This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for making updates to Portal:Latvia! I really hope that it can be made into a good portal and that the Latvia-related articles could also be better featured. Solver 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It belongs to wikisource because it is not an article. Other than that, good job on merging the occupation articles. Renata 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a slew of NKVD and other "Orders" in Wikipedia, I was just following convention. Is there some easy way to move? Lots more to do on the consolidated occupation article, but I'm happy with it so far. If you could take a quick peek at a redo of the History of Russian in Latvia, a comment or two would be appreciated! Pēters 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There must be some way to transwikify, but I don't know. You can leave the intro here, but the original text should go. The other orders too. I will read history of Russians, but only in the morning. It's almost 2am here (should be the same at your place :)). Btw, you have a very nice homepage at latvians.com :) Renata 06:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikisource, and it seems more a place to reproduce written works (a la Project Gutenberg) than to be a document repository. Pēters 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Yes, books are more prominent. But there is a bunch of national anthems, There is USA Patriot Act, speeches, interviews, all that. Its purpose really is to gather all sources that don't belong to WP. Oh, and the title, would it be possible to say whose order it is (what institution, kgb, nkvd, gru, smth else)? See for example, NKVD Order № 00439. And here is one with original text in wikisource NKVD Order № 00593. Renata 16:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No. 593 looks like a good example to follow. I've always assumed it's NKVD, but not 100% positive, so I didn't automatically call it a NKVD order. Pēters 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not NKVD. It was NKGB. `' mikka (t) 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I've been away from Wiki for a while for personal and health reasons. The deporation directives and orders in the Baltics pre-date the existence of the NKGB--they were issued and remained in effect under the authority of the NKVD. Are you refering to those or the examples--00593 or 00439? Thanks! Pēters 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article, not the talk page (way too long :D). Here are my comments: the first two sections are quite vague. Sometimes I could not really understand what you are trying to say. Also, it would benefit enormously if you could add footnotes. For example, about Old Believers that they did not get involved. Where is that from? And many other generalisations. It is a big contrast to the POV marked sections were there are many facts and numbers. Also, the end favors Latvia's government (it looks like that to me). The article also needs a proper lead :) I hope it helps, Renata 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let it sit for a couple of days and go back and read again. As histories go, I thought it was fairly detailed (not vague). The first population figures available anywhere are from the 1897 empire-wide census (even those are not precise)--so that kind of precision is simply not possible. It's a straightforward story: early Russian settlements along the eastern parts of today's Baltics, Russian presence was mainly traders at first, influx of Old Believers fleeing persecution in the 16th century, a continuing (small) increasing presence, building faster after all of Latvia became part of the Russian empire, especially with industrialization, and developing its own sense of identity as "Latvian Russians" apart from "Russian Russians." There was no "influx" per se, there was only a gradual process over time. I thought that was all pretty clear, I can always go back and see about tightening the edit. The second part (including Old Believer types not being fervent revolutionaries) is in one of the academic links cited (which itself was based on a fairly wide-ranging consideration of other academic studies/books/etc.). I didn't want to endlessly footnote. The main point of the second section is that until 1905, interests of Latvian Russians and Latvians and Latvian nationalists and even the tsar's Russification coincided: what provided the "glue" was the definition of the controling Baltic Germans as the adversary. After that, paths diverged, nevertheless, anti-"Russian" sentiment was directed at Bolshevism, not at the native Latvian population or Russians fleeing the revolution. There was no Latvian government at that time--I'm not trying to paint a "positive" or "negative" picture, merely what the picture was. I'm not doing this from any particular POV. (We'll see how well I keep to that when I get to contemporary Latvia!)

What's been gathered in the first two sections then forms a backdrop to the role of the Latvian Russian minority during Latvian's first independence. Hope this helps. Pēters 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I will have to read through it again and see if there is something I can do about the language, but some footnotes would really help. Renata 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(A response to your last post at Talk:History of Russians in Latvia)

I agree with regard to dislodging German as the language of prestige and the language of administration being the main goal for both the Russian government and most of the Young Latvians (note, though, that Russification also took place in the ethnographically Latvian part of Vitebsk guberniya for a longer period and more thoroughly, but quite differently [incl. denationalization in favor of religious identity, Belarusianization, etc.], where the Germans had been Polonized and there was a Polish and Russian aristocracy) -- even so, Russification in Courland and Livland was most dramatic in education, and in this it strongly favored the Russians (or, more accurately, the Russophones) and affected not only the Germans but the Latvians (for example, at Tartu [Dorpat, then renamed Yuryev], the number of Lutheran [i.e., German, Latvian, and Estonian] students fell threefold between 1892 and 1901, whilst Russian enrollment rose ten times, partly because the graduates of Orthdox seminaries were admitted -- destroying that nest of Baltic [i.e., German] separatism was one of Manasein's main recommendations [Arveds Švābe: Latvijas vēsture 1800-1914. Uppsala: Daugava, 1958, p.514]). Latvians largely supported Russian instruction in the schools, and many even supported Russification (e.g., Valdemārs: "Speaking Russian, Latvians are never lost to their nation [tauta] -- not even when some of them have begun to forget how to speak Latvian." [Baltijas Vēstnesis, 1884 /Ernests Blanks: Latvju tautas ceļš uz neatkarīgu valsti. Västerås: Ziemeļbāzma, 1970/]) Baltijas Vēstnesis was the influential newspaper led by Fricis Veinbergs, who remained a Russophile even unto 1917.

Your point that the Latvian nationalists "were not agitating for independence" is very important. Fricis Brīvzemnieks (Treuland), brought in as an inspector of public schools by Kapustin at Valdemārs' request ("it was politically advantageous for the [Tsar's] government that Russification would be introduced by the Latvian and Estonian nationalists themselves"), wrote a letter to Kaudzītes Reinis in 1886 in which he rejects an article Kaudzīte had written; the part about the friendship between Russians and Latvians, acording to Brīvzemnieks, is fine -- but the rest of the article needs to be amended to note that "defenders of the German Ritterschaft are trying to spread the belief among Latvians that the Tsar's government and the Russian people want nothing more than to deprive Latvians of their language and religion [...] Latvians have heretofore habitually expected good things only from the Russian government, and harmful things from their German overlords [...] they know that the government [...] has nothing to fear from the Latvian or Estonian languages because the Latvians and Estonians have never been independent nations and the seed of separatist thought finds no soil among the Latvians..." Brīvzemnieks goes on to say that the fears of Russification in Latvia are either "exaggerated or completely baseless." (Švābe, p. 462)

The fact is that fears of Russification were growing and they were rooted in reality and not in a plot by the Ritterschaft -- Valdemārs, entwined with the Slavophiles in Moscow, was increasingly irrelevant and no longer understood what was happening in the Baltics. The overall situation in education is also important to an understanding here (as it wasn't to Manasein): the Baltic provinces were the most advanced parts of the Russian Empire in education, whilst the Baltic Russians were comparatively ill-educated -- in Riga in 1881, for example, 47,8% of Russians over age 14 could not read or write (vs. 23,7% of the Latvians and 23,0% of the Germans). According to the official Russian statistics for 1886, there was one public school per 654 inhabitants in Southern Livland, vs. 1:2147 in Moscow guberniya and 1:3155 in Pskov guberniya. 2.37% of children in all 50 gubernii attended public school -- but this percentage varied considerably by guberniya: 9.25% in Finland, 9.87% in Southern Livland, 5,42% in Courland, 0,81% in Kovno, 3,44% in St. Petersburg, 2,01% in Kiev. In Vitebsk guberniya, and thus in Latgola -- 1,13%. 87,5% of the Old Believers in Latgola were illiterate, and 77,2% of the Belarusians (but even there, literacy was considerably higher in the ethnographically Latvian part of the guberniya and among Latvians). Latvian literacy also depended upon the rural and parochial schools, and to a very large degree on home schooling -- but home schooling in Latgola, which was particularly successful for females, was criminalized during Russification. ("Baltijas 'jaunā ēra' un rusifikācija"; Švābe, op. cit.) It might be noted, too, that the situation in the heavily Slavicized Ilūkste district in Semigallia was similar to that of Latgola, and Manasein in fact suggested that it be joined to Vitebsk guberniya.

Brīvzemnieks came to regret his position. As Russification intensified (and education declined), he was frequently attacked in the Russian press despite his pro-Russian stance, including by the newspaper you have mentioned -- Рижский Вестник, which demanded the imposition of Cyrillic in the Baltic provinces, as it had been imposed in Latgola, "to pour cold water on the fantasies of those who dream about a Latvian culture." This was their reaction to the success of the third Latvian Song Festival, and it is strikingly similar to the reaction of the Baltic Germans to the first forays of the Young Latvians (e.g., of Das Inland to Alunāns' Dziesmiņas) -- except that Latvian culture and in essence a Latvian nation were no longer a dream but had already come into existence. In 1888, Valdemārs wrote a lengthy defense of his career, explaining that he had worked harder than anybody else for the Russification of the Baltic provinces. This is where I will question the notion of "laissez-faire," Pēter -- to what extent was there laissez-faire, and when, and why? In the late 1880s, the Baltic German press came to defend Latvians against attacks in the Russian press -- Zeitung für Stadt und Land, for example, observed that the Latvians had a third path open to them, besides Germanization or Russification: retaining their identity. In defending Latvian against Cyrillic, Baltic Germans like Bielenstein found common ground with their Latvian political enemies -- to the horror of the Russians. What I am suggesting, then, is that it may have been laissez-faire between the 1850s and the 1880s, but only so long as the Latvians were not nationalists but merely anti-German Lettophiles and Slavophiles, and even apolitical Lettophilia was extremely suspect in an increasingly illiberal empire. "Not agitating for independence," to boil it down, really meant not only "not agitating for autonomy," which they also did not do -- it meant "not agitating for anything."

Valdemārs was a pragmatist and materialist, a "reālpolītisks minimālists" as Blanks defines him, who joined a cultural Lettophilia to an enthusiastic cosmopolitanism; the Russification he supported was education in the language, not coercive assimilation, and he always thought in practical terms (as when he suggested that Latvian veterans of the Russian army being settled in Voronezh guberniya be settled here instead and teach the Latvians Russian; Valdemārs was also quite clever in opposing Cyrillic). Living under police supervision in Moscow, however, he did not appreciate how far his nation had come. Many writers contrast Kronvaldu Atis' more spiritual thought with Valdemārs' -- again, this was a cultural but not a political nationalism, and Valdemārs himself notes that the Young Latvians had no political program at first; Kronvalds saw the Latvians and Russians as entering into a compact, however, with Russia having the duty to protect the Latvian language and culture in exchange for the Latvians' loyalty (thinking similar to the Germans'). Many Young Latvians naïvely believed that they could "drive out the German Devil with the Russian Beelzebub" (Švābe), but this was not be, obviously -- Mikhail Zinoviev, the governor, explained to the Riga Latvian Association in 1887 that "to us, Estonians and Latvians will only be a useful element when they become Russians."

