Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

The Soviet rule is (most probably always) referred to as occupation in reputable sources

Variety of sources, as was cited on Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 ( diff):

- '"Ultimatums of June 15, 16, 1940, charged hostile activities; Russia had occupied the Baltics militarily and had arranged for pro-Soviet administrations to request admittance to the Soviet Union."' -- Encyclopedia of World History

- '"Nazi-Soviet Pact of Aug., 1939, placed the Baltic countries under Soviet control, and the following month the USSR secured military bases in Estonia. Complete Soviet military occupation came in June, 1940."' Estonia, The Columbia Encyclopedia

- '"Soviet troops occupied Latvia in 1940, and subsequent elections held under Soviet auspices resulted in the absorption of Latvia into the USSR as a constituent republic."' -- Latvia, The Columbia Encyclopedia

- Encarta uses it.

- multitude of results on google book search just for for "Soviet occupation" Estonia OR Latvia OR Lithuania

-Also Britannica: [The Soviet occupation and incorporation http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-37317/Latvia

Thus, as I've already claimed with my request, the 3 users - Irpen, Grafikm fr, User:Petri Krohn who dispute the fact of occupation, have engage in promoting MINORITY POV, and rigidly reject the Wikipedia:Verifiability principles. Constanz - Talk 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Disputing occupation term relies on WP:OR or straw man arguments

Irpen, Grafikm fr, User:Petri Krohn merely use WP:OR or straw man arguments instead of sources. Just some of their 'thesis':

1. “ Baltic states joined USSR in 1940” - this here is one's own invention (doesn't satisfy WP:V)
2. Baltic states “were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet” and “ All this hardly qualifies as "occupation"” - we can't base a dispute on one's sentiments
3. Calling the events Soviet occupation is called a modern form of Holocaust denial” - Are Western mainstream sources also holocaust-denying? The argument used by P.Krohn and others is esp. malicious (but is often repeated: [2])
4. The term 'occupation' is said to be “crafted during the Cold War” - again no sources, but own argumentation
5. To support (!) the thesis that Baltic states were not occupied by the USSR it is claimed that Baltic states collaborated quite willingly with Nazi Germany” (more willingly than the USSR 1939-1941?)
6. Another argument why 'occupation didn't take place': “ Well, because Baltic people (in average, again) gladly collaborated with Nazis. Something they quite willingly "forget", I wonder why.”

From statements for Request for arbitration, there are following 'arguments' found, which should prove that 'Latvia was not occupied by the USSR':

1. “Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial”
2. “The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States to deprive citizenship from their ex-soviet citizens. The view expressed in this article is the one promoted by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, a propaganda tool of the Latvian government”. ( diff) - Most probably, P.Krohn also find Britannica and Encarta “propaganda tools” of Western imperialism.
3. About the present article it is said: ”In its present form it only serves as a tool for ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech.”
4. “Until 1991 most of the worlds governments saw the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union as legal.” - which is obviously false: compare intro of Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945
5. And there are said to be “also sources that show that Latvia and Latvians voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940.” -- Curiously, none have been cited so far! Constanz - Talk 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thus, if User:Grafikm fr says that ( diff) “while some sort of consensus is not reached, the tag has to stay as a warning for a casual reader” I'm afraid that the tag will remain forever, since how can we achieve a consensus which would include opinions based on original research, straw man arguments or propaganda ideas of And you are lynching Negroes type? How is it possible to reconcile Flat Earth Society members with a modern viewpoint? Constanz - Talk 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thus, the result of the dispute carried on by 3 users is disruption. Constanz - Talk 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Petri Krohn has been violating WP:NOT#Blog, Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:NPA

Petri Krohn seems to be using Wikipedia as a tool to promote his personal views on Baltic states. He attacked Edward Lucas on latter's Wikipedia talk page [3], presenting some weird insinuations, e.g. as if Edward Lucas' article on Estonia's citizenship policies had been really written by Mart Laar (!?). Petri Krohn then started reverting tags on Occupation of Latvia article, doing so 4 times without explaining anything and without having previously written a single character into the article text (his first rv January 10, 2007).

