Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence

Comment by Vecrumba #1
[removed, re-presented as my Evidence  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)]

Comment by Vecrumba 2
Regarding Grafikm fr's assertions of "systemic bias":


 * There is no systemic bias. Historically verified sources indicate: (1) puppet government illegally installed through fraudulent election (according to SOVIET documents) (2) a vote to join the Soviet Union by the then still allegedly independent Latvia, an act ILLEGAL according to its constitution which the Soviet Union took great pains to indicate was still in effect [otherwise the joining could not be portrayed as voluntary], (3) a documented de jure transfer of power occurred insuring the continuation of Latvian sovereignty regardless of the situation within the territory of Latvia, etc., etc. And, again, you insist on "neutrality" with not one source to indicate it was not an occupation, only your personally drawn WP:OR comparisons. There is, in fact, a consensus on the occupation except mainly by Russia, which can be seen to have a number of reasons for not joining the consensus. There is no controversy in this matter outside Wikipedia. Creating a controversy within Wikipedia where there is none otherwise is hardly an "advantage" to Wikipedia's readers.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (comment clarification inserted after comment was moved here by Grafikm fr  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Comment by Constanz #1
Regarding Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence by User:Grafikm fr:


 * 1) Repeatedly adding an arbitrary tag - 'based' on WP:OR etc - is not content dispute, but rather Improper use of dispute tags If someone thinks that something is not neutral, this mere thought does not make up a content dispute. Dispute arises from two sides using sources, which contradict. This was not the case.
 * 2) Argument by Grafikm fr:  One has to notice that reasons for this tagging were explained several times and in detail on talk - is not true.
 * 3) Reasons behind POV-title tag were indeed explained with numerous WP:OR and/or straw man arguments (i.e unverifiable claims; (see a small list: ) ).
 * 4) But non-compliance has not been explained at all: here User:Irpen says he added the tag: For now, due to the problems with forking, arbitrariness of presentation and referencing, I will tag the article as . "I'll be back to visit in a few days" and will check up on further developments. --Irpen 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC) and here he says that there are some issues: 3,4,5 are all "non-compliant issues. --Irpen 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC).  Is this realy “tagging were explained several times and in detail”? Constanz - Talk 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Constanz #2

 * 1) User:Grafikm fr claims accusing him of “propaganda” is a serious offense. Wow! You have not found a single reputable source, you exclusively base the dispute on own argumentation or Soviet propaganda thesis- and then feel insulted when the word propaganda is used?


 * 1) Sadly, some users have been accused of “trolling”. Indeed, the word shouldn't be used so often, there are more suitable terms like soapboxing or blogging (in case a talk page is affected - which was the case with the Latvia article). I'll use alternative words, and advise Irpen to refrain from accusations of trolling as well. (The t-word was really too often used here) And what's this? Constanz - Talk 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)