian, so I can't really check the relevance of the Latvian sources -- feel free to readd anything that is relevant. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's succinct and to the point. I did some minor copy-editing, including amplifying that non-citizens have rights akin to those of citizens, it's not just a recognition of residency. PetersV       TALK 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To friends and foes, readers and writers and lurkers

We'll try for a new language each year! :-) This written out for me today by the lovely young lady behind the counter at our local Polish deli.

Szczęśliwego Nowegu Roku 2009!

PetersV       TALK 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable families

You may want to look at Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Notable_.3F_Polish_families.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-citizens (Latvia)

1. Your wording "These are citizens of the dissolved USSR who had moved or been relocated to the Latvian SSR, along with their descendants, who chose to remain non-citizens rather than take citizenship of Russia, legally the successor state to the USSR." implies that those who took anotjer citizenship (of USA, Ukraine etc.) are non-citizens, too, which is wrong (see "Non-citizens' Law"). Besides, it claims one-sidedly, that Russia (only) is successor to USSR, while it is a question with different answers in international law (succession or continuation in Russia's case? Was there succesion in other former SSRs? An overview of the debate, in Russian).Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is only one official successor state to the Soviet Union, and that is the Russian Federation. That was decided by treaty by the countries participating in the CIS. One couldn't "choose" any arbitrary citizenship in any post-Soviet republic, for example, Ukrainian citizenship if you were a Ukrainian in Latvia--that option was open only to permanent residents of Ukraine (or if you had resident of Ukraine stamped in your USSR passport). If you wanted to become a citizen of Ukraine, you had to meet naturalization requirements (live there for 5 years, be proficient in Ukrainian, etc....). Now that the expiration period has long passed, it's the same for Russia (and just try getting a residency permit): 5 years residency, proficient in Russian....

1.1. As I've shown, theory of "only one successor state" isn't universal opinion - for example, the fact that Russia didn't apply to membership in the UN, but just took USSR place, is in favour of continuity, not succession. If you don't read Russian, I can point to a subtitle referring to debate on continuity or succession here, too. 1.2. Thousands of former USSR citizens living in Latvia have chosen Ukrainian, Belorussian etc. citizenship, and they aren't non-citizens (nepilsoņi), as your wording implies - see OCMA data.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe most of the non-Baltic post-Soviet countries recognise succession from their corresponding SSRs for many purposes, including citizenship criteria. Thus, an ethnic Ukrainian living in Latvia in 1991 would have been able to claim Ukrainian citizenship based on heritage from parents of Ukrainian citizenship. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2.Your wording "Non-citizens are not stateless (Latvian: bezvalstnieki) as defined by Latvian law and by treaty under international law." About Latvian law - true, but not about international law - for example, CoE Commissioner for Human Rights writes about them as stateless. In the article itself the UN Special Rapporteur on racism is quoted speaking about naturalization of non-citizens of Latvia as reduction of statelessness. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The CoE Commissioner report is an opinion. Second, if you read it closely, he does not call non-citizens "stateless", he recommends guidelines which include "stateless" in the title--two different things. I recall the U.N. statement was one by allusion as well. No one has specifically said: "Latvian non-citizens are stateless"--they cannot because it is simply not true. The only thing that matters is international law, where the rights of Latvian non-citizens outside of Latvia are governed strictly by treaties between Latvia and the other country (or EU). Another country can agree to extend the same rights to Latvian citizens and non-citizens alike, for example, visa-free EU travel with the adoption of Schengen.

Sveiks, Aleksi, answered above. Hope these answers clarify. Please feel free to continue discussion in either section or below. PetersV       TALK 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Commissioner's report is an opinion - as the opinion of the Republic of Latvia (that non-citizens aren't stateless) is; therefore I didn't write whether they are or aren't stateless under intermnational law (one can compare opinions; and International Court of Justice, which theoretically could resolve the debate, will hardly do it). But your wording takes Latvia's official view for granted and ignores opposing views. And this are the view of both CoE Commisioner: if you read his report fully, there is However, developments after 1989 created new problems of statelessness in Europe. The break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia caused enormous difficulties for persons who were regarded by the new governments as belonging somewhere else - even if they had resided in their current location for many years. For instance, large numbers of residents, including children, remain non-citizens in Latvia and Estonia (my bold - non-citizens are seen as part of problem of statelessness); and of UN Rapporteur quoted already in the article: revisit the existing requirements for naturalization with the objective of facilitating the granting of citizenship to non-citizens, implementing the commitments established by the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness - so he sees granting citizenship to non-citizens as reduction of statelessness and therefore - state of non-citizenship as statelessness under this convention. Besides those mentioned, the ESCO Parliamentary Assembly also refers to non-citizens as stateless persons: (see para. 16 of the Resolution on national minorities). The same is what Amnesty International says So, if to mention the question of whether non-citizens are stateless under international law, then one should point to various views.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Paldies, I'll look at improving the wording and leave a note when it's ready for anther look. We seem to be the only two doing any work on the article. PetersV       TALK 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Statelessness is a particular category of people under international treaty law; a category of people characterised by their lack of any 'welcoming' state. In the West, it usually overlaps with lack of defined citizenship, but in many areas of the world, it's more complicated; for example, a person might become considered stateless if his original state becomes unable to 'welcome' him. In this manner, since Somalia is a failed state, people who could otherwise claim Somalian citizenship would be treated as stateless in many parts of the world.

However, Soviet aliens in Latvia are not stateless in this regard because they have effective permanent residence permits, and Latvia takes care of documenting them and in some (but not all) cases is able to provide consular aid to these people overseas. In particular, under the EU treaty law -- such as, among others, the Schengen agreement --, Soviet aliens in Latvia are considered to be 'attached' to the Republic of Latvia, and have most of the international rights and freedoms deriving from this. So, while they may have *one* descriptor -- lack of defined citizenship -- characteristic to statelessness, they don't have most of the others such characteristics. Therefore, it is inaccurate to consider Soviet aliens in Latvia 'stateless'.

I must also point out that aliens have the right of naturalisation in Latvia, conditioned upon a set of reasonable and non-discriminatory criteria. Many have used this right, and are no longer aliens. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Christianity in Ukraine

Please express your opinion at Talk:History of Christianity in UkraineBandurist (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed articles

I like your line of thinking.

Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vilnis Sīpols

Sveiks! When looking for recent Russian publications on the topic of MRP&consequences I once again came across a certain Vilnis Sīpols. I wonder if you know anything of that figure? Apart from libraries, I could only 'google out' some Russian links, but these weren't very substantial.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sīpols is a Soviet historian. An account of writings regarding the history of the Latvian embassy in Washington from 1919-1940 says this of Sīpols: "Tādēļ pret V. Sīpola minētājiem faktiem jaizturas ar zināmu piesarzību un tie izmantojami, vienīgi konfrontējot tos ar avotu un citas zinātniskās literatūras sneigto informāciju." = "And so, one must use a certain wariness with regard to the facts V. Sīpols cites, as they can be utilized only by confronting them with information presented in historical archives and other scholarly literature." So, quality Soviet propaganda. Latvian surnames are no guarantee of historial accuracy. PetersV       TALK 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I remember reading an interview of that person, where he complained that the Soviet commission that investigated the MRP secret protocols in 1989 was due to political reasons heavily populated by Baltic people who could push through 'wrong conclusions' that he, comrade Sipols and a few other convinced Communists could not hinder. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 10:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:UkrainianGrainProblem.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:UkrainianGrainProblem.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:IsraelAsSample.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:IsraelAsSample.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Andris Ārgalis et al

I saw your comments on this AfD discussion, and fully agree. But most of the articles are just stubs. It took me less than 1/2 hour to expand the entry on Andris Ārgalis to add a few basic facts and a few sources, enough to make it immune to any deletion request, and I do not know the language or know anything about the subject. You could have done the job much quicker. This is usually the simplest and most constructive way to resolve these disputes, and saves everyone time. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue with a relatively small community of motivated editors is that (a) the community needs to be notified and (b) have a chance to expand articles. This happens through AfD's far too often—we need a more constructive means to deal with this than responding to AfD's which contend that Rīga is an insignificant community. PetersV       TALK 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject. There have been various attempts to solve the problem with templates like {{expand}} and {{stub}} and {{construction}}, but editors don't seem to pay much attention until the article is put in the AfD list. Then they often fix the problem in time, but sometimes don't. Still, a deleted article can always be recreated, except it has to pass a more thorough vetting the second time around. The rules that define how Wikipedia works and the meta-rules that define how to change the rules have been debated and refined for years by highly intelligent people. I am incline to accept them as essentially unchangeable now and look for ways to enjoy contributing within this framework. Not perfect, but if you step back and look at the whole project, amazing. If you are feeling depressed about the project, don't read WP:BIAS, please.

I certainly do not consider that Riga is an insignificant community, but confess to have long been puzzled about where the reindeer go after the igloos melt. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite alright, no need to strike that comment, we can take the subject matter seriously but not ourselves. :-) PetersV       TALK 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And the way I read it, allowing these obscure articles to live is the best way to counter WP:BIAS—of course, "anti-nationalist" elements would also argue they are attempting to counter WP:BIAS by deleting stuff no one cares about. Ah... too deep... PetersV       TALK 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan

What do you think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I think maybe I should list Sharopoyezd for deletion, too. I created the article and hoped to expand it, but it doesn't seem likely in the near future -- and it's in pretty much the same situation as this one. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably come up with a better way of coordinating article development in user space. Is there some reasonable means for creating a spider list of articles in user space? Editors could "opt in" to have their user space articles listed (or potentially spider for some pre-defined comment within an article file). For the most part, we don't have any article "ownership" issues on Baltic articles. PetersV       TALK 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations

Rather than clutter up the AfD page any more than it already is, I thought I'd respond here. Anyways, it seems to me that your keep argument revolves on the fact that relations exist that have manifested themselves in a number of ways, including a joint postal issue and a brisk trade in wine. And I don't deny that a) these are facts are true, b) they are indicative of more-than-trivial relations. But my whole point, which you have not ever directly addressed, is that the general notability guidelines state that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. And after all this debate and discussion, I still don't see any coverage in sources which satisfy this requirement. Do you either disagree that this is the relevant criteria by which we should determine whether to keep or delete the article, or do you feel that there are in fact sources that meet these criteria? Or arguing something else? Yilloslime ^T_C 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate the off-AfD discussion. Regarding general notability guidelines: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article....

   In practice, WP articles are full of primary sources and, as a result, articles which are more attempting to paint a particular picture than construct objective narrative. More than Chile-Estonian relations would suffer deletion if we rigorously applied the WP:N and no WP:OR rules. My real issue is, and has always been, that the mission of WP regarding the Baltics' obscurity is to assist in lifting that obscurity through the creation of articles which one might generically call "Did you know that...?", not to invoke that obscurity to perpetuate it, which is what invoking the rule of law regarding notability accomplishes.

   I'm in my mid-50's, so perhaps my perspective is clouded by the life experience that far too often people use rules not to say "YES" but to say "NO." While one can be cynical in that there are some who use "NO" as their only means of exercising power, I have found that often those people sincerely believe that saying "NO" is a constructive activity. It is not. When one says "NO," whatever it is that "NO" is applied to withers and dies. Only when one says "YES" can something be allowed to develop. If an article fails to develop after, say, six months, then by all means it should likely be subsumed into some larger article (in this case, it would likely need to be duplicated, once for a Chile article, once for an Estonia article). But that is not the case here. Pounding incessantly on the rules barely after an article has been created is grossly unfair when there is only a small community of active Baltic editors--that is because only after an article is created can the community see it and develop it.

   If you see a strong and vigorous defense of information that may be considered obscure and not voluminously sourced, it is because the kind of secondary source coverage you seek for notability regarding Baltic topics often does not exist, regardless of topic; it does not mean that the topic is not notable.

   So, my question to you is, what is more important?: lifting the a half-century veil of obscurity surrounding the Baltics, a veil which is the direct result of Soviet occupation and oppression, or to invoke rules, albeit well-meaning, and act more to perpetuate that obscurity (and I can say, born of one of the most evil regimes in recorded history) than to lift it? It's not about secondary sources, it's about whether the course of action which you advocate regarding an article allows a small ray of enlightenment to emerge, or whether, in the end, you enforce an obscurity born of occupation and oppression—regardless of your intentions. I'm not being melodramatic—the lack of information, the volume of misinformation, and the degree of anti-Baltic POV pushing on WP is astounding. And that's not even mentioning what RU WP contains about the Baltics. PetersV       TALK 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response--I appreciate it. But I don't think we're going to find agreement here. Your argument seems to boil down to: Yes, WP:N is the relevant guideline, but we should ignore it when dealing with the articles related to the Baltics because these states have already been abused so much by the Soviets that wikipedia should cut them some slack. I am misinterpreting? Yilloslime ^T_C

There are two parts. One is that there needs to be leeway in general on WP regarding obscure but worthwhile topics, the Baltics are just one such example. I do maintain there are additional circumstances at play specifically regarding the Baltics and the Soviet legacy, but the impetus is not based on rectifying perceived/actual abuse but simply rectifying being lost behind the Iron Curtain for half a century. Hence the "Did you know...?" aspect. Is that not the ultimate purpose of an encyclopedia?

   The other is that when there is a relatively small community of knowledgeable editors who cooperate mainly via articles in mainspace, a bit of indulgence and less haste in pulling the trigger would go a very long way toward allowing the development of content versus--in this case--clearly expending a huge amount of editorial time on, instead, debating worthiness.

   You clearly became involved in this as part of a larger question, "Chile-XYZ relations" articles, and can they all possibly be notable. Unfortunately there's a history of warring consisting of anti-Baltic editors quoting rules to remove content (IMHO not in good faith) on one side, and the (their eyes) stalwart defenders of the Baltics against the neo-Soviet barbarians on the other side, a pitched battle which you may not be fully aware of and which you've stumbled into. You're obviously welcome to debate, but the lines are drawn an you will not achieve consensus no matter how air-tight your logic is or how well-meaning your intent is to not litter WP with articles of little significance.

