Talk:German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II/Archive 1

POV fork?
this article is a POV fork of Occupation of Baltic states--Termer 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article. also Termer 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article Occupation of Baltic states deals mostly with Soviet "occupation" of the Baltics and this is a separate topic and deserves a separate article.--Dojarca 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think the page should stay; it's linked as a main article on the Occupation of Baltic states page, and there's enough that could be said on the subject.


 * On the other hand it still needs a lot of work before it has NPOV.


 * What does anyone else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania?
There's nothing here about the occupation of Lithuania; is there a reason for that? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Title
I returned the article to an original location before it was moved. The rationale of the original author, as I see it, was that by the time of the Nazi invasions, the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania having been overrun by the USSR in 1940 were annexed and attached to the country as Soviet republics. Whoever disagrees with the title, please start the move discussion. One cannot just move the article and then demand the WP:RM to return the article to an original location. --Irpen 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you should pop out of the blue in support of your compatriot, did he send you an email? Following your logic, the Soviet liberation of Czechoslovakia was really the Soviet occupation of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, since it was attached to Greater Germany in 1939, no? The original title was Nazi occupation of the Baltics when the article was created, btw. Martintg (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, keep your speculations to yourself. The article was on my watchlist. And your "support of your compatriot" stuff is offensive.

Your comparison is wrong. If we talked about separate entities, we would use ...of Latvia, ...of Estonia in the title, similar to Czechoslovakia. Here, these countries were grouped and we have to use the proper name for this group at the time of the event. --Irpen 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, Wikipedia is not the venue to promote your personal POV of what the proper name should be, Wikipedia has to reflect what the published sources say. Encyclopedia Britannica carries more weight than your opinion here. If you can find references supporting that "Baltic republics" is more commonly used than "Baltic states" in the context of German occupation, then please do. Martintg (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored
As I said, we already went through this a long time ago and settled that issue. —PētersV (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Peters, you should have waited for the move to play itself out. Please respect the community process and consensus building. If it was settled a long time ago, it will settle itself this time around too. No need to rush and potentially escalate things. Renata (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then let me highlight the salient points for those that may be new to this discussion/topic:
 * The Soviets illegally invaded and occupied the Baltic states and illegally annexed them.
 * The Nazis illegally invaded and occupied the Baltic states and was planning to illegally annex them.
 * The Soviets reinvaded and resumed their prior illegal occupation and annexation where they left off.
 * The Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics, entities of the USSR, did exist. They have their own articles. I have even done some editorial contributions to accounts of that era.
 * HOWEVER, for the Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics to have been occupied by the Nazis, they/the Soviets had to have been the legal legitimate sovereign authority over those territories. The SSRs/the USSR were not. Contending that the "republics" were occupied is WP:UNDUE support of Soviet propaganda that the Baltics (a) ceded their sovereignty (at all) and that (b) they did so willingly and legally. It has been incontrovertibly established they did not . —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know these arguments. I read them quite a few times on different articles. But they have nothing to do with the WP:RM process and the fact that the move should be left alone to play itself out. Renata (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, all of them are irrelevant to establishing a WP:COMMONNAME move. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Postulations herein that the arguments are relevant (in opposition to the move) aside, I hope some of the other discussion here and Biru's NYT search for the time period in question have made some progress in support of the use of "State" versus "republic"--that there was no real difference in terminology prior to WWII and after the occupations (regardless of occupier or whether regarded as occupier), and that the general preference of "states" over "republics" should continue to prevail in the title here, in line with other WP articles on the Baltic States.
 * As to the "irrelevant" part of the argument here, I would ask editors who are new to this discussion to consider that while "pro-" Baltic editors have been Wiki-accused of being "nationalists" (as a dirty word), there is half a century of scholarship, based on reputably verifiable facts, that exists to counter the Soviet propaganda position and "historical account" that the Baltics "joined" the USSR willingly and legally. Don't take motivation and assume it means "POV." It's not "POV" when it's backed up by incontrovertible facts which can only be reputably interpreted one way. Consider which "side" has brought substantiated facts to the table and which "side" has brought only unsubstantiated contentions. —PētersV (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically, is that all what it takes: Its enough to have one unreasonable guy out there who is obsessed with the word "Republic" and there is a situation here that should be left alone to play itself out. Not that I'm getting it how can something that's left alone play itself out? But the way I'm getting it, lets say in case I'd be obsessed with "Baltic countries" instead and would just go ahead and rename the article accordingly without bothering to back it up with any sources, the crowd here should just tolerate this and leave me and my Baltic countries renaming alone? That's just exactly what Renata is saying for my eyes.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, it would seem that a dead horse can always be flogged to life. I won't speak to motivations or discuss similarities to past behaviors since any such action could be decried as a personal attack. —PētersV (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement needed
In reference to the discussion above, about the article title; I’m more bothered by the article itself.