This brings us to the 1890s and the advent of a Marxism that not only the right (e.g., Blanks) but also the left (e.g., Jansons-Brauns) labels dilettantist -- the New Current. Histories and contemporaries indicate, however, that it wasn't a matter of socialism replacing nationalism so much as the national movement reaching a point of crisis; a critic of the New Current, Alexander Weber (Vēbers -- an ethnic German who had in some sense assimilated, but later abandoned "Latvianness" in response to 1905) was among the many who saw it coming, observing the growing gulf between the growing Latvian bourgeoisie and the increasingly desperate masses. The Baltic Germans had lost their potency as the enemy. Much of the left saw nationality and its manifestations as the plaything of an exploitative élite that used and abused the ethnic as part of its business plan. Still, even "internationalism" didn't necessarily bring Russian and Latvian socialists together -- attacks on the war with Japan by the Latvian left, printed in 1904, noted that Asians were the Latvians' allies, victims of Russian imperialism like the Ukrainians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who suffered the most under the Tsar. All of this against a background of very dramatic demographic changes, with Latvia second only to Britain in Europe's urbanization -- meanwhile, there was a rural exodus not only to the cities but also to Russia proper, whilst settlers replaced those who departed (e.g., ca. 68 000 foreigners, mostly Russians, arrived in Latgola between 1895 and 1902, whilst the Dvinsk military garrison alone numbered 12 700 [Kārlis Stalšāns: Krievu ekspansija un rusifikācija Baltijā laikmetu tecējumā. Chicago: Jāņa Šķirmanta Apgāds, 1966]).

Most of the above doesn't belong in this article, of course -- I'm afraid I must drift into some general observations on "the story of Latvia." My main point is that it is almost impossible to delineate the political currents in that period (those periods, actually -- ca. 1850-1890, 1890-1905, 1905-1914), because they overlap and twist (and are often very shallow, too, with only a few fish in them); it actually took a minor eddy on the extreme left, the erstwhile эсеры Valters and Rolavs, to "invent" autonomy, and in the view of some revive a nationalism that "had gone down into herring" (Rainis) -- Valters moved rightward in the 1920s, abandoning his liberal views with regard to the minorities as impracticable when the nation drifted toward what you are calling "ultra-nationalism." I'm trying to draw attention to some major questions in our history, some of which Jānis Peniķis identified -- for example, what is the meaning of 1905? I recommend this article by Jānis Krēsliņš seniors, published in Diena last January (in Latvian). As Krēsliņš underlines, a definitive history of 1905 has not yet been written. He points to two opposing views of the Revolution, the nationalist and the Marxist, and the fact is that most Latvian historiography holds one of these two prisms. I refer to Ernests Blanks, a rightist ideologue from whose work the concept of the three National Awakenings was derived, deliberately -- as Oļģerts Liepiņš notes in his preface to Blanks' book, our nation-state is in large part the result of 1905, simply because almost all of Latvia's founders "were involved in that mutiny, and many retained their destructive approach to the bourgeois, who were also human and also wanted to enjoy freedom." Liepiņš offers a metaphorical apple tree -- one branch growing democracy, the other turning bright red. This is gross oversimplification, of course, but it helps bring some of the dynamics into relief. These dynamics echo loudly through later Latvian history -- whilst Liepiņš claims that 1905 had a socialist basis and was only later given a nationalist tint, leftists like Fēlikss Cielēns see independence as the child of that revolution. The class differences and their politics are integral to what happened, of course -- why most of the Latvians did not ally with the Germans and vice-versa, though Grosvalds et al. ended up in the Rate; German and Russian lists were together at times, and few Latvians had the money to qualify as voters -- there was also a brief phase in which the Latvian bourgeoisie was allied with the Germans municipally.

I eagerly await the next section, Pēter! Inesis Feldmanis does not mince words when it comes to the Russian minority in the interbellum: according to him, most did not identify with Latvia. In 1930, only 18,9% of the Russians spoke Latvian. The local Russian language press expressed satisfaction at the growth of Russian power with the invasions of Finland and Poland, its true sympathies revealed after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. (Daina Bleiere, Ilgvars Butulis, Inesis Feldmanis, Aivars Stranga, Antonijs Zunda: Latvijas vēsture: 20. gadsimts. Rīga: Jumava, 2005.) I've already said that I disbelieve in historians' objectivity -- I should add that I believe treating more POV rather than trying to eliminate POV is a better way to achieve the fabled NPOV, and IMO this is particularly true when trying to provide an overview, which necessarily involves generalizations. In the case of the Russian and Baltic German minorities, I do not see how the subject (and, indeed, Latvian history in the 20th C and the processes today) can be treated meaningfully without treating the concept of an "imperial minority." -- Pēteris Cedriņš 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

About... simply because almost all of Latvia's founders "were involved in that mutiny--an obvious one is Čakste himself, who had to flee after signing the Viborg Manifesto. And you are right about the Russians during the first independence. When Schiemann was working to define minority rights, the Russians were always a lagging third behind the Germans and Jews. They simply were not as motivated to participate. If you can give me the source for some of your literacy figures, some of that would be some good additional detail to work in! -- Pēters 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Great comment on the claim that there was no occupation on the talk page to Latvia - many thanks! I was just wondering .. could you copy-paste the comment to the same claim that has been made on the talk page of the article on Estonia, or, if that's too much of a bother, let me quote you there? I can't think of better words to explain the situation with, but don't want to "plagiarise" you without asking you either.

Thanks!

ChiLlBeserker 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to oblige, I'll get to it in the next couple of days (extremely busy at work!) -- Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk:Lithuania page, I'm assuming that's along the lines of what you're envisioning? :-) Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought maybe you would like to know that in 1988 Juris Podnieks and his crew stayed in our house while they were shooting footage in Armenia. I was only 11 then but I remember them singing Latvian patriotic songs. His tragic passing deeply moved us all.-- Eupator 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pēters. I responded on the Talk:Riga page -- Siobhan Hansa 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vecrumba. As you are Latvian I suppose you speak Russian. Please join our discussion in Talk:Transnistria, where we are debating some Russian language sources, and give your input.-- MariusM 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Marius, unfortunately I only speak enough Russian to say that I can speak the very smallest possible amount of Russian, and to recite some Pushkin. My Russian skills are limited to computer translations and a good dictionary or two! Not that I haven't "intended" to learn Russian, just haven't gotten to it. I'm not sure of Pēteris Cedriņš' Russian skills,... — Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba, like I said in the Talk page of History of Transnistria, to avoid content forking this is where we should deal with the historical issues (besides that fact that Kievan Rus is not even mentioned in the main Transnistria page itself, currently). Then we will move a summary of that article into main Transnistria when done. I notice that we already have an ongoing thread there, and active. If you want to repost some of the other arguments from main Transnistria's Talk, please do so. I really appreciate the discussion and your input. - Mauco 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that developing problem myself, some time this weekend--if you think it would help--I'll consolidate the "Kievan Rus in the territory of the current PMR/Transniestria" sources discussions and move to the Talk:History of Transnistria page, appropriately notedd on the Talk:Transnistria] page. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct way of doing it (and Kievan Rus is mentioned there, unlike in the main Transnistria page at the current time). I saw that you did so. I am really appreciting this discussion and your work. I will be a bit busy for the next couple of days, so I probably won't reply immediately but please don't take that as a lack of interest and thanks again for all your hard work. More later... - Mauco 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: If you plan to become active in other Transnistria subjects as well, that is how we generally do it to avoid content forking. We develop the content in the "sub-articles" and afterwards, when there is a fairly stable version with consensus, we move a brief summary into the main article. It doesn't always work this way but it is the ideal. It was developed by User:Electionworld and it makes a lot of sense to do it that way. - Mauco 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article created by Polish editors would certainly benefit from contributions by Latvian ones. Until just a few days ago it was not even linked from Daugavpils. Perhaps you could add some sources and expand it?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you very much for your interest in the issues related to Moldova and Romania. If you have continued interest in them, please feel free to join [1] It is not a very active group of users, but at least you can find on this page links to articles/issues ralating to M+R. In the Talk: Transnistria you have commented on Mark Almond's writtings. The article Transnistria is now in a point-by-point revision, and the first issue at hand is the credibility of different sourses. It came up the issue of scholarly work of Mark Almond, i.e. his books and articles, not through BHHRG. Do you know anything about this. I could not find any good links. Thank you.: Dc76 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your studies, I would be very interested in any research on the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exert in the post-Soviet era.
   I should mention my father was a renowned mushroomer--though my talents are less developed, and I'm a board member of the Latvian National Opera Guild. Perhaps we'll have a chance to "meet" somewhere less Wiki-contentious than Talk:Transnistria. Best regards, Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peters,

Thanks for your note. I often suspect I have more in common with many users than just an interest in Transnistria. I would be hard-pressed to provide much info on Soviet propaganda in the post-Soviet era. Are you mostly interested in the post-Soviet republics, or are you talking more broadly (including, for example, in Western academia, etc.?) The place to start, I would imagine, is with the Second World War. If there were any Soviet legacy that still exerts influence in the corner of the world which with I am familiar, that would be it. There was considerable PMR secessionist use of the war both during the conflict and more recently. I can provide citations, but unfortunately most of it is in Russian. FBIS is a goldmine (in English) if your interests go back to early 1990s.

Glad to hear there is another opera fan out there in the Transnistria-related wiki-world. I am more of a neophyte, but I'm quickly expanding my familiarity.

By the way, have you ever run across any information about politicized work collectives in Lativa during the collapse? I think my research is going to take me to Estonia where there was an analogous OSTK phenomenon, but I am still trying to gauge the extent to which this spread to other republics as well.

Thanks, and warm regards. — jamason 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS...do you mind if I ask for your source on one incident you posted here [2]? Sorry for the grouchy note I appended at the time. Because I don't have much time during the semester, I usually just lurk on talk pages and ask people to cite their sources, etc. When it's not tactfully done, I think it comes off as a challenge to the content. I usually really am interested in the citation. Here particularly. Thanks again. Best, — jamason 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peters. You are actually thinking of someone else. It looks like Jonathanpops is the one who said that RFE/RL is propaganda. Truthfully, though, in my own mind and in the minds of academics I know, Vlad Socor does not command a particularly large amount of respect.

I hadn't ever heard of the ambulance shooting incident so I wouldn't be able to give a different source. There were, however, more than enough atrocities to go around. If you are interested, here is a report published online (written by a well-respected Soviet/Russian NGO "Memorial"). I can direct you to other sources if you have access to inter-library loan. Best, jamason 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans

You can use wikipedia for a primer ( Moldovans). If you have the time, there is a vast theoretical literature on nationality and ethnicity in a broad sense, but also Moldovan identity specifically. The place to start for the latter is—and this is name I'm sure you've heard a lot recently—Charles King. However, logically, since denying a separate Moldovan nationality would necessarily undermine the legitimacy of a separate Moldovan state, I'm sure you can see why this position would not be popular in Moldova itself. jamason 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PS...The answer to the question you posed on Transnistria talk is: Yes. Overwhelmingly.

Thanks for trying on Talk:Jogaila.

This is not a straight Polish-Lithuanian squabble; in fact, we have a very small Lithuanian contingent. If that were what was happening, it would have been solved long ago: there would have been a WP:RM motion, both sides would have made their case, their !votes would have cancelled, and the neutrals would have decided one way or the other.

Instead, there is a medium-sized Polish block, and beyond that there are a large number of editors with separate interests of their own. Calgacus is interested in authentic contemporary usage; I am principally interested in getting a title recognizable to an English readership in this English Wikipedia, with the least surprise possible (as the naming conventions say).

