1342:, where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has
1695:
advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side.
968:! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (
1867:"occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived.
2331:
family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If
Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues.
1966:
However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring
Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics).
2125:, therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --
434:
413:
243:
2341:, I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the
367:
349:
539:
518:
444:
318:
884:
country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and
Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page.
1789:. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --
1321:
of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the
Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-
288:
1515:
Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous
Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular.
858:
Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive. It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive. Edit-warring over a dispute tag is
2309:
1445:
now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--
1375:
Missing acceptance of
Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented?
1350:
simply object to it because they wish to persuade
Knowledge readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition.
1570:
position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the
Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed."
2350:
scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see
Grafikm_fr's accusations against me
2330:
With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of
1874:
That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Knowledge will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that
1808:
Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would
1694:
You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not
1405:
And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Knowledge, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on
1320:
Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose
1265:
Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using
1115:
That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag
2382:
Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page—with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed
2333:
But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians
2143:
As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be
2110:
Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says:
1965:
On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war.
1784:
I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at
1012:
All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic
963:
on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties
857:
An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens). I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken. "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call. It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad
685:
The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th
1860:
I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm"
1531:
I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did
1444:
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. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for
883:
Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific
734:
I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they
2349:
The conflict here and elsewhere in Knowledge regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to
2139:
This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be
1849:
and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by
1374:
The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part.
1349:
Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings
1126:
I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside):
950:
Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally
754:
As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a
2135:
Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies
1439:
Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a
819:
to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the
1861:
comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them.
1569:
To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation
689:
It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled.
2201:
Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in
1261:
And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent"
1162:
Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be
681:
The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but
1514:
Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere.
1875:
tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute.
1866:
If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from
1770:
P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in
2232:. Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) —
725:
evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history.
1406:
the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays.
1840:
entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors
1809:
have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history.
1426:--of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality."
2450:
That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after
2362:
An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Knowledge does not exist to serve and defend the
1532:
not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"?
1755:
It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that
1257:
Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you
1870:
Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in
796:
Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September
1032:
P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they
1562:
There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
2262:. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's
2161:! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--
2136:
which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies.
177:
2437:
Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not
1158:
The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others.
2266:
in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of
2360:, thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions).
1188:
History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles.
1785:
least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors
1741:
in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought.
855:
Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."
1752:
I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb.
1604:. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced.
68:
171:
2414:
Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up
1457:
In other words, Knowledge has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it.
1254:"History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles.
702:
PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent.
1488:
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.
626:
214:
2006:
Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together.
1878:
It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive.
890:? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations
959:. I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving
1332:
I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable.
254:
1581:
about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is
1346:
announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality?
2479:
379:
2097:, well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics.
1898:
And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this is dealt with.
378:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
1566:
The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law.
790:, the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes
2474:
302:
2297:
I have prepared the navbox of {{Soviet occupation}} but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article.
103:
2111:"I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page.
192:
2489:
1020:
frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech.
490:
1420:
With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry--
719:
The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely
159:
500:
1597:. You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources.
2393:
being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet
593:
374:
354:
48:
2504:
2469:
678:
The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.
583:
109:
2494:
686:
century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.
2509:
2484:
153:
1180:
1176:
2499:
792:
A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika
466:
2357:
2354:
2351:
1895:
149:
1481:
559:
1270:: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic.
652:
123:
54:
1143:
Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic.
199:
2418:. Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--
1854:
1793:
1746:
128:
44:
1707:
1600:
If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact,
1544:
1500:
1387:
1310:
1234:
730:
only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed
98:
2181:
1608:
1152:
1054:
836:
Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like?
457:
418:
329:
273:
250:
964:
signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡
2415:
2185:
1485:
1329:" camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate.
555:
551:
546:
523:
89:
1076:
P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well.
165:
2224:
I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has
777:
465:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
269:
209:
1999:
More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations.
1339:
1148:
1094:
I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --
223:
2334:
write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen."