When it was proposed for deletion there was concern that it merely repeats what is already on the "Occupation of the Baltic States" page. I thought in January there was enough that could be said on the subject of the Nazi occupation alone to justify a separate page, but since then (in fact, since the deletion discussion last July) very little has been done to improve it.

Arguments about what the title of the page are, I think, secondary to improving the article, to avoid it being deleted altogether.

It still needs a section on Lithuania, for example, to justify the title; Also, it needs to look at the factors that were common to the three states overall, such as:-
 * The ambivalence towards the German occupation, and the reasons why,
 * Collaboration, and war service with the Axis armed forces,
 * Resistance and partisan activity, and who it was aimed at,
 * The Holocaust, as it affected the states; the experience of the Jews and the participation of other nationals.

And it needs to say more than what already exists elsewhere.

Xyl 54 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are problems with the Holocaust in Lithuania article, so no simple solutions to improving the article here even in summary. —PētersV (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately in the wider zone of the Baltics and central and eastern Europe, this sort of flurry-of-activity conflict is common. That leaves many deserving articles starved for attention other than in fits and spurts. I had sworn off Wiki-conflicts for 2008 (and managed to add a full series of pictures for the Freedom Monument article and to write Anatol Dinbergs' biography), but that's as far as I got. I'm hoping the action here concludes soon, it's coming up on three weeks of discussion post-Dojarca's revert to "republics". —PētersV (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a decision here?
It would appear that everyone has made their case and those that have a preference have states it. Can we proceed to a decision here? A clear case has been made for states. A muddy case at best has been made for republics. There has been no evidence presented that the majority use nomenclature used everwhere else in WP ("States") does not also apply in this case. —PētersV (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Vecrumba's use of terms "clear" and "muddy" indicates his preferences and, perhaps, fairness. But his claiming that he is right one more time does not help that to be the case. --Irpen 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a silly debate. Republics has been the way s.c. "Pribaltika" has always been called in Russia. Baltic states is the most common way to call the region in Western countries. Therefore the current "Baltic republics" reflects the Russian POV at the time when "Baltic states" would reflect the Western viewpoint. Since the EU has 3 times more population + USA twice as much = 5X more than in Russia, "Baltic states" would be the most common usage. Minority viewpoints such as Russian here are of course welcome but NPOV policies say what those could be used for. Another aspect is political of course. Only Russian or Soviet POV could claim that Baltic Soviet republics were occupied by Nazis. The western including Baltic viewpoint is clear about it, on occupation, meaning Soviet was just replaced with Nazi occupation, then again with Soviet occupation until the restoration of sovereignties of the states or republics or whatever. As a conclusion, the minority POV has taken over here and it is tolerated for some reason despite what the NPOV policies say about situations like that.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the better posts on the topic, I must say. Renata (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Irpen. As I see it:
 * once you strip away opposition to rename based on POV (that the SSRs were not simply occupied territory and were "republics" of the USSR when the Nazis occupied),
 * stick to Relata Refero's "what was used at the time" (still "states", the NYT search as a sample, not finding any preference for "republic" during that period)
 * I believe there is enough evidence to indicate that there is no exception to common usage with regard to the time during which Nazi Germany occupied the Baltics. Retaining "republics" as "more informative" I believe is a minority view, and comments in support of that view have not indicated in what way "republics" is truly more informative: pre-SSR republican governments and SSR "republics" are two different animals, so using "republic" outside of most common usage of "states" is more confusing than clarifying.
 * Bottom line, it's been quiet here for a couple of days now, we should move on to a conclusion whatever that is so we come to closure (not that anything is ever really "closed"!) and move on to other matters. —PētersV (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will Irpen ever concede that "Baltic States" is more common in English usage, despite all the evidence from the New York Times and Time magazine archives of the period of the Nazi occupation, or will he put WP:NPOV policy and WP:COMMONNAME guideline on the back seat in preference to his own view point that it should be "Baltic Republics"? That is the question, will he answer it? Martintg (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say the NYT search is interesting, indicating a split in how these terms were used. The EB references pointing in the other direction are still powerful in my eyes, though. I urge any closing admin to ignore all the claims that one word is inherently POV, as of that I remain unconvinced. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? The EB references are consistent with both the NYT search and the Times Magazine search, which in turn is consistent with the Google book title search, i.e: "Baltic States" is the most common in English, hands down. In the Russian language "Republic" seems marginally more common than "State", while "Country" is most common in Russian, but this is English Wikipedia... Martintg (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The EB references that Irpen provides. I find it particularly interesting that while, overall, they appear to use Baltic states, in this context they use Baltic republics. About the general point, I believe that I have already stated it is irrelevant to the name of this article, in my opinion, so it does not bear extensive repeating. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? First you contend that the term shouldn't be based on recent usage but what was common usage at that time. Then when searches of NYT and Time magazine for articles from the 1941 to 1944 period shows that "Baltic States" is way more common, you seem to back pedal from that position and now claim Irpen's search of EB, written recently, is more "powerful". The irony is that the first EB article Irpen quotes has "Baltic states" twice as often as "Baltic Republics", while the second article has "Baltic republics" in the context of Stalin's viewpoint, obviuosly he would view them as republics. Martintg (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "at that time" but "about that time". The other points you make have already been discussed. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Relata, I would like to understand your objection, if it is one, here. "About that time" versus "at that time" -- well, that sense does include about the Baltics as SSRs as "republics" versus not. If you say that's not part of making the case, current usage still primarily refers to Baltic "states", about the Baltics, regardless of time, so we're still at states over republics. Unless you are saying "republic" is now preferred, in which case you are implicitly advocating the renaming of every Baltic states article for consistency. All of this boils down to a simple point having nothing to do whether I'm right or wrong in my various postulations here: this article's title either conforms to all other titles regarding the Baltic states, or, if left as a non-conforming title, it effectively pushes Dojarca's fringe POV--whether you personally support Dojarca's contentions or not, whether you indicate (for you) Dojarca's contentions apply or not. —PētersV (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think so, I respect that: that's for the closing admin to decide. My own position is simply, that if common usage about the period of this article significantly prefers one term to another, that's the term we go with. The case has been effectively made that overall throughout the twentieth century form B is preferred to form A; whether for this period form A is preferred to form B is the only question. Consistency of the sort you suggest doesn't come into it; most articles about St. Petersburg reflect that name - but not Siege of Leningrad. I choose this as an example close to hand, but there are others I can think of. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming your concern is only usage. To your example, references regarding the SSRs always refer to them as such, so "Latvian republic" is never used to refer to the organizational entity "Latvian SSR" (outside of Soviet sources). Just to clarify with a couple of more examples (I use "invasion" instead of "occupation" to clarify the sense), there are three choices:
 * Nazi invasion of the Baltic states
 * Nazi invasion of the Baltic republics
 * Nazi invasion of the Baltic SSRs
 * As I see it,
 * numbers 1 and 2 are equivalent and I contend common usage should prevail, because...
 * there's been no conclusive demonstration that "republic" applies more during the time of the Nazi occupation; the onus is on supporters of "republic" to prove the historical differentiation as it departs from common usage
 * number 3 is Soviet historiography/Russian official position, the minority/outlier view
 * most importantly, Dojarca, the original editor objecting, has pushed number 2 as meaning number 3 and we have agreed that his contention is his personal POV only and not pertinent to the editorial discussion here regarding the title of the article
 * We'll have to wait now to see what happens. I trust this will be closed and the decision made/stated in a non-partisan fashion (with regard to both "for" rename and "oppose" rename) by a non-partisan admin. —PētersV (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I invite anyone who would like to advocate a different preference/editorial interpretation regarding #1, #2, and #3 to do so (and indicate why) for the closing admin and that we try to avoid further debate--realistically, we've all said anything that needs to be said on the topic and largely more than once. My purpose in the above response is not to have the last word. (After all, if I have confidence in my position, I should feel no need to have the last word.) —PētersV (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern here (as well as much of the overall) is Martin's and Vecrumba's vicious conduct in this and other similar discussions. Whenever there is anything "Soviet" around here, we have this No Holds Barred attitude from these two individuals. That makes me minimize my involvement in certain topics, which by itself may be not so much of a problem to these users and the Wikipedia overall. But the further contribution to this poisonous climate in EE topics damages the whole project greatly.

