Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 18 September 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupation of the Baltic states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Estonia Top‑importance Occupation of the Baltic states is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latvia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lithuania Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Military history: Baltic states / European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Baltic states military history task force European military history task force German military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupation of the Baltic states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Notice to new editors

PLEASE REVIEW THE ARCHIVES IF YOU ARE VISITING THIS TOPIC FOR THE FIRST TIME. MOST BASIC QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS STATEMENTS OF POSITION BY WESTERN, BALTIC, AND OFFICIAL RUSSIAN SOURCES HAVE BEEN COVERED THERE.

Drawing conclusions from the primary sources is an OR

I have a difficulty finding secondary sources which support the following statements

However, Russia acknowledged Soviet "occupation" of the Baltic states upon joining the Council of Europe. Additionally, when Russia signed a separate treaty with Lithuania, it acknowledged that the 1940 annexation was a violation of Lithuanian sovereignty

The first sentence was based on a primary source a resolution and an opinion of the assembly of the Council. Nowhere it was stated that the resolution was worded by Russia. Is the wording of the correpsonding passages in Russian documents similar? Did the official Russian documents contain the word "occupation"? Are there any secondary RS which support this statement?

Second sentence is supported by another primary source which states

And being convinced that once the Union of Soviet Socialist republics annuls the consequences of the 1940 annexation violating Lithuania’s sovereignty, created will be additional conditions for mutual trust between the High Contracting Parties and their peoples,

Besides being a primary source, it is not clear whether the annexation violated the sovereignty, or some of its consequences did, whether the sovereignty is contemporary (of today's Lithuania) or concurrent with the annexation (Lithuania of 1940).

Again a secondary source would bring some light to these issues, at this moment it clearly an OR based on primary sources, it contradicts a number of other RS, and as such it should not belong to the lede. (Igny (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

I've added a secondary source. --Martin (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence by removing the word "acknowledged" absent in the sources. (Igny (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

voluntarily joined

Not this again: The present Russian government and its state officials continue to maintain that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the Soviet Union after their peoples all carried out socialist revolutions independent of Soviet influence
Never heard or seen any Russian government nor state officials speaking of "socialist revolutions independent of Soviet influence" these days. It seems all this is an opinion of certain Bugajski, Janusz (2004). Much closer to facts seems is the other source simply saying "The Putin administration has stubbornly refused to admit the fact of Soviet occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia following World War II. Nobody other than some extreme nutcake would speak about "socialist revolutions" and "voluntarily joined" in modern times. This is more from the era of pre-perestroika Soviet historiography.
Also, since the lede claims Russia insists that incorporation of the Baltic states gained international de jure recognition by the Helsinki accords it would need to make clear that a number of countries declared by signing the Helsinki accords it means not recognizing the Soviet incorporation of Baltic states de jure--Termer (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Lothar von Richthofen official russian opinion is that (insert prefix here)ation was voluntary.). Again, not true, no serious source claims anything about "voluntary joining" being the "official Russian opinion". The official position if anything is declaration of the Baltic States being a "former legitimate part of the USSR" , it doesn't automatically translate into voluntary of anything. The Russian president at the time Putin by himself has commented comprehensively on the question (in Russian) Putin vs Estonian journalist. This is in line with secondary sources that do not speak about voluntary joining being the "official position".--Termer (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Termer: Official Russian historiography is unchanged from the Soviet version. In that regard, a more rigorous approach regarding sources would be to inquire as to what the Great Russian Encyclopedia (post-Soviet GSE) states in this regard. The spontaneous uprisings of the Baltic peoples (lent friendly assistance) fueled by a desire to reestablish Soviet republics (harkening to the post WWI Bolshevik's ultimately failed attempts) and join the USSR is widely documented. Are there official sources which state the USSR forcibly annexed the Baltics (as opposed to their petitioning to join, i.e., voluntary)? No, just that the MRP in the abstract was not legal, absent of acknowledging the consequence of Soviet occupation—that is, while Nazi Germany and the USSR dividing Eastern Europe was illegal, that did not invalidate the (unrelated) choice of the Baltic peoples to join the USSR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Official Russian historiography generally lines up with the old Soviet version. Pēters has said all that I was going to say. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the mistake is to have "forcibly annexed" contradict with "volutarely joined", like the "official Russian position" could be only one or another. There's clearly more to it. The Russian government has acknowledged the MP pack, at they same time they say a "former legitimate part of the USSR". If I'm getting this correctly, Putin on on the video says the MP pact was in accordance with international law at the time.

If it's a fact that Russian historiography lines up with the old Soviet version, that's another story and should be clearly spelled out so according to available WP:RS. Just that this would have nothing much to do with the "official position" of the Russian government and state officials but the historiography in Russia instead. Please, find a source that confirms this and spell it out.--Termer (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another way I'm reading this Russia may have 2 "official positions", one for the international audience that acknowledges the MP pack just says everything was legal according to international law at the time. Another "official position" for the domestic audience in the form of "official history" basically following the Soviet tradition. But this is just my reading and all the facts in the article should come from WP:RS. But again, I think it's important to see this difference instead of claiming the official Russian position just follows the Soviet tradition, which is not a fact.--Termer (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On page 109 of Janusz Bugajski's book Cold peace: Russia's new imperialism states: "Russian officials persistently claim that the Baltic states entered the USSR voluntarily and legally at the close of World War II and failed to acknowledge that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were under Soviet occupation for fifty years." --Martin (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about. Janusz Bugajski may say so but it contradicts what Putin has said. So Janusz Bugajski's claim is dubious. Unless it can be verified who exactly were those Russian officials who have claimed so?--Termer (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of Putin's position is, when pressed for further acknowledgement of Soviet actions (my paraphrase): "What more do you want? We've acknowledged the MR pact was illegal. We're done here, let's move on." There is no statement regarding Soviet aggression against the Baltic states or the rest of Eastern Europe directly affected by the MR pact. Correct me if I'm wrong. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right PЄTЄRS J V, the point is in no place did Putin claim anything about "voluntarily joining".--Termer (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

here is a quote, and again nothing about voluntarily joining, and this even says it's according to Soviet Historiography: The Baltic states in world politics By Birthe Hansen, Bertel Heurlin

the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Accords incorporating the Baltic states into the Soviet Union were almos unanimously described as an attemtp to move the expected Soviet-German front-line as far from Moscow and Leningrad as possible.

