User talk:Philaweb/Archive Sep 2007

Occupations of Latvia
RE:''The article Occupied Japan is really misplaced in this context - Japan surrendered unconditionally with an instrument of surrender. The difference between the Axis powers of World War II and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. Philaweb T-C 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)''

I don't want to get into this mess over there, however, it looked like something deserving a response and therefore I'm getting back to you regarding this over here instead.

First of all, thank you for sharing your opinion. However, please let me point out that your statement questions the reliability of the provided sources in the article: the authority of the European Court of Human Rights, the governments of the US since 1940, the position of the European parliament, last but not least, the position of the Latvian government. It also questions the reliability of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Further on it questions the legal continuity according to those sources, the legal continuity of the Republic of Latvia that surrendered to Soviet ultimatum in 1940, that in essence is no different from the surrendered Japan, even though Latvia wasn't an aggressor at the time in 1940 unlike Japan during the WWII. In 1944 the continuity of the republic according to the provided sources had not been broken, and since Latvia had already surrendered in 1940, lived through a year under the soviet terror, the 4 years of Nazi occupation, suggesting that Latvia would have needed to surrender to USSR in 1944 for second time in order to call it a military occupation of the republic is an interesting concept. In my opinion with the statement over there you have supported the active attack against the history of Latvia on WP by editors that are behind supporting the viewpoint of the Russian government. Which is fine, just that it’s good to know where every editor stands regarding the issue. Med venlig hilsen!--Termer 06:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sveicināti, welcome to my talk page. As I can conclude from your above text, you have not understood the quote of mine you have posted to this page. I am not questioning anything, but merely pointing out that Japan were aggressors and Latvia were not. Whatever you have understood from my text is a projection of your own opinions.
 * The reason why I answered your post in the first place, is because Japan surrendered unconditionally as a result of their aggression, which leaves no space for plausible excuses for the article title of being POV mentioning the word occupation. Japan was occupied, so was Germany after the war, no doubt about it.
 * When it comes to Latvia and other parts of Eastern Europe however, it is a different issue since The Soviet Union were amongst the Allied Forces, i.e. the victorious party. The Soviet Union occupied Latvia in 1940 as aggressors and just returned as occupants in 1944 to 1945, that is true, but as long as the successors of the Soviet Union does not recognize this as fact, the use of the word occupation in this context will always be a POV of the opposition. Just like nowadays when the word occupation is POV when it comes to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is always more than one side to the coin.
 * In my opinion there is not an attack going on against the history of Latvia. There are some issues on how to portray the history of Latvia, where the status of a noncompliant tag has ended up being the symbol of it all.
 * When it comes to the last two lines of your above text, I must say that I really do not like the underlying bullying in the tone used. You have no idea as to where I stand regarding this issue. I am trying to view issues from all perspectives, which is not a common discipline in modern days Baltics, where traditions of being broadminded are very much influenced by 50 years of oppression and totalitarianism.
 * Finally, leave reconciliation to the politicians and write neutral articles citing all parties of a conflict, that is what I am calling for. Philaweb   T - C  14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for explanations. Although BTW. thats exactly what I've done over there citing all parties of a conflict in the article and there are both sides of the the coin present. And I haven't seen anybody denying the occupation of Iraq etc. that the media in the US speaks daily of. Therefore I've no idea what exactly has your post been all about other than just giving opinions without concerning to look into the case at all. Well, thats' not just fine any more in my opinion unlike having opinions that are based on political bias which would have explained your take. Regarding bullying, I've learned it from the editors that represent the Soviet viewpoint on WP, and intend to use it in the future as it has became the only means of dealing with bullying on related articles, either based on political bias or just simple ignorance. PS. I have no idea what Sveicināti means.Thanks!--Termer 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sveicināti! is Latvian for "Tere!". Oh, so I see you have learned something usefull via Wikipedia, how to make your opinions more appealing. Well, good luck to that approach! Philaweb   T - C  19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That’s exactly the problem here! Thanks for pointing it out! The whole thing has nothing to do with "my opinions" or your opinions or making these more or less appealing to anybody. What I've done, I've written in to the article the opinions of the Russian Government, The Soviet Histography versus the decisions of the court, etc. But it's not going to change the take of the editors on WP who rely on their personal opinions and don’t even bother to back up their claims with any sources other than personal opinions and edit WP accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out, that was exactly what I was after.--Termer 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is increcible how you slip out of context, is it not? You come to this page with your projected opinions on my comment and bullying attitude, which you even acknowledge, then you claim your posts on this page has nothing to do with your or my opinions. All I have done is commented and explained on a link you inserted to the Occupations of Latvia article. Did you understand my explanation or should we take it from scratch again? Philaweb   T - C  20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * since it seems this is not going anywhere, and in my eyes you just took the link Occupied Japan out of the context without getting into the article and the discussion that’s been going on for a while, and just threw out your first best bet...I can't see this leading anywhere. But in case you think we might come to a different conclusion on the second round, feel free to take it from scratch again.--Termer 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what you wrote and which made me comment : "Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP Occupied Japan etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article."
 * This is what I read : Since you think the Occupied Japan article speaks of the exact "opposite", i.e. NPOV, to the Occupations of Latvia article, which is being accused of being POV, you think you have got the entire basis you need to accuse opponents of applying double standards and political bias towards the latter artcle.
 * This is what I think : There are no double standards. There are two different situations. Japan surrended unconditionally due to the fatal results of their aggressions, which does not leave any discussion open on whether Japan was occupied or not. Latvia on the other hand was (according to my opinion) occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, which later became one of the winners of the Second World War. Since the Soviet Union did not lose the war, i.e. surrendered unconditionally, it leaves discussions open on whether the Soviet Union actually occupied the Baltic countries or not. Since the Soviet Union did not lose the war, a compromise must be made on this subject with their successor The Russian Federation on the official point of view on the (according to my opinion) Soviet occupations of the Baltic countries. Therefore, in my opinion, we need to make a NPOV title to the Occupations of Latvia article, until a such compromise can be made on political levels.
 * This has nothing to do with sources or facts in the article, this is indeed politically biased, because I think we must realise the differences in opinion of political powers in the world. This is only Wikipedia and we can not change the political climate. We can describe it and try to avoid obvious unconstructive confrontations.
 * Now, excuse me for not taking the time to be this thorough previously, I do hope my opinion is easier to understand now. As you can see, my comment had nothing much to do with the article, but everything to do with your comment. Philaweb   T - C  21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi T - C, the thing you responded to was just me referring to my previous post at Talk:Occupations_of_Latvia

