Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by .

RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?

Ymblanter kindly closed this RFC yesterday. Please drop your sticks and back away from the horse now. Bring it back up in a month or something. -sche (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the period of Soviet rule over the Baltic states from 1940-90 be reflected in the use of Soviet Union to describe places in the Soviet Union/Baltic states during that time, or should Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania be used?176.1.212.131 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for the common practice in the English-language works throughout that time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as Soviet Republics. USSR and Soviet Union also work. It depends on context and POV, and I think Latvia, Soviet Union or Soviet Latvia would not be bad solutions. To me, there seems to be a strong ethnic nationalist desire to rewrite history on this point.46.115.105.6 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, most sources do not refer to them as Soviet republics and the official policy of these countries was non-recognition of the occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources do refer to them as Soviet republics. Heck you can look at almost all Atlas's created during that time period and see them labelled as such and they are just as reliable sources as anything else. Claiming that most sources don't refer to them as Soviet republics is clearly misleading. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the Google Books search results as provided by Nug. If you have alternative results, please present them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As was presented in the previous above example, saying 'Riga, Latvia' does not preclude membership in the USSR, as it is no different than saying 'Austin, Texas' rather than 'Austin, USA'. Brevity does not necessarily imply a political statement.--Львівське (говорити) 16:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common name was 'Riga, Latvia'. Everything else is OR. Can you demonstrate that the usage was the same as, e.g., Belarus? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the same for Ukraine, for example. Russia, too, however 'Moscow, USSR' was just as prevalent since it was the capital. It all comes down to style guides, not necessarily politics.--Львівське (говорити) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity in the number of hits for "Moscow, USSR" and "Moscow, Russia" only means that people commonly believed that Russia == USSR, that is all. --Nug (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Reso lute 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia, and the Russians are synonymous with the Soviet Union and Soviet people". --Nug (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR should be used as it is historically inaccurate to drop that from any references to the location during that time. As 46.115 mentions it is pretty POV and revisionist to remove all reference to it. Whether people like it or not during that time period it was Soviet controlled Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

46.115.105.6 is likely a sock of the RFC opener 176.1.212.131. The consensus in Western scholarship is that the Baltic states continued to exists as de jure sovereign states under occupation. Unlike the consensus in Western scholarship, Russian historiography seems to be divided into the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) camp and and the the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camp. The liberal-democratic camp is essentially aligned with the Western consensus view that the Baltic states were occupied and but continued to exist, while patriotic-nationalist camp contends that the Baltic states voluntarily accepted Soviet troops and became new socialist republics. However Western scholarship has debunked this Russian patriotic-nationalist POV and one scholar goes as far as calling it the "The Myth of 1939-40". An yet despite the demonstrated consensus in Western scholarship regarding the continuity of the Baltic states, it appears that some editors here unwittingly push this Russian patriotic-nationalist POV. --Nug (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their edit history they appear to have completely opposite views so I don't think they are likely to be the same person but I could be wrong. As for the rest of your comments, I don't dispute the occupation. My only opinion is what the common person around the world would call these places at the time they were occupied. News articles I could find from the time period seem to almost always include the USSR in referring to them. And looking in some old atlas's (printed in countries said to not recognize them legitimately) I have laying around also label them part of the USSR. And mail addressed to people in those countries were labelled as such. So occupied or not, it was/is common to have considered them as part of the USSR. Whether that was through an occupation or not. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I previously provided Google News searches from that time that indicate "Riga, Latvia" was way more prevalent than "Riga USSR/Soviet Union" by several orders of magnitude, while the converse was true for Ukraine where "Kiev, USSR" was way more prevalent than "Kiev, Ukraine". Did you not see that? --Nug (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those search results were debunked quite quickly and easily as an flawed search and interpretation of the results. ie. Houston, Texas is still Houston, USA. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. Please provide a diff where google news results were debunked. --Nug (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR as Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Union - they were soviet republics, like it or not, through whatever legal circumstances can be argued against them. They were de facto and partial de jure members for 50 years, I don't think it serves purpose to revise history in favor of legal wrangling & cold war poker. --Львівське (говорити) 16:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania or else replace Czechoslovakia with Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and Poland with General Government or Germany for those born 1939-1945. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is done in many cases. (reply added was before he added Germany and General Government to his comment) -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Stan Mikita. Reso lute 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. That is common usage. Google news for the period 1945 to 1990:

"Riga, Latvia" dozens of pages hit[1]
"Riga, Latvia, USSR" less than one page[2]
"Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" less than one page[3]
"Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" no pages[4]
"Riga, Latvian SSR" less than one page[5]
"Riga, Soviet Union" less than one page[6]
"Riga, USSR" one and a half pages of hits[7]

By way of comparison:

Kiev, Ukraine gets one and a half pages[8]
Kiev, USSR gets seven pages of hists [9]

This is the opposite to the Latvia result. People clearly viewed Ukraine as USSR but Latvia not. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, Kharkov, Ukraine gets 11 hits, USSR gets 4, Ukrainian SSR 1, and Soviet Union 2. This does not draw a conclusion that Kharkov was not in the USSR.--Львівське (говорити) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about tens of pages of hits compared to a tens of hits. The total number of hits for Kharkov, <anything> is too low to get anything meaningful. --Nug (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice original research! (It's been debunked all of the other times you've presented it, including once just a few paragraphs up, but... you get an A for Persistence.) -sche (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So adhering to WP:COMMONNAME policy and Wikipedia:PLACE is OR now, don't be silly. And no, it hasn't debunked, DJSasso's recollection seems somewhat confused. --Nug (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those guides are for determining English language spelling of place names, not what country they belong in.--Львівське (говорити) 03:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. Per WP:PLACE: "By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called". You guys are contending what the place "ought" to be called, not what it "is" or "was" called. --Nug (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing the spelling of Riga.--Львівське (говорити) 04:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Lvivske now contends "usage" is a synonym for "spelling". Rolling my eyes now. --Nug (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR. Per the same reasons given the first five or six times this debate has circled. Reso lute 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that would be based upon what you WP:KNOW. --Nug (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based on the innumerable sources that point to the fact these three republics were considered part of the Soviet Union - which I have already detailed in your unending argument at WT:HOCKEY, and also per the fact that even most of your own links above make it clear that Latvia was subnational to the Soviet Union. You're attempting sleight of hand to change reality. Reso lute 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your Valentine's day edit where you cite nine news articles[10], well no doubt they are part of the one and a half pages of news results I linked above. But given order of magnitude greater number of pages of news hits that use "Riga, Latvia" demonstrated above, it seems you may have inadvertently cherry picked your sources. As said numerous times before, nobody disputes that the USSR controlled the Baltic states but innumerable sources show in terms of usage and legality, the Baltic states retained their identity and continuity throughout that period of control (and the Infobox guide does require a sovereign state). If it seems like this debate has gone around in circles it is because of this apparent inability by some to find the middle ground for the sake of achieving consensus. --Nug (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR. I realise that a few users wp:KNOW that the half century that Latvia et al spent in the Soviet Union shouldn't count because Riga had totally called fives or because those users' favoured nations were among those with the POV that the annexation was illegal rather than those with the POV that it was legal... but Wikipedia is not the place to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -sche (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess ad hominem claims have to suffice in the absence of any substantive policy based argument. Perhaps if you had read the literature you would have had some understanding of the relative weights of the POVs involved, ranging from the mainstream view that annexation was illegal to the minority POV held by Russian nationalists that it was legal. --Nug (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that most of the respondents, including myself, didn't actually answer the RFC's first question of "Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918". FWIW, to answer that question there are sources devoted to the topic such as Lauri Mälksoo's seminal monograph Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR[11]. Other sources point to the view of other states with respect to continuity:

"Significantly, in a Joint Statement issued on 28 August 1991, the European Community and its Member States explicitly recognised the legal continuity of the Baltic States and, therefore, agreed with the Baltic thesis that the Soviet period was illegal and should be considered null and void."[12]

So yes, I do think it is "desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918", because policy requires us to reflect what the sources say. --Nug (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just your way of skewing the question. Is it desirable to consider their existence as a single continuum? If we're talking the politically, yes, there is a legal continuation - but this argument is about historical presentation, namely, with birthplaces. The original question specifically that this is question on historical context of place names: "describe places in the Soviet Union/Baltic states during that time." In this regard, it is not desirable to consider a continued existence for a state that existed only on paper.--Львівське (говорити) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC title is "RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?", so clearly there is a question there, no? I was answering that. If we are talking about historical presentation then how the places were represented historically, as exemplified by period google news results is then relevant, and I have show that above. --Nug (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR They were Soviet republics. Was the occupation and annexation at best questionable? Yes, but we are not here to right great wrongs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith here? Where did anyone claim some wrong had to be righted? This argument of wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS could equally be applied to Soviet fan boys who want to right the great wrong of USSR's Cold War defeat and collapse and world's non-recognition of Soviet annexations. It is a question of style and usage, particularly in regard to infoboxes. What do post-Cold War sources say in regard to sovereignty and continuity, do they distinguish between the Baltic states and other Soviet republics? What of Template:infobox person requirement for sovereign state for place of birth. How do news sources of the period identify and distinguish these countries. etc, etc. WP:Accuracy is at issue here, obfuscating there was no difference doesn't achieve that. --Nug (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed no bad faith, take your assumptions elsewhere. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right accuracy is the issue here. Denying that the area was under the control of the USSR at the time of the persons birth is obfuscating the facts and putting a biased skew. Quite frankly the majority of the arguments you have put forth have been "right great wrongs" arguments based on the fact you didn't like that the countries were occupied. So again whether you like it or not the people in question were born in USSR territory at the time of their birth which is all that the birthplace is attempting to convey. Legitimate or not there is no disputing those facts. And trying to hide them by not mentioning the USSR is an extreme POV bias. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just BS. No where did I deny that the area under the control of the USSR and I previously agreed to adding "(then in USSR)" if warranted, the issue was sovereignty which is a requirement of infobox guide. Control and ownership are two different things, born in USSR controlled territory is different from USSR territory. Please provide a diff that proves that I "didn't like that the countries were occupied" as a fact, if you cannot then please refactor your statement. --Nug (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the USSR was a sovereign state so it meets the infobox requirement. As for the didn't like, your comment about Soviet-fan boys right above this one does so nicely. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to grapple here is how you are okay with putting in parenthesis "then in USSR" - but since the infobox states the location then, it's no good? It seems you just want to disregard the reality to brackets or a footnote just because you want to see Estonia without a comma after it.--Львівське (говорити) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I am hardly a 'Soviet fan boy'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did just imply wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, right? Where did that come from if not from your assumptions? I didn't say you were a Soviet fan boy, I was demonstrating that this kind of argument can cut both ways, that is why it is useless. --Nug (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You inferred something, I did not imply it. I was saying that the annexation of the Baltics was a great wrong. I am sorry for the confusion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is both common usage and correct according to international law. --Sander Säde 08:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, for the simple reason that they had a separate existence, as soviet republics. The use of their individual names is therefore more specific than "USSR". Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the common practice is to still include the administrative unit, which is what Latvia was within the USSR; just like England, UK.--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been consistently arguing for "Tallinn, USSR", in fact Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_player states "birth_place (city, then comma, then country code", so that would be Tallinn, EST. If you want to add administrative unit, I suppose you could add Harju County, so Tallinn, Harju County, EST, but that would be contrary to the template. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No he has been arguing Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. Keep trying to twist peoples words because it seems to be working great for you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please moderate your assumptions of bad faith. Still contrary to Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_player guidelines. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assumption any longer when you keep doing it over and over. It becomes proven fact. And it isn't contrary to the guidelines it says country code. Not which country code. ie the Soviet Unions. -DJSasso (talk)

More unsubstantiated personal attacks. It now seems evident that you appear to be unable respond to legitimate challenges to your assertions or even conduct a reasonable discussion without descending into personal attacks. I said adding administrative unit is contrary to Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_player. --Nug (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context, either Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania or Soviet Union/USSR should be used. The first option is germane to the discussion of State continuity of the Baltic states. The second option is for all other topics. Please, keep in mind that even during late 1980s - early 1990s the mainstream sources were discussing the future of the Baltic states in terms of secession, not of restoration of sovereignty. Therefore, to speak about "Estonia" (not "Estonian SSR") in history articles would mean to project our present-days realities into the past.
Let's use WWII history as an example. If we speak about de facto state continuity, then the Estonian pre-war leader Jüri Uluots should be considered an internationally recognised legal leader of Estonia by 1944. Therefore, his radio address on February 7 that implored all able-bodied men born from 1904 through 1923 to report for military service in the SS should be considered as legal binding. In other words, following this approach, Estonia (not just some Estonian volunteers) should be considered as a Nazi co-belligerent, and by no means can it be consistent with present-days claims that it was a neutral state. However, this is not how mainstream sources describe those events. The same arguments can be put forward about the Holocaust. Mainstream sources say that the Holocaust in Lithuania had three phases: during the first phase, the Lithuanians murdered Jews by themselves, then they did that in collaboration with Nazi, and after that Nazi took a full control of that. If we assume that happened in Lithuania (not German-occupied Lithuanian SSR), then Lithuania as a country is among the worst Holocaust perpetrators (in relative figures). These two examples are just a demonstration of the confusion the first approach may lead to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that you managed to work in Nazi collaboration and the Holocaust into this discussion. It is true that this present discussion has gone on quite a while so I guess Godwin's law would inevitably come into play. While I happen to agree that some of the worst crimes of the Holocaust were perpetrated in Lithuania, it really is irrelevant to this discussion. Sources at the time also discuss Austria as being legally incorporated into Germany, but that recognition was reversed at the end of the war as null and void, as if it never happened. If view points change after due to further analysis of subsequent facts coming to light, then of course we must reflect that view. The existence of a "government-in-exile" was irrelevant, rather it was the continued recognition of the Baltic legations throughout the war and after that was more relevant as the sources show. The Baltic states remained recognised members of the League of Nations right up to its abolition in 1946. Just because a country's government gets decapitated does not mean a state ceases to exist. States, like corporations, have legal personality that continue to exist even it the president or CEO and leadership becomes incapacitated. At issue here is whether or not the Soviet Union acquired sovereign title over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally off topic, but Paul Siebert's "mainstream" Germanless Holocaust is a fiction. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR. Toponyms like "Estonia" during that period should be regarded as shorthand for "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", etc. To say that there was a "Republic of Estonia" during the Soviet Union's postwar existence is a serious anachronism and was an extreme minority viewpoint at the time.
Today, the persecution of Baltic Russians and other legal maneuvers are helped by the legal doctrine of state continuity, but our own historical writing should strive to be free of presentist bias and the censorship dictates of current Baltic nationalist governments. So, if e.g. Estonia is used, it should be "Estonia, USSR", but "Estonian SSR, USSR" is even better. Of course, like Paul Siebert says, we can and should acknowledge when the Baltic states were de facto independent, despite Soviet claims, like when they perpetrated the Holocaust. If we accept these principles, we are bowing neither to Soviet apologists nor to Baltic nationalists-revisionists. Shrigley (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. My point is that, although the Soviet annexation was not recognized de jure by Britain, the US and some other Western countries, Lithuania as a state de facto didn't exist in 1941 (in contrast to Poland, which had both underground and exile governments which control significant forces). That is a principal difference between Poland and the Baltic states: the former was active (and responsible for its actions, which were internationally recognized as the action of the Polish government), the latter were passive, and all what happened on the territories of the Baltic SSRs were the actions of individual civilians, who were neither under control of their (non-existing) governments, nor did they appreciably coordinate their activities with pre-war officials.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrigley, I won't even comment on this alleged "persecution of Baltic Russians", as you seem to be implying that it one of the WP:GREATWRONGS of recognising continuity. Regardless of the alleged consequences of the international recognition of the Baltic thesis of continuity, this isn't the place for such advocacy. I'm not sure you can infer that toponyms like "Estonia" where used during that period as shorthand for "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", you have no source that actually says this. On the other hand at that time Russia, and the Russians are synonymous with the Soviet Union and Soviet people, so evidently people made a distinction when they referred to "Estonia" which having achieved full recognition during the 1920's, never lost its identity in the minds of people through out its period of occupation. --Nug (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR. This is how they were referenced in the encyclopedic sources of the time. Although some pointed that the popular usage could be different, this should not affect us. For example, the popular name for the USSR was "Russia", this was used in the major newspapers for instance. Should we rename Soviet army to Russia's army now? Also for the uniformity with other Soviet republics.

Some quotes about the position of the West at the time from "The Baltic Question During the Cold War", John Hiden,Vahur Made,David James Smith (article by K.K.Khudoley):

Eden for his part claimed that the diplomats of the Bltic states were considered private persons in Britain, that 'there are no Baltic states' for the British government at the moment and that it would be 'a pleasure for him if the Soviet troops entered the Baltic states the next day' (p.59)

In 1967, for instance, the Soviet Union and the Netherlands finally settled all future financial and property disputes concerning property of the Baltic states and their citizens by means of the agreement which defined Estonia, Latwia and Lithuania as 'Soviet Socialist Republics' (p.66)

--Anixx1 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that a new user, who has never been seen in Baltic related articles before, would suddenly appear and cite Khudoley, a rather obscure author who would be unknown to editors outside of that topic area. --Nug (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced user, you should have known that biting newbies is strongly discouraged. Regarding Khudoley, I don't remember you ever called him "obscure", and you yourself cite him extensively. By the way, have you been familiar with the passage quoted by Anixx1? If yes, why do you maintain Britain continued to recognise pre-war Baltic governments in 1940s?

