User:AndriyK/Sandbox

Case name
Neutrality of the word "liberate" and its derivatives

Involved parties
consider using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the context of (re)establishing the Soviet control over Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries during WWII as contradicting NPOV policy.

insist on using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the Soviet Union related WWII articles.


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * (Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

Mediation was proposed but it was refused by Grafikm fr. Mediation makes sence only if most of the involved parties agree to participate, this was not the case.
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment was submitted.

A discussion at Village pump was initiated.

Statement by AndriyK
The word liberate is generally understood as to set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control. Or "to change from not having freedom to having freedom". Athough there is no doubt that Nazi occupation was oppressive and definitely can be characterize as "not having freedom", (re)taking the territories of Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries by the Red Army did not bring freadom to the people. Stalinist regime that was (re)established on those territories resulted in new repressions and one more artificial famine that claimed more than one million human lives. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia. Ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Germans and others) were deported en masse, many people died on the way. Calling this "liberation" is extremely unneutral and can be even considered as offensive by the people who lost their relatives in the famine and the repressions.

The word "liberate" assumes sympathy to the Soviet Army, which contradicts to WP:NPOV stating that the neutral point of view "is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".

I propose using neutral wording like "Soviet Army took control over ..." or "advanced into a certain region" etc. But this proposal was not accepted by the group of users listed above. Morover these users were persistently removing the [tag] that was suposed to indicate the ongoing discussion and prevent the edit war. Then Grafikm fr requested protecting the article misinforming the admins that me was "the only one to claim it is POV" (in fact, a few other people stated their disagreement on the talk page, , ,  with the unnneutral wording used in the article). I think, such a behaviour of Grafikm fr and others is highly uncooperative and hardly helps to improve the Wikipedia content.

I request checking all involved parties by CheckUser: the style of Grafikm fr is very similar to that of Ghirlandajo. They might be sockpuppets.

Statement by party 2

 * (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)