It would be interesting, is there a source out there spelling it clearly out saying the modern Russian history lessons at schools claim the Baltic states joined the USSR voluntarily? I've been looking for it, so far no luck.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well David Mendeloff describes the Russian viewpoint of neither occupying nor annexing the Baltic states. He terms this the "Myth of 1939-1940" which he states as being deeply embedded in Russian historical consciousness. There was another paper which I recall reading which examined how Russia's education system perpetuated this mythical viewpoint, I'll try to find it and post a link here. --Martin (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book that surveys the treatment of Baltic history in Russian textbooks, it may give us an understanding of this complex. --Martin (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

very informative source Martin! Do you want to take your time and integrate this with the article or is it done already?--Termer (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took care of it and made it clear from where this voluntary stuff comes from . Also, I added a new section Reversing Soviet Military Occupation pr Elaine M. Holoboff from Centre for Defence Studies, CDS. University of London. King's College to put the question how long the occupation actually lasted to rest.--Termer (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Military occupation" is one of existing POVs. If you insist on this wording, the improvement of the article is highly unlikely, and the tag will stay forever. I am not sure that is the outcome we all want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I insist on sticking to what WP:RS say, not interpreting the sources which is WP:OR. And this goes no matter if it's about "voluntary joining" in Russian textbooks or "Military occupation" in western scholarly sources.--Termer (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And I insist on sticking to what majority reliable sources say. Since some of them call that "occupation", other describe that as "annexation", or "incorporation", or "absorption". Other sources speak about "annexation that had some traits of occupation", etc. Only small fraction of sources call that "military occupation", and, whereas your edits correctly reflect what this particular sources" says, they do not reflect what all mainstream sources tell about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We been through this, speaking of "occupation", "annexation" "incorporation" or "absorption" is just semantics and I personally don't see anything wrong with adding the word "annexation" to the title. Just that I'm not getting it what's your problem with sources speaking about military occupation? How else were the countries annexed and kept annexed by the Soviet Union unless not by the military occupation?--Termer (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you are engaging in synthesis and you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what NPOV means. The source cited by Termer states in the chapter titled Reversing Soviet Military Occupation: "At the beginning of their independence, the three Baltic states found themselves burdened with approximately 150,000 Soviet troops. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia in its self-defined role as "successor to the Soviet Union" assumed the burden of this occupation and reluctant responsibility for rectifying it", yet you replace his edit with this piece of synthesis with the edit comment "Changed the wording to more neutral. Do you want the POV tag to stay forever?". NPOV isn't rewording sources to remove words you do not like such as "occupation", it is accurately reflecting published POVs. If a small fraction of sources call that "military occupation" it is because only a small fraction of sources actually discuss military aspect as Elaine M. Holoboff from Centre for Defence Studies does, as opposed to the legal or political aspect as other authors do. --Martin (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

POV tag.

Why is it still on this article after all this time when there is no section on the talk page for it? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Now there is a section on it. Are you satisfied now? (Igny (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

No as no reason has been given for the tag being in place, either give one or remove said tag. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for the tag are the same reasons that have been given a thousand times on the talk page in the past. Nothing is yet resolved, and as such the tag stays put until such time as the POV dispute is resolved. Resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. --Russavia 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i.e., the tag stays forever. muahahahahaha! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Either a reason within policy is given or I shall remove the tag, it is not meant to be used as a badge of shame. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re it is not meant to be used as a badge of shame. I can assure you, it is not. (Igny (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

And yet you appear to be incapable of articulating an argument for it`s inclusion? Last chance, give a reason within policy for it`s remaining or I shall remove it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one would be capable of searching the archives of the talk page. Just because an issue has found its way to the archive, does not mean that that issue has been resolved. Having perused the archives myself, I can see exactly where the POV dispute is. Please don't come back off a long block, only to engage in attempted article ownership, and the removal of the POV dispute tag will be seen as disruptive. Discuss the obvious POV problems with the article, and then remove the tag. Not the other way around. --Russavia 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The ownership issues are with the few editors who seem to insist on this badge of shame remaining, I see no reason to search the extensive archives for snippets which you may have posted, either let me know what you think is POV about the article or not, your choice. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors must restate the POV issues for editors who are new to the talk page. TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My choice? I see no need to repost long conversations between other editors, when almost all 12 pages of the talk page archive are related to the very POV problems with this article. If you can't see that, then I am unable to help you. However, if you take the time to read the archives yourself, as is suggested as a matter of courteous editing, you could come back here with your own synopsis of what the dispute entails, and how it can be resolved. Have you thought of doing that? Coming to an article, demanding things from other editors, and threatening disruptive behaviour is not making for a collegial environment. --Russavia 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought read the POV tag rules? And please do not accuse me of being either threatening or disruptive as I do not appreciate it. The rules are quite clear, either state what you feel is POV or not, up to you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up, Russavia. Would it kill you to give the new kid on the block a rundown of what has been going on here? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

He is not new by any means (Igny (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

You seem to forget i was unjustly blocked for the last three months, I had no time to follow any debates before my block. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok to summarize the recent talk archives... I have been insisting on biasedness of the article's title because it lacked reference to the annexation of the Baltic states by Soviet Union. Later Paul Siebert widened the scope of the tag by pointing out that the whole article was biased. It remains biased since then. (Igny (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