By the way, the book found by Anixx1 appeared to be an interesting reading. Thus, Khudoley argues that during the post-WWII period Soviet control of the Baltic states could be construed as resting not on the MRP, but on Yalta and Potsdam (p. 62), and that in 1960s most European states developed much more realistic view of the "Baltic issue", and only the US and Canada "remained steadfast" (p. 63).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR, generally. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be treated pretty much like Khazakstan or the Ukraine or whatever. If it's appropriate to say "Khazakstan" in some context, then it's OK to say "Estonia"; if not, not. If we usually say "X was born in Khazakstan" then we should say "X was born in Estonia". But no special case or dispensation for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania beyond that. I would think that generally if Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania are used, Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Lithuanian SSR are more specific and better. I do feel for the terrible plight of being a small nation next to Russia and that that has entailed, but I can't fix that. That the USA et al, for political reasons, did not formally recognize these states incorporation into the USSR has little bearing on any of this. Herostratus (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably unaware of the general practice of distinguishing between the Baltic states and the other states such as Khazakstan, and Ukraine:

"Generally speaking, the experience of pre-war independence gives the Baltic states a unique position compared with other former Soviet republics. In other words, the "restored Baltic republics" enjoy a status under international law which distinguishes them from the "Newly Independent States" (NIS) of the ex-USSR"[13]

Nor has it anything to do with being a small nation next to Russia, it is just an issue of WP:Accuracy. --Nug (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR because Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were part of the USSR during that time period, not an independent country. Hue Sat Lum 23:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR. A regrettable period for everyone involved (minus the ruling classes), but we're not in the business of rewriting history. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC question is about whether we should consider the Baltic states having existed continually since 1918. I have not read anything that suggests Peter Van Elsuwege is rewriting history when he states:

"Any analysis of the present situation has to take into account the burden of history. This is particularly true for the Baltic states, whose statehood is essentially based on the concept of legal continuity between the independent inter-war republics and the states that arose out of the disintegrated Soviet Union. The forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940, on the basis of secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is considered to be null and void. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law." (April 2004). Russian-speaking minorities in Estonian and Latvia: Problems of integration at the threshold of the European Union. European Centre for Minority Issues[14]

--Nug (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated elsewhere, Tallinn, Estonian SSR, USSR iff Prague, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Nazi Germany. Otherwise, Tallinn, Estonia. Any naming principle based on territorial control must be uniformly applied. Perhaps a small note after the name describing the controversy and historical background would be a good compromise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much for that intelligent, meaningful contribution to the discussion, you shining star of an editor you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to using Prague, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Nazi Germany for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More BS?[15] --Nug (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check that article's later history. My revert was undone & I left it as such. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of logic or double standards? [16] ″Prague was in Czechoslovakia in 1941, just like Narva was in the USSR in 1987″? Occupied CZ remains CZ as clearly as occupied EST becomes USSR? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia / Latvia / Lithuania - to points elsewhere, "Soviet Union/USSR" based on the notion that these countries were "part of" the USSR is incorrect, their territory was under control of the Soviet Union, that is all. I am glad to discuss "part of" versus "under control of" in more detail with anyone who would like to have that conversation in a cordial and respectful manner. The point to be made is that "Soviet Union/USSR" based on "part of" is factually incorrect and therefore unencyclopedic. The belief that the moon is made of cheese does not make it so, either.
If we need another control versus sovereignty example, do we describe those born in the Israeli-occupied West Bank as being born in Israel? Perhaps the imported settlers do but surely not those who already resided there, their progeny, or the rest of the planet for that matter. Lothar's Prague example is the most apt historical comparison.
I should note that the convention for Palestinian place names for place of birth in biographies for someone born since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is simply the city/region, e.g., "Hebron". Not "Hebron (then Israeli occupied West Bank)". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Union/USSR whether the annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate or fair isn't important. The fact remains that they were not sovereign states and that they weren't treated as such even by countries that officially regarded them as illegally occupied countries. For instance (and since the discussion that brought me here was about ice hockey biographies) national Soviet teams routinely included athletes from the Baltic states and as far as I know, this was eventually a non-issue. Atlas and globes showed the Baltic states as part of the USSR and realistically this would in all likelihood still be the state of affairs today had the USSR not disintegrated. It's one thing for Western European countries to symbolically claim continuity in retrospect but at the time, they basically accepted the Soviet control de facto. Pichpich (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American, Canadian, Australian, Finnish, Swedish and other teams included athletes from the Baltic states. How does that help us to determine their country of birth? Mainstream scholarly research has listed numerous ways the sovereign title of the Baltic states was recognised concluding the Western countries generally maintained a recognition policy of the countries. A well understood example would be the number of countries, including Australia, France, New Zealand and the U.K., boycotting the Sailing_at_the_1980_Summer_Olympics held in Estonia. Let me also point out that maps and atlases represent the current political power not necessarily the sovereign title. We are discussing the latter here. Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty has been your spin on the discussion certainly. But that isn't completely what is being discussed here. We are discussing a birthplace and a birthplace is a geo-political entity. In other words where on a map were you born. So yes atlas's and maps are very relevant to the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep attempting to reframe the RFC question, which asks "Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?" This question is asking about state continuity, which is an issue of whether or not sovereignty was transferred. Plenty of sources have been provided that explicitly verify that the Baltic states continued as subjects of international law--Nug (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide sources saying that during 1940-91 Britain, France or Sweden considered the Baltic states as subjects of international law.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"American, Canadian, Australian, Finnish, Swedish and other teams included athletes from the Baltic states." I suppose you mean people born in the Baltic states but with the American citizenship. That's beyond misleading. Estonians/Latvians/Lithuanians were not allowed to compete as Estonians/Latvians/Lithuanians and the American ice hockey could not say "hey, we decided that this Latvian guy would be on our team. He'll fly in from Riga and meet us at the Olympics". In contrast, every athlete born in the Baltic states and living in the Baltic states during the Soviet control was allowed to compete for the USSR, which is of course what you'd expect given that the USSR had de facto complete control (and only passively contested control) over the Baltic states. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, people born in the Baltic states were allowed to compete for the foreign countries they had become citizens of. That does not mean they were born in those countries they represented. The fact that the USSR forbade the people living under its control to acquire the citizenship of the country they were born in (unlike the U.S. or the U.K., for example, where one could acquire an Estonian passport) does not change their birth country. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of public international law - Volume 1 - Page 335[17]:

"It is of no little importance not only in power politics but in international legal terms that group of states which did not recognise the annexation of the three Baltic States de jure, and thus assume that the Baltic States continue as subjects of international law, comprises most Western States including the Vatican. These members include all the member states of the North Atlantc Treaty Organisation (NATO) with the exception of the Netherlands ..… France takes the same legal position in relation to the Baltic States, and the Federal Republic of Germany also belongs to the groups of Western States which did not recognise de jure the annexation by the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the competent Federal Gearman authorities have recognised Estonian, Latvia and Lithuanian nationality on the basis of passports issued by the official representatives of the Baltic States in exile."

Britain and France were both in NATO last time I checked. Also many Western nations, including the USA, continued to recognise passports issued by Baltic exile representatives, so it is quite possible that Balts in USA could have joined some team as Baltic citizens. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That means we can speak about a conflict between different reliable sources. If you looked through this section, you would find several quotes that demonstrate that Britain, France and other states considered the Baltic states as having ceased to exist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict in the sources, you quote a British politician and put your own interpretation on it, nor is France mentioned anywhere here, thus your claim "Britain, France and other states" is fundamentally misleading. I quote scholarly sources that summarise the situation: most Western States including all of NATO excluding possibly the Netherlands, agree that Baltic States continued as subjects of international law. --Nug (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR Although initially I did not support it universally (see above), I found a wast amount of reliable sources that list the three Baltic republics as full members of the USSR. Those sources include such a reputable source as Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Soviet Union ... former northern Eurasian empire (1917/22–1991) stretching from the Baltic and Black seas to the Pacific Ocean and, in its final years, consisting of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics (S.S.R.’s)–Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan."), and many secondary sources, some of which have been listed at the very end of this section ("No consensus" subsection). In that situation, the amount of votes for or against this proposal does not matter, we must stick with what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less the EB quote you cite links "Estonia" to the article on the Estonian republic established in 1918, there is no Estonian SSR article in EB. This indicates that EB considers Estonia existed before, during and after its incorporation into the USSR. As yourself noted, many serious books called the USSR "Soviet Russia", but nobody called USSR "Soviet Estonia". Given that the RFC asks "Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918", you haven't really answered that. --Nug (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nug, but that your statement is a direct lie. The EB article about Estonian history has several sections, including "Independence", "Independence lost", "Soviet republic" and "Independence restored".

Regarding "Soviet Russia", that is a pure demagogy: do you imply all other 14 SSRs, including Ukraine and Belarus, were under Russian occupation? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that EB discuss "Independence", "Independence lost", "Soviet republic" and "Independence restored" in the one article on Estonia indicates EB believes that Estonia continued to exist as a single de jure entity despite loss and restoration of de facto independence. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to discuss when an opponent changes arguments during the dispute. Your last argument was that EB article about Estonia does not mention Estonian SSR. Although that argument is weak (even if EB article about Estonia contradicts to the EB article about the USSR, that does not mean the former takes precedence over the latter), I believe I addressed it: the article about Estonia has a section "Soviet republic", which obviously means "Estonian Soviet republic (Estonian SSR)". No reasonable person can question this interpretation, so I can safely conclude I was able to refute your argument. However, instead of conceding that your argument has been addressed, you preferred to ignore my responce, and to put forward quite new argument. You must agree no reasonable discussion is possible in that situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is unchanged, Estonia continued to exist despite being incorporated into the USSR. The implication of EB's stance is clear, there is no separate EB article for the Estonian SSR, nor does the EB Estonia article state that Estonia came into existence in 1991 as a new state, but that it is the same state before, during and after the Soviet period, hence a mention it was a part of the Soviet Union in the context of a wider history of Estonia. Nor is "Soviet Russia" pure demagogy, you previously admitted it yourself, and the perception is widespread: "Russia, and the Russians are synonymous with the Soviet Union and Soviet people". --Nug (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was "the EB quote you cite links "Estonia" to the article on the Estonian republic established in 1918, there is no Estonian SSR article in EB". I believe by pointing at the "Soviet republic" section I fully addressed it: indeed, in contrast to Wikipedia, EB contains no separate article for each period of country's history, so instead having separate articles, EB has different subsections. The conclusion you draw from the EB article is profoundly dubious and illogical: thus, if you bothered to have a look at the article about Ukraine, you would see that it is written according to the same scheme as the article about Estonia. Does it mean Ukraine existed as a separate state during 1917-1991? Of course, no. Your thesis that "Estonia continued to exist despite being incorporated into the USSR" is deeply questionable. Thus, according to "The Baltic Question during the Cold War", majority of world states silently agreed that it was a part of the USSR.

Re "Soviet Russia", again, that is a pure demagogy: whereas noone used, e.g. "Soviet Ukraine" as an alternative name for the USSR, that does not mean Ukraine was not a part of the USSR. If that argument doesn't work for Ukraine, why should it work for Estonia? Again, a pure demagogy.

To summarise, your posts, with small exceptions, contain just argumentation for the sake of argumentation. In other words, it is a pure filibustering. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I am astonished that you consider USSR == Soviet Russia is "pure demagogy" since it was you who first proposed it earlier. Your claim that the "The Baltic Question during the Cold War" claims the majority of world states silently agreed that it was a part of the USSR is just a flat out unverifiable intepretation of that source. Note I have a copy and easily verify any assert you may make regarding it. --Nug (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To say that "Soviet Russia" is frequently used as a synonym for "Soviet Union" is not demagogy. However, your words "As yourself noted, many serious books called the USSR "Soviet Russia", but nobody called USSR "Soviet Estonia" ", and the conclusion you make from them - that Estonia was not a part of the USSR - are pure demagogy. Again, nobody called USSR "Soviet Moldavia", or "Soviet Kazakhstan", so what? I cannot believe you sincerely believe in what you are writing (I regard your intellectual abilities highly), therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that you are not acting in good faith. Please, stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, your accusations of "pure demagogy" appears to be as insincere as your reliance on EB, this is your true opinion of the weight we should attach to hat encyclopaedia:

"In my opinion, since both Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, it would be hardly correct to write the former based on the latter. In my real life I never saw that scientists used EB as a source for their research articles/reviews. I cannot tell for sure about history/liberal arts, I am not a specialist there, however, I have a feeling that they do not use EB either. I think EB, being a tertiary source, should be avoided when possible."[18]

It seems somewhat disingenuous to reject or accept EB depending upon whether it supports your POV. --Nug (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/USSR Enough sources to prove they were an integral part of the "Union of Socialistic Soviet Republics" and not independent. The Banner talk 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction between independence and statehood, a state can retain its statehood despite losing and restoring independence. In State Continuity And Nationality on Page 92:

"There is, therefore, evidence that, in the view of the majority of third States, the Baltic States were restoring their independence rather than their statehood. In 1991, it was also acknowledged that there was no need for the recognition their statehood on the part of third States which had recognised these States in the 1920s. A Charter of Partnership among the United States of America and the Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, and Republic of Lithuania signed on 16 January 1998 confirmed the application of this principle in relations between the US and the Baltic States most precisely. The Charter recalls that the friendly relations between these States "have continuously maintained … since 1922" and the United States never recognised the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Sobiet Union and thus "regards their statehood as uninterrupted since the establishment of their independence, a policy which the United States has restated continuously for five decades". It appears that today Russia by holding the opposite opinion on the Baltic claims is isolated on this issue."[19]

I think the quote above answers the RFC question Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?. --Nug (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

For those who lack the time to wade through all the long and often repetitive comments, the tally is 5 votes = 33% for using "Estonia"/"Latvia"/"Lithuania" (Jaan, Miacek, Nug, Sander, Scolaire), 10 votes = 66% for using "USSR"/"Soviet Union" (DJSasso, GoodDay, Lvivske, Resolute, me, Dbrodbeck, Shrigley, Anixx1, Herostratus, HueSatLum). In addition, Paul Siebert voted for "either, depending on context". If more contributors join the discussion, I'll update this tally. If anyone counts differently than I do, they're welcome to keep their own tally. :) ~~-sche (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)~~ (updated) -sche (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard

– ~~keeping a tally [added 23:01, 5 March 2013: is transforming this RFC into a vote, and voting] is contrary to wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY~~ Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome per WP:RFC. Voting is contrary to wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY --Nug (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. NOTDEMOCRACY does say that "polls or surveys can impede rather than foster discussion", which IMHO is certainly the case here, but it is silent on the question of keeping tallies during the course of such polls or surveys. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDEMOCRACY states Wikipedia's "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading consensus—not voting". The act of tallying comments in this RFC is transforming the RFC into a vote, and voting is against policy. I've refactored the notice, is that better? --Nug (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a highly subjective interpretation of a section of a policy. The RfC is in the form of a poll, and a poll is effectively a vote, even though we call it a !vote. The tally is not "transforming" it, it's only tallying it. People are going to do their own tally anyway, and the fact that -sche has done / is doing it for them is not going to unduly influence the closer. The closer will also have done their own tally, but will close the discussion on whatever principle they normally close discussions on. The row is already big enough without starting another controversy. Everybody should just stop, see if more outsiders want to comment, and wait for the closer to do their job. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I wondered how long it would take before someone would find mathematics controversial. Now I wonder what the next controversy will be... (well, I won't speculate, per WP:BEANS) -sche (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are a way to get outside input and the outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and it even explicitly states in WP:RFC "Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome". And here I was thinking "counting votes" was the same as "tallying votes", apparently my fifth grade teacher has a lot to answer for. --Nug (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as per what Nug has said - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. For example I haven't bothered to comment the RfC since my opinion has already been adequately expressed by the other participants to the RfC. Since it is not a vote nor does tallying the comments has any relevance there is very little point to do so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 14-7 in favour of Soviet Union/USSR. Please, don't anybody start hollowering about NOT A DEMOCRACY. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to this Requested move which was closed as "not moved", with the closer saying, "there is not a consensus here to move the page." The vote was 25–7 in favour of a move. I was severely criticised by admins when I suggested that such a large majority should have been taken into consideration. And yes, Not a democracy was mentioned. Scolaire (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Afterall, if it were, this Rfc would've been closed long ago. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General disussion

What's the next move, if this Rfc doesn't settle matters? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You proposing further forum shopping if it doesn't go your way? --Nug (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I speaking of WP:DRN, actually. I don't know what you're speaking of. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is just another forum. How about working towards a compromise rather than attempting to win, this is an encyclopaedia, not a hockey rink. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to fight you or Jaan. I chipped in 'again' because this discussion expanded to cover the entire Wikipedia. PS- I already offered a compromise -Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia)- at WP:HOCKEY & was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, can you please give me at least one example when you agreed on some compromise? (This question is to you specifically, not to Jaan...)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although my preferred position is that birthplace for BLPs ought to be the current county per the practice of determining birthplace in passports and other agencies, I added "in" to the "(then USSR)" here, since "(then in USSR)" more accurately conveys de facto control whereas the other forms misleadingly convey de jure recognition of sovereign title. But that was rejected by the uncompromising hard liners here. --Nug (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is all you can present? I cannot say I was impressed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People did try to work towards a compromise. But all the options shown were rejected as IDONTLIKEIT by you and Jaan. As you link to its not a battleground, but you sure treat it as such. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim we rejected all options seems to be intentionally misleading, given the past discussions. Show us where you worked towards a "compromise", I must have missed it. --Nug (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We appeare to be heading (sooner or later) to Arbitration, folks. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say on what grounds did you revert and ignore these two compromise solutions [20] [21]? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit that had no consensus. Narva, Soviet Union is the majority prefferd style. If you & Nug continue with your disruptive resistance, I won't be responsible for any community crackdown on your heads. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work on majority but on consensus. And you obviously can't say you are the only one proposing compromises here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around this project for going on 8-yrs. Believe it, when an agreement can't be reached? the majority prevail. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus, exactly? By my count it is 6 for Estonia, 7 for USSR (and latter includes one sock/meatpuppet). --Sander Säde 08:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count 5 votes for "Estonia" (Jaan, Miacek, Nug, Sander, Scolaire) and 8 (DJSasso, GoodDay, Lvivske, Resolute, me, Dbrodbeck, Shrigley, Anixx1) for "USSR", Paul Siebert who unhelpfully voted for "either, depending on context". -sche (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens if I count things before having coffee :P

Seriously though, this doesn't change the fact there isn't anything remotely resembling consensus here. Maybe it would help if we would do a "nonpartisan" list of arguments for both options. Right now a lot of arguments are "see my post from six weeks ago".

--Sander Säde 11:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, regardless of what anyone believes, majority does not bring consensus. The correct procedure after WP:NOCONSENSUS is not a vote but restoration of articles to their last stable versions.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and since that would mean "City, Soviet Union" for nearly all of the articles we have been arguing about, save Komarov, I trust that you will drop the stick as well, accepting that the community does not favour any change at this time? Reso lute 14:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree to return articles to their last stable versions. I think, for at least start-and-beyond-class articles, the editors' years of research and discussion is the minimal ground we all need to settle at. The stubs should be settled among the involved editors, and not intervened by outsiders from the general discussion (as we could not reach consensus).--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were a part of the USSR & nothing's going to change that. Editors trying to push for that fact to be erased? are merely being disruptive at this point. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you have not read our last posts. The compromises we have offered in these represent the Soviet Union. All we have had in reply are accusations in POV-pushing, trolling, lying etc. Looks most unlikely your hard line will take this discussion anywhere.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pushing your Baltic nationalist BS & see where it will get you. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, so far you seem to be holding a revisionist and non-supported viewpoint. International law scholars universally recognize the state continuity of Baltic States - you may want to read State continuity of the Baltic states to familiarize yourself with the topic, especially as so far you seem to be very hostile and unwilling to compromise.

Let me make it really simple, based on a real-life example. My grandfather was born in the Russian Empire. He went to school and married in Republic of Estonia. First child was born in Republic of Estonia, second child in Reichskommissariat Ostland and third in Soviet Union. He died in Republic of Estonia.

All that while living in Pärnu. If anyone asks where he lived, the answer would be Estonia for his entire life.

--Sander Säde 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic existed. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation is brilliant, informative, conclusive and well supported by sources. I have no option but to humbly capitulate to your superb logic. --Sander Säde 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are being sarcastic. But you are right. It is all of those things. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, then there should be no problems to provide scholarly sources discussing legality of the existence of ESSR. Yet in years no one has managed to find such.

Let's take another simple example - Soviet Republic of Soldiers and Fortress-Builders of Nargen. If a child was born during those few months, what shall we use as his birthplace? The only difference between Republic of Naissaar and ESSR is the scope. Other than that, both existed de facto (but not de jure), both are now extinct and both were not recognized by international community. How can we pick one and disregard the other?

--Sander Säde 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing about the legality of the existence of the ESSR. Legal or not it did exist and standards tell us when listing birth locations we list it as it was called when they were born. And saying both weren't recognized by the international community is a bit of a stretch. One wasn't at all, and the other was recognized by a number of countries. Someone awhile ago provided a nice example of mainstream use where if you mailed a letter it was addressed to the USSR it wasn't addressed to Estonia etc. What you are arguing is legalese vs. reality. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, then it might be worth looking revisiting "it was called when they were born" idea. It opens an insane can of worms. Vichy France? Reichskomissariat Ostland? Palestine?

I still think that "now - then" or "then - now" approach would be the best (with "then" applied if it was significant (for example, Atatürk)). This would give always give direct link to the entity as it known now with a possibility of giving historical name or place. I don't think it is possible to misconstrue "Narva, [Estonia] (then Soviet Union) - or Warsaw, Poland (then Russian Empire) into a nefarious revisionism. Above all, clarity and usability should be our main goal.