For my purposes, the practice of a just-published standard history is almost irrelevant. It very well may determine usage in fifty years time; if so, we can move the article; I'm interested in what English-speakers use and expect now.

Regards, Septentrionalis 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more or less in the same camp as Calgacus in PM Anderson's categorisation above, although I do favour the principle of least astonishment, only I don't necessarily interpret it the same way that others do. If a compound name is the only solution, I'd prefer a hyphenated one to a parenthesised one, in the way that you sometimes see Bulgarian Tsar/Khan Boris referred to as Boris-Michael, or Skirgaila as Skirgaila-Ivan. For a single title I'd be happy with the Latin form of Jogaila, Jagailo, but perhaps that's too close to ru:Ягайло ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I observed that you are a Latvian (hopefully I have not understood wrongly :) Do you speak Estonian, by the way? or understand Livonian? or Izhorian? or Veps?
Could you take a look at article Lieven and provide Latvian names (at least all "christian" names: Lieven, Reinhold, Hans-Heinrich, Johann-Christoph, Otto Heinrich Andreas, Charlotte, Mezotne, Turaida, Christoph Heinrich, Dorothea, Carl Christoph, Alexander, Pavlovich (Paul's son), Karlovich (Charles' son), Andreas, Anatoli, Paul) of all the (Lieven) persons there mentioned, as well as others who you think have had sufficient connection with Latvia. I am certain that all Lievens were so much in Latvia (either as landowners there or in some other role) that people there (at least sometimes) used Latvian first names of them, not only German or Russian or whatever. Then, do you know (or are sources available to you revealing) whetger "Lieven" itself had any Latvian version (translation and/or used name version) - and what is it?
Additionally, if you have time and interest, could you check whether you can add anything to the article.
(By the way, what is the formation of genitive inLatvian; how do you write "castellan of Turaida", for example; or "owner of Mezotne") I would be very happy if you can provide those abovelisted first names etc in authentic Latvian. Shilkanni 09:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my email about this flag? Well, since we are not an government organ of the PMR, it is up to us to decide on what flag we use on Wikipedia. Too bad the website of the PMR President is down, so I cannot see if any major changes have been done. I do not know anyone in the region I could ask, but I do think the plain red/green/red flag is used more often, if not for propoganda uses, but for ease of cost. It is easier to make a plain flag than to silk-screen symbols on it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Continued here) ... In fact, I have an even better example: Crimea. Like Transnistria,

• Crimea has a plurality of Russian-speakers who object to (in this case) Ukrainization (Russian is not an official language in Crimea... de jure) and would have preferred to become part of Russia again;
• It is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, quite capable of playing the role of the 14th Army in Crimea (especially with reinforcements from Russia through the nearby Kerch Strait);
• Real power was (and probably still is) held by Russians, with Ukrainian-appointed authorities playing only a nominal role. That is, they could've easily been deposed if need be.

Unlike Transnistria,

• Ethnic Russians in Crimea constituted (and still do, despite a 10% decrease) a clear majority (ca. 69% in 1989);
• Crimea is in a much better geostrategic position (more defensible, closer to Russia, important ports etc);
• Crimea is a very important part of Russian history, its abrupt loss is a matter of national disgrace in Russia. Why, the fleet is now forced to lease its own land & facilities, that's some humiliation! That is, plenty of reasons for a takeover attempt, even beside purely economic ones.

And yet, despite all this, the existing tensions never escalated to a military conflict. Both sides gave away some ground and Crimea is now an Ukrainian autonomy. It's not a model part of Ukraine, true, but, thankfully, not a secessionist unrecognized state either.

So, my point is, if there really was/is an evil Russian plot to strangle the nascent democratic countries by illegally extending its imperialistic and oppessive rule to integral parts of their territory, then Crimea should've been first to face it.

This passage of mine is not directly related to the discussion of the Transnistria page, so I'm posting it here instead. Feel free to reply to in anytime you want. More rants to follow, if you permit it. :-) -- Illythr 09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, though in all fairness, there was not a minority of locals who raided Soviet/Russian army weapons stores and started taking over the Crimean territory in a "creeping putsch" (as Charles King characterizes in his book). Russia has other ways press the Ukraine for what it wants (energy). The Ukraine has already indicated its economy is not ready for the $130/cm gas price for 2007, and Gazprom is pressing forward to acquire Ukrainian assets. (Of course, you'll counter it's all "free market enterprise.") :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind! That's exactly what my next rant is going to be about (quite a bit later). As for energy, well, Stalin et al did quite a good job to make the separation of the "brother republics" from the Soviet Union as painful as possible... Although I doubt that Russia will be able to get Crimea back from Ukraine in this way.

P.S. Certainly more constructive to debate this way in any event than fill up Transnistrian talk with discussion of parallels.

P.P.S. Casual look on energy found this: http://eng.maidanua.org/node/642 —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Socor from Jamestown? The guy who wrote about "Monsterseparatisten" in Transnistria etc! I don't think I can trust this guy's analysis, although the facts in that arcticle appear true. -- Illythr 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(Also continued here as to avoid cluttering the already bloated Transnistia page) My comment about Mark losing whatever bonus he would get if he turned Wikipedia into propaganda was far kinder than the personal criticism which he leveled here that I and others are causing the deaths of Transnistrian children--comments which everyone was perfectly content to leave in place. I rather take that to be a double standard.

One party indulging in pathos and personal attacks does not provide the opposing party with the right to respond in kind. In fact, Mark has damaged his own reputation with those statements and had discredited himself before others who otherwise would've listened to him (me, for once).

As for double standards - personally, I prefer to refrain from removing personal attacks from my opposition during a debate, letting their words speak for themselves. After all, people usually resort to attacking the messenger only when they are unable to attack the message... (*wicked smile*) -- Illythr 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peters, this was archived shortly after I wrote it, so I'm pasting it here to be sure you notice:

Presumably you've already come across the US Department of State's country reports. If not, I would direct you to take a look. Not a "clean bill of health," but nothing specifically indicating that it is against the law to advocate unification with Moldova. jamason 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also read the quote you provided under the heading "human rights" (a link would have been nice, I couldn't find it). Based on that and the link above—among other things—I'm more or less convinced that the problem is not the actual legal code. Also, regarding the quote you did provide, it is awfully vague, isn't it? He "labeled" questionings "treason" and he "cracked down on debate," but what does that mean exactly? Were there any specific examples? jamason 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and find that bookmark! Unfortunately, there were no specific examples--likely to only be found in the Romanian- or Russian-language media. If I can go back and find the source, perhaps Marius might be able to look around a bit. Cooperation from the pro-PMR contingent is less likely, of course...  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, this isn't much of a suggestion, since I realize you have little use for Russian sources, but I just noticed that you can get the PMR civil and criminal code here in the states through interlibrary loan.

See: Grazhdanskii kodeks Pridnestrovskoi Moldavskoi Respubliki. OCLC: 70129345 LC: KLM293.5.D58

and: Ugolovnyi kodeks Pridnestrovskoi Moldavskoi Respubliki. OCLC: 54073224 LC: KLM293.5.D58

Again, frivolous suggestion. jamason 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Peters, you've got to see this! If you had had any doubts about me being a hardcore Stalinist, diligently working for KGB to hide the Truth, spread foul propaganda and eat little (insert your favorite nation here) children, well, doubt no more! Here (and below) is all the proof you need!

On a somewhat more serious note, please, do take a look. That guy really does "refute post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda", and he's probably serious about it. I think that a "look from the other side" will do you good. -- Illythr 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're maintaining your sense of humor (i.e., perspective). I do think there's a general issue regarding WWII, one which Russia exploits, which is "NAZI" = "evil," anything anti-NAZI = "good"--ergo, anyone taking arms up against the Soviets (which would have been in concert with the Nazis after Barbarossa attempting to repel the incoming Soviet troops as the Nazis retreated) is an evil NAZI, cooperated with the NAZIS, etc. My grandparent's house was taken over by both the Nazis and the Soviets. The Germans at least had table manners. When the Russians left, the family (that hadn't been deported to Siberia) had to clean excrement and garbage out of the house with shovels. The bottom line is that, unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe.
    Not to mention Stalin had a pact with Hitler to divide up all of Eastern Europe, which seems to be forgotten in portrayals of the Great Patriotic War.
    I've been busy with a new PC build and trying to consolidate all my prior backups/files. It's a long article but I will definitely have a critical read through in the next couple of weeks. Hope to be back to Transnistria in a few days, too.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I guess you came too late to see the actual war going on. My original link pointed to over there (now archived). There is no longer a need to review the text as the contested section has been removed (you can see it being refuted point by point in the first, productive, phase of the war; later the puppeteer mostly resorted to silly (but amusing) accusations). You are welcome to take a look, of course. The current events are but a spillover from some Baltic-related topic. -- Illythr 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it, nobody in you grandparent's house was shot on the spot, hanged or burned alive along with the house? After the troops left, there actually was something of value remaining? If this was indeed the case, then your family was very lucky, unlike millions of others who did not live to tell what German or Soviet soldiers had done to them.

The Great Patriotic War began on 22 June 1941 with the Axis forces breaking said pact. I am not aware of any concealment concerning the secret protocols of the pact in post-Soviet Russian sources.

The issue is not "anti-nazi = good" (Western allies were Capitalist), but rather, "pro-Nazi = evil", which is pretty reasonable, if you ask me. That much of the cooperation happened in the "enemy of an enemy" form is indeed often ignored, but the fact of willing collaboration (for whatever reasons) cannot be denied. As for who was the greater evil - a debate on this is potentially endless, as it's mostly apples and oranges, really. The fact that the Nazis were present only for some three years (on the Baltic territories) and were more concerned with killing Communists, Slavs and Jews - not the most popular ethnic/social groups in the region - could have contributed to such "better them (in gas chambers) than us (in Siberia)" views. Still, AFAIK, the Baltic peoples were not considered Aryan and thus would be eventually subject to corresponding Nazi policies, after the current "Untermenschen" have been processed. -- Illythr 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not shot on the spot. The day before the mass deportations, my mother was warned not to go home by a Jewish co-worker (one brought in by the Soviets to replace Latvians who disappeared, my mother wasn't shot because they needed someone who knew how the post /telephone /telegraph ran to work for the Soviet-installed аппаратчик incompetent--she had been the assistant postmaster). My parents thus avoided being taken away in the mass deportations just before the German invasion.

    So, not much of anything left (what my mother's family could not take with them to Siberia was wiped out). Pretty much hand to mouth during Nazi occupation, fled when the Soviets returned and left Latvia via Liepaja.

    With my parents gone and everyone else deported, the Soviets ripped down the brand new house my grandparents had built for themselves (they had been living in the mill) and used the wood to build pig pens for the колхоз they converted it into.

    The mill itself was destroyed (if it didn't run on gas it was worthless in the Latvian S.S.R.--this was true all over Latvia--water mills destroyed, plough horses shot, etc.) and the adjoining mill house was turned into more than a dozen apartments (we're talking postage stamp sized) filled with imported Russians. (I ripped the mailboxes down myself, I can tell Russian names apart from Latvian ones).