We get a misleading analysis of Google books results, we get the misleading presentation of Britannica results (does not matter whether deliberate or not in either case) and editors who disagree have to get all sorts of crap thrown at them. This has been on and on for too long. Time for a change. --Irpen 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Irpen - Above, I invited all participating editors to present their own editorial conclusions regarding the three examples I provided for the benefit of the closing admin, specifically stating I would not counter or debate as everything that can be said has been said. You respond to my completely good faith offer not with a summary of your editorial position and rationale, but with an attack on my " vicious " conduct. I would prefer you respond to my offer rather than seek to settle editorial disagreement by defaming my character. —PētersV (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, please restrain your personal attacks and gross assumptions of bad faith here, which does more to poison this debate here than anything else. I presented the initial google searches in good faith to get an indication of the usage distribution of the two terms. There were legitimate criticism of that search. I then added a Google book title search to get an indication of the usage in book titles, and also a search of Time Magazine archives, both which confirmed the initial search. You may not like the results, but please do not accuse me of bad faith or attack me with accusations of "vicious conduct" in an attempt to sway the closing admin. Play the ball, not the person. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, Vecrumba, none of what I said is anywhere near personal attack. And I am not assuming anything here regarding faith. And I have no liking and disliking of the results, as long as they are presented without distortion. --Irpen 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I am genuinely perplexed why your accusation of "vicious" conduct on my part in this particular forum, with no examples from this particular forum, should not be construed as a personal attack upon myself. If that is nowhere near a personal attack, then you use "vicious" far more frivolously than you should. I was gracious enough in our last discussion on the topic to acknowledge that "attack" is in the eye of the beholder. You might consider acknowledging the same as we work together--it's highly unlikely that our interests in the Eastern European sphere can be cleft in such a way as to not overlap.
 * Again, please place my three examples into what you editorially believe is the correct context and summarize your rationale for the closing admin for the choice of states versus republic versus (if you are so inclined) SSR. I've already stated that the purpose is not to debate further, only for those for, or opposing, the move to "states" to (reasonably succinctly, which I believe I did) summarize their position for admin. —PētersV (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Examples? What was this? Or this? Or this clear/muddy stuff? Muddy? I really have seen that attitude around from you for a long time. I almost withdrew from the whole set of topics. I edit much less overall (and feel much better too). --Irpen 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And as for summarizing, this is happening for a while in form of demanding the answers until one likes them. I summarized what I see above and not once. So, did several other editors. You disagree, that's fine. But don't you dare claim anything I say is "muddy". --Irpen 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, above you claim you are not assuming anything here regarding faith, then in the very next sentence you imply the results were willfully distorted, i.e. presented in bad faith! Vecrumba makes a reasonable call for editors to summarise their position in light of the evidence and discussion, and you respond with accusations of "vicious conduct" and bring your grievences of the past to the table, this from someone who is on record as stating they have a thick skin! An observer may forgiven for thinking this is an attempt to derail the closing dicussion that is going against them. Martintg (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did I imply that? Also, "attempt to derail" is a lot of AGF, Martin. --Irpen 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I always attempt to AGF, but I cannot account for what an observer of this discussion may think. It all depends on whether one wants to play the ball or the person. Unfortunately you prematurely added a poll and voted right at the beginning of the discussion, WP:RM guideline indicates this may be divisive, and we do not know if your view has changed in light of the evidence presented subsequently. So please place Vecrumba's three examples into what you editorially believe is the correct context and summarize your rationale for the closing admin for the choice of states versus republic versus SSR. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, we've already discussed my comments elsewhere, and I thought we had had concluded that discussion. For my part, I committed to not judge any interchange between us based on any past conflicts. But since you bring them up,... I promised Renata not to dwell on the past. So, again, putting our past interactions behind us, if you wouldn't mind addressing the three alternatives I mention as to a summary of your position opposing the rename, I sincerely believe it would be of benefit to the closing admin. —PētersV (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first diff, you have written (my emphasis) "Soviets occupied in 1940. They then annexed and the country became the part of the USSR. In 1944 they reclaimed their pre-war borders. Latvia was part of the USSR and treated as such, unlike, say, Afghanistan. You cannot "occupy" your own territory...."
 * Regarding the second diff, my expression of disappointment is exactly that, and it is genuine disappointment. I express frustration and to you it is a vicious attack. Dojarca expresses frustration (not at you, but elsewhere) and you advise him... (my emphasis) "Dojarca, I think you need to calm down a little. Actually, not a little but a lot. Here is a simple trick. Before replying to a talk page entry that angered you, give it a couple of hours not to. Such messages can always wait even much longer. Same applies to reverts. Mother Russia won't collapse from some Wikipedia's article's being at the version which seems "wrong" to you for some extended time."" on his talk page. You appear (to me) to deal with editors differently depending on whether you consider them to be in editorial opposition to you or not. Whom you choose to counsel or accuse is, of course, your prerogative.
 * Finally, as for "muddy", it is hardly a comment on you personally, it is a comment that a survey of all sources produced in the discussion regarding the use of "republic" do not, to my mind, paint a clear picture of preferred usage that uniformly supports going against usual convention ("states") in the title, hence "muddy." It is not a comment directed at you. If I have something to say about something you contend editorially, I will address it directly. (I did not say, "the evidence presented regarding EB was muddy," nor "the case made for republic citing EB was muddy," nor that you personally or intellectually were "muddy.")

