User talk:Vecrumba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for making updates to Portal:Latvia! I really hope that it can be made into a good portal and that the Latvia-related articles could also be better featured. Solver 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order № 001223

It belongs to wikisource because it is not an article. Other than that, good job on merging the occupation articles. Renata 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a slew of NKVD and other "Orders" in Wikipedia, I was just following convention. Is there some easy way to move? Lots more to do on the consolidated occupation article, but I'm happy with it so far. If you could take a quick peek at a redo of the History of Russian in Latvia, a comment or two would be appreciated! Pēters 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There must be some way to transwikify, but I don't know. You can leave the intro here, but the original text should go. The other orders too. I will read history of Russians, but only in the morning. It's almost 2am here (should be the same at your place :)). Btw, you have a very nice homepage at latvians.com :) Renata 06:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at Wikisource, and it seems more a place to reproduce written works (a la Project Gutenberg) than to be a document repository. Pēters 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree. Yes, books are more prominent. But there is a bunch of national anthems, There is USA Patriot Act, speeches, interviews, all that. Its purpose really is to gather all sources that don't belong to WP. Oh, and the title, would it be possible to say whose order it is (what institution, kgb, nkvd, gru, smth else)? See for example, NKVD Order № 00439. And here is one with original text in wikisource NKVD Order № 00593. Renata 16:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No. 593 looks like a good example to follow. I've always assumed it's NKVD, but not 100% positive, so I didn't automatically call it a NKVD order. Pēters 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It was not NKVD. It was NKGB. `'mikka (t) 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry, I've been away from Wiki for a while for personal and health reasons. The deporation directives and orders in the Baltics pre-date the existence of the NKGB--they were issued and remained in effect under the authority of the NKVD. Are you refering to those or the examples--00593 or 00439? Thanks! Pēters 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russians