    As I have said elsewhere when people have ascribed motivations to me, bitterness and hate are wasted energy and emotions. Whatever I say or write is not about revenge or vengeance, it is simply about acknowledging the truth.

    I have met Russians and Latvians who care about Latvia, and those who care only about themselves and no one else. Latvia's future has nothing to do with ethnic boundaries--it has everything to do with personal attitude. Russian rhetoric (and from the "ethnic rights" parties) about Latvian "oppression" of Russians is simply not true. Russians complain to the Russian embassy of "oppression" because their landlord won't give them a second parking spot for their other Mercedes. (That one heard on Latvian radio, person called in to a talk show to complain.)

    Just some other quick points (in no particular order):

• The Soviet Union called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a "falsification" until it acknowledged its existence as real in 1989. (The Soviets never actually denied the existence of "a" Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.)
• There is nothing to prevent Russia from admitting the truth--and still celebrating the liberation of Europe from Nazism. By increasingly associating itself with the Soviet past, Russia detracts from, not enhances, the few accomplishments of the Soviet Union that can be seen in a positive light. Everyone who associates with Russia's current position in that regard does the same.
• Where the Baltics are concerned (and the whole occupation/crime issue):

1. The Soviet Union coerced the Baltics into allowing the stationing of Soviet forces (nearly double the size of the Baltics' standing armies)--still legal
2. The Soviet Union accused (all lies) the Baltics of abrogating the terms of the assistance pacts and illegally invaded and occupied the Baltics (while Stalin still had agreements with Hitler to provide him with war material, and after Stalin specifically telling the Baltics that based on his agreement with his buddy Hitler, he could invade any time he wanted)
3. The Soviet Union illegally annexed the Baltics, in Latvia a parliament petitioned to join--a parliament which (a) promised not to join the Soviet Union before its "election" and which (b) was announced as winning in detailed election results released, accidentally, 24 hours prior to the vote and which (c) petitioned to join unconstitutionally (recall, for the joining to be painted as "legal" the USSR had to create the illusion this was the choice of a sovereign state acting according to its own laws)
4. People disappear, simply shot, the lucky ones are deported (or maybe the lucky ones were shot); there was the first of numerous mass deportations
5. The Nazis invaded and occupied the Baltics
6. The Soviets reinvaded--losing 140,000 just trying to stamp out the Courland pocket, which held out to the end of the war despite Stalin's best efforts. (All those Red Army lives that could have been saved if Stalin had just left Latvia alone.) The Latvians who surrendered were all shot as traitors. I shed a tear for those who lost their loved ones in Latvia. I do not shed tears for the "Red Army"--Stalin is responsible for the majority of their deaths in Latvia, not Hitler.
7. The Soviet Union resumed right where it left off. Occupation before the Nazis. Occupation after the Nazis.

• As the legal successor to the Soviet Union (a role Russia chose to assume), Russia was obligated (morally if not legally, there aren't a lot of precedents here) to convert all Soviet citizenships to citizenships in the successor state. That people were left stateless is not the fault of the Baltics, it is the fault of Russia. (And, despite professing to want to attract people to return, Russia has in fact made it almost impossible for non-citizens to become citizens.)

    I'll be glad to do more on the Nazi occupation once I don't have to defend myself against being called a Jew-murderer, hate-monger, neo-Nazi, etc. ([Soviet] "occupation theorist" is simply amusing in comparison), for simply sticking to facts. (I did get a copy of Ezergailis' excellent book some time ago.) BTW, the Jews suffered more, proportionally, under Stalin than any other ethnic group.

    Don't mistake the stridency I am forced into to counter the invective directed at the Baltics (and myself) with a lack of objectivity on my part. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you say above is either true, satisfactory or at least acceptable as a valid POV to me. I will point out several things, though:

• Stalin and Hitler weren't buddies, it's pretty silly to say so. :-)
• MRP: As you can see above, I specifically said post-Soviet Russian sources. Clarification: We are talking about the secret protocols of said pact. The nonaggression treaty itself was quite official.
• Say, what happened to the Russians whose mailboxes you ripped off? Just curios.
• While I can accept points 1)-5) (don't have the data to verify, but looks plausible), I must disagree with 6): There were at least three obvious reasons to move into Latvia:

a) (objective) Leaving the fully functional Army Group Courland (over 20 divisions) behind one's front lines was a tactically miserable idea.

b) (subjective) See Siege of Leningrad. It was them.

c) (both) USSR considered Latvia as its integral part by that time. It thus proceeded to liberate its own territory.

• Now, the interesting part. 7) Occupation before the Nazis. Occupation after the Nazis. That is true. Now, however, why do you consider that occupation to have lasted until the fall of the USSR? In my opinion, no occupation can last for more than a few years, after which point the occupied territory is either reconquered, freed or integrated into the infrastructure of the larger state.
• The citizenship conversion argument is flawed (morally): A person who had lived his whole life (or most of it) in, say, Latvian SSR has really nothing to do with Russia. I consider it a tragedy that such people were turned into "invaders", "occupants" or "unwelcome guests" in the place of their own birth and were "encouraged" to leave to a country they had never lived in before. While I understand this logic - they didn't live in Latvia, but in the USSR, and since Russia is its legal successor...etc - but I consider it morally wrong, because Latvian SSR was not equivalent to the USSR and the Latvian SSR and Latvia and not two different worlds, instantly flipped with the signing of a piece of paper. Only the politics changed. The land and the people remained the same. -- Illythr 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: Latvia's future has nothing to do with ethnic boundaries: Please read this. The first two sentences. It is the most eloquent way to say "(non-violent (?)) ethnic cleansing" without hurting sensitive ears I've ever heard. -- Illythr 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that particular account, that was not the intention of the language or citizenship laws. One does not need Latvian to get by in Latvia today or to own a business, etc.. I'll get to it eventually. (Spotty internet connection, will write more later)

When I first read that piece I immediately thought that it was either the work of a crazed nationalist damaging his own country's reputation in his blindness or a provocateur doing this on purpose. As the endorsing organization (the Latvian Institute) appears to be an official source, I'm at a loss at what to say. -- Illythr 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's open now. I hope you can help bringing this seemingly insolvable 'dispute' to an end. I have to warn though that I myself will probably not be able to participate from Sunday (afternoon) to Wednesday afternoon. Hopefully you can settle the problem, anyway. Constanz - Talk 09:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pēter, I am under impresion that you might know something more in depht about history of Latvia during the soviet era. User:Biruitorul has asked me to check these sections Collectivisation_in_the_USSR#Latvia and Forest_Brothers#In_Latvia, and expand History_of_Latvia#Soviet_period accordingly. I checked them with history textbook, however it seems that some dates might be wrong and place names in Forest brother article were obviously incorrect. So, I was wondering if you could take a glance at them ? Paldies jau iepriekš -- Xil/ talk 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here it says [3] that you want to remove the word official that is part of your transnistria compromise introduction, but I have read everything that you said about it, on that page, and I think maybe 3 times or 4 times, and my conclusion is that you are neutral, you dont care if it stays or if it is removed, is that correct? then you need to please come to Talk:Transnistria and say that this is correct that you are neutral, if not, then say that you are not, there is confusing and i have been accused of being a liar ("plain falacies" and "difficult to assume good faith") but I am honestly in belief that you are neutral from what I have read 4 times Pernambuco 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, but I think there's something wrong with your userpage...-- Illythr 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:43 (UTC)

As stated on the top of every ArbCom evidence page, it is forbidden to edit other users' sections. If you disagree with some evidence, make your own subsection, or comment on talk. There should be no threaded discussions on the page. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to give you a suggestion for a change of activity instead of trying to win the content dispute through Wikilawyering at ArbCom's page by pressing for sanctions against your content opponents, WP:Canvassing for "additional help" in doing so, and even following me to a totally unrelated article to check up on whether I did anything discrediting there.

Here is the suggestion for you to do something more productive. In the course of de-redlinking Taras Shevchenko, I created a short article about Janis Tilbergs, the author of the first monument ever unveiled to this distinguished compatriot of myself. I would have written more about this great Latvian artist, but I found a rather short supply of sources in the languages that are familiar to me. Therefore, I thought I bring this up to you in case you are interested in expanding it as you state at your page that you are interested in anything Latvian. Despite there is a shortage of sources in English, Russian or Ukrainian, there must be some info in Latvian, I am sure.

While at it, you may want to do something about the fact that certain very notable links, that even "Russian propaganda POV pushers" are aware of, are still red, eg. the Latvian Academy of Arts and Eduards Smilgis. You may also do something about Rainis being a pity stub. Happy edits, -- Irpen 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't follow you, I only followed a reference which was cited. (And I do have Ukrainian friends and I have come across a fair amount of materials on what Stalin did to the Ukraine.) :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You better take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia/Proposed_decision Constanz - Talk 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please consider the following argument. Occupation is by definition can only be of a foreign territory. If a territory already annexed, it can not be called "occupation". For example, Israel ocupies Gaza. If it declares annexation of the territory, it at the moment discontinues to be occupation. No country can "occupy" its own territory.-- Dojarca 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you provided an example. Whether or not Israel annexes Gaza, it still occupies Gaza. Annexation cannot terminate occupation. The reason it's still an occupation--Gaza or the Baltics--is because of the legal principle "ex iniuria ius no oritur" — right can not grow out of injustice.

    Additionally, as mentioned, the Baltic States all took steps to insure their de jure continuity regardless of territorial events. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. You're right saying that if the annexation or acception is not recognized by somebody as de jure valid, he continues to see the things as occupation. You correctly pointed out that there were made efforts to insure continuity between their pre-Soviet governments and their representatives in the West and even some Western countries did not recognize their incorporation into Soviet Union. But the fact is that this is only one point of view and incorporation of the countries into SU was also widely recognized by many other countries.-- Dojarca 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.

    The principle of ex iniuria ius no oritur precludes an illegal annexation from ever being considered legal whether or not a third party decides it may or may not be convenient to functionally recognize it as legal for its own purposes. Using your example, Israel "formally" annexes occupied Gaza. The U.S. declares it recognizes Israel's incorporation of Gaza as Israel now having de jure sovereignty over Gaza. The U.S. declaration does not make the annexation legal nor terminate the Israeli occupation. Occupation continues as long as the de jure sovereign authority is prevented from functioning. In the case of the Gaza strip, that is (most likely, the Gaza strip is a mess, having also been under Egyptian administration) the Palestinian Authority. An internationally organized plebescite might be appropriate in the particular case of Gaza, which does not currently reside within the borders of any sovereign nation.

    Also, that countries recognized the post-WWII borders of the Soviet Union does not mean that countries recognized the annexation of the Baltics as de jure legal, another argument that has been made on Wikipedia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this in not the Wikipedia's business to decide what was legal and what was not, dont you agree? Even if the elections were falsified, it was widely recognized that the states became part of the USSR and as such they ware not occupied (at least for them who recognized the borders of the USSR). And it seems you use the principle you're citing very broadly. For example, American war for independence was illegal, but it is widely recognized now that the US is an independent state.-- Dojarca 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. On the above page there is a lengthy debate going on, and there is much discussion about the Baltics. We would appreciate your opinion, as well as more informed commentary on the Baltic issue. Thank you. Biruitorul 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your eloquent defence of anti-Stalinism (truth be told, I'd never heard Mr Krohn's argument before, so it surprised me a little) - it's unfortunate, though, that such a defence should even be necessary today.