The annexation was illegal though right? So how is it POV to exclude that from the title? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Illegality =/= it did not happen. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

That makes no sense, I was mugged, that is illegal, it did happen. Just because something is illegal does not mean it did not happen. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Igny, we all well know you think the article title is biased but you have never told us why. A subsequent move request indicated that there was no concensus for a move. So failing the move, the POV-title tag was replaced with a POV tag. Now you need to explain why you think the article is biased, we can't read your mind. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I sm ok with just a POV-TITLE tag on this article, and I have provided plenty of sources and other evidence why. You can ask Paul why he thinks the POV tag is more warranted for this article. (Igny (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I've reviewed the archive and have not found any evidence that you have provided any sources what so ever, can you provide a diff? Also the only argument that you appear to have made was to offer of a Socratic Method, which you apparently failed to follow through when other editors accept your offer . --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Igny's phantom Socratic Method was just a dinner invitation. He had prepared some fish in tomato sauce, and thought that we should all come over and have a cordial meal with him. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you re-read the archives more closely, you would notice that I made that offer to you and you failed to accept it. So there was nothing to follow through on my part. (Igny (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't own the article, others had accepted your offer, I was busy with real life. But you failed to follow through. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has real life, e.g., I had even less desire than you to waste my time, that argument of yours does not fly. But that is ok, I understand. You just got scared and wanted a way out of a potentially binding conclusion of a debate which was not going to be in favor of your cause. (Igny (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Translation: Igny only wishes to debate so long as it continues a personal feud with Martin, without regard to article improvement or anything so mundane. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if I convinced all editors but Martin, the next RM would still be "no consensus". So what part of "I did not want to waste my time" didn't you understand? If Martin chose to stay out of debate that was his problem, not mine. (Igny (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

The RM failed because you failed to convince a number of uninvolved editors who subsequently opposed the move. You need to formulate and target your argument (supported by sources) to a wider audience rather than personalise this. That means going beyond "I don't like it". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)If there are to actual reasons given for the tags inclusion then it ought be removed, So someone had better give a reason for it being there posthaste The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to repeat one of the reasons once more. There is no word "annexation" in the title. So rephrase your proposal by suggesting a solution without a threat of an edit war. (Igny (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

That was suggested during the RM and rejected, no consensus = default. The default title being Occupation of the Baltic States. Just because you failed to garner a consensus does not give you the right to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely, and the edit warring has been conducted by yourself, I looked at the article history you have edit warred this tag in for months now. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:you have edit warred this tag in for months now. Thank you for reminding me about me reverting sockpuppets and IPSocks for months now. You are right the RM ended with a "no consensus" to move. The default action of keeping the status quo however did not validate the title. But this is not about the title only. This is about the POV tag. Do you see how fast a consensus is forming to remove the tag? I don't. No consensus to remove the tag means no resolution to the dispute. That means the tag stays by default per very same argument you provided here. (Igny (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Default means the last stable version, which is prior to the tag. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No. The tag stays until the dispute is resolved. I meant that default. (Igny (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I`m afraid not, just because you personally feel the title (or article which is it?) does not say that which you want it to stay does not mean you get to keep a tag in place for such an extended period of time, and you have reverted it in against established editors as well as IP`s and some known socks (and did you know they were socks at the time?) The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

against established editors. Thanks for reminding about the EEML too. "Extended period of time" is a rather subjective thing. For some a day might be too long, for others 50 years is nothing. Remember there is no rush, we just have to do it right. (Igny (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Ooooh, EEML! Scaaary! Please, don't try to bolster your argument by slinging old ArbCom mud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:to bolster your argument. Exactly what argument am I trying to bolster here? Oh wait, I am not allowed to defend myself against unfounded accusations by TLAM, is that it? (Igny (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I recall, during the discussion about the article's title we considered two options: (i) to add the word "annexation" to the title and, following the Malksoo's advise, to make an emphasis in the article on the fact that the annexation was illegal and by no means interrupted the continuity of the Baltic states, or (ii) to leave the title unchanged and to make clear in the article that we cannot speak about pure military occupation in that case, because these states were de facto annexed by the USSR, and became the full members of the latter, and this annexation was de facto (although not de jure) recognized by majority of states. I myself supported the second option, expecting that the good faith and common sense would prevail. However, as I can see, that hadn't happened. Therefore, the POV tag is totally warranted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The policy WP:COMMONNAME requires us to use the most common name used across multiple sources such as major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias and scientific journals. So unfortunately that prevents us from using a single source as the basis of choosing a name. That usage was demonstrated during the move request and subsequently all uninvolved participants agreed the current name was sufficient, hence the move request failed. Of course there are many different types of occupation defined in international law. For example Guggenheim defines three types:

1. belligerent occupation sensu stricto, which is what I think you are referring to when you state "pure military occupation"
2. occupation following an armistice, and
3. belligerent occupation sui generis

Now Prof. Mälksoo identifies the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states of the type sui generis, a Annexionsbesetzung, and this is exactly what is described in the first paragraph of the lede, which Igny himself added, so I don't understand why you think nothing was changed since the move request. So the POV tag is wholly unjustified. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

90 per cent of the article discusses annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. And yet there is no "annexation" in the title. Per COMMONNAME policy you cited, annexation should be in the title. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

