Misplaced Pages

Hi! Can I ask for help? This is related to the article Occupation of Baltic states. This is an old dispute. In short, the article reflects only one point of view on the status of Baltic republics in the period of 1945-1991. The Baltic states insist they were occupied by the USSR, while Russia considers the republics were part of the USSR an the time. Some sources according their political agenda and country of origin, state the republics were incorporated into the USSR, and some - that they were occupied. But the article reflects only the point of view of the Baltic republics. I've tried to neutralize the article and add refernces, but any my edits were reverted. The article had been under meditation , but the Estonian activists not only did not follow the ruling, but even personally attacked the mediator. So I had given up. But today I see on the main page of the Misplaced Pages the statement that the republics were occupied all over from 1945 to 1991 which contradicts the very definition of occupation in Hague Conventions of 1907. I think that the fact Misplaced Pages is taking sides in such hard political disputes makes harm to Misplaced Pages and undermines its authority.--Dojarca (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look, but it may take me a few days to get fully informed on the topic. It definitely seems as those the scope of the article is too open ended. Regardless of legal status, I don't think treating the Baltic states as just Soviet occupied during the Cold War paints an accurate view. I certainly consider them to have been part of the Soviet Union. That Soviet control was contested is important, but I'm not certain regarding the entire period merely as an occupation is the most appropriate NPOV. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When I tryed to add references and quotes of the different points of view into Occupation of Baltic states, user Digwuren (who later was banned from Misplaced Pages for a year) crated a new article Soviet Occupation denialism and moved all the stuff there to get rid of any opposing points of view in the main article. This article abuot "denialism" has been twice deleted after dicussion: , . The main article is purged of any alternative points of view. I hoped the article will become more neutral over time, but it seem nobody aside Baltic activists is interested in it (or simply quickly pushed out of the article like me).--Dojarca (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read your suggstion here ] and I think it's a great idea. What about something like "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states"? This may include not only the Baltics, but also Ukraine where President Yushchenko created so-called "Museum of Soviet occupation" in Kiev, apparently to create basement for theory that Ukraine was occupied from 1918, and also Georgia, where President Saakashvili also created a museum of Soviet occupation (note that former Estonian president Lennart Meri sergves as an advisor to Saakashvili). They did not move as far as the Baltic states this way though. I think the article can cover the phenomenon completely rather than by parts.--Dojarca (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think an "occupation theory" may be one component of the larger subject. Some countries had greater claims to sovereignty than others, and in most cases the claims pre-date the Soviet Union since the lands in question were part of the Russian Empire. I think we'll have to look for legitimate, long standing independence movements and treat those individually from contemporary politics that seek to retroactively present the appearance of a unified national spirit of anti-Soviet resistance solely for the purpose of shoring up domestic political support by creating the appearance of a dispute with modern Russia. The Ukrainian example is one example of the purely political assertion of Occupation. The Baltics are a different case, wherein their are more legitimate claims to sovereignty, even though calling the entire period of time an occupation seems to be a stretch. The Baltic situation may have more in common with the Balkan states that originally spun out of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's; integral parts of a legitimate state that angrily parted ways. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the theory of occupation in the Baltic states does not only serve the purpose to present the state under external threat to gain political support. The theory of occupation is the base of their statehood. You know, around 1992 those countries decreed that they now on to be considered successors of the states that ceased to exist in 1940 rather than the Soviet Baltic republics. With this decree they stripped of citizenship and any civil rights all people whose predecessors did not live in the republics before 1940, including those who were born in those states. According the Brezhnev's 1977 constitution all citizens of the USSR had double citizenship: of the USSR and of the respective republics. And now from 30% to 40% of the population of those states were stripped of their citizenship and any civil rights, rights to elect, they were banned from numerous occupations such as firefighters, policemen, medics, chemists and so on. Their status bacame very close to the status of Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s. Special non-citizen("alien") passports were issued for those people. This mass of population of "second grade", still exists in those republics. So if the "theory of occupation" would refuted, they all should gain right to vote and the political landscape would change dramatically and many nationalist politicians would not be re-elected.--Dojarca (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... Let me think on this a bit, as I want to come up with a proposed page move that will be least controversially NPOV. I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors on either side of the issue, but there seems to be a pretty clear NPOV middle ground to work with here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably this may be more neutral, what about something like "Baltic republics status controvercy in 1940-1991"?--Dojarca (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Something along those lines will work... just need to make it roll of the tongue a bit better. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded to yours on mine. Best regards, PetersV       TALK 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As you appear to be a thoughtful editor, it will save time and space if you read my interview here. It's from some time back, but little has changed since. It deals with a number of topics, including Latvia's relationship with Russia. Unlike the bulk of editors who all combat under their WP:MONIKERS safe from being identified, I have nothing to hide. PetersV       TALK 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And I assume you have read my user page regarding POVs--except for removing the mention of editors, it's a verbatim copy from one of an endless stream of "it's equally valid POVs" and "it's a content dispute" arbitrations. And I do have to congratulate Dojarca on his change in tactics to preemptively rope in neutral but receptive editors rather than himself being the source of the first volley of this latest repetition of the past. PetersV       TALK 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the occupied/not occupied debate here in Misplaced Pages, the interesting thing is that there is no debate to be found in the scholarly literature. Contrast this to the Holodomor and you will find a significant debate within the literature about whether is was man-made or natural and whether it could be considered genocide or not. Russia's position is political, borne out of the desire to avoid any liability for compensation as the legal successor to the USSR, and as a political lever. But there is no scholarship to be found that supports Russia's position. Martintg (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, please, and I can't emphasize this enough, PLEASE read and acknowledge that I agree with the position that there was an occupation. Good grief guys! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Dojarca pops out of the wood work every six months or so to challenge this particular article, sorry you got roped into it. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also do not say that there was no occupation at all, please do not put words in my mouth. I siad it many times. I only say that after the republics were accepted into the USSR, the occupation (if existed), came to the end.--Dojarca (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This view you hold is OR, there is no serious independent source to be found that supports this view. Sure, this is the political view of the Russian government (they have yet to release any kind of analysis to support this view), but how much weight do we attach to it? Iran denies the Holocaust, should we now give equal weight to their viewpoint and claim the Holocaust is the unbalanced work of Jew POV pushers? I think most certainly not. Martintg (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that a country cannot occupy its own territory? Or do you disagree that the Baltics belonged to the USSR? If the former, I think you hold a very fringe view. If the letter then yes, there are numerous sources which agree wiuth you and also there are numerous sources that disagree with you.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm a bit perplexed by your request for sources--as clarified by another editor, "owned" should be substituted for with "controlled", in which case the points make more sense.
   All this has been dredged through before, including the opposition quoting eminent authorities in the field of international law that exigencies often force events in the direction of the international community's de jure recognition of illegal acts--all WP:OR that has been laid to rest. I echo Martintg's sentiments. (And it would take days to read through all the prior arbitrations and the egregious name-calling--not by the Baltic editors--which they contain.) Best regards, PetersV       TALK 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of sources which say the USSR constituted of those lands, not only controlled them. I already gave some of them in the article's talk page.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We hope you'll spend your first night here in a pleasant, relaxing manner. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you to not rehash horses which were dead two fucking years ago, and not troll userpages of people with anti-troll policy. Thank you for your coöperation. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hiberniantears, templating a regular is not considered really appropriate, while edit warring someone's user talk page is consider disruptive. I'm surprised you would engage in such a thing. Martintg (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm actually warning him that I'm about to block him. Let me be crystal clear about that. You're now in line as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The line between sincere warnings and abusive threats is not a fine line. A newbie stumbling with his first warning might be forgiven under the policies of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but you, being an administrator, have no such defence. You've templated me now how many times tonight? Four? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two templates, one revert, and one hand crafted final warning, which I advise you to heed. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated any policies, which means that warnings are inapplicable. Are you threatening to block me for disagreeing with you over the article with dead horses? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disengaging with you in light of the Medcom case I just filed (see the section below). I was threatening to block you for a variety of issues, none of which concern your differences with me at the article in question save the removal of an NPOV template. Since blocking you would reduce the effectiveness of the Medcom case, I rescind my warnings for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And be advised you are on an extremely short leash:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
• Block log