I have read the article, not the talk page (way too long :D). Here are my comments: the first two sections are quite vague. Sometimes I could not really understand what you are trying to say. Also, it would benefit enormously if you could add footnotes. For example, about Old Believers that they did not get involved. Where is that from? And many other generalisations. It is a big contrast to the POV marked sections were there are many facts and numbers. Also, the end favors Latvia's government (it looks like that to me). The article also needs a proper lead :) I hope it helps, Renata 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let it sit for a couple of days and go back and read again. As histories go, I thought it was fairly detailed (not vague). The first population figures available anywhere are from the 1897 empire-wide census (even those are not precise)--so that kind of precision is simply not possible. It's a straightforward story: early Russian settlements along the eastern parts of today's Baltics, Russian presence was mainly traders at first, influx of Old Believers fleeing persecution in the 16th century, a continuing (small) increasing presence, building faster after all of Latvia became part of the Russian empire, especially with industrialization, and developing its own sense of identity as "Latvian Russians" apart from "Russian Russians." There was no "influx" per se, there was only a gradual process over time. I thought that was all pretty clear, I can always go back and see about tightening the edit. The second part (including Old Believer types not being fervent revolutionaries) is in one of the academic links cited (which itself was based on a fairly wide-ranging consideration of other academic studies/books/etc.). I didn't want to endlessly footnote. The main point of the second section is that until 1905, interests of Latvian Russians and Latvians and Latvian nationalists and even the tsar's Russification coincided: what provided the "glue" was the definition of the controling Baltic Germans as the adversary. After that, paths diverged, nevertheless, anti-"Russian" sentiment was directed at Bolshevism, not at the native Latvian population or Russians fleeing the revolution. There was no Latvian government at that time--I'm not trying to paint a "positive" or "negative" picture, merely what the picture was. I'm not doing this from any particular POV. (We'll see how well I keep to that when I get to contemporary Latvia!)
What's been gathered in the first two sections then forms a backdrop to the role of the Latvian Russian minority during Latvian's first independence. Hope this helps. Pēters 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I will have to read through it again and see if there is something I can do about the language, but some footnotes would really help. Renata 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
(A response to your last post at Talk:History of Russians in Latvia)
I agree with regard to dislodging German as the language of prestige and the language of administration being the main goal for both the Russian government and most of the Young Latvians (note, though, that Russification also took place in the ethnographically Latvian part of Vitebsk guberniya for a longer period and more thoroughly, but quite differently [incl. denationalization in favor of religious identity, Belarusianization, etc.], where the Germans had been Polonized and there was a Polish and Russian aristocracy) -- even so, Russification in Courland and Livland was most dramatic in education, and in this it strongly favored the Russians (or, more accurately, the Russophones) and affected not only the Germans but the Latvians (for example, at Tartu [Dorpat, then renamed Yuryev], the number of Lutheran [i.e., German, Latvian, and Estonian] students fell threefold between 1892 and 1901, whilst Russian enrollment rose ten times, partly because the graduates of Orthdox seminaries were admitted -- destroying that nest of Baltic [i.e., German] separatism was one of Manasein's main recommendations [Arveds Švābe: Latvijas vēsture 1800-1914. Uppsala: Daugava, 1958, p.514]). Latvians largely supported Russian instruction in the schools, and many even supported Russification (e.g., Valdemārs: "Speaking Russian, Latvians are never lost to their nation [tauta] -- not even when some of them have begun to forget how to speak Latvian." [Baltijas Vēstnesis, 1884 /Ernests Blanks: Latvju tautas ceļš uz neatkarīgu valsti. Västerås: Ziemeļbāzma, 1970/]) Baltijas Vēstnesis was the influential newspaper led by Fricis Veinbergs, who remained a Russophile even unto 1917.
Your point that the Latvian nationalists "were not agitating for independence" is very important. Fricis Brīvzemnieks (Treuland), brought in as an inspector of public schools by Kapustin at Valdemārs' request ("it was politically advantageous for the [Tsar's] government that Russification would be introduced by the Latvian and Estonian nationalists themselves"), wrote a letter to Kaudzītes Reinis in 1886 in which he rejects an article Kaudzīte had written; the part about the friendship between Russians and Latvians, acording to Brīvzemnieks, is fine -- but the rest of the article needs to be amended to note that "defenders of the German Ritterschaft are trying to spread the belief among Latvians that the Tsar's government and the Russian people want nothing more than to deprive Latvians of their language and religion [...] Latvians have heretofore habitually expected good things only from the Russian government, and harmful things from their German overlords [...] they know that the government [...] has nothing to fear from the Latvian or Estonian languages because the Latvians and Estonians have never been independent nations and the seed of separatist thought finds no soil among the Latvians..." Brīvzemnieks goes on to say that the fears of Russification in Latvia are either "exaggerated or completely baseless." (Švābe, p. 462)
The fact is that fears of Russification were growing and they were rooted in reality and not in a plot by the Ritterschaft -- Valdemārs, entwined with the Slavophiles in Moscow, was increasingly irrelevant and no longer understood what was happening in the Baltics. The overall situation in education is also important to an understanding here (as it wasn't to Manasein): the Baltic provinces were the most advanced parts of the Russian Empire in education, whilst the Baltic Russians were comparatively ill-educated -- in Riga in 1881, for example, 47,8% of Russians over age 14 could not read or write (vs. 23,7% of the Latvians and 23,0% of the Germans). According to the official Russian statistics for 1886, there was one public school per 654 inhabitants in Southern Livland, vs. 1:2147 in Moscow guberniya and 1:3155 in Pskov guberniya. 2.37% of children in all 50 gubernii attended public school -- but this percentage varied considerably by guberniya: 9.25% in Finland, 9.87% in Southern Livland, 5,42% in Courland, 0,81% in Kovno, 3,44% in St. Petersburg, 2,01% in Kiev. In Vitebsk guberniya, and thus in Latgola -- 1,13%. 87,5% of the Old Believers in Latgola were illiterate, and 77,2% of the Belarusians (but even there, literacy was considerably higher in the ethnographically Latvian part of the guberniya and among Latvians). Latvian literacy also depended upon the rural and parochial schools, and to a very large degree on home schooling -- but home schooling in Latgola, which was particularly successful for females, was criminalized during Russification. ("Baltijas 'jaunā ēra' un rusifikācija"; Švābe, op. cit.) It might be noted, too, that the situation in the heavily Slavicized Ilūkste district in Semigallia was similar to that of Latgola, and Manasein in fact suggested that it be joined to Vitebsk guberniya.
Brīvzemnieks came to regret his position. As Russification intensified (and education declined), he was frequently attacked in the Russian press despite his pro-Russian stance, including by the newspaper you have mentioned -- Рижский Вестник, which demanded the imposition of Cyrillic in the Baltic provinces, as it had been imposed in Latgola, "to pour cold water on the fantasies of those who dream about a Latvian culture." This was their reaction to the success of the third Latvian Song Festival, and it is strikingly similar to the reaction of the Baltic Germans to the first forays of the Young Latvians (e.g., of Das Inland to Alunāns' Dziesmiņas) -- except that Latvian culture and in essence a Latvian nation were no longer a dream but had already come into existence. In 1888, Valdemārs wrote a lengthy defense of his career, explaining that he had worked harder than anybody else for the Russification of the Baltic provinces. This is where I will question the notion of "laissez-faire," Pēter -- to what extent was there laissez-faire, and when, and why? In the late 1880s, the Baltic German press came to defend Latvians against attacks in the Russian press -- Zeitung für Stadt und Land, for example, observed that the Latvians had a third path open to them, besides Germanization or Russification: retaining their identity. In defending Latvian against Cyrillic, Baltic Germans like Bielenstein found common ground with their Latvian political enemies -- to the horror of the Russians. What I am suggesting, then, is that it may have been laissez-faire between the 1850s and the 1880s, but only so long as the Latvians were not nationalists but merely anti-German Lettophiles and Slavophiles, and even apolitical Lettophilia was extremely suspect in an increasingly illiberal empire. "Not agitating for independence," to boil it down, really meant not only "not agitating for autonomy," which they also did not do -- it meant "not agitating for anything."
Valdemārs was a pragmatist and materialist, a "reālpolītisks minimālists" as Blanks defines him, who joined a cultural Lettophilia to an enthusiastic cosmopolitanism; the Russification he supported was education in the language, not coercive assimilation, and he always thought in practical terms (as when he suggested that Latvian veterans of the Russian army being settled in Voronezh guberniya be settled here instead and teach the Latvians Russian; Valdemārs was also quite clever in opposing Cyrillic). Living under police supervision in Moscow, however, he did not appreciate how far his nation had come. Many writers contrast Kronvaldu Atis' more spiritual thought with Valdemārs' -- again, this was a cultural but not a political nationalism, and Valdemārs himself notes that the Young Latvians had no political program at first; Kronvalds saw the Latvians and Russians as entering into a compact, however, with Russia having the duty to protect the Latvian language and culture in exchange for the Latvians' loyalty (thinking similar to the Germans'). Many Young Latvians naïvely believed that they could "drive out the German Devil with the Russian Beelzebub" (Švābe), but this was not be, obviously -- Mikhail Zinoviev, the governor, explained to the Riga Latvian Association in 1887 that "to us, Estonians and Latvians will only be a useful element when they become Russians."
This brings us to the 1890s and the advent of a Marxism that not only the right (e.g., Blanks) but also the left (e.g., Jansons-Brauns) labels dilettantist -- the New Current. Histories and contemporaries indicate, however, that it wasn't a matter of socialism replacing nationalism so much as the national movement reaching a point of crisis; a critic of the New Current, Alexander Weber (Vēbers -- an ethnic German who had in some sense assimilated, but later abandoned "Latvianness" in response to 1905) was among the many who saw it coming, observing the growing gulf between the growing Latvian bourgeoisie and the increasingly desperate masses. The Baltic Germans had lost their potency as the enemy. Much of the left saw nationality and its manifestations as the plaything of an exploitative élite that used and abused the ethnic as part of its business plan. Still, even "internationalism" didn't necessarily bring Russian and Latvian socialists together -- attacks on the war with Japan by the Latvian left, printed in 1904, noted that Asians were the Latvians' allies, victims of Russian imperialism like the Ukrainians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who suffered the most under the Tsar. All of this against a background of very dramatic demographic changes, with Latvia second only to Britain in Europe's urbanization -- meanwhile, there was a rural exodus not only to the cities but also to Russia proper, whilst settlers replaced those who departed (e.g., ca. 68 000 foreigners, mostly Russians, arrived in Latgola between 1895 and 1902, whilst the Dvinsk military garrison alone numbered 12 700 [Kārlis Stalšāns: Krievu ekspansija un rusifikācija Baltijā laikmetu tecējumā. Chicago: Jāņa Šķirmanta Apgāds, 1966]).
Most of the above doesn't belong in this article, of course -- I'm afraid I must drift into some general observations on "the story of Latvia." My main point is that it is almost impossible to delineate the political currents in that period (those periods, actually -- ca. 1850-1890, 1890-1905, 1905-1914), because they overlap and twist (and are often very shallow, too, with only a few fish in them); it actually took a minor eddy on the extreme left, the erstwhile эсеры Valters and Rolavs, to "invent" autonomy, and in the view of some revive a nationalism that "had gone down into herring" (Rainis) -- Valters moved rightward in the 1920s, abandoning his liberal views with regard to the minorities as impracticable when the nation drifted toward what you are calling "ultra-nationalism." I'm trying to draw attention to some major questions in our history, some of which Jānis Peniķis identified -- for example, what is the meaning of 1905? I recommend this article by Jānis Krēsliņš seniors, published in Diena last January (in Latvian). As Krēsliņš underlines, a definitive history of 1905 has not yet been written. He points to two opposing views of the Revolution, the nationalist and the Marxist, and the fact is that most Latvian historiography holds one of these two prisms. I refer to Ernests Blanks, a rightist ideologue from whose work the concept of the three National Awakenings was derived, deliberately -- as Oļģerts Liepiņš notes in his preface to Blanks' book, our nation-state is in large part the result of 1905, simply because almost all of Latvia's founders "were involved in that mutiny, and many retained their destructive approach to the bourgeois, who were also human and also wanted to enjoy freedom." Liepiņš offers a metaphorical apple tree -- one branch growing democracy, the other turning bright red. This is gross oversimplification, of course, but it helps bring some of the dynamics into relief. These dynamics echo loudly through later Latvian history -- whilst Liepiņš claims that 1905 had a socialist basis and was only later given a nationalist tint, leftists like Fēlikss Cielēns see independence as the child of that revolution. The class differences and their politics are integral to what happened, of course -- why most of the Latvians did not ally with the Germans and vice-versa, though Grosvalds et al. ended up in the Rate; German and Russian lists were together at times, and few Latvians had the money to qualify as voters -- there was also a brief phase in which the Latvian bourgeoisie was allied with the Germans municipally.
I eagerly await the next section, Pēter! Inesis Feldmanis does not mince words when it comes to the Russian minority in the interbellum: according to him, most did not identify with Latvia. In 1930, only 18,9% of the Russians spoke Latvian. The local Russian language press expressed satisfaction at the growth of Russian power with the invasions of Finland and Poland, its true sympathies revealed after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. (Daina Bleiere, Ilgvars Butulis, Inesis Feldmanis, Aivars Stranga, Antonijs Zunda: Latvijas vēsture: 20. gadsimts. Rīga: Jumava, 2005.) I've already said that I disbelieve in historians' objectivity -- I should add that I believe treating more POV rather than trying to eliminate POV is a better way to achieve the fabled NPOV, and IMO this is particularly true when trying to provide an overview, which necessarily involves generalizations. In the case of the Russian and Baltic German minorities, I do not see how the subject (and, indeed, Latvian history in the 20th C and the processes today) can be treated meaningfully without treating the concept of an "imperial minority." --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
About... simply because almost all of Latvia's founders "were involved in that mutiny--an obvious one is Čakste himself, who had to flee after signing the Viborg Manifesto. And you are right about the Russians during the first independence. When Schiemann was working to define minority rights, the Russians were always a lagging third behind the Germans and Jews. They simply were not as motivated to participate. If you can give me the source for some of your literacy figures, some of that would be some good additional detail to work in! --Pēters 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Baltic States

Great comment on the claim that there was no occupation on the talk page to Latvia - many thanks! I was just wondering .. could you copy-paste the comment to the same claim that has been made on the talk page of the article on Estonia, or, if that's too much of a bother, let me quote you there? I can't think of better words to explain the situation with, but don't want to "plagiarise" you without asking you either.

Thanks!

ChiLlBeserker 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to oblige, I'll get to it in the next couple of days (extremely busy at work!) --Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the talk:Lithuania page, I'm assuming that's along the lines of what you're envisioning? :-) Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Mediation

Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Hey, I thought maybe you would like to know that in 1988 Juris Podnieks and his crew stayed in our house while they were shooting footage in Armenia. I was only 11 then but I remember them singing Latvian patriotic songs. His tragic passing deeply moved us all.--Eupator 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riga links

Hi Pēters. I responded on the Talk:Riga page --Siobhan Hansa 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Hi Vecrumba. As you are Latvian I suppose you speak Russian. Please join our discussion in Talk:Transnistria, where we are debating some Russian language sources, and give your input.--MariusM 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Marius, unfortunately I only speak enough Russian to say that I can speak the very smallest possible amount of Russian, and to recite some Pushkin. My Russian skills are limited to computer translations and a good dictionary or two! Not that I haven't "intended" to learn Russian, just haven't gotten to it. I'm not sure of Pēteris Cedriņš' Russian skills,... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba, like I said in the Talk page of History of Transnistria, to avoid content forking this is where we should deal with the historical issues (besides that fact that Kievan Rus is not even mentioned in the main Transnistria page itself, currently). Then we will move a summary of that article into main Transnistria when done. I notice that we already have an ongoing thread there, and active. If you want to repost some of the other arguments from main Transnistria's Talk, please do so. I really appreciate the discussion and your input. - Mauco 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that developing problem myself, some time this weekend--if you think it would help--I'll consolidate the "Kievan Rus in the territory of the current PMR/Transniestria" sources discussions and move to the Talk:History of Transnistria page, appropriately notedd on the Talk:Transnistria] page. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct way of doing it (and Kievan Rus is mentioned there, unlike in the main Transnistria page at the current time). I saw that you did so. I am really appreciting this discussion and your work. I will be a bit busy for the next couple of days, so I probably won't reply immediately but please don't take that as a lack of interest and thanks again for all your hard work. More later... - Mauco 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: If you plan to become active in other Transnistria subjects as well, that is how we generally do it to avoid content forking. We develop the content in the "sub-articles" and afterwards, when there is a fairly stable version with consensus, we move a brief summary into the main article. It doesn't always work this way but it is the ideal. It was developed by User:Electionworld and it makes a lot of sense to do it that way. - Mauco 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Daugavpils

This article created by Polish editors would certainly benefit from contributions by Latvian ones. Until just a few days ago it was not even linked from Daugavpils. Perhaps you could add some sources and expand it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you very much for your interest in the issues related to Moldova and Romania. If you have continued interest in them, please feel free to join [1] It is not a very active group of users, but at least you can find on this page links to articles/issues ralating to M+R. In the Talk: Transnistria you have commented on Mark Almond's writtings. The article Transnistria is now in a point-by-point revision, and the first issue at hand is the credibility of different sourses. It came up the issue of scholarly work of Mark Almond, i.e. his books and articles, not through BHHRG. Do you know anything about this. I could not find any good links. Thank you.:Dc76 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps something non-Pridnestrov'ian?

Regarding your studies, I would be very interested in any research on the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exert in the post-Soviet era.
   I should mention my father was a renowned mushroomer--though my talents are less developed, and I'm a board member of the Latvian National Opera Guild. Perhaps we'll have a chance to "meet" somewhere less Wiki-contentious than Talk:Transnistria. Best regards, Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peters,
Thanks for your note. I often suspect I have more in common with many users than just an interest in Transnistria. I would be hard-pressed to provide much info on Soviet propaganda in the post-Soviet era. Are you mostly interested in the post-Soviet republics, or are you talking more broadly (including, for example, in Western academia, etc.?) The place to start, I would imagine, is with the Second World War. If there were any Soviet legacy that still exerts influence in the corner of the world which with I am familiar, that would be it. There was considerable PMR secessionist use of the war both during the conflict and more recently. I can provide citations, but unfortunately most of it is in Russian. FBIS is a goldmine (in English) if your interests go back to early 1990s.
Glad to hear there is another opera fan out there in the Transnistria-related wiki-world. I am more of a neophyte, but I'm quickly expanding my familiarity.
By the way, have you ever run across any information about politicized work collectives in Lativa during the collapse? I think my research is going to take me to Estonia where there was an analogous OSTK phenomenon, but I am still trying to gauge the extent to which this spread to other republics as well.
Thanks, and warm regards. — jamason 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
PS...do you mind if I ask for your source on one incident you posted here [2]? Sorry for the grouchy note I appended at the time. Because I don't have much time during the semester, I usually just lurk on talk pages and ask people to cite their sources, etc. When it's not tactfully done, I think it comes off as a challenge to the content. I usually really am interested in the citation. Here particularly. Thanks again. Best, — jamason 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Peters. You are actually thinking of someone else. It looks like Jonathanpops is the one who said that RFE/RL is propaganda. Truthfully, though, in my own mind and in the minds of academics I know, Vlad Socor does not command a particularly large amount of respect.
I hadn't ever heard of the ambulance shooting incident so I wouldn't be able to give a different source. There were, however, more than enough atrocities to go around. If you are interested, here is a report published online (written by a well-respected Soviet/Russian NGO "Memorial"). I can direct you to other sources if you have access to inter-library loan. Best, jamason 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovans
You can use wikipedia for a primer (Moldovans). If you have the time, there is a vast theoretical literature on nationality and ethnicity in a broad sense, but also Moldovan identity specifically. The place to start for the latter is—and this is name I'm sure you've heard a lot recently—Charles King. However, logically, since denying a separate Moldovan nationality would necessarily undermine the legitimacy of a separate Moldovan state, I'm sure you can see why this position would not be popular in Moldova itself. jamason 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
PS...The answer to the question you posed on Transnistria talk is: Yes. Overwhelmingly.

[edit] Gordian knot

Thanks for trying on Talk:Jogaila.

This is not a straight Polish-Lithuanian squabble; in fact, we have a very small Lithuanian contingent. If that were what was happening, it would have been solved long ago: there would have been a WP:RM motion, both sides would have made their case, their !votes would have cancelled, and the neutrals would have decided one way or the other.

Instead, there is a medium-sized Polish block, and beyond that there are a large number of editors with separate interests of their own. Calgacus is interested in authentic contemporary usage; I am principally interested in getting a title recognizable to an English readership in this English Wikipedia, with the least surprise possible (as the naming conventions say).

For my purposes, the practice of a just-published standard history is almost irrelevant. It very well may determine usage in fifty years time; if so, we can move the article; I'm interested in what English-speakers use and expect now.

Regards, Septentrionalis 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more or less in the same camp as Calgacus in PM Anderson's categorisation above, although I do favour the principle of least astonishment, only I don't necessarily interpret it the same way that others do. If a compound name is the only solution, I'd prefer a hyphenated one to a parenthesised one, in the way that you sometimes see Bulgarian Tsar/Khan Boris referred to as Boris-Michael, or Skirgaila as Skirgaila-Ivan. For a single title I'd be happy with the Latin form of Jogaila, Jagailo, but perhaps that's too close to ru:Ягайло ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latvian language needed

Hi. I observed that you are a Latvian (hopefully I have not understood wrongly :) Do you speak Estonian, by the way? or understand Livonian? or Izhorian? or Veps?
Could you take a look at article Lieven and provide Latvian names (at least all "christian" names: Lieven, Reinhold, Hans-Heinrich, Johann-Christoph, Otto Heinrich Andreas, Charlotte, Mezotne, Turaida, Christoph Heinrich, Dorothea, Carl Christoph, Alexander, Pavlovich (Paul's son), Karlovich (Charles' son), Andreas, Anatoli, Paul) of all the (Lieven) persons there mentioned, as well as others who you think have had sufficient connection with Latvia. I am certain that all Lievens were so much in Latvia (either as landowners there or in some other role) that people there (at least sometimes) used Latvian first names of them, not only German or Russian or whatever. Then, do you know (or are sources available to you revealing) whetger "Lieven" itself had any Latvian version (translation and/or used name version) - and what is it?
Additionally, if you have time and interest, could you check whether you can add anything to the article.
(By the way, what is the formation of genitive inLatvian; how do you write "castellan of Turaida", for example; or "owner of Mezotne") I would be very happy if you can provide those abovelisted first names etc in authentic Latvian. Shilkanni 09:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Transnistria

Did you get my email about this flag? Well, since we are not an government organ of the PMR, it is up to us to decide on what flag we use on Wikipedia. Too bad the website of the PMR President is down, so I cannot see if any major changes have been done. I do not know anyone in the region I could ask, but I do think the plain red/green/red flag is used more often, if not for propoganda uses, but for ease of cost. It is easier to make a plain flag than to silk-screen symbols on it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind games (Transnistria & Gagauzia)

(Continued here) ... In fact, I have an even better example: Crimea. Like Transnistria,

  • Crimea has a plurality of Russian-speakers who object to (in this case) Ukrainization (Russian is not an official language in Crimea... de jure) and would have preferred to become part of Russia again;
  • It is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, quite capable of playing the role of the 14th Army in Crimea (especially with reinforcements from Russia through the nearby Kerch Strait);
  • Real power was (and probably still is) held by Russians, with Ukrainian-appointed authorities playing only a nominal role. That is, they could've easily been deposed if need be.

Unlike Transnistria,

  • Ethnic Russians in Crimea constituted (and still do, despite a 10% decrease) a clear majority (ca. 69% in 1989);
  • Crimea is in a much better geostrategic position (more defensible, closer to Russia, important ports etc);
  • Crimea is a very important part of Russian history, its abrupt loss is a matter of national disgrace in Russia. Why, the fleet is now forced to lease its own land & facilities, that's some humiliation! That is, plenty of reasons for a takeover attempt, even beside purely economic ones.

And yet, despite all this, the existing tensions never escalated to a military conflict. Both sides gave away some ground and Crimea is now an Ukrainian autonomy. It's not a model part of Ukraine, true, but, thankfully, not a secessionist unrecognized state either.

So, my point is, if there really was/is an evil Russian plot to strangle the nascent democratic countries by illegally extending its imperialistic and oppessive rule to integral parts of their territory, then Crimea should've been first to face it.

This passage of mine is not directly related to the discussion of the Transnistria page, so I'm posting it here instead. Feel free to reply to in anytime you want. More rants to follow, if you permit it. :-) --Illythr 09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, though in all fairness, there was not a minority of locals who raided Soviet/Russian army weapons stores and started taking over the Crimean territory in a "creeping putsch" (as Charles King characterizes in his book). Russia has other ways press the Ukraine for what it wants (energy). The Ukraine has already indicated its economy is not ready for the $130/cm gas price for 2007, and Gazprom is pressing forward to acquire Ukrainian assets. (Of course, you'll counter it's all "free market enterprise.") :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You read my mind! That's exactly what my next rant is going to be about (quite a bit later). As for energy, well, Stalin et al did quite a good job to make the separation of the "brother republics" from the Soviet Union as painful as possible... Although I doubt that Russia will be able to get Crimea back from Ukraine in this way.

P.S. Certainly more constructive to debate this way in any event than fill up Transnistrian talk with discussion of parallels.

P.P.S. Casual look on energy found this: http://eng.maidanua.org/node/642 —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Socor from Jamestown? The guy who wrote about "Monsterseparatisten" in Transnistria etc! I don't think I can trust this guy's analysis, although the facts in that arcticle appear true. --Illythr 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty

(Also continued here as to avoid cluttering the already bloated Transnistia page) My comment about Mark losing whatever bonus he would get if he turned Wikipedia into propaganda was far kinder than the personal criticism which he leveled here that I and others are causing the deaths of Transnistrian children--comments which everyone was perfectly content to leave in place. I rather take that to be a double standard.

One party indulging in pathos and personal attacks does not provide the opposing party with the right to respond in kind. In fact, Mark has damaged his own reputation with those statements and had discredited himself before others who otherwise would've listened to him (me, for once).
As for double standards - personally, I prefer to refrain from removing personal attacks from my opposition during a debate, letting their words speak for themselves. After all, people usually resort to attacking the messenger only when they are unable to attack the message... (*wicked smile*) --Illythr 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal to advocate unification?

Hi Peters, this was archived shortly after I wrote it, so I'm pasting it here to be sure you notice:

Presumably you've already come across the US Department of State's country reports. If not, I would direct you to take a look. Not a "clean bill of health," but nothing specifically indicating that it is against the law to advocate unification with Moldova. jamason 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also read the quote you provided under the heading "human rights" (a link would have been nice, I couldn't find it). Based on that and the link above—among other things—I'm more or less convinced that the problem is not the actual legal code. Also, regarding the quote you did provide, it is awfully vague, isn't it? He "labeled" questionings "treason" and he "cracked down on debate," but what does that mean exactly? Were there any specific examples? jamason 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and find that bookmark! Unfortunately, there were no specific examples--likely to only be found in the Romanian- or Russian-language media. If I can go back and find the source, perhaps Marius might be able to look around a bit. Cooperation from the pro-PMR contingent is less likely, of course...  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say, this isn't much of a suggestion, since I realize you have little use for Russian sources, but I just noticed that you can get the PMR civil and criminal code here in the states through interlibrary loan.
See: Grazhdanskii kodeks Pridnestrovskoi Moldavskoi Respubliki. OCLC: 70129345 LC: KLM293.5.D58
and: Ugolovnyi kodeks Pridnestrovskoi Moldavskoi Respubliki. OCLC: 54073224 LC: KLM293.5.D58
Again, frivolous suggestion. jamason 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda

Hey, Peters, you've got to see this! If you had had any doubts about me being a hardcore Stalinist, diligently working for KGB to hide the Truth, spread foul propaganda and eat little (insert your favorite nation here) children, well, doubt no more! Here (and below) is all the proof you need!

On a somewhat more serious note, please, do take a look. That guy really does "refute post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda", and he's probably serious about it. I think that a "look from the other side" will do you good. --Illythr 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're maintaining your sense of humor (i.e., perspective). I do think there's a general issue regarding WWII, one which Russia exploits, which is "NAZI" = "evil," anything anti-NAZI = "good"--ergo, anyone taking arms up against the Soviets (which would have been in concert with the Nazis after Barbarossa attempting to repel the incoming Soviet troops as the Nazis retreated) is an evil NAZI, cooperated with the NAZIS, etc. My grandparent's house was taken over by both the Nazis and the Soviets. The Germans at least had table manners. When the Russians left, the family (that hadn't been deported to Siberia) had to clean excrement and garbage out of the house with shovels. The bottom line is that, unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe.
    Not to mention Stalin had a pact with Hitler to divide up all of Eastern Europe, which seems to be forgotten in portrayals of the Great Patriotic War.
    I've been busy with a new PC build and trying to consolidate all my prior backups/files. It's a long article but I will definitely have a critical read through in the next couple of weeks. Hope to be back to Transnistria in a few days, too.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, I guess you came too late to see the actual war going on. My original link pointed to over there (now archived). There is no longer a need to review the text as the contested section has been removed (you can see it being refuted point by point in the first, productive, phase of the war; later the puppeteer mosly resorted to silly (but amusing) accusations). You are welcome to take a look, of course. The current events are but a spillover from some Baltic-related topic. --Illythr 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I take it, nobody in you grandparent's house was shot on the spot, hanged or burned alive along with the house? After the troops left, there actually was something of value remaining? If this was indeed the case, then your family was very lucky, unlike millions of others who did not live to tell what German or Soviet soldiers had done to them.
The Great Patriotic War began on 22 June 1941 with the Axis forces breaking said pact. I am not aware of any concealment concerning the secret protocols of the pact in post-Soviet Russian sources.
The issue is not "anti-nazi = good" (Western allies were Capitalist), but rather, "pro-Nazi = evil", which is pretty reasonable, if you ask me. That much of the cooperation happened in the "enemy of an enemy" form is indeed often ignored, but the fact of willing collaboration (for whatever reasons) cannot be denied. As for who was the greater evil - a debate on this is potentially endless, as it's mostly apples and oranges, really. The fact that the Nazis were present only for some three years (on the Baltic territories) and were more concerned with killing Soviets, Slavs and Jews - not the most popular ethnic/social groups in the region - could have contributed to such "better them (in gas chambers) than us (in Siberia)" views. Still, AFAIK, the Baltic peoples were not considered Aryan and thus would be eventually subject to corresponding Nazi policies, after the current "Untermenschen" have been processed. --Illythr 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiraspol

First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

[edit] Arbitration regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's open now. I hope you can help bringing this seemingly insolvable 'dispute' to an end. I have to warn though that I myself will probably not be able to participate from Sunday (afternoon) to Wednesday afternoon. Hopefully you can settle the problem, anyway.Constanz - Talk 09:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hi, Pēter, I am under impresion that you might know something more in depht about history of Latvia during the soviet era. User:Biruitorul has asked me to check these sections Collectivisation_in_the_USSR#Latvia and Forest_Brothers#In_Latvia, and expand History_of_Latvia#Soviet_period accordingly. I checked them with history textbook, however it seems that some dates might be wrong and place names in Forest brother article were obviously incorrect. So, I was wondering if you could take a glance at them ? Paldies jau iepriekš -- Xil/talk 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry to bother

Here it says [3] that you want to remove the word official that is part of your transnistria compromise introduction, but I have read everything that you said about it, on that page, and I think maybe 3 times or 4 times, and my conclusion is that you are neutral, you dont care if it stays or if it is removed, is that correct? then you need to please come to Talk:Transnistria and say that this is correct that you are neutral, if not, then say that you are not, there is confusing and i have been accused of being a liar ("plain falacies" and "difficult to assume good faith") but I am honestly in belief that you are neutral from what I have read 4 times Pernambuco 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, but I think there's something wrong with your userpage...--Illythr 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:43 (UTC)

[edit] Rules on evidence page

As stated on the top of every ArbCom evidence page, it is forbidden to edit other users' sections. If you disagree with some evidence, make your own subsection, or comment on talk. There should be no threaded discussions on the page. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion for you

I came here to give you a suggestion for a change of activity instead of trying to win the content dispute through Wikilawyering at ArbCom's page by pressing for sanctions against your content opponents, WP:Canvassing for "additional help" in doing so, and even following me to a totally unrelated article to check up on whether I did anything discrediting there.

Here is the suggestion for you to do something more productive. In the course of de-redlinking Taras Shevchenko, I created a short article about Janis Tilbergs, the author of the first monument ever unveiled to this distinguished compatriot of myself. I would have written more about this great Latvian artist, but I found a rather short supply of sources in the languages that are familiar to me. Therefore, I thought I bring this up to you in case you are interested in expanding it as you state at your page that you are interested in anything Latvian. Despite there is a shortage of sources in English, Russian or Ukrainian, there must be some info in Latvian, I am sure.

While at it, you may want to do something about the fact that certain very notable links, that even "Russian propaganda POV pushers" are aware of, are still red, eg. the Latvian Academy of Arts and Eduards Smilgis. You may also do something about Rainis being a pity stub. Happy edits, --Irpen 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't follow you, I only followed a reference which was cited. (And I do have Ukrainian friends and I have come across a fair amount of materials on what Stalin did to the Ukraine.) :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You better take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia/Proposed_decision Constanz - Talk 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and 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, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Baltic states

Thank you for your comment. Can you please consider the following argument. Occupation is by definition can only be of a foreign territory. If a territory already annexed, it can not be called "occupation". For example, Israel ocupies Gaza. If it declares annexation of the territory, it at the moment discontinues to be occupation. No country can "occupy" its own territory.--Dojarca 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you provided an example. Whether or not Israel annexes Gaza, it still occupies Gaza. Annexation cannot terminate occupation. The reason it's still an occupation--Gaza or the Baltics--is because of the legal principle "ex iniuria ius no oritur" — right can not grow out of injustice.
    Additionally, as mentioned, the Baltic States all took steps to insure their de jure continuity regardless of territorial events. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. You're right saying that if the annexation or acception is not recognized by somebody as de jure valid, he continues to see the things as occupation. You correctly pointed out that there were made efforts to insure continuity between their pre-Soviet governments and their representatives in the West and even some Western countries did not recognize their incorporation into Soviet Union. But the fact is that this is only one point of view and incorporation of the countries into SU was also widely recognized by many other countries.--Dojarca 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.
    The principle of ex iniuria ius no oritur precludes an illegal annexation from ever being considered legal whether or not a third party decides it may or may not be convenient to functionally recognize it as legal for its own purposes. Using your example, Israel "formally" annexes occupied Gaza. The U.S. declares it recognizes Israel's incorporation of Gaza as Israel now having de jure sovereignty over Gaza. The U.S. declaration does not make the annexation legal nor terminate the Israeli occupation. Occupation continues as long as the de jure sovereign authority is prevented from functioning. In the case of the Gaza strip, that is (most likely, the Gaza strip is a mess, having also been under Egyptian administration) the Palestinian Authority. An internationally organized plebescite might be appropriate in the particular case of Gaza, which does not currently reside within the borders of any sovereign nation.
    Also, that countries recognized the post-WWII borders of the Soviet Union does not mean that countries recognized the annexation of the Baltics as de jure legal, another argument that has been made on Wikipedia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that this in not the Wikipedia's business to decide what was legal and what was not, dont you agree? Even if the elections were falsified, it was widely recognized that the states became part of the USSR and as such they ware not occupied (at least for them who recognized the borders of the USSR). And it seems you use the principle you're citing very broadly. For example, American war for independence was illegal, but it is widely recognized now that the US is an independent state.--Dojarca 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania

Greetings. On the above page there is a lengthy debate going on, and there is much discussion about the Baltics. We would appreciate your opinion, as well as more informed commentary on the Baltic issue. Thank you. Biruitorul 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your eloquent defence of anti-Stalinism (truth be told, I'd never heard Mr Krohn's argument before, so it surprised me a little) - it's unfortunate, though, that such a defence should even be necessary today.
On the point regarding de jure/de facto, here's what I was getting at. Romania isn't a good example here, since it didn't really have a government in exile, so let's use Poland, which did. Now, I know the Baltics were unique as the only countries swallowed up whole by the USSR, and that their continued formal existence was very important to them psychologically. However, as a practical matter (meaning who controlled the territory, which is an important component of statehood), the Baltics states did disappear (at least once the Forest Brothers were mostly crushed), and only their regimes survived, but without ruling over any territory. (Plus, insofar as international law is concerned, the annexation was recognised to some extent even by the West. They didn't insist on providing seats at the UN for the Baltics, and while they maintained low-level diplomatic relations, it's interesting that in 1991, they all issued statements recognising their independence, implying (at least as I understand it) that they weren't considered independent prior to those statements being issued.) In Poland, the state continued to exist (albeit under Soviet occupation and within different borders), but the regime ceased holding any control over territory, which a new, Communist, regime did, though with limited sovereignty. But just because Poland "existed" on a map and the Baltics didn't (on most maps), doesn't, at least as I see it, make the former "less occupied" than the latter (at least until 1956), particularly as it too had a government claiming de jure occupation.
Anyway, we're on the same side in the wider dispute, I'm not trying to start an argument, and if I'm completely wrong, don't hesitate to correct me - you're the expert! Biruitorul 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
With the Baltics, de jure or not comes into play as to whether the joining by Latvia to the Soviet Union was legal (it was under Soviet law, but not under Latvian law). Since not legal, the Soviet presence becomes an occupation essentially continuous with the first, being interrupted by the Nazi occupation, for its entire tenure. Occupation, however, can also be legal and still be an occupation.
It would seem to me that Romania should be an easier case. With an occupying Allied (Soviet) presence controlling Romania in agreement with the terms of a treaty, that became a legal occupation. As long as the Soviet presence continued under the auspices of that treaty, it continued to be a (legal) occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If you have the energy to try and convince others of this (or get our view to prevail) with regard to the Romania article, I would appreciate your assistance. Biruitorul 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for jumping in at this off-placed discussion. I do have to correct a misinterpretation.

  1. In 1991 the Baltics declared independence as successor states to the soviet republics. This new independence was recogniced by all countries, except possibly Finland. There was almost absolute continuity in government; in Estonia the Edgar Savisaar cabinet continued in office, with no major change in policy. The change happend after 1992, with the new "citizenship" based parliaments. In Estonia the discontinuity/occupation policy was promoted by the new prime minister Mart Laar. While the Baltic states were de facto part of the Soviet Union, the argument is that de jure they were under occupation. I am not saying this intepretation of history is correct. What I am saying is, that the de jure argumet is the basis used for naming the period, and the related Wikipedia articles "occupation".
  2. Regarding Romania, the only arguments presented are that Soviet presence in Romania was de facto occupation. So far no one has come up with a credible argument that it was de jure occupation after 1947. -- Petri Krohn 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(I have moved this discusson to Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania#Comparison with the Baltic Republics -- Petri Krohn 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Pēters -- got your message. First, let me say I enjoyed a lot reading what you wrote on the talk page for this article -- quite informative, it made me view things through a novel prism. I can't say more now -- gotta run -- but quickly, no problem with the diacritics, but I 1) wanted to put the correct links in case the respective pages get created; and 2) wasn't quite sure what the original had it in terms of spelling. For that, I did a quick search, and came uo with this, so I used the spelling from there. Please feel free to edit at will. Talk later. Turgidson 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the diacritics (from appearance, not from wikilinks) -- is this an accurate transcript of the actual document now? Turgidson 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You said: "if you take a look again during editing, you'll see that the Wiki article references all have the appropriate diacritics and almost all already have an article." I turned one of those redlinks blue, at: Dumitru Dămăceanu. While researching his bio, I found this interesting snippet, from testimony given by General Dămăceanu 20 years later, in front of an official Party comission: "Prin aceasta punere in scena sovieticii au incercat sa demonstreze ca Bucurestiul a fost ocupat si eliberat de catre Armata Rosie, desi rezistenta germana din oras fusese lichidata cu mult inainte de patrunderea trupelor sovietice." I'm not sure you can follow the Romanian text, but he basically it says that German resistance in Bucharest in August 1944 was eliminated by the Romanian troops much before the arrival of Soviet troops, which then proceeded to stage the photo-op that you caught on to. More details are here. Is there a good way to point this out in the article? Turgidson 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double transliteration

Thanks for pointing out the issue of transliterating Latin to Cyrillic. We should create guidelines on Wikipedia against this practice. I coined the term double transliteration (and the redirect) to discribe this. This could be expanded into an article or section. -- Petri Krohn 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fântâna Albă

There is a discussion on the talk page there on whether to call the killing by NKVD border guards of dozens (perhaps hundreds) of unarmed villagers trying to cross from the Soviet Union into Romania on April 1, 1941 a "massacre" or an "incident". Pretty much everyone agrees it was a massacre (which is what it is called in the quoted references), except one person, who says the killings were perfectly justified, so no massacre, just an incident. If you have some time and interest in this matter, please do take a look and give your opinion. I'm especially interested in hearing your view on the legal aspects -- you seem to have quite a bit of expertise on that. Turgidson 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian presence in Transnistria

Say, let's consider a situation where the Russian army (still, which one of them were you referring to there?) magically disappears. What should be the next step? --Illythr 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The PMR is such a mess, I'll have to think about it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/c/User_talk%7EVecrumba_c4a9.html"