   In the grand scheme of things there are "2 779 000 +" articles. Every possible XYZ-ABC relation article calculates out to 18,336 articles if one sticks to U.N. members, a bit over one half of one percent of all articles on WP should they all be created. So, the bigger question is, should we allow them all to exist if there are motivated objective editors willing to make the contribution, or should we assume three quarters are not significant and then debate the right of 13,752 articles to exist? Say ten editors spend a total of one hour each on debate, that's 137,520 hours. The cost-benefit numbers are clear: the debate is not worth the effort. Lastly, as the world shrinks, all possible combinations of relations will continue to become more, not less, significant. PetersV       TALK 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Of course if we didn't clean up anything objectively not worthwhile as an article there would be at least a billion articles! I do (larger picture) believe that exploring bilateral country relations is worthwhile anywhere editors are motivated to contribute. PetersV       TALK 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lafka

Hi,

do you think the Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee is notable enough for an article? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given its leadership and a good deal of memberhip hails from "For Human Rights in a United Latvia", I'm not sure if it's best positioned on its own or as anti-(anti-"anti-Fascist hero") (IMO) agitation which should redirect to "For Human Rights in a United Latvia." Let me think about it. It definitely gets coverage on its own in the Latvian press, so certainly notable enough to merit encyclopedic mention however it gets done. PetersV       TALK 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1991

Sveicināti. Kā Jums liekas - kāds ir to pamuļķu mērķis rakstā Latvija pīt iekšā to 1991. gadu? Apzināta provokācija vai vienkārši cilvēku neizglītotība?--Riharcc (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sviecināti! Šinī gadījumā, spriežot pēc citām rediģēšanām, man šķiet ka tā nav provokācija--es paskaidroju Lietuva's lapas rakstu sarunā par Baltijas valsts suverenitātes nepārtrauktību padomju laikā un kādēļ 1990./1991. g. "nodibināšanas" neatbilst uz tām. PetersV       TALK 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Peteris, can you please elaborate on your perception on the difference between "declared" and "de facto"? Taking a look at the Latvia country infobox, it actually looks like Latvia declared independence twice - at least according to the additions you have made. I certainly do understand why readers can be confused by the ambiguity of the term. Perhaps we should seek for another way of explaining how a country can exist a virtual life without physical borders and land to enter for almost 50 years? Lettonica (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) PS. Please have a look at my userpage to understand who I am (am on vacation and is writing from a public PC).

I rather preferred the old infobox here with footnotes, prior to elimination thereof in subsequent attempts to simplify or clarify (or make it appear Latvia was dead, de jure gone, during the Soviet era). PetersV       TALK 21:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the motivation for the editions I have made. As you can see of this edition prior to the removal of footnotes, I actually added linkage to the terms used. All terms used are tied with a dash to the section header "independence", i.e. "independence - declared", "independence - recognized" etc. If you take a look again at the edition linked to above, you will see that I made the terms used link to the article On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia - the term restored is not my invention, it is the actual term used by Latvians, as you probably very well know (restoration ~ atjaunošana, literarily "rejuvenation"). Taking that fact into account, I think it is quite obvious that I meant de jure restoration - not de jure independence and de facto restoration - not de facto independence. When the term restored is used - linked to the article On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia, I really think footnotes are redundant. Lettonica (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way... What is the real difference between "declare" and "proclaim"? Lettonica (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I had used different words to indicate they were different actions. There is only one declaration of de jure independence. The SSR proclaimed its intent to leave the USSR, then made it official at the later date (at that moment officially leaving the USSR and restoring original sovereignty to Latvian territory). That is different from declare independence once, disappear, declare independence and start all over a second time. Even with the article pointers, I believe the footnotes are required to make the point of continuity of sovereignty. Technically there was no de jure restoration recreating sovereignty, what occurred was a restoration of existing de jure sovereignty to Latvian soil. PetersV       TALK 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, there was a de jure restoration of independence (and perhaps not of sovereignty to Latvian soil, but that is your semantics again), since the article pointed to (Latvian_SSR#1980s-1991) has the following sentence closing the paragraph: "Soon, on September 6 ,(1991) , the independence of (the) three Baltic states was officially recognised by the USSR." It does not come more de jure than that?! But that is not important now if you read my continued answer below. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I think we're on the same page, it's just what semantics to use. Also, the infoboxes need to be as consistent as possible and apply across all three Baltic states, as in all three cases the existing sovereignty from prior to WWII was reinstated over (reattached to) the territory in question. PetersV       TALK 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Nor did the proclamation establish de facto independence as it only stated intent. ("Intended" or "Announced" might be better than "Proclaimed" ).PetersV       TALK 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We are on the same page. It is funny that I actually had a look at the Estonia article first and copied the infobox concept. What we disagree on in the Latvia infobox are two things: 1). The semantics of the last two dates. 2). Whether to use footnotes or not. Well, I now understand the detail that the restoration of Latvian independence did not concur exactly with the time when the Latvian SSR officially left the USSR - it was more of a time window on certain conditions. The word "announced" as you suggested fits that description very well, but also needs a footnote to explain the concept of secession. Then, the word "restored" can stand alone at the last date, since it is obvious that restoration of independence includes the territorial sovereignty. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually more in response to yours above the "(od)." The USSR recognizing the independence of the Baltics was not a de jure act, as in transfer of sovereignty by treaty from prior authority. It was merely the announcement of the end of de facto and illegal annexation. The only de jure event was the formal transition of vesting of authority from the Latvian Legation in Washington (i.e., in the person of Dinbergs) to the authorities in Latvia. What the USSR said, did, or recognized had no de jure bearing whatsoever. That Russia paints it to be so as in the first to recognize, blah, blah, blah (egads, I might have gotten infected by a WP:OPPOSITIONEDITORVIRUS!) is only to make that recognition appear to be a de jure act, which would make today's Latvia discontinuous with Latvia declared in 1918. PetersV       TALK 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no stance as to what the USSR or Russia is trying to paint. But, it seems to me, that even when this sentence is true: "Soon, on September 6, the independence of three Baltic states was officially recognised by the USSR.", it is not the whole truth. Have I gotten it right so far? The part about what was not done is missing.

Keeping your reasoning above in mind, I would tend to conclude, that there are two versions of the Latvian story that are incompatible. So, either way the backside is turned, it will always be turned the wrong way to someone.

What I personally find intriguing about this issue is the fact, that one dictatorship swallowed another dictatorship - and both parties afterwards argues about who had the less democratic influenced process. There are no democratic processes in dictatorships. Fact is, that Ulmanis being a dictator pleased the Soviets for far too long by signing orders in Soviet favor, at the same time keeping his people in the dark. I don't envy his position, but nothing was done to counter the two monsters that emerged from both sides. Very sad story indeed. My last two cents for now. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ulmanis did retain a cabinet, technically, the president and cabinet of ministers govern and pass laws according to the constitution when the parliament is "not in session." I'm not quite sure what you mean by "signing orders in the Soviet favor," Stalin did tell the Latvian foreign minister Munters that the USSR could invade tomorrow (that's over the "mutual assistance" pacts)--Finland proves that wasn't an idle threat. What do you do when someone holds a gun to your head? I suppose we will always debate whether it would have been better to attempt to fight to the death immediately versus ultimately, pointlessly, hold out in the Courland pocket until the end of the war. Remember, authoritarian rule was rampant all over Europe--it did not have today's stigma. Of course, the Soviets/Russians have a field day with "fascist Ulmanis" but that's a topic for another time. Ulmanis was not a murderous maniacal thug as were Hitler and Stalin. (Remember also the first time the Russians came through with Peter the Great's invasion, nothing living stirred for miles and estimates are that only 17,000 Latvians were left alive.)

   Back to the topic, as to the "official", there's nothing official legally--just as Latvia petitioned and "officially" joined the USSR, the other half of the "official" Soviet book-ends on that era. There is much more explaining to do in the article for sure.

   (And consider whether you paint Ulmanis with the evil dictatorship brush of today a bit too easily.) PetersV       TALK 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I should say that based on what my mother has related, who was an adult at that time (23 in 1934), the stories of respect, even adulation and all, are genuine, she's been in those crowds more than once herself; it is not the fake cult of personality created by today's dictators that has become popular to paint Ulmanis with, including "softening" the Latvians for the "dictatorship to come." I know there are those whose opinions I respect but with whom I differ on this point. PetersV       TALK 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got a lot of mail

Your mailbox is full :-( Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PetersV       TALK 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Baltic states

Your change, to my change here is fine, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for being willing to work with my suggestions. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hiberniantears. Despite the many things I've been labeled for rightly calling the current official Russian position into question, I don't editorially maintain any position that is not completely supported by an objective assessment of verified events. I am always happy to improve articles, especially when a fresh perspective is offered. That you arrived at the request of Dojarca is immaterial as long as your editorial perspective is informed by the facts. This ("Occupation of...") is not about "POV" of Latvians et al. versus "POV" of Russians. This is about facts. As I have indicated, the current Russian position (in abject opposition to its own treaty still in effect with Lithuania) is no occupation, for which there is no basis in fact. As I've also indicated, it's appropriate and necessary to note that Russian position. That does not make it factual. Nor does it make the Baltic position any less factual and therefore merely another POV.

   I would add that I was not involved in the most expansion creating the laundry list of he-said, she-said. That is immaterial, at best, a list for another article; at worst, it makes it into a contest, which it is not. That recognition of Baltic passports has been deleted in one case speaks for itself.

   As you've studied international law, you will note basic arguments supporting non-occupation ("Helsinki accords=recognition of borders=no occupation") are not just WP:OR but are blatantly false. I trust you will work to uphold the factual integrity of the article. PetersV       TALK 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The subject of the article is the occupation of the Baltic states and its events, not about the term and its use. The intent of the article was never to be a contest over whether or not there was a so-called "occupation." Furthermore, neither I, nor any other Baltic or other editor, made it into that contest. Lastly, consider that your presence is at the request of someone who has always insisted that it's only a contest. PetersV       TALK 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I noticed you signed on on the Mediation page regarding the occupation of the Baltic states. Just wanted to remind you that the mediation committee, being what it is, needs to have everyone sign twice, once in the first "parties" section, and again lower on the page where the parties agree to take part in mediation. For the mediation to be accepted, you would have to sign your name to the second section below as well. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do realize that. I am debating whether to participate or to post a link to every one of these procedures we have already been through and sit this one out and let it die. My elderly mother is in the hospital in severe decline and I have little appetite to go through discussions of "occupation" being "prejudicial" yet again.

   I do wish you two had read through the reams of prior mediations and arbitrations (at least a dozen involving articles and editor-against-editor wherever Soviet glory in Eastern Europe has been called into question) before deciding the Baltic nationalists require balance. PetersV       TALK 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All I would say is look at the link I provided on the article talk page to an ArbCom ruling in January regarding Ireland. In that case, they have given themselves the power to appoint a board of three uninvolved admins who will resolve the naming issue. I know of that instance because another ArbCom I'm currently in is facing the prospect of the same sort of resolution. I'm a bit of an outsider to the new case as well, but I am fairly sure that the old hands in the debate aren't looking forward to having the issue decided by others without any real input from themselves. And, unfortunately, if this goes to ArbCom for any reason in the future, I have a feeling that the same sort of resolution might occur here as well. I don't think you or the others invovled would like that any more than the people involved in the current case seem to. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of (mis)interpretation of the ruling aside, I find the "rehash an old topic, or ArbCom will do nasty stuff" threat disingenuous. On one hand, you might be thinking that ArbCom acts in a random and haphazard way without regards to available sources -- but it wouldn't be polite to say it out loud. On another hand, you might be thinking that ArbCom might improve this article -- but this wouldn't be a threat, would it? Considering that ArbCom has already played with this article, and it didn't change anything significant -- the first measure of stability arrived only after Termer took a systematic review of it upon himself --, it seems this is, at best, a rather vague threat. I can't vouch for other people, but as for myself, it doesn't really tickle my anxiety. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that's what I was saying. Like I said before, they're appointing people to do things, not doing them themselves. And I don't think that it would be "nasty stuff". However, in general, if three uninvolved administrators become involved in something and arrive at a conclusion, which is what ArbCom is setting up, the likelihood of their having their way, whatever that is, is fairly good. And, like I said elsewhere, I'm not directly involved to any degree with either this matter or the Macedonia matter currently under dispute, but I wouldn't want it to happen in any case where I did have a clear opinion. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated in article talk, uninvolved = uninformed, your own comments that "occupation" is "prejudicial" being a prime example. I'm sorry to be blunt, but your own conduct here and rush to formal conflict resolution proves that "uninvolved" provides neither objectivity nor improvement. PetersV       TALK 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

For what it's worth, I have to agree with what LessHeardvanU said. Wikipedia's policies are explicit in saying that we cannot favor any POVs over others. Another way to say that would be that, in effect, when it comes to disputed material we should try to follow the format of a court case: present the basic background evidence first, then one side's opinion, then the other's, for however many sides there are, and then after presenting all the positions present whatever "findings" may have been arrived at by external entities. In effect, copying the format of the average episode of Perry Mason or any similar courtroom drama.

Believe it or not, there is an advantage to doing this, even for those trying to get an opinion across. One of the things that our teacher made a point of stressing during my high school composition classes was that people are much more likely to remember their own conclusions than the "force-fed" opinions which they have imposed on them. And, also remember, these articles are written for individuals whose knowledge of the subject is limited, so they are basically going to them for basic information on the subject. If they were to see the old article, which described the Soviet presence as an "occupation" and enumerated the people who had arrived at that opinion even before describing the history of the Soviet presence at all, many or most would reasonably think that the article were "pushing a POV". Certainly in the US, where I'm from, most people put their guards up mentally when they perceive such attempts to "impose" an opinion, and the attempt to influence their opinions has as good a chance to backfire as not.

If, on the other hand, the article were to have started with a timeline or history of the events, then described, in order, how the Baltics saw the Soviet presence as illegal, how the Soviets defended it and the Russians continue to defend it, and then enumerated the times when a number of external bodies which have said that the Soviet/Russian position was, basically, invalid, the article would have been purely NPOV, because it would be taking no position. At the same time, however, it would also probably in a sense to an even better job of conveying to the average newcomer to the subject that the Soviet/Russian position is indefensible, because of it clearly detailing both positions and then only later discussing their comparative strengths and weaknesses, and, basically, in this case, just how weak the Soviet/Russian position is. In a sense, it would lead the average reader to the conclusion that the Soviet presence was illegal without even once having had to be seen as espousing that position. Also, the average person, who came to that conclusion on their own, would be more likely to remember it than they would something they just read, because their own cognitive functions were involved in drawing that conclusion.

Will this in any way be likely to convince someone who already actively agrees with the Soviet/Russian position? Probably not. Would anything be likely to convince such a person? I have no way of knowing, because I have no way of knowing how deeply they hold that believe, but I wouldn't be optimistic.

I know you very possibly will see what I say here as being offensive to you, and I sincerely regret that. However, I did want to take the time to write this to you to say that, basically, I agree with you regarding your conclusions on this subject. However, wikipedia's policies don't let us tell the readers in the content what our conclusions are. Luckily for us, though, in at least a lot of cases, a simple, neutral, presentation of the evidence can in some cases do a better job of getting people to draw the conclusions we want than a more overt attempt to influence their opinions would.

