![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
When I split the article, I messed up a few citations. Because this article is overflowing, I don't have time to fix that until later today, but invite anyone else willing to sort through the ref tags and find out where I broke things. Hiberniantears ( talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from the lead:
although the majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation.
This was sourced to http://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA104&dq=Baltic+de+jure+recognize+India&hl=ru#PPA103,M1 which states:
The majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation of the Baltic States.
However, this source, http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 written by Antonio Cassese states:
The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States.
So long as this discrepancy exists, the assertion that I removed has no place in this article. -- Russavia Dialogue 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
'It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states.'
The quote given by Russavia is taken out of context from footnotes section. Here is the citation put into context of this footnote on pages 258-259:
1.In October 1974, answering a parliamentary question, the Prime minister Mr, Whitlam said :'...the great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these Sates...'
3.Following the election of a new Liberal-Country Party Government on 4 descember 1975, the new Government decided to withdraw de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.
-- Termer ( talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) An article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the
Lithuanian SSR,
Estonian SSR and
Latvian SSR makes absolutely zero sense.
(2) This "new" article has seriously been titled by someone as "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" as opposed to "Invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union" or "Annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union."
(3) Moreover, the title would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for over two decades, and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title.
(4) In a perhaps unintended but amusing POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, perhaps more amusingly, the basis for the invasion, the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of this article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944.
(7) The reason for this disconnect is that it is essentially a copy and paste job from the article
Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why it was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As instructed by an administrator re
WP:SOFIXIT:
(1) The article now addresses the actual scope of its title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", i.e., interactions between those states (1922 to 1991) and the three peace treaties that governed Soviet predecessor Russia.
(2) It is now in chron order (it weirdly had all pre-1944 material regarding Baltic state-Soviet relations at the end of the article before).
(3) On areas duped in other articles -- such as
Occupation of the Baltic States and
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- summaries and see tags have been used.
(4) Additions (with sources) have been added
(5) The prior
WP:Lede, which was actually copied and pasted from substantive text in another article, now reflects a summary of the article's contents.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" was the name of the Resolution 189 (1960) by the Council of Europe, twelfth ordinary session on the twentieth anniversary of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union [1].-- Termer ( talk) 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath ( talk) 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Baltic states and the Soviet Union → Baltic-Soviet relations — the scope of " Baltic states and the Soviet Union" could cover anything, the proposed new title should be much more clear what this article is all about. — Termer ( talk) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Sorry to edit and run (to nursing home...) but, editor Igny's comments elsewhere made me think that a better title, along with clear scope, would be Sovereignty of the Baltic states. NOT just "during the Cold War", which would be a bad choice as editor Mosedschurte has indicated, as the issue spans the establishment of independence through re-establishment and subsequent interpretations of history and, thereby, status regarding sovereignty. Comments welcome. With regard to the above, I do favor Baltic-Soviet relations, however, I believe this might be a more focused choice. PetersV TALK 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sovereignty of the Baltic states? Seems very ambiguous to me. That would cover everything from after WWI to the present day. Also it would cover the controversy between the sovereignties of the Baltic states founded after WWI and the sovereignties of the Soviet Baltic states founded by the Soviets in 1940. In case anybody wants to avoid the word occupation and still talk about the period of 1940-1991, there is a book on the subject that covers the era that has a title called the Baltic states years of dependence. to avoid copyvio it would need to be rephrased I guess.-- Termer ( talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: ♥фĩłдωəß♥ Sovereignty and independence are two different sizes when it comes to the history of the Baltic states. Not only, for example the U.S. government recognizes American Indian Tribes as sovereign nations, it doesn't meant that those 'sovereign nations' are independent countries. Also, the Soviet Baltic states/republics were sovereign republics of the Soviet Union according to the constitution of the Soviet Union.-- Termer ( talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't support, seems a bit vague per Termer. There is a need for Baltic-Soviet relations and prefer this title. Martintg ( talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Please do not add additional naming proposal, then the move procedure is in the middle of development. It makes additional confusion M.K. ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Among other problems already mentioned, Soviet propaganda defined sovereignty to mean something completely different -- to the point that Baltic politicians back in late 1980s debated several years what it means to declare sovereignty. Thus, such a title would not appropriately circumscribe the scope of the article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 05:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for straying from the primary title conversation, but there's something to be said of the saying "Put two Latvians in a room and you'll get three opinions". Not just limited to Latvians. :-) The Baltic position is that they:
That position of continuity is recognized, for example, by treaties which simply resumed as to being in effect between other parties and the Baltic states. The contention that the Baltic States are continuous is based on that timeline. There are all sorts of acts and declarations along that timeline which need to be explored and explained, whether regarding sovereignty or independence or intent to leave the USSR, but they are not related to continuity. PetersV TALK 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the article should be narrowed to consider only Baltic-Soviet treaties. The reason is that we already have the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is quite similar with this one. Also we could shorten the article "Occupation of the Baltic states" and moved all issues from under section "Treaties affecting USSR-Baltic relations" to this article. Peltimikko ( talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the creation of the new states through the defeat of the Russian Empire, revolution, German occupation, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk etc. At the moment the article suggests that the countries existed before 1918, whereas history gives a different picture. 176.1.212.131 ( talk) 05:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
When I split the article, I messed up a few citations. Because this article is overflowing, I don't have time to fix that until later today, but invite anyone else willing to sort through the ref tags and find out where I broke things. Hiberniantears ( talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from the lead:
although the majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation.