The article (starting from the first sentence) makes a redundant sreass on the term "military occupation" to describe the event in Baltics, although that is not what many (if not majority) of reliable sources say. In addition, the opinion of Malksoo (espetially the opinion expressed in his e-letter to Jaan) has been misinterpreted by you. The tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, nobody disputes the Baltic states were militarily occupied on 14 June 1940. We have discussed this before. You interpret Mälksoo as saying: the Baltics were miliarily occupied in 1940, then subsequently annexed, however over time this annexation acquired the characteristics of an occupation. You interpretation is flawed, how would an annexation get more characteristics of an occupation over time? Did the olypmic games in 1980 have more occupation characteristics than in 1950 when the Forest Brothers were fighting the Soviet military? Clearly not. What Mälksoo is saying is: the Baltics were miliarily occupied in 1940 then subsequently annexed, but the annexation was illegal so the occupation continued, however over time this occupation acquired the characteristics of an annexation. This interpretation fits with the reality of 1950 and 1980. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malksoo, as well as some other authors, devoted his attention primarily to the state continuity of the Baltic states, and, from that point of view the thesis about occupation provided a legal ground for speaking about uninterrupted continuity. However, since the article is devoted not only to the state continuity issue, it is necessary to stress the fact that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR, and that their status within the USSR was identical to that of other members of this union. There are some additional changes that should be made before we can speak about removal of the tag, and if you are ready for concrete discussion, just let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what additonal changes are required, we already have a section Under Soviet rule 1944–1991, but please list them here. If you want to stress the fact that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR, and that their status within the USSR was identical to that of other members of this union, then we will have to also stress the fact that the Baltic SSRs were regarded as puppet creations imposed by force and opposed by Balts worldwide, and the long history of violent and non-violent resistance to Soviet rule. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul and "no different"—We already know the Soviet version of history, e.g., all "rights" "enjoyed" by other republics and citizens of those republics. The Latvian SSR article is available for content about "de facto" life. De facto does not change that Baltic nationals were deported illegally, that Baltic nationals continued to be illegally conscripted (as they were during war-time) into the armed forces of an occupying power, that Soviet occupation led to "Sovietization" permeating every aspect of personal and professional life, etc., etc., etc. Both "de facto" and "identical" are material only insofar as they underscore the complete displacement of rightful sovereign authorities on Baltic territory by the Soviet Union, i.e., the definition of occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And, once again, the ongoing presence is the occupation, the annexation by the Soviets is merely an act committed as part of that occupation. Annexation does not displace occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of clear equating ("identical") in respect to other Soviet republics? Even under purportedly "equal" status the Baltic states were subjected to further unequal mass deportations and repressions against Baltic citizens. Let's not pretend that "identical" was anything but in word only. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, then the tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not if this viewpoint you are suggesting is unsupported by published reliable sources. We already have the respective republic level SSR articles, so it is not clear to me precisely what changes you are proposing. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I never suggest or advocate the viewpoints that are not supported by reliable sources, and you are perfectly aware of this fact. The sources supporting my viewpoint had been presented during the previous discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please list your concrete suggestions for text changes here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename the article, remove the tag. Further improvement will naturally follow (Igny (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

I would prefer to follow the second way (outlined by me above): to leave the title unchanged but to modify the content. For the beginning, I suggest to modify the first sentence of the lede, which currently tells about military occupation. We need to tell that the Baltic states were forcefully incorporated into the USSR via signing ostensibly mutual assistance treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states with subsequent stationing of the Red Army troops on their territories, followed by the full absorption of these states by the USSR using the mechanism of rigged elections. If this proposal is supported, we can move further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The current first sentence states:

"... refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states .... on 14 June 1940 followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics."

Are you saying the Baltic states were not militarily occupied in June 14? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem weird to anyone else that "or Annexionsbesetzung as described by Lauri Mälksoo" is so prominent in the first sentence of the article as amended by Collect? Is the term Annexionsbesetzung widely used? A cursory Google search finds that it's usage is basically non-existent in English. Undue weight to this term is being given in the lead of the article. And it does nothing to solve the POV problem that is inherent with the article. I can only second the thoughts of other editors who are miffed at why the term "annexation" is not used in the title? And why, when it is implied the term "incorporation" is used, but with the POV "illegal" immediately before it. This is followed by the term "internationally unrecognised constituent republics" - that in itself is a matter of contention. This is only the first sentence, and there are already 3 things I can see wrong with it. This needs to be discussed. Additionally, why is it in the lead there are some 40 references? The lead is supposed to succinctly summarise the article, so references are not required, as the information will be contained within the article itself, and therefore referenced. If information is not within the article itself, the information should not be in the lead at all. --Russavia 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Serious questions require serious responces. If you don't mind, I'll analyse the sentence as whole. It says:

"The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940 followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics."

Is see several problems here. "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940..." Firstly, according to the viewpoint you advocate, "occupation" refers mostly to the state, whereas "annexation" to the event. In this particular case, however, the term refers to the event. However, since this article devoted to the whole period of 1940-91, to start it with the words "The occupation of the Baltic states (in bold) refers to the military occupation ... on June 14. " would be incorrect. Secondly, not all sources agree that these states were annexed "under the auspices of theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact", and, taking into account that Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step, we cannot add these words to the lede (despite the fact that some sources do say that). Thirdly, I do not understand why the word "annexation" was replaced with "incorporation", although the former is very common term in the sources discussing the Baltic states. Fourthly, the words "internationally unrecognised" need to be specified: majority of states did recognize the annexation de facto, and some of them (e.g. Britain) did that explicitly. These are the issues with the first sentence as I see them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you are taking the first part of the sentence out of context of the second part, there is no full stop (or even a comma) after "... on 14 June 1940" but continues on "... followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics.", the beginning of the sentence "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to" relates to both parts of the sentence and the entire paragraph should be considered in the same context. Secondly the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, so obviously it must be brief and succinct. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And now you suggest that the first sentence called annexation of the Baltic states "occupation". There are multiple sources which differentiate between the two (as in "occupation and annexation"), but this is the first time I hear "occupation refers to annexation".(Igny (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I have a feeling that Martin and I started to understand each other, so some possibility of consensus exists. Martin, before we move further, can you tell me if you see anything factually wrong in my 01:24 post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you may be commiting a contextomy. Rather than attempt critique each phrase of the lede out of context, one has to look at the entire paragraph: "The occupation of the Baltic states refers to" (the name of the article being bolded), then follows is the scoping of the article by referring to: the military occupation on June 14 1940, the incorporation into the USSR, the Nazi occupation of 1941, the Soviet re-conquest in 1944 and rule until the restoration of independence in 1991. Admittedly it is rather brief, but remember that this is only suppose to be a summary of the whole article and the subsections are there to give detail. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no contextomy here. The WP:LEDE says "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition" The first sentence looks like such a definition, and therefore is misleading. If we speak about OoBS as a period of time when these states were under foreign dominance then the first sentence should openly tell that. For instance, in a such way:

"Occupation (annexation) of the Baltic states refers to the period of the history (1940-1991) when these states were under foreign (Soviet or German) dominance as the de facto members of the USSR or parts of the Reichskomissariat Ostland, accordingly."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The current lede is quite accurate and encom passing. Your insistence on your precise wording goes well against the principle of WP:CONSENSUS even if it reaches the proverbial "hold my breath until I turn blue" stage. The consensus is now that the lede is neutrally worded, and that is sufficient to remove the tag. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede is according to Baltic historiography; if we add those words, then yes it is accurate. But to call the annexation and incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union illegal is obviously but one POV. Because the other POV is all but ignored. Tsgyankov says it perfectly...

The U.S. support for the Baltic states’ vision of Russia’s role during the Cold War was apparent when the Kremlin invited 50 foreign leaders to come to Moscow on May 9, 2005, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of victory over Fascism. Two Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, refused, viewing the end of the war as the beginning of their occupation by the Soviets. Separating victory over Fascism and the occupation by the Soviets did not turn out to be possible for the small Eastern European nations. Their leaders insisted on their version of history, presenting Russia as unable to relinquish its “imperial ambitions.” The United States exerted additional pressures on Russia, and President Bush, while traveling to the region, strongly condemned the Soviet annexation and occupation of the Baltic republics as a result of World War II. When the Kremlin begged to differ,66 Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, expressed America’s frustration with Russia by telling reporters that the only “true narrative” of World War II is “ours” and what the Russians “don’t like to remember is what they were doing from 1939 to 1941.”67

Now look at this article, whilst remember those words, and the irony is amazing. --Russavia 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, we have opinion such as Sergei Kortunov (Что стоит за мифом о «советской оккупации»), Andrei Tsgyankov, and a whole host of other experts in their fields and academics whose opinions are ignored in the lede. We have only Baltic historiography in the lede, with other POV being totally omitted. Additionally +1; the lede does not summarise the article at all. Take for example:

The Governments of the Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council, have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941–1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944–1991.

None of this is mentioned at all in the article proper. Why is that? The article is an absolute mess, and the POV problems are massive with it. It should now be obvious that the "POV" tag is no badge of shame, but a signal to the absolutely real POV problems existent right here. --Russavia 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the claim of "Baltic historiography" is somewhat undermined by the quote by Daniel Fried, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs stating: "true narrative” of World War II is “ours”", I don't think Daniel Fried is a Balt. Not only the USA, but also the EU explicitly supports the Western view, as do Canada and Australia. That view is also supported by the various independent courts in these western countries, as well virtually unanimous support amongst various Western scholars and historians. It is even found into the definitive reference work published by Oxford University Press The Oxford companion to the Second World War . So please, no more talk of "Baltic historiography", it is "Western historiography"

The Russian viewoint/historiography has coverage in the lede and article. There is no unanimity amongst Russian scholars We have Russian scholars like Professor and Dean of the School of International Relations at St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley who characterises it as an occupation:

"When, in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic governments to sign the Treaties on Bases that allowed Soviet troops onto their territories, Stalin announced that he did not intend to establish Soviet rule in the Baltic states. In reality, he was simply biding his time. By June 1940, the time was ripe. The great powers, shocked by Germany's defeat of France, had their attention focused on Western Europe. No one was able to oppose Soviet policy towards the Baltic states. It is likely that Stalin wanted to occupy the Baltic states and Bessarabia (including Bucovina, which was not mentioned in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) as quickly as possible. It is assumed that he was afraid of the rising power of Germany (nobody in Moscow expected France to fall so quickly) and the possibility that Germany might renegotiate the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact in its favour.

On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.

In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression. The occupation bolstered anti-Soviet public opinion in the USA and United Kingdom - potential Soviet allies in case of German aggression — as well as engendering resistance in the Baltic states themselves. Nationalisation of industry and services, imposition of communist dogmas in cultural life, declining living standards and, most especially, mass deportations all created a backdrop for mass hatred of the Soviet Union, and led some circles to express sympathy for Germany and the Nazi regime. The subsequent guerrilla movement in the Baltic republics after the Second World War created domestic problems for the Soviet Union, using up already limited military and economic resources during the 1940s and 1950s."