Anyway, whether you agree with any of the above or not, I wish you and everyone involved in the content there the best of good fortune. I said earlier I would try to get some sources regarding the material, and I still intend to. However, when I first said that, I thought the task I had just started, trying to make lists of the relevant articles for the various Christianity portals, would be a comparatively short and simple one. I am now realizing just how wrong I was in that. I think at this point I still have at least a couple of days to go on that. But, if nothing too weird happens which provides another distraction, I will try to do what I said I would do. With any luck, you won't have any objections to it when I do. Hope to be seeing you soon. John Carter (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, if I disrupting your conversation, however constant notes on Arb, ANI, etc pages made my to make this note too. I hope it is ok. Just a small note. John Carter, you stated Wikipedia's policies are explicit in saying that we cannot favor any POVs over others. well WP has a reserve on this - WP:UNDUE. Personally, I encounter many reliable academic material which explained illegality of Soviet actions, occupation status of Baltic States etc. However I personally failed to find any material published by reliable source by reliable author/s, who would argued in accepted academic terms, that Baltic States status should not be considered as "illegally annexed", "occupied land" etc. While Russian Federations position is rather unclear about this issue too. And this is a problem, it seems, that currently we give too much attention to political rhetoric of that state. And finally terms such as "occupation" "annexation", then used in proper context, should not scare anybody. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding defense of the Soviet position, you may well be right, I myself haven't had the chance to check yet. I'm assuming, for some reason I can't be sure of, part of the reason might be the defenders, if there are any, probably write in Russian? ;) Like I said, I haven't had the time to check that out myself yet, but hope to be finished with the portal thing by the end of the week. However, regarding the title and the use of the word "occupation" in the title, which had been the case, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is admittedly just a style guideline, indicates that using "loaded" words is something to avoid wherever possible. "Occupation" is a loaded word, particularly when there is some argument as to whether it qualifed as an "occupation". I'm not saying the word wouldn't be reasonably used in the article itself, but including a disputed term in the title is probably not the best idea in the world. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Russian language is not a problem to me. It is likely that I may missed publications in that language etc. But still somebody should provide evidences, that scholarly debate exist on this issue. Regarding naming, the point is that it should be done on that article talk page during proper procedures, perhaps community will support renaming (it is possible). Rather then invoke admin tools in order to win content dispute.M.K. (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this to John Carter's first post) First, thanks for your voice and tone of calm and reason. I've done some studying on the writing of historical narrative and I can certainly agree that what exists now has a long way to go to be a truly quality article--and what the topic merits. If I can play back to insure I understand your advice, the proposed structure of the occupation article would be:

1. Very brief summary of relations during independence, point to main article on treaties, etc. elsewhere (the current "second" article, perhaps narrowed further to "Diplomatic relations of...")
2. Chronology of events
3. Major events then discussed (chronologically)
   • Each event including its own checkpoint of who said/says what and the factual basis(es) for their position
4. "Reader draws their own conclusion."

The problem is, of course, that however you slice it the Soviet Union invaded and occupied the Baltics. Soviet and current Russian accounts of "liberating" the Baltics don't even mention the USSR invaded before Hitler arrived. To say any less than occupation in the title (and for the entire duration) implies there is validity to the Soviet position and that occupation is merely a matter of opinion--that is what the opposition to "occupation" desires, since once reduced to "opinion," facts and fabrications are irrelevant. And so, we come to the core issue with regard to the so-called "controversy":

the perversion of NPOV as "no opinion is the truth" into "only opinion counts regardless of facts"

That issue, and nothing less, is the issue to be solved. What's required isn't arbitration or yet another let's try to achieve consensus working group. What is required is a workshop on building narratives of history which present events and opinions without inappropriately conflating them into one.

   Good luck with your reading. I hope to add more materials to LOBH.ORG and LATVIANS.COM as web-accessible historical information on the occupation is still sorely lacking, and I've collected some unique materials over the years. Lastly, the only offense I have taken with anyone during this (now, or ever over its WP:SPAN) is the contention that it is all just a matter of opinion, by which also meaning both fact and fabrication are irrelevant. The day factual integrity no longer comes first is the day all is lost. PetersV       TALK 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way. You said, not including "occupation" in the title would be saying that the "occupation" of the country is only a matter of opinion. I don't know that assumption is accurate. Again, remember these articles are being written for people who don't know anything about the events. Only a person who would expect to see the word "occupation" or its equivalent would even notice if the word weren't used in the title. Most of the younger editors new to the topic won't know anything about it, and on that basis won't have any expectations one way or another. Now, that isn't saying that in the text of the article the word "occupation" can't be used, because it can and probably should be, maybe even in at least one section title. But "Soviet presence in the Baltic states" or something similar would convey the same basic information without the emotionally loaded word "occupation". And one thing I've noticed elsewhere is that, unfortunately, words which have a strong emotional impact do not tend to have a universally agreed upon definiton. One person's concept of "occupation" and another's might be quite different. Granted, these were probably some of the worst "occupations" in history, so it's unlikely that someone will be comparing them to worse ones, but just in general words which have such multiple uses can be avoided. And, yes, the structure of the article as you put forward probably would be basically the way to go. Anyway, back to the portals. Thank you for the calm response, by the way. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An important reason to keep the O-word in the names of these articles is that this is the commonly used term for the event sequence. WP:NAME applies. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I should mention I have the "Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR", monographs from 1940 published by the Soviet Information Service on how the Baltics needed to be subdued, etc., and a number of the Baltic editors are quite fluent in Russian. There's no lack of materials on the Soviet position or of corresponding dearth of basis in fact. PetersV       TALK 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(preemptive od as likely to have another edit conflict!) [to John Carter] I do understand your point completely. Which brings us to that other item, the title. There are only the two choices regarding the inclusion of "occupation" in the title, yes or no, but I'm not sure you've considered the full implications of those choices.

• Yes - I'm not going to belabor this, only gently remind that there is clear and unequivocal and ample evidence and scholarly analysis unrelated to interpretations or versions of historical events
• No (and to the guideline that "occupation" is "loaded" and that defense of NPOV prefers not to use "occupation" titles) ...

... There is just as much support for Soviet, then Nazi, then Soviet (re-)occupation as for other historical events properly described and titled on WP as occupations. If the rationale for not using "occupation" is that it is a "loaded term," I can support the "no" option only if it is applied uniformly across all articles. "Occupation of Japan" = "Allied presence in Japan after World War II", "German occupation of France during World War II" = "German presence in France during World War II",.... If your initial reaction is that I'm being obstinate or simply unreasonable or ridiculous just to make a point, then you're experiencing my (and I daresay that of all informed objective individuals') reaction to "Soviet occupation of the Baltic States" retitled as "Soviet presence in the Baltic States".

• If "occupation is a loaded term" is applied ONLY to the title of the article regarding occupation of the Baltics, then that states by omission of the word occupation in the title that the question of occupation is truly open to debate, as there are dozens of articles currently including the word occupation
• If "occupation is a loaded term" is applied to every article on WP and "occupation" eliminated from all titles, then I can happily support that as an objective and unbiased application of a NPOV writing standard; I am not stating this to be facetious, knowing the chances of such renamings are none to slimmer, I'm stating this to make the implications of title choice as clear as I can.

So, again, I understand your point completely, that a title might do better without the word "occupation" so as to appear neutral and objective, and to deal with the topic of occupation in the article and draw the uninformed reader to the appropriate conclusion. In the absence of any other factors, in a WP:VACUUM, I completely concur. However, we are not in a vacuum and must consider the full range of implications of our editorial choices and the consequences of those implications. If our editorial intent is not to actively support the contention that occupation of the Baltics is truly open to debate, then as a practical matter we do not have the luxury of choice regarding the title that we might prefer in a WP:PERFECTWORLD. PetersV       TALK 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a P.S. to "occupation": NPOV across the board would demand we use "occupation" in a title only where there is documentary evidence between parties, e.g., "Allied Occupation of party X Agreement/Treaty," to which all parties are signatories. I rather suspect we're not ready for that either. Again, not being facetious, just trying to make the implications of our editorial choices as clear as possible. To editor John Carter--I respect your position and don't realistically expect to change it regarding the title, that position measured purely on its own merits, and it's likely a gulf we can't cross. Only consider that from my editorial viewpoint you're the idealistic editor and I'm the pragmatic nationalist (I know, some here would class that an oxymoron). PetersV       TALK 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And a second P.S. to "occupation" in the title. Should an article renaming succeed here it will affect at least a score of articles all across Eastern Europe--anywhere there was not a treaty of occupation that can be produced as absolute proof and agreement between parties of occupation. This is not an isolated case of Baltic versus pro-Soviet position, this is one article across an entire series which have been subjected to contentions the Soviets did not occupy anything, that puppet governments were truly sovereign, ad nauseum. PetersV       TALK 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that we've seen that sort of thing. Believe me. ArbCom is dealing with another case of the the plague regarding the use of the word "Macedonia" as we speak, and is trying to figure out what to do with a similar case regarding matters of Irish naming which ended in January where the resolution got derailed by some people pulling out lately. I may seem to many like someone who is willing to "pull the trigger" too quickly on getting ArbCom involved. The reason for that, of course, is that if we have articles placed on probation by ArbCom, anyone doing any disruptive edits to those articles can and probably will be blocked and/or banned from those articles for at least a while. I am comparatively new to dealing with the nationalistic plague in wikipedia at the level I am today, but I have dealt with something similar in the past regarding Scientology and the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians among others, and I am, regretably, coming to the conclusion that one of the only ways to prevent these arguments from continuing to disrupt wikipedia is by holding open the possibility of forcibly silencing the disruptors. Once the "bad faith" or at least dubiously good faith editors get silenced, then the, maybe few?, reasonable parties can more easily engage in reasonable discussion without also having to combat the virtual vandals. Particularly in cases like this where there seems to be little chance of getting the more irrational extremist parties to back down willingly for any period of time, it might be the only workable option. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that in the end it does come down to editorial behavior. I have had knock-them-down, drag-them-out debates on the facts with (it turned out) salaried propaganda pushers--now permanently banned for sock-puppeteering, etc. (over Transnistria). The sad irony is that as paid employees attempting to create legitimacy, they spent the the time and effort to back up their arguments with sources (their employers paid for, obviously), hoping that their editorial opposition would not be motivated to buy $150 textbooks not available at the local library to verify quoting out of context. (That was a fatal misconception on their part.) And so, those debates no matter how heated nearly always dealt with sources. Where sources--that is, scholarly--are allowed to be kept out of the mix and issues reduced to who shouts the loudest over an issue (the perversion of no POV is the "truth" to POV only sans scholarly sources, those sources also being labeled as "POV"), nothing good can come of it.

   We do have the "Digwuren" decision, actually Digwuren and Petri Krohn, both have been constructive since their return. That's come to be applied over any editorial disruption regarding geopolitical topic articles. You would do well to acquaint yourself if you have not yet done so.

   Lastly, what happens regarding the Baltic states occupation article IS being closely watched. Sadly, WP is less than an ideal world, so our solutions to objectively and reputably representing historical fact, whether regarding the Soviet Union or elsewhere, will never please everyone. Such debates will not be quelled (the Soviet one until Russia changes its official position, increasingly unlikely), and so in attempting to ameliorate so-called "controversies" we must be vigilant that any solution we implement for any particular case does not have unintended consequences elsewhere. As the most popular destination for information on the Internet, WP is also the primary target for the promulgation of disinformation. PetersV       TALK 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Literature on the subject of disinformation campaigns against a small nation

Anyone reading this page interested in contemporary literature on the subject is encouraged to read this book (it is the most selling book in Latvia at the moment - in a Latvian language version):

• Rislakki, Jukka (2008). Case for Latvia : disinformation campaigns against a small nation. Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers. ISBN 9789042024236. OCLC 233026199.

PS. Not intended as advertisement. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

You proved me wrong. As an honorable Wikipedian, you have my sincere apologies for branding you as an SPA. Your suggestion today for a new title demonstrated objectivity, maturity, and informed opinion. What you have done today has underlined the key facets of what makes our 'pedia so great, and I, for one, salute you for it. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology gratefully accepted. You came to a long-standing conflict at face value. Over time I hope you find that there are editors for whom "nationalism" is a positive motivator, who do understand that only content that can withstand objective scrutiny is that which is constructed with respect for reputable (meaning also objective) sources and dedication to create narrative faithfully representing those sources—and not inject personal POV. You may also have noticed there are also genuine differences and ranges of opinion in the Baltic "bloc". PetersV       TALK 06:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He also said this. I indeed contributed very little recently, in part due to having little time. This only proves one thing: one should not bother administrators with comments even if someone fires unsubstantiated accusations.Biophys (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard not to respond when your integrity has been impuned. Responding at all is then taken as just being the other (and equally to blame) party in whatever conflict it is. It's quite clear where Offliner's sympathies lie, what their approach is to dealing with POVs other than their own, and to what extent they rely on reputable sources versus personal POV. Sometimes the old Latvian saying applies: Kad tu bradā par sūdiem, tie tik plēšas un smird (When you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks). PetersV       TALK 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why one should comment less (I mean myself). There is a Russian equivalent for that, which sounds precisely like your expression.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone not editing based on sources but on personal opinion or editing on sources and misrepresenting them to push personal opinion will eventually blow up on their own. It's much better to force yourself to stick to articles and reputable secondary sources--I've been reprimanded myself (under the sanctions) in one instance where I let myself be drawn into the fray instead of just leaving well enough alone. (I should add that in that case I believe I was about to reach an understanding with the other party when the administrative action was summarily closed and participants convicted via the everyone arguing is therefore guilty typical admin sentencing. The moral is you risk being convicted by arguing back, particularly if it's by finding someone's block shopping complaints on an admin's talk page and responding there—they will not appreciate your squabble trashing their talk page.) Patience is a virtue. PetersV       TALK 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Latvian name

I created "Latvian name" since I accidentally read a couple pages in a book and found the facts interesting to put them into wikipedia. I'd like you or other Latvian speakers expand it into a normal article. - Altenmann >t 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Since folks do watch my talk, I just wanted to (also, I hope, it's been hectic!) express my thanks here. I've made some updates to the summary, it's a good start and a fascinating topic. PetersV       TALK 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Some admins

After thinking a while, I realized that talking with many admins was actually very helpful. But it matters with whom you are talking. Being an admin is a very difficult job, and many people simply do not fit. Consider an admin who offends people by telling "you are doing nothing for the project" to someone who is not a vandal, or who fuels tensions by telling "you guys obviously hate each other" to people who perhaps do not like each other but suppose to come to a consensus. Such a poor psychologist can not do administrative work. Do not ever ask an advice from such admin; do not ever talk with him; this will only make things worse, as he will create conflicts (including interventions into disputed articles) instead of resolving them.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that wherever there have been long-standing disputes—I've been asking for years for the evidence supporting the Duma's declaration Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law—that a light hand is better than a heavy hand when it comes to admin involvement, and there it should only deal with editorial behavior. 99.999% of Wikipedia's conflict issues would be solved if anyone took the time to enforce the rule on reputable scholarly/secondary sources. For example, all I have ever asked is that the pro-Soviet version of history/pro-Soviet honor contingent bring reputable secondary sources to the table to make their contentions (while the anti-Soviet contingent is always asked for more sources, and always produces more sources—that would be a pattern, no?). The one good thing is that editors who refuse to use reputable sources or continue to engage in over-the-top WP:OR eventually self-destruct, resorting to incivility, sock-puppets, and other tactics to push their agenda. I still recall Vlad Fedorov's classic "Dear Vecrumba, your ignorance in international law is legendary...." (thread here for anyone watching, look for the text-in-a-box, the conversation also includes our dear Dojarca), such a shame, all that education from Oxford and elsewhere in international law and still nothing, only derision. (Derision is always a barometer that an editor doesn't have anything else to back up their position! Of course, the Duma is now planning to criminalize the use of the word "occupation", that rather proves they don't have the evidence to back up their contentions either.) PetersV       TALK 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of an Estonian saying that goes something like this: ega haridus matsi riku! ('education won't spoil (=change) a boor!'). It's a saying I've recalled more than once outside wiki, too. Miacek (t) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc

Don't want to make a huge deal about this, but there is an effort by a group of editors (usual group acting there, though in fairness they would dispute that) at the Eastern Bloc article that, as a result (with every iteration), dumps any map in the Lede depicting the USSR's SSRs. This includes deleting the Baltic states SSR depictions, which is why I figured that I would drop you a note given this seems to be your historical specialty. I'm not sure how you come out on it, but my main reason for including them is that the article discusses the SSRs, thus it is helpful information, and it is within the EB. The discussion is on the Talk:Eastern Bloc page.

Also, you might want to put the article on your watchlist. Judging from the extensive sourcing and detail of your Talk page comments, you appear very knowledgeable on the region and period, and the article attracts editing attention.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've peeked in on the article a couple of times through it's not been on my watchlist. I'll definitely take a closer look and add it to my watchlist. Thanks! PetersV       TALK 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your idea was powered over by the aforementioned group (no surprise given the Talk page's history), with an attempt to unilaterally change to the "new" map here, here and here. If you're interested, you may want to weigh in on the SRR-depiction/no depiction point (and other 4 issues).Mosedschurte (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Liked your idea of possibly not using any one map in the WP:Lede. Can't believe that I didn't think about that before, as I've created montages for other articles for the WP:Lede. Articles stretching over a period of years, such as World War II, regularly use montages in the Lede. I put one together (from Stalin to the '89 Wall fall) and posted it in the section you started on the Talk page, here. Let me know what you think about it.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I rather liked the montage... it is still worth working into the article along with maps which tell a story better than what's there now. PetersV       TALK 02:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, as well. The maps and montage are both skinny and tall, and both size scale well. They could both easily fit side-by-side to the right of the TOC. I really don't think that it would be hard to come up with agreement on the photos.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance

Hey, seeing as how I'm involved in a slow-going conflict on the Russian wiki pages about your favorite topic, I was wondering if you could be of some assistance. Specifically, I'm looking for a reliable source, preferably online, that describes the violations of constitutions of the three states during the annexation and, more importantly, the evidence of the electoral fraud taking place in all three states. The only condition is that the source should be written by a respectable modern historian (in English) and be as apolitical as possible (ideally, just recounting the events). I was unable to find the source given on the enwiki page, which is why I'm asking. Oh, yeah, and some sources stating that the Baltic states were annexed as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would also be great (I already provided 5, but hey). --Illythr (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The best online is Augusts Rumpeters' here, for your uses however a Baltic source. Hough's "The Annexation of the Baltic States and Its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory" is the best non-Baltic source (and widely cited in other works). Unfortunately, not online yet. Quoting from page 370, re: Molotov-Ribbentrop

For the Soviet Union, this Pact represented a disavowal of the principles underlying every major international agreement it had made since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. If the Baltic States had any illusion of maintaining 'absolute neutrality' they would have been quickly dispelled had they been witnesses to the Ribbentrop – Molotov conversations. By the terms of the protocol all obstacles, save one, had now been removed to make clear the way for final Soviet conquest of the Baltic States.

Quoting from page 373, re: pacts of mutual assistance

Although these pacts of "mutual" assistance were proclaimed by the Soviet Government as agreements between equals, and therefore legal under international law, their lack of legitimacy was clearly demonstrated by the force and intimidation which had been used and the obvious disregard for the free will of the Baltic peoples."

Finally, on the version of history that the masses rose up and overthrew their bourgeoisie masters in a (Tass) "spontaneous uprising of the working people" on June 21, 1940 (quoting another reference, by Swettenham)

The slogans, distributed from the Soviet legations, were precisely identical everywhere. The processions, which nowhere had many participants, were invariably protected by Russian armoured cars and infantry on trucks with machine guns at the ready, following one another at intervals of 100 yards. Soldiers of the Russian engineering forces installed loud speakers and uniformed politruks (political instructors) of the Red Army stood beside the operators on the platform.

You will note that Hough's conclusions regarding lack of legitimacy of the pacts of mutual assistance are no different from Rumpeters', that is, Rumpeters' analysis can be taken as valid despite its Baltic origins. PetersV       TALK 21:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what source you could not find and I'll see what I can do. Responses might be slow during the work week, though. PetersV       TALK 02:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source number 14, and basically any unaffiliated historical sources that states that one was the consequence of the other. --Illythr (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For electoral fraud, look for anything citing the Latvian results were released to the press and published in London prior to the election itself. PetersV       TALK 02:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Palīdzība ar tulkojumu

Sveiki. Tā kā Jums angļu valoda ir dzimtā, vēlējos lūgt, vai Jūs nevarētu kādā brīvā brīdī uzmest aci manis sagatavotajai nodaļai par Ozolnieku novada vēsturi. Angļu valodu saprotu ļoti labi, bet reizēm neveicas ar gramatiku un stilu, tādēļ raksta daļa manā smilšu kastē ir PILNĪGĀ Jūsu rīcībā - izlabojiet pēc saviem ieskatiem, lai mans teksts nav pārāk sauss un primitīvs. Oriģinālais teksts latviešu valodā ir šeit un šeit. Ļoti iespējams, ka uzlabojumi manai angļu valodai ir nepieciešami arī pašā rakstā Ozolnieku novads. Jau iepriekš liels paldies un atvainojos par traucējumu šādā jautājumā.--Riharcc (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Es izlaboju smilškastes rakstu, kad būs bišķiņ vairāk laika, tad izlasīšu WP:LV rakstus pārbaudīt vai vēl kas būtu labojams. Variet pieprasīt izpalīdzību kuŗā katrā laikā! Ar cieņu, Pēters—PetersV       TALK 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Liels paldies - tagad pavisam cita lieta. Nodaļu jau pārvietoju uz rakstu Ozolnieku novads (ja nu gadījumā Jūs vēlāk atcereties vēl kādu sīkumu). Vēl kādu laiciņu piestrādāšu un papildināšu par šo novadu un tad vēlreiz lūgšu Jūsu palīdzību - visu pārskatīt. Ar cieņu, --Riharcc (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ne par ko! :-) PetersV       TALK 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvian SSR

I checked it and you were write right about the date. --Pianist 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not required, I'm used to all levels of English skills. :-) PetersV       TALK 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Threat from User:Viriditas re your signature appearance

Hello, PetersV. We conversed earlier re the Eastern Bloc article -- good idea re a non-map image, but I'm not sure it'll ever go over. Anyway, you'll be surprised to know that you're somehow now participating with me and various other Wikipedia editors you likely don't know (3, 5, 10, who knows how many) in in a conspiracy that is "moving from article to article like a pack of wild wolves. You can stop laughing now. It's User:Viriditas on the page User talk:Hiberniantears, in a conversation in which you had earlier participated.

As a more pressing heads up, this same editor, User:Viriditas, apparently is now claiming that the use of WP:Piped links in your signature is of such import that you "will be dealt with":

---

User:Viriditas: "Also, how do you explain the fact that three of these users, Vecrumba, Digwuren, and Radeksz, intentionally obscure their actual user names, making it difficult to see these relationships?"
User:Viriditas: " The piped links which serve to confuse the actual user name contribute to the confusion. I would not have even noticed the tag teaming if I had not personally visited the user pages, only to discover that the screen names in the signature were different than the registered user names - names that show up in conjunction with your own. This is a serious problem, and it will be dealt with. "

---

Here and here. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Human rights in Estonia

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Human rights in Estonia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Article titles

You have argued that article titles and chapter headings should be called "Allegations of X" instead of just "X", when X is not an universally accepted fact. Do you think the same should be applied to

• Russian influence operations in Estonia or
• Internet operations by Russian secret police?

Both contain only allegations, and the existence of such "operations" is not a generally accepted fact. I'd even dare to say that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" (based on opinions of international human rights organizations) is a lot more generally accepted fact than "Russian influence operations in Estonia" (based on a couple of articles in Estonian media) or "Internet operations by Russian secret police" (based on claims of individual ex-members of FSB and conspiracy theory journalists). I think both of the latter mentioned articles should be renamed to "Allegations of..." Offliner (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names states that "allegation" should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. In the case of your examples Allegations of Russian influence operations in Estonia and Allegations of internet operations by Russian secret police would not be valid since these activities are not necessarily illegal. --Martintg (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So, for example, if I were to find a couple of articles by conspiracy theory journalists and "confessions" by former KAPO agents, I could create Anti-Russian propaganda operations by Estonian secret police? Would that be a good article title? I don't think so. Offliner (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations of ..." titles are generally to be avoided. They're only useful when the article's topic is the allegations; when it is not possible to discuss the actualities in question for some reason. For example, if the Yellow Party alleges that the Blue Party takes bribes every Wednesday, but nobody has been able to support this with evidence, only the allegations can be discussed. If these allegations are notable for some reason, Wikipedia has to deal with them, but since it can't name an article "Weekly bribery by the Blue Party", it's got to be "Allegations of weekly bribery by the Blue Party". In case of FSB Internet operations, we don't discuss the allegations; we discuss the operations themselves. Who knows? Maybe the operations are even legal under Russian law. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Internet operations by Russian secret police. Thus, only the allegations can be discussed, not the fictious "operations." Offliner (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, don't be Jaik about it. Just because you haven't read the Kapo Yearbook doesn't meant it doesn't exist. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How come there is no evidence? A lot of evidence was cited in the article. A Russian SVR officer Tretiakov describes how he personally ordered to conduct such operations (see book Comrade J published by a reputable US author Pete Earley) - and there is no evidence?Biophys (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tretiakov's claims area about as reliable as Litvinenko's claim that FSB organized the Danish cartoon controversy to punish Denmark, or that Putin is a paedophile. Anyone can invent such claims in order to make money from conspiracy theory books. It is not "evidence" until it is investigated by police or a reputable international organization such as Amnesty; it is simply an allegation. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then let me cite it:

Sergei would send an officer to a branch of New York Public Library where he could get access to the Internet without anyone knowing his identity. The officer would post the propaganda on various websites and send it in emails to US publications and broadcasters. Some propaganda would be disguised as educational or scientific reports. ... The studies had been generated at the Center) by Russian experts. The reports would be 99% accurate but would always contain a kernel of disinformation that favored Russian foreign policy. ... "Our goal was to cause dissension and unrest inside the US and anti-American feelings abroad" (from Comrade J by Pete Earley, 2007)

Litvinenko did not organize Danish cartoon controversy, and he did not sleep with Putin. The pedophilia claims came from Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik (both are killed, just as Litvinenko). They also came from Putin himself (the episode with little boy Nikita published everywhere). However, Tretiakov did this himself. This is like Nikolai Patrushev openly admitting that is was him who organized Moscow apartment bombings and explaining how exactly he did it in a book.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot to read in-between... briefly to the original question, my understanding is that "Alleged.." is with regard to unproven-in-court accusations of illegal acts. So, under Estonian law (constitution and legislative acts), discrimination is illegal. Unproven (in court) claims of discrimination are therefore allegations and must be so titled. I'd have to read through the articles mentioned as to whether they involve explicitly illegal activities, although I likely can't claim to know the pertinent laws. I do know the Estonian laws regarding discrimination, the need for "alleged" in titles is fully supported in that case, including job discrimination. PetersV       TALK 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "Universally accepted facts" are exactly the kinds of claims that one cannot make in titling and writing articles. It is not universally accepted, for example, that the earth is round. One cannot make statements in articles based on "commonly known", "universally accepted", etc. PetersV       TALK 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, this "guideline" of "unproven-in-court accusations of illegal acts" was not mentioned at all in the AfD of Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. It seems that it was only picked up later.

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia:

This article is a pure content fork of History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Allegations_of_discrimination and Anti-Russian_sentiment#Baltic_states, containing identical content as those mentioned sections. It is a POV fork created and supported by a number of Russian nationalist editors, as the title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation, and cherry picking of sources and text from the two articles mentioned to support that POV. As can be seen in the following search, this is the only article within Wikipedia prefixed with "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in ....". Martintg (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we have Martintg asserting that the article is a POV fork, because its title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation. By the same logic, should we not delete Russian influence operations in Estonia or Internet operations by Russian secret police as POV forks, because their titles assert such operations as a fact, when they are at most allegations. ?

From Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Discrimination:

Please consider my proposal above for splitting the article into Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian prejudice and discrimination. That (the latter article) would allow you to present your sources without creating the synthesis. No one is tendentiously attempting to suppress information. I hope this helps. PetersV TALK 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, you are suggesting to creating an article "Allegations of anti-Russian prejudice and discrimination." Now you said that "Alleged.." should only be used in articles of unproven-in-court accusations of illegal acts. But how is anti-Russian prejudice illegal?

Something is not right here. It seems that your opinions of what constitutes a suitable article title are inconsistent. Offliner (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was based on past patterns indicating that the article would continue to discuss both anti-Russian sentiment and anti-Russian discrimination (the connection still being a synthesis regarding the major area of contention of the Baltics). The proper solution is Allegations of anti-Russian discrimination, with Russophobia having a section on contemporary anti-Russian sentiment; the last edit in the article which we had for Estonia which only discussed sources specifically referring to "anti-Russian" sentiment with everything else chopped out was reasonable. Thanks for asking for the clarification, the contemporary accounts belong with Russophobia, allegations of discrimination belong on their own, with the title "Allegations of...". When I have a chance to formulate a better proposal, I'll update my suggestion on article talk. PetersV       TALK 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity on Russian POVs

Sveiks! As a budding Lettophile, I've been busy reading articles about Latvia (and the other Baltic states) here at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I've been impressed by your usually well-thought and well-informed opinion exchanges with other editors. I'm especially curious about those editors that defend the Russian official position (no occupation, the Balts wanted to enter the USSR, etc.). I note that, on the Russian Wikipedia, the "official" position is that it's not an occupation (оккупация), but an "adjunction" (присоединение -- is there a better translation for this term? "adjunction" is the only one I could think of, and I don't like it). In case you read Russian, I felt curious about your opinion on that ru.WP article -- it does mention all viewpoints and opinions, but by the choice of its title it does seem to declare that the event in question was not an "occupation". The lead claims that the Russian government position is based on the de facto acceptation of the integrity of USSR borders in the conferences of Yalta and Potsdam, and also in the conference on the integrity of European borders in 1975. It is not clearly endorsing this position, but the title apparently does. Yet there is a lot about Russian aggression in the article itself -- it certainly doesn't read like a piece of pro-Russian propaganda.

What do you think about ru.WP and this article in it? I'm curious about your opinion. --94.210.141.238 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The closest English (in Soviet sources translated by the Soviets into English) is simply "joined".

   As for the claims of recognition, Roosevelt told Stalin the U.S. would not go to war with the Soviet Union over the Baltics, that does not mean "recognition." Most notably the Helsinki accords (1975) are pointed to as recognizing borders. No, they do not. The agreement is worded to ONLY refer to "frontiers," that is, perimeters of control. The agreement was that the West would not invade across those "frontiers." In no way did the Helsinki accords grant either de facto or de jure recognition. The word border is never used.

   The contentions on RU:WP are a hodgepodge—I did machine translate the Russian version some time ago and respond point by point, it pretty much contained every propagandist claim out there. In point of fact, the Russian Duma passed a resolution reminding Latvia it joined legally according to international law, and for that specific reason there cannot be an occupation. Soviet historical sources all claim the Latvians rose up, overthrew the government, then subsequently petitioned to join the Soviet family. I'll be putting more historical sources up on the web later this year. You can always check materials at latvians.com. As I indicated, arguments about the Helsinki accords and all are interesting, but all red herrings given the keystones to official Russian claims:

1. Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, and
2. as such, the current Latvian state is discontinuous with the Latvian state founded in 1918 (meaning, sovereignty was legally and officially ceded to the USSR while Latvia was administratively incorporated).

Hope this helps! PetersV       TALK 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PetersV       TALK 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, can you point out the POV problems in that article again? Seeing as how two users have criticized it for "reflecting the POV of the Commission for Communist crimes" and me for pushing the POV of said commission, it seems to be better off than it was. As for the word "Присоединение", it is ideal for this kind of articles, as it implies neither the "primary actor" (joined/was joined to) nor attaches any kind of moral judgment to the fact. In fact, it implies absolutely nothing and only denotes the fact that a territory became part of another state. This allows for all the existing POVs (was occupied vs joined legally) to be represented fairly below. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it's improved since I last visited, when I have a chance I'll go back and look again. As I have indicated before, "occupied" versus "joined legally" is not a matter of personal opinion. When Putin says that even as a drunken student he knew the Baltics were not occupied, that is an opinion. When the Duma declares that Latvia joined legally according to international law, that is an opinion unless there is corroborating reputable evidence supporting that contention—there is not, none has ever been produced. When scholars on international law confirm that Latvia et al. were occupied in express violation of international law and bilateral and multi-lateral treaties in effect, and clearly spell out all those violations, then it is an occupation fairly represented as such—not a POV. The official Russian position can be presented as such but, again, it must be noted that there is no reputable scholarship on international law that supports the contention "legally under international law."

   WP is not about representing balances of opinion. It is about representing reputably soured historical facts fairly and accurately. One can then separately discuss existing opinions and positions and which have, or do not have, merit based on those reputably sourced historical facts fairly and accurately represented. However, one's opinion of a "version" of history does not make a "version" of history to be represented as equally valid or even factual. So, "joined" as the "mid-point" for balance between "occupied" and "legally" is not appropriate, as it conflates opinions of history with facts and reputable academic representations of history.

   Reductio ad togatum (reducing it to nothing but a conflict of warring opposing nationalistic citizenry) is a regular attempt by those supporting the official Russian position, as that is the only strategy ("it's all about opinion, representation of opinions myst be balanced") which can work in the absence of any historical basis of support. PetersV       TALK 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Peteris, I actually agree with your position -- I don't see how the Russian presence in the Baltic states, given all the historical evidence, can be anything other than an occupation: these countries were clearly forced to enter the USSR. But I was curious about the ru:WP article because (at least in my first, quick reading) it didn't read like a piece of Soviet propaganda -- I (we all) have seen many such pieces of propaganda in the Russian media, and the ru.WP article looked better than that (again in my first reading -- I admit I haven't read it all). I'm curious about it in terms of the general Wikipedia philosophy: has it resulted in a better kind of article after all (Illythr's comment above suggests that it does), or is it an example that even the Wikipedia philosophy will not always work?

Of course, we all have lots of things to do, so if you don't have time to look at that article (and the discussions involved in it), so be it. But I'm curious anyway. Illythr, I'd also be curious about your opinion, both on the topic of occupation of the Balts, and on the accuracy of the ru:WP article, in case you're still following this. --94.210.141.238 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eastern Europe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Offliner (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility and AGF

In case you are not familiar with the recommendations provided by ArbCom in WP:DIGWUREN, I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with them. These may be applied to other users in the future. I am a bit tired of your apparent baiting on talk pages, through incivility, and with constant assumptions of bad faith on many an article I happen to edit and in virtually every content dispute I happen to get involved in. It does no good for the encyclopedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you hold up a mirror to your own actions. I did not start any of this current contentiousness. If you approach articles with less stridency, for example, not contending that only "idiots" could miss something in a source (when that something is not specifically there in name, per talk on the GSE article), I am glad to have a more constructive relationship. The record shows that I have had constructive relationships even with editors paid to push pro-Russian interest propaganda on WP. How you wish our relationship to proceed is up to you, I bear no malice and have long-standing positive relationships with several editors with whose positions I disagree specifically with regard to the Soviet role in wartime and post-war Eastern Europe. I regret your allegation of bad faith on my part and (my perception) this attempt at intimidation. However, I will not allow that perception to color my future participation on articles with you should you choose to be collegial in your editorial conduct. Vecrumba       TALK 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you approach articles with less stridency, for example, not contending that only "idiots" could miss something in a source (when that something is not specifically there in name, per talk on the GSE article)" – the talk for the GSE article doesn't allege that only idiots could miss something that is not specifically there. Perhaps you should read more carefully? Seeing your reaction here, I think I'm done attempting to mend things. Suit yourself. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked at GSE since my last inquiry on talk. (BTW, it had been on my watchlist for a long time since conversations on "reputable sources.") If other editors or I am mistaken, that discussion can take place in a collegial atmosphere, as that is the only one which will build good content. If you wish to reach out, please do so again without leading off with a threatening tone. That is not the way to dialog, as you appear to have discovered, don't point at me as rejecting a good faith attempt on your part.

   I invite you to strike your initial attempt to "mend things" and refactor more positively, no foul, no harm. Vecrumba       TALK 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what I said on talk for GSE shows Biophys unwilling to let go of his POV many times after he had been told without any assumptions of bad faith why his material was not appropriate. In general, I assume good faith at every opportunity. The fact that as a rule you do not do so towards from the get-go whenever some sort of dispute arises (nor, for that matter, did you even begin by assuming a non-combative tone in your statement responding to Jehochman's ArbCom request - where you singled me out for special baiting, including, for whatever special reason, sharing your wonderful dating history ;-)). Having now asked you to stop, I am giving you the choice to either wisely mend your behavior or to keep at it, since genuine cooperation always is a two-way street. Although it's hard to assume from the completely unyielding combativeness of your comments towards me that you are interested implementing it. While I'm more interested in cooperation than Wikibattling, I came here to both reach out and notify you of WP:DIGWUREN. Accept the hint – or accept the warning. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See, there you go with the "wisely". And you felt obligated to mention WP:DIGWUREN again in a clarifying edit. If you wish to reach out, just do it and stop threatening and lecturing me. If that perception on my part is incorrect, please understand I have been threatened and lectured countless times and, in your defense, in far worse expressions of virulent hate-mongering, which yours is clearly not. If my intent were to be "combative" you would know. How I react as a "rule" is only based on your (my perception) general attitude I've seen in the past. Your last GSE response comes across as progress, leave it at that. Don't make me out to be a combatant by my choice. Vecrumba       TALK 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And I ask you, have I threatened you with arbitration enforcement? You should get it by now I abhor such proceedings. I have not commented on anyone's actions in the current ill-advised (my perception) arbitration request that has not commented themselves. I didn't put my name in the pot. Vecrumba       TALK 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put your name "in the pot" either. What are you talking about? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We were both made parties to something without requesting it. It looks like it's closed so time to move on, I trust we are agreed? Vecrumba       TALK 01:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing content disputes onto admin talk pages

I bring content disputes onto admin pages when I find those relevant to user conduct. Of course, you haven't brought up a ton of that yourself: seems we have one standard for the gander, and quite another one for the goose.

Also, I don't find myself especially startled that you don't consider Linden a non-objective source about the Baltics. (Because, you know, he says critical things, so that's only to be expected. You seem to feel the same way about Efraim Zuroff.)

Take it easy.

PasswordUsername (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Deletion" of inserted content is not in and of itself an offense. To point to deletions as having been of intrinsically appropriate content (its deletion being an offense) on admin pages is not appropriate. Do I have two standards? Sorry, only one, that is what contentions by individuals can be corroborated by reputable scholarly sources, and which are not.

   As for your mention of Zuroff, from his standpoint anything "SS" whether Waffen or other brings with it the spectre of Nazism—as it should. I expect no less; moreover, given his leadership position, history demands his policy position be one of zero tolerance. Germany, for example, is lobbying to make display of the swastika illegal across the EU, another example of zero tolerance. This is a problem for Hindus, for example, whose use of the swastika is millennia old and for whom Nazi Germany is just a blip in history. And so, while I respect and applaud "zero tolerance" as a statement of principle, judging something by a "zero tolerance" policy does not always yield the most accurate representation of a situation--hence a need to corroborate based on reputable sources.

   And speaking of Nazism, as for anyone's contentions of the Baltics or Estonia in particular are hotbeds of officially sanctioned (or minimally "turn a blind eye") neo-Nazism or that WWII Nazism is being glorified, I have yet to read any scholarly works which substantiate that—although I have read more than once source on the general rise of "neo-Nazism" which makes interesting, even riveting, reading regarding the Baltics but in which basic historical facts are in error.

   Finally, I don't know why you keep suggesting I'm on the warpath ("take it easy"), I'm not. PētersV       TALK 17:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments re the RfCU

I noticed that you commented on Viriditas' talk page about the Viriditas RfCU. Unfortunately, rather than the WP:Wikihounding letting up, Viriditas continued even more, opening up a new ANI section on both Yachtsman1 and I -- but he/she failed to give any notice of the new section to me. It included the same overt baseless attacks, claiming this was part of a "harrassment" of him/her, when in fact it was at the request of Administrators and editors , such as here, here and here. I'm not sure how to stop the campaign. I have also twice practically begged Viriditas to stop bringing disputes to other pages on Viriditas' Talk page, "here" and here.. This included even my plans to stop editing Human rights in the United States as much. Completely ignored. Both times. He/she just ramped it up on other articles/noticeboards, etc. The whole thing is bizarre.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, diffs to and from you are included in the RfCU comments.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nostalin.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Nostalin.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Nostalin.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nostalin.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nostalin.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Nostalin.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dzīvesvieta

Sveiki, Pēter, vai Jūs lūdzu nevarētu uzmest aci rakstam par mūsu dārgo prezidentu? Tur infokastē sadaļā "residence" kāds lietotājs nepārtraukti bāž iekšā Padomju Savienību, turklāt vēl Latviju ieliekot iekavās un ar maziem burtiem... Vai tas ir normāli? Viņš apgalvo, ka Zatlers dzimis Padomju Savienībā, tādēļ tur jābūt Padomju Savienībai. Es ar vārdu "residence" saprotu valsti, kurā cilvēks ir/bija prezidents. (skat. raksta vēsturi).--Riharcc (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Trauksme atcelta - cilvēks beidzot saprata savu kļūdu :) Atvainojos par traucējumu :)--Riharcc (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nekas! Nesen vairāki meiģināja ierakstīt to pašu par Igaunijas aizsardzības ministru (un tieši ar tādu nodomu par kuŗu Jūs uztraucaties!). Ar cieņu, Pēters. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Bushy Moustache Award

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R80329, Josef Stalin.jpg		The Great Bushy Moustache Award
		(formerly known as the Great Patriotic Stalino Award)
		Comrade, feel honoured when given this distinguished award initiated by our great leader bearing the great bushy moustache. The award is exclusively given to truly committed and loyal partisans of our course - spreading the word of Truth! Our great leader bearing the great bushy moustache is fully aware of your sacrifices - growing a great bushy moustache of your own, becoming a bibliomaniac reciting countless phrases of Truth and finally, almost getting addicted to cheap capitalist Rkatsiteli, Saperavi imitations. Our great leader bearing the great bushy moustache extends his warmest greetings, comrade, and will honour your achievements by ordering a contingent of not so fortunates to dig trenches in the Magadan permafrost. Brotherly greetings, Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Star Trek: Voyager and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

"Useless" Estonia dialog

This is available via history anyway, just keeping it a bit more accessible. This is an archival copy, do not modify, thank you. These diffs([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) provide edit history and comments.

I've noticed that criticism of Estonia's attitude towards nazism (such as the failure to prosecute local nazi war criminals, etc.) tends to get removed from most articles in WP because it allegedly "doesn't belong" in that particular article. So I was thinking, maybe it could be a good idea to create a central article for that kind of stuff. The name could be something like Criticism of Estonia's attitude towards nazism or something (the choice of a name is important, because a bad name could be used as a main argument in an AfD discussion.) I've started working on the outline a bit: User:Offliner/Estonia. This is just a suggestion. What do you think? Offliner (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Offliner, as long as you don't say "ESTONIA" killed Jews, as long as you don't say that Estonians commemorating their Waffen SS who died fighting the Soviets "Nazi glorifiers," et al., please feel free to present factual commentary and make room for factual rebuttal. What you have so far is not objective and not even factual. It is the start of a rant.

   Especially, don't attempt to construct a criticism coatrack contending that criticism of appearances are criticism of fact. That being "Estonian attitudes towards Nazism." What you have so far in no way reflects actual Estonian attitudes either now, during WWII, or before WWII.

   I hope you find this more useful than the inevitable "atta boys" you're going to get from some quarters.

   IMHO, you will not get objective feedback from the owner of this user page, however, that is of course only my personal perception casting no aspersions upon any party here. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Stalin-era the Fascists meant anything Anti-Soviet (for example western Social democrats who supported parliamentarism). And even today some people believe the Fascists are out there. Peltimikko (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't use the term to designate what Stalin meant by it; we use the term to designate what reliable sources use the term for. (And no, "fascist" never meant "anti-Soviet"). I'd think that Resistance veterans would know what they're talking about. [23] PasswordUsername (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I tell you a story: Stalin had a sixtieth birthday on 21 December, 1939. This happened during the Winter War. From the outside of the Soviet Union, Stalin received two only congratulations. The first was received from the leader of the Nazi Germany A. Hitler, and the second congratulation was received from the head of the puppet regime Finnish Democratic Republic (founded by Stalin himself), O.W. Kuusinen. Here we have all Fascists we ever need. Peltimikko (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Even today, official Russia uses "fascist" as its code word for anything anti-Soviet or denigrating the Great Patriotic War in any way (as in forgetting the Soviets attacked Finland and invaded the Baltics long before the GPW). I do admire your being able to state "(And no, "fascist" never meant "anti-Soviet")" with a straight face, however. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bravo!

re: talk at Talk:Communist genocide. Keep up the good work and let me know if there is ever anything I can do to help. Smallbones (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

I think of creating same article for Latvia as I created for Lithuania and will appreciate your help. Are you up to it?--Mikej007 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an great idea. In the case of Latvia, there are German place names for just about everywhere. There are materials that can be found online, for example, a discussion of several aspects Latvian place names which start in "V". VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding transliteration for Russian/other place names in general. Speaking of transliterations, I'm not sure of the value of foreign versions of place names where they are only transliterations, e.g., Рига for Rīga—the other reason I suggest transliterating Cyrillic so it's clear to the English reader. Magocsi, who I've mentioned, uses transliterated Latin for Russian, with trailing apostrophes to indicate softened consonants. That might be worth considering as a more general place name WP standard for clarification of any place names written in Cyrillic (in addition to the original Cyrillic). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget about list of German exonyms for places in Latvia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 06:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Was not on my watchlist. Paldies!! Perhaps we should work out some sort of standard article naming, if not format, for this sort of content across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Make that for Belarus and Poland too.--Mikej007 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! User:Philaweb/List of German exonyms for places in Latvia is even more comprehensive, but please do not edit, it is my own little redirection project. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Story

Why was this (and the following) revert necessary? If you don't have time now to find the required citations, why not allow this section to be removed for now, and work on it in your userspace until such time as it's ready to be restored? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The statements in dispute are all appropriately sourced. I personally disagree with the characterization of WP:OR (as anyone can view the video to confirm the statements of inaccurate charges). However, to insure it's not editors saying something is so (as in, "the sky is not green, it is blue") from personal observation, the best course of action was to tag each instance for a citation providing outside confirmation. There aren't that many editors interested in the Baltic states sphere of topics. The best means of insuring quickly addressing any citation issues, therefore, was to tag the content and give it at least a couple weeks. If October rolls around and the tags have not been addressed, then it's certainly appropriate to delete. In my past experience on Baltic articles, it's quite normal for citation tags to take several months or even longer to be addressed owing to low editor participation. Of course, there's usually less "controversy"—that said, whether there's controversy or not, it doesn't change how to best insure any questioned content is appropriately cited, which is the course I took. Hope this helps—I haven't seen you around this article space before.

   Frankly I'm puzzled by your "was this necessary?" My only involvement in this recent chain of events was to tag each item in response to the request that observations be cited. A small editorial community can't improve content (and there's been no substantiated contention as of yet that the observations regarding false accusations are not valid) when some editors insist on deleting instead of tagging first to request improvement. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moldavian Cyrillic on the Transnistria article

You probably know it but Moldavian (Romanian in Moldova) is written in the Cyrillic alphabet in Transnistria. It would be helpful for anyone passing through Transnistria to know what the Moldavian Cyrillic counterparts are. Putting back the Cyrillic counterparts ...

I also think the Moldavian Cyrillic Wikipedia should be restored. It's not fair to those living in Transnistria. And yes I know that Transnistria is not a real independent state but a de facto one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Orgoglio (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, L'Orgoglio. The only thing that is "not fair" to those living in Transnistira is that:

• historical Cyrillic Romanian, changed to the Latin alphabet (today's Romanian)
• then transliterated into Russian Cyrillic to separate Romanians under the USSR from their brethren (that after Latin Moldovan wasn't working to spread Communism to Romania)
• today continues to be foisted upon the Moldovan Romanians of Transnistria—a territory where they had formed the largest ethnic group
• ... by perpetually reelected for life Russian president with a Russian minister of security whose goons murdered Transnistrians (as testified to by the Russian commander in Transnistria), then blamed the incident on Moldovans, which said president used to declare martial law
• and is portrayed by the PMR regime as the "restoration of Romanian/Moldovan to its roots" (not! wrong Cyrillic).

I would suggest that if you've reinserted Cyrillic Moldovan that you delete it. It is not a real language, is not recognized as such anywhere, except as I've just noted. Please study your history! The only role of Cyrillic Moldovan is the one envisioned by Stalin: the isolation and disenfranchisement of those forced to use it. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hello. In reply to your e-mail, I do not quite understand its purpose. (As noted on my user page, I do not like to use e-mail.) If there is something you would like me to do as an administrator, please tell me so on-wiki. As to the substance of the various content disputes concerning Soviet history, etc., I have no interest in or opinion about them and frankly do not want to have to have one. Best,  Sandstein  19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly was the content of that Email? I'm concerned about stealth-lobbying of admins here. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Vecrumba and his team were doing that, and they probably are. But I think it's inapproriate unless the matter is something really confidential. Offliner (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check my response to Sandstein on their talk. The only part missing is that I mentioned, to make a point, that I've spent (well) over $1,000 to purchase sources otherwise unavailable to dispute (paid) propaganda pushing when I could tell those sources were being somehow misrepresented--as an example of my commitment to representing scholarly sources fairly and reputably. I chose that mode of communication because I did not wish people with a WP stake in Russavia's meltdown (my perception) to respond to my communication with more diatribe. Trust me, if I have anything to say about anyone else, you'll see it because it is going to be in public in big bold underlined letters, not in some Email or lobbying on some admin's talk page looking for a gullible mark. I don't go behind anyone's back if I have issues with someone's conduct. If Sandstein disagrees with my characterization in any way they are free to share my Email with you personally, or even if they don't disagree.

   Lastly, I don't have a "team." I'm just me. I don't sneak behind people's back to solicit admins. If you have an accusation, make it—or perhaps I'm just slow and you did. As I've said to you before, I only judge how editors wish to work together with other editors based on their conduct. How you decide to behave in all of this is totally up to you. If you wish to be Russavia's proxy for making accusations since their topic ban prohibits them from demanding that if they were punished, then I deserve to be punished more, please feel free to see how that goes for you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just for the record, in those very few times I have contacted admins regarding an editor it has been to ask that admin to intervene privately with some friendly advice—when an editor has jumped down the warring mentality rathole, they are more likely to listen to an admin than to someone they may consider to be their opponent. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. With the explanation, I don't think the Email was stealth lobbying. The latter is a real problem, and there have been indications that it's happening all the time (such as Thatcher's complaint about Radeksz & Co. "whining" to him per Email about their sanctions.) About "teams", I think "team" is probably the wrong word. The right word could be something like "block", since it's obvious to anyone who reads trough a couple of AfD discussions, that editors belonging to a certain block are always agreeing with each other. I think you are better than many others, since you do not edit war or make trollish edits. But it would be even better if your behaviour in AfD and content discussion would be less predictable. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Offliner:

• Your commentary on perhaps not "team" but "block" and predictability effectively tags a group of editors you appear to generally disagree with as being a gang of meatpuppets. (I had to look that up the first time I was accused of being one.)
• I am "better than many others"? I am sorry, but "better" than the trollish company you indicate I keep is not a compliment.
• With regard to "predictability": I keep my personal and editorial opinions separate. The former does not require sources, the latter does. When I come across a reputable source that brings new information to light, I adjust my editorial opinion accordingly. Otherwise, there is no reason for me to change my editorial opinion to be "less predictable" from day to day or article to article. The unpredictability you advise me to cultivate would only be proof that my editorial position is based on situations and circumstances and agendas—and not on sources.

And so:

• I see excuses, but not an apology.
• I suppose I should appreciate that you deem me better than most of my trollish brethren.
• I am unlikely to become less predictable, as that would run contrary to consistent editorial behavior based on sources, not circumstances.

Offering a simple apology would have garnered my respect and assumption of good faith. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping into the discussion, just a comment. Offliner, one of main foundations of Wikipedia is good faith, so please, at least try to pretend that you are assuming it. Tymek (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My question was a valid one, so I wish you would WP:AGF as well, or at least pretend that you are doing so. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question, in its manner of leading off with innuendo ("...what exactly..."), was plainly a fishing expedition. Private communication of concern would have been answered directly and honestly. It was your choice to use a billboard, as was the manner in which you used it. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my suspicion may have been correct after all: [24]. Were you a member of this "secret group of plotters" mailing list? Was your Email to Sandstein part of the campaign to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies described by Alex Bakharev? I'm awaiting your answer, and I think Sandstein should give us a description of the Email's contents as well. Offliner (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to copy myself on my Wiki Email to Sandstein. It was prompted by Russavia's use of the Treptower Park article to allege I intentionally misrepresented sources so I could slander Red Army soldiers as "rapists." As I've already told you, I requested that if Sandstein had any questions or issues with my editorial conduct they inform me. I've already stated Sandstein is free to share that Email with you or to state if they disagree with my description of its contents. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please answer my questions? Were you a member of this list? Was your email part of this campaign? Was the sending of the email discussed on the list? Offliner (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that if you refuse to answer my questions, this will only strengthen my suspicion, that you may have something to hide. Offliner (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop pestering him instead? Its not like your "private investigation" here is relevant in any way. If there was some "evil plotting" or whatever, then it will be obviously handled by admins.--Staberinde (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Offliner, you failed to take me at my word on my initial and thorough reply to your original fishing expedition. What I see here (my perspective) is:

"You're lying. Tell me the truth. If you don't respond [and with the truth this time], you'll give me no choice but to believe you're lying."

  I therefore don't see any purpose to my responding to you further on your inquiries about my Email to Sandstein or any other inquiries regarding your suspicions, as it's clear (to me) that any response which does not confirm your suspicions is not acceptable to you. Indeed, as you are a fellow student of math and have surely studied logic and game theory, you will appreciate more than most that there is no response on my part which can be logically shown to satisfy your line of inquiry as being true.

  When you'd like to discuss article content, please visit again. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonian War of Independence

Me and User:Erikupoeg seem to have disagreement, and as there are only 2 of us I figured that getting 3rd opinion would be useful. You are latest 3rd editor to post on that talk page so you seem to be best candidate :) Disagreement is about usage of infobox, especially strengths of different sides Talk:Estonian_War_of_Independence#Strengths_in_Infobox, I personally would remove strengths from infobox completely, but Erikupoeg disagrees and we don't seem to be progressing currently, so I would welcome your opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look in the next day or so and offer some suggestions for coming to a consensus. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil

Re this edit: [25]. I actually really really didn't want to include the link to JHR for the reason you stated in your edit summary, but, since without the link the statement is controversial for the sake of sourcing I decided to put it in. Are there any guidelines on Wiki or suggestions on how to deal with issues such as this one?radek (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the link could be restored if it also included a link to a reputable site putting IHR.ORG in context. Where someone is published is as significant as what is published. (Or, that something is published may not be important as where it is published.)

   IHR.ORG, STORMFRONT.ORG, ZUNDELSITE.ORG all run together as part of the same uber-anti-Zionist, Holocaust denying, et al. stuff. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So...

Any comments on this discussion [26], where you feigned ignorance of any organized editing going on? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't recognize you, PasswordUsername. Perhaps I shall have some system problems and come back as User:Anti-Neo-Stalinist or User:The-Anti-Putin. But alas, I prefer not to skulk about using a secret identity. Is your name really Frank? It's a rhetorical question, of course.

   Thank you for your expressions of concern regarding my editorial conduct. Please rest assured that regarding any statement I have made anywhere on how I came to look at an article or contribute to an article, those statements all stand. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you discussed editors (including myself, it seems) behind their back, but you never thought it fit to point out that there was team gameplay going on when I brought it out in May? Strange reticence from a man of many words, but what is no surprise is the attitude. You were not a member of the secret discussion group at the time? How very upstanding to mock me, on the other hand. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you project that editors would communicate only for the purpose of malfeasance, specifically to discuss editors behind their backs. That speaks to how you see potential off-Wiki communication being of use. My recollection is of mediating heated Ukrainian-Polish conflicts—conversations which would have seen all sides banned on WP but could be worked out in an atmosphere of good faith in private, commenting on news—I recall something recently regarding something new in the Moscow subway rehabilitating Stalin which I saw mentioned nowhere else, counseling temperance in general in all matters, and little mention on my part of editors such as yourself (who apparently consider me an adversary). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am rubber, you're glue... Were you on the mailing list at the time or not? I'd like to have the answer to a simple question. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re [27]: are you saying that you were not involved in discussions about coordinated provokations against certain editors? Offliner (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Was I unclear in my comment there or my response to PasswordUsername above regarding off-Wiki correspondence I have had? Once I've seen the evidence I'll be glad to comment more. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you're pretty unclear (although rather verbose), because 90% of the verbal output is devoted to attacking your opponents' motives and outrages regarding bloody Putin, bloody Satan, bloody Stalin. Check out the simple unanswered question you still haven't replied in answer to. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) It's quite clear Offliner and now you will continue to demand answers based on what you think you know on what you believe you've been told or perhaps even read until I provide you an answer which meets your expectations of my guilt in something, which both of you are apparently eager to relish. I really see no purpose to responding to either of your fishing expeditions as I've got no idea what's in the evidence. As I've indicated, I'll respond when I have something concrete to respond to. I'm quite sure I'll have plenty to say at that point. Stick around. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While it can't be verified as exactly the same as Arbcom, [may be something]. It's out in public, and just like the genie, won't go back in the bottle. For what it's worth, it's utterly disheartening to see the witch hunt that's happening. There's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that something bad was happening, but that case is just ugly. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what I've stated to folks. For example, I don't even remember saying much at all about Russavia, who is being portrayed as the hounded victim. The issue is not that "it" is out. The issue is that I believe "it" was hacked and is not the product of an "attack of conscience"—that would necessitate that the purpose of communicating was truly nefarious. It was not, if it were, I'd certainly not use my personal Email and we would not be here. To the point of hacked, there's nothing to prevent the archive being altered. I expect review will take some time. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for evidence timeline extension/copy of materials

Please see my reply here.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

This message is in regards to the Communist genocide incident that happened a while ago. Now don't get me wrong, I have since moved on from this, and I am just asking you to clarify something, given the recent ArbCom case.

You stated in your email to me a while ago to be wary of offsite lobbying. You and your friends have not engaged in this behavior, have you? Triplestop x3 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never lobbied any admin off-Wiki. I have sent occasional correspondence for an admin to offer friendly advice when there's been a conflict and I believe someone is acting poorly (but in good faith) and could use a word or two--but would not accept it from me based on the current conflict. Moreover, I have always made it clear I was NOT requesting any kind of admin action against the individual. Hope this answers your question sufficiently. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No "coordinated" edits?

• May 21 - User:Mosedschurte [28]
  • RfC vote: 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• May 23 – User:Biophys [29]
  • RfC vote: 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC) supporting Mosedschurte's position
  • Reverts and removes Katrina material supporting Mosedschurte [30]
  • Reverts and removes Katrina material supporting Mosedschurte [31]

• May 25 – User:Radeksz[32]
  • RfC vote .01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) supporting Mosedschurte's position
  • Reverts to Mosedchurte version of disputed POV tag[33][34]

• May 25 – User:Martintg [35]
  • RfC vote: 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) supporting Mosedschurte's position

• May 26 – User:Digwuren[36]

• May 26 – User:Vecrumba[37]
  • RfC vote: 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) supporting Mosedschurte's position

Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: I have no personal Email access at my workplace and I check Email every one or two days owing to PL circumstances. I couldn't Email to coordinate off-Wiki if I wanted to. I explained at length how I arrived at my involvement with you. I have never discussed anything with Mosedschurte having to do with your article ownership issues, either in arriving at that article or in any subsequent participation. But I thank you for the grace with which you have jumped onto the assumption of bad faith bandwagon. Your diffilicious (I can't begin to imagine the endorphine levels your body was producing on its self-righteous high, did it feel good putting it together?) exhibit is classic empirical evidence of the single greatest impediment to editors of divergent viewpoints working together on WP: it only needs one bad apple accusing opponents of bad faith in a dialog of opposing opinions to make the entire dialog go to hell. I thank you for your evidence.

   That said, since you've taken the time to extensively review our edit history together, I would suggest you take this opportunity you've created to consider what I stated in my comments and what edits I made to the article—and why mine might represent an appropriate editorial viewpoint.

   Please feel free to return to discuss content where you and I disagreed and why.

   Just to make it clear, I will be glad to discuss any diff with you in good faith. However, I will not sully myself by jumping down into your wallowing in woe is me the world is arrayed against me bad faith gutter over timing of edits or who they appear to support, as you have a history of accusing anyone and everyone against your editorial position of conspiring against you and acting in bad faith. Unlike you, I won't get an endorphin rush from assembling a compendium of your WP:OWN inspired editor-bashing diatribes, so I will get back to the more pressing matters I have to deal with.

   I have a standing invite out to anyone to mediate content conflicts on my talk page. It's been a while since I've "refreshed" it as there's little conflict I've seen being waged in good faith. You (or anyone else) do please feel free to return to discuss editorial differences in same-said good faith. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More bandwagon

WP:AFG says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."

I would say there is quite enough evidence for us not to assume good faith with you or your pals on the matter of tag teaming. LokiiT (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that "contrary" is in the eyes of the beholder. Once you do not assume good faith, any and all evidence can be taken to be absence of good faith:

• A talks to B = conversation
• Opponent C sees A talk to B = conspiracy (you)

or

• A agrees with B
• Opponent assumes A talked to B and = conspiracy (Viriditas, Human Rights in the U.S.)

I unequivocally stand by my comments to Viriditas. I also stand by my invitation to discuss any edit, any time, any place, in good faith: that is, assume it's MY editorial position, not someone else's, just as in responding to you I would assume, regardless of anyone else's edits or comments supporting your position or the timing thereof, that it is your editorial position you espouse.

   Editorial discussions should be framed by reputable sources and good faith should be measured by fair and accurate representation of those sources. How many people agree or disagree or appear to share opinions is immaterial if you focus the discussion on sources. Every majority starts off as a minority of one. In the end, holding to fair and accurate representation of reputable sources will always win out.

   Please feel free to come discuss content any time. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, on your sock-puppeting, once again, and perhaps this is an English language issue?, Flige is not making a "claim" about Stalin, nor is she making a "claim" about the book. One can "claim" anything. Your wording makes it sound like Flige is some fringe individual making accusations—which is completely not the case here. Either the book DOES indicate Stalin was cruel, successful, and rational or it does not. There's no "claiming" involved. Either the book DOES indicate Stalin's excesses were necessary (and I have seen this argued in Western sources, this is nothing new) and justified, or it does not. Again, no "claiming" involved. If you wish to state Flige is misrepresenting the book, then say so (and present reputable sources which contradict her). If Flige is not misrepresenting the book, there is no need to add content which makes it sound like it's the sole opinion/ accusation/ claim of one person out of everyone on the entire planet. You use weasel-wording to imply there's no credibility to Flige's statement while not actually disputing it. Perhaps it's not an English language issue after all. Removing that it is Flige's representation of the book has nothing to do with (per one of your edit summaries reinserting Flige "claims"...) "representing opinion as fact." Either she's demonstrably misrepresenting the text or representing it accurately. Don't weasel about "claims." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your e-mail (2)

Hello. Please see User talk:Sandstein#Please provide a copy of the email sent to you from Vecrumba. With your permission, which I ask you to note in that thread on my talk page, I will make that e-mail public.  Sandstein  14:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sandstein. I came aross Russavia's per my watchlist, already responded. Apologies that PL is going to limit my Wiki-time the rest of the weekend, this is over morning coffee. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jig is Up

[20090615-0359] puts to rest your claim that you never coordinated edits offwiki. That's a message authored by you talking about how you coordinate edits using the mailing list. It's probably time to stop denying it. I think arbcom should be made aware of this. You are welcome, of course, to apologize like Biophys, but please try to say it like you mean it. He obviously doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Viriditas. I cannot respond to everyone over every allegation being made about everyone. I will say again, that none of my interactions with you were initiated or affected in any way by any off-Wiki discussion—I've already responded to you many times in many places over my involvement with your rabid article ownership issues.

   As for the above-mentioned apology by Biophys—which I had to go looking for—and your response, where I found your your allegations of anti-Semitism, racism, and that the purpose of the list was to bind those of similar beliefs (in context, I take that to mean, all racists), I see no purpose in engaging in dialog with you as you've demonstrated repeatedly that you take any attempt at dialog with you as an invitation for more invective. I've responded to you more than fully on our involvement.

   If you have allegations outside our involvement, there is an appropriate venue for that.

   All this being said, I don't hold any grudge against any editor. Please feel free to come back and discuss any of my article or article talk diffs in good faith, that being defined as fair and accurate representation of reputable sources (i.e., preferably acknowledged in other scholarship as such). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[20090615-0359]. Please respond regarding the content of that message. If you don't, I will be forced to introduce it as evidence. Viriditas (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that this email has already been introduced as evidence by PasswordUsername several days ago. It's probably best to avoid poking Vecrumba here, as it looks more and more like harassment than anything. --Illythr (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Illythr, I was unaware that the evidence had been posted. Unless Vecrumba requires my services, I'll confine my comments about him to the case pages. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Hungarian revolution of 1956

As a recent editor of Hungarian revolution of 1956, I want to make you aware that comments are being solicited on User:Fifelfoo's request to "delist" this article from FA status (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1).

I hope you will have time to add a comment to the discussion. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop spreading propaganda about me like you did on Sandstein's talk page. I do not have an "attack mentality." You may have noticed that apart from presenting my evidence at ArbCom, I have refrained from making accusatory comments about other users. I suggest you do the same. Offliner (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you consult my evidence at the EE mailing list proceedings responding to yours regarding attack content, particularly your presenting actions to balance your attack content as being "edit warring" on my part and the part of others. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidnce MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Manning, thank you for your efforts to keep everything organized, navigable, and on course. In retrospect, given how voluminous every EE related arbitration has been, whether regarding editors or content, subpages probably should have been organized sooner. (!) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct re using subpages sooner. I'm still inexperienced at clerking so I am just stumbling along as best I can. It's been a daunting first case to take on. Regards Manning (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notifying editors

• On 24 September, after posting material about uninvolved user Jimbo Wales on the evidence page, you said: "I make it a practice to notify editors if I mention them in any proceedings." [38]
• On 20 October, you posted serious accusations against admin Alex Bakharev. [39]
• However, no notification of this was to be found on Bakharev's talk page.
• Also, you made serious accusations against Giano (who isn't even a party in the case!) [40]
• However, no notification of any kind is to be found on Giano's talk page.
• What is going on here? Offliner (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Giano and Alex Bakharev are already watching the EEML proceedings through their participation/contribution. There is no need for me to notify participants. Jimbo (I assume he has better things to do) was not, hence the notification.

   As for Giano's "(who isn't even a party in the case!)", his timely arrival and commentary makes him a party to the proceedings. He chose to inject himself, so I am frankly puzzled by your parenthetical exclamation of surprise. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed

our anonymous friend dedicated recently only to making observations regarding the EEML case.

Thats cus I'm a drama-whore. Part of the reason I don't sign in is cus I don't want to give the impression I'm a REAL editor with gobs of contributions and that people should listen to me cus I have some sort of status. Does that make me less important? Could be. But the only baggage I take with me is that I'm just an IP. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I insult you in any manner? Did I accuse you of being a regular editor hiding behind the anonymity of an IP address? Which, as you bring up the possibility, resolves to a VPN subsite (vpn.syncrude.ca) at Syncrude, and so is (very likely) not your actual originating IP address, your passing through another system prior to your accessing the Internet? My only observation regarding your post was to lighten up on prodding. So, as long as you are here, is there a train we're rushing to catch? Do I know you? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I think we are getting off on the wrong foot. I'm sorry, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me of... ok now I'm getting confused. I don't mean any bad intent here. What I said was true, I'm not really doing much contributing and I don't want to claim I am, hence no sign-in. No hidden sub-text, no inference. The reason I responded here was because it was likely inappropriate to chat all personal like on the case pages. I responded to manning my intent about the prodding and I assumed it would answer your train question too. It was one little 'are you still there' prod, and I said that Manning's assurance was good enough for me.

For a specific answer to you about the train. I believe that when people are looking to a group that are in a sort of 'authority' for direction, it is important to ensure that those people understand efforts are continuing. Arbcom may not be beholden to that ideal, but it is good leadership and like it or not they are in a position of leadership on-wiki. A week of silence combined with ongoing argument amongst the participants is not a good situation. I personally see my request as less of a 'hurry up and catch the train' statement and more of a 'the train is still running, right?".

Do you know me? Probably not. I'm just someone with an opinion and an interest. Its difficult to convey emotion across text, but I am in no way attempting to accuse, imply, or insult. I came here to explain myself and I'm sorry for any misunderstanding I may have caused. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you will pardon me if there is little humor in EEML land. I do see (per a wee bit of cross referencing) that you appear to have visited the EE dispute before as an IP alter-ego.

   And, since this is an interest of yours over a longer period of time, you may appreciate the following regarding the building of articles:

1. build content based on a basis which can be verified (in fact);
2. build content based on reliable sources;
3. build content regarding notable subjects.

Q: How do we determine what's verified (hopefully fact, not just that someone made a pronouncement), reliable, and notable?

A: Consensus

And what is consensus built on?

1. built on a basis which can be verified (in fact)? no, verifiability by avoiding the "truth" also sidesteps uninterpreted facts, those also being lumped with "truth";
2. built on reliable sources? no, liars and thieves can be held up as reliable by consensus;
3. built observing notability? no, you will find articles on fringe polemicists long before you'll find biographies of respected scholars.

So, consensus need not observe any standard. As it does not need to observe any standard in determining adherence to standards, standards are useless, as:

1. anyone wishing to build good content by fair and accurate representation of reliable sources already does so;
2. anyone wishing to build attack content has the standards and quoting thereof to pervert into an instrument to serve their selfish purposes,
3. including branding any bloc of opposing consensus as meatpuppetry, cabals, "they all agree so they must collude," et al. as such accusations do not have to pass the gate of verifiability + reliability + notability regarding the center (article) of dispute.

And so, as long as there are standards—as they have been defined and implemented—they will be a tool for those of bad faith to wield their POV. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that reality and ideals rarely match. In truth its something of a minor miracle that Wikipedia hasn't imploded from vandals and POV warriors by now. The state of EE is a lamentable one, but since its defined by real-world conflicts its likely that it will never be settled on-wiki until it is settled in the real world. I suspect that is why it seems that Arbcom is less interested in solving the problem and more interesting in ensuring people play by the rules. How does an encyclopedia report on what is true when no one can agree what is true? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is impenetrable, from a WP standpoint, only as long as editors are permitted to place opinion based on pronouncements and opinion based on facts on equal footing. On the other hand, it's not complicated where the Baltic/EE vs. Official Russia nèe Soviet versions of history are concerned:

1. Let us assume "truth" is taken to be the bit of interpretation one needs to get from fact to narrative
2. Let us assume that person "A"'s "truth" can be traced back to verified facts
3. Let us assume that person "B"'s "truth" cannot be traced back to verified facts, ignores verified facts, etc.

How to represent these (#2 = reputable account, #3 = an opposing opinion) is not a challenge. One does not equally represent the views in an encyclopedia that the moon is made of rock, and, on the other hand, is made of cheese. That my esteemed opposition are, at times, purveyors of moon cheese, is their choice, not mine. (I can hear the howls now.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the dispute tells me that both sides have oodles of 'verifiable' facts backed up by 'reputable' published third parties who are instantly accused of being propaganda mouthpiecies whose statements cannot be traced back to verifiable facts. The oddest discrepancy in the world is that those that strive for truth are slaves to it, but effective liars can control the truth. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the understanding some would like you to have ("both sides..."). Observe the deafening silence to my now years-old request for the basis of the Russian Duma's (not Supreme Soviet's) passage of an edict reminding Latvia that it that it joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law. If true, this would mean no Soviet occupation, of course. No, instead we have endless diatribes on "occupation" sounds bad, the Baltic position is just another POV no more valid than the Official Russian POV, there are "exigencies" under which international law recognizes ex iniuria ius oritur, ad nauseum. Once you poke under the covers, the conflict is not what some would represent it to be. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "defeaning silence"

SECTION BREAK INSERTED

Lol, haven't you ever thought that "deafening silence" is just a consequence of your inability to attempt to understand another side of this story sources impassionately? Otto Lazis, hinself, claimed that Latvia was incorporated, not occupated. http://7days.belta.by/7days_plus.nsf/All/17C0584CDBCF4CEA422570600047B677?OpenDocument. Please try reading over and over again this document: Декларация Народного Сейма Латвии о вхождении Латвии в состав СССР, 21.07.1940 Declaration of People's Sejm of Latvia on incorporation of Latvia into USSR, 27.07.1940. You have just read one article on this issue out of many, and I even know the source where you have learned this Latin phrase. However, this would never defend you point. Cause even that article names it "annexation", and not occupation. And I won't be the first who would convey to you that international law is a thing in progress. This is not Scholasticism. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hello, Vlad. I do have to thank you for my morning entertainment. I'm glad to see we're resuming right where we last left off. You very well know:

• that the election of the "parliament" was staged and results fabricated (detailed results published in London 12 hours in advance, oops);
• that actual voter turnout was a fraction of that trumpeted (oops), from press reporters on the ground;
• that the change in territorial status was unconstitutional, having avoided a plebiscite which was still required by the constitution which was still in effect as even the Soviet position requires that Latvia was still sovereign, it was only Soviet might which had been restored, ousting the fascists;

not to mention

• the initial "pacts of mutual assistance" being entered into under duress;
• the subsequent invasion violating "no impact on sovereignty" clauses of said pacts; not to mention
• the Soviets violating prior treaties which stated there was no exigency under which one party may invade the other.

The document you cite is an abject fraud perpetrated by the Soviet Union, acknowledged as such by all except you and others who (and thank you for providing the clarity here) support the Soviet and now Official Russia "version" (quotes, as it is a fabrication) of history. Third party—that is, non-Baltic, non-Soviet, non-Official Russia—analyses of international law specifically with regard to the Baltic states and their "incorporation" into the Soviet Union all bear out my recounting of events: illegal acts resulting in occupation.
   As for your quoting "Latsis himself", his being positioned as a "liberal voice" notwithstanding, "incorporated" per the Soviet version does not rule out "occupied". After all, Latsis was First Deputy Editor-in Chief of the journal "Kommunist (USSR)", what else would you expect him to say?
   So, with regard to Latvia joining the Soviet Union legally according to international law:

• in keeping with Soviet law? yes, amended to accept petitions;
• in keeping with Latvian law? no, staged elections with forged results, unconstitutional petition to join USSR per the USSR's own position said petition was undertaken by a sovereign Latvia, et al.;
• in keeping with international treaties signed prior? no, USSR violated multiple treaties.

Oh well, at least you quoted a Soviet document and Latvian (in name only, born and educated in the Soviet Union) communist journalist. I look forward to your next installment. In the meantime, I regret that the "deafening silence" regarding my request for any reputable (apologies if that was not clear) evidence backing the Russian Duma's declaration remains unbroken.

Oh, and I'd be interested to know from where you've surmised I obtained the expression "deafening silence." I didn't borrow it from any article that I can recall reading.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba! A graduate from my alma mater, named Albert, asserted that "Everything [in this world] is relative". Remembering his poetry under glass on the wall in Middle Common Room of Christ Church college, I tell you:

Regardless of whether it was "fabricated" or disliked by you personally, etc. or not, it is a history and should be given related credit. Regardless whether Lazis is disliked, censored by your person or not, he should be given a credit because he is a Latvian famous and recognized public figure. But please, don't be upset with Lazis, 'cause the same situation is in Lithuania where former Lithuanian communist # 1, Brazauskas, became president of modern independent and democratic Lithuania, denounces Russian occupants, etc. What you wouldn't make for money and votes in the end? You are nations with little or no independent history and you have to live with that unfortunately. But by intentionally hiding, whitewashing, reverting your small history, you create POV and, ultimately, you just take the place of bolsheviks, although with different polarity. Remember the fairy tale about the dragon and the warrior who defeats the dragon, but who becomes the dragon himself. Your long diatribe (philipic) just proves my cause. I don't know what vaccine you need against your inborn POV. The matter of fact is tha you have no right to rewrite the history. Unfortunately.

You may consider your "deafening silence" to be unbroken forever. It's just your personal opinion (nicknamed original research and fringe theory there) which matters nothing in the reality. Cheers. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the 'arguments' presented in your newspaper source are no better than the inventions you and your fellow tarvellers have been advancing for years here on wikipedia. You take Number 5 for example: Все жители Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии получили такие же права, как и жители Советского Союза! Поэтому речь может идти об инкорпорации или о советизации, но не об оккупации. - All residents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia got the same rights as the residents of the Soviet Union! Therefore, there can only be talk about incorporation, but not about occupation. Ingenious! Quite like the argument of Baltic states having their representatives in the Supreme Soviet rubber stamp parliament in Moscow, just like Kazakh SSR, therefore there must not have been any occupation: [41], [42]. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) To Vlad... Latsis a famous Latvian? Famous communist journalist with a Latvian name, perhaps. The Latvians had a name for imported-in-name only Latvians, one I won't repeat in polite company here. (It's rather telling that there is not a single Google match for his proper name in Latvian, "Atis Latsis.") Your contention regarding "intentionally hiding, whitewashing, reverting your small history..." is, alas, more of the same disparage and insult when one does not have reputable facts to back their position. Speaking of assertions and smallness, Molotov described the Baltic states as "small countries," destined for absorption some sooner some later. Alma mater? It doesn't take an Einstein to determine yours is the bountiful mother-(Official) Russia of Soviet fabrications of history.
   My long "philippic" (spelling!) is hardly a violent denunciation of your position. I did study Cicero's Philippics in the original, but another story. I merely state the facts, per reputable sources in international law regarding the circumstances of the Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic states. I responded to you on a number of points (my apologies if I bored anyone) as those watching in who are new to the so-called conflict of "viewpoints" may not be aware of basic facts. Nor, obviously, since none of it is anything I concocted on my own, is it my personal synthesis or original research. Relating plain and simple and incontestable facts is not "rewriting" history. Nevertheless, I must still compliment you on your audacity regarding your charges I am personally (!) rewriting history, coming from yourself who is is supporting a version of history promulgated by a dead totalitarian regime that rewrote its own history on a regular basis to suit its political needs. Rather reminds me of the story of the Soviet first-grader who, when asked a question in history, asked her teacher back which answer she wanted, the correct answer or the one they were supposed to answer with. (Her parents both lost their jobs for that expression of innocence.) BTW, told to me by those who knew the family in question, so not apocryphal.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba. I have no desire for psychoanalysis of the stories heard by you from someone somewhere in order to evaluate their reliability as sources in Wikipedia. Whatever is your personal relation to the facts, they still are the facts. Oh, and philippics (sorry, it was just keyboard slipping - not internet KGB electricity outage) of Cicero didn't help him. BTW why you use "is" twice in your penultimate sentence? Grammar! Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see neither of us is immune to imperfect keyboarding, cutting, pasting and al. Do consider whether the story of history you hold forth as correct has its basis in plain and simple facts or if it has its basis in Soviet play-acting (presented as "facts").  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You have such gigantic reasons for gladness, my dear Vecrumba. Please consider that I don't use cut and paste and I don't need to look in Cicero articles before writing a response. Hope it would help you. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I have not looked at my Cicero for quite some years. I do have to take one comment back, scholars are "rewriting" Soviet history, if by that you mean setting it straight to reflect facts, not Soviet contentions and stagings. That is a "rewriting" having nothing to do with Baltic POV pushing. Nor is it a "rewriting" having anything to do with "to the detriment of Russia." When you're ready to objectively discuss the difference between portrayals of events and events as they occurred we can continue our conversation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba, realism in International law won't change because of Vecrumba special stand. Wanna bet with me on this? My sincere condolences. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late for jus ex injuria oritur exigencies. You might try reading Hough's work, widely cited in other scholarly works. Nothing I've stated is of my own creation, you only wish others to believe that I'm a conjurer.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Vecrumba. Enemies are all around you, with Malcolm Shaw being the first one. Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy! You are famous. Colchicum (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A comment from this | man? If his opinion is popular? Yawn. It's boring. And his typical comment "you are genetical waiste" just gives lulz. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) As we discussed with regard to exigencies, general, and your maintaining they pertain to precedents for international law leading to recognition of the USSR's annexation of the Baltic States, Shaw does not discuss the Baltic States specifically as an example, that is your WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Sources in international law which DO discuss precedents and international law with specific reference to the USSR's annexation of the Baltic States do not support your synthesis, especially given the circumstances that the USSR signed prior agreements pledging that there was no exigency under which one party could invade the other—not that Latvia would invade the USSR, however tempting.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or do you also get a big "Email new password" button when you first log in? Strange.radek (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

M-m-m? The logon system has no way of checking whether you're registering a new account or want to logon under an existing one (unless you've been IP-blocked, I think). So it's there. --Illythr (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be asking you about resetting your password unless you asked! Time to consider a WP-only Email address in your preferences as a firewall.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about a button, which is always there. Here's the screen. --Illythr (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More coffee!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering

What part of the UK were you in? Munci (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple visits to London on business and pleasure, lots of walking about, lots of pictures, lots of beer. I've been through the airport at Shannon, but I don't count that as visiting the UK. :-)

Wikihounding

I see you just can't stay away from me. Here's your final warning. Do not follow me around. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lighten up. I can't help it if interesting things pop up on my watchlist, you just happened to be there, i.e., I did NOT check to see what YOU were doing so I could BOTHER you. I even agreed with you. (Of course, you were doing your timing is suspicious thing again.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

EEML warning issued

You have been issued with a conduct warning in the EEML case for participating in an inflammatory discussion. Because in my opinion you were provoked I have not issued a case ban, however I remind you that in future please refrain from engaging in heated exchanges in the case discussion pages. If a post is sufficiently offensive, please bring it to the attention of the clerks. Manning (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will insure doing that going forward. Apologies for the display of any siege mentality on my part.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 72 hours for your recent behavior in the Eastern European mailing list case. WP:OUTING applies to all editors, whether they are IPs or long term users, and behavior designed to harass and intimidate will not be tolerated. KnightLago (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification that posting publicly available information per a DNS lookup and stating it might be that employee, an individual, or per clarification, a hacker, is "outing". I am heartened that off-Wiki individuals who participate in calling me a fascist Eurotrash faggot are protected with a swift block (requested by someone whose vituperative rants have apparently been forgiven) while the personal information of EEML members is circulated far and wide on-Wiki and off-Wiki with complete impunity.

   "Harrassment" is someone showing up on Wikipedia, introducing themselves as one of the individuals libeling me (indeed, they added content specific to me at the article in question), and asking why we put up with abuse. Again, that I am the party wronged here does not appear to matter.

   If my intent were to intimidate, I would have noted that ED suggests directly pursuing individuals creating libelous content as part of their terms of service. I merely suggested an act of contrition.

   Please inform me where I can appeal your block.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are free to post an unblock request here. KnightLago (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, Vecrumba, can I just ask, for clarification: did you really use the address information found in the WHOIS lookup and write about them as if they were the personal data of the IP user? LOL, that's a good one. Did you seriously think those were his individual data you were "outing" him with? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vecrumba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was taken aback that someone who has been most recently quite active adding more slanderous material regarding myself in particular, at an article labeling myself and others "fascist Eurotrash faggots," chose to show up and ask why we put up with crap. While my response was somewhat personal — I also noted it was not necessarily that individual, whom I did not threaten in any way. Reproducing freely publicly available information available via a simple DNS lookup and search is not "outing". PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether or not the information was accurate, it was still clearly an attempt at outing which could have put the user at risk of real life harm. The fact that the information was freely available elsewhere does not change this. Attempting to intimidate and violate the privacy of users, even IP users, is very serious and I don't see any understanding in your unblock request that what you did was wrong. The fact that that user might have also made inappropriate comments did not give you carte blanche to violate an important policy in that way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom clerk note - although the above block was applied by a clerk for actions that transpired on an ArbCom case page, it is not an "ArbCom block" and can be reviewed by any admin. Manning (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For the ease of review, what is the diff of the conduct for which Vecrumba was blocked?  Sandstein  07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits have been both deleted and oversighted, it seems. It was on the evidence talk page of the EMML Arbcom case. Contact me off-wiki if you want a description of what happened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. In that case an oversighter should review this request. There's no point in others discussing what amounts to hearsay evidence.  Sandstein  07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To Sanstein and others - Just FYI, I did not enact this block, it was enacted by KnightsLago. Manning (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had simplified my initial request while I composed it, which had originally included that in my ire I wished the individual to just get a feeling for what it was to be like to be treated as I had; however, I had also editorialized over the source of the charge of outing and wound up deleting all of that content as emotional. Clearly mine was an emotional response which was inappropriate, for which I do apologize. As this comment was not part of my unblock request and appears after the fact here, no further action is needed. Thank you all for your prompt investigation and response.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

EEML Case ban - One week

ArbCom clerk note - You are being placed under an EEML case ban for repeated improper conduct (including personal attacks) on the EEML case pages. This ban will run concurrently with any other sanctions that may exist. As per standard procedure, during this case ban period no other editor may address you directly or criticise your actions. Manning (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [EXPIRATION: 23:23 16 November 2009 UTC]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos from the Zumbakis reference

Hello Vecrumba - you said that you own the Zumbakis monography and it has photos of the article published in Socialist Legality. I wonder if there is a way to claim those pictures under fair use, as they would be an excellent illustrative material for the article? --Sander Säde 08:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trolling in Runet. Biophys (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Refactor

Please see this. KnightLago (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, you may also wish to avoid using "dear". It can be seen as disingenuous in heated discussions. Thank you for your cooperation. KnightLago (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's in the eyes of the beholder whether I (or anyone else stating "Dear") is doing out of sincerity or denigration. I did try "Hello" and it seemed a bit too cheerful to me. Just to avoid any unseemliness, I'll remove my greeting completely.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Web brigades

If you cannot tolarate "web brigadier", why do I have to tolerate "creator of attack content"? Offliner (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of edit-warring in your evidence. Your choice. I responded by stating I removed your attack content. If you had not presented your evidence alleging I was edit warring, I would have had no need to respond. You chose to post your extensive thoughts on the appropriate punishment for myself and others for our alleged transgressions, I respond with your transgressions. Pursue an adversarial relationship and I will defend myself. Consider a more collegial approach and it will be rewarded in kind.

   Lastly, before these proceedings I had never heard of editor Triplestop. Yet they are more than happy to smear myself and others.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objections to you presenting evidence against me on the evidence page once. What I don't like is how you keep repeating the same accusation over and over again, on several different talk pages. This only inflames the situation and I do not want to participate in such discussions. I presented evidence against you once, but I'm not running around making repetitive accusations (a form of propaganda), trying to stain your reputation. Offliner (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As of a couple of days ago you were still posting accusations regarding EEML members. You certainly have not retracted any of your accusations against me. As I am the one at risk of sanctions while you are not, I have the right to mention aspects of the proceedings as often as I deem necessary while the proceedings are under way. I'll be glad to put these unpleasanties and inflammations behind us when the proceedings are done.

   Of course, that also means that should you retract your accusations of edit warring regarding the removal of what I have (rightfully, I believe) described as your attack content, and retract your extensive musings on appropriate punishments, et al., we can announce a reduction of inflammation by taking your charges and my counter-charges off the plate at the proceedings. Nominating your WP:EEML "article" (making it easy to use the proceedings as an accusation) for deletion would also be taken as a sign of good faith.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Abusive edit

Consider this my apology for your concerns. I will not be so kind as to grant legitimacy to any further harassment from you. Triplestop (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, thank you. Would it not have been simpler (and an act of good faith) to not add the second sentence? I have no argument with you other than you applied a label to me when we both know we have never interacted on content.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5