--Sander Säde 14:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) is still in available. As for Narva, Latvia (then USSR)? it's redundant. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now Estonia is redundant as it was Estonia back then as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, it was Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while it never ceased to be Estonia, rendering now Estonia redundant. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to nominate those 3 articles for deletion. Afterall, you're claiming non-existance of those forms. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of 'Yes' do you read as 'claiming the non-existence of anything? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Straw is not a substitute for discussion--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you start those 3 AfDs, please notify the related WikiProjects, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use Reichskomissariat Ostland as a birth place and neither do we use the ESSR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with your example (Reichskomissariat Ostland, as well as of German occupied France, Protectorate of Bohemia, etc) is that those entities existed only during the war. Obviously, when a state is at war, the status of the territories under its control is deemed as intrinsically provisional. Therefore, the analogy between Estonian SSR and Reichskomissariat Ostland is incorrect. Again, the contemporary sources described Estonia as German occupied, and this occupation was a war time occupation. In contrast, the USSR waged no war during 45s-80s, and most states recognised that the Baltic states were de facto a part of the USSR. Thus, when late 1980s - early 1990s sources discuss Estonia, they use the word "secession", e.g.:

"The most vigorous secession movements have taken place in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. The Soviet Union incorporated these states by force in 1940, after they had enjoyed two decades of independence" (The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Approaching Democracy: ANew Legal Order for Eastern Europe (Spring, 1991), pp. 633-670)

"...political and economic reforms have in some cases been accompanied by demands for secession or at least for recognition of a right to secede, in the Baltic States, in Yugoslavia, in the Ukraine, and in Soviet Georgia and Armenia. (Ethics, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Jan., 1991), pp. 322-342)

I believe you realise that only the entity that had been a member of some larger entity can secede from it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there existed an insurgency on the territory of the Baltic states for quite a period of time, and of course there was the wider Cold War. Oddly enough you insist on using the most recent scholarship and dismiss contemporaneous sources with regard Communist mass killings, while in this case you insist on using contemporaneous sources while dismissing most recent scholarship. --Nug (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, this is not how the modern research handles this case. Anyhow, my proposal is to present both the legal continuation of the Baltic state and the Soviet incorporation. I mean, no one has denied the fact the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union. It is just a matter of how to fairly present the continuity of the Baltic states. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the modern research you refer to discuss the issue of state continuity. This issue is primarily relevant to the present-day situation. The most important aspect is the question of citizenship: if the doctrine of state continuity is accepted, then a part of Estonian population may be deprived of the citizenship, because they migrated to the country after its forceful incorporation into the USSR (or they are the descendants of the migrants). However, if we assume Estonia seceded from the USSR, there is no legal reason for not granting citizenship to all population. This is a legal issue, and it has nothing to do with the question if Estonia was considered as de facto a part of the USSR by contemporary observers.

You probably noticed that I do not question the present-days state continuity doctrine based on the fact that old sources spoke about secession (I do not question it at all, by the way). However, the opposite is equally true: we cannot say Estonia was not considered as de facto a part of the USSR by contemporary sources based on the fact that present-days sources speak about state continuity. The fact that most European states considered Estonian embassy personnel as private person is a historical fact, and noone can deny that based on how the present days lawyers see a situation.

The argument about resistance movement is totally irrelevant: civil wars in Northern Ireland or Basque country do not make them separate state entities. If we accept your argument, we must also accept this resistance was a remnant of some hostilities that occurred between pre-war Estonia and the USSR, which contradicts to its non-belligerent status. You maintain Estonia was neutral during the WWII, aren't you?

Jaan, if noone has denied the fact the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union, could you please explain me what a whole dispute is about? If they were the part of the USSR, why shouldn't we indicate this fact? If we do not want to indicate that fact, doesn't it mean we deny the fact that they were a part of the USSR? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is muddled and contradictory. If a state succeeds then it is a new state, if the state is a continuation it is an old state. A state cannot be simultaneously new and old. While no doubt you can find sources from 1991 that speak of "succession", later scholarship has reconsidered this issue in light of subsequent state practice and the acceptance of the Baltic thesis of continuity. --Nug (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The historical fact is that Estonia was de facto a part of the USSR (as Estonian SSR), and most foreign states did recognise that. Again, this recognition is a historical fact, and present days' declarations of Western governments cannot change that fact. However, if you disagree with that, please name the Estonian official who was internationally recognised as a head of Estonian government in exile, and where the residence of this government was situated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian government-in-exile functioned under the Acting Prime Ministers in Oslo until 1992.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, when Uliots implored the Estonians to report for military service in WaffenSS, he was acting as a official head of Estonia? I am afraid if that were the case, the Western Allies would consider Estonia as a German co-belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how one can consider a state without troops as anyone's co-belligerent unless officially declared as such.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::If Uliots was acting just as a private person, that your assertion would be correct. However, if we assume he was a leader of Estonian government-in-exile, his call was de facto an order his compatriots to fight in a foreign army. I do not know what was a reaction of British or US authorities on this order (which, obviously, impeded Soviet war efforts and lead to additional casualties both on the Soviet and, indirectly on Britich/US side). Maybe, you can explain me that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reaction from these countries has been documented. Mälksoo devotes a passage to this question in the Estonia 1940–1945 report and concludes the underground government did not acquire any significant power over the country

and therefore cannot be considered as a German co-belligerent. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?. The answer is obviously yes, because they remained states even according to the official Soviet position. My very best wishes (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think My very best wishes gives a good start for an answer to Paul as well. The concept of Baltic state continuity accepts the Soviet incorporation as an illegal occupation. I believe all anyone can want here is a fair and brief representation of that. How is Estonia (then USSR) denial of the fact they were part of the USSR? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple. If Estonia was a part of the USSR (and you seem to agree with that), then that fact should be reflected, and the most accurate way to do that would be to write "Estonian SSR". That would resolve a confusion, because, as you correctly noted, pre-war Estonia never joined the USSR legally. However, Estonia as a state ceased to exist (de facto) in 1940, and some pseudo-state entity, Estonian SSR, was created instead. Most contemporary states (except the US, Iceland and Vatican) de facto (although not de jure)recognized the government of the Estonian SSR as Estonian authorities, and, importantly, they did not recognise the representatives of pre-war Estonian government as the representative of the Estonian state. There were no recognized Estonian government in exile, and most states did not consider Estonia under military occupation. (Again, I discuss the position of contemporary Western governments, not their present days' position; however, present-days claims cannot cancel past events). Again, although currently the position of most world states is that Estonia as a state existed continuously during 1940s-90s, Estonian state didn't exist de facto since 1940 till 1991, and that fact was recognized by most world states.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forget about the 1983 European Parliament Resolution, which states: Whereas the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states has still not been formally recognised by most European states and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of Baltic states,. According to that, rather something in the spirit of what I proposed back then is in order.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Narva, Estonia (then occupied by USSR) probably is the most accurate. This pattern could be universally applied to all cases where sovereignty fails to get transferred, e.g. Kuwait City, Kuwait (then occupied by Iraq). --Nug (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident my proposal Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why does one among us, continue to oppose Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union, while making this edit at Mila Kunis? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was not born in an occupied country?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and the other Soviet republics. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The Soviet annexation of Ukraine was formally recognised by by most European states and no country adhered to the concept of a Ukrainian state. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident aswell, that you'll agree with Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) or Narva, Estoninan SSR, Soviet Union or Narva, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (per Canadan/USA comparison). As you know, we can't deny that the Baltics were a part of the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably did not understand these comments: [22] and [23]. Please take your time.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I did not forget the resolution, however, I also remember what was the position of British Foreign office in 1946:

""His Majesty's Government recognise the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic to be the de facto Government of Estonia, but do not recognise it as the de jure Government of Estonia" and "His Majesty's Government recognise that Estonia has de facto entered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but have not recognised this de jure" (Tallinna Laevauhisus and Others v. Tallinna Shipping Company and Estonian State Shipping Line (1946) 79 LI.L.R.245).

Position of Western states was different from time to time and from government to government, however, most of them recognised Estonia as de facto a part of the USSR (the same was not true regarding German occupation of the Baltic states).

Regarding "Narva, Estonia (then occupied by USSR)", it is not acceptable, because occupation is intrinsically temporary state, and there is no need to mention it. In contrast, Estonian status within the USSR was by no means temporary, and that fact should be reflected.

How about Estonia (then part of the USSR) or Estonia (then controlled by the USSR)? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I have to say the following. Whereas I agree that WP is not a democracy, and that we should not replace a discussion with just a poll, however, the above RfC is by no means a poll: the participants of this RfC presented their arguments, which are detailed and logical. Most of RfC participants supported the idea that "Soviet Union/USSR" should be used in the country's name. However, I see that some participants, who are not satisfied with the RfC results, started a new section as if there were no RfC at all (actually, a de novo discussion, so the title "Conclusion" is simply wrong and misleading). I think it is incorrect, especially, taking into account that some participants bring no fresh arguments, and some of their arguments (especially MVBW's ones) are simply wrong.

I suggest you to respect opinia of your peers exprssed during this RfC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now either desinformation or a lie unless you have a problem with GoodDay, who started this section. You are also twisting the consensus policy because consensus is decided by the quality of the arguments and you have failed to bring forward any superior ones here. Anyway, what is so frightening about WP:NOCONSENSUS? People disagree, it's not the end of the world. Just let go.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resources from the time period show the obvious. Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were a part of the USSR from 1940 to 1991. Historical facts can't be alterted by revionist attempts. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that no one is trying to deny the Baltic states were a part of the USSR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why then, is there opposition to showing Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia), Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union or Narva, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not oppose showing the ESSR, as you can see from this diff. We propose showing the state continuity of Estonia under the Soviet control. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: Would you support (for example) Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union, in Komarov's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would not represent the state continuity at all.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic existed. Revionist sources can't change that fact & for the sake of our readers? neither should we. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I just showed, I have no objections to representing the ESSR as the Soviet annexation occupation of Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's historical revionism, which would deprive our readers of accuracy. I think we all should consider going with just birth city in these infoboxes. Atleast until an agreement is reache here. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, it is hardly a revisionism, however, I don't think state continuity issue should be pushed in every article and in any context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Jaan, this is neither disinformation not a lie. I perfectly know that this section was started by GoogDay, and it was started as a summary of the RfC. However, instead of summarising the RfC, some users preferred to start a discussion de novo under a false pretext.

I cannot say I twisted any policy, because I don't found your arguments too strong, therefore, in that situation the reference to this policy is hardly relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It developed into a new discussion not because editors who were not satisfied with the results of the RfC.

Believe me, you claims have failed to change the mind of any of the six editors suggesting to represent the state continuity and/or the annexation occupation in regard of the birth place, so no consensus is what we are facing, like it or not. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your revionist claim isn't helpful to our readers. Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were not independant continuously since 1918 & therefore shouldn't be shown as thus in infoboxes of people born there between 1940 & 1991. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did the USSR exercise internationally recognised sovereignty over the Baltic states and should not be shown as such.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not going to agree to depriving our readers of historic accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inaccurate about the occupation of the Baltic states or the state continuity of the Baltic states.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous post, at 17:57. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are going around in circles. Template:Infobox person requires a sovereign state, the USSR failed to acquire sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we can't deprive our readers of historical facts. The Baltic states were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. So far, you haven't convinced me otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have not convinced anyone we should disregard the state continuity of the Baltic states.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are at liberty to seek consensus (which you don't have yet) for your preferred version in the infoboxes-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITCONCENSUS already exists in Estonian BLPs. Your POV is clear: "There was no occupation"[24]. Please stop pushing this minority Russian nationalist POV (as described by David Mendeloff) into infoboxes. --Nug (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered by the attention, but you'll have to convince other editors with your arguments. You haven't even scratched the surface with me. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your hard line leaves us at no consensus.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you've convinced me of your position? we might get somewhere. Meanwhile, I don't own the related articles, nor do I claim to. Furthermore, I've no intentions of edit-warring over them & hope editors on the otherside of the fence will likewise keep their hands off the infoboxes-in-question, until a consensus is reached. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't, after having edit warred every Baltic hockey player bio your way... unless they get returned to their last stable versions, perhaps? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best, to go with birth city only, until a consensus is reached here, or simply declare all related articles to this discussion, to be frozen until a consensus is reached. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean frozen at their last stable versions then I agree with the latter proposal.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, and I am saying this to both of you with all due respect. Please stop posting essentially copy paste comments and replies to multiple pages. If you are going to bicker at least do it in one place. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So please tell me, what procedure should we follow? Both sides think they have offered compromises and both feel their opponents' compromise proposals are inacceptable. Two editors here have acknowledged WP:NOCONSENSUS with the appropriate procedure of returning articles to their last stable versions. One proposes to freeze the articles in their post-edit-war statuses. What is the correct procedure?

Freeze them where they're at, until a consensus is reached. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suited to you and opposed to WP:NOCONSENSUS.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, some of the articles-in-question across Wikipedia, are currently the way you want them. Therefore a freezing them as they are, is best. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel you don't own the articles, please let Wikipedia policies decide what is best. The policy here is WP:NOCONSENSUS.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best to freeze the articles where they are. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Frankly speaking, I cannot understand what is the need to repeat in every article the mantra "occupied by the USSR" (or something like that). "Tartu, Estonian SSR, USSR" contains all needed information. Thus, if you go by the links, you will get all needed information, namely, that Estonia was illegally annexed, and that the puppet quasi-state "Estonian SSR" was formed instead, which was not de jure recognised by most foreign states. That is correct, that is true, and that is all a reader is needed to know. We don't need to discuss other legal details in every Estonia related articles, because Wikipedia already has the articles that discuss them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline calls for the sovereing state, which was neither Estonia nor the USSR. That's the two realities we need to balance. The information you refer to can be found in the Estonia article at much better quality. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Nug's lovely Khudoley says, the USSR made a significant progress attaining de facto recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states (p. 66) The reason why this success was short-lived, and the process was reversed was not the de jure non-recognition, but the economical collapse (followed by the political dissolution) of the USSR (ibid.)

And, again, I see no evidences that most western states recognised the Baltic "governments-in-exile" as a governments of sovereign Baltic states (Of course, I mean the period from 1945 to 1990, not post factum claims).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we know Paul, the sovereign state was the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can add much to the information presented in the State continuity of the Baltic states article. If you feel important facts are missing from that article, go ahead and alter it. Most modern authors cited in that article, including Mälksoo, assert the annexation occupation of the Baltic countries was essential to their contemporary status. Most editors on this talk page argue for the opposite. What can I say? I guess Wikipedia is a democracy after all.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others can decide what should & shouldn't be in the article you've just mentioned. I'm concerned about what will be shown in the infoboxes & intros of Baltic bio articles of those born between 1940 & 1991. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern authors, such as Mälksoo, discuss the present-days issues, namely, should the present-days Baltic states be considered as if they continuously existed during 1940-90. However, this dispute is not about the present-days legal aspects, but about the historical facts. Thus, we know that current British position is that the Baltic states continuously existed since 1918. However, that does not change a fact that by 1945 Britain de facto recogrised that the Baltic states "lost their independence and became a part of the USSR" (Khudoley, p. 73). Thus, Baltic representatives in Britain lost their diplomatic status, although they allowed to stay in Britain (Op. cit., p. 74); the Baltic states were excluded from the list of the countries of the Soviet Bloc that were the subject of post-war negotiations (ibid), etc. In other words, Britain did recognise that pre-war Estonia ceased to exist, but they did not recognise the USSR was a de jure successor of Estonia. Thus, they sequestrated Estonian gold reserves, but they refused to transfer it to the USSR (op.cit. p 77). In other words, Britain, as well as most other states, did not recognise pre-war Estonia as a continuously existing state. Therefore, the present-days issue of the recognition of state continuity and the discussion of the actual situation with recognition in 1940s-80s are two quite different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The continuity of a state means it existed continuously.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. However, contemporary observers considered the Baltic states as having ceased to exist (See the authors cited above). As van Elsuwege says, "A full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum can therefore rightfully be described as a legal fiction." (Peter van Elsuwege. State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16 (2003), pp. 377–388). This fiction is currently being used to resolve present days issues: to which categories of population Baltic citizenship should be granted, etc. However, that is not a reason to re-write a history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mälksoo writes: a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval for the Soviet conquest,[5] the resistance by the Baltic people to the Soviet regime, and the uninterrupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile support the legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union,. His conclusions are based on the contemporary sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, he meant Baltic consulates in the US, and he is discussing that in a context of present-days state continuity concept. However, that Mälksoo's statement does not contradict the fact that most Western states (as well as many new third world states, such as India; I even do not speak about China etc) recognised that the pre-war Baltic states ceased to exist (although many of them currently changed their mind, that was their position during those times). Of course, we could ask for explanations directly from Mälksoo, but I am not sure we can do that, because his previous recommendation was ignored. Therefore, I think we should either universally accept his advices or not not to seek them at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "that most Western states recognised that the pre-war Baltic states ceased to exist" is a synthesis of the sources you cited. But Peter Van Elsuwege contradicts your view, writing:

"For reasons of stability in international relations, international law practice also reveals a strong presumption in favour of the continuity of established states."[25]

In other words, while you can cite a few individual countries that recognised the Baltic states ceased to exist, according to Van Elsuwege a general practice exists in the international community that favours continuity. Given that this presumption of continuity exists, then the 100 countries that did not express a position means that their pre-war recognition of the established Baltic states continued. --Nug (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Van Elsuwege speaks about the past events, or about the present-days views?

Of course, you blame me in your own sins, because I quoted what the sources said about the Baltic states specifically (therefore, it by definition cannot be a synthesis), but you provide a general statement of questionable relevance (the same author clearly speaks about the Baltic states' continuity as a legal fiction, see the above quote).

Nug, please do not engage in synthesis, and do not blame good faith users in your own sins.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you start with Khudoley: "lost their independence and became a part of the USSR" from which you make the leap to "most Western states recognised that the pre-war Baltic states ceased to exist". That is synthesis. --Nug (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I already explained, on p. 66 Khudoley says that by the end of the Cold War the USSR made a significant progress attaining de facto recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states. He also says that only the US and Canada were refusing to accept the fact of incorporation of the Baltic states, whereas many third world states, such as India, behaved as if they recognized the Baltic states as a part of the USSR, and even Western European states "developed more pragmatic attitude to the "Baltic issue"" (p. 63). That is not a synthesis. Moreover, the quote from van Elsuwege was not taken out of context by me, and this quote is quite unequivocal. Again, I am not engaged in synthesis. In contrast, not only you have been engaged in synthesis, you dare to falsely accuse me in your own sins. Please, stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umh.. Paul you are aware that legal fiction has nothing to do with actual fiction? Also having taken 'more pragmatic attitude' is still long way from having 'recognized'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read this first. Obviously, (i) during the Cold war most world states, except the US and Canada, considered the Baltic states de facto ceased to exist, and (ii) most world states considered them de facto parts of the USSR. That is a historical fact, and any present-days claims cannot change that.

Regarding a "legal fiction", yes, that is exactly what I mean: a it is a formula used to circumvent some legal problem. The issue of state continuity was resurrected after the end of the Cold war, and currently the Baltic states are treated as if they have never ceased to exist. However, that is a legal fiction, not a historical fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, below I reproduce a statement from my 28 Feb post, which Nug preferred to conveniently ignore:

"Khudoley argues that during the post-WWII period Soviet control of the Baltic states could be construed as resting not on the MRP, but on Yalta and Potsdam (p. 62), and that in 1960s most European states developed much more realistic view of the "Baltic issue", and only the US and Canada "remained steadfast" (p. 63)"

Interestingly, Nug can hardly claim this source is fringe of unreliable, simply because he himself quoted Khudoley very frequently... --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your statement regarding de facto is rather misleading since it does not mean in any way that they would have recognized that Baltic states would have ceased to exist. After all, several of them kept official or semi-official diplomatic contact with the Baltic governments in exile, see State continuity of the Baltic states.