The only consistent opposing viewpoint appears is a political viewpoint of the Russian government that claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic states. On the other side we have a Western viewpoint supported by a very large base comprising of political resolutions, court decisions, books and scholarly papers, including Russian scholarship, that agree that occupation occurred. What some editors here appear to be asking for is to give more weight to a minority Russian viewpoint at the expense of the body of Western authorship. That is not how NPOV works. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if the Russian government's viewpoint is minority (which is not the fact, since Russia as legal successor to USSR has far more relation to the matter than Western countries and their scholarship combined), it is highly significant viewpoint, and thus according to NPOV should be decently represented alongside the primary viewpoint. GreyHood 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you haven't answer my question. Does it mean that you agree with Collect, or you just overlooked it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, while Russia may have a direct relationship, so do the Baltic states. Due weight is given according to what has been published in reliable sources. Western scholarship on the matter fills library bookshelves while Russian foreign ministry declarations would fill no more that a single A4 ring binder at best. So this indicates how much weight ought to be attributed to the view of the Russian government, which is already given a generously sized section. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Baltic foreign ministry declarations would also fill no more than a single A4 ring binder at best. But what you are forgetting is Russian scholarship. I see that no Russian scholarship is used on the article at present. I have provided one such source from Sergey Kortunov (unfortunately died last year), a graduate from MGIMO, a Kandidat Nauk in politics, professor and head of the International Relations department of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow (now a national research university). And he writes quite scathingly about the Baltic historiography. And I am able to produce many other high quality, academic sources which provide a much better insight into academic, scholarly opinions from Russia - not political think-thanks as much of western opinion is taken from, but actual academic sources. Would editors like me to provide more? I am sure the RAN would have more publications - i'll see if I can gain access to another database which has many papers, dissertations and books and publications and provide more sources which can be used. --Russavia 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I need to mention about Friedman. The information I quoted is from a book called "Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Andrei Tsygankov, a professor at San Francisco State University (which would count as Western scholarship would it not????????) - and is from a chapter of the book which deals specifically with Baltic historiography and how the Balt lobby and the anti-Russian lobby in Washington work hand in hand, and the American anti-Russian lobby takes Baltic historiography and uses it in their own Russophobic campaigns. And the same goes for much of Europe. --Russavia 12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact you appear to see Russophobia from everyone else might, conversely, mean that it is your POV which is in the minority. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not giving my own personal opinion, it is the opinion of Andrei Tsygankov --- he is one of the most notable scholars in relation to American foreign policy as it directly relates to Russia. So it's not my POV, but the POV of a Western scholar. Cheers. --Russavia 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, that person was born in Russia. And lived in Russia for most of his life. Cheers - you should be more careful is making assertions that he is "Western." Collect (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, 80 percent of the sources, Martin referred to as Western (shelves and shelves of books) are actually Baltic. Whenever I did a search in English language GScholar (an example), most of the English sources which came up have been authored by the Baltic nationals or expatriates.(Igny (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Collect, that is stupid: the source is considered western or eastern not based on the author's birthplace, or even not based on his country of residence, but based on the publication place. The work published by the Oxford University Press is a western source independent of whether the author is an American, Chinese or Japanese. The Tsygankov's "Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy" has been published by Macmillan, and therefore, is a western source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me also point out that your last post just confirms the thesis that you are trying to debunk: namely, that the accusations in Russophobia put forward by Russavia do have some ground.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, the idea is to call the other person's post stupid and that ends the matter? Sheesh Paul -- that sort of ad hominem silliness and inanity ill-serves you entirely. You should, moreover, note that I expanded the claim to the exact quote found in the cite. It is not my, or anyone's, task to "debunk" anything, nor have I tried to "debunk" anything, - but only to give each position proper weight in an article. I would have hoped you understood the Misplaced Pages policies thereon. BTW, the OUP does not say "Western views only are published" last I checked - that assertion by you is "interesting." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with calling a stupid post "stupid": a scholar working for UCSF and whose books are published by Macmillan is a western scholar, and any attempt to characterise him otherwise is either stupidity or racism (or Russophobia). I prefer to think it was just a stupidity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, these types of comments do not encourage a collegiate atmosphere. I think Collect was referring to the proposition put forward that Tsygankov is saying "Russophobia" is behind Western scholarship, which really is no more than a minority viewpoint. As for Igny's assertion that "80 percent of the sources are actually Baltic", a check of the article bibliography confirms that to be false. As for Tsygankov, his stance has been criticised as playing up the "paranoia card" with his tendency to level the charge of "russophobia" at any critic of the present political course in Russia, as Umland states, "much of the more competent criticism of current Russia comes from people who not only know and study, but actually like or even love the Russian people, culture and customs - not to mention the various Russians and half-Russians among the critics". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ReAs for Igny's assertion I have never asserted anything of the sort. I do remember your (of Vecrumba's, it does not matter here) argument for usage of occupation in the title citing Gscholar statistics (or ngrams or something of the sort). I would like to point out to you that significant portion of the English sources which contributed to that statistics were authored by Baltic nationals or expatriates, and thus it weakens your argument of the "pre-dominant Western" support of "occupation" vs. more neutral alternatives. Basically that statistical argument of yours was obviously skewed by the fact that Baltic scholars published more articles in English than the Russian scholars. (Igny (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I think we have all reasons to call Baltic authors "western", because they are Europeans. However, we need to keep in mind that from the point of view of majority of Earth population Russian are western too. In addition, there is not western - non-western division according to our policy. According to our policy and guidelines, English sources are preferred over non-English ones, and academic peer-reviewed sources are preferred over all others. If you use some English scholarly sources, the accusations similar to the Collect's accusation he put forward against Russavia are not in accordance with our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree, Martin. Although collegiate atmosphere assume politeness and respectfullness, it is sometimes necessary and useful to characterize obviously stupid posts as such. To call a scholar working for the Western university and publishing his works in Western publishing houses "not Western" is a tantamount to racism, therefore I preferred to call it "stupidity", which is not a serious accusation: every person can make a stupid post, but only reasonable persons are able to recognise and fix his mistake.