On the point regarding de jure/de facto, here's what I was getting at. Romania isn't a good example here, since it didn't really have a government in exile, so let's use Poland, which did. Now, I know the Baltics were unique as the only countries swallowed up whole by the USSR, and that their continued formal existence was very important to them psychologically. However, as a practical matter (meaning who controlled the territory, which is an important component of statehood), the Baltics states did disappear (at least once the Forest Brothers were mostly crushed), and only their regimes survived, but without ruling over any territory. (Plus, insofar as international law is concerned, the annexation was recognised to some extent even by the West. They didn't insist on providing seats at the UN for the Baltics, and while they maintained low-level diplomatic relations, it's interesting that in 1991, they all issued statements recognising their independence, implying (at least as I understand it) that they weren't considered independent prior to those statements being issued.) In Poland, the state continued to exist (albeit under Soviet occupation and within different borders), but the regime ceased holding any control over territory, which a new, Communist, regime did, though with limited sovereignty. But just because Poland "existed" on a map and the Baltics didn't (on most maps), doesn't, at least as I see it, make the former "less occupied" than the latter (at least until 1956), particularly as it too had a government claiming de jure occupation.

Anyway, we're on the same side in the wider dispute, I'm not trying to start an argument, and if I'm completely wrong, don't hesitate to correct me - you're the expert! Biruitorul 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

With the Baltics, de jure or not comes into play as to whether the joining by Latvia to the Soviet Union was legal (it was under Soviet law, but not under Latvian law). Since not legal, the Soviet presence becomes an occupation essentially continuous with the first, being interrupted by the Nazi occupation, for its entire tenure. Occupation, however, can also be legal and still be an occupation.

It would seem to me that Romania should be an easier case. With an occupying Allied (Soviet) presence controlling Romania in agreement with the terms of a treaty, that became a legal occupation. As long as the Soviet presence continued under the auspices of that treaty, it continued to be a (legal) occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you have the energy to try and convince others of this (or get our view to prevail) with regard to the Romania article, I would appreciate your assistance. Biruitorul 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for jumping in at this off-placed discussion. I do have to correct a misinterpretation.

1. In 1991 the Baltics declared independence as successor states to the soviet republics. This new independence was recogniced by all countries, except possibly Finland. There was almost absolute continuity in government; in Estonia the Edgar Savisaar cabinet continued in office, with no major change in policy. The change happend after 1992, with the new "citizenship" based parliaments. In Estonia the discontinuity/occupation policy was promoted by the new prime minister Mart Laar. While the Baltic states were de facto part of the Soviet Union, the argument is that de jure they were under occupation. I am not saying this intepretation of history is correct. What I am saying is, that the de jure argumet is the basis used for naming the period, and the related Wikipedia articles "occupation".
2. Regarding Romania, the only arguments presented are that Soviet presence in Romania was de facto occupation. So far no one has come up with a credible argument that it was de jure occupation after 1947. -- Petri Krohn 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(I have moved this discusson to Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania#Comparison with the Baltic Republics -- Petri Krohn 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi, Pēters -- got your message. First, let me say I enjoyed a lot reading what you wrote on the talk page for this article -- quite informative, it made me view things through a novel prism. I can't say more now -- gotta run -- but quickly, no problem with the diacritics, but I 1) wanted to put the correct links in case the respective pages get created; and 2) wasn't quite sure what the original had it in terms of spelling. For that, I did a quick search, and came uo with this, so I used the spelling from there. Please feel free to edit at will. Talk later. Turgidson 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the diacritics (from appearance, not from wikilinks) -- is this an accurate transcript of the actual document now? Turgidson 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You said: "if you take a look again during editing, you'll see that the Wiki article references all have the appropriate diacritics and almost all already have an article." I turned one of those redlinks blue, at: Dumitru Dămăceanu. While researching his bio, I found this interesting snippet, from testimony given by General Dămăceanu 20 years later, in front of an official Party comission: "Prin aceasta punere in scena sovieticii au incercat sa demonstreze ca Bucurestiul a fost ocupat si eliberat de catre Armata Rosie, desi rezistenta germana din oras fusese lichidata cu mult inainte de patrunderea trupelor sovietice." I'm not sure you can follow the Romanian text, but he basically it says that German resistance in Bucharest in August 1944 was eliminated by the Romanian troops much before the arrival of Soviet troops, which then proceeded to stage the photo-op that you caught on to. More details are here. Is there a good way to point this out in the article? Turgidson 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issue of transliterating Latin to Cyrillic. We should create guidelines on Wikipedia against this practice. I coined the term double transliteration (and the redirect) to discribe this. This could be expanded into an article or section. -- Petri Krohn 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page there on whether to call the killing by NKVD border guards of dozens (perhaps hundreds) of unarmed villagers trying to cross from the Soviet Union into Romania on April 1, 1941 a "massacre" or an "incident". Pretty much everyone agrees it was a massacre (which is what it is called in the quoted references), except one person, who says the killings were perfectly justified, so no massacre, just an incident. If you have some time and interest in this matter, please do take a look and give your opinion. I'm especially interested in hearing your view on the legal aspects -- you seem to have quite a bit of expertise on that. Turgidson 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Say, let's consider a situation where the Russian army (still, which one of them were you referring to there?) magically disappears. What should be the next step? -- Illythr 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The PMR is such a mess, I'll have to think about it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pēters. One more question, on a different subject. A bunch of us have been working recently on the article on these joint Soviet-Romanian companies from the 1940s-1950s (related to the Soviet occupation of Romania article). We came about some difficulties evaluating the numerical output of one of these companies, Sovromcuarţ, which used to produce uranium ore that would go straight to a processing plant in Sillamäe. In particular, I noticed a non-negligible discrepancy between available sources on what the total amount of exported ore was (see the talk page for SovRoms for details). Maybe you have access to sources that could help resolve this discrepancy? Also, by the way, it would seem useful to expand the article on Sillamäe while at it (there has been some recent expansion as a result of all this, but maybe more is possible). Turgidson 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can take a look through my Baltic sources to see if anything is mentioned. I assume you've come across this link [4] which includes references to original sources. I'd suggest posting Sillamäe to Baltic states notice board under articles needing attention, someone might be able to help out with Estonian language references. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to nti.org -- I had not done my homework well enough, so I had missed it. This seems a very professional site, with reliable info -- I will study it in more detail. Notice right away though that they talk about "produced over 100,000 tons of uranium", and then later on, "6.3 million metric tons of uranium processing residues". This confirms (partly) my suspicion that some less careful sources may mistake uranium ore (Uraninite) for the purer form of uranium; but also there could likely be imprecisions from all the secrecy surrounding these matters (for rather understandable reasons, I guess). Also, thanks for the pointer to the Baltic states notice board, I will give it a shot when I get a chance (probably not this weekend, though). Best, Turgidson 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I gave a warning here saying "Discuss article content, not other editors." This comment is totally unacceptable. If I see anything like that again, you will be blocked. Khoi khoi 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing content, or more precisely, the lack of content in postulating this article is biased. This is a pattern of behavior in numerous articles discussing the Soviet legacy, that is, uncomplimentary to Soviets = POV. If this means I cannot dispute the actions or contentions of a particular editor, or observe that their actions and contentions fit a particular pattern, please state that here specifically. I will be glad to take this up with a committee of admins if you like. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you were insulting another user. Don't do it again. Khoi khoi 00:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You can take anything anywhere you want. Wanna links to pages where you can voice your grievances? You may not like the feedback you will get there though. -- Irpen 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate feedback, the blunter the better. However, I ignore (or vigorously defend against, as needed) syllogisms which twist facts into lies, e.g., I am anti-Soviet, Soviets were anti-fascist heroes, I am anti-(anti-Fascist), I am (anti-anti)-Fascist, I am pro-Fascist, I am a Nazi, Nazis murdered Jews, therefore: I am a Holocaust-denying Nazi defending the majority of Latvians who were more than happy to pick up rifles to slaughter Jews.

Alas, as I interpret Khoi khoi [5], I can't mention who engaged in this conduct since that would be talking about editors. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are falsely bringing a straw man here. You invoke some names that I never used in addressing you and then try to make a point of how they do not apply. I do not think of you as of the Nazi-lover, I never said I did and whatever that I do think I will keep to myself. -- Irpen 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, here is a question. You were fighting the cold war battles so fiercely lately that I am afraid you forgot about my earlier suggestions. How is the merge of two Tilbergs' articles going? Anything? Nothing? Any chance for us to see the Latvian Academy of Arts, Eduards Smilgis? I guess you are too busy lately for these. Should I start a couple more Latvian articles for you since you are busy fending off the great Russian imperialism all over Wiki, like I have already done? I will gladly do that if it would stimulate you to productive activity. -- Irpen 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pēters — let me just say that I do appreciate your principled stand, and your contributions to several articles and discussions where we have interacted recently. To cheer you up, take a look if you wish at this "citation needed" tag, and this citation in response. Priceless. Turgidson 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really. I have nothing against referenced statements. I happen to believe that words like "Stalinist" should be used only when so warranted and I wanted Piotrus to justify the usage. I am happy that he did. Happy edits, -- Irpen 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What a strange suggestion, Irpen. I was under the impression that Wikipedians chose which articles they wish to work on. But, as long as suggestions are being given -- perhaps you'd like to withdraw from butting into controversies throughout the periphery of the former Russo-Soviet empire? As they say, it takes two to tango -- if you ceased to wander about trying to rename massacres "incidents" and attempting to deny the occupation of the Baltics, etc., I am sure that Pēters would have more time to write about the arts, no? By the way, Pēters does do plenty of work on the arts in Latvia at his fine site -- check out his marvelous project on Alberta iela in Rīga, for example. -- Pēteris Cedriņš 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Peteris Cedrins, I appreciate your suggestions on what you advise me to do. You may want to check my contributions, though, to see that I keep creating new articles in various topics and adding to the existing ones rather than as you claim "butting into controversies throughout the periphery of the former Russo-Soviet empire". In the spirit of this, I have created the article on the prominent Latvian artist and asked Vecrumba to help develop it. In response Vecrumba created a rival article on the same subject for an unknown to me reason and ignored my suggestion to merge them. With so many gaps on the coverage of his beloved Latvia all over wikispace I would expect the contributor who claims to be so committed to anything Latvian to have at least some interest in filling those gaps. Seeing him spending so much time flaming fellow editors in the talk page of most every article about any country touched by the evil empire, I thought I bring up my older idea to him one more time. You are right that Wikipedians chose which articles they wish to work on. As such, Vecrumba may choose to ignore my suggestion. It will then be left to others to fill the gaps. I started to collect the material for the Smilgis article and will write it myself. I hope then Vecrumba or you will be interested in at least developing it. -- Irpen 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the folks of interest take a peek here, let me say the same thing I have said on Transnistria, on the various articles including occupation of the Baltics, et al..