His first 'argument' (after 5th rv) was that the article could be seen “as a modern form of Holocaust Denial” ( diff). This is a clear personal attack, none of the constructive contributors to the article have denied Holocaust and the article itself is based on verifiable mainstream sources. Unfortunately, Petri Krohn has been repeating such malificient remarks instead of citing real sources:

• here he claims again that he sees the present article “as a form of Holocaust revisionism”
• accuses the Baltic states of “Nuremberg style denaturalization laws”, which is comparing current state of affairs in these states with Nazi Germany.
• Petri Krohn also regards Latvia as illegal ethnocracy (even this time forgetting to cite his sources): “Opponent however see the whole Latvian state as an illegal ethnocracy. I tend to agree.”
• accuses the users who have really constructively contributed to the article of being “a Baltic gang” of ”"ethnofacist" POV pushers“ who are said to be harassing others: [4] (this remark itself is probably a “targeted personal attack” ( Wikipedia:Harassment#Types_of_harassment)

Accusations of Holocaust denial are appalling personal assaults; repeatedly adding unfounded tags, giving no sources but failing to recognise sources by the other side - this caused Disruption.

Also, Wikipedia is not a place to promote some particular ideas based on one's personal opinions. But that's exactly what Petri Krohn has been doing on User:Edwardlucas's page and even with his arbitration statement, which he turned into general accusation against the Baltic states ('ethnocracy' etc). Constanz - Talk 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Legitimate and disruptive POV tagging

The motivation behind POV tagging can span between a legitimate desire to improve an article, up to disruption and vandalism aimed at destroying the article. Instances of tagging have no doubt improved the article, because it leads to robust discussion and clarification of issues on the talk page, hence it is constructive. However when tagging is done with minimal explanation and no cites given to alternative POVs, or facts and evidence of occupation is simply dismissed when attempting to sustain the dispute, then it becomes disruptive and consensus is impossible to find. Assuming good faith, all tags ought to be viewed constructively, but should tagging continue without basis to verifable cites to published sources, then it must be deemed disruptive. The list below places in order from constructive to disruptive tagging:

POV Tag Initially placed by Ilja

POV tag initially placed by Ilja on November 9th [5] on basis that he personally believed it would affect his residency status in Latvia [6].

After discussion on talk page with Ilja and addition of section to substantiate correctness of title [7] and no further issue raised by Ilja to reasons to remove tag [8], consensus assumed and tag removed. Constructive.

POV tagging by Ghirlandajo

Ghirlandajo applies the POV-title tag for the first time on Dec 6 [9], with no justification on talk page, apart from his contribution in regard to Heroization of Fascism: [10]. Ghirlandajo didn't sustain the dispute, it wasn't a disruption, but it wasn't constructive either. Neutral.

Article tagged non-compliant by Irpen

Although Irpen first began discussion on talk page on September 1st [11] and even makes a minor editorial contribution to the article on October 27 [12], there was no discussion of title being POV until Irpen tagged the article non-compliant on Nov 10th [13] along with corresponding discussion as to reasons in "General Criticisms" section in talk [14]. Discussions on this matter continue until Nov 19th, with no further input from Irpen since Nov 14th [15]

While the discussion on the talk page is focused the non-compliant tag, Irpen adds an additional POV-title tag [16] on Nov 13th without any reason given in talk page.

By Dec 5th, after 20 days with no further rebuttal by Irpen of points by Peteris Cedrins on Nov 14 [17] or by Doc15071969 on Nov 19 [18] implying Irpen's dispute is unsustainable, POV-title tag removed by Constanz [19] giving justification on talk, to underline "General Criticisms" section [20]

Almost seven weeks later, on Jan 22 Irpen restores the POV tag [21] with vague justification on talk [22]. After challenging him for further elaboration, he renews many previous arguments [23] that were previously dealt with, and to which Irpen ignored and failed to respond to the arguments presented back in November under the "General Criticisms" section in talk.