Regarding your arguments about Tsygankov, I found them reasonable, but irrelevant. I admit his vision of Russophobia can be criticised by his peers, however, that does not make his viewpoint not "Western". For instance, the works of another Californian professors, Richard Raaks, whose views are extremely anti-Russian and pro-Baltic (probably due his origin) have also been criticised, however, that is not a reason to call them a "not-Western" scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I suggest to return to something more productive. Yesterday, I proposed a new version of the first sentence of the lede, which could serve as a first step to the consensus. However, you totally ignored it. Could you please comment on this my proposal? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should return to something more productive, given all the other accusations levelled at User:Collect, an observer may think the intent was to drive him off. But let's get back to the core issue here. We appear to be going around in circles, your injection the word "annexation" into the lede appears to imply that you still hold the POV issue to be of "militarily occupied" vs "forcefully annexed". As I stated before, there are a number of forms of military occupation, ranging from sensu strict to sui generis. I also explained before that your usage of "annexation" in this context is misleading. The definition of "annexation" is "de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity", that is why it is perfectly correct to speak of "illegal incorporation" in the lede, since "annexation" = "legal incorporation". Your contention that "under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" is not supported by all sources, pointing to "Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step" is your synthesis, since the source you refer to states expressed initial "disquiet" at the move and implying that this means it wasn't done "under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" is synthesis. Which follows on to the next point of "internationally unrecognised", which I agree is not entirely correct, since Nazi Germany was the first country to internationally recognise the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR via the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement, which somewhat refutes your contention that "Germany was definitely displeased by this Soviet step". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From annexation,

annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies

Given that this exactly what happened and that it was even recognized de jure by a number of states, and given that the term was applied to the event by a number of RS including Malksoo, international organizations and bodies, and given that there is no Russian POV in usage of this neutral term, your argument simply does not hold water. (Igny (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I support this assessment Igny. The article needs to have annexation both in the lead and title IMHO. Annexation doesn't imply one way or the other whether it was recognised/unrecognised/legal/illegal - it definitely needs to be in the lead, and without any qualifiers. --Russavia 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Igny, you forgot to quote the leading sentence of the article annexation: "Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous)." The part you quote is inaccurately cited from Britannica, which actually states: "Annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition." i.e. general recognition is taken as granted. Mälksoo stated that it had to be made clear that it must be qualified as illegal. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Malksoo is this. And its the same with a lot things on both sides of the equation. It is but opinion. Britannica states "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition." Now transplant it to this subject. The formal act is the USSR proclaimed sovereignty over the Baltic states. The annexation was a unilateral act. It was made effective by actual possession. Now, this is where the opinion sets in. There are some who regarded it as legal with recognition, and there are some who regarded it as illegal by withholding recognition. To call it illegal in the lead is POV, because there are others who regarded it as legal. The body of the article is where the for/against POV/opinion (Malksoo included) is placed. We should not be starting the article as it is now. Do you agree with this general approach? --Russavia 01:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate in the sources has never been about legal/illegal (the academic consensus being that it was illegal), but freely joined/forcibly incorporated. The official Russian position is that the SU never annexed anyone, the Baltics freely joined. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the position of the USSR and of Russia (per Duma declaration) is that the Baltics *joined* legally according to international law, that is, it was a voluntary act of the sovereign country of Latvia. (And it was also at the request of the Supreme Soviet of the "sovereign" Soviet Latvian Republic that the Abrene region handed to the Russian republic). The Soviet/Russian position that every act of the Soviet Union was initiated at the request of Latvia (i.e., all acts were legal and not forcible) and supported by the Latvian people.

Subsequently, whether or not the uniformly regarded forcible (and illegal) act was recognized as constituting de jure sovereignty (e.g., Australia/Whitlam, such recognitions subsequently rescinded) is completely different. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you Martin for your responce. Let me point at three facts that you seem to overlook. Firstly, in contrast to what your write, I do not insist on addition of the word "annexation" to the title provided that the article will be made more neutral. Secondly, all discussion of the term "annexation" are made based on post 1949 examples, after the Fourth Geneva Convention applied additional restrictions on this process. Thirdly, let me reproduce again the letter written by Lauri Malksoo in a responce to the Jaan Pärn's request:

"I have been told that a debate has unfolded in wikipedia over whether an article should be entitled "Occupation of the Baltic States" or "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In my opinion, the debate demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of the whole topic. However, I do not think that choosing any of the two titles would result in the 'victory' of any of the political fractions.

In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.

However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States.

Many thanks for your interest and with greetings to all wikipedia editors,

Lauri Mälksoo,

Professor of International Law,

University of Tartu."

It is clear from this letter that the issue that seems to be clear for you is seen as not so unequivocal by the author you cite. I reproduce this letter for two reasons. Firstly, we all believe this author to be a reliable source and are constantly arguing about the interpretation of his words. In connection to that it is useful to keep in mind his explanations that would allow us to interpret his words more adewuately. Secondly, some new people joined the discussion, and they may be unfamiliar with this letter which went to the talk page archives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. It falls directly into what I wrote in my post directly previous to this. We agree that an occupation occurred. We agree that an annexation occurred. The part about it being "illegal" is where the opinion comes in...that it was illegal is opinion, and such opinion in the article needs to be attributed, not stated as undeniable fact. That is how we achieve NPOV. --Russavia 02:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo's letter was related to the title of the article, but it was subsequently determined during the move discussion that article titles are determined by Misplaced Pages policy, like WP:COMMONNAME, which means that we cannot rely upon the opinion of a single source to determine the title. Since we are not discussing a new title, then this letter is moot.

The predominant viewpoint, as shown in the opinions of various governments such as the EU and USA, institutions like the OSCE and PACE, in the court judgements by the ICHR and domestic courts, and reflected in both in the media and general and academic books, reference works and paper encyclopedias, is that the Baltic states were occupied in 1940 and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union, which was disrupted by the German occupation in 1941, where upon the Soviet Union re-occupied these countries in 1944, and which remained effectively under occupation for the duration of a subsequent 12 year guerilla war and beyond.

The minority view, held by the Russian government and some Russian academics (not universally in the Russian academic community), is that the Baltic states freely joined the Soviet Union after inviting Soviet troops onto their territory under the terms of their mutual assistance pacts. Thus their position is that the Soviet Union did not occupy and did not annex the Baltic states at all, but since they joined of their own free will they were legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union,

What is essentially being argued here is counter-opinion that does not exist published sources but is a viewpoint held by a group of Wikipedians which is basically a synthesis of two published viewpoints above. They hold that the Soviet Union did occupy and legally incorporate these states in 1940, thus they were annexed in the classic sense of the word, and thus these states were subsequently legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union. This is synthesis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Cite needed and unreliable source

As per Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#cite_note-85 a citation is needed if possible. I don't know who added the info, but I can't see it in the source. Maybe I am missing it.

