Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 12

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

POV tag

I have reverted IGNY`s reinsertion of this tag given policy on this actually states This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article and This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. IGNY`s insistence on using this tag as a badge of shame and his holding of this article hostage due to his insistence that "annexation" is in the title is preposterous. Majority of sources call it occupation, per policy their is no NPOV issue here. Tentontunic (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have renamed the article. (Igny (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

As my attempt to rename the article was reverted, I have restored the tag. (Igny (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

And as was explained here, I have reverted you. Tentontunic (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As you have reverted the lede, you might as well rename it back to occupation and annexation...' (Igny (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

There is no consensus for a move to your title of choice, and your insistence on adding the bias tag as you are unable to get your way will also not work. Go throw your tantrum elsewhere. Tentontunic (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. I am actually ok with the current situation of the movenotice together with the current version of the lede. Thank you.(Igny (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for pointing that out, I have fixed it. 20 days with no consensus to move? Case closed really. Tentontunic (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who supports the usage of the term "occupation and annexation of the Baltic States", let me point out that the current version of the article, titled "Occupation of..." and equipped with a sidebar titled "Occupation and annexation..." in bold, looks like a perfect solution. Let's agree to keep it that way. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, removal of the rename tag by Tentontunic is against the rules: both Peters and Tentontunic are an involved users, and, since Lotar already explained that only uninvolved users can close the move discussion, Tentontunic, who de facto closed this discussion, had no right to do that. In addition, the edit made by Tentontunic[1] in actuality change the article scope, which has been done absolutely unilaterally. I suggest Tentontunic to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reported Tentontunic for his persistent edit-warring. (Igny (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Which edit paul? You diff leads nowere. Igny, your the one edit warring here, not I. Tentontunic (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Igny is being disruptive here, WP:POVTITLE permits non-neutral titles (not that I think this title is non-neutral) if the usage is common per WP:COMMONNAME. --Martin (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, revert your changes before we continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Igny has even reverted[2] your tag removal[3] ignoring your good suggestions to work on the article text first[4]. All Igny offers is uncivility[5] and intransigence[6] despite no clear concensus for a move. In fact, Igny is being so disruptive a totally uninvolved editor has reported him to ANI[7] --Martin (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As I already proposed to everyone, let's forget the title issue for a while. However, as Lotar correctly noted, an involved editor cannot remove the RfM tag. If Peters acnnot do that, why Tentontunic can?

I see you partially reverted Tentontunic's edits. I support that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the rest. WP:COMMONNAME supports Occupation and annexation... rather than just Occupation of... (Igny (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, "annexation" is not common to the entire continuous period of contiguous occupations. Please do not complain your POV is being ignored by bathing it in WP:ACRONYMS. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I expected better from you than applying double standards. My use of WP:COMMONNAME was merely a counter-argument to Martin's lack of arguments. (Igny (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

You mean my argument here. Your "counter-argument" isn't an argument. --Martin (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, my only standard is reputable, reliable sources fairly and accurately represented. Take a cold shower and cut back on the personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when my better expectations from you are personal attacks? (Igny (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, I'll save you from restating that as a proper sentence. Let's dispense with the accusations. If no one can come up with a sentence or two from the article as it now stands and explain what is wrong, from their editorial point of view, with that specific sentence or two, then unfortunately we've got nothing we can discuss in order to understand the specifics of our respective positions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As issue remains unresolved it is unfair to make WP readers believe there is no bias in this the title. (Igny (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

As you are the only user demanding this bias tag remain on the article so I have removed it, your continuing insertion of it is disruptive. Tentontunic (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Igny should take note of this. --Martin (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As previous request to move showed, clearly I was not the only editor who found problems with the current title. I am just the only editor who is not scared by a certain team of editors push for a biased title insisting it is neutral. Well, a flash news: the current title is not neutral, and the tag merely informs WP readers of that. (Igny (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

No as was quite clearly stated above, it is not to be used as a badge of shame, your continual edit warring of this tag in is highly disruptive and it must cease. Tentontunic (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a badge of shame. It is a tag to draw attention of neutral editors to an issue which is currently dominated by a team of one-minded editors. (Igny (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

You all have to understand something. To rename an article requires consensus, which is hard to achieve even if it is just 2-3 people who object, merely because it also requires some guts from a closing admin to go against any of the teams in controversial decisions and they prefer to hide behind "no consensus" = "status quo". On the other hand, it also requires consensus and some closure to the dispute to remove any of the tags on the article. And there is currently no closure, and no consensus to remove the tag. (Igny (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

You need to understand that your edit warring in a tag because you did not get your own way is disruptive behavior, you are already on 3R due to your childish tantrum in insisting that you are right and all other editors are wrong, get over it. The title is fine, majority of sources speak of occupation. Per common name the title meets policy. Now stop warring in this tag or I shall seek enforcement against you for your long term edit warring and continuing disruption of this article. Tentontunic (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And your edit warring is not disruptive because...? (Igny (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

I`m not the user on 4R, you are. That is edit warring. Given your long term edit warring on this article I have had no option but to report you, and do not accuse me of stalking again, such personal attacks are also a breach of policy. Tentontunic (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the only "one-minded" editor here at the moment appears to be Igny as the recent series of tagging and reverts were unaccompanied by any discussion of what is POV. Past contentions of what is "POV" have been discussed ad nauseum and those contentions addressed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Combined Tentontunic's contribution to this discussion could be summarized by the following personal attack. That is one-minded. (Igny (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Well, technically he/she stated "Unless you are...", the statement did not start with "You are a...". The former is rhetoric, the latter is a personal attack. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to stick to mis-characterization of my contributions to this discussion and at the same time stick to defense of that other guy is admirable. However in this situation it tells much more about you than about me or Tentontunic. In particular it does raise a doubt whether it is possible to convince you to stop pushing your POV contentions here even if I keep poking your face with facts. (Igny (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Ah yes, Igny, the old guilt by association personal attack. My editorial POV is based only on a fair and accurate representation of reliable sources. I'm still awaiting your Socratic method; you only appear to be able to show up here to toss slurs in my direction. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The slur "one-minded" was rather hurtful you know. Pity you refuse to recognise your personal attacks here and keep accusing me of some fictional "old guilt by association personal attack" (who made this "attack" up, do you know?). With regards to Socrates' method I am still awaiting for Martin's response. (Igny (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

I'm not here to discuss your behavior. Don't hide behind Martin as your excuse for not presenting your case. Either present it using your preferred didactic method or editors will assume you have no case. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:I'm not here to discuss your behavior. Right. When you and Martin make personal attacks and mischaracterize my behavior and make othe unfounded accusations, that is ok, but when I point it out to you that such behavior of yours is not acceptable, you decide to hide behind let's not make it personal, and Igny tries to make it personal line of defense and some other such nonsense. (Igny (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Obviously I am not the one who is hiding here. I do not have time to repeat the same thing for you and Martin, I would prefer to deal with you at the same time. And no, this is not black and white "either... or...", and yes it quickly becomes personal when you both just keep stretching my patience with you. (Igny (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

So, if you're not hiding, what is the impediment with your presenting the first installment of your Socratic method? This is not a tag-team wrestling match, there is no one you have to wait on to present your case. Don't blame me for your loss of patience. Anything is better than the WP:ALPHABETSOUP you and others have been hurling of late (my perception...) beating your chests that you are objective and I and others are some nationalist stonewalling intellectual WP:VERMIN. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the Socratic method was aimed at both of you. If Martin is not willing to participate in that discussion, it is not worth my time because as recent RMs showed just one editor was enough to show no consensus. Also as I have demonstrated, you do not have the consensus to remove the tag. (Igny (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Mutually exclusive or not

Continuing from the above...