Initially constructive, since author had agreed to split Soviet and Nazi occupation and Irpen agrees that occupation in 1940 is fact, but tending towards disruptive since he doesn't seem to have acknowledged cites, third opinions and RfCs, sustaining that occupation did not occur post 1944 without counter evidence of his own to support his case.

POV tagging by Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn applies the POV-title tag for the first time on January 15 [24], on the basis of his personal opinion the article is a form of Holocaust Denial [25]. Yet he offers no cites to reliable sources to sustain his dispute. Disruptive.

POV tagging by Grafikm

Grafikm applies the POV-title tag for the first time on Dec 5, immediately after Constanz removed it (see above) [26], claiming there is no consensus. Ensuing discussion on talk page. Constanz provides verfiable evidence of published sources [27], [28] while Grafikm offers only conjecture and opinion as to why title is POV.

A third opinion by Grouse on January 6 states that Grafikm ought to provide citations to reliable sources [29] and POV tags cannot be applied without question [30]. And yet Grafikm continues to sustain the dispute up till January 25 [31] without offering any cites to reliable sources, only to claim his uncited, unverifiable opinion that "occupation" is a term crafted during the Cold War as fact [32]. Extremely disruptive.

Response to evidence of Grafikm

The section "Personal attacks by User:Constanz and User:Martintg" is misleading, he actually offers no evidence that I attacked him personally.

The section "Refusal to follow WP:DR by User:Martintg" is without foundation, since the evidence cited is merely proof of robust discussion on the talk page. I was actually the anon IP cited in his evidence, caused by a glitch in my login cookie not being set. The fact that I am participating in this RfA is proof of a desire to follow WP:DR

In regard to his meatpuppetry comments, as I replied to Irpen's slightly intimidatory message on my talk page [33], I was a casual observer with no particular emotional stake in the article, but I came off the fence recently when it became apparent that two or three people were abusing the spirit of WP:NPOV to push their agenda, which Petri Krohn clearly states [34] as:

The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States to deprive citizenship from their ex-soviet citizens. The view expressed in this article is the one promoted by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, a propaganda tool of the Latvian government. True or not, the views expressed in the article are vital for the legitimicy of Latvian policy. Given the resources of the state, there is no scarcity of printed sources supporting this views. Opponent however see the whole Latvian state as an illegal ethnocracy. I tend to agree.

This view is misguided, since Latvia does have an inclusive citizenship policy that has seen the number of non-citizens dramatically fall from around 40% to 19% in ten years [35]. Ofcourse the process is ongoing, however many remain non-citizens through personal choice, e.g. avoidance of the draft, rather than any unreasonable legal barrier.

I have contributed to other articles such as the Russian Empire [36], and I plan to contribute to more articles, so I'm definitely not a "single purpose account".

It is ironic that while Irpen informs me on my talk page that comparing opponents to Holocaust Deniers is counterproductive [37] I see no similar evidence of rebuke from Irpen on the talk pages of his allies when they accuse the author of the article of engaging in a form of Holocaust Denial. In fact it shows Irpen and his allies are fully cognisant of the inflammatory nature that accusations of Holocaust Denial have on their intended target, disheartening the author Vecrumba [38]. Grafikm continues the vilification as recently an February 2nd [39] aimed at disruption by discouraging the author.

Content disputes are not vandalism

It is clear that, according to WP:VAND, POV and content disputes are in no way vandalism. Consequently, calling your opponents vandals during a content dispute is a heavy personal attack and should be punished as such.

Despite being warned several times, Constanz and Martintg refered to his opponents edits as "vandalism" (see examples):

• [40]
• [41]

One has to notice that reasons for this tagging were explained several times and in detail on talk (see Talk:Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945 ), but when one decided to dismiss all arguments as propaganda (see next section), it does not help much.

Personal attacks by User:Constanz and User:Martintg

Calling their opponents "gang":

• [42]

Referring to his opponents' edits as "trolling", which is considered a heavy insult:

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]

Calling his opponents' point of view "propaganda", which is also insulting:

• [46]
• [47]
• [48]

Obviously, such kind of aggressive attitude must be stopped. You will notice that, on the other hand, Irpen, me and others conducted the debate in a civil way, without relying on terms such as "trolling" or others.

Refusal to follow WP:DR by User:Martintg

All along, Constanz and Martintg dismissed their opponents point as "propaganda" (see above) and refused to compromise.

For instance, when a bystander, User:Grant65, suggested to transfer the content to an article with a neutral name ("History of Latvia, 1940-45"), Martintg objected that "To change title to " History of Latvia, 1940-45" is to push the POV that Latvia was not occupied by the Soviets" [49]. Obviously, there is no relationship between these two facts, as Grant and an anon IP soon said. [50] [51]

Consequently, it is clear that the goal of Martintg is not to produce a NPOV article, but rather to push a POV while ignoring his opponents and even random people trying to unknot the whole thing.

User:Vecrumba's inflammatory comments

While he did not took part in Constanz edit warrying, User:Vecrumba's attitude is extremely inflammatory.

• He has an inflammatory userbox on his user page ("This user refutes post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda") [52] Such a userbox is divisive and inflammatory.
• These inflammatory comments even make it into the article ("most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda." and so on). Wikipedia is not a blog and such political rants are totally out of place, and even more so on WP articles. In particular, such inflammatory statements should not be held on user pages.

Even more so, this inflammatory attitude sometimes degenerates into Holocaust denial such as "Unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe." [53]. Do I really need to comment on that? This is a clear minimizing of Nazi crimes and should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. (You will notice that given the trend in Baltic countries to plant memorials to SS troops and stuff, such things hardly surprise me, but that does not mean they shouldn't be dealt with).

Use of sources and the term "occupation"

Every piece of evidence presented by Constanz and to lesser extent by Martintg and Vecrumba neglects the notion of systemic bias, because:

1) Political sources (resolutions and declarations) may not count as reliable, as it is clear that the goals of politicians are not verifiability and neutrality. (Iraq 2003, everyone?)

2) Obviously, most history books and other sources regarding the 1940-1941 and especially 1944-1991 period of Baltic history were written during Cold War (it does not take a scientist to know that it's kinda hard to write a book on a 1944-1991 period before 1944). During that period, both USA and USSR spent most of their time happily criticizing each other and classifying each other's policy as "occupation", "exploitation", "racism" and similar nonsensical namecalling. Our case is not an exception, even if, curiously enough, Churchill and Roosevelt recognized (and created together with Stalin) USSR's borders right after the war. Consequently, every piece of evidence (from both sides) must be taken with a (very heavy) pinch of salt.

Furthermore, let's turn to other historical examples. We don't have an article called Occupation of Brittany (1532-2007), while this region was forcibly annexed by France. We don't have Occupation of Corsica or Occupation of Basque country, despite some people calling for independence in both cases, sometimes using weapons. Heck, we don't even have Occupation of Scotland, despite some guys making films about how English were evil and how independent Scots were good. Why? Well, among other reasons, because it is too loaded a word. After an initial phase of war (which, btw, was almost inexistent in the case of Latvia since the article itself mentions only a handful of border guards killed) a state gets integrated with the other and a new historical period starts.

Constanz and others are also trying to make everyone believe that the term "occupation" can be used because of massive deportations performed in Baltic states. However, millions of Russians, for instance, were deported during 1930s to Siberia. Is this also occupation? Of whom and by who? Of Russians by E.T. perhaps...

In summary, what we have here is a dangerous systemic bias that should be avoided at all costs. In the same way that no one (thankfully) calls past historical events "occupations", the word should be employed only in cases where there is an obvious historical consensus about it, for instance in order to speak about Nazi wars of aggression.

As for Britannica and Encarta, it is not the first time we do not follow them (naming conventions are a prime example, see Talk:Sukhumi for instance) since paper encyclopedias merely collect the existing terms without any reflexion. That's the advantage WP gets over paper encyclopedias.

Consequently, it would be highly advisable to use a common neutral naming convention in order to avoid naming two identical events differently because such and such fancies it.

User:Martintg's meatpuppetry

As of 31 Jan 2006, User:Martintg is a single purpose account with almost no contributions outside the given article and its talk page (and outside this ArbCom case). [54]. He creates the account and almost at once starts edit warrying on the page or making attacks on talk. Single-purpose accounting is strongly discouraged.

While he is obviously not Constanz's sockpuppet, his behaviour and his help for Constanz revert warrying on the article qualifies as meatpuppetry and should be dealt with accordingly.

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

We have it in microcosm right here: the "Evidence" presented IS the Evidence

Grafikm fr's assertions of the evidence against me--appearing above--are the best demonstration of disputing the contents of an article based not on what it says, based not on citing any contrary sources, but on demonizing the content and its author. It is a clear and consistent continuation of a pattern of disputing contents as inflamamtory, POV, etc. while citing absolutely no reputable sources indicating an opposing viewpoint. Indeed, there is no "controversy" outside Wikipedia regarding that the Baltics were occupied by the Soviet Union.

• My userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. For example, the Moscow police restored the bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the (by all accounts murderous and oppressive) Cheka secret police to its former place of honor, its pedestal in the headquarters' courtyard. The regime in Transnistria maintains it is teaching Moldovan in its original Cyrillic alphabet to the Moldovan population; in fact, it is not the pre-Latinized Romanian Cyrillic but Stalin's proclaimed/manufactured "Moldovan." A decade after Latvian independence, a British tourist brochure repeated the Soviet propaganda that Latvia's freedom monument was built to thank Stalin for his liberating the Baltics. These are just small examples of how Stalin's propaganda lives on long after he and the U.S.S.R. are gone. There is nothing "inflammatory" about expressing personal integrity and vigilance. The only thing inflammatory here is the accusation.

• The comment about "most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda"--this is not a POV statement, it is a statement of fact. The Baltics did not join the Soviet Union freely, willingly, or legally. Yet in Russia, that portrayal lives on for numerous reasons. More worrisome, it is the position advocated here in Wikipedia by activist editors who consistently never produce any facts or basis other than their personal WP:OR opinions to back up their contentions regarding Latvia joining freely, willingly, and legally--which would indicate Latvia was not occupied. (Nor has the Russian Duma expounded on how, exactly, the Soviet presence in Latvia was legal.) My numerous invitations to anyone with solid information to contribute regarding this to present a better understanding of the (essentially solely) Russian position have gone unanswered.

• The comment: "Unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe" is simply based on the numbers of people deported to their deaths and killed in Eastern Europe. There is no attempt at Holocaust minimization or denial. There is only the acknowledgement that in Eastern Europe, Stalin murdered far more people than Hitler. This is not a matter of opinion. Perhaps these same people deny Kolyma. Have I ever minimized the Holocaust? No. Have I in discussions not mentioned how the Holocaust touched our own family? Yes, I have. The notion I in particular would deny the Holocaust is absurd beyond words.

• About the comment "the trend in Baltic countries to plant memorials to SS troops and stuff"--this is, in fact, a prime example of the very propaganda I spoke of initially. The Eastern European Waffen SS were NOT the German Waffen SS. They were conscripts (some volunteered) to fight against the Red Army. These units were formed all over Eastern Europe--and were exonerated of the war crimes associated with the German Waffen SS. The Latvians are honoring those who fought against the Red Army, that is all, no more no less. No Holocaust denial. No neo-Nazism. No super-nationalistic "ethnocracy." Just remembering those who gave their lives fighting against the Soviet Union--which, as mentioned, Russia portrays as having liberated the Baltics. Furthermore, none of these mischaracterizations have anything to do with providing any indication whatsover that the Soviet presence was not an occupation. It is an attempt to simply have the article deleted by painting it something it is not--and doing so by presenting POV declarations--at best, gross misinformation--as fact and objectivity.