Hiberniantears (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In noticing Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states, and seeing a few of the players involved, I would suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda as this will give you some insight into the opinions of those editors - you'll notice that the community at large (because it included opinions from outside of this area of editing) saw the template for what it was; then look at the usernames of those who voted to keep the attack on other editors, and you will notice that they are the same editors who are involved in Occupation of the Baltic states.

You may also like to take note that an article that I am working on in my userspace had an uninvited editor making changes, which one can see here. Where:

The controversial decision for this recognition saw Australia breaking ranks with the Western countries and joining the majority of countries in recognition.

was changed to:

The controversial unilateral decision by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam acting as minister of foreign affairs, announced in Moscow, saw Australia temporarily break ranks with the Western countries in granting recognition.

Whilst unilateral decision is incorrect (as I didn't realise Australia needs permission to engage in its own foreign policy), and whilst Whitlam wasn't acting as MFA at the time of recognition, and whilst it wasn't announced in Moscow but in Canberra (that's pieces of WP:OR in one sentence), you will note that the section fragment "joining the majority of countries in recognition." was removed completely. And that fragment is a documented fact - the majority of countries did recognise the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, and didn't regard it as an occupation.

Another fact, some 30% of the world's literature is in the Russian language, and hence there is bound to be a heap of writing on this issue, and it can be incorporated into the article, without the permission from the other editors. What certain editors are trying to do is to force the US/EU opinion as being the majority opinion, when that is NOT the case.