1629:
1477:
728:
The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact,
648:
133:
2259:
2243:
1010:
m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)))
2292:
261:
272:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
2390:
1602:
thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity
1267:
1061:
863:
825:
335:
297:
2455:
2442:
2432:
2422:
2404:
2377:
2319:
2301:
2280:
2271:
2252:
2236:
2213:
2192:
2175:
2165:
2151:
2129:
2115:
2104:
1976:
1948:
1938:
1926:
1905:
1885:
1830:
1816:
1778:
1763:
1712:
1677:
1658:
1549:
1522:
1505:
1461:
1449:
1433:
1413:
1392:
1357:
1315:
1277:
1239:
1202:
That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing
1193:
1120:
1098:
1086:
1071:
1044:
1027:
991:
979:
925:
900:
866:
840:
828:
820:
probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict
805:
762:
748:
706:
697:
1663:
1643:
1639:
1614:
253:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
2121:
Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a
1961:
In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period:
1037:
specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation.
2298:
2101:
1458:
837:
265:
185:
79:
1653:
227:
2122:
1701:
1538:
1494:
1381:
1304:
1228:
1172:
228:
94:
1624:
2428:
Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page.
2367:
aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians
1634:
1013:
origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here.
741:
Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs.
2439:
2078:
1648:
1168:
75:
1993:
922:
225:
1916:
And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen
2384:
2074:
2051:
2018:
1802:
I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat:
1077:
17:
2140:
one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period.
1151:
which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like
433:
412:
2316:
1473:
1441:
644:
984:
P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight.
921:
Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? --
2463:
2429:
2400:
2373:
2209:
2158:
2147:
2063:
2032:
1944:
1922:
1901:
1881:
1826:
1812:
1774:
1759:
1696:
1673:
1533:
1518:
1489:
1429:
1409:
1376:
1353:
1299:
1273:
1223:
1082:
1067:
1040:
1023:
987:
975:
896:
799:
758:
744:
713:
703:
694:
669:
449:
788:
242:
2347:
as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here.
2338:
2233:
2022:
1937:
And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated
1322:
1117:
1106:
960:
656:
1325:
sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+
2452:
2419:
2268:
2263:
2248:
2189:
2162:
2126:
2094:
2036:
1972:
1896:
Evidence page from occupation of Latvia request for arbitration seven months ago
1446:
1343:
1095:
802:
770:
366:
348:
1298:
about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles.
1053:
Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the
693:
Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit.
2070:
2059:
2047:
2014:
1851:
1790:
1743:
1251:"Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof.
1190:
1179:. "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called
439:
1183:
and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA.
2277:
2172:
2112:
1986:
538:
517:
1147:
The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be
1862:
1619:
2188:. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--
287:
1248:
Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons:
2308:
1989:
has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them.
780:
as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is
682:
shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.
462:
1611:? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes:
2242:
In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to
1823:
P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again.
957:
which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied
2276:
I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV!
2087:). In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made.
1970:
So this puts an another reliable published source on the table.
1799:
Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately?
2171:
And get three more places where to battle with other editors.
609:
311:
282:
237:
229:
39:
26:
2077:
have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article,
1725:
Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article
782:
widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias
643:
Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of
306:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
558:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
260:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
2229:
1016:
You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're
2368:
2335:
2203:
2085:
2082:
2025:, instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by
1917:
1846:
1837:
1730:
891:
885:
2054:
has answered to the discussion. The only significant
1288:
is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called
184:
1587:
about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else.
2066:
using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling.
1850:
ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --
461:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2326:Personal views versus referenced reliable sources
1575:This is so totally and completely and absolutely
755:head eventually gave up and abandoned Knowledge.
675:Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.
57:for general discussion of the article's subject.
776:For now I'm just going to continue counting on
2228:been Russian. Download and read it yourselves
786:Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation
1670:and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being.
198:
8:
2039:and others have provided further discussion.
1607:BTW, have you read the article and talk for
1476:is really misplaced in this context - Japan
1079:Just ran across this completely by accident.
550:, an attempt to structure and organize all
1171:series. It is divided into such articles.
512:
407:
343:
317:
315:
1591:On the contrary, all I am asking for is
784:. The encyclopedia that has an article:
554:. If you wish to help, please visit the
663:Statements by those previously involved
514:
409:
345:
388:Knowledge:WikiProject Former countries
294:List of military occupations of Latvia
49:List of military occupations of Latvia
2480:WikiProject Former countries articles
2180:and get more than enough evidence of
1729:A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry
1335:The title comparison that is suitable
1284:Well, as I see it, an article called
1206:into subarticles, my proposition is:
391:Template:WikiProject Former countries
7:
544:This article is within the scope of
455:This article is within the scope of
372:This article is within the scope of
2204:my "ignorance in international law"
2144:a continuous narrative into pieces.
1724:
853:This article is under probation. "
334:It is of interest to the following
300:by Knowledge editors, which is now
47:for discussing improvements to the
2475:List-Class former country articles
1153:Occupation of Baltic States (term)
659:?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
25:
639:Request for Comment: Noncompliant
2307:
2202:arithmetic is as "legendary" as
2021:has presented any contradicting
537:
516:
442:
432:
411:
365:
347:
316:
286:
241:
69:Click here to start a new topic.
2490:High-importance Latvia articles
2258:I support renaming the article
1266:the word "occupation" are more
737:I believe I've covered them all
588:This article has been rated as
495:This article has been rated as
2456:15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2443:11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2433:10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2423:07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2405:00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2320:03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2214:19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2193:07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2176:04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2166:04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2152:15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2130:06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1836:I assume you are referring to
1589:Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs?
953:according to international law
1:
2378:23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2302:16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2281:21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2272:21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2253:17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2237:15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2116:14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2105:13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1977:19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1949:04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1927:04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1906:03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1886:01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1855:00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1831:00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1817:00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1794:00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1779:23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1764:23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1747:23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1713:15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1678:23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1550:22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1523:19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1506:22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1484:. The difference between the
1462:20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1450:19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1434:19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1414:19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1393:23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1358:22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1316:22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1278:19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1240:11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1194:10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1181:History of Poland (1945–1989)
1177:History of Poland (1795–1918)
1121:08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1099:06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1087:05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1072:01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1045:19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1028:19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
992:04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
980:04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
926:03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
901:02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
867:21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
841:20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
829:17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
806:18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
763:16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
749:15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
707:15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
698:15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
469:and see a list of open tasks.
274:contentious topics procedures
66:Put new text under old text.
2505:Low-importance List articles
2470:Old requests for peer review
2182:Knowledge:Disruptive_editing
1845:right above as well as even
1609:Soviet occupation of Romania
1340:Soviet Occupation of Romania
1055:Soviet occupation of Romania
475:Knowledge:WikiProject Latvia
375:WikiProject Former countries
2495:WikiProject Latvia articles
2416:Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)
2410:Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)
2186:Knowledge:Gaming the system
1486:Axis powers of World War II
1478:surrendered unconditionally
1149:Occupation of Latvia (term)
568:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists
478:Template:WikiProject Latvia
74:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2526:
2510:WikiProject Lists articles
2485:List-Class Latvia articles
1733:. Calling your opponents
1440:POV, since evidence on WP
594:project's importance scale
571:Template:WikiProject Lists
501:project's importance scale
18:Talk:Occupations of Latvia
1630:Piotrus+Ghirlandajo (RfA)
587:
532:
494:
427:
360:
342:
276:before editing this page.
104:Be welcoming to newcomers
33:Skip to table of contents
2500:List-Class List articles
653:WP:What Knowledge is not
270:normal editorial process
32:
1482:instrument of surrender
778:Encyclopædia Britannica
552:list pages on Knowledge
394:former country articles
257:as a contentious topic.
1996:protected the article.
1968:
1894:Today's time capsule:
1594:intellectual integrity
1131:1940 Soviet occupation
324:This article is rated
266:standards of behaviour
99:avoid personal attacks
2440:Alexia Death the Grey
2389:The age of unsourced
2260:Liberations of Latvia
2244:Liberations of Latvia
2062:'s mock offence over
1963:
1847:earlier at the Arbcom
1262:article is essential.
1057:for more examples of
124:Neutral point of view
2397:must come to an end.
1140:Latvia under Soviets
735:could shoot Jews...
262:purpose of Knowledge
129:No original research
1957:Other encyclopedias
888:Not seeking to sway
2401:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
2374:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
2220:Who occupied whom?
2210:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
2159:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
2148:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
2027:original arguments
1945:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1923:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1902:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1882:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1827:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1813:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1775:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1760:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1674:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1620:Durova (Mediation)
1519:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1430:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1410:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1354:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1274:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1173:Partitioned Poland
1134:German occupation,
1083:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1068:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1041:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
1024:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
988:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
976:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
897:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
759:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
745:PÄ“ters J. Vecrumba
458:WikiProject Latvia
330:content assessment
251:contentious topics
110:dispute resolution
71:
2370:at the Wiki-gate.
2079:Soviet occupation
1735:"this exact same
1664:Petri Krohn (RfC)
1659:Irpen (checkuser)
1642:— note ruling of
1615:Ghirlandajo (RfC)
1175:is a redirect to
1169:History of Poland
636:
635:
632:
631:
608:
607:
604:
603:
600:
599:
547:WikiProject Lists
511:
510:
507:
506:
406:
405:
402:
401:
310:
309:
281:
280:
236:
235:
90:Assume good faith
67:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
2517:
2403:
2376:
2353:and my response
2311:
2296:
2212:
2150:
1947:
1925:
1904:
1884:
1829:
1815:
1777:
1762:
1710:
1704:
1699:
1676:
1547:
1541:
1536:
1521:
1503:
1497:
1492:
1432:
1412:
1390:
1384:
1379:
1356:
1313:
1307:
1302:
1276:
1237:
1231:
1226:
1111:
1105:
1085:
1070:
1043:
1026:
990:
978:
899:
824:will be banned.
761:
747:
649:WP:Verifiability
623:
622:
610:
576:
575:
572:
569:
566:
541:
534:
533:
528:
520:
513:
483:
482:
479:
476:
473:
452:
447:
446:
445:
436:
429:
428:
423:
415:
408:
396:
395:
392:
389:
386:
385:Former countries
380:join the project
369:
362:
361:
355:Former countries
351:
344:
327:
321:
320:
319:
312:
290:
283:
245:
238:
230:
203:
202:
188:
119:Article policies
40:
27:
21:
2525:
2524:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2460:
2459:
2412:
2398:
2385:Occupied Latvia
2371:
2328:
2290:
2288:
2222:
2207:
2145:
1984:
1959:
1942:
1920:
1899:
1879:
1824:
1810:
1805:"where this "
1772:
1757:
1739:of editors..."
1727:
1708:
1702:
1697:
1671:
1545:
1539:
1534:
1516:
1501:
1495:
1490:
1427:
1407:
1388:
1382:
1377:
1351:
1311:
1305:
1300:
1271:
1235:
1229:
1224:
1109:
1103:
1080:
1065:
1062:I don't like it
1038:
1021:
985:
973:
894:
813:
774:
756:
742:
717:
673:
665:
641:
617:
573:
570:
567:
564:
563:
526:
497:High-importance
481:Latvia articles
480:
477:
474:
471:
470:
448:
443:
441:
422:High‑importance
421:
393:
390:
387:
384:
383:
328:on Knowledge's
325:
264:, any expected
232:
231:
226:
145:
140:
139:
138:
115:
85:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2523:
2521:
2513:
2512:
2507:
2502:
2497:
2492:
2487:
2482:
2477:
2472:
2462:
2461:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2438:appreciated.--
2411:
2408:
2391:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
2388:
2361:
2348:
2332:
2327:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2287:
2284:
2256:
2255:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2155:
2154:
2141:
2137:
2119:
2118:
2099:
2098:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2069:However, both
2067:
2041:
2040:
2030:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1983:
1980:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1889:
1888:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1834:
1833:
1820:
1819:
1806:
1803:
1800:
1782:
1781:
1767:
1766:
1753:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1661:
1656:
1654:Halibutt (RfC)
1651:
1646:
1644:editor amnesty
1637:
1632:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1605:
1598:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1526:
1525:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1474:Occupied Japan
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1442:Occupied Japan
1437:
1436:
1417:
1416:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1347:
1330:
1327:legal presence
1281:
1280:
1268:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1124:
1123:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1074:
1048:
1047:
1030:
1014:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
982:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
846:
845:
844:
843:
812:
809:
773:
767:
766:
765:
740:
733:
727:
716:
710:
672:
666:
664:
661:
640:
637:
634:
633:
630:
629:
619:
618:
613:
606:
605:
602:
601:
598:
597:
590:Low-importance
586:
580:
579:
577:
542:
530:
529:
527:Low‑importance
521:
509:
508:
505:
504:
493:
487:
486:
484:
467:the discussion
454:
453:
437:
425:
424:
416:
404:
403:
400:
399:
397:
370:
358:
357:
352:
340:
339:
333:
322:
308:
307:
291:
279:
278:
246:
234:
233:
224:
222:
221:
218:
217:
205:
204:
142:
141:
137:
136:
131:
126:
117:
116:
114:
113:
106:
101:
92:
86:
84:
83:
72:
63:
62:
59:
58:
52:
36:
35:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2522:
2511:
2508:
2506:
2503:
2501:
2498:
2496:
2493:
2491:
2488:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2478:
2476:
2473:
2471:
2468:
2467:
2465:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2444:
2441:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2421:
2417:
2409:
2407:
2406:
2402:
2396:
2392:
2386:
2380:
2379:
2375:
2369:
2366:
2359:
2355:
2352:
2346:
2345:
2340:
2336:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2300:
2294:
2293:editprotected
2285:
2283:
2282:
2279:
2274:
2273:
2270:
2265:
2261:
2254:
2251:
2250:
2245:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2205:
2200:
2199:
2194:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2174:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2164:
2160:
2153:
2149:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2124:
2117:
2114:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2096:
2093:
2092:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2031:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2011:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1988:
1981:
1979:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1967:
1962:
1956:
1950:
1946:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1928:
1924:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1903:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1853:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1832:
1828:
1822:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1807:
1804:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1792:
1788:
1780:
1776:
1769:
1768:
1765:
1761:
1754:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1740:
1738:
1732:
1714:
1711:
1705:
1700:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1679:
1675:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1641:
1640:Piotrus (RfA)
1638:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1625:Piotrus (RfC)
1623:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1551:
1548:
1542:
1537:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1504:
1498:
1493:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1443:
1435:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1404:
1403:
1394:
1391:
1385:
1380:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1355:
1348:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1308:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1238:
1232:
1227:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1160:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1142:
1139:
1137:Soviet return
1136:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1122:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1088:
1084:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1036:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
993:
989:
983:
981:
977:
971:
967:
962:
958:
954:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
927:
924:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
902:
898:
892:
889:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
868:
865:
861:
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
842:
839:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
827:
823:
818:
810:
808:
807:
804:
800:
798:
793:
789:
787:
783:
779:
772:
768:
764:
760:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
738:
731:
724:
723:
715:
714:User:Vecrumba
711:
709:
708:
705:
700:
699:
696:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
671:
670:User:Novickas
667:
662:
660:
658:
654:
650:
646:
638:
628:
625:
624:
621:
620:
616:
612:
611:
595:
591:
585:
582:
581:
578:
574:List articles
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
543:
540:
536:
535:
531:
525:
522:
519:
515:
502:
498:
492:
489:
488:
485:
468:
464:
460:
459:
451:
450:Latvia portal
440:
438:
435:
431:
430:
426:
420:
417:
414:
410:
398:
381:
377:
376:
371:
368:
364:
363:
359:
356:
353:
350:
346:
341:
337:
331:
323:
314:
313:
305:
304:
299:
295:
292:
289:
285:
284:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
256:
252:
247:
244:
240:
239:
220:
219:
216:
213:
211:
207:
206:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
144:
143:
135:
134:Verifiability
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
111:
107:
105:
102:
100:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
81:
77:
76:Learn to edit
73:
70:
65:
64:
61:
60:
56:
50:
46:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
2449:
2413:
2394:
2381:
2364:
2343:
2342:
2339:Transnistria
2329:
2315:. Cheers. --
2312:
2289:
2275:
2267:Knowledge!--
2257:
2247:
2225:
2223:
2156:
2120:
2100:
2055:
2026:
1985:
1971:
1969:
1964:
1960:
1939:RfA Digwuren
1842:
1835:
1786:
1783:
1737:Wiki-schmutz
1736:
1734:
1728:
1635:Molobo (RfC)
1601:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1472:The article
1438:
1422:
1421:
1334:
1333:
1326:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1187:
1185:
1167:. Check the
1164:
1161:
1157:
1146:
1125:
1102:
1093:
1058:
1034:
1017:
1009:
969:
965:
956:
952:
887:
862:disruptive.
859:
854:
821:
816:
814:
795:
791:
785:
781:
775:
769:Comments by
736:
729:
721:
720:
718:
712:Comments by
701:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
674:
668:Comments by
642:
614:
589:
556:project page
545:
496:
456:
373:
336:WikiProjects
301:
293:
259:
248:
208:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
118:
43:This is the
2383:rename to "
2264:Sovereignty
2157:Thats cool
2123:WP:DEADLINE
1994:Thatcher131
1649:Irpen (RfC)
1344:Jimmy Wales
966:Qué lástima
923:Petri Krohn
864:Thatcher131
826:Thatcher131
801:. Thanks!--
771:User:Termer
298:peer review
296:received a
172:free images
55:not a forum
2464:Categories
2075:Grafikm_fr
2052:Grafikm_fr
2019:Grafikm_fr
860:definitely
560:discussion
326:List-class
255:designated
2365:fictional
2317:MZMcBride
2058:has been
1871:question.
970:unsourced
811:Protected
627:Archive 1
268:, or any
112:if needed
95:Be polite
45:talk page
2430:Martintg
2299:Digwuren
2102:Digwuren
2064:Vecrumba
2056:response
2046:Neither
2033:Vecrumba
2013:Neither
1771:Latvia).
1756:context.
1698:Philaweb
1535:Philaweb
1491:Philaweb
1480:with an
1459:Digwuren
1378:Philaweb
1301:Philaweb
1258:suggest?
1225:Philaweb
838:Digwuren
704:Novickas
695:Novickas
615:Archives
303:archived
210:Archives
80:get help
53:This is
51:article.
2451:here.--
2395:fiction
2234:Zalktis
1787:schumtz
1423:version
1118:Zalktis
1018:already
815:I have
645:WP:NPOV
592:on the
499:on the
178:WPÂ refs
166:scholar
2453:Termer
2420:Termer
2356:. And
2286:Navbox
2269:Termer
2249:Reinis
2226:always
2190:Termer
2163:Termer
2127:Termer
2095:Termer
2037:Reinis
1982:Status
1973:Reinis
1843:Shmutz
1447:Termer
1116:... —
1096:Termer
803:Termer
472:Latvia
463:Latvia
419:Latvia
332:scale.
150:Google
2344:right
2071:Irpen
2060:Irpen
2048:Irpen
2023:WP:RS
2015:Irpen
1852:Irpen
1791:Irpen
1744:Irpen
1731:above
1323:WP:OR
1191:Irpen
1059:casus
1035:never
961:WP:OR
817:tried
657:WP:OR
565:Lists
524:Lists
193:JSTOR
154:books
108:Seek
2358:here
2313:Done
2278:Suva
2230:here
2184:and
2173:Suva
2113:Suva
2073:and
2050:nor
2017:nor
1987:Suva
1838:this
1584:ONLY
1218:and
1186:The
1008:re:
722:zero
655:and
491:High
249:The
186:FENS
160:news
97:and
2399:—
2387:."
2372:—
2337:On
2208:—
2146:—
1943:—
1921:—
1900:—
1880:—
1825:—
1811:—
1773:—
1758:—
1672:—
1578:NOT
1517:—
1428:—
1408:—
1352:—
1338:is
1295:all
1292:is
1272:—
1155:.
1107:POV
1081:—
1066:—
1039:—
1022:—
986:—
974:—
895:—
822:who
757:—
743:—
584:Low
200:TWL
2466::
2295:}}
2291:{{
2246:.
2084:,
2035:,
1919:.
1742:--
1222:.
1214:,
1210:,
1189:--
1110:}}
1104:{{
972:).
955:,
797:6.
794:+
739:.
732:.
651:,
180:)
78:;
2206:!
2081:(
2029:.
1941:.
1709:C
1706:-
1703:T
1546:C
1543:-
1540:T
1502:C
1499:-
1496:T
1389:C
1386:-
1383:T
1312:C
1309:-
1306:T
1290:]
1286:]
1236:C
1233:-
1230:T
1220:]
1216:]
1212:]
1208:]
1204:]
1165:]
1064:.
893:.
647:,
596:.
562:.
503:.
382:.
338::
215:1
212::
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
82:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