    In the case of the Soviet occupation of Romania or the Fântâna Albă massacre, I have absolutely no issue with an article stating that "according to primarily Romanian sources... ABC" and "according to Soviet era sources... XYZ" and noting the paucity of English-language sources. My issue is with editors who make contentions unsubstantiated by facts, or interpret facts and then presenting their interpretation as fact (Webster's dictionary describes word "A" as XYZ, therefore...), and then push those as the viewpoint an article should adopt. (Or simply dispute what is there without offering any substantiated alternative.)

    Tagging should be a last resort. Here, on Wikipedia, it is a first resort. And once tagged, then all discussion degenerates into discussion of the tag and all progress stops. Meanwhile, not one shred of citable evidence is produced to corroborate the substance of the POV tag.

    I would be glad to work on Tilbergs (I smiled when I saw someone had taken the time to make a gramatical correction yesterday). But in the grand scheme of my still limited Wiki-time, that is a luxury I would like to indulge in but from which other issues are pulling me away. BTW, I have not heard back on copyright on reproducing some of Tilbergs' works, I'll have to follow up on that.

    What little time I have to spare after essential Wikiactivities I put toward my own web site. For example, I finally added the catalog of the first Latvian Arts and Crafts Exhibition [6], a project I had started more than 8 months ago, and started on translating the book on the Freedom Monument published by the original Freedom Monument Committee [7].

    In the latter, you will note the mention of the British tourism brochure that a decade after Latvian independence printed the Stalinist story that the Freedom Monument was built to honor Stalin, the three stars signifying the three Baltic States. That is why I am so "vigorous." That this particular lie is about Latvia is not the motivation. Those who characterize me as arguing from the viewpoint of a "Baltic nationalist" misinterpret my position: that it is a lie that Stalin created in his oppression of hundreds of millions and the murder of tens of millions is the motivation. Those who would promulgate the Stalinist viewpoint should consider for whom they are being an apologist.

    It's not about Latvia and the Baltics, or Romania, or Transnistria, or..., it's about Russia. Russia and the Russians will never be free until they are free of Stalin's lies. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. And, great web site, Pēters — congratulations! Turgidson 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to respond to several of the points you are making above. First, about your being busy. Please do not waste yours or other people's time on explaining how busy you are. I have yet to meet a single person who does not consider oneself "extremely busy". We are all very busy off-wiki. I truly sympathize with your RL problems and hope you solve them all and live happily ever after.

Regarding the Fantana Alba, the article was tagged when several editors taking turns (in order to outrevert) were persistently removing a sourced statement. I still do not understand why. This was done half a dozen times and this is the "according to..." type of statement you claim to support. Only then the article was tagged as this would have forced the discussion instead of a silly revert war.

Finally, Russians (I am not) would probably appreciate your concern about them. However, they will probably be able to take care about their things without your help. Maybe you forgot, but it was Russians (to be exact the Muscovites) who brought up the end of the Soviet Union by standing up courageously against the revanchist August Coup. This action of those heroes (who in your opinion need your help to better understand the concept of democracy and freedom), brought about the end of the USSR that made possible the emergence of the independent Latvia. I understand it may less pleasing and patriotically fulfilling to admit that and instead claim that Latvia became independent due to some of its diaspora comfortably living in UK and US going around the world with their claims of being the "vessel of Latvian sovereignty" (or what was that term?). -- Irpen 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Isn't this view of history just a tad Moscow-centric (to coin a word)? Yes, Boris Yeltsin's stand on the tank was courageous, and a memorable moment. And yes, let's give credit to the Muscovites that stood up courageously against the August Coup. But there were many other forces at play "who brought up the end of the Soviet Union". I, for one, can think of U.S. President Ronald Reagan's stand in the 1980's as a crucial turning point in the Cold War; so was Pope John Paul II's stand. And I think one must give much of the credit to the Eastern Europeans themselves for the Revolutions of 1989, and for the subsequent restoration of independence for the Baltic Republics. Turgidson 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, while there were at most a few thousands in the streets, it was what Antonio Gramsci (describing the Risorgimento) termed a "passive revolution", an élite-led and driven phenomenon in which the masses were largely quiescent, and a few elements of the ruling power structure pacted a transition to a new structure (the CIS) in which they kept power for themselves and only the Baltics were able to break free. Indeed, polls consistently showed that the Soviet people where overwhelmingly against Western-style capitalism, with some favouring Scandinavian-style social democracy and others wishing to retain central planning. Yeltsin was a communist functionary and, after the disastrous year of Gaidar-Chubais, insider privatisation started taking hold, then the White House attack sealed the anti-reformist trend, a matter only confirmed by the return of hack Chernomyrdin, the loans-for-shares affair that ensconced the Red directors in their positions, and the 17 August 1998 insider deal crash, whence a straight line leads to dictator Putin, a KGB coatholder. In Georgia, the great Zviad Gamsakhurdia was sabotaged from the start, being replaced by Soviet #2 man Shevardnadze. Belarus and Ukraine signed the CIS pact; Shushkevich was dumped in favour of Leninist Lukashenka; the CIA-driven "Orange Revolution" has clearly failed (thank goodness - I have no love for the Gas Princess either). Armenia and Azerbaijan? The Reds are back. Kyrgyzstan? The Reds still hold sway by proxy. Tajikistan? The Reds won. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan? They never left. Biruitorul 04:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hi, Pēters. I think you would like to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Russian_sentiment. Thanks. 80.235.53.82 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania. For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello - thought I'd let you know that case for mediation on Occupation of Baltic States is now open: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic_states. As you have contributed to the article in question and have discussed the topic before, I thought you might be interested in leaving your comments there as well. DLX 05:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the mediation, you have posted this question:

Let's take your example: what is the basis for Russian Minister of Defense, Sergey Ivanov, declaring: "You can not occupy something that belongs to you."?

I am interested in the original source for this declaration, for the article of Soviet occupation denialism, as an example of fresh political belief of Baltic states having belonged to Russia. Apparently, your translation is not a common one, though, as the only reference Google can find is this very Mediation Cabal article on Wikipedia. Can you, please, provide me with an original source? Digwuren 12:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's from the article cited by Lantios in the mediation case, http://www.rian.ru/victory/20050507/39947379.html, reported by RIA Novosti. A slightly cleansed machine translation of the article provides: calls the statement by politicians that the USSR occupied the Baltics "absurdity"... "that they [politicians] indicate that the U.S.S.R. occupied the Baltic states--these [contentions] are absurdity and nonsense. It is not possible to occupy that which belongs to you." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have integrated the quotation into the article. Digwuren 09:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Vecrumba, I just read your statement on the Transnistria ArbCom case and have two complaints for you:

Theoretical:

I was quite surprised to see this painfully familiar style coming from you, considering your stance on all things Soviet. This rhetoric was used in wartime "courts" in the early days of the Soviet Union, as well as during the Great Purge. It basically amounts to the following:

"We need not listen to him, because anything he'll ever say will be just another reactionary lie to cloud the minds of honest, hard-working people. Let's shoot him on the spot before he has a chance to defend himself."

Some more on this process here.

Practical:

You didn't provide a single reference ( over here). While hunting for those diffs may be pretty boring and time-consuming, I think it should be done on such serious occasions, as the lack of any solid proof for your claims makes your statement even more in line with the "Soviet prosecutor" one above. For example, while I remember you two debating the early presence of Russians in the region, it was you who mentioned the "historical Russian claims to the territory of the PMR". That compelled me to comment on that specifically, because I assumed that you were either badly mislead or happily fighting a strawman, there. Mauco had actually said something opposite, here.

PS: Say, why did you delete the "rigorous application of fact" up there. I think it kinda made whole point worthwhile... -- Illythr 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was worried that too much time had passed without commenting, so I did it in a bit of a rush--I'm away from home and will be in transit again the next couple of days. Valid point on needing examples. On the user box, it was quoted elsewhere (prior to the rigorous fact addition), so I simplified it--but it really lost its focus--that is, denying Stalinism based only on the facts. The facts are back! Thanks!

You might be interested in Lettonica blogspot interview. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did read the (rather wordy) piece. An interesting point of view, there, but nothing really new to me. I think you're a bit too paranoid about Russia. There do seem to be some sinister forces at work there, but calling it Stalinist is way over the edge. Let's see what happens in 2008, first. I also think you're overusing the word "Stalinist" too much. Whether it's part of a scarecrow tactic (the same one calling Latvians "Fascist"), or that your definition of it is broader than this one, I can't tell. This leads to mistakes, though - for instance, the Moldovan language wasn't Stalin's invention - the initiative came from Kotovsky, among others, and had occured before Stalin's rise to power. Here's a bit more on that.

Well, at least you didn't call Russians "dogs" anymore. About the only thing that really stood out (in the negative sense) was the every Russian pronouncement of thanks to its heroes part. While the context for it is there, the sentence reads way too generalist, as if you're demanding Russians to stop celebrating the 9th of May as a condition of reconciliation. -- Illythr 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan was, however, a tool in Stalin's hands--we also had Stalin's flip-flop with a Latin alphabet version when the situation seemed better suited in the other direction. It's been a while since I've gone through the details. Obviously, Stalin didn't personally invent it. But as I recall, the current Moldovan incarnation, post Latin-alphabet flip-flop, is not the same as the "earlier" one.

    My assessment of the Russian authorities has gotten worse, not better over time--they are more entrenched in Stalinism and Soviet propaganda than they were a decade ago. Of course that doesn't mean I'll stop shopping at my local deli for stolichny potato salad in broken Russian.

    Reconciliation = Russia admits the Soviet Union illegally invaded, annexed, and occupied the Baltics. Plain and simple.

    About the pronouncements, that goes with the text following (sending flowers to retired Red Army comfortable in their Riga apartment who say of the Latvians deported to Siberia that they "deserved it, they were all spies"), so very specific in Russian authorities glorifying those who deported Latvians to Siberia.

    Hitler turned on his buddy Stalin--between what Stalin had already done, what Hitler did, and what Stalin did after, I don't deny Russia the celebration of the victory over Nazism. It was their one brief moment of glory in a sea of darkness before and after. I just deny them celebrating the liberation of the Baltics from Nazism--as if the Soviets hadn't already invaded, occupied, and brutalized the Baltics long before Hitler's and Stalin's chummy relationship fell apart. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

An excellent illustration of this is Rendezvous (political cartoon). Digwuren 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see my answer to you, then come in [ here]. M.V.E.i. 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from SOD AfD:

Illythr, you mischaracterize my position. My position is that the Stalinist story of Soviet history is stated today as if it were fact when it is fiction. As such, anyone who today parrots Stalin's fiction is a Stalinist.
    What is "factually incorrect" in the USSR issue from the point forward you specify? Nothing in this particular instant except that it conveniently omits the need for rebuilding and why there weren't enough engineers: the results of destruction of Latvia's assets and liquidation of its engineers, doctors, lawyers (professional class) by the self-same Soviets. Nor does it mention that the Soviets invaded first = the fiction that the Soviets entered Latvia solely to vanquish fascism = which would be the lie at the beginning of my quote.
    1) Have I suggested blaming the Soviets for any offense they cannot be factually and indisputably shown to have committed? No. The issue is not what facts I lay at which doorstep, the issue is that in attempting to lay documented facts at the indisputably appropriate doorstep, I and all others armed with facts which do not sanctify the Soviet past are called Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
    2) Mass migration is associated with deportations when they are two parts of the same grand Soviet plan. We can call it de-Latvianization if you like, however, historically, Stalin was not the first perpetrator of "Russification" in Latvia--that term had already been coined, so it's perfectly fine to reuse. "Russophonification" is not a real word as far as I know. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1) I counted at least two right now: 2)

• You seem to think that once something associates with something else in your mind, they both objectively share all their attributes. So that if the guy with the caliper reminds you of the guy with the rifle, the former can be expected to start killing people any moment? Or was the crime in (further) defiling the pure Baltic lands with all those "unclean people" from all over the USSR? I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with genetics or superiority of one nation over the others...
• Did you expect the Soviet troops to stop in their tracks once they reach the borders of the Soviet Union in 1944? Oops, the borders of the first "sovereign state" enjoying freedom under peaceful German administration (never mind the death camps, it's only Jews, Commies and their sympathizers in there anyway)? Or did you expect them to teleport to Germany?