The key is what is mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles. That being:

Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

But it seems that these editors are pursuing the same behaviour as they were in the articles relating to that Arbcom, i.e. disallowing other POV to be presented within articles. In relation to that Arbcom, given the similarity between the articles in the Arbcom, and the article above, it may be worth seeking clarification at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification whether Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions which are in place on the Latvian article would by nature also extend to the current article? You may also like to take note of this Arbcom - in particular Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions - it is related to this area of editing (Eastern Europe broadly defined), and the Arbcom has stated:

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Similar behaviour can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Neo-Stalinism_in_21st_century, except that template is worse as it has been used to commit BLP violations, which one can see if one looks at the edit history.

If one looks at the overall picture, instead of simply one single article, one can see this is simply a continuation of treating WP as a battleground, which editors have been warned against at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, in which numerous editors are clearly going against both the letter and the spirit of numerous core policies and possibly numerous Arbcom decisions.

I'll leave that with you to look at, or ignore, but just wanted to raise attention to those things. --Russavia 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow none of the above surprises me. I thought you might be interested in seeing that there are a number of books relating to the Baltics in English as well. This is just the first page of five regarding the general subject of the Baltics at one of the libraries in town here, and it looks like at four of them deal explicitly with the Baltics and the Soviet Union. Right now I'm still in the process of trying to find out just how bloody many portals relating to Christianity there are, but I think that I should have the opportunity to review the volumes in question in the next few days. I hope, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL... Ahh, what did I get myself into? :-) Thanks for the link, I'm taking a look now. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As for required reading, I suggest you first read Hyphen War — and then multiply it by about ten million, to get some grasp of the severity of the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Russavia, if you have an issue with my edits don't troll user talk pages. Whitlam's "unilateral" changes in Australia's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics means that:

• in the role of acting foreign minister, he made that decision solely by himself
• he enacted that decision by himself
• that decision was in no way approved or ratified by any parliamentary action and was absent of any other review or approval.

Don't misinterpret edits and deride them off article. There's no WP:OR, that's all sourcable, including first mention of recognition in Moscow. I tire of your underhanded tactics. You have an issue with my edit? Contact me via WP or in real person, I've got nothing to hide. PetersV       TALK 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Russavia's polemic is representative of the out of context cherry picking exhibited by several editors from the get go. Why Hiberniantears and John Carter both choose to accept the word of Dorjarca, Russavia or Petri Krohn at face value, while taking a skeptical view of what Vecrumba, myself or Digwuren may say is one of the great mysteries. Shrug. Perhaps either John or Hiberniantears could send me a private email to explain it to me. Martintg (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that this contextomy is wilful, not careless. Careless out of context quoting may happen through mistakes in editing, or reading only a single source where there are multiple sources available. Wilful context erasure happens when an editor deliberately picks the sources he likes, discards the rests, and then pretends the rest do not exist. It's often combined with the tactic of red herring. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that Misplaced Pages was a reliable source. Here are some real world reliable sources from outside Wikpedia that is required reading: The

• the European Court of Human Rights The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944-1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941-1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991.

mark

• The Forty-Third Session of the UN Sub-Commission at Google Scholar The Soviet Union itself has condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries.

of a nationalist

• U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship at U.S Department of State From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation, the United States acted with a consistency and a tenacity of which we can all be proud. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.

frenzy of editors

• Country Profiles: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania at UK Foreign Office In 1940-41 it was occupied by the Soviet Union under the provisions of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, by Nazi Germany from 1941-1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944-91. under the Soviet occupation thousands of Latvians were deported to Siberian camps, executed or forced into exile. The UK and most other western countries never recognised de jure the Baltic States' incorporation into the USSR.

is

• EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 1.5.2007 whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies; 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror, at the European Parliament

impossible

• On June 12, 1940 the order for a total military blockade on Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given: according to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) referring to the records in the archive Template:Fi icon Pavel Petrov at Finnish Defence Forces home page to follow page Template:Ru icon documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy</ref>

non-linear

• On June 15 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania. On June 16 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, Latvia Five Years of Dates at Time magazine on Monday, Jun. 24, 1940

threads

• The Virtual Jewish History Tour Estonia The peaceful and active life of the small Jewish community in Estonia came to an abrupt halt in 1940 with the Soviet occupation of Estonia at jewishvirtuallibrary.org

and hyperposting

• The Holocaust in the Baltics There were, at the time of Soviet occupation in 1940, approximately 2000 Estonian Jews. Approximately 5000 Latvian Jews were deported to Siberia during the one year of Soviet occupation. Because of the second occupation of Soviet forces in 1944, many of the issues regarding the Holocaust were never addressed in the Baltics. at University of Washington

from

• The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States Irina Saburova, Russian Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 36-49 An examination of the history of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal.

all sides

• Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States and Their Incorporation into the USSR: Political and Legal Aspects Alex Shtromas, East European Quarterly, 19, September 1985, 289-304, Not available online. An examination of political and legal aspects of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal.

in

• Latvia: The Soviet occupation and incorporation Encyclopedia Britannica, . Discusses Soviet occupation and annexation of Latvia.

a manner

• scholarly sources, before and after 1991.

that is

• Taagepera, Rein (1986). Citizens' Peace Movement in the Soviet Baltic Republics. Journal of Peace Research 23 (2), 183-192.