@Paul Siebert: That there were complexities (50 years' duration, for example) does not change the nature of the beast. "Generally speaking" is immaterial to this specific case, as many sources point to the case of the Baltic states being precedent-setting in international law. Again, please desist with your mantra that Vecrumba violates policy. I would rather not pull out my "Paul Siebert insists it's more of a Soviet 'intervention'" axe to grind it to demonstrate your flaunting any reasonable interpretation of fair representation of reliable sources contrary to WP policy. @TFD: The view of the Eisenhower administration calling mass deportations and forced Sovietization "colonization" is what it is, no scholar has actually advocated that the Baltic states were "colonies" under international law. More red herrings. And I am not using "non-neutral" language; "neutral" is what scholarship uses, there is no "neutral" need (i.e., "occupation" is not a nice word therefore it is not neutral) to use language that does not describe something appropriately. @Igny: Still awaiting your Socratic method. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to continue reading the section which goes on to page 63. Although the U.S. first used Resolution 1541 under the Eisenhower administration, it continued to be the basis for claims for independence under the Carter and Reagan administrations. The same claim was used against recognition of the soviet annexation and by the leaders who brought the Baltic states to independence. Unless you believe that Baltic claims to independence were bogus, I have no idea why you cannot accept this. TFD (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The right to self-determination—as also advocated for in the Helsinki accords, which Western powers maintain did not recognize annexation de jure and which Russia maintains did—is a fundamental right. Self-determination does not necessarily result in a declaration of sovereignty (or, in this case, a restoration of sovereignty). Recall, for example, that the Latvians did not originally wish to break from the Russian empire, they only wished more autonomy and for German hegemony to be broken.

The moral imperative for self-determination under any circumstance is different from the specific legal aspects regarding violation of sovereignty of the Baltic states. The moral imperative is one that is easier to understand and the "higher ground" and so is unsurprisingly the tack taken. It doesn't speak to "occupation" specifically. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. The defenders of Baltic independence used a legal argument, saying that Resolution 1541 applied to them. Their argument was based on the illegality of continued occupation/annexation, not the right of self-determination. TFD (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussion, can we get back on topic and reveal these supposed sources that give an alternate mainstream viewpoint that I have heard mentioned but never seen? --Martin (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @TFD: I've read the U.N. resolution. It is not a legal statement regarding occupation, it is a moral statement regarding self-determination. You are conflating moral and legal. That the principles stated can give rise to a nation, legally sovereign under international law, is an outcome. Please cite a specific statement by Baltic defender(s) of independence invoking Resolution 1541 as a legal document as opposed to a declaration of principles. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right, it does not use the term occupation. It does however refer to Resolution 1514, which says, "Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom."[8] That of course was the basis of Baltic claims to independence. You may think that UN resolutions are merely declarions of principles rather than legal documents, but that undermines your use of "international law" to support your views. TFD (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that states Resolution 1514 was the basis of Baltic claims to independence, I've read that the Baltic claim to independence was on the basis of the restoration of the pre-war republics that were never extinguished as entities in international law. --Martin (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: An odd contention indeed re: basis, as all three Baltic states to great care to formally transfer vested sovereign authority from their legations, et al. in exile to the territorial authorities. Nothing here "undermines" international law. International law and its interpretation as well as the precedent-setting nature of the case of the Baltic states is concretely established in mainstream scholarship. 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(I have replied in the discussion thread above.) TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Fork

Can anyone explain how this article's subject is different from that of State continuity of the Baltic states? Seem to be the same thing. Suggest we merge, unless anyone can provide an explanation of the difference. TFD (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the period of occupation by two powers and events as opposed to a more detailed discussion on legal aspects of state continuity, which focuses on considerations of the legal status of the sovereignty of the Baltic states following the fall of the Soviet Union. If you have concerns over forked content at the other article, talk to Igny about content he moved or duplicated from here to that article. It appears to have been quite stable for 3 years; then Igny launched into the article with "fails verification" contentions and major edits starting March last year. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So the topic of this article is Baltic history 1940-1991. It would seem to overlap with other articles and we might want to either merge it with them or at least find a neutral title. TFD (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is about occupation and aspects of the occupation which only make sense when appropriately treated together in one article. That is different from articles on the SSRs, the Baltics under Nazi occupation, etc. Any chance we'll ever discuss anything regarding specific content here? The title is neutral. "The raping and pillaging of the Baltic states by murderous Soviets, Nazis and returning Soviets" would be non-neutral. Not suggesting that is the topic here, just an example of "non-neutral." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

As an uninvolved editor to the current dispute, I would like to add that State continuity of the Baltic states is not intended as a POV fork. Basically, it should document baltic governments and diplomacy in exile recognised by many western countries as representing the Baltic nations. The Baltic states differ historically from other Eastern European countries, since they once were independent for a longer period, but they were not allowed the luxury of being sovereign "socialist" countries within the world order of the Cold War. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As a reminder: State continuity of the Baltic states was split from this article according to this discussion Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_8#Split_suggestions. Unless the majority of editors here have changed their minds and think it would be reasonable to merge it back together again, I don't see the point of this discussion.--Termer (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it makes more sense to keep them separate, two distinct aspects. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD. If I understand correctly, this article is supposed to be a summary article, which is a mother article for the whole series of the articles devoted to various aspects of the Baltic states' history during the period when their territory was under foreign dominance. And, by the way, that was the primary reason for the prolonged discussion about the article's renaming: given the wide article's scope, the single word "occupation" is hardly appropriate in the title, which does not adequately reflect the whole spectrum of the events in the Baltic countries during 1940-91.
In connection to that, the Peters' viewpoint is not completely correct: these articles do not cover different aspects, in actuality they are mother and daughter articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

which does not adequately reflect the whole spectrum of the events in the Baltic countries during 1940-91. Completely agree, this article only reflects the Soviet and German military occupations in the Baltic countries during 1940-91. Not for example events like Baltic song festivals during 1940-91. Even though it could be included since those festivals played a huge role in the civil resistance to the Soviet occupation in the Baltics between 1944-1991.--Termer (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(continued) Igny's Socratic Method

Question 1. Is martin participating in this discussion?

Answer 1. Anyone can participate in considering your question. Your question implies WP:OWNERSHIP. Still waiting.
—PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- My questions imply nothing. And this is not about my questions really, it is about your answers. In particular the very first answer is already elusive, and contain a personal attack. In other words, I do not have an answer to my first question yet. (Igny (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC))
  - Your first question does imply WP:OWNERSHIP. My involvement here isn't necessary, Vecrumba has indicated his willingness to indulge Igny (talk · contribs) in this exercise, I'll observe and form my own judgement. Per Template:POV: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." We have been waiting since April 22nd for Igny to present some argument based upon reliable sources. I've not seen anything thus far. --Martin (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Question 2 What is the point of this exercise if one of my opponents refuses to participate? In other words, isn't it the whole point of the Socratic method that my opponents agree to give answers to my questions? (Igny (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Answer 2: If you have a didactic question to ask, please do so. I would think you would welcome the opportunity. What, you did not expect anyone to take you up on the offer and you've developed a bit of cold feet? Still waiting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- And again I do not have an answer to my question. (Igny (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC))
  - Martin has offered to consider what you have to offer after the fact. I've offered to consider what you have to offer before the fact. Ask your question(s). Still waiting. I'm beginning to suspect you don't have any questions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  - And I really don't understand your obsession with Martin and myself as if this were something personal between us. I would prefer you treat us like the WP editors we are, not your personal combatants. That is bound to run off any editors who might be interested in the subject matter here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    - Re That is bound to run off any editors... There are no other editors that I have to convince to change their minds here, it is just you two. But if you want to take more time to think it over, please do, I am not in a hurry here. (Igny (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC))
      - Re No other editors, Igny? There are currently 102 editors watching this page, which has had 1034 page views in the last 30 days. Speaking only for myself, I would have liked to contribute more to this suite of articles (which are in real need of copyediting to improve their grammar and style), but I for one have been put off for the time being by some of the attitudes expressed in the continuing tedious and acrimonious debates in these talk pages. And I certainly haven't been convinced by any of your arguments that the current title of the article is non-neutral, or that adding the word 'annexation' would somehow make it more neutral or objective. Bahudhara (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
        Feel free to sign up. Oh wait, are you saying that it is me against 102 editors? (Igny (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC))
        However accurate the characterisation might be, please refrain from using WP:BATTLE analogies. It really doesn't help your case; it just makes you seem belligerent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
        @Igny, in normal conversation your "feel free to sign up..." would be considered a taunt. Still waiting. 13 years and 1 month. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
        