Unless you can show it via sources there is nothing 'obvious' in it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul Siebert", your claim that this source "considered the Baltic states de facto ceased to exist" is just bullshit. I have that that book and no where does it suggest such a thing. --Nug (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.77. "Bevin duly informed Atkinson that HMG recognised Estonia Soviet Socialist Republic de facto, but not de jure and considered that Estonia as constituted prior to June 1940 had ceased to exist." See also Netherland position described on the page 71.

Re: "several of them kept official or semi-official diplomatic contact with the Baltic governments in exile", your statement contains several mistakes. Firstly, you mix official and semi-official contacts: "semi-official" is too vague, and semi official contacts have no relation to recognition/non-recognition. Thus, some states may maintain semi-official contacts with exiled leaders, but that is not an indication they consider them as a real head of their state. Secondly, I am not sure such a phenomenon as "Baltic government in exile" ever existed (can you name a leader of Latvian or Lithuanian government in exile? Where they lived? Regarding Estonian government in exile, I would like to know which country maintained official relation with this government). --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, judging by the absence of your responce, can I consider the dispute about legal fiction closed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - there is nothing in quote in question that would be actually referring to the case with the Baltic states. Nor is there anything which would refer to they having an opinion that Baltic states would have ceased to exist. Which in other words does not prove that the 'contemporary observer' would agree with the opinion you presented. All which comes around to the separation between 'legal fiction' and 'fiction' which have very little to do with each other. In other words reference to 'legal fiction' does not mean that writer would consider it to be fiction to treat Baltic States as if they have never ceased to exist. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The quote says that HMG's ("Her Majesty's Government") considered that pre-war Estonia ceased to exist. How can you claim the quote doesn't says what it says?

Regarding "legal fiction", this is a straw man argument. I didn't say state continuity was a "fiction", I said it is a "legal fiction" (i.e., a purely abstract formula invented to circumvent some legal obstacle). In other words, the author said what he said, namely that, despite we can currently speak about restoration, not recreation of the Baltic states, we should not forget that the thesis this idea is based on, namely the thesis about their continuity, is a legal fiction. That means that, although we currently assume their continuity, they didn't exist de facto from 1940 till 1991, and to say that would mean to mislead people. Again, can you explain me who was considered as a head of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania during 1940-91 by major Western powers?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was still discussing about the earlier source which discussed the 'legal fiction' because the second source has no relevance towards this - HMG does not state anything within this context if anything since HMG clearly separates the 'ceased to exist' from 'de facto' recognition we can conclude that these two are not equal nor can one be assumed to mean the other. "Legal fiction" is a legal term referring to methods related on how laws are handled in certain cases. It does not refer to actual fiction nor does the author by using it mean that he would be taking any stance towards the continuity of the Baltic States. It does not translate into actual 'fiction' like you have been stating (nor is it said anywhere in the source that it would) so we can not use it as basis for claim that they didn't exist de facto from 1940 till 1991. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you all have gone off topic these last few hours. We're suppose to be discussing 'what to show as a person's birth country (in intros & infoboxes), when he/she is born in the Baltic states between 1940 & 1991. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, we haven't. The issue you propose to discuss is a part of a more general problem, and we are trying to resolve it first.

Wanderef602, I think you incorrectly placed the accents. The claim that Estonia and other two Baltic states existed (not only as a post factum legal fiction) during 1940-91 is an outstanding claim, and, therefore, it needs outstanding evidences. It is generally believed that the USSR was composed on 15 SSRs. For example, the article about the USSR in Encyclopaedia Britannica (authored by John C. Dewdney, Emeritus Professor of Geography, University of Durham, England) clearly says that. Although EB is a tertiary source, its signed articles, especially those authored by renown professors, are quite reliable. Moreover, our policy says that such tertiary sources "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weigh". In other words, it is highly likely that the EB article expresses mainstream view of this subject, and this view is that Estonia was a part of the USSR from 1940 till 1991; that means you have to present a very serious evidences if you want to challenge this fact. Again, I do not have to present the sources that confirm Estonia did cease to exist, in contrast, you have to provide mainstream sources saying it didn't. You actually failed to do so, therefore, we are discussing a non-existent problem. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the EB article[26], in listing the constituent republics it links to Estonia, not the SSR. Interestingly, EB does not have an article on the Estonian SSR. You are asking Wanderer602 to prove the negative. You are not only asserting that Estonia did cease to exist, but that the majority of Western countries recognised the Baltic states ceased to exist. You need to provide sources that state this is the view of the majority of Western states, which you have not done. You have only supplied one source that describes Bevan's view, but you are extrapolating that to other Western countries. Of course this is at odds with what the literature writes about the West's non-recognition policy, since the corollary of non-recognition of the Soviet acquisition of sovereignty over the Baltic states is, as Van Elsuwege states, the strong presumption in favour of the continuity of the established Estonian state. --Nug (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That arguments don't work. Firstly, the absence of the Estonian SSR article is a circumstantial evidence, and an wrong one: there is no separate articles about other SSR either, including the articles about Ukrainian SSR or RSFSR (they are described just as certain periods of history of Ukraine and Russia, respectively). Secondly, I do not ask Wanderer to prove negative, in contrast, we have a mainstream thesis about Estonia as a part of the USSR during 1940-91 (see a list of the republics, Estonia has been described there in the same terms as Ukraine or Russia, and no reservations have been made about it), and, if someone wants to challenge this fact, they should provide rock-solid evidences. Thirdly, I am not extrapolating anything: I cite the opinion of the British government, and I provided the general quote about the attitude of majority of Western European states. I provided several quotes, and your attempt to ignore them is hardly an indication of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, also the claim that they didn't exist requires sources. It is equally outstanding claim that they didn't exist at the time as can be seen from continued open US diplomatic relations with the Baltic States in 1940-1991. Point was that the term 'legal fiction' has no relevance to the actual opinion if the Baltic States existed or not, one way or another. Further discussion was about your erroneous claims which bordered on OR or SYN - both with regards to the 'HMG' claim as well as to what Elsewege stated as neither stated what you concluded that they had stated. Only thing which could be concluded from 'HMG' excerpt you provided was that de facto recognition is not related to actual opinion if the state existed at the time or not since the communique handled these two issues as separate matters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who wants me to prove negative. My claim is positive: mainstream view is that during 1940-91 Estonia was considered a part of the USSR. If you want to challenge this fact, provide a direct and a rock-solid evidence. Regarding alleged diplomatic relations between the US and the Baltic states, please, answer the questions I already asked you several times: who was considered as a prime minister of Estonia by the US? (in addition, don't you find that the position of just two states, the US and Canada, is hardly sufficient for making general conclusions?).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic to be given AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul... The distinction here is not if Estonian SSR might have been considered part of USSR by some - however given how few countries actually gave de jure recognition that claim is not particularly strong - but did the Estonia (i.e. the republic preceding the SSR) cease to exist or not. These are not the same as can be seen from the quote you provided regarding the statement from the HMG which set clear separation between de jure and de facto recognitions as well as to the recognition that Estonia would have ceased to exist.

I'm not sure what possible AfDs for those articles have to do with anything. Actually whole comment regarding seems nothing like a straw man. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer, the subject of this discussion is if Estonia (and other two Baltic states) was considered as a part of the USSR during 1940-91. As mainstream sources say, it was, so I simply do not understand your persistent refusal to accept the obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to be convinced, that the Baltic states were uninterupted independent countries since 1918. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream sources state that Estonian SSR was, not that Estonia would have been. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also yet to be convinced that Narva, Estonia is correct & Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union is wrong for Leo Komarov's birthplace, who was born in 1987. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, your question is incorrectly formulated. Whether the Baltic states are considered formally uninterrupted or not is quite irrelevant to the issue we currently discuss. Actually, the Baltic states are currently considered formally uninterrupted. That is done to resolve some purely formal issues, and that is a legal fiction in the same sense as adoptive parent are considered to be the parents of the adopted child. However, if a persons X and Y became an adopted parent of a person A, we cannot write that A was born to a family of X and Y. Legal fiction does not change a historical fact. Therefore, the correct question is: "was Estonia considered a part of the USSR during 1040-91?" The answer on this question is obvious: mainstream sources say "Yes".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Narva, Soviet Union or Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union is the correct birthplace for Komarov. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That boils also down as to how occupied territories are handled in wikipedia. If it is perfectly valid to state that some one was born in Warsaw, General Government then it seems valid to state some one had been born in Narva, Estonian SSR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I as already explained, Germany had no control over Warsaw during peace time, and no country signed peace with Germany from 1939 till 1945, so German possession of Warsaw was can be deemed as war time occupation. Moreover, the Germans didn't attempt to annex Warsaw to the Greater Germany, but the USSR did annex Estonia.

Actually, the situation with the Baltic states was unique, and I don't think Wikipedia has any general rule to deal with this concrete case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no treaty that recognised the Soviet acquisition. Interestingly, Pravda published the names of 17 people awarded the Order of the Great Patriotic War for their participation in Operation Priboi in 1949, so clearly the USSR considered that war hadn't ended in the Baltics at least in 1949. --Nug (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your original research. Some people were awarded this order even 30 years later, so what? However, if you want to continue in that vein, let's be consistent. Since the Order of the Great Patriotic War awarded to the soldiers participating in the war against Hitlerism, I don't mind consider Estonia as an independent state, which was Nazi co-belligerent during the WWII. The problem is, however, that all reliable sources say that Estonia did not and could not participate in the WWII, partially because it simply had no government that had any authority over Estonian population, no armed forces, no territory, no police, no (non-existing) government controlled guerilla troops - nothing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia is constituted on the basis of popular sovereignty, where the authority of the government is derived from the people who hold the ultimate sovereign power. There was never any referendum where the people of Estonia surrendered sovereignty to the USSR, so it doesn't matter if there was no armed forces, no police, or government, the people remained in place and they never agreed to give up their sovereignty. While the Soviet Union did exterminate a sizeable proportion of the native population, it failed to exterminate a sufficient number of the population to call sovereignty into question. There was no terra nullius here. --Nug (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul, no one disputes that the USSR exerted de facto control over the Baltic states. However, since Template:Infobox person requires "City, Administrative unit, Sovereign country", the correct question to ask is whether the Soviet Union acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states. That question has been answered with several sources presented that show the Soviet Union failed to acquire that sovereignty, since universal de jure recognition of the Soviet claim was never achieved. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All sources speak about restoration of Estonian sovereignty, which mean this sovereignty didn't exist for some period.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stretch to claim "all sources", however other sources are quite clear and explicit that the USSR failed to acquire sovereignty. To my mind "restoration" implies suspension, not extinction. --Nug (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To claim the USSR failed to acquire full sovereignty and to claim Estonia was not a part of the USSR are different things. Do not draw conclusions from the sources, just stick with what the mainstream sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's convinced me yet, that there were only 12 Soviet republics, instead of 15. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul, never the less Template:Infobox person requires "City, Administrative unit, Sovereign country", thus sovereignty is the heart of the issue here. I read "restoration of Estonian sovereignty" in a similar way as "restoration of an antique clock" or "restoration of a Victorian house", it is impossible to restore a clock or house if they cease to exist. Similarly Estonia sovereignty continued to exist, even though after 50 years of Soviet occupation it became badly dilapidated and run down, but it existed never the less such that it could be fully restored in 1991. --Nug (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person does indeed require "City, Administrative unit, Sovereign country". Why are you opposing that format for articles like Leo Komarov? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USA is a sovereign country too, however you would oppose Narva, USA because while the USA is a sovereign country it did not have sovereignty over Estonia. The USSR never acquired sovereignty over Estonia either. --Nug (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, the USSR did acquire sovereignty over Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania in 1940 & maintained it until 1991. Your continued argument that the Baltic states were 'never' Soviet republics, hasn't convinced me otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source that definitively states the USSR did acquire sovereignty over Estonia, because failing that all you are giving us is proof by repeated assertion. I and others have presented multiple sources of the highest scholarly standard that explicitly and concretely states that the Soviet Union failed to acquire sovereignty. --Nug (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already showed you sources, including MAPS at WP:HOCKEY. You're obviously not going to accept ANYTHING that goes against your Baltica nationalist PoV. Meanwhile, I've requested more input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, due to 'editor apathy'. Nothing is going to be solved with the same 3 or 4 editors going around in circles in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said previously, I can cite a RS that describes the view that the Baltic states were "never occupied" as Russian nationalist POV. --Nug (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, please avoid personal assaults like 'Baltica nationalist PoV' per WP:NPA. Nug's arguments have nothing to do with nationalism, but reflect the Western mainstream view, as testified by scholarly sources provided. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miacek, mainstream Western views have been summarised in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I laready explained what these views were.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context dependent. As another option, in appropriate contexts, "Riga, Latvia, USSR" might be the best form to use. As a sidenote, I urge that anyone who has more than 30 posts on this page stand back from the discussion and let others have the floor for awhile. Obsession with obscure points of the style manual is generally unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITCONCENSUS exits for most if not all BLPs falling under WP:ESTONIA as some city, Estonia. GoodDay has doggedly pursued this issue across many fora in regard to a particular hockey player Leo Komarov who was four years old when the USSR collapsed. I have no objection to say, Narva, Estonia (then in USSR) in the appropriate context, as it reflects the de facto control exercised by the USSR while being cognisant of the fact they never achieved universal de jure recognition for their claim to sovereignty over the Baltic states. But apparently that's insufficient to placate GoodDay. --Nug (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I think for a while already it's been time for some people to compromise. Estonia (then in the USSR) will satisfy all viewpoints.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan & Nug have continuously refused to accept my compromise proposals of Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union or Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia). GoodDay (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is no compromise as your POV is clear: "There was no occupation"[27]. The view that there was no occupation has been identified as Russian nationalist POV, see David Mendeloff, Causes and Consequences of Historical Amnesia; The annexation of the Baltic states in post-Soviet Russian popular history and political memory[28]. This isn't Amnesiapedia. As Stefan Talmon writes in Recognition of Governments in International Law published by Oxford University Press:

"A sovereign state may (temporarily) lose its factual independence while retaining its sovereignty as, for example, the Baltic States during their illegal incorporation into the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991"[29]

So here we have a clear and unequivocal statement that the Baltic states retained their sovereignty. I don't think the policy of WP:Accuracy should be sacrificed to the dubious goal of having a one-size-fits-all style for all possible cases, it is just not practical. --Nug (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't let revionists get away with claiming that Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were never a part of the USSR. Now, will you please let other editors have their say 'here', like NYB suggested? GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a compromise is an agreement in an argument in which the people involved reduce their demands or change their opinion in order to agree. Your proposals neither reduce your demands or show a change of opinion while our proposals reduce the demand of not showing Estonia as a part of the USSR at all. Please start reducing demands or stop speaking of compromise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per NYB, please let others participate in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think continuation of this discussion among the same participants can produce anything useful, and I think the best idea would be to follow the NYB's advice. I decided to take a break, however, let me point out that the Nug's proposal ("Estonia (then in the USSR") is absolutely correct. Indeed, Estonia is not in the USSR now, so to write : "Estonia, USSR" would be misleading. In any event, I take a break, but I am monitoring the discussion. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. GoodDay, frankly, I see almost no difference between your and Nug's last proposal, and I don't think we need to waste out time over "Estonia/Estonian SSR" issue. Remember, many serious books called the USSR "Soviet Russia", and we still have no agreement if we should say "Nazi Germany" or the "Third Reich"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the squabble. @GoodDay, your accusations of nationalism are discussing the editor and not the topic so discuss the topic or go away. We don't say someone born in the south of France was born in "Vichy France." The international community has recognized the Baltics as having been occupied for the Soviet era duration, sorry, @Paul Siebert, your statement that most countries recognize the Baltic states as having been discontinuous is utterly false. If someone wishes to note "(then under Soviet control)", that is accurate, but no further, not "part of", not "SSR", that relationship and those entities, respectively, never legally existed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a source that says that most western countries recognised some concrete persons as a head of the Baltic governments-in-exile, and that those persons retained their diplomatic status. I provided a source that confirms that ex-Baltic diplomats lost their diplomatic status in Britain (although they were allowed to stay in this country), the same is true for France and most other states. I provide sources - you respond with unsupported allegations. Please, stop you soapboxing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are: Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic & Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic existed. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, show me a single source which states the Baltic states joined the USSR willingly and legally under international law in a legal transfer of sovereign power. Your logic, as usual, cobbles incidentally related facts into your personal WP:OR conclusion where the Baltics are concerned, in this case, supporting the fringe notion of Baltic sovereign discontinuity. Your constant attacks of soapboxing are tiresome.

@GoodDay, as for "facts", those are indeed "facts", but those entities never legally existed in international law. No one indicates for place names under occupation who the controlling power was, e.g., "Paris (Nazi-occupied)". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to make you position clear with a bullet pointed opinion in the RFC above? --Nug (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, although the Western states did not recognise incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR de jure, they nevertheless did recognise the fact that the Baltic states ceased to exist, and I provided sources that says that clearly and unequivocally. Therefore, your claim that I have been engaged in OR is false.

The example with Paris is wrong: as I already explained, it was a war time occupation (which, obviously, cannot be said about the Baltic states).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise you provided a source which only indicated that a Western country had such an opinion. You didn't seem to be providing sources which would have stated that that Western countries would agreed on that - such a statement goes beyond what the single source presented so far has stated. And you can not generalize such a statement without it being OR.

Can you show a note where it is said that war time and peace time occupations would be considered to be any different?

Most politically neutral phrase seems to be "Estonia (then in the USSR)". It satisfies the requirements without actually taking a stand in the occupation/non-occupation dispute. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I can see only one editor directly opposing it while four editors from both sides are currently backing it. Let me remind you that we are by far past due on reaching consensus and this is a great chance for that.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Estonia (then in the USSR)" is redundant. "Soviet Union (now Estonia)" is best. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly? Just because you like it so is not a reason enough. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the reason it would be preferable is that generally when writing about a topic (any topic) you refer to it as it was referred to in the time period you are talking about and then if you want to clarify the current name you list it secondarily. Since this particular RfC came about due to birth dates I find it slightly more appropriate to do it that way. If we were talking about a current event and then referring back to a historical event then I would write it the way you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place was predominantly called "Estonia" back then as the google news results from that period show. Scholars like Peter Van Elsuwege articulate the accepted mainstream view: "Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law". The hockey player in question, Leo Komarov, was only four years old when the Soviet Union collapsed and only became notable recently, not before 1991, so the form you propose is irrelevant here in any case. The desire for a general rule should not be used to overrule neutrality and accuracy and the form proposed by Wanderer602 achieves both. --Nug (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with Djsasso's observation. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't articulated any reason, just "I like/dislike" or "I agree/disagree". --Nug (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By writing

"Scholars like Peter Van Elsuwege articulate the accepted mainstream view: "Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law"."

Nug took the words of this author out of context. The sentence he quoted ("Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law.", note, the words "for fifty years" are not there) is a third sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction of van Elsuwege's article in Leiden Journal of International law, and by no means it is a summary of mainstream views. In this paragraph, van Elsuwege discusses application of two conflicting maximae, ex injuria non oritur jus and ex factis jus oritur, to the Baltic case, and the conclusion of the paragraph (and of the introduction) is:

"Marek argues that an application of this latter principle must not be presumed or admitted ‘except in the very last resort, when the normative pressure of facts has reached its summit and all reasonable chance of a restitutio ad integrum has disappeared for as long a period of time as can reasonably be assessed’. Hence, the question was whether the Baltic states, which had been subject to foreign occupation for a period of fifty years, fell into this category."

