Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 19 September 2008

Odds and ends

• Wiki lull during first quarter, 2008
• Archived January 8th, 2008
• Archived May 1st, 2008

On representing Soviet versus non-Soviet "POV" in Misplaced Pages

Since my editorial positions have been denounced at times, I feel it is important that I state my position regarding this area of contention in Misplaced Pages. I have avoided any references to any specific editors so as to insure it is clear that I am explictly referring to editorial positions and explicitly not to the conduct or contentions or motivations of any particular editor. Adapted from an earlier posting.

On disputes regarding Eastern European articles being "based on irreconcilable POV differences". This is an oversimplification and, ultimately, a misrepresentation.
   One side contends the Soviet Union did not occupy the Baltics and Eastern Europe, minimally that "occupation" and "invasion" are "judgemental" terms, that even perfectly sourced articles fairly and accurately representing reputable sources are "cherry-picked" and "tendentiously" edited. Never producing reputable scholarship in support of their personal position (being characterized as an "editorial" one).
   The other side contends that Soviet conduct in the Baltics and Eastern Europe was not not glorious. That 100,000,000 people were left to suffer for half a century under a blanket of brutal Soviet totalitarianism. Always producing sources, and producing even more sources when challenged.
   One side states "occupation" is merely a post-Cold War anti-Soviet (neo-Nazi) political manufacture, aka, "revisionist" history. The other side brings reputable sources to the table with factual accounts of Soviet conduct. Apparently a reputable source can state "invaded" and "occupied", but we as editors are not to repeat those words here with regard to the Baltics and Eastern Europe so as to not offend a dead empire that sent tens of millions to their deaths. Or it is demanded we represent "both sides" equally in order for an article to be "NPOV"—regardless that one side is totally discredited and unsourced (except for declarations with no substantive basis—for example, no one has yet produced a source substantiating the Russian Duma's declaration that Latvia joined the Soviet Union "legally according to international law"), and the other side is voluminously and reputably sourced.
   Everywhere Misplaced Pages policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction. Sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. Here, "NPOV" is demanding that Soviet propaganda be given equal time to reputable scholarship. I myself have been attacked for my "anti-Stalinist" user box (even though it specifically states I dispute Stalinism based on facts).
   Advocacy that the Soviet version of Baltic and Eastern European history must be represented equally and fairly, and the opposition to that advocacy, is not a "content dispute." It is not about "irreconcilable POVs" colliding. It is about permitting a community of motivated and knowledgeable editors to write about their heritage and history, filling a half-century gap of missing history, rectifying half a century of Soviet falsehoods. Or not. Misplaced Pages stands for editorial integrity or it stands for nothing.

Can you help

Find sources and address the general points raised here and here? I thought it would be of interest to you, after our discussion of Nazi sources and undercover activities.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something on this. —PētersV (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you could try to mediate between Polish and Lithuanian editors at Talk:Dubingiai_massacre#Removed_info. I doubt we can find a common language there by ourselves.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brothers' Cemetery

Hi, you said you got something about bringing flame for enternal flame from Leningrad. I also found a note about that in a Soviet published encyclopedia, however so far I haven't found anything about lighting the enternal fire in any other source. Thing is it was lit in 1958, however the altar for the enternal flame was built in 1930s. Does your source say what had happened to fire and what was symbolical meaning behind bringing it from Leningrad ? ~~Xil...sist! 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sveiks, Xil! From "Brāļu Kapi" published 1959 by the Latvian State Publishing House (so, I believe a SSR government publication and should therefore be in the public domain...), p. 17-18:

1958. gada 22. jūlija svinīgajā sēru mītiņā, kad dzimtenes smiltājā apbedija no tāliem kauju laukiem pārvestos varoņu pīšlus, LKP CP sekretāram J. Kalnbērziņam Ļeņingradas strādnieks pasniedza lāpu, ar kuru Brāļu kapu altārī iedezināja mūžīgo uguni. Šī lāpa bija aizdedzināte pie mūžīgāš uguns Ļeņingrādā Marsa laukumā , kur varoņu kapenēs kopā ar citiem cīnītājiem atdusas arī latviešu strēlnieki.

There's a picture of Kalnbērziņš lighting the flame with the torch from Leningrad, along with two others I don't recognize. Also, a picture on the previous page of the event with someone delivering an address, captioned:

Sēru mītiņš Brāļu kapos 1958. g. 22. jūlijā, izvadot us pēdejo dusu Lielajā Tēvijas karā kritušos tautas varoņus.