''...A third party collective decision is needed, a question should be raised: what would be a neutral way of naming the articles on WP concerning the liberations-occupations happening during and after the WWII? Would it be OK to cite the sources or is there another approach to solve the issues needed? Since this also includes articles on WP such as Occupied Japan, Allied Occupation Zones in Germany, Soviet occupation of Romania and perhaps some more. It would be a good idea I think to get a NPOV standard for those issues for good. Thanks--Termer 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)''

Your opinion that the naming of Occupied Japan etc. is a different case (on WP) than the name Occupations of Latvia is not shared by the sources such as :government of Latvia, the governments of the US, the European parliament, the European court of human rights, the sources that clearly refer to and speak of Soviet occupation during 1940-1941 and 1944-1991 in Latvia. Therefore unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about the issue. Regarding finding a more neutral title for the article than personally I've suggested on the talk page exactly 2X renaming it Latvia in WWII, the proposal that has been rejected by other editors on both occasions. Thanks!--Termer 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to remind you, it is actually also your opinion that you "...don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP Occupied Japan etc. speak of exact opposite.". You think that an article speaks of the opposite, that is having an opinion, my friend, since there are no "NPOV standard for those issues".
 * I do not think sources such as the ones you mention could care less about whether they share my and others opinions on what is POV or NPOV on Wikipedia. Get a grip! Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.
 * Your proposal of renaming the article to Latvia in WWII is very close to the proposal made by Irpen. He proposes titles like History of Latvia (1940-1991) etc., which I actually think is a good idea until the political issue settles. Philaweb   T - C  21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for asking for my opinion. It is simple, what we're dealing with, it's a typical case of a rape where the rapist denies he ever raped anybody and even claims that the victim asked for it. There is nothing more to it in my opinion. And surely, once it's about rape, there is a POV of the victim and the POV of the rapist. therefor you're right on target there regarding my POV. regarding calling the title something more neutral, I've come up with the suggestion several times, just to keep the story going. But since the other victims of the rape refuse to go along with calling the case a "bad marriage", so it's not going to happened, it should be clear by now. --Termer 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ps. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia its a "home made" encyclopedia at best (my opinion, no need to remind me). "just an encyclopedia" is Encyclopedia Britannica that includes the Soviet occupation of Latvia, the article at WP is based on. and this is not an opinion but a fact. --Termer 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)