Clearly, van Elsuwege does not summarise mainstream views, but outlines the main question his article has to answer, and this question is can we speak about a restitutio ad integrum in the Baltic case? The answer is the following:

"These examples demonstrate that the continuation of the prewar Baltic republics is much more complex than a mere restitutio ad integrum. At the very least, it is clear that the restitution of independence after a period of fifty years requires additional measures. It can be concluded, therefore, that the issue of restoration of the international legal personality of the Baltic states is sui generis, with both legal and political dimensions."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing a different source to me. I'm citing page 2 of Russian-speaking minorities in Estonian and Latvia: Problems of integration at the threshold of the European Union. European Centre for Minority Issues, 2004, which discusses the impact of state continuity on minority issues. --Nug (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are using an inappropriate source: it is not clear why did you decide to take the article about Russian speaking minorities, when the same author published a separate article devoted specifically to the problem we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author still states in both sources "Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law", with regard to your source, van Elsuwege's conclusion isn't that continuity is disproved, just more complex. My source discusses one of the reasons it is more complex, being the minority issue. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer, actually I cited two sources, not one. These two sources are two separate articles from the same volume. However, since we both agree that "Estonia (then in the USSR)" is the best option, this discussion has just a theoretical interest.

GoodDay, it would be incorrect to write "Soviet Union (now Estonia)", as well as "Soviet Union (now Ukraine)", simply because Soviet Union did not become Ukraine or Estonia, it split apart, so currently independent Ukraine or Estonia were not the USSR, they were the parts of it. To avoid this confusion, you may write just "USSR", but for such a large federal country more detailed division is desirable. Thus, Albert Einstein's infobox says "died in New Jersey, USA", not merely in "USA". However, in contrast to the USSR, USA currently exist. Had they been split apart onto separate states, we would have to write "died in New Jersey (then in USA)", which means New Jersey was a part of USA by the moment of Einstein's death, but now it isn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, Paul. But I'm finding your posts difficult to understand. It would help if you'd decide -- City, Soviet Union or City, Estonia/Lativa/Lithuania. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, this RFC does not present a binary question but asks if it is desirable to consider that the Baltic states continuously existed and how should the period of Soviet rule over the Baltic states from 1940-90 be reflected. "Estonia (then in the USSR)" is one solution that addresses the RFC question. --Nug (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, let's return to Einstein. Currently, his infobox says: died in New Jersey, USA. Now imagine a situation that after Einstein's death the US split onto separate states, so New Jersey is an independent state now (but it was a part of the US by the moment of Einstein's death). What the infobox should say in that situation? Obviously, "died in New Jersey (then in USA)". I find it logical, and I think that this approach should be applied to Estonia/USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before - City, Soviet Union (now new country) was a compromise proposal of mine, that's been rejected. Therefore, I'm sticking with City, Soviet Union or City, xSSR, Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This compromise proposal is incorrect: the USSR did not become Estonia. Re your "City, Soviet Union", please, explain me why whereas we always write, e.g. "Austin, Texas, USA" (not just "Austin, USA"), we should omit the republic's name in the case of the USSR? Regarding "City, xSSR, Soviet Union", we have two options: to use the old name, or the current name. My above example with New Jersey is not fully correct: let's assume after gaining independence New Jersey changed its name to Independent State of New Jersey. That means we have to choose between "died in New Jersey (then in USA)", or "died in the Independent State of New Jersey (then in USA)". In my opinion, although both options are acceptable, the second one is more correct and more informative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no longer pushing that compromise-proposal, due to the fact that the USSR has 15 successor states. Therefore, I'm sticking with supporting City, Soviet Union or City, xSSR, Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because your compromise was rejected you refuse to compromise at all? That solution resolves precisely nothing - it only creates dispute since opposing views exist. But if that indeed is your decision then there does not seem to be much to point to continue discussion since it is no longer possible to resolve the dispute via trying to reach consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, @GoodDay, from the standpoint of state sovereignty in international law, there are only 12 successor states. BTW, Russia acknowledged the occupation of Lithuania (defined by the negative impact on Lithuania's sovereignty) by treaty, that's why you only hear the Russian Duma attack Latvia and Estonia as not having been occupied. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, your "did not recognize incorporation de jure" and "recognized the Baltic states ceased to exist" is more of your grossly false logic. Those are by definition mutually exclusive states of recognition (or not). The western states acknowledged that the USSR controlled the Baltic states' territory. That's all. War or not is utterly irrelevant. The USSR prevented the rightful Baltic sovereign powers from exercising territorial authority = Soviet occupation by definition according to international law. I regret that your baseless postulations don't even qualify as WP:OR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will be surprised to learn that they are not. Thus, the source provided by Nug, that have been extensively discussed during past weeks (see above) says that Britain did not recognise incorporation of the Baltic states de jure, but it did recognise the Baltic states ceased to exist (for example, Estonian diplomats in London lost their diplomatic status). Please, familiarise yourself with literature (or at least with a previous discussion, which you joined lately) before making such ridiculous claims.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this continuing Rfc reminds me of Gerald Ford's comments during the 1976 US presidential debates. Ford's comments being: "There's no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration". GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be either compromise

Both proposed compromises: "City, Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia (then Soviet Union)" and "City, Soviet Union (now Estonia/Lithuanina/Lativa)" are unworkable, IMHO. The Soviet Union had multiple successor states. As a result of this, we can only have "City, Soviet Union" or "City, Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia". GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course entitled to your personal opinion but there is no reason for others to agree with it with either - and according to WP:JDLI your opinion is not exactly a strong argument, especially when presented without supporting sources or consensus. Several persons involved in the discussion have suggested the compromise to use "City, Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia (then Soviet Union)". - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That proposed compromise, is redundant & revionist, thus unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? All it notes is the geographic locality of the settlement as they are currently known and then denotes the party which at the time controlled the settlement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay wasn't able to compromise on diacritics either, so ArbCom helped him[30]. --Nug (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer602, I suggest you push your argument on the other editors, who've chosen to go with "City, Soviet Union/USSR". GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC actually did not answer to that question, it only answered if Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania OR USSR should be used. Besides no consensus was reached nor is RfC eligible for tallying votes since wikipedia is not a democracy. Suggested compromise - "City, Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia (then Soviet Union)" - actually provides both requirements represented in the RfC. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to presuade the others, in order to get a consensus on that. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far only you appear to disagree with that particular phrasing so there is no need to persuade some 'others'. As said RfC did answer that question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you, Nug and/or Jaan & your Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia suppporters 'should' start implementing your revionist preferences. Like you said, the others appear to be giving you 'silent' consent. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How is this page connected to the MOS and how can there be a content dispute over a page that has no content?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you can figure this is not over a nonexistent page but a MOS issue that needed separate space to be solved. Technically, the solution from here can be placed on the project page, as can other Baltic-specific solutions.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, but is this due to some kind of arbitration sanction? I am just trying to figure out why this is specific to Baltic states-related articles and wanted to be sure this wasn't just a project guide. There has been a lot of requests for help here and was trying to sort this out. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because whether or not the three Baltic countries were part of the USSR is what the dispute is about. So this RFC is basically about how to refer to them when putting them in articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the dispute. Template:Infobox person defines place of birth as "City", "Administrative region", "Sovereign state", and thus the dispute is whether the Soviet Union acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states or not. --Nug (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is how you keep trying to frame it. But that isn't what it is about. It has 100% been about whether the Baltic countries were in the USSR at the time of a persons birth. Especially since the dispute started on articles that did not use Template:Infobox person. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not true. As I said a gazillion times before, nobody disputes that the SU had defacto control over the Baltics. The discussion on this page from the very beging has been about sovereign state, see this proposal at the top of this page[31]. Even this current RFC question is related to sovereignty: "RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?" Why are you ignoring this? --Nug (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of observations and a repeat of one question. First...if there is no consensus on what is disputed, I think this may need to go a different route because you should not be attempting to mess with MOS guidelines if you can't even agree on what the discussion is about. Again...(and this is important) exactly how did you come about with the idea to add a section to the main MOS in regards to a broad limitation on particular subjects without the general communities input. This should be a proposal on the village pump and unless there is a good answer to the above I have to ask why this should be nominated for deletion?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right, so each and every region specific MOS guide listed in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional) was created via a proposal to the village pump? The background to this particular page is that WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists for Baltic related articles on several things, like for example, birth place. We wanted to expand and formalise this into a regional MOS guide covering the Baltic states since that region shares many common peculiarities not easily addressed in more general MOS guides. So the cautious approach was to discuss it first on the talk page (you can see the proposals at the very top of this talk page) before committing it to the main page, hence it remains blank. Unfortunately the discussion lapsed and was only recently re-activated with the current RFC created by a likely IP sock after members of WP:HOCKEY disputed across several forums the birthplace style used in an Estonian born hockey player. As you can see in the earlier proposal at the top of this page[32] related to "sovereign country" which is aligned with the guide in Template:Infobox person. Unfortunately it appears the whole process of creating a regional Baltic states guide has been derailed by this hockey player dispute, since you appear to be suggesting deleting this page. Maybe the original approach to this was wrong, so how did the regional guides in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional) came into being? --Nug (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to address my concerns. I don't know how these MOS regional guides were created but I do know that any such addition and change does require a broad consensus of editors and I am not clear if an actual RFC was created here and if it was promoted properly. That is the main concern. When I say a broad community consensus, I mean one where as many of the involved editors have a chance to discuss any pertanent changes to the scope of interest. This just looks like a small group are trying to decide issues that effect a larger group. I agree that is is not appropriate for anyone to derail this discussion, but I am also concerned with following process to make sure as many contributers as possible can contribute here. Let me ask a few places to, but I am assuming that there would be a need to tighten MOS on a specific region and not because a few editors think it sounds good. Generally, it would need some dispute that has disrupted editing on those articles to make a move like this, but I could be wrong.

I am also concerned that editors here at least agree with which direction to go and discuss. I think everyone should take a minute and discuss that alone to at least get pst that hurtle. Can't be that hard...can it?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I recall, there was an administrative ruling on Baltic place names a long, long time ago (resulting in the non-SSR variant), it might take me a while to find that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silent consensus for Estonia, Latvia Lithuania usage

Seems to me, I'm the last one to actively oppose using Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as the birth-countries of those people born between 1940 & 1991. For those who support the '1918 continuous' line? go forth and implement. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well established in much prior discussion across numerous articles that only Russia regards the Baltics as discontinuous. To my point elsewhere before the lengthy exchanges above, if editors doing hockey articles don't like the well established birth-place name MOS adopted for the Baltic states, they don't get to ignore that MOS because of their personal biases. We're all working on the same encyclopedia, or we're not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the Rfc's decision, but I've implemented it. If that's a problem for WP:HOCKEY members, then it's their problem. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC hasn't decided that GoodDay. In fact looking at it, it has pretty well been agreed that USSR has to be mentioned in some form. What is being debated right now is if City, Estonia (then USSR) is an acceptable way to do that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, for the sake of peace, agreement at something seems even more important than what is agreed upon. Hence, I suggest DJSasso to follow GoodDay's balanced decision and behaviour and not to whip up strife again.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to whip up strife. I am pointing out exactly the opposite. That we are working on agreeing on something. Please don't whip up strife yourself by targeting editors like you just did. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that editors engaged in a topic area having nothing to do with historical aspects of Baltic sovereignty are treating this like a "well, everyone knows that..." contest of wills, with full denouncements of evil nationalists, that is, anyone who says the Baltics were never really part of the Soviet Union, and that ENCYCLOPEDIC content must respect that basic fact. There is no controversy to be settled here, rather, editors who need to be open to becoming better informed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recall, hockey fan editors were the same ones who self-immolated over what someone's name is, so, Ozoliņš, for example, cannot use diacritics, the player's name MUST appear as it does printed on their uniform (Ozolinsh). And now we've moved the same level of unencyclopedic idiocy from person names to place names. My perception. Clearly insisting the Baltics "were" the USSR at the time is a visceral issue to some. That's fine for a blog, not an encyclopedia. I am really tired of poorly informed editors coming along and denouncing small groups of nationalists as the problem and those denouncements being utterly immune from any sort of administrative sanction. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't paint all hockey editors with the same brush. Hockey editors were split on the issue and eventually agree on using them. I personally always supported using them. It was actually people outside the hockey subject area that were attacking our compromise on the situation that caused the bit of diacritics crap. As for unencyclopedic idiocy, censoring out factual information to suit your personal beliefs when there is plenty of proof that the Baltics were part of the USSR whether legally or not is against everything Wikipedia and any encyclopedia for that matter stands for. So I state again lets stop focusing on the editors and focus on the solution that someone provided above and whether or not that will work. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting charge regarding the diacritics mess, Vecrumba. I expect that you will either back up your claim or retract it. Reso lute 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:lets stop focusing on the editors and focus on the solution that someone provided above and whether or not that will work. - The only working solution so far has been to agree to disagree, as GoodDay gracefully did.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does that means you no longer agree on Estonia (then in the USSR) then that was suggested by Wanderer602? Being that GoodDay was the only one outright objecting it I don't see why this is so hard to discuss instead of continuing to attack editors on either side of the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have an appetite to find diffs on past disputes. My point, which is being lost, is how ugly that whole diacritic thing was and how disrespectful it was of someone's name. And I'm sorry if I see a pattern of similar disrespect here. If you wish "(then under Soviet control)", then we need to observe the same for all occupied territories: "Hebron (then and still under Israeli occupation)", for example. We had something simple and which worked and avoided any controversy of who controlled what or who was sovereign. Now we have editors insisting on something which will take us down a slippery slope, for example, a new impetus to go back to make pointy edits made only for the purpose of offending others that a former (incumbent at the time of the pointy edits) Estonian defense minister was born "in the USSR" (see history on Jaak Aaviksoo).

@Djasso, I didn't truck out the "nationalist" charge or charges of some clique of editors seeking to impose their POV, usually meaning a position which is opinion, not fact. Pointing that out is not attacking those editors. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that you are trying to tar editors with accusations designed to argue against their credibility without the willingness to back it up. The fact that you need to do this pretty much renders your own objectivity in question, and therefore leaves your viewpoints similarly crippled. Your argument is worthless because you don't even know who was "disrespecting" their name. Reso lute 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tarring anyone. It's your objectivity attacking me for simply relating past history which puts yours in question. Please familiarize yourself with article history at Jaak Aaviksoo for the unintended consequences of making a special case for the Baltics that they were "in" the USSR at the time someone was born. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were pointing out past history that wasn't actually true without backing it up. It was pretty obvious that it was an attempt to tar hockey editors in a bad light and make it look like we were all irrational editors that are out to cause problems such as disrespecting peoples names. That is an attack. So again lets step away from the rhetoric and discuss the options in a civil manor. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pretending you're inside my head and have confirmed I'm acting in bad faith. I am stating that hockey should not set inappropriate parochial precedents which are sure to have consequences outside the articles directly under discussion, and that this road has been trodden before.

I found the thread I participated in some 5 years ago, it might take a while longer to find the original discussion which prompted it: GoodDay or the Croatians. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, none of that matters. Who cares about those discussions. Lets focus on this one and not derail it with past unrelated discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the precedent to be set. If we ignore past history we will repeat it. It is the ignoring of history which derails the discussion -- do you really want to invite a new edit war at Jaak Aaviksoo and every other article regarding someone born in the Baltics during the so-called Soviet era over their being born "in the USSR"?

I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or just sigh when I came across Talk:Portland Winterhawks and the arguing there over diacritics in player's names. @Resolute, would you like an inventory of all these arguments? Shall we expand the remit of the discussion here as to whether to limit WP to only the 26 letters in the English alphabet? (Rhetorical question only, of course.) I expect that also settles whether or not I'm lying about past conflicts over the issue. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentelmen, let me remind you that few days ago Nug, Jaan, and I agreed that "City, Estonia (then in the USSR)" is an acceptable solution. What else do we need? Let me point out that that solution is optimal for one more reason, namely, that it (i) informs a reader that Estonia was a part of the USSR during that time (i.e. explains the actual state of things), and (ii) leaves the question of state continuity beyond the scope (we already have a separate article for that). In connection to that, can you please explain me what is wrong with that solution? GoodDay, it seems top me that to push "Estinian SSR" in every article tangentially related to Estonia is as ridiculous as to try to convey the idea of state continuity in every Estonia related article. These are two extremes, and we should choose a golden middle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "middle" between two incompatible positions is rarely golden or even neutral. I see no reason to make an exception for hockey articles which is based on personal perceptions as opposed to a more encyclopedic view. I was initially in favor of the compromise but on consideration I don't see how anything good will come of it. There is nothing special about WP:HOCKEY which requires special dispensation for an alternate portrayal of someone's birth place. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this RfC wasn't about an exception for hockey. It is just that the topic came up on a hockey player recently. The RfC above is written in the generic so would apply for all articles. No one is asking for an exception for one topic of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with that clarification I wholly oppose noting the USSR because the last time the Baltics were "part of" anything else was the Russian empire. We're back to the example that for place of birth we don't indicate "Hebron (Israeli occupied West Bank)" but simply "Hebron". Place of birth indicates sovereign authority. There's no dispute that in the case of the three Baltic states it was not the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)1. Encyclopaedia Britannica article about the USSR, authored by John C. Dewdney says:

"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (U.S.S.R.) also called Soviet Union Russian Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, or Sovetsky Soyuz, former northern Eurasian empire (1917/22–1991) stretching from the Baltic and Black seas to the Pacific Oceanand, in its final years, consisting of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics (S.S.R.’s)–Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, andUzbekistan. The capital was Moscow, then and now the capital of Russia."

2. Our policy says:

"Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. "

3. I believe noone questions the fact that EB is a reliably published tertiary sources: according to Wikipedia itself, "It is regarded as one of the most scholarly of English language encyclopaedias", so EB is helpful in evaluating due weight, and this evaluation shows that it is generally considered that the Baltic states were the part of the USSR, irrespective to the illiterate and bizarre claims of some users. I suggest Vecrumba to stop his totally unsubstantiated soapboxing, and to end that nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re GoodDay's statement that "I'm the last one to actively oppose using Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as the birth-countries of those people born between 1940 & 1991." Huh? Consensus is 2-to-1 in favor of using "USSR". You're free to rescind your support for "USSR" and put yourself behind "Lativa, Lithunia, Estonia", but that doesn't switch my position, and it seems from this discussion that it hasn't switch anyone else's. (Before you commented, I was about to suggest what you did in your last sentence—that people go forth and implement—except that I was about to suggest people go forth and implement "USSR", seeing as it had the support of two-thirds of this RFC's participants.) -sche (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-sche, do you support "City, Estonia (then in the USSR)"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, it is your soapboxing that since illegal entities according to international law existed as illegal according to international law republics within the Soviet Union, that such circumstances trump WP MOS convention for place of birth indicating sovereign authority. I have no problem with "Tallinn, Russian Empire" or "Tallinn (then Reval), Russian Empire" for the time period in question, for example. It is your unsubstantiated WP:SYNTHESIS that the EB passage you quote applies to sovereign authority. It does not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see no value in the only alternative which is factual without implying more than is the case with regard to sovereignty, that is, by way of Tallinn as example, "Tallinn, (Soviet-occupied) Estonia" or "Tallinn, (Soviet-controlled) Estonia" There is no need for such WP:POINTY content. However, @Paul Siebert and other editors here, if you feel a burning need to indicate Soviet control, I would consider either alternative as factual and neutral. If either of these alternatives carry, I expect to then find biographies of European personalities born during WWII and to edit their biographies to indicate "(Nazi-occupied/controlled) if/where appropriate to conform to the new convention established here. Such is the nature of unintended consequences. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clearest format would be "City, Latvian SSR, USSR" (or possibly "City, Latvia, USSR"), a la "Richmond, Virginia, USA". "City, USSR" (a la "Richmond, USA") and "City, Latvian SSR" (a la "Richmond, Virginia") would both be intelligible alternatives. The parenthetical suggestions that have been made in various posts above, namely "City, USSR (now Latvia)" and "City, Latvia (then USSR)", are suboptimal, but not outright counterfactual/ahistorical the way "City, Latvia" is. -sche (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have mutually exclusive versions of what is factual versus counterfactual. Your version, however, violates sovereignty rules for place names. That there was a Latvian SSR (within the USSR) is factual. That is not sufficient to qualify it for place name unless we start changing the rules for everyone. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, you said that "the last time the Baltics were "part of" anything else was the Russian empire," and this your assertion is totally unsupported. However, despite a fact that I provided a source that unequivocally says directly opposite, you dare to accuse me of soapboxing? Sorry, but such a behaviour is disruptive, and it is the more intolerable in areas under DIGWUREN. I suggest you to stop immediately.