PS: It's also interesting to note that the 1941-1944 period is also conveniently omitted. Even as a reason for the following "denial", as if the Nazis were only smelling flowers during their "guest stay". The word "occupation" is reserved only for you-know-who, as well. -- Illythr 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It would help your case if you pointed out the "at least two" you "counted".
2. In civilised warfare, transport through a country does not necessitate occupying it. For a relatively close example, Nazi Germany pressured both Finland and even otherwise neutral Sweden to let its supply caravans pass their territory, but neither became occupied by Germany over this.
3. The claim that Baltic states were still occupied by Germany at the time Soviet troops re-entered is false. German armies were evacuating, and in many cases, had already evacuated, by that time. At best, you can claim that the evacuation was done in the threat of imminent Soviet invasion (which would be true; the threat having been caused by Finland and Soviet Union entering into an armistice and thus, massive numbers of Russian troops becoming available for such an invasion. The fact of the armistice was known to German intelligence services, too.).
4. Are you sure 1941-1944 are relevant in the context of Soviet crimes? After all, the territory being held by enemy military provides a darn good alibi ... Digwuren 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Vecrumba has understood and responded to them.
2. Eh, I didn't notice over 20 Soviet divisions drafting troops in and administering "neutral" Sweden or Finland, having recently laid waste to a critical German city. Did you?
3. Ummm? Courland_Pocket#Isolation_of_Courland? Evacuating?
4. Yes, because the phrase "Nazi occupation" is constantly used by Soviet sources describing the situation of the time. -- Illythr 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX has proposed keeping the article in userspace until we're reasonably sure it can withstand a propagandistic AfD. I agree. As for the WP:POVFORK issues -- well, I still think an "apparent* "povfork" is inevitable. The individual Soviet crimes can be explained alone (and already are), but the coverups needs a common narrative to be properly understood. Thus, I imagine we should link the crimes into a suitable category; the supposed "fork" would be between the category and the article, and claiming this as a "fork" would be obviously absurd. Digwuren 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The stable place for the article is now User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. Digwuren 10:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will also put some thought into how to avoid the POV/POVfork attack dogs. We might consider this to be the "cover" article for the individual events--there may be individual statements, etc. here which would better serve their purpose being added to the detailed article, with this remaining a chronology/summary. Ideally, we would then also want to create an appropriate category. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Woof? I mean, how is this going to help the article avoid being a POV fork? It is already a cover article... Still, just stating the events and the descriptions of those events given by official Soviet sources may be the way to go. It should at least prevent a quick AfD in the future. Pant-pant-pant. ;-) -- Illythr 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, how do you state the Soviet version of history (indicating any carry-over into the present) and then indicate it is factually false?

• Soviet position: The moon is made of cheese.
• Myself: It's made of rock, here is where you can inspect rocks taken back from the moon.
• AfD/RfA/etc.: CHEESE DENIER!  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For Estonia, ORURK (the National Commission for Researching Repressive Politics of the Occupations, Estonian: Okupatsioonide Repressiivpoliitika Uurimise Riiklik Komisjon) has published a report, called the Valge Raamat (translates as White Book). It contains detailed statistics, descriptions and estimates -- as well as reference to further sources, some of which are archives of various kinds, but some are earlier separate studies -- regarding a number of the major crimes perpetrated by the occupying Soviets against Estonia, and at a good number of times, touches issues of propaganda. Unfortunately, though, it appears to only be available in Estonian. (The upside is that it's available online.)

I believe I have heard Latvia had a similar commission. Unfortunately, I do not know if it has reached any conclusions, and if they're published. Should they be available only in Latvian, I wouldn't be able to read them. :-(

Do you happen to know of such authoritative sources that might be of use? Digwuren 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some checking and bookmarked some links, including mention of access to ex-Soviet archives--all in Latvian, unfortunately. I'll poke around some more to see if I can locate materials in English. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late notification -- I didn't associate you with Petri Krohn's polemics right away --, but I am preparing a WP:RFC/U case on Petri Krohn's conduct, particularly his tendency to express weird fantasies as fact in matters having to do with Soviet occupation and Baltic states. Currently, a few other editors have volunteered to help with the data-sifting for evidence, and yet a few more seem likely to endorse the primary complaint, currently being developed at User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn.

If you should have any thoughts relating this matter, please let me know. I'm trying to get this case as solid as possible. Sadly, it is not easy to prevail against an editor, no matter how tendentious, with an Aura of Thousands of Edits, even if half of them come from edit wars ... Digwuren 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to calls to this effect on the talk page, I'm moving forward with the WP:RFC/U with only the last six weeks worth of edits fully classified. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, which, after minor editing and addition of the most recent 'interesting' diffs, is supposed to become the main RFC around 21:00 UTC tonight. If there are reasons barring you from endorsing the current summary, I would like to learn about them as soon as possible so the main summary can be endorsed by as wide a coalition as possible.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee, as general practice, deletes rejected mediation requests. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have introduced some info recently, that is being editted and re-editted. The edits seem controvertial, but parts of them are technical. It is difficult for me to understnd some of these technicalities. Could you, please look at the edits, esp. at the technical parts (e.g.g precise citations and interpretations of those citations etc.): Dc76 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I restored text in a couple of places in the new section on treaties which the Soviets entered into. I did try to write it as a summary only (that is, reference section, not inserting any arguments for/against occupation, etc.) However, my mentioning changing the article in the mediation cabal page appears to have brought on new and quite blatant POV pushing. Unfortunately I really will be completely tied up the next couple of weeks and will probably not have a lot of time to devote... Best regards, Pēters —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand about both things. (I am also quite busy currently.) Cheers,: Dc76 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Markstreet and sockpuppets, as well as William Mauco and EvilAlex are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^{( Talk)} 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You contributed to the same discussion at Talk:List of unrecognized countries and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I recall that Latvia's pre- World War II citizenship law didn't provide any means of naturalisation, as that was considered superfluous, and first naturalisation provisions appeared in the citizenship law of 1994. Unfortunately, I can't find a source for it right now.

Can you verify whether my memory of this matter is true in the first place, and if it is, offer a source? Digwuren 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, you should really study the context of the matter before bringing the weird accusations to an ArbCom. [9] My comment re "Soviet occupation of Romania" that you cited should be checked against the condition of the article back then when it was just created. You should have seen that pearl. No context, no WW2, no Barbarossa, nothing whatsoever. It looked like Soviets just invaded Romania in 1944-45 for no reason out of the blue, overthrew the legal and democratic government and installed a puppet state. Are you confusing the the 1940 Latvia with 1944 Romania in your mind?

I assume that you know enough history to know that this is not how it happened. Romania allied with Nazi DE fielded more troops than any country except Germany when they together invaded Ukraine and Belarus on June 22, 1941. Following the takeover of the territories the Soviets forced Romania to cede a year earlier, they continued on moving westward and got an entire southwestern UA all the way to Southern Bug under their control. You may read a little about their order in Ukraine. There is not much on-wiki. Perhaps Bogdanovka only, but there is plenty in the books. This was not the end, of course. They followed on then and their troops fought shoulder to shoulder with Germans all the way up to Stalingrad. When Soviets recomposed themselves and liberated the country from the Nazi invaders they also kicked out the Nazi allies and proceeded further westward as it is normal in any war. This was the context that I assume you know.

Soviets were no angels, no one is saying otherwise. But there were different "Soviet occupations" and each and every had different contexts and different degree of illegality, so to speak.

And with this in mind, let's see the form in which the article appeared.

THE START

In 1944 Romania was occupied by Soviet troops, who would not withdraw until 1958. In the meantime, part of the country had been detached to form the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. The latter proclaimed independence in 1991, under the name of Republic of Moldova but Russian (ex-Soviet) forces remain in the republic, playing a key role in the Transnistrian conflict.

THE END

---

Are you saying that calling such a gross distortion of reality "a pearl" is an overstatement? Or do you think the article by its scope should not have be announced at the Russia-related new articles announcement board. I hope you will modify your statement about my edit?

Look, I am heartened by your interest to my activity being so deep that you are willing to dig as much and uncover such an obscure several months-old edit. But with so much time on your hands, how come you did not check the shape of the contemporary article that prompted my complaint?

And, of course, now that you have time to search for material on your fellow editors, please consider finally merging two Tilbergs articles into one as well as doing something about Latvian Academy of Arts and Eduards Smilgis still being red links. I collected some material on both when I planned to start them myself but never finished the job. If you are interested, I can post some stuff to your talk page. Regards, -- Irpen 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Irpen. What is the problem is the mechanism--the point is not the particular content, but the "microcosm": there are other ways to announce articles than calling them a "pearl." That's a sneer regardless of the content. Then, instead of putting in {{fact}} tags or doing something constructive--something he is perfectly capable of doing--Petri simply slaps a "totally disputed" banner across the whole thing. When people keep slapping "disputed", "totally disputed",... ad nauseum, 99.99% of the time bringing no sources of their own--simply tagging in a knee-jerk reaction--tags lose all meaning and turn articles into a circus.

    We both agree that progress is preferable to the current state of affairs. How about we simply all agree to a cease fire for a while and return to editing? We have had:

• Yours currently against Digwuren
• RfC Ghirlandajo
• RfC Piotrus
• RfA Piotrus
• RfA Piotrus + Ghirlandajo
• Mediation Durova
• RfC Irpen
• RfC Petri Krohn
• Checkuser Irpen
• with regards to articles, most recently, Ghirlandajo's accusations of canvassing against Piotrus (Soviet invasion of Poland article) [10]

and the list goes on and on--haven't even touched on all the article mediations and arbitrations which never go anywhere, just suck up endless amounts of time. Nor have I included the frozen conflict zones (more of the same including people proven to be paid to push propaganda). It's yours and Ghirla's choice. It's Petri's choice whether or not to continue to denounce anyone anti-Soviet as anything from "can't tell you apart from a 'real' Nazi" to "Holocaust denier". Not to imply that you are the only three such editors whom I would characterize as differing from myself in their view of Eastern European history or to specifically single you out--you are just three examples.

    In "real life" I'm nowhere near as strident as I may appear to be here--but if it's a battleground people want (like Grafikm_fr's majority of Latvians eager to kill Jews), then I will oblige.

    I don't know about you, but I have time to battle or to write, but not both.

    The next step is up to you (& company). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to post the Latvian Academy of Art info to my talk page.

