| Revision as of 16:33, 11 April 2007 editBiruitorul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers148,330 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:30, 12 April 2007 edit undoVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 editsm →Move proposalNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| : ]: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. ] 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | : ]: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. ] 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :: How about a factual argument? "Rational" unfortunately means interpretation of events according to your POV. At a minimum, the Allied (Soviet) presence was a formal occupation under the armistice and while the Soviets ostensibly extended their stay to execute Allied duties (open-ended occupation continues) until their evacuation of Austria (however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence). | |||
| :: Your reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation are? | |||
| :: And please don't say you don't need to produce sources to counter our (let me get this out of the way) "cherry-picked" facts, that you only need your "rational" argument.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:30, 12 April 2007
 Archives |
|---|
 | Russia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
What liberation?
I'm sorry, but what liberation are you talking about?
- If it's about Soviet forces liberating parts of Romania from the Germans, it can only apply after the armistice convention (Sep. 12), and for direct fights between the Soviets and the Germans on Romanian soil after this date. Were there many? BTW, don't count here fights in Northern Transylvania, which was not Romanian at the time. So, I presume, no liberation.
- Soviet propaganda (in cluding the RPR constitution) also talks about liberating the "Romanian people" from the evil bourgeois plutocrats. If this is your "liberation of Romania", then it's funny, nothing more.
Dpotop 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we can always make an article saying that the Liberation of Romania is a Soviet propaganda stunt meant to present Soviet forces as liberating their first capital of a German ally of... the Germans. :) Dpotop 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. As the evidence amply demonstrates, Romanians largely liberated themselves (with help from the USAF) and had no need of the Red Army.
- Funny but also tragic, given what followed.
- That's a good idea - it does have notability, given its use in propaganda for years, and its verifiability. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Move proposal
Would someone (Anonimu, Irpen, Petri Krohn, etc) like to actually propose a move? If not, why should the POV tag stay? I think I've called your bluff, and if there's no poll soon, I'll consider myself justified in removing the tag. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't need another pool so that you can call your lackeys here. Either the subject of this article will be limited to 1944-1947 or the title will be changed, not by voting, but with rational arguments (per meta:Polls are evil and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy)Anonimu 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anonimu: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. Turgidson 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about a factual argument? "Rational" unfortunately means interpretation of events according to your POV. At a minimum, the Allied (Soviet) presence was a formal occupation under the armistice and while the Soviets ostensibly extended their stay to execute Allied duties (open-ended occupation continues) until their evacuation of Austria (however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence).
- Your reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation are?
- And please don't say you don't need to produce sources to counter our (let me get this out of the way) "cherry-picked" facts, that you only need your "rational" argument. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)