However, the source itself is not reliable. It is a working paper, not a peer-reviewed piece of work. It is essentially the brain fart of the author of the piece; if in fact the information is found in his source.

Additionally, the statement itself is a falsity. All international organisations have not "cleared" the Baltic states of discriminating against their Russian-speaking population - on the contrary, many organisations have accused Estonia and Latvia of systematic discrimination. Amongst these are Amnesty, the Council of Europe, the UNHCR, etc. --Russavia 12:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the source published by a reliable source using the Misplaced Pages definition? Misplaced Pages does not require that articles only use "peer-reviewed" articles, by the way - you would have to make a case that the source is not RS. As for what you "know" to be the WP:TRUTH - that is nice - but it is not a valid basis for editing articles. Misplaced Pages says we are to use what is clearly stated in the source. Also try WP:AGF. I will look ansd see if an independent confirmation of what is n the source backs the claim. If the claim is not backed, it gets yanked. If it is backed, it stays. OK? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All cites vetted. Now can you remove the POV tag or is it now a matter of super glue? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We actually need page numbers. We also need to attribute opinions to their authors. We also need to ascertain whether the author is indeed an expert in their field, given that it is a working paper. That whole section is POV - describing laws as liberal, when the opposite POV is missing. Other POV problems to do with the tag will be discussed in the section above. --Russavia 13:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask at RS/N if you feel the source is not WP:RS. The source, moreover, supports the simple claim now given to it. Meanwhile the "elites" claim is now properly cited to its author, as required by WP policy. The solution to the POV you seem to note is to find sources specifically saying the laws are not liberal - rather than removing the first source per WP:NPOV. In either case, the POV tag is clearly no longer needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the above section in relation to the POV tag that is on the article. The POV tag is very clearly needed, as is the tag noting that the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with article guidelines. As I say above the article is a POV mess. --Russavia 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that the article is NPOV, instead of removing the tag, when it is clear that other editors are disputing that -- meaning there is no consensus, please consider using WP:RFC to get truly uninvolved, outside opinion on the matter. (POV issues that is) --Russavia 14:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I am an outside neutral observer, please accept my assurance that the POV tag is actually non-utile here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are an outside neutral observer, then I also am. And I testify than the POV tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Each of my six edits has been with the goal of obtaining NPOV, so that part is a bit weird for you to sideways accuse me of being non-neutral. You have made more than twenty edits. I suggest that your claim that you are as neutral as I is errant. On this talk page, all of my edits are visible, and I daresay no one can find the posts non-neutral. You have made FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO edits on this talk page. Neutral? Really? Sorry, Paul - that dog don't hunt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point of view can easily be deduced from the your editorial pattern on other WP pages, and this prediction works perfectly. Therefore, independently on the number of edits you made here you have some concrete viewpoint on the issue (Soviet Union and Communism) in general, and, therefore, are not more neutral than I am. Your statement that your edits are aimed to achieve neutrality is noted, however, in my opinion, all my efforts on this talk page pursue the same goal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

According to that edit counting logic I am about as neutral regarding this page as you, Collect. And I don't find the removal of the tag justified either. GreyHood 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, here's an apt video. You can't honestly say that you are a neutral observer -- especially not when I have seen you at quite a few threads at different avenues where you have pushed for me to be sanctioned, whilst ignoring other misdeeds. And you attempt to portray yourself as neutral and uninvolved. As you can see, the video is quite apt. This is the only time I am going to address you as an editor in this regard. Just please don't put across that you are an uninvolved observer, when that is obviously not the case, as per the above. Enjoy the video, it is analogous to your comment and its reaction. But just a little bit funnier ;) --Russavia 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all -- tell me where I have "called for you to be sanctioned" in "quite a few threads." Please. I think you are being a tad over-touchy when I have been scrupulous in attempting NPOV here. Again - I do not recall asking for you to be sanctioned, and most certainly not at multiple places. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have stricken the above, I may have mixed you up with someone else. Anyway, the video is apt don't you think? Replace the word Brian with neutral ;) And with that, let's get back to content. The points I raised in the section above are still very much valid in terms of the POV problems. Continue discussion there please. --Russavia 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What remains is that my edits have been neutral, and that I remain a neutral observer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits are also NPOV. But at least I am able to admit that I have biases. The difference is that I don't allow my own biases to creep into my editing, as truly uninvolved editors have attested to in the past. --Russavia 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I will clarify this. I am not saying that your edits aren't accurate or sourced or POV or whatever. I am saying that one should recognise and admit that they aren't neutral - it's ok to have biases, it's admitting those biases, instead of claiming neutrality, when one knows they aren't. --Russavia 19:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, admission of bias is easier when it's built into your name.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well not really. Would you believe that some people thought the Russ stood for Russell lol. --Russavia 19:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re RFC: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Taagepera, Rein (1993). Estonia: return to independence. Westview Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780813311999. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Ziemele, Ineta (2003). "State Continuity, Succession and Responsibility: Reparations to the Baltic States and their Peoples?". Baltic Yearbook of International Law. 3. Martinus Nijhoff: 165–190.
3. Kavass, Igor I. (1972). Baltic States. W. S. Hein. The forcible military occupation and subsequent annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union remains to this day (written in 1972) one of the serious unsolved issues of international law

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Estonia articles
• Top-importance Estonia articles
• WikiProject Estonia articles
• B-Class Latvia articles
• High-importance Latvia articles
• WikiProject Latvia articles
• B-Class Lithuania articles
• Top-importance Lithuania articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Baltic states military history articles
• Baltic states military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles