The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Having read this discussion and the disputed article, I believe that the article does amount to a POV fork. (It is not, however, a recreation of the deleted Soviet occupation denialism.) Its title, structure and content are clearly intended to draw a parallel between the Russian government's position and the general phenomenon of denialism. Few if any of the article's sources support the depiction of the Russian government's position in this light, suggesting that the framing of the article reflects the biases of its editors rather than the position of the sources (which contravenes WP:OR). The article is framed from the start as an exposition of a particular point of view on the legitimacy of the Russian presence in the Baltic states (thus violating WP:NPOV). As several people have noted, there seems to be no good reason why the position of the Russian government cannot be discussed in Occupation of Baltic states; much of the content in Denial of Soviet occupation appears to overlap with that article in any case. I suggest that Occupation of Baltic states#Official position of the Russian government should be expanded first; then, if there is agreement among editors, there should be a spinout under a neutral article name (not "Denial of Soviet occupation"). -- ChrisO 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Soviet occupation

[edit]

Reason: already deleted (as Soviet occupation denialism). This article is a re-creation of a recently deleted (see discussion) POV fork, created by a number of closely associated accounts (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX, User:Sander Säde, Alexia Death), based in Estonia, as well as Martintg representing extreme nationalist point of view. We already have numerous relevant articles and POV forks Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupations (created by the same user), Soviet occupations of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Soviet occupation of Estonia and many others, covering the question. The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation (there was a mutual personal agreement to promote each other's POV articles between reviewers [1]), altough the decision was quickly revised. I was unable to put deletion template into the article as it is now blocked due to permanent edit-war. The creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him (see blocklog:[2]). He also already has been blocked for re-creation of deleted articles. Besides i want to note that the very name of the article is inherently POV as it recalls associations with Holocaust denial.--Dojarca 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Article is not re-creation of deleted material, it is a total rewrite according to the suggestions from previous AfD
  2. "created by a number of closely associated accounts" is flat out lie. Article was created by Digwuren - nor are accounts "closely related"
  3. "extreme nationalist point of view" means in this context that Dojarca does not agree with material sourced in BBC, Holocaust Encyclopedia, European Parliament and numerous books.
  4. "accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation". Once again, a lie. No "mob" was created, Digwuren did GA request alone. And "several hours" is actually 28 hours.
  5. "creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him". Half lie, the unblock reason is "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [3].

-- Sander Säde 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have some issues some of the inaccuracies of the nomination
  • It is a re-creation of a recently deleted article. Apparently there are significant differences between the this and the deleted article. No policy against creating improved articles that are sunstantially different to the deleted article.
  • created by a number of closely associated accounts based in Estonia. Actually only one individual created this article
  • The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA. Only a single person handled the GA process, the creator. Martintg 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see also Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Denial of Soviet occupation. Also, several administrators have not seen fit to dominate this article to AfD. -- Sander Säde 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Digwuren was unblocked not because "only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him". Instead he was unblocked because "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [5]. Please stop your attempts to paint all Estonian users as some kind of nationalist trolls and follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines (note that there are no edits in the article by me). -- Sander Säde 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the article, it is a total rewrite, not "re-creation" -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article, hence the OR & POV issues, but considering that the last article was deleted, I'm going on the nom's word in regard to the recreation of text. OR & POV are still sufficiant enough for me to oppose. Spawn Man 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to show, which part of the WP:NPOV guideline it breaks? There is no "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" clause there. -- Sander Säde 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It presents opinion as a fact.--Dojarca 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article attempts to present the fact of the opinion, which is perfectly acceptable. Martintg 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Dojarca there SS. Besides, I really don't think that arguing we're all Pro-Soviet is a legitimate argument do you? If no one else, I have given rationale as to why the article should be deleted and I didn't even comment on the last AfD. You could say that I was an unbiased party before this AfD. Spawn Man 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [6] - version that was accepted as GA. In my opinion it is quite a lot better, then the current protected version. -- Sander Säde 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I still would have voted delete then too as POV. If the article is a complete rewrite, then how come this POV sentence still exists in the current article as it did in the old version? "Soviet Union was a strongly ideology-based regime with peculiar ideas..." Peculiar etc? "As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." The article keeps on barraging the reader with anti-Soviet text; that is why it's POV. It needs to be neutral. C'mon guys, I thought the Cold War finished ages ago! Spawn Man 11:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." is both sourced and fact, how is it not neutral? -- Sander Säde 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only source for that is a phrase by Estonian nationalist politician Tunne Kelam. Is it reliable source for you?--Dojarca 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a non-Russian source that either calls Tunne Kelam "nationalist politician" or tells that there is another country in Europe, that denies occupation (very probably Belorussia does, as it is under dictatorship as well)? -- Sander Säde 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is unsourced and you indirectly accept it by asking for a non-Russian source. An Estonian politician cannot be taken as neutral by the same rationale: he is an involved party here and has an inherent conflict of interest. --Yury Petrachenko 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys, stop. Sander Säde, you're being way too argumentative in regard to this AfD; calling us Soviet lovers, replying to everything, making obviously inflammatory remarks when a user gives their rationale etc etc. Please stop. It's an article on an online encyclopedia! Who cares? If you're going to get all wrapped up about it, I'd suggest everyone else stops replying to Sander, and you Sander, should occupy your time on Wikipedia with another endevour. I'm sure there's another article out there you'd rather be editing or which could need your help? Anyway, guys, just cool it. Regards, Spawn Man 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so - what we have is nummerous articles on occupations of this and occupations of that - those are historical events. Denial of Soviet occupation in turn is a modern concept in politics. This isn't about whether there was or was not any occupation, but about the fact that there is an argument in which one side denies that there was occupation. The article is POVish (starting with "revisionist" and "echoed" in the lead) and has redundant sections (namely how the hell is "Economic background" connected with this ?), it should be worked with, but I think that the concept is notable enough to have it. ---- Xil...sist! 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "modern concept" but one of the mainstram points of view all after the WWII.--Dojarca 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern" in sence still important, and if it exists for 60 years as you imply surely that is another proof that it is important and could be improved beyond POV and OR -- Xil...sist! 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Original research. The article is not legitimately created - it is a bunch of POV and dubiously phrased garbage and synthesis (my favourite is the creation of a specious Wikiquote page to lend this rubbish some legitimacy). But it will no doubt get kept, as I see the hordes of meatpuppets have now arrived. Neil ム 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That quote you have states that the article must have the point of view subject expressed neutrally and that it should cross-reference other articles with different points of view. The neutrality in that article is not very high and the articles linked to with other points of view have disputed neutrality tags on them. Captain panda 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point is well taken, but I don't believe lack of neutrality is sufficient ground for deletion. What improvements do you suggest to increase the level of neutrality? Note that all a tag indicates is that there is no concensus among editors that an article is neutral, nothing more, it only takes one dissenting editor to tag an article. No doubt creationist would view the article Evolution and not neutral, and vice versa and we would have endless tag wars as a result. That is why Wikipedia has this principle I quoted above. Martintg 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that just because an article covers a controversial topic does not necessarily mean that it lacks neutrality. For example, the articles that you gave me, Evolution and Creationism, do not have neutrality tags. As for improvements to help the neutrality, I would first suggest confirming or removing the many disputed references in the article. Also, various statements such as "The Soviet regime, in a classic way of totalitarianism", should be rephrased. In addition, though it only takes one editor to add such a tag, it only takes one to remove it if it foolishly placed. The tag has to have some merit or it would have been removed quite some time ago. Captain panda 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feed back, I'll chase up those issues you mentioned. A number of editors below like Irpen, believes denial of Soviet occupation is a valid topic, and I believe the article can be improved further, so under those circumstances you would keep? Martintg 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. If the article is improved like I suggested, I would still be not sure if it is a topic that should be included, but I would be open for it to be kept as it wouldn't cause any problems. For now, I am still going to say Delete. Captain panda 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To compare a serious article to a poop is a really interesting way of conversation. Congratulations Tymek 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make such comparison. I merely stated that the validity of the topic is not enough reason to keep. The validity of the article as of the time of the AfD is needed. --Irpen 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between a topic and an article? If the topic of the denial of Soviet occupation is valid as you say, then why wouldn't the article be ammenable to improvement? Martintg 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the valid article on a valid topic would have to be written from scratch and the current state of it is useless for the future article, as I believe it is, it cannot be called "amenable to improvement". The topic is "amenable to coverage" is not the same as the article in the form as of AfD being usable for such coverage. I am not suggesting to salt the Earth and prevent the article's recreation. I am merely commenting on the article we have, not the encyclopedic potential of the topic. If you are willing to completely rewrite it and replace the nonsense whose citations do not even support it with a short but valid stub, I would change my vote to keep. I do not oppose the very existence of the article under this title. I am only commenting on the article in its current shape and form. When my substub on a totally valid topic was deleted based on this discussion I did not have a problem with that. The main qualm of those who voted delete was not lack of the subject's validity, but lack of the content's validity and usefulness at the time of AfD. If anyone ever rewrites that redirect into a valid article, I am sure it would survive. Same here. I call for the deletion of the useless junk in its current form and shape only. I do not call for the protection of the redlink from recreation unless it becomes abusive. This is only a second recreation. So, it is too early to Salt the Earth. --Irpen 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Captain panda has already offered some suggestions for improvement and your inline tags you added today are a great help too. Thanks. Martintg 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, I apologize for my bluntness, but your accusations of "neo-Nazi connotations and Holocaust denial issues" are absurd, outrageous, slanderous and completely baseless. Not only is it a classic proof of Godwin's Law, but it is an obvious attempt to discredit all your opponents in this debate by insinuating that they are Nazis or neo-fascists, an extremely serious allegation which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. K. Lásztocska 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too resent that. I voted based on my interpretation of Wikipedia policies - an interpretation that may have been wrong, as might yours. I've voted against the Romanian "line" before. I have tremendous respect for Dahn but it doesn't derive from bean-counting on his AfD votes; I strongly object to the implication that my vote here renders me an "ordinary member of an ethnic clique". Moreover, the repeated line about the "unique nature of the Holocaust" rings hollow: while the Holocaust was indeed just about the worst thing to happen last century, very useful comparisons can be made to the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Great Purges, the Great Leap Forward, and a handful of other state-sponsored mass-murder events. That does nothing to take away from the Holocaust's horrific nature, but keeping it in a glass box and declaring it "unique" and immune from comparison is deeply counterproductive. Biruitorul 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Valid topic as both Renata and Irpen have agreed. Martintg 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not a phenomenon. It is merely a note. A phenomenon is not "I read in newspapers that Russia denied the occupation", it is "I have several scholarly books that discuss Russia's denial of the occupation as a phenomenon, applying a methodology and a terminology".
Let us also note that, no matter how unsubstantiated I consider the Russian viewpoint to be, it is part of a minority of voices that disagree with the term "occupation". I consider the term "occupation" applies, and the arguments against it to be weak, and I think that the minority opinion should not become overrepresented - but creating this article is basically branding people who disagree and turning an ongoing debate into "we're right and they're wrong". This is not and cannot be validated by this project.
The fact that you have to appeal to off-topic arguments in order to draw up support the article is, to me, indicative that this article has a message to give to its readers. Dahn 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official Russian viewpoint is fact, this article is about that viewpoint. It is quite legitimate to have articles reporting the fact of the viewpoint with out making any judgements about the validiity or correctness of that view point. Martintg 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing convincing me that official viewpoints need separate articles as a rule, especially when all that is relevant can be summarized in a single paragraph. In fact, I strongly object to creating articles about each single POV, which is the definition of content forking, and this strikes me as an attempt to marginalize that POV, disguise it as a phenomenon, and place a label on it. In fact, the definitions of both denial and denialism indicate that the article is written from a POV, and clash with your definition of reporting "without making any judgments about the validity or correctness of that view point". Dahn 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single overarching principle here. Sometimes, official viewpoints need articles of their own, sometimes, not. It depends on a number of factors; for example, structurally simple viewpoints often don't, and viewpoints with heavy background data requirements often do. Notability is a factor, too -- and this particular viewpoint, having been a major factor in a Latvian presidential election, not to mention an important force in recent international relations between Russia, Northern Europe and Eastern Europe, is certainly quite notable in its own rights. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles discussing a single POV can still be neutral and is not considered a POV fork, see Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view." The viewpoint of the Russian federation in regard to Soviet occupation is notable. Its denial is related to the fact that many former Eastern bloc countries have made noises about claiming compensation. So it is understandable that Russia would deny it, as anyone faced with a potential compension claim would. This article attempts not to promote a particular viewpoint of the viiewpoint, just the fact of the viewpoint, and the reasons behind it. Martintg 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is a world of difference between "can" and "should", and wikipedia is not about creating all articles that could be created. 2. If you would address my full point, you'll note that I raise the issue of this article being put up as a way to marginalize a viewpoint. As far as I am concerned, the viewpoint marginalizes itself, since it contrasts with scholarly approaches. That doesn't mean that it's open season for debasing it and for inventing a phenomenon of "denial" with the certainty this implies (a certainty which, I feel compelled to point out, is in actuality the editors' interpretation of a limited number of written sources). 3. In any case, all info referring to the official Russian position (speculations about its motivations aside!) should be summarized somewhere in any any existing "occupation" article, as it is a relevant take on the events even if going against scholarly consensus. The article we are discussing only touches that official Russian position briefly, under a POV title and in a context filled with peacock terms and weasel words (not to mention original research), and connects it with Soviet historiography - which may or may not be the case. This is indicative that there is nothing to validate a separate article on the position in question, especially when considering that a proper article on the official position would have to explain and reference the whole historical context. This in turn means that this topic, already overwhelmed by articles on the exact same topic, would only gain another tiresome and obsessing text. Dahn 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your point of view, I respect that, but I have to disagree. I don't see the intent of the article is to marginalise some viewpoint, in fact quite the opposite, rather than have it hidden in a number of occupation articles as you seem to suggest, it brings it to the forefront in an article of its own. If there are issues of neutrality, peacock terms or weasel words, this is an editorial issue than can be fixed. The fact that the article is legitimately concerned with a particular point-of-view subject, therefore it must necessarily indicate that in the title to be compliant with policy. Martintg 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 1
[edit]
It's not just about the interpretation of history, the main driver is potential liability for compensation, if Moscow admits it, it fears that it may make itself liable. I recall reading about it in the english language Russian news sites some years back. Certainly many former Eastern bloc countries have made noises. It's standard legal practice to deny everything if you are faced with a potential claim. Martintg 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my say here, and I'll let readers decide on the value of my arguments. However, I have to point out that the above is an invitation to conflate various events into an article that will be, invariably, written from a POV perspective and contain elements dismissed by this policy. If the mentions of "misinformed users" include me, I have to point out that, for the sake of this project's credibility, wikipedia should not start generating articles on each type of commentary conceivable. If the events are noteworthy, they can be discussed within individual articles that focus on identifiable and autonomous topics, not on ad-hoc overviews. I could start articles on "Romania's failure to meet EU standards on the vaccination of pigs", "Hungary's problems with far right extremism", and "The refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel". All of these would be topics on events and tendencies for which we could gather enough material and otherwise elaborate for all we like, but that does not make them valid articles. In all such cases, other articles already exist for the relevant info to be summarized and summarized well. And encourage editors to stay out of comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - for all the validity I tend to see in the argument when it comes to specific topics such as the Gulag (and, no, I do not believe that the comparison is perfect, for reasons that stand as self-evident), that discussion has no relevancy here. Dahn 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my reference to "misinformed users" does in no way refer to Dahn. I disagree with him in this particular case, but unless most of the contributors he has remained calm, polite and provided articulate arguments for his case. That is very welcome in a discussion in which many seem to be voting just because of their nationality and unwillingness to have articles that might be critical of their own country. JdeJ 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the intent of the article to be critical to any particular country, but to represent a notable point of view in a neutral way. Martintg 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't explicitly define the scope Europe-wide, so I don't see how you could claim it falsifies the citation. Note there is a further reference to a potential Czech claim for compensation for the 1968 occupation in the body of the article. I'm sure there are similar references to official denials of responsibility in relation to other countries in the Russian language media, unless ofcourse there is no debate within Russia and all think as one mind. Since you believe the topic is notable, you could assist in finding sources in the Russian language media. This article is not intended to to pass any judgement. In my personal view, if some countries had not have made noises about squeezing Russia for compensation, official Russia may well have recognised the occupations by the Soviet Union. Martintg 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note a classical demagogic trick at play here. First, let's consider the facts. Soviet Union occupied a number of countries for varying numbers of years. The Baltic states were occupied between 1940 and 1991; some of the Central European countries had other kinds of relations with Soviet Union in addition to occupation, and had shorter military occupation periods. The Baltic states ended up restoring their independence on basis of legal continuity; most of the other occupied territories recognised, to varying degrees, the occupations' puppet regimes, post facto. Accordingly, while Soviet Union has denied all the occupations, it has paid greatest attention to Soviet occupation of Baltic states, and this denial is the most notable and best-researched denial. Now, let's consider the sophistry: Irpen refuses to recognise the aspect of varying conditions of occupation, and pretends there "must" be a single cut-off point -- except that he places the "single cut-off point" into various places, based on what suits his idé du jour. This is not intellectual integrity. If Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, it must forcefully reject such games, and make sure its coverage is accurate in facts and neutral in opinions, according to their notability. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen the Russian position on the lunatic POV that the countries were the Russian troops were legally stationed under the agreement with their national government, PL, CZ, HU, E Germany, can be considered "Occupied" all the way till late 80s-early 90s. The claim that the Baltic takeover of 1940 was in fact an illegal occupation is by far more plausible, has a wide international support and Russia addresses it. The claim that the entire period of 1944 to 1991 for Baltics may be called "occupation" is by far weaker, less universally accepted, but still referenceable view. The claim about EE all the way till 1989 is even more bizarre and Russia never ever even commented on that. There are many strange claims voiced from time to time. The government do not comment on each and every of them. But since you claim that the article "article doesn't explicitly define the scope Europe-wide", I will now edit it to make sure it does not and please do not revert me like you did last time. --Irpen 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the official position of the Czech Government is that they were occupied between 1968 to 1989 [8], I find it highly implausible that there has been no official Russian position on the Czech claim. And I don't think the Czechs are lunatics either for hold that point of view. So the scope cannot be artificially confined to the Baltics either. Martintg 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martintg finding something "highly implausible" is not a valid reason to assume something exists. At least not good enough for a WP article. --Irpen 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your personal view point, I am entitled to mine, but we are not to entitled to push it here on Wikipedia. Martintg 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. So, please stop pushing this article based on your own speculations about the Russia's view that does not exist. --Irpen 02:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, but your denial that Russia is denying the Soviet Union ever occupied EE is rather intriguing, given the extensive media coverage in the European press that JdeJ refers to above. Martintg 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My denying and your disagreeing can be discussed at alt.politics.socialism or any other internet fora. Keep your being surprised or intrigued by my "denial" or anything out of Wikipedia pages please. The central premise of the article is that Russia has an official position on denying something while in fact Russia did not issues any such statements except in relation to the Baltic states. --Irpen 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore it is a notable topic. Martintg 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an issue that might have contributed to the sad final outcome of the previous AFD: back then, I was a very new Wikipedia user, and trying hard to do things Right. While I noticed multiple voices calling for renaming, I believed (falsely, it turned out) that renaming during an AFD would be prohibited, and seen as trying to hide the article so as to spare it from the proper result, and decided to postpone the renaming until the AFD was over. Well, it turned out there was nothing to rename when the AFD was over ... ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a history article, but an article about a notable politcal point of view about history, with global significance. When the President of the USA asks the President of Russia to stop denying occupation, this is significant. The article has a range of sources from newspapers, to official government statements to scholarly papers. Martintg 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already improved the article by bringing the lead in line with the sources presented so far [9], so I fail to see what your issue is. BTW, have you voted yet? I don't think it is ethically correct for those who intend to vote for deletion to be editing the article while the AfD is open, as there is a clear conflict of interest here. Martintg 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, you are in no position to teach me ethics, OK? Now, to your question. Yes, I brought the lead in agreement with sources it uses. However, it still contains bullshit statements (and unsourced) about the European-wide denial. And even that cannot be fixed as the article's title and scope claims to apply wider. The article by its title and scope is not in line with the sources and it cannot be since no such sources exist. Once stripped from nonsense, the useful content is only about the Occupation of Baltic states. This itself already has its own article and as of now, there is no compelling reason to spin the denial off. Please note that the Holocaust denial was started much later than the Holocaust article once the amount of denial info warranted the proper content forking. This here is not proper forking. What it is is disruptive user:Digwuren grinding an ax and creating one more sandbox for himself by tweaking the title of the AfDed article. Was Soviet occupation denialism (deleted), now Denial of Soviet occupation. --Irpen 07:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • False. This article has been totally re-written from scratch and bears no resemblance to the previously AfDed article. Please confine your personal issues with Digwurem to the appropriate ArbCom forum. Martintg 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhm, say what? The Baltic states belonged to the USSR? Well, after the Red Army marched in and occupied it in 1940, yes. Not that any other country recognised the occupation as legal, so they still didn't belong to the USSR even after that. The paradox here is that we are debating if this denial exists and we get these absurd comments from people who still deny it. JdeJ 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, for me it seems that here are whole lot of people who want to deny not only the occupation but also deny the denial. If that denial does not exist, then there is no need for Wikipedia article about it. If the denial exists - and is covered with multiple independent sources - why exactly do we even have to discuss this? -- Sander Säde 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so now let's be absurd. I exist, and I can cover that with multiple independent sources, yet I do not have a Wikipedia article (and do not want one either). Ever read WP:NOT? Those who think this article should be kept would do well to get the discussion back on track by talking about why this phenomenon deserves a separate article. I for one could possibly be convinced that it does, but nobody seems to even give it a try. (Have I heard someone talk about a logical fallacy?) KissL 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So nice that you compare denial of an event in which hundreds of thousands were murdered with flying saucers. What a nice way to respect their memory, thank you. -- Sander Säde 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is blaming soldiers who payed by their lived to save the world from fascism occupants a good respect to their memory?--Dojarca 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the Soviets invaded and subjugated the Baltics while Stalin and Hitler were still buddies, long before the Great Patriotic War. Why does everyone professing the Soviets died for the Baltics to save them from fascism patently ignore this fact? It was an illegal invasion and occupation the first time. It was an illegal invasion and ocupation the second time when they returned, resuming right where they left off when the Nazis interrupted with their invasion, and didn't leave until the Soviet Union fell apart. The Red Army lost, I don't recall at the moment, 175,000? 300,000? trying to take the Courland Pocket. Such a waste of life, the Soviets could have observed Baltic neutrality and stayed out. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think really the Baltics could stay neutral throughout WWII ?--Dojarca 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they "made us free", why did they stay here for half a century? SpeedKing1980 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Saved the world from fascism"? So it was to save the world from Fascism that Stalin made a pact with Hitler to divide Eastern Europe between them? It was to save the world from fascism that Stalin occupied half of Poland, all of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, parts of Romania and parts of Finland why he was a Nazi-ally. Interesting way to save the world from fascism, I must say. JdeJ 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons why denial is so almost impossible for germans is that the nazis, as good Germans, kept meticulous records of what they did, and were very proud of doing. The odd SSer who objected to the way workers from the East were being transported to Germany, would do so because cleaning dead bodies of women and babies out of the transport trains caused delays on getting troops to teh Russian front. Still, there is some denial of "German occupation", particularly on Wikipedia. Just have a look at the edit war on Erika Steinbach. --Pan Gerwazy 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To JdeJ: the argument is in fact mostly about when the occupation started. Taking the first day the "Allied" or "Soviet" troops entered the country in question, as is done by most of these nationalist editors, takes you into the silly position where you not only must forget what Western observers thought at the time, but must also consider the French as accomplices in the occupation, and of course of the German troops and their fascist allies from all over Europe then automatically the defenders of the country. It does not matter what the French did or did not do afterwards, because according to these nationalist editors it is all one and the same process. Petri Krohn once suggested splitting up these "occupations", between the actual coming after the Germans and the "overstaying their welcome", but he was treated to the accusation of, yes, "Soviet occupation denier". Wikipedia being not a platform for political opinions, its articles must be free of POV. As for "denial of Nazi occupation", apart from having a good look at the edit war over Erika Steinbach, I invite you to read Cyriel Verschaeve, who is still the favourite literary author of the leaders of the Vlaams Belang. Most biographers of Stijn Streuvels never mentioned what he did during the war, how he became the sweetheart of the German occupiers of Belgium and their cultural wing. Our article on him also does not mention that sordid episode at all - I suppose it cannot be "sourced" because most historians wanted to spare an old man (he died aged 97). Does the fact that our article, like the Dutch article on Streuvels does not even mention that he in person supervised the filming of his novel "De Vlaschaard" by a German film crew, and that that was "controversial" (controversieel in Dutch, see [10]) constitute "Denial of German Occupation"? --Pan Gerwazy 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany was continuously nominated for speedy deletion by the creator of Denial of Soviet occupation.--Dojarca 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue. Digwuren had absolutely nothing to do with nominating your article for speedy deletion, which was no more than a cut and paste of a section from an existing article. The article wasn't contiuously nominated, you basically revert warred the speedy template while the nomination was open. Your nomination statement above contains many similar falsehoods. Please remove my name from your nomination statement, which you added after my vote to "Keep" [11]. Martintg 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this nomination was completely against any of Wikipedia's rules on speedy deletion. I think by the way it is worth enough to plus it to the ongoing arbitration case.--Dojarca 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dojarca, please stop your flat out lies. Digwuren is not "closely associated account of User:Sander Säde". Nor did I create the article. And you broke Wikipedia rules by removing speedy template from article you had created yourself. So how about some truth, instead of broken record lies and propaganda? -- Sander Säde 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only potentially legitimate reason for deletion that has been given by Dojarca so far (re-creation of a deleted article) has to be verified by an administrator. Is the article in question substantially similar to the deleted Soviet occupation denialism? Colchicum 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article appears to have been moved or copied into userspace as User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes - you don't need to be an admin to view it. -- ChrisO 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, more precisely, the version as of May 26. Well, they are far from identical. That doesn't mean that the old reasoning is completely inapplicable, but the present version has not yet been deleted, and all this should be considered with caution, especially as the administrator who deleted the previous version was so eager to participate in the current voting, kindly invited by the nominator. Colchicum 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to nit pick, but User:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes has a totally different title to the article Soviet Occupation Denialism that was previously deleted. Martintg 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article history is complicated. See the history for 26 May 2007 onwards - it appears that Soviet occupation denialism was moved into userspace and renamed a couple of times before ending up at User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. -- ChrisO 01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that link, confirming that the deleted article is totally different. It included Katyn, the famine in the Ukraine, and othe significant differences. Martintg 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 2
[edit]
  • Conflict of interest - Both Irpen and Mikka, who have voted to ""delete" this article, continue to edit war by removing referenced content in the article [12]. I request all who voted for "deletion" not make any edits while this AfD remains open ,as there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Irpen, I request that you undo your last change Martintg 16:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. Votes or not, your "referenced content" is original research, often irrelevant. `'Míkka 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, you are not the right person to even utter the word "ethics" at all. Note, however, that COI point would be valid if the editor votes delete with one hand and makes sure that his edits make the article look worse thus ensuring that it gets more delete votes. You were not around when the Anti-Semitism in Poland was voted for deletion (it ended up deleted and redirected to History of Jews in Poland. At the time some of the users who campaigned for deletion were editing the article they were trying to delete in such a way, as to make it as much nonsensially and Polonophobically sounding as possible. Some where replacing the lead by "The Poles are the most anti-Semitic nation in the world" and other such crap in order to make voters who would read such crap vote delete even though the article originally did not include any of that. If Mikka's and mine edit were destructive, then you would have a valid point
  • However, Mikka's and mine edits are quite opposite. You admitted yourself that my changes brought this masterpiece into a better agreement with sources. So, just cut the nonsense and, instead, find at last a single source that confirm the Russia's "denial" of "occupation" with respect to any European country outside of the Baltic republics. By finding it, you would greatly boost the chances of the article to survive. Good luck. --Irpen 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mikka, Irpen, this article is under AfD, you have voted or intend to vote "delete". Regardless of whether or not you believe your edits are constructive or destructive, there is nevertheless a clear conflict of interest when you make changes to an article that you want deleted. Please restraint yourselves from further editing while this AfD case remains open. Martintg 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so far, Jimbo is the only person who can give unconditional orders here. I will be guided in what I do by your ordering me to. You start your own web-site for that. --Irpen 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD does not apply, as this article is a total rewrite. Since this article is a total re-write, the closing comments of the previous AfD does not apply. It must be noted that no clear concensus for deletion emerged within the debate in that previous AfD. If it is a POV fork, it should be simple enough to articulate what the consensus view is that this article is meant to fork, but I don't think anyone has. Martintg 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not voting for the validity of the topic. We are voting for the validity of the article. The article has nothing to do with the topic it claims to cover. It makes some wild claims about "occupation" of Europe lasting till end 1980s its "denial" and fails to bring a single ref for the latter. The fact is that there is not s single statement by Russia about such "denial" with an exception of the Baltic states which is already covered in the Occupation of Baltic states. --Irpen 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Validity as a reason for deletion is only applicable if the topic is invalid. If the topic is valid and the article intends to cover that topic, the course of action is to improve that article. Perhaps to take into accout your concerns with the term "denial" in the title, and the view expressed by others here that the article should also cover events like the Soviet role in the invasion of Poland, the Katyn massacre and the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, perhaps a rename to Russian government view of Soviet expansion in Europe could be more acceptable? After all, the view expressed by the President of the Russian Federation that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Martintg 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a good argument. That an article is critical of certain aspects of the USSR is not even close to russiophobia. Please refrain from using cheap shots like that one unless they can be backed up. The user Paukrus has the habit of accusing all those who don't agree with him of russophobia, as is evident by his edit history. Such accusations constitute personal attacks and violate Wikipedia policies. I see nothing in the article that is russiophobic. JdeJ 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 3
[edit]
  • That's a good question. Unfortunately, some of the contributors here are more interest in nationalism than in an NPOV wikipedia. Dojarca who nominated this article for deletion and who has been most vocal in crying foul over denial is one of them. From what I've seen from him on Wikipedia, all his actions are directed towards "gloryfying the Russian nationa". He adds POV-tags to perfectly well balanced and sourced articles if he feels they are critical of the USSR under Stalin. I should point out that this does not apply to everybody who has voted to have this article deleted, but some of them are the same names that keep popping up in every single effort to whitewash the crimes committed by Stalin, either for political reasons (communists) or nationalistic ones (Russians). I should again point out that most communists are as anti-Stalin as anyone else and many Russians are as prepared to recognise the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin as are many German to recognise those committed by Hitler. What we have here is a small but very active fringe group that moves from article to article trying to rewrite history untill they get their way: Stalin and the USSR were the big saviours of the world from Hitler and all countries freely joined the USSR. That sounds so much nicer than the fact that Stalin and Hitler collaborated to divide Europe between them, both of them attacked most of their neighbours and both of them had millions of civilans killed in death camps. That's the only connection with Holocaust denial because these are the facts (found in any NPOV history book or encyclopedia) that both Nazis and some extreme communists and Russians would prefer the world to forget. JdeJ 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree, comparison with Holocaust denial seems to be based completely on assumption that word "denial" is limited to Holocaust related topics, which is totally ridiculous.--Staberinde 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the official Romanian position on the Prague Spring is being quoted (btw, one could find such attitudes also expressed in China, Yugoslavia, and among Eurocommunist parties). I'm sorry, but this is just conflating the point: not only is that POV irrelevant, not only is it taken completely out of context, but it glosses over the fact that the Romanian communist leadership had no problem with all the other occupations (except perhaps Romania's, which it masqueraded into "a people's revolution against fascism"). Furthermore, guys, this article is about Russia's position, which may or not be based by the Soviet precedent (Gorbachev's frankness on these issues seems to point that there is at least a hiatus to separate the waters). By definition and sheer logic, Russia's position cannot be answered to by the Communist Romanian position!
I will not discuss to what measure other such articles are validated. For most, they do not appear to be work of consensus, and, like this article, seem to cover the same topic in various fashions that don't establish anything relevant for the readers. Dahn 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument by some here that this so called "phenonema" must be discussed in scholarly literature is really a strawman argument, since this article is not attempting to discuss a phenonema, but a viewpoint, just like this list of articlesViews_on_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Sources such as newpaper articles, opinion pieces and official government statements are sufficiently reliable. There are all sorts of articles where reference to scholarly articles will never be found, like biographies of entertainers for example. Martintg 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this to me is admitting that this article is guided by WP:OR. Since all such articles (not "biographies of entertainers") are expected to be sourced with scholarly sources, and since an official position presented in a certain context is disguised as a phenomenon of "denial" (the only such parallels are phenomenons), and since it could and ultimately should be discussed in existing articles (not marginalized to "what the others say, but we know they're wrong"), there is really not one solid argument to validate this separate topic. The issue is not one of reliability of sources, but of the coatrack nature of this article, and on the original synthesis of published material advocated in it and on this very page.
And, to add: I was specifically referring to Iraq series in my earlier messages. There are at least three articles on that page which have identical coverage (the separation between them is arbitrary), and they don't seem to be validated by the community. Meaning that they are as debatable of this article, and that the argument above is reduced to "but they do it elsewhere". Dahn 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I am pointing out that viewpoint articles are valid under policy and I cite these as good examples to follow. In this case this article could only be construed as describing a phenomenon requiring scholarly sources if it incorporated the term Denialism, which was a problem of the previous article that was deleted. But since this article is a total re-write and attempting to describe a particular viewpoint, the only issue is the neutrality of the title, which is not grounds for deletion, and which can be solved by a rename. Martintg 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the correct solution would be renaming this (to something like Attitudes toward X or Views on X). Wrong name is not a legitimate reason for deletion, contrary to Alex Bakharev's vote above. Colchicum 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will still be a synthesis of published material, a coatrack, a superfluous text, and the marginalization of a position, no matter what the name. Dahn 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has not been demonstrated to be the case. Martintg 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been been demonstrated by the present article, and a discussion on a phenomenon that is defined and limited by the eyes of a beholder (as is one on "Russian attitudes towards...") is the very definition of OR. Dahn 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • for my eyes you just got lost in here Dahn. First of all, you're mixing up the liberations during WWII with occupations and denials under discussion, Soviet occupation of the Baltic states in 1940, the denial of it by Russia nowadays and another one came up -occupation of Czechoslovakia, denied by Soviet sources back then. Nobody has quoted the official Romanian position on the Prague Spring and Russia's position is clear on it, Putin says he feels "moral responsibility". Now, the Romanian thing was a report made by Soviet visitors to Romania, the report called the occupation: the assistance provided to the Czechoslovak people that was the Soviet position, not the current Russian. So I have no idea from where exactly did you draw the conclusions regarding Russia's position versus Communist Romania that actually are not that different.--Termer 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is remarkable. First of all: no, a confusion between those terms is what the article does, and it is the promise that it will remain in the article under any form it may take in the future (since it will be about the Russian position on all those issues). As for Romania: do you know what "RCP" stands for, and can you identify the context? Because I did, and this is something I do before quoting anything. Dahn 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what exactly are you talking about other than "RCP" stands for the Romanian Communist Party--Termer 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To outline my position: we are discussing the Russian position, not the Soviet one. this is why any arguments about the Communist Party's reaction to the 1968 invasion do not belong here. In this context, Russia's position is very different from that of Communist Romania - but citing the Soviet position as a direct source for the latter is pointless. Dahn 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, these are your opinions I don't share.--Termer 07:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 4
[edit]
Besides the point. Its not a matter of refuting, or of us knowing or saying the the "truth" may be. Its a matter of recognizing the title itself asserts a particular stance, which is a matter of perspective, of a POV. The matter--or the way one puts it--speaks of a certain perspective. Its fine to explore that perspective in detail in a NPOV way, discuss it according to the consensus within historians (in academia), given proper weight, but its not appropriate to take one stance (however truth), and make that the title. It violates NPOV.Giovanni33 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkable. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should ignore the concensus for the term "Soviet occupation" in the scholarly literature because a handful of essentially anonymous Wikipedian editors disagree. There are 5330 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet occupation" [20] and only 106 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet liberation" [21] Martintg 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, every Time article on the Eastern front from 1944 or 1945 falls under "Soviets forever". Actually, Giovanni33 makes an interesting point. Basically, "Soviet occupation" is a term which in twenty years' time, no serious historian will want to touch with a shovel and wearing latex gloves. The moment that the Soviet army invaded (containing a French contingent, as I explained - so it was also an "allied" occupation) could indeed hardly be denied to be an act of occupying (but why not the act of liberating? - there is POV on that level as well). But to describe the whole period from day 1 (implying that the retreating German troops and their fascist volunteer allies were the defenders of the country) until the fall of the Berlin wall as "occupation" (which here is ambiguous and both means "occupying" and "keeping occupied") is something no serious historian will dare to do when passions have quietened down. Just compare the google result for "Mongol Rule"+Russia to the google result for "Mongol occupation"+Russia. Interestingly, many of the links for "occupation" come from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. For some time, Wikipedians have had a love-hate relationship with terms such as "liberation" and "occupation", it is not healthy (stops people from collaborating on writing good articles), it is not encyclopaedic and it is inherently POV. It should stop. Even "Soviet yoke" or "Soviet imperialism" are better historical terms than the ones that are now being proposed. --Pan Gerwazy 09:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding, right? For "soviet liberation" we have 106 hits in google scholar [22] and 465 hits in google books [23] and for "soviet imperialism" we have 824 hits in google scholar [24] and 905 hits in google books [25]
Compare this with "soviet occupation", we have 5330 hits in google scholar [26] and 2960 hits in google books [27]. Martintg 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pan Gerwazy, your continued contention that the Eastern European Waffen SS (implied) were fighting for anything other than keeping the Red Army out (that is, that they supported fascism) is not based in historical fact. Not everyone was thankful for--in many cases--the RETURN of the Red Army. If Stalin hadn't invaded, pillaged, and murdered before Hitler ever got there, then Stalin would likely have been greeted as a liberator (and everyone would have only found out later how wrong they were). As it was, everyone already knew from the Baltic and Polish experience EXACTLY what the Red Army was bringing--and it wasn't anything anyone would call "liberation"--for many it was one occupying despotic power (Stalin) replaced by another occupying despotic power (Hitler) replaced by the original occupying despotic power (Stalin). Those are the ever so inconvenient facts: Stalin started WWII along with Hitler his buddy. And with the start of WWII and the invasion of Poland, Stalin actively supported Hitler's invasion (transmitting radio messages supporting the air invasion), congratulated Hitler on his excellent progress; and in that partnership, Stalin took possession of more than 50% of Polish territory. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect intended, [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33] makes an almost sensationally bad argument. There are a few people who refuse to believe the earth isn't flat, those who believe man never walked on the moon etc. If [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33] is under the impression that some 100% consensus among all humans is needed, he is mislead. And what about Einstein's theories? Should we get every human being to voice an opinion on them as well and delete them from Wikipedia is anybody fails to understand them? Any encyclopedia or history book will contain information on the Soviet occupation, it is a fact and there is nothing POV about stating that fact. History isn't always neutral, there are times when a country or a regime actually is rather bad (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot) and to try to deny that is more POV than stating rather obvious facts. Read the Encyclopedia Britannica or any extensive work on WWII. JdeJ 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether people who take part in AfD vote can edit or not is the question that so obviously comes to mind that if there was an established opinion on the issue that they can't, the guideline would have addressed that. My edits were in good faith and brought an article in closer compliance with its sources and the scope according your own admission. I explained above the difference between WP:POINTy editing aimed at making the article worse to facilitate deletion and good-faith editing that make the article better. I am not going to tolerate the issues about the ethicallity of my edits raised by you in a blatant attempt to smear me. You are free to raise the issue at WP:ANI with diffs to mine and your edits and enjoy the response. If you refuse but continue this smearing accusations here unabated, I will raise the issue myself. This is the last time I am responding to this harassment here. --Irpen 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith? Most certainly not. Your attempt to move the article to under a name referring to "Soviet occupation theory" was not only a clear WP:POINTy edit against the consensus, it was also a bare indication of your true intentions. Remember, kids -- "just a theory" is a simple and common pseudorefutation used by denialists everywhere! ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we please now make it clear. Irpen and Mikkalai, your active edditing of the article(not including adding/removing tags) should logically prove that you think that article can be fixed. If article can be fixed then this whole deleting debate is pointless. I can not see any reason why you would edit it if you were confident that it can not be fixed and will be deleted anyway. So do you still support deleting the article, and if yes then could you explain why you are edit warring with people who think that article can be fixed and are trying to do it? I am currently assuming good faith but I fail to see any logic in your actions.--Staberinde 10:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring Digwuren's usual rant, Starebind you are presumption is incorrect. My trying to fix the article does not prove that it can be fixed. What it does show is that I do think that having this topic covered in Wikipedia is possible in principle due to the topic's scholarly potential. But AfD is never about just the validity of the topic. The AfD is about the combination of three things:
  1. the validity of the topic
  2. whether the topic can be adequately presented in a separate article
  3. the degree to which the hypothetic article that would adequately represent the topic can be based on the article in the state as of AfD.
If the adequate article can be written by fixing the current one or at least basing the rewrite on the current one within the reasonable extent, then it makes perfect sense to keep it. If, however, "fixing" requires a complete rewrite including the retitling, changing the scope's emphasis and other fundamental change, the current article would be useless and has to be deleted .
Let me give you an analogy. Suppose we get an article on, say, Maya culture. Is it a valid topic? Of course it is. Suppose the article consists of a single sentence "Maya culture is amazing". Is it a valid article on a valid topic? No. Suppose we AfD it and during the vote editors try to improve it to an acceptable state. They may or may not succeed at that depending on whether the knowledgeable editors take enough interest at the time and/or whether, depending on the current state of the art in the field, a separate article is warranted rather than a section in the Maya civilization. If the editors succeed in improving the article by the time of the AfD close, the article is worthy to be kept. If, however, the article remains a piece of junk and a valid article would require a complete rewrite and reshuffle or the topic is better covered within the existing article than the article must be deleted. It is useless to try to present the anti-occupational POV out of the context of the occupational POV. Such should be done within the neutrally and descriptively titled article such as Occupation of Baltic states (term).
I attempted to do something with the article under AfD. I might as well try again. However, so far no editor was able to make anything encyclopedic out of this ax-grinding page. If the situation does not change by the time of the AfD close, the article would have to be deleted and the future umpteenth recreation of it by Digwuren would have to be dealt with at the user conduct-related board rather than at one more AfD. --Irpen 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article clearly is not one short sentence without any value so analogy is weak. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. and Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves. and The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. If there is possibility that article can be fixed it would be logical to give it some time before rushing it into deletion. Serious content disputes are very unlikely to be solved in such short time. If there is no progress and nobody shows any intention to fix article then AfD can be easily restarted. Like there was article Allied occupation of Europe, during first AfD it survived as several editors proposed fixing it, 1.5 months later it was in exactly same miserable condition and was deleted.--Staberinde 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's were people may disagree. The article that was started off the wrong foot can rarely be "fixed" but completely rewritten. The topic may be a valid one but the presentation of the topic may be "articleable" only if the proper scope is chosen for such presentation. Looking at denial separately from the opposite POV rather than present them both together is only a good idea if the denial in itself has received enough scholarly study, just like the Holocaust denial did. This is clearly not the case here as one cannot talk about one POV without constantly invoking the other. Both POV can be validly presented in the article whose scope is the presentation of the debate on whether the term "occupation" applies to the events in question. This, however, is not a single problem.
The article not only defines the scope falsely, it also deviates from it at random, the title is poor and the sources are misapplied or falsely sited. When I edited the article, I corrected the sources' falsification or misapplication but I was not able to fix the general problem the page suffers through its very inception. The topic presentation possibly "can be fixed" be it by starting over under a different title or covering the issue in a more general article(s). But this article can't be fixed. My mere bringing its parts in agreement with the sources that allegedly supported that stuff made it more factually accurate but it could not help make it an acceptable article. And so was anything else done to it up to this time. --Irpen 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are the one enforcing the scope by disputing the move to Russian government view on Soviet occupation and editing to preserve the scope, then come back and claim the scope is inproper. Martintg 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ru-gov view on Soviet occupation" is no clear scope either. Is it on Baltics? On CZ? On Afghanistan? Is there an indication that such combination is a valid one? And finally, it is a totally different scope from the original ax-grinding "denial". Even if valid, it requires a rewrite, not "fixing". --Irpen 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence you decide to enforce one particular scope, then claim that scope is improper. Martintg 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence what? Your proposed title did not define the clear scope either. Nothing prevents you from starting the new article with the new scope under the proper title (not the one were occupation of what is not defined) and, most importantly, that other scope requires a rewrite, not "fixing" upon the current mess. Last but not least, stop attempting to bully me. You manage to come up with new weird accusations each time the old ones are shown ridiculous. I have better things to do than expose the weirdness of your smearing attempts to the unsuspecting public who is not familiar with your ways to conduct the discussions. --Irpen 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attempt to marginalize free speech. Comparison to denial of Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is absolutely irrelevant. Both Holocaust and Armenian genocide deniers are denying facts, questioning either scale or course of event (number of victims, organized effort versus "collateral damages of war"). As far as I know, nobody in his/her right mind denies that Soviet forces entered Eastern Europe during WWII and had been there for a long time. Main issue here seems to be an assessment of this event. Russians may consider it a liberation, Estonians - an occupation. Trying to label one of positions as "denialism" and therefore marginalize it ("denialism" conveys pretty strong negative meaning in English) constitutes an attempt to limit freedom of thinking. Oh yes, and while we're at it, block the article's author for violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is an offense punishable by block, as confirmed here: [28]RJ CG 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More