        P.S. The point of the "Socratic method" is one of asking such penetrating questions that others cannot help but participate based on the critical thinking which has been stimulated. You don't demand participation, complain about other editors being recalcitrant, and then refuse to play in the sandbox. You don't encourage participation by insisting everyone else get in the sandbox first before you deign to step in yourself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now at three weeks, still waiting. Or perhaps this talk page has lost its entertainment value. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you and Martin did not take it seriously. Do you suggest a different way out of this impasse? (Igny (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC))

Really, don't WP:BATTLEGROUND blame two individual editors making this personal. You persist in personalizing our editorial disagreement, do not continue to do so. All WP editors are awaiting your question(s)—and so, still waiting. I'm sorry you continue to blame other editors for your inability, to date, to ask any cogent question related to the article topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not alphabetsoup me. Also do not make personal attacks by making unfounded accusations. Also there is no point to ask questions here unless you both agree to get engaged without reservation. (Igny (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC))

You act like it's only Martin and Pēters that need convincing, which is simply not the case. Look, if you have something to prove, just prove it. Otherwise, close this thread. Y'all are getting tedious now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to wait for anything from Igny here which does not purport there is not some WP:OWNERSHIP issue here amongst Igny, Martin, and myself—and that all other WP editors are irrelevant. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Y'all are getting tedious now. It was not me who made this circus out of my honest attempt to get out of this impasse. Unfortunately my way required an active participation of my opponents in the discussion. Neither do I like to give my opponents a loophole to get out by saying that "oh you did not stimulate my critical thinking". Re: Look, if you have something to prove, just prove it. Thankfully I do not have anything to prove. It was Martin and Vecrumba who keep insisting that I have to prove something. I hope the fact that there is a dispute going on over the title does not need any proof, does it? (Igny (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC))

Don't call it an "honest" attempt when the attempt has not been made. You indicate you are interested in content, so ask your question. I haven't insisted on anything, I've only been awaiting your question(s). Don't insult me by quoting my attempts at constructive dialog as creating "loopholes" for future reference. As far as I can tell there is currently no dispute over the title except your objection, and as you have not asked your question, the dispute exists at this moment only because you say the dispute exists.

I assumed your offer to ask your question(s) was done in good faith. You should WP:AGF that a question asked in good faith will be answered in kind. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only do we have a dispute, but it is at an impasse. I have offered a way out of it, Martin did not accept it, end of story, what else do you want from me? (Igny (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC))

Stop personalizing and ask your question(s). Your offer is not an offer if you don't follow through. Don't blame other editors for you own (at least here, for 3+ weeks) inability to engage in constructive dialog. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:for you own (at least here, for 3+ weeks) inability to engage in constructive dialog I do not think you understand the situation here. I do not have to engage you in constructive dialog here. You have to be engaged all by yourself for this to work. (Igny (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC))

I take it this means you are withdrawing your offer. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion

Split from above
(edit conflict)@ Peters. Although I am not sure if the usage of the word "obsession" is fully in accordance with normal talk page rules, as far as you have used it, let me point out that the Igny's "obsession" with Martin and you can be probably explained by your and Martin's obsession with some concrete viewpoint. Concretely, you seem to be obsessed with the idea to present the 1940-1991 events in the Baltic states solely and exclusively as occupation, and you seem to ignore all sources and arguments that deviate from this your concept. And, as soon as the word "ownership" has already been said, let me also point out that it can be probably applied to this case (in a context of your editorial behaviour).

@unstamped Paul Siebert: Once again you misrepresent my position and malign my conduct. Accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP doesn't elevate the discussion here or attract new editors. Perhaps you might encourage Igny to ask their question instead of you conducting more sniping. Annexation does not belong in the title here because it refers to all three contiguous occupations; moreover, "annexation" already appears where appropriate with regard to 1940 and the actions of the USSR with regard to the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting it, what's the big deal here? this article is about the Baltic states loosing their independence to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and then to the Sovet Union again, and this clearly represents just one chapter in the Baltic history meaning the period of "not independent=occupied=annexed"; What's this "solely and exclusively as occupation" vs. "also an annexation" really all about? In the context it's just semantics and it would not change anything what the article is about.--Termer (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Since only the USSR annexed the Baltic states, "annexation" doesn't belong in the title as that refers to all three occupations. Annexation appears where appropriate regarding the USSR and 1940. It is, in fact, other editors who have maintained that the period following the act of Soviet "annexation" and Soviet "occupation" are mutually exclusive either as of the act of annexation (in which case Germany occupied the Baltic "Republics" of the USSR, not the pre-WWII sovereign Baltic states) or minimally subsequent to the end of WWII. I haven't advocated for any exclusivity regarding the two. I only maintain that "annexation" is inappropriate in a title which refers to a period including German occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good point. Nanobear (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I happened to come across what seems like an amazing piece of writing on the subject: Baltic pride and Russian Tears by Nina Chugunova. An amazing since it reads like an unbiased Russian POV on the subject. What she really nails is the fundamental understanding of the subject that comes down to the current title dispute, why and how do the people from Baltic states consider have being occupied and not that much "annexed". She says for example on page 26:

The consciousness of being under occupation helped save these nations from the worst effects of the Soviet life-style and ways of thinking.

very interesting reading, highly recommended to anybody wanting to know how a Russian sees the subject matter. --Termer (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This certainly jives with accounts I've heard from other Russians emigres who used to vacation in Latvia in the Soviet era. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Why this revert? (Igny (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Because you removed sourced material specific to the occupation of the Baltic states and replaced it with material appearing to contend a typical war-time occupation. Don't undo content that has been extensively discussed and agreed to. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Vecrumba: I noticed that lately your "answers" do not provide an adequate answer, moreover I wonder why you continue with your personal attacks by using a rather insulting summary here... I really wanted to say that I expected better of you, but your behavior deteriorated to a point when I can't say that anymore. I also wanted to ask about your unfounded accusation with an obscure threat here, but then decided not to provoke you anymore. It is regretful that your battleground mentality towards me an Paul blocks any progress in this article.

Now I am going to repeat my question to Martin, why did you revert my edit? Are you happy with the awkward first sentence of the article? I believe that I merely reworded the "sentence" to avoid excessive use of commas, and brought the statements closer to what the cited sources actually say. What was your rationale when you reverted it? If you refer to absence of any discussion before an edit to the article, then all I have to ask is do I really have to beg you guys in order to make improvements to this article? (Igny (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I agree with Vecrumba, you removed sourced material specific to the occupation of the Baltic states and replaced it with material appearing to contend a typical war-time occupation, please don't undo content that has been extensively discussed and agreed to. I'd rather you constructively deal with your previously stated position: "Now it is your turn to recognize a magnitude of reliable sources using the term "annexation" with respect to the same events." I am still waiting for you to cite this "magnitude of reliable sources" you claim we are ignoring. --Martin (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not removed any material. But let us try baby steps again.

Is military occupation of the Baltic states in 1940, as an event, occupation sui generis, a plain and simple military occupation, or neither? (Igny (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC))
When referring to "occupation sui generis", what did Malksoo mean specifically?

Start with answering these questions, and you will be led to enlightenment of the understanding. (Igny (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC))

I don't need to spoon feed you like a baby, do I? Look on page 193 of Mälksoo's book for your answers, which I believe the Russian language version is freely available. --Martin (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we have now discussed my edits, and now agree that my edit was made in accordance to p. 193 of Malksoo's book, does that mean that I met all conditions set by you to go ahead and restore my edit? (Igny (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC))

The current version was achieved after much discussion. Please don't edit war, but gain consensus first on talk. --Martin (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What consensus do you refer to? I failed to see any, please clarify your statement. I have provided my rationale for the edit (wasn't I clear enough?) and the only counter arguments I got so far were baseless accusations of edit warring and reference to some mythical consensus. (Igny (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

Your rationale was faulty as I already indicated up front and undid concrete progress by the group of editors active here and without prior discussion, which if you had initiated, you would have been informed. We're trying to move forwards, not backwards. I regret I'm not here to provide you with diffs and who said what, that is not constructive use of anyone's time. You can review edit history and discussions yourself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Related dubious and failed verification

@Paul, I am disappointed by "which lasted until the Soviet Union regained full control over the Baltic states in May 1945.{{Dubious|date=May 2011}}{{Failed verification|date=May 2011}}" tagging (May, 1945 linked to Courland pocket). What led you to your determination of "dubious" and "failed verification"? "Failed verification" is a rather serious editorial charge. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

Tag should not be removed if dispute is not resolved. Well, it is obviously not. This very section should be a sufficient evidence of that. (Igny (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

The first thing you did coming off your block was to revert the POV tag. You need to present new evidence that it does not provide proper weight to various points of view and explain what these viewpoints are and how do they differ from the one presented in the article. Mälksoo and the issues of the RM have been addressed, there is no concensus for a move and tagging is pointless. This appears to be just plain disruptive behaviour. --Martin (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No the first thing I did when I came from my block was to revert an IPSOCK of a banned editor. So if reference to my block was your main argument, that was a rather poor one.(Igny (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

There is an issue of neutrality and the POV tag should be restored until this issue is addressed. The same with MKUCR. I notice that Mr. Tammsalu defended the sockpuppet saying, "I know of who would be much more inclined commit this kind of caper, Tentontunic is definitely not one of them." Mr.T. also defended mark nutley, the sockmaster, using the same terms. TFD (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is one thing to claim there is an issue of neutrality, anyone can do that, but I see no discussion here as required by policy and infact recommended by yourself here. Please present evidence that it does not reflect various points of view and articulate what these viewpoints are and how do they differ from the one implied in the article. --Martin (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct - persons placing POV tags should defend them. The above discussion appears to show that there is a POV dispute. However, Igny should start up a new discussion thread explaining his concerns and how they may be addressed. TFD (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I claim that term occupation is biased. But I will refrain from telling who might think it is biased for now. Let us start with baby steps.I would like your opinion on whether the term annexation neutral or biased. And if biased then how? (Igny (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

As TFD states, it is incumbent upon you to explain your concerns and how they may be addressed, not for you to pose rhetorical questions and talk of "baby steps". Please present evidence that it does not reflect various points of view and articulate what these viewpoints are and how do they differ from the one implied in the article. --Martin (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to start a discussion. However it always take two to participate in one. If you keep avoiding very basic questions, then this discussion with you is as good as over. Have you ever been to a court? I have watched Judge Judy and I appreciate the difficulties she was facing in her cases. How she managed to come to a just verdict? By asking basic and straightforward questions. And if one of the parties is boneheaded enough to avoid the straight answers or even worse lying to the questions, then the verdict is always out of their favor. So I suggest you to reconsider your approach to this discussion and give me straight answers. Otherwise this dispute will never come to a closure, and the tag will stay indefinitely. (Igny (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

No, you need to articulate what the issue is, so far you haven't, you are the one disputing the neutrality of article, you need to provide substantive argument as to why you think this article is POV, based upon reliable sources. Otherwise you will be judged to be acting disruptively as you seem to be just dancing around in circles and not getting to the point. --Martin (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on what scholarly sources, not the official Russian position or Soviet-based versions of history? Your opinion does not drive content. With regard to the title, adding "annexation" is inappropriate; annexation is already mentioned in titles having only to do with the USSR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The basis for my first question will be "articulated" in the following one, after I get a straight answer to the first question. (Igny (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

No, the requirement is clear: present evidence that the article does not provide proper weight to various points of view and explain what these viewpoints are and how do they differ from the one presented in the article. --Martin (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If one asked the normal informed man in the street when the Baltic states were occupied he would reply "during the Second World War". That is the normal understanding and any attempt to label an article that extends beyond this period is just POV-pushing. If you want people to know about the suffering of these people, then write articles that explain what happened, instead of arguing about terminology. TFD (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you asked the "normal informed man in the street" they would ask you if the Baltic states were in Africa or in Brazil. Bring reputable sources to your arguments or desist in throwing darts. You and Igny are arguing. There's no argument in reputable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it is POV-pushing to state the Baltic states were not occupied for the duration. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So it is POV to insist that the article be NPOV? I do not know if the Baltic states were occupied, but whatever we write should be based on reliable sources, not on a priori opinions. TFD (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:POV states: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant." Igny's claim "I claim that term occupation is biased." is irrelevant. TFD, please follow your own advice here and present evidence of those viewpoints that are not already represented in this article. --Martin (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be helpful to examine the meaning of the disputed word more closely.

The Wictionary definition has:

"annexation" (plural annexations)

1. the act of annexing, or territories that have been annexed

2. (law) the legal merging of a territory into another body

and links to: Annexation, which isn't terribly helpful.

However the dictionary that I use (Collins English Dictionary, Australian edition, revised 1981) shows that the word carries other shades of meaning:

"annexation" n. 1. the act of annexing, esp. territory, or the condition of being annexed. 2. something annexed.

"annex" vb. (tr.) 1. to join or add, esp. to something larger; attach. 2. to add territory by conquest or occupation. 3. to add or append as a condition, or warranty, etc. 4. to appropriate without permission.

Given these other shades of meaning of the word that go to the heart of the matter under discussion, it seems somewhat tautological to insist on adding it to the title. And rather than providing a defence in the form of a politico-legal justification for the continued occupation, it highlights the impression of dubious pseudo-legitimate means used to whitewash the brutal reality of gangster politics prevalent at the time. Methinks Igny is hoist by his own petard. Bahudhara (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument here is more subtle, it is that "annexation" means being "part" of the USSR, any territory which is "part" of the USSR cannot be therefore "occupied", the attempt to add annexation to the title is, IMO, a long-standing POV attempt to contend that "occupation" of the Baltic states after WWII while annexed by the USSR is not possible (occupation and annexation purported to be mutually exclusive), a matter of opinion with all opinions equal, when, in fact, only Russia continues to repeat the old USSR saw that the Baltics joined freely, willingly, legally (hence no occupation, annexation legal). Additionally, annexation is inappropriate to the title here regardless as the article deals with the entire period of contiguous occupation by the USSR, Nazi Germany, and USSR again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To say that "occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive" is pure sophistry. For a more recent example where they were clearly not mutually exclusive, one only need look at the example of East Timor, and how that situation has been covered in the set of related Wikipedia articles on that subject.

Although History of East Timor has a short section on "Indonesian invasion and annexation", this links to the main article Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which in turn leads to another main article Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Although East Timor was formally annexed by Indonesia (and the term "annexation" is used several times in the articles in this context, but not in the titles), the character of the Indonesian presence was clearly more of an "occupation" as they did not succeed in eliminating the armed opposition, as the Soviets had managed to do in the Baltics. Bahudhara (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, regarding "So it is POV to insist that the article be NPOV?," only Russia Today would look upon your (apparent) editorial POV here as "NPOV." Unfortunately, where the occupation of the Baltic states is concerned, Russia's is the fringe view, as there is no scholarship extant which supports the contention that the Baltic states joined the USSR freely, willingly, and legally. Thank you for your (apparent) confirmation that NPOV = what Russia contends is neutral and objective versus the evil world of reputable scholarship POV-conspiring to tarnish Russia's image. Of course, I might have completely misinterpreted your statement and gone off on a most unfortunate tangent. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As all reliable sources state, the Baltic states within the USSR had attributes both of occupied countries and as constitutent republics. Malksoo said the same thing. TFD (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As all reliable sources state the Baltic states remained under Soviet subjugation, were never legally "within" the USSR, did not transfer their sovereignty to the USSR, and thus were occupied for the duration. "Attributes" of the occupation do not change the fact of occupation. Malksoo does use "crushed" and "occupied", does not contend the annexations were in any way legal, nor does he contend that ex factis jus oritur. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion, we must present the opinions that prevail in the literature. TFD (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I like apple pie too. We are still waiting for you (and igny) to present what you believe are the opinions that prevail in the literature that are lacking or insufficient weight in this article that justifies a POV tag. You keep talking the talk, but so far have failed to walk the walk[9]. --Martin (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@ TFD, I already stated what prevails in the literature. You label any statement you disagree with as "opinion" regardless of sources. Present your reputable sources and represent what is missing that lies within the scope of this article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I disagree with your opinion, merely that "we must present the opinions that prevail in the literature". It does not matter whether or not we personally agree. TFD (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You pointedly omit "reliable" or "scholarly" in qualifying "opinions." Russia's pronouncements that the Baltic states joined legally do not get presented as one opinion, reputable scholars as another; nor does the so-called "occupation issue" (it being an "issue" only in the eyes of official Russia) get presented as some sort of bone of contention merely between the Baltic states and Russia. Since Russia's dissent is noted, we should not need a POV tag. Only if Russia's dissent were totally omitted would the article rightfully require a POV tag. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I should mention that the current German government does not contend in any way that the Nazi presence was not an occupation of the Baltic states for its duration. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, that's fine, but you should be directing your insistance that "we must present the opinions that prevail in the literature" directly to Igny, who has so far only presented his personal opinion "I claim that term occupation is biased" and wants to start a "baby step" discussion on the issue. This is not a WP:FORUM. Present the views represented in reliable sources and explain how these views are not reflected in the article. --Martin (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re This is not a WP:FORUM. It is clearly not. Moreover, you do not get to choose to withdraw from a discussion which you do not like, and based on that consider the dispute closed. (Igny (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Quit stalling. Please present evidence that the article does not represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources and explain what these perspectives are and how do they differ from the one presented in the article. You are the one claiming the article is POV, policy requires you to provide your evidence, you have not done so yet. --Martin (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what's that about policy? (Igny (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

We are still waiting for you to present evidence that this article does not represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. --Martin (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the template carefully This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints or other implications of the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. I so far have not disputed the facts stated in this article. So your concern does not apply.(Igny (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Still being evasive and we are no closer to you providing an explanation are we? Template:POV states: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant." All you have provided is "I claim that term occupation is biased." which is your personal view and is thus irrelevant. Please follow TFD's advice here and present the evidence to support your tagging. --Martin (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating your mantras won't help you either. Let me explain my approach here, in case I was not clear about it. We won't play argument / counter-argument game here because we know that this would lead nowhere. Rather, I would ask you a few questions which would lead you to the same conclusion I've reached long time ago. Believe me this approach worked wonders on my students who only needed a little push to really understand something. It is clear I can not convince you with my arguments, and not for the lack of trying. So this time you would try to reconsider your view using your own arguments. So do you remember my original question? (Igny (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I am skeptical that your asking questions will lead someone else to interpret reputable sources to come up with your personal editorial POV. That said, feel free to use the Socratic method.

P.S. If editors remain unconvinced consider that it might be a reflection of the quality of your argument as opposed to I will never agree with you because I am a POV-pushing stonewalling ethno-fascist über-nationalist and you are self-alleged to be just some NPOV guy trying to set things right.

P.P.S. I see you're still keeping your Eastern European "battleground" page reasonably current. Your page, your word, your attitude. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:If editors remain unconvinced, do you mean yourself and Martin? Don't you think that you are doing a poor job convincing me? Re: reasonably current. Why don't you go chastise other editors (take Martin for example) for keeping their talk archives current...

Re Socratic method. What is Martin's opinion on that approach?

Also do not think that I would forget that you and Martin both owe me an apology. (Igny (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

I don't owe you an apology for anything. As for your insulting insinuation that this is something personal between myself and Martin and you, that is just another diversion from discussing the topic and sources. Stick to discussing edits. Don't insist on making this personal. Rather than answer my good-faithed request for your Socratic Method, you chose to make yourself out to be some sort of victim. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If I were you, Igny, I would not expect any apologies. You have refused to apologise for or even recognise attacks that you have made on other editors here. You can invoke the phantom mailing list and The Notorious D.I.G. all you want, but that does not mean that you have been anything but snide, condescending, and flat-out rude to the other editors here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Re You have refused to apologise for or even recognise attacks that you have made on other editors here.. Do you refer to a banned editor complaining about me calling his persistent edit-warring without participating in a discussion a vandalism? Re: You can invoke the phantom mailing list When did I last time invoke that? Makes me wonder why you have invoked it just now... Are you familiar with Hebraic proverb "Al Rosh Haganav Bo'er Hakova"? (Igny (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

If the burning hat fits, wear it. I suggest you move on to your Socratic method and stop your tiresome sniping. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What's Martin's take on this? (Igny (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Why are you asking me? As for you allegations of POV-pushing, I strive always to represent reliable sources fairly and accurately, so I would appreciate your ceasing to use this article talk page as a forum for your personal attacks and victimology—which is obviously your main interest here as you haven't taken any opportunity to present your Socratic method. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Why are you asking me? This is not a ruse to catch you communicating off-wiki, if that is what you think. I am asking both of you. Martin watches this page, does he not? (Igny (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

I have no intention engaging in this apparent faux dispute contrived by Igny and his attempts to personalise it and turn it to a battleground. When an editor places a POV tag, he needs to justify his action by presenting an argument based upon reliable sources as evidence that all viewpoints are not fairly represented with due weight, it is not up to us to present arguments why the tag should be removed. It seems that Igny wants to revisit old discussions, my responses can be found in the archive. I have better things to do with my time, like building an encyclopaedia. --Martin (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well so much for that "opportunity". That basically means we are back to square 1, I insist that dispute is not over based on the arguments already presented in the archives, you claim that I have yet to present a new argument? If you withdraw from this discussion why should I even bother with your requests? (Igny (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Umm, you haven't even presented any arguments here justifying the POV tag, and continue to refuse to do so while attempting to personalise this. This whole thread has been a vacuous waste of time, IMHO. My involvement will not commence until you start abiding by policy and articulate what you think the viewpoints are as discussed in reliable sources and how the current article is lacking. Thank you. --Martin (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are trying to pretend that all the previous discussion just did not happen. Well it did happen. To summarize the main concern about the article's title (not the article itself) is that the current title, as Malksoo put it, tries to pretend that annexation did not happen. Well it did happen as well. That is why the term annexation should be in the title. I believe that all your counter-arguments have been addressed multiple number of times. Let me also remind you that no consensus =/= keep, which gives you no right to claim that the dispute has been already resolved. Also let me remind you that this is a second RM when SOCKs intervened to skew the consensus, and this time you even called the SOCK an uninvolved editor which gave the SOCK even more weight than he normally would. (Igny (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

It is you that is ignoring the prior discussion. The article is about the period of continuous, contiguous occupation by the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. "Annexation" appropriately already appears in article names just dealing with the Soviet occupation. Your argument over socks is irrelevant. "Sock" is irrelevant as it was one editor (except for the most recent IP reverts of incessant tagging, Marknutley was an editor quite a while ago before Tentontunic surfaced). As far as we all knew, including yourself at the time, Tentontunic was an editor new to the topic, so dispense with associating me with socks in opposition to your editorial POV. Still waiting for your Socratic method. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

-

(edit conflict)I see that old arguments regarding annexation are being repeated again and again, and one of the mainstream viewpoints is being persistently ignored by a group of users. Let me remind to everyone that we had two alternatives: to rename the article to "Occupation and Annexation..." and leave the content essentially unchanged, or to leave the title unchanged and to modify the article to reflect the fact that many (if not majority) of reliable sources speak about annexation of these states, not about their military occupation. It is quite necessary to separate German occupation of these three states from the period when these states were de facto the full members of the USSR (although the fact that that membership has not been recognized de jure by many Western states should also be reflected). That has not been done yet, therefore, the tag should stay in the article. The persistent attempts of some users to ignore the fact that the Baltic states were annexed (although illegally), and that we can speak about occupation only in a context of their state continuity (which is more relevant to another article) constitute a major breach of the WP neutrality policy, and serve as an addition argument in favour of the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to separate anything. "Full members" of the USSR is irrelevant. Nothing is being "ignored", even the section title in the article mentions Soviet annexation. "Annexation" does not belong in the title for the clear and simple reasons I have already elucidated. And I, for one, am not ignoring mainstream sources despite what you contend. I am merely disagreeing with your desire to (my perception) ultimately delete the article by contending its mere existence is (per you—we have already dealt with the nature of your accusation which I am not here to re-litigate) my advocating for equating the Soviet occupation and the Holocaust, etc., etc. I'll spare you the diffs. I am tired of being attacked for stonewalling you and Igny. As for state continuity, the jury has pretty much spoken, Russia simply disagrees for clear reasons (no culpability). You would take subtleties of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states to (my perception) misrepresent both occupation and state continuity. I am still patiently awaiting Igny's Socratic method, but all either of you are capable of doing at least at the moment is using article talk as a forum to assault editors with contentions of breaches of policy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, no, there are no old arguments being repeated here, Igny hasn't offered any since applying the tag. Only you have done so, belatedly. As for your contention that "one of the mainstream viewpoints is being persistently ignored by a group of users", please provide a cite for this mainstream viewpoint. What you appear to be articulating is a synthesis of several misinterpreted published sources to reflect your personal viewpoint, as I had mentioned already in the archive. Despite the fact that both the Soviet Union then and official Russia today state that they did not annex the Baltic states but they joined voluntarily, sources have written that illegal annexation == occupation, for example Mälksoo states on page 193 that as sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, this automatically follows that the regime of occupation, as a matter of international law, was not terminated until re-independence in 1991. --Martin (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, try this from a different angle. You insisted on adding "illegal" to the annexation on a number of occasions. It has been established that the "occupation" under discussion here is sui generis. Why is the title missing the term sui generis then? Why do we have to deal with SYNTH of German occupation and Soviet occupation sui generis? (Igny (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I can't take credit for WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It's not my fault the USSR, Nazi Germany, the USSR contiguously occupied the Baltic states. That is what this article is about. There's no inappropriate juxtaposition, neither Paul advocating for the unique horror of the Holocaust nor your advocating for the legal subtleties of sui generis change that the Baltic states were under the subjugation of foreign masters. Or do you contend they were not under foreign subjugation? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is not your fault that the territory of the Baltic states was under foreign dominance for more than 50 years in XX century. However, ignoring the opinion expressed in many mainstream sources is your fault. The POV issue as I see it is quite simple:

Whereas a part of users expresses the opinion that mixed terminology should be used to describe the Baltic states' history during the period of 1940-91, other users insist on using of just one single term "occupation".

Obviously, ignoring alternative opinions and alternative terminology is a major breach of the neutrality policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, provide a source that expresses an alternate mainstream opinion to that of the Baltic states were under foreign dominance for more than 50 years in the 20th century. --Martin (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I presented numerous sources that group the respective occupations together during the move discussion. For example the The Oxford companion to World War II states on page 85 "There were three successive periods of occupation: the first Soviet occupation, 1940-1; the Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944-5; and the second Soviet occupation starting in 1944." [10]. --Martin (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not in the amount of sources you presented, but in the amount of the sources and arguments you ignored. The difference between your and my viewpoints is that, whereas I do recognise your arguments, and I just point at some additional mainstream viewpoints, you reject everything but your own POV and the sources supporting it. Obviously, my position is in accordance with WP:NPOV, and yours directly contradicts to this policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the paucity of these sources you claim support some additional mainstream viewpoints. Despite calling for the presentation of these sources over the years, I've yet to see them. Igny placed a POV tag, I ask that he provide these sources to support these "additional mainstream viewpoints" but he hasn't, will you? If only I had a penny for every editor that claims "Obviously, my position is in accordance with WP:NPOV, and yours directly contradicts to this policy".... --Martin (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source says, "In 1945, the re-incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR... clearly breached international law; but it passed without challenge". Not clear whether that means the occupation endured beyond 1945, but it makes no sense to use a book about the period 1939-45 as a source for the status of the Baltic States during the subsequent 50+ years. TFD (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is still pure SYNTH of a source scope of which is WW2 with post-Soviet Baltic sources. (Igny (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Okay, please identify these "post-Soviet Baltic sources" so that we can evaluate them. --Martin (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, could you provide other sources which talk about occupation of the Baltic states and mean both Nazi and Soviet occupation? Do the make a reservation for or discuss occupation sui generis? Do they mention annexation or claim annexation did not happen? You said there was an article on Soviet annexation, where is it? Does state continuity of the Baltic states discuss continuity of the Baltic states through a series of occupations, and why is it not enough for you? I understand that you are trying to make a case to equalize these occupations, but so far what you have accomplished is simply SYNTH, by advocating a POV that Soviet = Nazi occupation, which is not explicitly present in any source. (Igny (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Paul et al., I am sorry, but your endless proselytizing for yours being the "WP:NPOV" views beating your drum as if this were a forum is not advancing the discussion regarding content. Produce sources which state the Baltic states were not under foreign subjugation. Your advocating for not using occupation for the entire period is what is the POV non-mainstream position here. You POV-conflate aspects of occupation making them not an occupation or POV-declare that occupation 1 cannot be juxtaposed to occupation 2 cannot be juxtaposed to (re-)occupation 3. I'm still waiting for Igny's "Socratic method," but all any of you appear to be doing at the moment: Paul Siebert, Igny, and TFD, is shout that you're the WP:NPOV view and mine and others' are WP:PICKYOURALPHABETSOUPPOLICYVIOLATION. When it comes to propagandic versions of history on WP, it's the POV propaganda pushers that shout the loudest that they are WP:NPOV and attack editors for violating policy. Just saying from experience. I don't see any point in discussing further with any of you three until Igny presents his Socratic method and we have something content-related to discuss as opposed to you three tossing WP:ALPHABETSOUP mud at other editors hoping it will stick. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin. I see no ground for speaking about paucity of sources speaking about annexation or incorporation. I have already demonstrated that these sources are quite numerous, so your claim in simply false.

Got a diff where you have demonstrated these numerous sources providing an alternate viewpoint? --Martin (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. Sorry, but your request to prove the opposite is not how Wikipedia works. I do not have to and I do not need to provide any sources that directly refute your claim, and that is the difference between my and your positions: since I do not reject your point, and I just request that alternative viewpoint has to be reflected also, I don't have to refute anything. By contrast, since you are insisting on your viewpoint as the only correct one you are obliged to refute what I am saying.

Please, do that. --15:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do need to provide sources to support your claim there is an alternate viewpoint, you haven't done so yet. --Martin (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Being under "foreign subjugation" is not the same as occupation. The British dominions for example were subject to the Crown of Great Britain until 1926, and British Overseas Territories continue to be subject, and the legality is questioned under the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. But no one writes about British-occupied Bermuda, Anguilla, Cayman Islands, etc. TFD (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll use "occupied" next time. In particular, being "annexed" is not mutually exclusive to being "occupied." I am unaware of any reputable source that states these are mutually exclusive as has been argued here, or that Soviet invasion was more of an "intervention" as a self-proclaimed chest-pounding champion of WP:NPOV has postulated here, etc., etc.. As I've indicated numerous times now, I am awaiting Igny's first expression of his Socratic didactic method to see if that might give rise to a more useful dialog on content. I regret that all I see from the WP:LOYAL opposition at the moment is a fringe house of cards being advocated for as substantive NPOV content. BTW, your examples being applicable are your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH unless you can show a reputable source comparing, e.g., Bermuda to Latvia with regard to their status under international law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, being occupied and being annexed is mutually exclusive, as I have already demonstrated with sources. Anticipating your argument that we have to speak not in general, but only in a context of the Baltic states, the situation with the Baltic states is so complicated that both terms have been used by different scholars, either separately or in combination with each other, so your attempts to insist on some single terminology directly contradict to what the policy says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, being occupied and being legally annexed is mutually exclusive, however occupation and illegal annexation is identical. Where your argument fails is to assume that when authors speak of the annexation of the Baltic states, they speak of legal annexation, which is not the case. --Martin (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument for Baltic states' independence was based on the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. (See Baltic yearbook of international law, pp. 57 ff[11] While there are no territorial disputes involving Bermuda, in other cases (e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands, Spain, Cuba and other Spanish-speaking countries claim that the British are illegally occupying foreign soil and have illegally populated the territories with foreign subjects and (in Gibraltar) forcing the indigenous population to flee. It's the same thing, and using non-neutral language in all these articles merely leads to conflict, and no enlightenment to readers. TFD (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the situation in the Baltics with that of the claims of Spanish speaking countries is OR, unless you can cite a source. While the book you cite discusses whether Soviet colonialism be included in this UN declaration, did mention of the Baltics actually make it into the declaration text? As I recall, some people wanted the UN definition of genocide to include the elimination of classes, but that never made it into the text either due to the Soviet veto power. --Martin (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider your reasoning. I said that non-self-govering territories are not normally called "occupied". That the Baltic states may have had a weaker claim to self-determination, which is what you and Peters are arguing, does not mean they should be called occupied. In fact quite the opposite. (And yes, the source I provided compares the Baltic States with non-self-governing territories. Your mention of Spain is a red herring. They supported decolonization of Gibraltar and Falklands - you can find sources for this - but I did not say that they connected their claims with Baltic independence, just that supporters of Baltic independence connected it with decolonization,) TFD (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: Your parallels and suppositions all ignore the precedent setting role in international law of the occupation of the Baltic states. What anything is "normally" or "generally" called is your personal synthesis and personal contention it applies here. I'm still awaiting Igny's Socratic method having specifically to do with the subject matter. And your statement that I contend the Baltics may have had a "weaker" claim to self-determination (considering they were sovereign) leaves me gobsmacked. The use of self-determination as an argument for anything is completely separate and distinct from occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, TFD seems to be providing personal conjecture and supposition, unless he can provide a source that presents this argument he is making. --Martin (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what "international law" means. It is merely the sum of various decisions and opinions in courts of different countries and organizations. There is no Supreme Court of the World, just a number of different judgments some of which considered the Baltic states to have been occupied and others that do not. You should also understand that in articles about legal opinions, the decision of an ultimate court does not become the truth. See for example articles on the U.S. Second Amendment or Roe v. Wade. Wikipedia is not about presenting truth but about presenting topics in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You should try to stay away from insulting editors. Clearly your understanding is different, that does not make other editors stupid—or you right. More red herrings (Roe v. Wade). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to UN resolution 478 (1980) which is used to supported the title of the article Israeli-occupied territories. It refers to "Palestinian... territories occupied since June 1967". Can you provide a reference to the U.N. resolution that calls the Baltic states "occupied". TFD (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are synthesing beyond what the source you provided[12] is saying. What this source describes was the US practice within the UN in relation to the status of the Baltic states, where the USA attempted in this instance to extend the UN definition of colonised states (which applied only to non-contiguous territory, i.e. overseas possessions) to include the Baltic states. In concludes: "Though the United Nations never became formally seized of the question of the status of the Baltic states, United States practice before the General Assembly did manage to provoke an exhange on the subject, thus elevating the profile of the United States policy of non-recognition. United States UN practice in its component of raising awareness of the Baltic situation - and reiterating American opposition to the Soviet claim to title and thus continuing to impede crystallization of the fact of Soviet occupation into law". What you seem to be implying appears to be an extrapolation beyound this source, i.e. synthesis. As you your definition of international law: "It is merely the sum of various decisions and opinions in courts of different countries and organizations." is incorrect. International law is the sum of convention, i.e. state treaties; and custom, i.e. state practice. --Martin (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read the complete section. For example, "It implied, by connecting non-recognition expressly with General Assembly resolution 1541 and by relaying the connection to the General Assembly during a discussion of decolonisation,m that the United States viewed the States as enjoying a right to the particular United Nations process that had led to realization of self-determination in numerous former colonies" (p. 61). But you are missing the point. Whether or not Article 1541 applied to the Baltic States, it represented the highest claim to self-determination recognized by the UN. And none of these countries, no matter how brutal the colonial system, were referred to as "occupied". TFD (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Current legal status regarding sovereignty was irrelevant to the declaration as the declaration spoke of a higher power. Would you expect the USSR to be signatory to any declaration which called the Baltic states "occupied"? The absence of "occupied" in the declaration in no way implies the Baltic states were not occupied. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. Even when there is agreement by the UN that countries should be returned to independence they are not normally referred to as "occupied". We do not talk about British-occupied Bermuda for example, even though the UK is in violation of Resolution 1541 and is obligated to provide independence to Bermuda. TFD (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you insist "other countries," e.g., Bermuda, applies. Off topic red herrings. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If TFD wants to compare the situation of the Baltic states to Burmuda, he needs to cite a reliable source. However writers like Peter Van Elsuwege have compared Baltic states to Alsace-Lorraine, which was under German occupation for 47 years before being restored to France in 1918.[13] --Martin (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just provided a reliable source called the Baltic yearbook of international law, Volume 1. It says, "The role of the United Nations in claims based on the principle of self-determination has been a circumscribed one, limited in essense to territories designated non-self governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN Charter and to territories placed under the international trusteeship system under Chapter XII" (p. 55). The United States pressed for a broader interpretation in order to include the Baltic States. Bermuda of course is one of about 15 remaining non-self-governing territories. Here is the complete list. Is your position that the Baltic states had a weaker claim to independence than Bermuda? Again could you please read the section I provided a link to, because your responses do not appear to show an appreciation of the arguments made there. TFD (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: U.S., of course the U.S. "pressed" in the absence of Soviet admission of occupation. My position is that the resolution or actions regarding it are irrelevant to the matter of occupation. You just insist on putting words in my mouth about Bermuda. Lovely place, but in no way relevant to the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's unpack TFD's claim: cites a source on UN's principle of self-determination plus cites a Wikipedia article for a list of non-self-governing territories concludes the status of Baltic states is comparable to Bermuda. Is that WP:SYNTHESIS or what? --Martin (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source compared "the status of Baltic states" to "non-self-governing territories". Bermuda is an example of a non-self-governing state. By your logic were I to have mentioned that Latvia was a Baltic state, that would have been synthesis too. But what is your point? That the Baltic states were not non-self-governing and therefore were not occupied? I thought you were arguing that they were occupied. TFD (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Red herrings and now syllogisms. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a non sequitor. TFD (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When you come up with something substantive that makes sense and is pertinent to the article we can discuss. Perhaps I'll just await Igny's Socratic method. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is pertinent that a reliable source says that an argument was made at the United Nations for the independence of the Baltic States based on Chapters XI and XII and Resolutions 1514 and 1541 of the U.N., even if you believe it is red herrings, synthesis, OR, alphabet soup, syllogism, and non-pertinent. TFD (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source discusses how the USA attempted to use the UN to reiterate "American opposition to the Soviet claim to title and thus continuing to impede crystallization of the fact of Soviet occupation into law". The fact that the USA failed in its attempt to have the UN consider the question of status of the Baltic states by pressing for a broader interpretation of colonialisation when drafting the relevant UN resolutions proves what exactly? Your logically flawed synthesis seems to be:

None of these non-self governing territories, no matter how brutal the colonial system, were referred to as "occupied"
The USA pressed for a broader interpretation of colonialisation to include the Baltic states
Therefore the Baltic states could not have been considered occupied territory

You haven't presented a source that articulates all three components to your argument, just the second one is supported by your source. --Martin (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

While I presented 1 and 2, I never made the the conclusion you mentioned. I did not say "the Baltic states could not have been considered occupied territory". Your misrepresentation of my comments is needlessly extending the discussion in this thread. TFD (talk)

Ofcourse you did, you implied the conclusion when you stated "We do not talk about British-occupied Bermuda for example, even though the UK is in violation of Resolution 1541 and is obligated to provide independence to Bermuda." --Martin (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know to remove the tag with this summary is not acceptable. Also if you decide to withdraw from a discussion which you do not like, that does not make the discussion dormant. Or you finally came to a realization that you approve the renaming? (Igny (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC))

Template:POV permits us to remove a tag when "Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days)". You have not provided any justification based upon sources for the tag and the section Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#.28continued.29_Socratic_Method awaits your input. --Martin (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you now agree to participate in this faux discussion? I want to be sure. (Igny (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

You need to first bring something concrete to the table, I want to base any discussion on concrete sources, not hand waving. However Vecrumba said he will participate, feel free to being your exercise. --Martin (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop playing good cop/ bad cop on me. I am not here to waste my time. (Igny (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

When you place a POV tag, you need to present evidence that it does not provide proper weight to various points of view; to articulate what these viewpoints are and how do they differ from the one presented in the article. It is up to you to argue your case, not up to me individually to divine what your objections are through some kind of question/answer session. If you think presenting an arguemnt based on evidence is a waste of time, then don't place a POV tag in the first place. --Martin (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You know quite well that I have articulated the reasons and provided such evidence multiple times since March of 2010. You decision to ignore my arguments and refusal to participate in a discussion about them in this dismissive tone is not enough to claim that I haven't presented the arguments, and surely that is not enough to remove the tag. But let us assume for a second that I haven't provided any good argument for the renaming or the tag. Are you also denying that other people have come forward and agreed that the renaming would be a right thing to do? (Igny (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

There's no reasonable arguments here for tagging the article, meaning the article is based on facts, The Kremlin's POV is included. It can't get more neutral than that. And adding more Kremlins opinions to this article is not going to make it more neutral. I consider such unreasonable tagging not helpful and going to remove it.--Termer (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but made you think that the fact that annexation took place was Kremlin's opinion? I would recommend you to better pay attention to the talk pages rather than blindly push your anti-kremlin POV. (Igny (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

In case Kremlin thinks the Baltic diplomatic missions, Baltic financial assets abroad and ships in international waters etc. were annexed with the Soviet union, then that's an opinion for sure. regarding the territories of the Baltic countries than the facts are clear, de facto were annexed, de jure not. In case the Kremlin thinks anything different, than yes, that's also an opinion.

Did I get it right, the last time the reason for tagging this article was due to it is not based on RS [14]? fine, we need to take it to relevant notice board then.--Termer (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me tell you what would happen in at RSN. The same groups of editors would argue, one team that team occupation is supported by the RS, the other team would argue that term annexation is supported too. I would not hope that we could arrive at a consensus at the RSN, but you may give it a try. (Igny (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

For those who is interested a relevant discussions are going at the talk pages of state continuity of the Baltic states and the Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1944). (Igny (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

I must have missed something? Is this whole discussion still about "occupation" vs. "occupation and annexation"? I've said it already earlier back when it was suggested, I don't see any problems if "annexation" would be added to the title. I'm not sure what's the big deal about the whole thing in the first place? Just that I'm not getting it how would the sources became RS in your opinion if the word annexation would be added to the title?--Termer (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more clear with your questions? Yes, the title is not neutral because it has the politically loaded term occupation, and lacks the neutral term annexation contrary to numerous RS. (Igny (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

That's your opinion, but there was no consensus in Move Request that the title is not neutral. That no consensus position combined with the leeway given in WP:POVTITLE means that the current title is acceptable. --Martin (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No consensus =/= keep. I can not believe that I had to explain that one to you. No consensus is defaulted to no action at the RMs, that means move is not a go. But for a POV tag all is required is existence of the dispute, which is clearly a case here. There is no consensus to remove the tag which defaults to "tag stays". (Igny (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

The title is NPOV descriptive per an overwhelming number of sources. It is only you that seeks to perpetually conflate occupation and annexation and contend, therefore, that annexed territory cannot be occupied. There is no such scholarship supporting that position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion with regard to existence or nonexistence of such sources. Nevertheless, as the article talks about occupation and annexation, despite your attempts to remove usage of the term "annexation" in the lede, the title should be changed accordingly. It is regretful that you keep stonewalling the renaming discussion in face of overwhelming evidence for the change, and thus stop further progress in the article. (Igny (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

You on the other hand are not entitled to accuse me of stonewalling when you don't like a title that everyone else has agreed to stop arguing over so that we can get back to content. You interpret history one way, Russian sources = "NPOV" uber alles, I take a different view, considering how much of Soviet/Russian history regarding the Stalin era is manufactured absent of any basis in historical facts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)