Soon after, US President Ronald Reagan used a reception for Baltic Americans to comment on Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, stressing that the United States does not legally recognize the Soviet annexation of these states. (p. 189)

• • so con

• Stevenson, John R. (1965) Case Notes. The American Journal of International Law 59 (3), 642-653.

On motions of the Consuls General of the Governments in exile of Latvia and Estonia (joined in by the Attorney General of the State of New York), the court stated that the Government of the United States had never recognized the forceful occupation of Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union or the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. (p. 643)

fusing

• Saburova, Irina (1955) The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States. Russian Review 14.1, 36-49.

that few thir

• Prazmowska, Anita J. (1992). Review of Between Churchill and Stalin: The Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the Origins of the Grand Alliance by Steven Merritt Miner. The English Historical Review 107.424, 769-770.

In particular he sees British willingness to condone the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a gesture which did little to improve Britain's negotiating position, but which encouraged Soviet expansionism. (p. 769)

d

• Lillich, Richard B. (1972). The Anglo-Soviet Claims Agreement of 1968. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 21 (1), 1-14.

parties

Clearly, Great Britain's de facto recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States carried with it no acceptance of the Soviet Union's claim that the Baltic nationalisation law had extraterritorial effects.

could ever be bothered

• Lewis B. E. (1977). Soviet Taboo. Review of Vtoraya Mirovaya Voina, History of the Second World War by B. Liddel Gart (Russian translation). Soviet Studies 29 (4), 603-606.

Stalin's occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia (p. 143) and his designs on Romania and Bulgaria in 1940-41 (p. 145) are similarly deleted, along with quoted private opinion from the German side suggesting Russian willingness to join the Axis in order to extend its influence in this latter region. (p. 604)

to make hea

• Page, Stanley W. (1960). Review of Soviet Policy toward the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1918-1940 by Albert N. Tarulis. The Journal of Modern History 32 (4), 411-412.

The final two-fifths of the book recounts the story of Soviet occupation of the Baltic States in terms of human experience and is by far the most arresting section. (p. 411)

d

• Time Magazine, Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia.

--Martintg (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) s Some more sources for your reading pleasure, enjoy:

• Bruce Parrott, State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia, entire chapter on the subject: Reversing Soviet Military Occupation

or tails of it, le :::t alone bring

• John Ashley Soames Grenville, Bernard Wasserstein, The major international treaties of the twentieth century p.886 : "...A related issue was the continuing Russian military occupation and bases. The Baltic states demanded the withdrawal of all the ex-Soviet troops, numbering at least 100,000".

--Martintg (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)any kind of logical

• resolution to what amounts to little more than a nationalist battleground of such inanity it is hard to express

• • • • • WiTh

only words. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact the article now mostly about Soviet occupation, but its scope as defined in the lead is about both Nazi and Soviet occupations. I think this is made specially to make an impression of that the both occupations were equal. I've tried to move it to Occupation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union but my changes were reverted.--Dojarca (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparing half a century with three years, it's easy to see why most of this topic would involve Soviets. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the both should be in one article?--Dojarca (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is all inconsistent with normal WP procedures. Renaming and protecting an article (which is in fact a unilateral deletion) as a way to enforce your position after failed mediation... I think the article should be unprotected, and the problem should be debated and voted at the article talk page, as suppose to be per WP:Consensus.Biophys (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal had gotten at least three agreements before his move, on fairly valid grounds, so I think that the move is probably both in accord with WP:BOLD and probably most other extant policies and guidelines as well. Objecting parties are of course free to file complaints on noticeboards. I'm not sure that would do much good, but that's just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John, what I agreed to at least was:

1. return the original article to the events of the occupation, full duration, Soviet + Nazi + Soviet
2. create a new article with all the he-said/she-said of the Soviet/Russian contentions of non-occupation, who recognized what, et al., following WWII

In no way did I agree to the split as implemented. PetersV       TALK 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User PetersV proposes to move any alternate points of view into a separate article such as already deleted Soviet occupation denialism and Denial of Soviet occupation. Note that the lettrer was re-created by him immediately after the closing of the deletion discussion which led the admin to protect the name against re-creation: --Dojarca (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, could you please give me any links? Where the splitting has been decided and to which articles? Biophys (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got the idea. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reply! I believe there is nothing wrong with creating new sub-articles. However, this article can be also kept as an "umbrella article". Why not? However, by making a protected redirect this article has been unilaterally deleted without an AfD discussion, which is against the rules. Now about the essence of the problem. I can help, since I am familiar with the issue and many editors here. This is an extremely sensitive subject, and we can only go through by following WP:Consensus. Let' return to a version prior to your move, perhaps protect the article for a week and start some discussion and perhaps voting. This is all standard.Biophys (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, policy and guidelines say that content shouldn't be duplicated in multiple articles, and I do think we want to follow policies and guidelines, right? :) By the way, Hiberniantears, you have mail. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the action by Hiberniantears possibly falls under this ArbCom ruling. This ruling was not about admins, but protection of a redirection page without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same. Now the "opposite side" can request an arbitration enforcement without any further discussion.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added sourced matherial about de jure recognition of the Baltic states by some countries , (the source reads: of the Western countries Sweden, Switzerland the Netherlands and for a short time Australia (1974-Dec.1975) and New Zealand seem to have recognized the incorporation of the Baltic States de jure. But user Digwuren instantly reverted my edit. What shoulsd I do? Initiate a new revert war?--Dojarca (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. He's clearly willing to edit war, and I'll block you both. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Seem" is unencyclopedic when it comes to "de jure". I'm sorry to see you continuing to placate Dojarca's pleas (you'll block Digwuren) as if Dojarca is the innocent party being attacked by rabid nationalists, but you've made your bed. With regards to the Netherlands (one of Dojarca's edits), for example, and this extends to African countries which came into being after WWII as successor states to their colonial status, recognition of the Soviet Union whether by succession or explicitly does not confer de jure recognition on the annexation of the Baltic states. And yes I have sources. I am tired of Dojarca, Russavia, et al. taking content disputes to admins who do not know the subject matter. PetersV       TALK 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Placate? I just pointed out that I would block him for warring on that point. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "clearly willing to edit war", another judgement on what you expect from an editor in a mess of your making. You find conduct unbecoming of editors? Do your admin job after the violation. Don't go around prejudging editors and sharing those prejudices on talk pages. You're a sysop, start behaving like one. PetersV       TALK 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By "clearly willing to edit war" I meant that you were edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This statement by you was flatly false and a ridiculous assumption of bad faith: while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination."

There was absolutely zero "bad faith" about the AfD for "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". As just one example, the entire article purports to begin in 1944, 22 years after they both independently existed and four years after the invasion and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. A historical mistake akin to starting an article on World War II in 1943. This is all explained at length in the AfD.

I was not part of the Talk page discussion and found this morning the incredibly odd unilateral split. After a few clicks I learned that that the split was then shockingly protected by an administrator -- the same person conducting the unilateral split. For merely weighing in with an AfD on "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", I have now been accused of bad faith editing.

I would rather the discussion on these issues come from informed viewpoints and be reached by consensus BEFORE huge changes occur. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is still open to be edited by anyone. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this address the false bad faith accusation? I don't wish to start some bad blood or the like, and I was not part of your argument with editors on the Occupation of the Baltic States page the last few days preceding your unilateral split&protection, but I really think such false accusations should not be thrown around about other editors and that a more informed tone should be taken. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And, in all honesty, policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss changes to new articles before nominating them for deletion. It would have been a sign of good faith on your part had you done so. May I ask why you didn't? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss restructuring of articles into new articles before making unilateral changes. It would have been a sign of good faith on Hiberniantears' part had he done so. May I ask why you don't address a similar question to Hiberniantears? Martintg (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, which evidently you have never bothered to look at, shows that it was discussed. You yourself, as has already been noted, seemed to agree with it. On that basis, considering that you already know that it was discussed, I have to assume that the above question exists solely for purposes of WP:HARASSMENT, and evidently must formally warn you to cease making what you already know are false allegations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are circling your wagons against, and accusing the wrong editors of acting in bad faith. "Discussed" = everything said by any Baltic editor wholly ignored as emotionally charged nationalist clap-trap by uninformed editors including an admin who took unilateral action and then salted the results against change. Your charges of harassment are yet another touchstone that you consider all Baltic editors to be individuals acting in bad faith. PetersV       TALK 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) You might consider dealing less antagonistically with Baltic editors. You seem bent on escalating--"formally warn" when an editor professes good faith? You might consider not pouring gasoline on the fire. PetersV       TALK 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to start some sort of bad blood or tit-for-tat on this issue, and started this topic only because I thought that the one rather pointed accusation of bad faith was non-productive (as well as being just false).

I honestly think that the initial unilateral split and protect was made, not out of bad faith, but because of: (1) a lack of historical knowledge on the subject (discussed on ANI page, I won't blather about it here); (2) not realizing the substantive problems associated with an artificial temporal partition of articles at 1944; and (3) not taking into account that the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be, let's just say highly historically inaccurate, to govern only post-1944 facts.

For the record, I agree that Eastern European articles can become particularly acrimonious (though I'm not sure that it is all because of various Russian, Polish, German, et al. "nationalists" as some charge). And it does cause me to refrain from editing such articles from time-to-time. There are also extremely knowledgeable editors on these topics working on most of the pages.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, and bear in mind that the article need not be constrained to 1944-1991. I think that the article split I created can exist side by side. A treatment of WWII conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis, as well as a history of Soviet claims, and Soviet control over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have backed away from the topic for the time being to allow the community to voice views on my actions, but the article can easily consider events pre-war, just feel free to add them. Think of it more as "Baltic states in the Soviet Union", and if that seems to be a more appropriate title, I will be happy to move the article a week or so down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust you've seen my proposal elsewhere. Your timeline divide is not appropriate; however, in terms of separating content to make it manageable, Occupation of... and Baltic-Soviet relations, along with a list article of de jure, de facto, and non-recognition might work. PetersV       TALK 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Done in good faith or not, it doesn't really matter. The only thing that was achieved with this backing up the "valid Soviet POV" of a single editor -the can of worms that was put to sleep more than a year ago has been opened up again.--Termer (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that quiety without neutrality is good?--Dojarca (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "neutrality" and that espoused by Russavia under the banner that no one is a holder of the truth is a cynical attempt to remove all historical fact as being relevant to the issue of Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Participating editors (including your contributions) have bent over backward to reflect the evolution of Soviet through to current official Russian POV, including the Russian Duma declaration that Latvia (and by extension, all) joined the USSR legally according to international law. Since no basis in fact has ever been produced for that declaration, an article which sticks to historical facts and accurately represents the Soviet->Russian POV without WP:OR as to motives is the most neutral possible. Russavia's demand that the article must contain a list of 200 countries and what they thought is a Red (capital "R") herring. That list is certainly useful and informative, but it ultimately has no bearing, as we have documented statements as to legality and illegality (from both parties and their successors) and treaties between the parties which speak to the legality and illegality of subsequent actions. Those to be examined via reputable scholarly sources as the basis for article narrative. PetersV       TALK 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may not repeat. We already knew that you know the truth.--Dojarca (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, studying is a funny process. It makes you know stuff. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering what you think of possibly adding something to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Clafifications and other requests regarding the Baltic states subject, possibly for an clear extension of the time period of the previous ruling. Oh, and, by the way, with the Mediation rejected, ArbCom is now the only body in a position to address or resolve this matter, at least in so far as I am aware. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If this goes to ArbCom it will not be pretty. I have stonewalled nothing, I have only stated that for the Soviet/Russian POV to be given "equality" and "balance", it must have the same demonstrated basis in verifiable fact. We all know that is quite impossible as it is a POV based on lies and fabrications endlessly repeated for now nearly 70 years. I am quite sorry you've allowed Dojarca and Russavia make this out to be about "valid POV"s and that you continue to escalate this. There's no reason to. Let us get back to editing. The split as currently proposed, regardless of how it came about, will allow for a more thorough exploration of the diplomatic relationship and opposite contentions of occupation and liberation where Dojarca and Russavia are free to contribute (as Dojarca has already contributed in the past). But POVs do not change abrogation of treaties and illegality of actions and how those actions must, based on fact--not opinion, be characterized. PetersV       TALK 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you indicating that moving forward you are OK with the article split? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, before yours above) I realize I'm likely beating a dead horse and you'll next accuse me of harassment. But have you ever stopped to wonder why Russia always speaks of the Baltics being ungrateful for their "liberation" from Nazism—actually, the Soviets suffered more than 300,000 casualties (dead, wounded, MIA) trying to take the last bit of Latvia that held out hoping for independence until the end of the war—and never makes mention that the USSR was the first to invade? Ponder that question before you make more unfounded and unfortunate accusations of bad faith. PetersV       TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, it can wind up being a good solution to split as long as it's not a timeline boundary as you did, but an article of events of the occupations (Soviet /Nazi /Soviet) and an parallel article on the Baltic-Soviet relationship for its full length going back to its inception with Bolshevist Russia. (There's plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth to be had over Brest-Litovsk as well, from the very start--but at least there it actually is about POVs regarding the same thing, the treaty. There's no Baltic POV per se, but there is a "Russian" as in nationalist one.) PetersV       TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My own reasons for caring (Latvian) aside, the Baltics are a truly fascinating topic for anyone interested in international law, as you are. You might also read Attitudes of the Major Soviet Nationalities (Latvian chapter), a MIT study, for more historical background. PetersV       TALK 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make a time specific split. Baltic states and the Soviet Union is a title that I thought was appropriate because it is so general that it neither implies nor enforces any constraints outside of the necessary existence of the Soviet Union. The title does not place greater weight on any of the various POV's. What content was originally in the article is simply what I removed from Occupation of the Baltic states, because all I did was cut and paste it. If there was anything earlier, I would have removed that as well, but there wasn't, and nothing was or is stopping you or anyone else from creating it. Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II also carries no POV since there is no disagreement that the Baltic states were contested territory during World War II. That there are additional views on the duration of occupation can be handily discussed in Baltic states and the Soviet Union, and there are numerous articles (including On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia which is on today's main page) that can be linked to from either article to include all POV's. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're making progress. Certainly there is a disconnect here. If one article, formerly for the whole period, is now only events during WWII, then the rest (split off) is not (therefore after WWII, if not also before). So we have a cleavage in the narrative at the end of WWII per your retitling. Soviets/now Russia say the only occupation during WWII was of the Latvian SSR by Nazi Germany. Therefore, applying "during WWII" does nothing to address the so-called "POV" issue. That "issue" can be "addressed" only if the Russian POV is reflected as "equally valid" which it is not and the article title changed to some milquetoast so as to not offend a POV based on demonstrable and documented lies and fabrication. Nothing to do with alleged Baltic versus Russian POV. So:

• adding "during WWII" does not solve the issue as you believe it does, as the Soviet view is that the only "contested" territory was the occupation by Nazi Germany of the legally according to international law part of the USSR Baltic States
• the issue you are seeking to solve to "carry no POV" (effectively put POV based on lies on par with historical fact, likely not your intention but certainly the end result) requires not referring to the Soviet presence in the Baltics as an "occupation" at any time (except as "opinion") and certainly never in any title having to do with any acts by the USSR within Baltic territory.

So, again, there is a Russian position based on documented lies and fabrication. Then there are documented historical facts, and a position (not uniquely Baltic) based on those facts. The notion that one must average lies and facts to achieve "NPOV" is what you are ultimately suggesting--again, not that it is your intention, but it is the result. Are we making progress? PetersV       TALK 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think where you are running into trouble is getting beyond the lies and fabrication part. The POV isn't entirely based on lies and fabrication. The actual event itself is based on lies and fabrication. Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support. Neither one is right or wrong, and an NPOV treatment of the topic takes them both into account. If the timeline is troublesome, Baltic states and the Soviet Union can just as easily become Baltic states in the Soviet Union so as to allow the article topic to be focused purely on the post war result of what is discussed in Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. In fact, I think that would probably make more sense. The reason I went with Baltic states and the Soviet Union is that Martins suggested it, and I thought it would address any concerns on your part that the article gives more credit in the title to the Soviet POV. If you don't think that the Baltic states were ever in the Soviet Union, then I felt that you would find Baltic states in the Soviet Union to be offensive... thus the more general title that I used. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well we are making progress. "Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." Well that is the problem. The Russian say the moon is made of cheese regardless of the facts. Everyone else says no, see here, we've got moon rocks right here. Your two sentences taken together are an oxymoron. Your first sentence states Soviet presence is illegitimate and can only be an occupation, your second sentence states legitimacy is purely a matter of opinion regardless of circumstances. And so the solution: One article on the illegal occupation, using the word occupation, backed by reputable sources having nothing to do with the derided Baltic nationalist "POV"; a second article discussing history, real and not, and portrayals thereof, called relations or similar, representing all viewpoints and their origin regardless of facts. I fully support documenting the Soviet/Russian positions.

   "Both POVs have credence" is incorrect. Both "POVs" have believers, but only one "POV" has factual credibility. To say both are valid inappropriately posits that one represents history based on emotions only (that is, fact-free) and not based on historical fact. The role of an encyclopedia regaring history is to factually convey events. That can also include conveying emotions around those events, but not that all emotions constitute equally valid (as in factually validated) perspectives of history. PetersV       TALK 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One's emotions are "valid" regardless of their ultimate basis, those emotions are based on one's understanding of the outside world. But we must never confuse such emotional validity with factual validity. I am not saying I am entitled to my emotions and opposing editors are not. I am saying that the article regarding history must be based on facts, and that the article based on the relationship can examine both fact and fabrication and their role in collective memory. PetersV       TALK 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just back up a second and recognize that this isn't about the Soviets saying the moon is made of cheese in spite of American's bringing back moon rocks. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is where I need some help in better understanding your position. How is it not? Position #1 repeated for 70 years is based on fiction, position #2 also repeated for 70 years is based on fact. If there weren't an overwhelming amount of evidence that is the case, one would have to revert to opinion, i.e., speculation. There is, however, no need to speculate, so I'd like to understand your statement better. PetersV       TALK 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." (Hiberniantears)

--"Legitimate incorporation"? Wow, I just read that section above. I'm not being accusatory here of your motives, but instead factual with this description of such a statement: this literally sounds like some sort of fringe statement taken from the pages of an old Hitler or Stalin released war material in 1940 after each of their invasions splitting Poland, Romania and the Baltics per the secret protocols. Not even the few countries (including some pretty radical regimes) that later recognized the Baltics as being part of the Soviet Union just to move on with diplomatic relations have taken that position that I've seen.

--Re "emotional support": Who cares? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia reflecting major legitimate historical sources, not an emotional pillow cushion.