This was sourced to http://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA104&dq=Baltic+de+jure+recognize+India&hl=ru#PPA103,M1 which states:
The majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation of the Baltic States.
However, this source, http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 written by Antonio Cassese states:
The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States.
So long as this discrepancy exists, the assertion that I removed has no place in this article. -- Russavia Dialogue 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
'It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states.'
The quote given by Russavia is taken out of context from footnotes section. Here is the citation put into context of this footnote on pages 258-259:
1.In October 1974, answering a parliamentary question, the Prime minister Mr, Whitlam said :'...the great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these Sates...'
3.Following the election of a new Liberal-Country Party Government on 4 descember 1975, the new Government decided to withdraw de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.
-- Termer ( talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) An article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the
Lithuanian SSR,
Estonian SSR and
Latvian SSR makes absolutely zero sense.
(2) This "new" article has seriously been titled by someone as "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" as opposed to "Invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union" or "Annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union."
(3) Moreover, the title would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for over two decades, and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title.
(4) In a perhaps unintended but amusing POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, perhaps more amusingly, the basis for the invasion, the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of this article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944.
(7) The reason for this disconnect is that it is essentially a copy and paste job from the article
Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why it was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As instructed by an administrator re
WP:SOFIXIT:
(1) The article now addresses the actual scope of its title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", i.e., interactions between those states (1922 to 1991) and the three peace treaties that governed Soviet predecessor Russia.
(2) It is now in chron order (it weirdly had all pre-1944 material regarding Baltic state-Soviet relations at the end of the article before).
(3) On areas duped in other articles -- such as
Occupation of the Baltic States and
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- summaries and see tags have been used.
(4) Additions (with sources) have been added
(5) The prior
WP:Lede, which was actually copied and pasted from substantive text in another article, now reflects a summary of the article's contents.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" was the name of the Resolution 189 (1960) by the Council of Europe, twelfth ordinary session on the twentieth anniversary of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union [1].-- Termer ( talk) 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath ( talk) 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Baltic states and the Soviet Union → Baltic-Soviet relations — the scope of " Baltic states and the Soviet Union" could cover anything, the proposed new title should be much more clear what this article is all about. — Termer ( talk) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Sorry to edit and run (to nursing home...) but, editor Igny's comments elsewhere made me think that a better title, along with clear scope, would be Sovereignty of the Baltic states. NOT just "during the Cold War", which would be a bad choice as editor Mosedschurte has indicated, as the issue spans the establishment of independence through re-establishment and subsequent interpretations of history and, thereby, status regarding sovereignty. Comments welcome. With regard to the above, I do favor Baltic-Soviet relations, however, I believe this might be a more focused choice. PetersV TALK 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sovereignty of the Baltic states? Seems very ambiguous to me. That would cover everything from after WWI to the present day. Also it would cover the controversy between the sovereignties of the Baltic states founded after WWI and the sovereignties of the Soviet Baltic states founded by the Soviets in 1940. In case anybody wants to avoid the word occupation and still talk about the period of 1940-1991, there is a book on the subject that covers the era that has a title called the Baltic states years of dependence. to avoid copyvio it would need to be rephrased I guess.-- Termer ( talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: ♥фĩłдωəß♥ Sovereignty and independence are two different sizes when it comes to the history of the Baltic states. Not only, for example the U.S. government recognizes American Indian Tribes as sovereign nations, it doesn't meant that those 'sovereign nations' are independent countries. Also, the Soviet Baltic states/republics were sovereign republics of the Soviet Union according to the constitution of the Soviet Union.-- Termer ( talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't support, seems a bit vague per Termer. There is a need for Baltic-Soviet relations and prefer this title. Martintg ( talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Please do not add additional naming proposal, then the move procedure is in the middle of development. It makes additional confusion M.K. ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Among other problems already mentioned, Soviet propaganda defined sovereignty to mean something completely different -- to the point that Baltic politicians back in late 1980s debated several years what it means to declare sovereignty. Thus, such a title would not appropriately circumscribe the scope of the article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 05:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for straying from the primary title conversation, but there's something to be said of the saying "Put two Latvians in a room and you'll get three opinions". Not just limited to Latvians. :-) The Baltic position is that they:
That position of continuity is recognized, for example, by treaties which simply resumed as to being in effect between other parties and the Baltic states. The contention that the Baltic States are continuous is based on that timeline. There are all sorts of acts and declarations along that timeline which need to be explored and explained, whether regarding sovereignty or independence or intent to leave the USSR, but they are not related to continuity. PetersV TALK 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the article should be narrowed to consider only Baltic-Soviet treaties. The reason is that we already have the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is quite similar with this one. Also we could shorten the article "Occupation of the Baltic states" and moved all issues from under section "Treaties affecting USSR-Baltic relations" to this article. Peltimikko ( talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the creation of the new states through the defeat of the Russian Empire, revolution, German occupation, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk etc. At the moment the article suggests that the countries existed before 1918, whereas history gives a different picture. 176.1.212.131 ( talk) 05:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)