In addition, since the source cited by me is, per our policy, helpful in evaluating due weight, I think we may safely conclude that the viewpoint that the Baltic states were parts of the USSR is a mainstream view.

And, finally, I feel no burning need to indicate anything, but I feel a burning need to put an end to the attempts of some users to to write Wikipedia based on their own stereotypes, not on what mainstream sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-sche, as I already explained, your analogy with the US does not work, because, firstly, we usually write not "Richmond, USA", but "Richmond, VA" (or "Richmond, VA, USA"), and, secondly, because the US are the state that currently exist. Had the US been dissolved or split, we would write something like "Richmond, State of Virginia (then in the US)", because otherwise a reader may conclude that Virginia is still in the (already non-existing) USA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your not working does not work either, as the Commonwealth of Virginia is a legitimate sovereign constituent member state of the US. Your implication of similar legitimacy regarding the Baltic states and USSR is inaccurate at best. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I no longer oppose "City, Estonia", "City, Latvia" or "City, Lithuania" even though they're revionist & thus inaccurate. Afterall, they wouldn't be the first inaccurate things to creep in on bios or templates. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a verification, do you agree to phrasing "City, Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania (then in the USSR)". Since according to RfC USSR should also be included when naming the localities during the time period in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's redundant, I'd neither support or oppose it at bio intros & infoboxes. It wouldn't work in NHL team roster templates, however. In that particular situation, "City, Estonia", "City, Latvia" & "City, Lithuania" should be used. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the energy to take on such a task, but Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania will have to be inserted in the NHL Entry Draft articles, replacing Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't: consensus above is to use "USSR". Adding "Estonia" etc would be disruptive. -sche (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy and paste my comment from WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey: "Wikipedia:Silence and consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence mentions that 'one may run into discussions that two editors with a dispute keep repeating [themselves], sometimes because they are afraid that if they stop, their failure to respond is construed as their consensus. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that «a huge row» is the only antonym of «silence». This is not the case.' My opinion hasn't changed, so I haven't felt it necessary to incessantly copy and paste it every few days/hours. Changing "USSR" to "Lativa" etc is contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles and is disruptive." -sche (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one hockey article that would be subject to this RFC. WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists in all Estonian articles for "Estonia", this RFC shows there is no consensus to change that status quo. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can say you didn't hear it all you want, but the consensus reached by this RFC is to use "USSR". -sche (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ -sche, not only is there no consensus to change to "USSR", which was the convention, but "USSR" violates WP convention regarding legitimate territorial authority. There is no WP:DEMOCRACY that can make the USSR sovereign over the Baltic states. Your accusations of poor editorial behavior on the part of those you don't agree with in an area in which you've had no prior contribution and have demonstrated no awareness other than there are countries called Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and formerly USSR, are--I believe--poorly placed. You clearly missed my admonition regarding not tolerating further allegations of poor behavior on the part of others.

An RfC can decide the moon is made of cheese and the sun revolves around the earth (which is flat), However, something which is not true (i.e., USSR sovereign over the Baltic states) cannot be represented as such in an encyclopedia, which this is. You can, of course, say whatever you want in your personal blog.

@ Nug, I believe the guidance stated elsewhere was that there was no special case for WP:HOCKEY and this new convention would apply to every Baltic-related biography for anyone born in the Balitcs during what is euphemistically referred to as the Soviet era. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the portion of your comment that addressed the issue at hand, I repeat what I said on WT:HOCKEY: you think your arguments are valid and the position you favour is fact-supported, and the arguments of those adovcating other approaches are invalid and counterfactual? Hm, where have I heard that before? Oh, right: from every side of almost every other dispute ever. Indeed, the people who are advocating approaches different from yours here seem to think that their arguments are valid and their position is supported by the facts while your arguments are invalid and divorced from reality. So, unless one of us is prepared to reveal that he or she has been vested by Jimbo and/or The Cabal™ with the power to unilaterally decide, over their opinions of other editors, whose arguments are valid and factual and whose are invalid and counterfactual... consensus is reached when a majority of editors favour one solution (as two-thirds of editors here do), and it [consensus] is not impeded by the continued adherence of a minority of editors to other viewpoints.

I don't feel a need to respond to the portion of your comment that was a baseless personal attack. -sche (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the part that the USSR was not legally sovereign over the Baltic states. Your facts appear to be Baltic state "X" was part of the USSR, hence everyone born in the USSR. Some things on WP are not opinion; nor are they "settled" by votes by editors who have never participated in Baltic topics suddenly deciding who were the sovereign authorities of the Baltic states during the Soviet era. WP is not a content democracy of the uninformed accusing knowledgeable editors of WP:IDONLIKEIT regarding patently invalid consensus. Let's be clear, there cannot be a "consensus" that dictates all Baltic biographies of individuals born under the Soviet Union will now indicate Estonian/ Lithuanian/ Latvian SSR, USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently -sche refusing to accept the fact that Template:infobox person requires a place of birth to be sovereign state and wants to make a special exception and indicate a state that failed to acquire sovereignty over the Baltic states as place of birth. He also seems to be ignoring that counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome per WP:RFC and that voting is contrary to wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Nug (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now consistency is lost. Komarov is at Soviet Union. Kasparaitis, Irbe, Zoltok, Zubrus, Daugavins, Bartulis, Tikhonov & Ivanans are at respective Baltic countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any loss of consistency will eventually be rectified. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, rsp Paul, new audience, same argument for the upteenth time

@Paul Siebert. Yet again, you back up your pure WP:SYNTHESIS with accusations and pursuit of your personal POV that the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union. As I recall, you said it was more of a Soviet "intervention" than "occupation." but I digress. Respected scholars such as Malksoo, whom you quote extensively when he suits your purpose, have stated the USSR "crushed" and "occupied" the Baltic states. Shall I explain for the audience here the nature of your (I regret to say) intellectual dishonesty here?

There is no "mainstream view" that the Baltic states were "part of" the USSR. The USSR had de facto control of Baltic territory, that is all. For the Baltic states to be "part of" the USSR, they would have needed to surrender their sovereignty to the USSR, which they did not.
The passage you cite states there were 15 republics within the Soviet Union. That is true. That does not state that the Baltic states were, de jure, legally, constituent republics of the Soviet Union. You are imparting legitimacy where there was none.
Since you are keenly aware of all these facts, your threats and posturings here with a new audience of editors are the most cynical display yet I have seen by pro-Soviet (by your own statement) editors advocating for the position (implied by you and surely inferred by editors with only passing awareness of Baltic history) that the Baltic states were ever legitimately part of the Soviet Union.

When WP policy and/or standards dictate that the place name for the birth place of an individual must indicate the illegitimate controlling power, not the legitimate sovereign and legal authority, over the territory in question at the time of an individual's birth, please do let me know. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the online EB states: "Moreover, the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R. had never been recognized de jure by the United States or virtually any other Western country."

That is, not legally "part of," contentions of "part of" = illegitimate and internationally unrecognized. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm

this close

to hatting this section as, if not a personal attack, a tangent directed against one user that has no place in this discussion. (If I were you, Paul, I'd wait for someone to do just that—hat the section—and not respond to the bait in the meantime.) -sche (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm baiting. Lovely. Please familiarize yourself with Paul's edits since his appearance at Baltic-related topics before you accuse me of bad behavior. The last I checked, the convention being discussed here shall apply to all Baltic related biographies. As such, Paul's accusations of my "bizarre" contentions and his misdirecting "part of the USSR" contentions are just all the same old warmed over for the upteenth time.

The point is that what holds sway for place of birth in this encyclopedia is sovereign place of birth, not occupied/controlled place of birth. Quite frankly, the RfC is null and void if we expect to answer whether or not "Riga, Latvian SSR, USSR" is appropriate as a place of birth. Factually, that alternative is simply not a possible encyclopedic solution regardless of how many editors' belief of Latvian/Baltic history is that it/they were "part of" the Soviet Union, as that "part of" was illegitimate.

I am glad to supply further background but I will not tolerate any further personal attacks, allegations of bad faith, or defamatory slappings on of labels. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that my statement, which is directly supported by a reputable reliable source, is a synthesis (or original research). Not only this is bizarre, such behaviour is disruptive.

You claim that you are ready to provide some "further background", however, so far you, in contrast to me, provided no background at all. Your behaviour is becoming more and more disrupting. Please, stop your soapboxing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You produce nothing stating the USSR legitimately and legally took sovereign possession of the Baltic states, yet accuse me of soapboxing. That's sweet. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have been engaged in soapboxing: I provided numerous sources saying that the Baltic states were considered to be parts of the USSR, and, that is quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Consensus

No new arguments, too much drama with high potential of developing into personal insults--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)) 09:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clearly a significant proportion of people disagree, however certain people continue on insisting on counting "votes" as a method of determining outcome rather that on the basis of discussion, which is contrary to both WP:RFC and wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Unfortunately this RFC has had an evident effect of polarising and entrench positions and this vote counting is unhelpful. Consensus will have to be build else where. --Nug (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to the numbers doesn't necessarily mean that only numbers are being considered. Contrary to your belief those respondents also have better arguments that you do. Unfortunately the continue shouting of the same position over and over by a couple of people in an attempt to overcome the weakness of their argument has overshadowed that consensus has clearly swung in one direction. Whether you choose to accept it or not. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nug that the numbers alone mean nothing. I fully agree that in a situation when few editors present strong and well supported arguments, the opinion of majority (which is just an opinion) has a lesser weight. However, Nug's party provided no strong arguments so far, and it is not clear for me why the minority opinion, which is not supported by reliable sources unequivocally, must prevail. Actually, "shouting of the same position over and over" (with no additional sources of other evidences) is a correct description of what this party is doing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved Administrator should close this Rfc, as being in favour of using Soviet Union. From this point on, any re-attempts by any editors to reinsert the contrary (at least at hockey bio articles & team templates) is likely asking for a trip to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul, you obviously haven't been following the discussion as we have presented plenty of sources, such as the opinion of Western nations including the European community:

"Significantly, in a Joint Statement issued on 28 August 1991, the European Community and its Member States explicitly recognised the legal continuity of the Baltic States and, therefore, agreed with the Baltic thesis that the Soviet period was illegal and should be considered null and void."[33]

But apparently that is a "minority" opinion. Nobody has provided any sources that assert the contrary view that Soviet Union acquired sovereignty or that the continuity of the Baltic states was extinguished. We have explicitly addressed the RFC question as to whether we should consider the Baltic states as continuous with reliable sources, whereas the pro-Soviet Union group have not. --Nug (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of this and many other documents of that sort, and I followed this discussion attentively. In contrast, you seem to have ignored my arguments. Concretely, modern government are free to make whatever statements they want. For example, they may declare that the Soviet period should be considered null and void (by the way, did those states move their embassies from Polish Vilno to Kaunas? If everything is null and void, then that city should be returned to Poland...). However, that does not change the historical facts, and it does not change the position of the same states in 1940-90. That Britain did recognise the Baltic states ceased to exist is a historical fact. That Baltic representatives in most states (except, probably, the US) lost their diplomatic status is a historical fact. That there were no Baltic governments in exile is also a historical fact. That most states recognised the Baltic states as a part of the USSR (at least de facto) is also a historical fact. That many reputable sources, including Encyclopaedia Britannica describe the USSR as consisting of fifteen (not twelve plus three) SSRs is also a fact, and not a historical one, because I am speaking about modern sources.

Your mistake is obvious: most sources you are talking about discuss a modern situation, and they are focused on the attempts to resolve a present-days collision, when some state has been restored after more than 50 year period of dependence. However, those sources do not attempt to re-write history. You do that, and we will to allow you to do so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, we should have consistency across all the Baltic bios, if possible. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF an Administrator closes this Rfc as no consensus: I'd recommend that dispute tags be allowed to be placed in the infoboxes of Ozolinch, Komarov, Kasparaitis, Irbe, Zoltok, Zubrus, Dougavins, Bartulis, Tikhonov & Ivanans, while leaving the Soviet Union/USSR in place. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the scholarly research and the international community have always regarded the Soviet rule over the Baltic states as an occupation. There was some controversy with how this was practiced by individual countries during the occupation but this does not change the general fact itself. No strong arguments have been provided against that so far. The distinction between a wartime occupation and a non-wartime one can be disregarded as OR as no RS make that distinction. However, should the RfC be closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS the policy is to return the articles to their last stable versions. The dispute tags would be inappropriate as they would falsely indicate an ongoing dispute while, frankly, I have not seen any dispute for weeks now, just old arguments.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan, that is incorrect. Just read the Khudoley's article provided by Nug (see above). You may be interested to look through the modern article about the USSR in Encyclopaedia Britannica; other books about Soviet history also describe the Baltic states as parts of the USSR, and they describe their status within the USSR in the same terms as the status of other republics. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHY are you & Nug being so BLEEPING difficult? ADD the dispute tags to ALL the Baltic NHL bios or don't add them atall. STOP singling out Komarov. The Rfc is not about just ESTONIA. But also about LATVIA & LITHUANIA. Stop being so dam obtuse, you two. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only article where the last stable version does not list the USSR as the birth place. The dispute tag is there to indicate you are blocking the last stable version.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're both satisfied, because Leo Komarov has been protected in the 'no tag' version. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, your advocacy that no strong argument has been presented for birth place name for the Baltic states => follows WP convention => indicate sovereign authority => Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and not the SSRs, USSR flies in the face of all indisputable plain and simple facts. I am dismayed you have usurped a content dispute originating in another topic area to foment for your personal POV that the Soviet presence in the Baltics should be presented in an encyclopedia as anything less than a belligerent occupation maintained by military force until the disintegration of the Soviet Union. If you feel it is essential to indicated Soviet subjugation at the time of someone's birth in the Baltic states, I would recommend "Estonia (Soviet-occupied)", "Latvia (Soviet-occupied)", and "Lithuania (Soviet-occuped)" as the only encyclopedic, factual, alternative. Others might consider that sort of edit WP:POINTY, however.

And no, we are not going to tag every Baltic biography to satisfy those that believe an encyclopedia should not reflect the fact that the Soviet Union was never sovereign over the Baltic states. "Like every other republic" isn't even true within the USSR, where the Baltics were subject to special regulations. But despite that, even if there were no "difference," that does not make the USSR presence any less completely and totally illegitimate. What the USSR said or is popularly written about the Baltic states as "part of" the USSR is irrelevant unless we insist it's (legally joined) true, which it wasn't, isn't, and will never be.

Lastly, @Paul Siebert, your position that it's only post-Soviet modern sources that indicate occupation for the duration is utterly and completely false. Even the Helsinki accords recognized only the existence of frontiers of control, nothing more. It's news to me Great Britain recognized the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as de jure sovereignty, which is your implication of "ceased to exist" which means, their sovereignty was extinguished—a position maintained today ONLY by Putin's Russia. As I would not accuse you of being Putin's Russia, my only alternative is to admonish you for creating such utter fabrications to sway uninformed editors to your POV. My perception of course. Hopefully a decision won't be made based on advocating that "part of" was in any way legitimate and not "forcible, illegal occupation." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that this Rfc will be closed as a consensus for using Soviet Union/USSR. I hope you, Nug, Jaan, etc can live with that. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, please lets try not to be provocative. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the proverbial fat lady has yet to sing in this opera. My apologies to the editors here who are new to the Baltic states topic area; as I understand it, some were not aware of the actual status of the Baltic states as occupied territories outside the sovereign territory of the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't think anyone in this discussion was unaware of the Baltic situation. Most people don't think whether or not it was illegal is relevant to listing a persons birthplace. If they looked on a map of the day it would have been in the USSR, period end of story. And really that is what a birthplace is all about, where was it located and who controlled the location. Sovereignty if they really are interested in finding out is easily found out once they click on the link as the pages linked describe all of that. But in context of a birthplace what matters is what it was considered at the time of birth and as shown with plenty of references and maps and people even showed images of mail that the common consideration of the day was that they were located in the USSR. (whether legally or not) -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The discussion is not about a birthplace, it has much broader scope. The question is were the Baltic states the part of the USSR during 1940-91, and the sources presented by me demonstrate they were. Below are some other sources:

"Until the summer of 1991, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics" (The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 830-833)
"The former Soviet Union (FSU) was composed of 15 republics which were very unevenly endowed with human, physical and natural resources." (Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 6 (1993), pp. 1001-1024)
"The Community Party was shattered. As jubilant crowds cheered, statues of communist heroes were pulled down all over Moscow. Gorbachev, shortly after his return from his ordeal in the Crimea, resigned as leader of the party, dissolved the Central Committee, ordered an end to party activity in the military, the security apparatus and the government, and told local party organizations that they would have to fend for themselves. The union of 15 republics was itself dissolving. In Moscow people began to wave the blue, white and red flag of prerevolutionary Russia." (M Mandelbaum - Foreign Aff., 1991 - HeinOnline )
"The name Soviet Estonia refers to Estonia when it was one of the 15 republics of the Soviet Union—the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic." (Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (May, 1995), pp. 507-525)

I can provide a wast amount of sources that routinely use "15 republics" when they discuss the USSR, and non of those sources make special reservation about the Baltic republics.
In other words, my viewpoint has a strong support in mainstream literature, and your soapboxing is becoming more and more disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Let me remind you that all above sources, as well as an overwhelming majority of sources I am using are top quality reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, no one is contending that the Baltic SSRs did not exist as administrative territories/entities under Soviet control and were considered within the Soviet Union to be republics, which is all that your "voluminous" sources imply or state. None of those state that the SSRs were legitimate or that the Baltic states weren't forcibly occupied. You insist on portraying illegitimate control as something more than it was. You would maintain I am rewriting history. There is nothing wrong with "rewriting" when it corrects and recognizes basic facts. There was never any legal sovereign entity such as the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, or Lithuanian SSR. Your litany of sources is disingenuous at best as it does nothing to address that fact. Please produce an overwhelming number of sources not affiliated with the Soviet Union or official Russia which indicate the Baltic states formally surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR and thereby "ceased to exist" -- your words grossly mischaracterizing the British position.

P.S. I do not dispute the quality of your sources, only that you are misusing them to pursue an utterly discredited fringe POV. Quoting a quality source does not impart quality to the representation thereof. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I am missing something, however, I believe I can read and understand English more or less well. If some source says Estonia, along with, e.g. Ukraine, was a full member of the USSR, then we should write either "Estonia, USSR" and "Ukraine, USSR", or just "Estonia" and "Ukraine". Obviously, those who were born in Ukraine in 1965 were born in the USSR, and the sources cited by me provide no reason why Estonia was an exception from this rule. In any event, please, don't teach me how to interpret sources, I am able to find, read and interpret them much better than you do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your "formally surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR and thereby "ceased to exist" is an original research. You arbitrarily combine two things, surrender of sovereignty, and cessation of existence, to come to a conclusion you want. In reality, these things are not so strictly connected. History knows many cases when states ceased to exist without transfer of sovereignty. In any event, I already provided sources that confirm that Britain and many other countries did recognise the fact that the Baltic states ceased to exist. I will not provide those quotes again, because they have already are presented above. In contrast, you provide almost no sources, and I see no reason why should we seriously discuss you personal speculations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you accused me in being disingenuous. This is a personal attack, and, taking into account that I did not interpret sources, but just provided verbatim quotes, this attack is totally baseless. I suggest you to apologise immediately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is preposterous to advocate that under international law, "ceased to exist" is unrelated to sovereignty. What "history knows" about prior forcible acquisition of territory is irrelevant, the Baltics states are recognized as a precedent-setting 20th century case where control did NOT impart sovereignty, even despite the long period of occupation. It is your WP:SYNTHESIS that other history applies to the case of the Baltic states. This has all been discussed to death over dozens if not hundreds of sources in other articles' talk pages. If you have genuinely forgotten all these prior discussions, I apologize for using the word disingenuous, do let me know, in that case, if you need an extensive set of pointers to prior discussion of this matter on WP. Otherwise you are just using this page as a WP:FORUM for your personal opinion, for which observation I have no need to apologize to you for any reason. Produce the sources I asked for which indicate the Baltic states formally surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR and thereby "ceased to exist" under international law. (Perhaps you did not understand I meant under international law?) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Comparing the Baltic SSRs to others as equivalent within the USSR is a red herring. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. So, the proper representations regarding your example based on sovereignty during the Soviet era are (a) Estonia and (b) Ukrainian SSR, USSR. Your contention that it's both SSR or neither SSR is incorrect. It's alluring, but false, simplicity. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may repeat your arguments ad nauseum, however, your personal considerations have a zero weight, and they cannot and should not be taken into account during a consensus building procedure. A large number of reliable sources confirm that the Baltic states were considered as a part of the USSR during 1940-91, and, independently on what modern lawyers think on that account, they cannot cancel this historical fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Regarding "It is your WP:SYNTHESIS that other history applies to the case of the Baltic states," our policy defines synthesis as follows: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. In contrast, I took one reliable source that says that the USSR was a union of 15 republics. Did I combine anything? No. I took another reliable sources that said the same, but, importantly, each of them, taken separately, advanced the same position, and I neither drew nor implied anything that was not present in those sources. Therefore, your accusation in synthesis is a direct lie. I again ask you to apologise, and to stop this nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not WP:SYNTHESIS to take de facto circumstances of control and to synthesize that into Great Britain stating the Baltic states ceased to exist = discontinuous = territorial sovereignty rightfully and legally ceded to and assumed by the Soviet Union? Of course you implied something not in the sources, that is ceased to exist. That is not the same as temporarily ceased to exercise rightful sovereign authority over territory. Again, there is no reliable source which states the Baltic states voluntarily and legally transferred their sovereign power to the USSR, that is the only way they could "cease to exist" under international law. Everything you contend here to mean the Baltic states ceased to exist is your synthesis, plain and simple, and you know that very well from past debates. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I took the statement from EB and other reliable sources that the USSR was composed of 15 republics, and Estonia was one of them. That is not a synthesis. I also took a statement from J Hiden's "The Baltic Question During the Cold War" (p. 77) that says that HMG government considered Estonia "as constituted prior to 1940 had ceased to exist". There is nothing in my words that is not explicitly present in the sources I cite, so I strongly recommend you to carefully read my posts before attempting to argue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are contradictory, if Estonia ceased to exist then Estonia could not have been one of the 15 republics as stated by EB. In citing Bevin's opinion on page 77 in Hiden you omit that that this advice was given to a court Judge Atkinson over a case of Estonian property: "Atkinson concluded that none of the decrees of the defendants (soviet authorities) were legal as judged by the old Estonian constitution and had been imposed by a de facto, not a de jure government which was acting ultra vires". In other words despite the opinion of Bevin that Estonia "as constituted prior to 1940 had ceased to exist", Atkinson concluded otherwise that the old Estonian constitution was still real and remained legally valid and that Soviet law had no authority, i.e. Soviet rule was Ultra vires. --Nug (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say "Estonia ceased to exist", it says "Estonia as constituted prior to 1940 had ceased to exist", which is not the same, therefore, it is not clear for me why this statement contradicts to what EB and other sources say.

Regarding your other arguments, I do not think the source confirmed that Britain considered the old Estonian constitution still real. I found nothing there that confirms this your conclusion.

By the way, had Britain considered Estonia an existing state, it would not confiscate its assets. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, scholars have already walked this path and concluded the Western countries regarded the Baltics as existing states. Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why the sources found by me say the opposite? By the way, Hiden's book says West Germany did not recognise Baltic diplomats officially, and did that only privately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we should discuss here are not specific cases but general conclusions by authors like Mälksoo etc. Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert's sources are reliable. The anti-Soviet arguments read like Fordisms. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Would editors please respect OUTDENTING. Otherwise, your posts will end up 2 or 3 words wide & 50 lines long. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, Paul Siebert's sources are sound regarding the circumstances of Soviet control and the Baltic states being administered as SSRs. (There were some Baltic-specific differences, but that's a separate converation). Paul SieBert's contention based on those sources that the Baltic states ceased to exist, that is, transferred sovereignty legally and willingly to the USSR, or were legally viewed by the entire international community as having been totally extinguished, is simply and completely wrong. Last, give your "anti-Soviet" crap a rest. Read up and contribute constructively or at least ask an intelligent question. De facto "part of" does not mean de jure transferred sovereignty and/or "ceased to exist." All three Baltic states took steps to vest/preserve their sovereign authority in representatives outside Baltic territory; all three re-vested that sovereign authority in the post-Soviet non-sovereign territorial authorities, for example, regarding Latvia read Anatols Dinbergs.

I am merely being factual. It is (self-described pro-Soviet) Paul Siebert who is mixing apples and oranges to make the pro-Soviet=official Putin's Russia case. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, sources state the Baltics "ceased to exist" (your characterization) because your characterization is false. Really, how many times you you want to return to beating the dead horse of Baltic states' sovereign discontinuity which only Putin's Russia holds to, mainly to avoid any sort of liability, moral or legal, for reparations. Russia wants all the benefits of a totalitarian empire's past without the consequences. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert, BTW, the Brits confiscated Estonian property to keep it from falling into Soviet hands, so, recognizing that the international entity "Estonia" still existed. It is your blatant POV-laden WP:SYNTHESIS that confiscation confirms that Britain legally considered Estonian sovereignty was dead and buried (or legitimately transferred to the USSR). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could Estonian gold, which physically was located in Britain, fall into Soviet hands, especially, in a situation when "international entity "Estonia" still existed"?

If I correctly understand you, you claim I am advocating pro-Putin Russian POV? Did I understand you correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for those sources which confirm that the Baltic states legally and willingly ceded their sovereignty to the USSR, meaning discontinuous and "ceased to exist" (and, incidentally, no occupation). All you have is quotes of SSRs being "part of" the USSR and WP:SYNTHESIS that the Baltic states were discontinuous. All you do is bring up repetitive (we've heard these all before) WP:SYNTHESIS of examples you contend prove that the Soviet Union legitimately assumed sovereignty over the Baltic states. That is what "ceased to exist" means in international law.

I am stating you have self-described yourself as advocating for a pro-Soviet POV. In this case, your advocacy for discontinuity of Baltic sovereignty is 100% congruent with Soviet proclamations of legal joining, a position which is now advocated for, unchanged, by Putin's Russia (aka official Russian government position).

This is significant because this ("ceased to exist") represents a fringe position on Baltic sovereign continuity which is advocated for only by the legitimate sovereign successor of the occupying power, a matter of choice, not circumstance, on the part of Russia's government. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania legally & willingly ceded their sovereignty, is irreleveant. For example: If one gets the sh-t beat out of them? it doesn't matter how many times they say they didn't get the sh-t beat out of them. Because they still got the sh-t beat out of them. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sovereignty is relevant because Template:infobox person requires the country retaining sovereignty over the administrative unit. --Nug (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just nailing jello to a wall. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, shit? Really? Why bother with asterisks? Well, there you go. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read up or ask an intelligent question. So, your qualifications, then, to contribute to the conversation here? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Vecrumba, I asked a concrete question:

"Did I correctly understand you that you claim I am advocating pro-Putin Russian POV? "

I am waiting for a responce from you. Please, respond "Yes" or "No".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The arguments & sources have easily established that Soviet Union/USSR is the preferred usage. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure

Ymblanter kindly closed this RFC yesterday. Please drop your sticks and back away from the horse now. Bring it back up in a month or something. -sche (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've made a request at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard, for an uninvolved adminstrator to review this Rfc & then close it. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there can't be any uninvolved administrators left, concerning this Rfc. My request hasn't been responded to & it's been archived. It's been roughly 6-weeks now since this Rfc began. I wonder, how much longer it will go on. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request on the dedicated "Requests for closure" page. -sche (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if either of you noticed, but the RfC template was removed as "expired" two days ago. That generally means that an RfC is not going to be formally closed, and quite often happens when what started out as an apparently genuine request for outside input becomes just a prolonged shouting match (261kb, for God's sake!) between a small number of editors who presumably had already been shouting at each other for some time. You should, all of you, just give it a rest, leave all the articles the way they are now and return in a few months when you've simmered down. You should also, maybe, accept the fact that this Manual of Style is unlikely ever to happen if you can't get past the first item on the agenda. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fear is that this Rfc is going to end (don't know when) in disaster, with many of us (on both sides) being topic-banned from Baltic related articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do not you all just stop? It is crystal clear that there is no consensus at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~On the contrary, there's a consensus for using Soviet Union/USSR.~~ Right now, the Rfc is continuing on a last-wordism basis. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a majority for using Soviet Union/USSR. There is very clearly not a consensus, or this shouting match would not still be continuing to grow. --Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Jaan & Nug (for example) would've let WP:HOCKEY handle the hockey article, this Rfc never would've been started. I don't care what they do on the rest of Wikipeida. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, seeing as this Rfc was begun over one article (Leo Komarov), perhaps the whole Baltic discussion should be on an article-by-article basis. Afterall, it would be virtually impossible to enforce Soviet Union/USSR or Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia on all Baltic bios across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion should be on an article-by-article basis. But there should be a moratorium on all discussion until people get a grip on their passions. Scolaire (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this was going anywhere....but where it did go... it went there fast.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is Leo Komarov, an the other NHL bio article & the NHL team roster templates. I've no interest in fighting over Estona, Latvia & Lithuania's 1940-91 status across the whole project. If the anti-Soviet/pro-Est/Lat/Lith editors would let WP:HOCKEY handle the hockey articles? all will be fine. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you can't apparently let this go is probably best summed up in this comment here. In appears this birthplace thing has now become a new focus for you. --Nug (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, you couldn't patrol every Baltic bio article across Wikipedia, even if you got your way here. It's impossible to get consistency of any kind across such a large project. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(od) @GoodDay, the template rule is to show the sovereign authority. In the case of the Baltic states, it is the states themselves as established after WWI for the entire period thereafter to now. You don't have to like the rule to follow the rule. If it irks you so much, edit other hockey articles where you don't have personal issues where your argument that shit happens doesn't apply. There is nothing about WP:HOCKEY that gives you the special privilege to ignore encyclopedic facts to suit your mistaken personal opinion.

I didn't open the can of worms, but now that it's been opened and it's been made clear whatever rule is established applies to all biographies in scope, the die has been cast and the rule regarding sovereign authority and the Baltic states is clear: not SSR, USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have difficulties discriminating between no consensus and your way. No consensus means precisely that no rule has been established.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we've decided nothing here, then the sooner this is archived the better. Unfortunately you think we are settling a matter of opinion regarding representation when we're not. I'm only telling you what the already established Wikipedia rule is. Some here don't like it. That doesn't make me anti-Soviet or hockey aficionados pro-Putin. Rules are rules, this has nothing to do with my way. If you don't like the rule, change the rule for the template that it should indicate occupying/controlling power and not sovereign authority. The surely unintended result there would be that everyone born in France during the Nazi occupation would now be born, instead, in "Nazi Germany".

I am only the messenger telling you what the rule is and how it applies, unequivocally, in the case of the three Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that the policy you mention applies or does not apply to Baltic States between 1940 and 1991. Note that I did not make any other implications, in particular, about your political views.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? Indicating sovereign authority in the template? Consensus doesn't trump rules. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one you were discussing here all the way round: Whether Baltic states should be considered as independent in the period between 1940 and 1991 for the specific purpose of infobox content.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" is so completely the wrong word. "Continuous" means their sovereignty continued to exist regardless of Soviet control/occupation. That has been completely acknowledged in international law, resumption of treaties, etc. Unfortunately, that question had its origins as the implied trailer "for the purposes of biographies of hockey players born during the Soviet era". So, the RfC was ill-advised on two counts:

because sovereign "continuity" is not a matter subject to consensus here
because whether or not to follow the rule of showing sovereign state authority for WP:HOCKEY related articles was considering whether to follow or to break rules, again, not a matter subject to consensus here

Does this help clarify? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really interested in increasing the amount of drama here. I do not feel like I should really reply to all arguments which were here beaten up to death from both sides. I came here to close the discussion as an uninvolved administrator. The discussion should be closed as no consensus. This really means that there is no consensus, even despite your statement that consensus exists and follows directly from policies. If you do not like it please follow the conflict resolution avenues, and note that I am not the side of the conflict.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC question is actually in two parts, the first is about state continuity: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? Plenty of sources have been presented that verify this is the case. Don't confuse independence with sovereignty. As Stefan Talmon writes in his book Recognition of Governments in International Law published by Oxford University Press:

"A sovereign state may (temporarily) lose its factual independence while retaining its sovereignty as, for example, the Baltic States during their illegal incorporation into the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991"[34]

The second question of the RFC is how do we reflect that in the infoBox, and that is the part that has no consensus. --Nug (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This approach is fully legalistic, and it ignores historical facts and political realities of those times. That has been explained to you many times, and the sources has been presented that confirm that. However, you seem to be unable to listen. Remember, consensus takes into account only reasonable concerns.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, your contention that "most sources you are talking about discuss a modern situation, and they are focused on the attempts to resolve a present-days collision, when some state has been restored after more than 50 year period of dependence" is pure OR, I have not seen such an argument published in any reliable sources. Indeed as many sources presented show, the view that the Baltic states continued to exist is to be consistently found in the literature of the period from 1940 up to the present day. --Nug (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Scolaire I recall I, and some other participants, decided to follow the NYB's advice ( Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)) and stopped to participate in this discussion. However, another side preferred not to do that, so I had no choice but to come back.[reply]
@Ymblanter, can you please explain me which policy did you mean in your 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC) post? If you are talking about Template:Infobox person, this is not a policy at all... --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have a choice. Eventually, everybody here will stop. It just takes longer if those who do stop choose to come back. Do you really think you have averted a catastrophe by rejoining the battle? No, as GoodDay says, this is just "continuing on a last-wordism basis" (if only he would listen to himself). Scolaire (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, theoretically you are right. However, in a situation when a consensus has almast been achieved (majority of users agreed with reasonable arguments, which have been put forward by one side based on good quality mainstream sources), the attempt of another side to pretend there is no consensus by repeating the same arguments ad nauseus is hardly tolerable. How do you propose to deal with that situation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Paul, but when you accuse your opponents of "pure demagogy" you ought to review your statement above. The only source you have provided is an out of context quote from Bevin and a reference to EB, (despite your recorded opposition to using EB here). As I said the RFC question is in two parts with the first part is related to continuity, and the consensus view in the literature is that continuity was maintained. The minority view is that continuity was lost, as stated here on page 92: "It appears that today Russia by holding the opposite opinion on the Baltic claims is isolated on this issue." --Nug (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this all be archived, forgotten, and we all take a rest for the weekend. Most of the editors here have unfortunately made it clear they couldn't care less about the sovereign continuity or not of the Baltic states and have accordingly made no effort to become better informed beyond their belief system coming into the RfC here. @Paul Siebert, you put myself and other editors in the position having to repeat simple facts ad nauseum. If you continue to insist the moon is made of cheese and I insist it's not, it is you who are repeating yourself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you both are repeating your opinion ad nauseum. Your opinion is based on one simple logical error, and this error is as follows. You correctly note that the thesis about state continuity of the Baltic states is currently a mainstream point of view. However, you are attempting to apply it to the past historical events, and that is absolutely wrong. Actually, there was a silent (unspoken) consensus during the Cold war that the Baltic states were de facto the part of the USSR, and overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree with that. This is a historical fact, and your legalistic considerations cannot change that.

By the way, what you Nug say about EB and about my opinion on it is a not true, and I already explained that. I oppose to usage of EB as a source for Wikipedia (i.e. as a substitute of normal secondary sources), however, in this case I think EB is quite relevant, because our policy says that such sources are useful to summarise what many secondary sources say, especially in a situation when evaluation of due weight is needed. I already explained that, and I think my explanations were clear and unequivocal. Therefore, your refusal to get a point is hardly a sign of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that this thesis of state continuity of the Baltic states (which is the mainstream view) is not applicable to past historical events is your personal OR not supported by the sources. This is what Krystyna Marek writes in 1968 in her seminal work Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law[35], on page 401:

"The American courts thus implemented the government's policy, acting on the assumption of the legal continuity of the Baltic States, unbroken by their illegal annexation. .... The standing of the Baltic consuls in court was upheld. ... The diplomatic and consular missions of the Baltic Republics in the Untied States continue their normal activities and enjoy all diplomatic privileges on a footing of complete equality with all other foreign representatives. ... Baltic passports are not only recognised, but actually required for travel and emigration purposes. Thus, an Estonian sailor is not permitted to land in the United States unless provided with a regular and valid Estonian passport."

On page 406:

"Official exchanges between the Baltic missions and the (British) Foreign Office continue to take place. More particularly, the Latvian Legation in London continues to appoint honorary consuls in Britain, duly notifying the Foreign Office of these appointments which are fully recognised. ... In view of the continued recognition of, and dealings with, the Baltic Legations in London, it can hardly mean more than this. The recognition of the facts which have taken place in the Baltic States on the one hand, and the refusal to recognise these facts de jure as well as the continued recognition of the London Legations, on the other, leads to the conclusion that Great Britain still recognises the existence of the Baltic States, even though they have ceased to exercise de facto authority in their territories."

Continuity was described by Marek in 1968, so your argument that this continuity thesis is somehow a modern post factum invention is thoroughly debunked, so please stop repeating it. --Nug (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim this thesis is not applicable. Moreover, I don't have to prove opposite at all. It is your burden to prove this modern thesis is applicable to the past events, and to demonstrate that numerous sources found by me, which list the three Baltic states among 15 Soviet republics, are wrong.

Regarding Marek, I do not question the fact that the US, in contrast to most other states did recognise legal continuity of the Baltic states, but this was an exception rather than a rule. As regards to the last Marek's quote, you should have noticed that she spoke about honorary consuls. Those consuls had no official diplomatic status (according to a modern source, Hiden/khudoley), they were simply allowed to stay in Britain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've proved that this thesis was current in the literature of 1968, so your premise that it is a "modern" post 1990 thesis is disproved. The RFC question is Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?, you sources that show that the three Baltic states among 15 Soviet republics does not disprove that, particularly in light of scholarly opinion: "A sovereign state may (temporarily) lose its factual independence while retaining its sovereignty as, for example, the Baltic States during their illegal incorporation into the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991"[36]. Your point about honorary consuls is nonsense, only recognised diplomatic missions can appoint honorary consuls. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correcting something above

"Honorary consuls" are consuls functioning within a country as additional representatives, they continue to be appointed today by the Latvian Foreign Ministry. I believe there are four currently in Britain. That title has nothing to do with any implication of Britain not recognizing the Latvian Legation during and after the war. More WP:SYNTHESIS based on interpretation of words than relation of situation. I'll take further discussion to a more appropriate locale, but needed to close the loop here. From the site of the Latvian Foreign Ministry:

"Latvia is constantly developing its network of Honorary Consuls in order to broadening cooperation and links with other countries. Latvia has more than 125 Honorary Consuls and over 10 Honorary Consuls worldwide. . . .

"The position of Honorary Consul or an Honorary Consul General is a person entrusted by Latvia to perform representational or consular functions for the state. Both citizens of Latvia and citizens of foreign countries can be Honorary Consuls and an Honorary Consul should have an outstanding profile to take up the position. An Honorary Consul is appointed by the Foreign Minister, and he or she is not paid by the state."

So, that Honorary Consuls continued to be appointed by the Latvian Legation and to be recognized by Britain indicates normal diplomatic relations. The notions that "honorary" meant non-functional and that Britain considered Latvia to have ceased to exist are utterly false. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death place question

I'd actually would like to know something which isn't related to the post-1918 history of the Baltic states... I'm wondering whether there is a consensus that when mentioning birth and death places when dealing with people who were born and lived during the time of the Russian Empire, we should use the guidelines put down under General principles? Can I refer to those guidelines? In other words, would it be ok to make articles thus, and also to change articles that go something like this: "(1 January 1812, Dorpat – 5 November 1899, Berlin)" to something like this: "(19 January 1844, Tartu (then Dorpat, Governorate of Livonia) – 5 November 1920, Berlin)"? There is at the moment quite a lot of variation out there as to how people choose to write this... Thanks. Yakikaki (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Revisiting the birthplace infobox question

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. There was much detailed and thoughtful discussion, including arguments for reading WP:MODERNPLACENAME to support either usage. The precedent of using the modern name for historical examples for Estonia was brought up, but questioned. Numerically, the split between opinions appears near-even. I'm afraid this discussion hasn't resolved the question, and petered out before doing so. Wikipedia discussion may usefully be viewed as a worked example of the difficulties of applying Aumann's agreement theorem in practice - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Klõps, User:Paul Siebert and User:Vif12vf reads this, I am doing an RFC in regards to the Baltics in the birth place section. Since Klõps already did Estonia, why not do the same on Latvia and Lithuania? After all, many western governments do not consider them as SSRs but occupied nations like Georgia and Ukraine are now. Should we change the people born in Latvia and Lithuania to just Latvia and Lithuania and not the Soviet Union? Your call. —184.146.38.122 (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania -- I would like to outline some of the key arguments for such use:

MOS:BIRTHPLACE and WP:PLACE policies do not contradict or prevent such use. Quite the opposite, it is consistent with the WP:MODERNPLACENAME recommendation (unless "appropriate historical contexts").
Template:Infobox_person recommendation is "For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state". For the historical context, the Soviet Union did not have the legal sovereignty over the Baltic States, see: Welles Declaration, State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states.
It is consistent with the government policies in the Baltic States: passports, ID cards and other documents issued by these countries do not use "USSR" as the birth place. It is also the policy in the EU, UK and the USA (e.g. for driving licenses, residence or other documents issued by these countries). I suspect many other countries also follow such policy (can somebody verify?).

If the consensus was reached for Estonia, then I think it sets a very good precedent. --Mindaur (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think consensus was reached for Estonia, it is just Klõps would revert any mention of the Soviet Union and would keep reverting until the opponent gives up. I do not think it has ever been properly discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Ymblanter. Estonian editors are known at WP:NHL for changing the birth place from "City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" to "City, Estonia". I have encountered the same behavior from Estonian editors on basketball-related and other pages in the past. Their reasons for such edits are based on de jure, while de facto the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union. Even my Lithuanian passport from Soviet times (along with passports of my relatives and friends) quite clearly say "Birth place: Lithuanian SSR". I myself do not like it, but it is what it is and the past cannot be changed. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what does your passport say now? :) Perhaps Dutch people born in 1943 had Reichskommissariat Niederlande in their passport or other documents, but is that relevant? More to the point: I listed three clear arguments for the said policy. It seems that this issue, repeatedly, causes most concern for the WP:NHL crowd. Is it because some web sites list players using different birth place? In any case, WP:NHL already have (or had?) topic-based consensus, so it can stay as is if that is such a big deal there. What is the actual argument against the default policy, though?

Just a side comment: there are around 6 million Baltic citizens who have their birth place as Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania in their passports today and most probably feel it that way too. So, this issue is unlikely to go away.. --Mindaur (tal:k) 15:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many citizens of Ukraine and Georgia also feel that their countries were occupied, Georgia has the museum of Soviet occupation it Tbilisi, so what?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am opening a can of worms, but let me explain something. Colloquially, it is considered that the three Baltic states were occupied by the USSR, and the 1940-90 period is considered as occupation. And that is the idea most Baltic editors are persistently pushing. However, that leads to a very serious problem. "Occupation" (including so called "prolonged occupation") is an intrinsically temporary phenomenon, which means it has no legal consequence. That means that if we assume the Baltic states were occupied, all decisions and acts taken by Soviet authorities in 1940-90 are null and void. Keeping in mind that one of those decision was transfer of Vilno to Lithuania, such an approach, if we apply it systematically, leads to serious problems.

Secondly, the legal status of occupied territories by definition is different from that of the rest of the occupying state. Thus, different forms of IDs are issued for the population of occupied territories, they have a different legislation system, and so on. In reality all SSRs had identical legal status, and all Estonians, Latvians or Lithuanians had the same civil rights (or the lack thereof) as the population Russian, Ukrainia etc SSRs.

Therefore, it would be more correct to say that the Baltic states were annexed rather than occupied.

However, many authors, including the Estonian scholar Malksoo, point at the illegal and forceful character of that annexation. It would be more correct to say that the Baltic states were forcefully occupied and then illegally annexed. In connection to that, the question is: "should an illegal annexation be considered as occupation?". As I explained above, using the term "occupation" leads to serious legal collisions. It is equally incorrect to speak about a full scale annexation (no annexation of militarily occupied territory is allowed by international laws that were in effect in 1940). To resolve that contradiction, Malksoo proposed the term occupatio sui generis. That term refers to some unique and very specific situation that neither has any analogy with other cases nor sets any precedents. If I remember correctly, the term occupatio sui generis was previously applied in 1945 to Allies occupied Germany (to resolve a totally different legal collision).

The advantage of "occupation sui generis" concept in the Baltic cases is as following. Since the Baltic states were militarily occupied in 1940, we speak not about their secession from the USSR (in contrast to other SSRs, which are deemed to be formed de novo in 1991), but about restoration of previously existing states. However, since the Baltic states were annexed, some actions taken by authorities during the 1940-90 period are not necessarily null and void.

In summary, "USSR" as a birth place is ok, because it reflects the de facto state of things. By the way, despite the fact that the US (along with Vatican and Iceland) were the only three states who didn't recognize annexation neither de jure nor de facto, the maps published in the US in the Cold war period show the Baltic states as a part of the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert: Let's focus on your main point. Baltic states were illegally occupied and annexed (not "colloquially", but according to the international law, as you explained yourself); you make a valid point that "some actions taken by authorities during the 1940-90 period are not necessarily null and void". However, the aspect that "it reflects de facto state of things" is hardly different from other cases. Civil rights in Soviet Union is in itself a rather interesting remark, but nevertheless -- how are such "rights" more significant than rights during other occupations? Reichskommissariat Niederlande may or may not have had the same "civil rights" as Reichskommissariat Ostland. Any administration during an occupation affects the daily life and has legal consequences for the local populations. It's the same kind of "the de facto state of things".

You and Ymblanter used analogies with other countries, but the key difference here is the state continuity of the Baltic states. Hence the comparisons (with Ukraine, Georgia, etc) are misleading. Why ignore this point?

P.S. Regarding your remark on Vilnius: Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty from 1920 predates the occupation by couple decades, but it's hardly relevant here anyway. --Mindaur (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I see that you have made 515 edits on this project but still aggressively reply to at least three users with more that 20000 edits each, not even bringing policy-related arguments into the discussion, I do not have any desire to continue the discussion in this modality. Good like with getting your point across.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is really disappointing to read such remark. I have been presenting my reasoned arguments, but instead you responded with argumentum ab auctoritate (appeal to accomplishment, to be more specific). Are you trying to say that my contributions to Wikipedia are less valuable than yours or those of others? You complain that I did not bring policy-related arguments, but I did: see my first comment with three clear arguments and the very first being on WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Unfortunately, others prefer to dive into judicial and historical interpretations; well, so be it, I just responded to the main point of it. Instead, you've thrown WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT at me.

P.S. I've been involved with Lithuanian Wikipedia since 2005; abandoned/lost some accounts (Internet was a very different place back then); had many years of inactivity, but would occasionally come back (just as an IP), "recently" registered with a goal to keep it stable and contribute more, but I don't suffer from editcountitis. ;) Nevertheless, absolutely none of this should matter in a discussion. Prejudice towards an editor -- new or old -- is just not cool, especially when it's coming from an admin. --Mindaur (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindaur, I agree that your arguments should be analysed irrespectively to the number of edits you made.

Analogy to Reichskommissariat Niederlande. It seems you, as well as some other Baltic editors, prefer to emphasize the similarity between Soviet occupation of Baltic states and Nazi occupation of many European states. That analogy is incorrect in several aspects. First, Nazi Reichskommissariats were quasi-colonial regimes, and that can be easily demonstrated by answering a simple question: had the population of Reichskommissariat the same type IDs as the population of the Reich, or it was different? I am sure it was different. In contrast, Estonian or Lativian SSRs issued the same type internal passports as other SSRs. Second, the territories of Reichskommissariats were militarily conquered, and in most cases, the war was officially declared. The same cannot be said about the Baltic states. Third, Reichskommissariats were under German control during the time when the latter was at war with almost the whole world, and the United Nations considered those territories under a temporary military control. The same cannot be said about the Baltic states under Soviet control: almost all states considered them a part of the USSR de facto, and some of them even de jure. Therefore, I do not find your argument convincing.

In reality, the level of recognition of the Baltic states as SSRs was gradually increasing during the 1940-90 period. If you read the works published between 1940 and 1990 (for, example, this search), when the outcome of the Baltic story was not known yet, you may see that the conflict between the two old Roman principles, "Ex injuria ius non oritur" and "Ex factis ius oritur" with regard to the Baltic case was noted by many Cold war authors, see, e.g. Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring 1987), pp. 95-97. Moreover, the authors who specifically studied that issue, such as William Hough III, did not rule out the opportunity that the Baltic states would eventually become extinct. Therefore, your position seems to be a projection of the current knowledge on the past, which is ahisotrical.
As you correctly noted, Soviet-Lithuanian treaty is not relevant to that case, so I am not discussing it here.

In general, your calm, respectful and rational tone is something that I wholeheartedly support, however, your arguments seem to be based on wrong analogies, and they have obvious mistakes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a rational and well written response.

Okay, I see where were you going with the "civil rights" point. In other words, I think you are saying that there was no discrimination in any SSRs or territories vis-a-vis the other SSRs, which is mostly true for the period after Stalinism (note: there were certain biases, actually, but that's another topic). It's a point, but in reality it's not so simple. There are cases where people of different countries have nearly the same rights, e.g. Germans and Latvians have virtually the same rights in 27 countries (by virtue of citizenship of the European Union). There are cases where people from different territories within the same sovereign country have different rights, e.g. China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport. Then there are territories with varying levels of de facto and/or de jure recognitions or non-recognitions, from Taiwan to frozen conflicts, e.g. should we say people are born in Transnistria or Moldova? So, we can rationalize all these cases, but this argument in itself is not definitive. Getting back to the Reichskommissariats analogy, the primary difference here is the policy of the occupational regime: whether they chose to implement colonial and openly discriminatory rule or whether they sought to legitimize their regime, but in the latter case it is precisely the reason why annexation under the military occupation (as it was with the Baltic States) is illegal under the international law.
Your second point ultimately boils down to longevity and it is, perhaps, the more significant aspect. The longer some regime lasts, the more de facto recognition and general acceptance it is likely to gain. Having said that, in both our discussed cases the occupation was actually temporary: the difference is 5 years vs 45 years. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no particularly objective or legal "cut off" time. In a case of Transnistria, it's been going for nearly 30 years now, but there is not a single country recognizing it de facto or de jure. In the context of longevity and acceptance, I think another important and often ignored aspect is whether the population in the territory itself actually accepted the regime.

It is an interesting discussion and you are making some good points, but I think we are getting deeper and deeper into the WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS territory here. Instead of pursuing the line of legal and historical aspects, perhaps we can get back to the bigger picture:

I think one of the main concerns or objections from some editors and readers is that using "USSR" in the birthplace implies (or appears as) legitimization of the occupation. Given WP:NPOV, how can we address this?
Back to my original points: there are ~6 million Baltic citizens with their passports saying Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania; it is the position of EU, UK, USA and probably most other countries. It is a contradicting reality which won't go away. Again, how do we reconcile with this reality without WP:OR? Ultimately, let's not forget that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. In a way, it can be argued that passport would constitute a primary source.

Also, it would still be good to discuss why WP:MODERNPLACENAME does or does not apply here. --Mindaur (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindaur: All what I write is based on what I read in the past in good quality peer-reviewed publications, and I can support all my claims by references. Therefore, I would be grateful if you refrained from references to SYN or OR. I can provide references, but it may require some time, because I do not have these sources before me (currently, I am not active in this topic, so I need some time to find those sources again, but, since I am very busy in RL, that may significantly delay my responses).

My main point is occupatio sui generis. Application of that term was proposed by Malksoo, an Estonian scholar (if you don't know who he is, you can easily google him). The main consequence of that concept is that it makes that case very specific: it was neither a classical military occupation (similar to Nazi occupation), nor a full scale annexation. The problem with the word "annexation" is obvious: this term implies that the Baltic states ceased to exist in 1940, and they were re-created in 1991. Obviously, that is not the case, because most (if not all) world states recognise continuity of the Baltic states.

However, there is still a problem with "occupation": occupation, even a prolonged occupation (like in the case of Palestine) implies that the legal status of the Baltic states within the USSR was different from the status of other Soviet territories. That was obviously not the case: both you and I agree that the legal status was identical. In connection to that, it would be interesting to see how the status of the Baltic states was described in the sources published before 1990s: how the geographic maps printed in the US, UK or France looked like? Were the Baltic states pained in the same colour as other Soviet territories, of the colour was different, as for East Timor, Kashmir, etc? How the Easter Europe related research articles (demography, sociology, history, politics) described the Baltic states/SSRs? And so on, and so forth. I have not done that research yet, and I don't know the result, but my intuition says that in most sources the Baltic states were treated as de facto Soviet territory (not occupied territory), and it was implicitly assumed that is no outstanding events would happen in future, this status quo would be de jure recognised, sooner or latter. Therefore, your approach may be considered as an attempt to project the present time knowledge on the past, which is ahistorical.

However, I may be wrong, and I provided the approach that may demonstrate that I am wrong. Therefore, my opinion is falsifiable, which means, per Aumann's agreement theorem, we are doomed to achieve some consensus if we continue our discussion in the same vein.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I forgot to answer your argument about MODERNPLACENAME. I think this policy is applicable, and it says that historical names are used when we refer to some concrete historical period. As I already explained, the key point is how the Baltic states were described in those time sources: if majority of sources say, e.g., the person X was born in 1955 in Soviet Latvia, then we should say so. In contrast, if the sources write that the person X was born in Soviet occupied Latvian republic, then we should use that style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that WP:MODERNPLACENAME applies, particularly for WP:BLPs. We can all agree that passports are a reliable source for a living person's place of birth, after all, it is an internationally standardised legal document issued by the state. As a general rule with respect to passports, if the place of birth is to be a country, it's determined to be the country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth, regardless of when the birth actually occurred. A living person holding a current passport issued by a Baltic country would list Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania as their respective places of birth. Note that Russia accepts these passports as valid when issuing travel visas to these people, as does every other country in the world. So listing the place of birth of a living person as the current sovereign state is widely accepted. --Nug (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were a part of the USSR from 1940 to 1991. That's simply the way it was, no matter how many editors chose to deny it. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that to say someone born in a former USSR state was not born in the USSR is Historical negationism. This is an encyclopedia and we're supposed to be better than that, no matter how many hurt feelings there are. Just because Latvia shows Latvia on a passport for someone born in 1980, doesn't mean that person was born in the country of Latvia. He was still born in the USSR. Masterhatch (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per many discussions in the past trying to suggest that someone born in the USSR was not born in the USSR is ridiculous. Occupied or not it was the de facto situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania, though with exceptions for "common use" and "personal preference". We have recognized that primary documents issued by the nations in question, as well as by the supranational organization that the nations collectively belong to, state "Estonia" or "Latvia" or "Lithuania". The default entry should reflect this, as in the absence of other individual-specific arguments these authoritative primary documents are compelling. However, we do need to implement two exceptions to this; if modern reliable sources commonly refer to their place of birth as being the Soviet Union, we should reflect those, and if an individual has expressed a preference for their place of birth being listed as being the Soviet Union, we should also reflect that, so long as modern reliable sources don't commonly refer to their place of birth as being one of the Baltic States.

I would note that this position is in line with precedent. For instance, those born in Austria between 1938 and 1945, such as Helmut Berger and Klaus Maria Brandauer are referred to as being born in "Austria" rather than "Germany". BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revisiting issue of Baltic "contested" birthplace names

Good day/morning/afternoon/evening fellow wikipedians,

I apologize for bringing this up once more however I do feel the matter deserves reconsideration after a year. I've similarly noticed as op for the earlier RFC defined the lack of proper birth place name usage for individuals born in the baltic states between 1945 and 1991. I'm not aware of any consensus to stick with modern or acronymized place names in the case of the Baltic's so please do find me a link if such a consensus exists.

I personally found myself writing this because today I was doing research on the current Estonian PM, Kaja Kallas and a question I had was whether she was born during or after soviet times, the quickest way to check this would be via birthdate and it caught me offguard seeing "1977" but "Estonia" because Estonia as a sovereign state was not active at that time period; ergo any government entities that represented non-soviet "Estonia" were in exile.

I personally believe we should use "republic" SSR to represent the birthplaces of people born in that time period, contentious or partially recognized or not. The DDR was never recognized by the west and yet Wikipedia and those born in the DDR are recognized as being born in the DDR, despite de jure it being "occupied soviet territory". Additionally, dig into history enough and Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR can be considered a continuation of an occupation by the RSFSR, and yet the ukssr is considered valid and sovereign. The values and recognition of the west and european powers is not the sole indicator a nation makes (with exceptions of active 21st century military footholds), and singling out the baltics as "Occupied" while not doing so with any other soviet, warsaw or yugoslav republics is at minimum inconsistent.

While not generally recognized by the west, much of the eastern world recognized the USSR's entire sovereignty (including disputed territories), and the Baltic Soviet Republics were fully integrated within Soviet Society, with their own culture, legal systems and soviet identity; fabricated by the government or not.

Hence, my belief, to align with wikipedia's values and make it more clear for those reading that the individuals were in fact born and raised within the eastern bloc, the place names of the Baltic's should reflect the counterparts of the mass controlling authority of the era. (I distinctly remember other wikipedia articles cite Reichskommissariat Ukraine as the birthplace of individuals during that era instead of the Ukrainian SSR, which can be used as a usage example however I have yet to find my way back to these user's pages). It's worth noting that english language wikipedia is the outlier in this regard, and almost all foreign language wikipedia's, western and eastern language alike stick with using the place names of the time of birth, instead of the modern era. (I recognize this is irrelevant but an interesting point nonetheless)

In general, my beliefs are irrelevant, and I'm just looking for a consensus here, so by all means please let the responses flow in! (may start an rfc but i'm biased so i'm not sure if im allowed to do that) 87.249.54.148 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an unexpected view from a Russian IP. The majority of the Baltic people (and Baltic WP:RS) would most likely disagree with you. However, the presented arguments should be based on the principles set by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than our personal opinions. -- Mindaur (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe my geolocation is relevant. The points I'm making are based off of historical soundness and ease of use for a global english-language wikipedia, so that people understand what it is they are in fact reading. Using the names of Modern Day countries to represent historical partitions is at the very least inconsistent and at most dishonest. How would I start a consensus request to discuss this with the community?

The personal beliefs of the citizens of Baltic Countries have no place here, this is English Language wikipedia and we must act in accordance with best practices for wikipedia, not a group or sect of citizens from non english speaking countries. 87.249.54.148 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]