Re: "take the Soviet side" (Hiberniantears)

--This is an encyclopedia citing historical sources. What major reliable historian still takes the position that the invasion and annexation of the Baltic States by either Stalin (Latvian SSR, Estonian SSR and Lithuanian SSR or Hilter (Reichskommissariat Ostland) were "legitimate incorporations". Must we throw out the sources and now change The Holocaust article to "East European ethnicities and Germany" lest one discount the "Nazi side" of sources? I have no problem with an article noting the old Nazi or Soviet positions, but this should in no way govern the actual title of articles when it doesn't reflect the major historical sources.

--I just read this. Again, assuming no bad intentions, you appear to have gotten sucked into action by an editor espousing seriously WP:Fringe viewpoints (perhaps the characterization of modern Russians being like "Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s" should have tipped you off). Your statement to him that "I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors " is more than a bit shocking -- who exactly are these "nationalist editors" opposing the action you "came up with" with this editor? Perhaps more shockingly, this editor suggested the notion of putting the historical sources regarding invasions and annexations into "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states" to which you seriously replied 'Excellent point. I think an 'occupation theory' may be one component of the larger subject."

--I would seriously suggest, as one editor also suggested above, reading major modern historical sources and steering clear of editors' assertions of WP:Fringe material.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

David J. Smith is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He has published extensively in the area of contemporary Baltic history and international relations, with particular reference to issues of nationalism and identity politics.

This is what Smith writes in his book Estonia: Independence and European integration, Published by Routledge, 2001.

• Page xix: "With the exception of states such as Nazi Germany and Sweden, the international community condemned this illegal annexation and never gave legal recognition to the Soviet rule over the Baltic states. This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91."
• Chapter 2 titled: "The Long Second World War: Estonia Under Occupation 1940-91" pp33-64

I don't think David Smith could be considered a "Baltic nationalist" by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly is an expert in his field.

Could you kindly provide a similar independent secondary source to support your claim Soviet incorporation was legitimate and refutes the conclusions of David Smith. --Martintg (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you believe, despite everything I've said (and you have ignored), that I disagree with the illegality of the Soviet aquisition/occupation/conquest/pwning of the Baltic states. My only point all along has been that it did happen, regardless of the legitimacy of it. I'm fairly certain you understand that this is my position, but are deliberately yanking my chain. When you ask me to find a source that refutes your source, it assumes that I'm a party to your content dispute. I'm not, and did not mean to be. Maybe its my fault that I grew up with maps like this. But that is an American map, and you need to understand that my bias, as for most Americans, is anti-Soviet. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you appear to be making certain wrong assumptions about my request. It is simply a request for any sources you may have available that may have motivated your actions. The existence of maps of the Soviet Union with the Baltic states doesn't refute the fact of occupation, no more than the existence of a map of the Großdeutsches Reich refutes the fact that Nazi Germany occupied Czechoslovakia and turned a portion of it into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia within the boundary of the Greater German Reich. Relying on maps alone to form a view is synthesis.

Just to clarify, you do believe, do you not, that the title Occupation of the Baltic states is POV because you believe the view that these states where occupied from 1940 to 1991 is Baltic nationalist POV which needs to be balanced with the Soviet POV, otherwise you wouldn't have moved the article in the first place, right? Now I understand the issues of Cold War propaganda from both sides. But the Cold War ended long ago and Soviet Union is long extinct, authors have had time to reflect and analyze the actions of the Soviet Union and the West during that period. Here we have a post-Cold War book published in 2001 written by a non-nationalist expert in the field, who quite clearly draws the conclusion that the Baltic states (in this particular case Estonia) was in fact occupied from 1940 to 1991.

Now the Soviet Union clearly thought otherwise, but should we give the viewpoint of a defunct state and some Wikipedian like User:Dojarca equal weight to that held by modern post-Cold War academics, necessitating an article move? This is what your article move implied. Now this article move and split was originally Dojarca suggestion, so what I don't understand is why was his lone viewpoint given more weight than the numerous editors opposing the move and split. I certainly didn't support the move and split, but I never opposed the creation of a new article Baltics states and the Soviet Union either. I'm from Australia so I certainly can't be called a "Baltic nationalist". If you are not party to this content dispute (and you certainly listed yourself as a party in the mediation case), what is motivating you to continue to pursue this issue on behalf of Dojarca, opposing the page move back to the original title and perhaps even seeking an extension of sanctions via ArbCom, it seems. What are you actually after here? --Martintg (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your efforts are commendable, but after Hiberniantears admitted himself that he's enforcing a viewpoint from his school age -- when grass was greener and sky was bluer --, I really don't understand why you do this. It's not like he respects reliable sources, so it's obvious that he can't be convinced by presenting sources. It's not like he respects fellow editors, so he'll just make weird stuff up and ascribe it to you. His stonewalling here is merely another episode of the same pattern of administrative abuse we've seen for last week or so and -- you know I don't say it lightly -- the only stable solution is desysopping of the abusive admin. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)