If I copy your userbox of the Great Sun Joseph to my user page ? : -- Molobo 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a tough week at work, it was good to start the morning with a smile--of course you can copy! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, have shamelessly stolen your userbox, and converted it into this template. Digwuren 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vecrumba, how is it going? just wanted to let you know that I'm not going anywhere, just don't wish to deal with the edit warring over there at this time. The way I look at it, it's just a Soviet occupation of the history of Latvia on WP. I also wanted to let you know that I thoght User:Philaweb post on the talk page deserved an answer so I left my responce to his/her talk page instead User talk:Philaweb. In general, I'd take it easy, one day the soviet occupation of the history of Latvia on WP is going to end anyway like the soviet occupation in reality ended at one point. take care, let me know if anything. Thanks-- Termer 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding several referenced facts to the article. Please do not mark such edits as minor. Same applies to your talk page entires. Please use the minor only for grammar corrections, cleanup, etc. TIA, -- Irpen 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Irpen not that it's any of my business, therefore I'd just need to make it my business. Before coming on lecturing other editors how they should mark their edits concerning refs, please consider providing a single ref to back up your claims at Occupations of Latvia. Until it's not done, none of your opinions could be taken seriously as far as I'm concerned.Thanks-- Termer 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Termer, my post is on the purely technical matter unrelated to the content disputes. As for the Latvia article, I expressed by objections there several times and many of the uninvolved third-party editors who commented saw my points are meritorious. -- Irpen 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, likewise, mine is on the purely technical matter unrelated to the content disputes. (content dispute would involve parties providing some sources to back up the opinions) At the same time I have to admit, there is something in common with your takes and the editors who share it, they rely on personal opinions without backing it up using any sources and attempt to edit WP accordingly. Please note that in the long run it's not going to be a strategy anybody can build an encyclopedia with. Therefore please consider responding to my note that's purely technical and provide any evidence or sources that would back up your personal opinions. And from there on I'm sure, other editors can take your opinions more seriously regarding any matters concerning WP. Thanks!-- Termer 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything to say about the Latvia article, please use that article's talk. I wrote here on a matter that is not article-specific. Happy edits, -- Irpen 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not expect you to be familiar with Christian ideas, but they have a nice saying: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matthew 7:3). Termer does have a point -- one that Irpen would do well to ponder for a while. Digwuren 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Irpen for making it clear that you don't have any intentions to back up your opinions with any reliable sources either asked directly on the relevant talk page or elsewhere. Happy revert wars to you!-- Termer 20:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Anyway, Vecrumba, please consider taking into account this purely technical and noncontroversial request. TIA, -- Irpen 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Anyway, Irpen please consider taking into account this purely technical and noncontroversial request regarding backing up your opinions with any sources while going into revert wars on WP. Thanks-- Termer 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen! "Minor edit" is my editing template default, I don't always remember to uncheck it. I'll update my preference so my edits are minor only if I specifically select that option. I agree that updating articles with additional references (and statistics) should not be marked as minor, as many use the distinction to cut down on watched article change notifications. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please watch carefully. This is how it's done. Digwuren 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Scripturally I've always been partial to: "If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." (Rom. 12:20), a lesson I learned long ago from Charles Schultz and Charlie Brown. No reference intended to any particular person. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peters, looks like Termer has gone ahead and split the article, pretendng there was some kind of agreement on the talk page. I thought it rather odd that he so readily agreed with Irpen's earlier suggestion to rename the article Latvia in WWII. Martintg 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pēters J. Vecrumba, how about calling the article Occupation of Latvia (1940) and the German and "2nd soviet occupation" are going to be kept in the Aftermath section? yes or no? Thanks!-- Termer 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Occupied Latvia" and refer to post WWII as Latvia and the West call it occupation, while Russian parliament has affirmed Latvia joined legally? "1940" then winds up not calling the Nazis another occupation. Title section "Aftermath of World War II". —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And, P.S. Russia contends, Lavtia and the West have facts to back up their "contentions." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in contributing to this article - I see a draft article in your userspace has been linked on talk of it.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Acctualy, I believe that this expresion originates from Lithuanian - I think I once saw a Lithuanian born actress on TV, being asked how they call Latvians - she mentioned this and said that she thinks it is because of how shoreline of Latvia looks on map. ---- Xil... sist! 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pēters, thanks so much for the award. It certainly is shiny! I'll defninitely wear it with pride. — Zalktis 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't recreate deleted articles. -- ChrisO 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your template and the attached rational. Makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps you could develop it further in your userspace. Martintg 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty disappointed how things went on Talk:Kraków, and frankly, I don't think I'm the only one to blame. You could have looked closer into some of the diffs you were responding to, I believe. Also, I wonder why you respond to comments addressed to others, and feel attacked by me? Responding with, to say the least, condescending remarks regarding my self-overrated proficiency of habla espanol? As for the recent edit wars, see my statement [11]. At a second look, I noticed I had mixed up the timing comparisons, but anyway, after Piotrus toppled the consensus and used up his 3RR, User:Szopen showed up and continued with reverting to Piotrus. A coincidence, of course, this happens many times ... Regarding "conspiracies", see User_talk:Piotrus#3RR and User:Matthead reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:No violation). --  Matthead  ^discuß!      O       23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I addressed others, you just happened to feel targeted and hit. Regarding proper treatment of history, please compare to e. g. the city known as Lemberg, which until 1918 has a similar fate to Cracow (overshadowed by more complicated later events though). Or the town and city was officially named Memel, where history is properly sorted into statehood periods rather than unrelated centuries. The problem with Cracow (nevermind "Krakuff") compared to these cities is, frankly, a few over-motivated locals tooting their horns, and trying to suppress plain historic facts such as the city known as Krakau. Try inserting it, and see how long it survives. Or look up how often it was erased before, and with which summaries. Same for "the current structure of the article, which does not discuss the history of the city according to who ruled over it" which is more than doubtful, it wants to insinuate "always Polish, of course!", and even left a gap of about a century. There were two important historic periods, Golden Age with German artists, citizen, craftsmen, then decline and struggle, and then 19th century Austrian rule until 1918, which shaped the modern town, e.g. by reviving the university with the Collegium Novum. This is better reflected in the history of Jagiellonian University. --  Matthead  ^discuß!      O       01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"the empty time period section is problematic as the prior section (title notwithstanding) contains information up to the first World War" I had tried to divide the text according to sections headers that covered time continuously [12], but was reverted (as usual). That the section "Early 19th century to 1918" remains empty stands shows how messed up things are. Go and try to move it to a more appropriate position within "Early 19th century", or change the naming. If I do it, it might get a ticket for 3RR again. --  Matthead  ^discuß!      O       04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it, how many people are not aware of problems with Soviet historiography? They tend to think its just the 'other side'. Sigh. In any case, we should try to improve Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. As it is, it's unreferenced mess, and if it was created just now it would likely be AfDed :( --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you were included in the subject, please see Talk:Moldova#.22Moldovian.22_Language.3F. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't understand - the official Moldovan websites say "Moldovan language" and it's also official in the Constitution. I failed to see Romanian anywhere in there... Also what do you mean by really is Romanian? -- PaxEquilibrium 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well? Also, are you claiming that there is no such thing as Moldovan Latin?

Actually I don't see much difference (in present) from Montenegrin... -- PaxEquilibrium 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan and Romanian are two names for the same language. Montenegrin, on the other hand, has a slightly different alphabet--more letters--than Serbian and Croatian, so that qualifies it as a distinct dialect. The two situations are not the same. PētersV 01:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin doesn't have a different alphabet - Montenegrin has no alphabet, because it simply does not exist (it only exists politically - just like Moldovan). The two characters are a proposal made by several people, educated outside Montenegro - and their characters are not used by anyone at all - not even by themselves. This proposal also died with the recent death of its founder in Belgrade - Vojislav Nikčević. Do you get me now? -- PaxEquilibrium 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the proposal to create a Montenegrin language was initiated in 1993 and promoted since 2004, or especially since 2006 independence (culminating with writing it into the Constitution as official in 2007), I can't see how can you say that it's nothing new. It didn't AFAIK arise from a desire to have a communal language, but the very first origins drawn are from the Axis forces and World War II. A number of ideas were propagated to support existence of Benito Mussolini's Kingdom of Italy puppet-state *regal* "Independent State of Montenegro". The Ustasha ideology that promoted a distinct, as well as sub-Croatian, ethnos of the Montenegrin - rather than as of Serbian. It promoted the idea that the language spoken by Montenegrins was distinct from classic Serbian, and AFAIK a dialect of Croatian. The ideology collapsed as quickly as it was created in 1941, as the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland - better known as the " Chetniks" raised rebellions and constantly kept Montenegro under their control, and finally was defeated when the Partisans won in the Civil War liberating Montenegro in 1944. While Tito was old a number of Montenegrin scholars were educated in Zagreb, rather than neutrally in Montenegro (at the time nationalisms were arising, so anyone educated about themselves in Serbia or Croatia didn't really get the NPOV image), and with the resurgence of the war, Franjo Tudjman of the ruling Croatian Democratic Union raised the claim that Montenegrins are actually Croats again - in Croatia, starting from 1993 and under his protection, new studies were being conducted, including those for a distinct Montenegrin language. In 1997 and 1998 Slobodan Milosevic's ideology suffered a staggering defeat in MNE, and those people returned, with their ideological beliefs becoming popular and promoted into the Montenegrin public (with the language thing obviously wining, while a separate Montenegrin Orthodox Church apparently doomed to failure). So it's quite similar to the Moldovan case - however the major difference was that in Montenegro it were the Nazis and in Moldova the Soviets.

Serbian (or Serbo-Croatian) uses both ekavian and iyekavian, by the way.

Well in what legal sense precisely. Is the language called Romanian in schools? Do the majority of Moldovan citizens consider Romanian their native tongue? What language is official in the Constitution and the Laws? What's called the language used in official documents, etcetera?

I didn't delete it. As you can see, the footnote is there just like it's in Montenegro article - what I think is obscure is not keeping in the actual table what writes exclusively politically, and not linguistically (which is pointed out practically everywhere else - including Moldovenism and Ethnogenesis, which are a little POV to my opinion). I don't see any greater reason to blatantly point it out at places where we should show the political status, aside from solely trying to point out that Moldovans are actually Romanians - which I think is POV because that fact is stated practically everywhere else. -- PaxEquilibrium 12:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

i urge you to rewrite your statement according to latter developments at Talk:Soviet_occupation_of_Romania#I_was_wrong. If you fail to do so, I'll consider it a sign of bad faith and block shopping. Since I assume you weren't aware of that section, I won't issue a response until you decide whether you wish to keep it in the present form, or change it to reflect reality. Anonimu 16:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're doing good on Anonimu/Anittas/Irpen vs. K. Lastochka/Istvan/Sceptre/Springeragh/Vecrumba/AdrianTM/Biruiturol/a lot of other people. Keep it up. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PētersV please take a look at this, it would be a good idea to start up I thnk Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force-- Termer 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The task force is all set up and ready for sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Baltic_states_military_history_task_force#Participants -- Termer 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What says you?-- victor falk 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed you on 29 Oct. in response to your question on my talk page. Did you get it? Regards, Zalktis ( talk) 08:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Message resent. Hope you get it. — Zalktis ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^{( Talk)} 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.