From the "Learning Site":

    However, after Stalingrad, Hitler took more extreme decisions. In January 1942, he authorised Himmler to create new Waffen-SS units. However, the manpower was simply not available and young native Germans were conscripted – despite the protests of parents and from the Wehrmacht. The original pedigree of the Himmler’s idea for the SS was being diluted – he wanted ideologically pure volunteers; those who were willing to fight and die for the cause. Now, the new units were being made up of conscripts. To go with this, Waffen-SS units were made up of men from Eastern Europe. They went completely in the face of Nazi racial purity but they were needed to fight the Partisans who were becoming more and more successful in the east. The sole qualification to join was a hatred of communism. The Waffen-SS was to include Croats, Albanians, Russians, Ukrainians, and Caucasians etc. Over 100,000 Ukrainians responded to Himmler’s call in April 1943.

    However, few of the foreign divisions fought well. The Baltic divisions did, until the Russians overran their homelands. The XIV Galician Division (the Ukrainians) suffered badly at its first battle at Brody-Tarnov in June 1944. The Balkan Muslim SS units mutinied in training, did little good against Tito’s partisans and were disbanded at the end of 1944. The Cossack SS units simply disappeared as the war neared its end and proved of little use to Hitler.

• Perhaps Grafikm fr would also like to portray the above-mentioned 100,000 Ukranians as eager for German rifles to slaughter the Jews, as they portrayed the Latvians. The Latvians were fighting against the Red Army. Plain and simple.

• I have not written one word of original or interpretive material, all is taken directly from the sources I originally noted. This is not a content dispute. This is attempting to deny the Baltics were occupied not through discussion of contrary sources: not one person has produced a shred of evidence to support their position other than their personal opinion; but to deny it through an ever-escalating cycle of disruptive behavior and, now, the most hateful kinds of accusations.

The "evidence" produced against me above regarding the article's contents: accusing me of inflammatory conduct and denying the Holocaust, and being an apologist for the majority of Latvians ("Well, because Baltic people (in average, again) gladly collaborated with Nazis." [55]) described as eager to take up German rifles to slaughter Jews speaks volumes not of my conduct: my integrity in this intellectually sordid affair is above reproach--I have not responded in kind, but of the conduct of those bent on transforming Wikipedia into an interpretation of history (the Baltics were not occupied) which is not shared by the rest of the world at large. There's no content dispute here--nothing has been presented to the contrary--the entire "evidence" here is a personal attack.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Example of echo of Soviet propaganda nowdays

On a discussion page someone (I guess -Irpen 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC), if I read it right) wrote:

"Stuff like "a British tourism brochure published a decade after Baltic independence repeated this fiction as fact, demonstrating the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exercise in the post-Soviet era." is simply ridiculous. What brochure? Published by who? How is some WP editor qualified to judge the external publication, connect the events on the whim and make powerful conclusions on the meaning of such connection (occupation->liberation->brochure->propaganda)?"

Therefore, just to show that it is not "simply ridiculous", I would remind about this:

1. Source: BNS (Baltic News Service), as published by www.delfi.lv March 9, 2001. In Latvian, http://www.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=1079948, Essence of incident: "High Life", the flight magazine of British Airways, in its March issue has published absurd information that the Freedom Monument in Riga depicts "Mother Russia" holding in its hands the three Baltic States.
2. Source: Central Europe Review March 19, 2001 In English, http://www.ce-review.org/01/11/latvianews11.html Quote:

   "British Airways' High Life magazine apologized for misinterpreting the meaning of Latvia's Freedom Monument in its March issue where it described the monument as "(Mother Russia) holding up three stars (the Baltic states)." The magazine promised to carry the correction in its April issue. The airline withdrew the copies of the magazine from flights into and out of Riga"