May by use Nazi Occupations of Baltic Countries?
I would personally prefer Nazi Occupation of Baltic Countries rather than states or republics. Whether independent Baltic States existed in 1941 is a question of POV, the name republics has a hint of a Soviet Socialist Republic that is unexeptable to many participants. Besides if there independent states existed tey may be monarchies or despoties, who knows. There is no doubt that Baltic Countries as territories existed in 1941 or 1942 or 1946 or even 1880 for that matter. At any rate I do not think the question is important enough to such a number of fine editors to spend so much time arguing here. It is fine with me all three variants Baltic Countries, Baltic States or Baltic Republics Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the proposal was Occupation of the independent Baltic States by Nazi Germany, then you may have a point. However the fact that you need to qualify "Baltic States" with "independent" indicates to me there is nothing inherently POV about "Baltic States", just as there is nothing inherently POV about "Australian states". States can be either independent states or constituent states, that's why we need a qualifier as you demonstrated. The second point is that the pre-war independent states, the post-war dependent states and post-Soviet "re-independent" states are all constitutionally republics in contrast to, say, Australia which is technically a constitutional monarchy. When "states" and "republics" can reasonably refer to any period, then the principle of common usage must apply. To recap, total usage in book titles reveals:
 * Baltic states: 774 hits
 * Baltic countries: 196 hits
 * Baltic republics: 80 hits
 * Usage during the period of Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944, as indicated in both Time Magazine and New York Times digitalarchives, also show a similar usage pattern. Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia and MSN Encarta refer to the Baltic states. In fact Encarta states "Baltic States, independent republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea." While "Baltic republics" can be used in any period, it is not common english language usage, nor is it consistent with usage elsewhere in Wikipedia. If there is a "hint" of a Soviet Socialist Republic in the term "Baltic republic", it is because Dojarca has explicitly stated this as the reason for keeping the current title, that the Nazis occupied Soviet republics and reference to "Baltic states" is somehow construed as "anti-Soviet propaganda". For Dojarca even considers Britannica a POV source, for heaven sakes! Now his view is POV, fringe POV at that. Let's attempt to be encyclopedic here and adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, rather than be held hostage by those holding fringe or extremist viewpoints. Given that both "Baltic states" and "Baltic republics" can and does refer to both Soviet and non-soviet states, then we must rely upon the common name as required by policy  Martintg (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi Occupation of Baltic Countries" ? Please let me remind you that "Nazi" by itself means "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" or "an advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism". The article should be about "occupation by Nazi Germany", meaning Germany that was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Therefore first of all the title should include "Nazi Germany", not just "Nazi" that has slightly different meaning. The second, the use of "Baltic countries" would be much more controversial than "states" or "republics". Correct me if I'm wrong but a country in the context would mean in English that we're talking about sovereign states. Therefore saying that "Baltic countries" existed even in 1880 would open up a question of Occupation of Baltic countries by Russian Empire etc. Just that before the end of WWI a country like Latvia didn't exist for example. Instead there were Livonia and Curonia, and the meaning of "Estonia" was just the northern part of the current Estonia. etc.

Like Martintg has pointed out a state in English can mean either sovereign or constituent state. The use of "Baltic republics" in English would suggest that the article is talking about an occupation of  states or countries that are not led by a hereditary monarch. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)