If we can confirm that as a Soviet government publication it's in the public domain, there are also pictures of proposed models of Brāļu Kapi which would be very useful for an article. —PētersV (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is in public domain - everything in Soviet Union was state owned, copyrights of this publication are governed either by Latvian law, in which case it is not in public domain or by the law which governed copyrights in LSSR at the time - I couldn't find law for that period, but I found out that under 1964 law copyrights of legal persons last forever (this was said in news article on scandal about seling rights on Soviet Latvian movies, the case is somewhat similar as the movies were produced by state owned studio, however maybe this concerns only copyrights on movies). Perhaps you'll make something out if you read and Copyright law of the Soviet Union. My question on War grave concerned interwiki links in lv:Brāļu kapi not the cemetery we are discussing here - I needed an existing English article to link to - military cemetery would be a good choise as war grave refers only to burials made during short period of time, but it dosen't exist, so I linked to war grave. And last, but not least - could you please give me more details on your Soviet book so I can use this quote as source in the article ? (I'd prefer to fill out as much of Template:Cite book as possible) ~~Xil...sist! 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

War grave is probably find for the interwiki. Interestingly, using Lestene as an example, I turned up the following usages...

• www.daugavasvanagi.org -Second World War Fallen Latvian Legion Soldiers Brothers Cemetery at Lestene
• www.mfa.gov.lv - Lestene Brethren Cemetery
• vip.latnet.lv/lpra - Riga's Brothers Cemetery - but - Lestene War Cemetery
• www.am.gov.lv - Lestene Warriors Cemetery

The real problem in translation is that there is no English equivalent which encompasses the use of "brother" in all its variations in common Latvian usage, also including folk songs ("brāļu", "brālītis", "bālēliņš",...). Thinking of folks songs, "betrothed" and "brother/brethren" are the closest literal translations but have no feeling as compared to the originals in Latvian. If you compare to a cemetery such as Arlington in the U.S., "Brāļu Kapi" might more appropriately though less literally translate to "National Cemetery" or "National War Cemetery". Not to be solved here... On the other topic, the Brāļu Kapi book does list a number of editors, I'll post that on your talk when I next have a chance. —PētersV (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda

Since we were discussing this subject, I find the Nazi_propaganda#During_World_War_II section pitifully small and likely missing many, many important examples.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'm doing a bit of work on Dubingiai to try and pull together the multiple versions and conflicting accounts into a narrative that's representative that everyone can live with--that seems an editorial problem of manageable size. I see the Holocaust in Lithuania is going less well lately but I don't have the bandwidth for a major effort there. That will boil down to disparate sources--nowhere in Eastern Europe was the Holocaust inflicted without the direct management of the German Nazis, but the issue of the "Germanless" Holocaust is far bigger than the one article. —PētersV (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular fronts

Hello. I see you're now doing work on earlier decades, but I thought I'd let you in on what I did recently and hope to see more of. I wrote Popular Front of Moldova and put in a section on the Popular Fronts, but it seems to me that we woefully lack coverage on the Soviet republics' move to independence (say 1987-91). There's some of that for the Baltics, and now I've started Moldova, but more is needed, not to mention Ukraine and the Caucasus republics. The Supreme Soviet elections, the demonstrations, the negotiations, the reactions of the republican Communist Parties, the link to earlier dissident movements, the sense of reawakening, the impact of cultural figures - I could go on and on, but anyway, it's definitely an area for expansion. Biruitorul (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it in print, but Google Books offers generous excerpts, which I used for the Moldovan Popular Front article. Oh, and the Latvian link was news to me; I'll look into that. Biruitorul (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie of joint Soviet Nazi victory parade available.

I just found out that there is an actual movie of the joined Soviet-Nazi victory parade of 1939. I am downloading it but knowing net it could be deleted. I think you might be interested. --Molobo (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

Its German two-phase withdrawals--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pēter, I'm not watching the article anymore, however I came accros an interesting fact - I've got history book which says that Stalin himself had ordered to eliminate the encicled army group until 7 November 1944 (so much for blocking to pass by), I thought you might find that interesting, though judging from the discussion only the original order would be considered source reliable enough ~~Xil * 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not planing to work on that article either (I'm not interested in military history and I already have some other things to do both in Misplaced Pages and real life), but such order would clearly show that those who say that Russians didn't realy plan to attack are wrong, so it might be worth to investigate this further, if you are waching the article perhaps you could mention this to people who are currently contributing to the article (t.i. tiem, kas piekrīt mūsu versijai, protams). I have used that history book as reference in few other articles - it's Freibergs J. (1998, 2001) Jaunako laiku vesture 20. gadsimts Zvaigzne ABC ISBN 9984-17-049-7. ~~Xil * 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Red flag whistle blowing

I do find this section Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising#Nazi_forces absolutely unreferenced and WP:POV.--Lokyz (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, that I went for the sources and did not succeed finding any. After some googling attempts I've landed on some Polish forums, where half of the users declared that it is "obvious" and "well known fact", while the others asked for sources and did not get any. What makes me wonder most - is Lithuanian Security Police story. How could it land and what could it have done in Poland at the time?

IMO, it is the same problem as usual - a collection of popular mythoses, without even an attempt to read some research before posting accusations. And after it is posted, we'd get a cats and dogs of forum/tygodniks/"patriotic" literature referencing.--Lokyz (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read Ezergailis book, if it is avaylable online, I'd be glad to read it. If not - I'd be even more eager. And i hope, it is english, because, i have to confess, that despite our "braliukas" languages I'm more skilled in Slavic, Germanic, and English languages (me culpa). From the Lithuanian side there is an international Comission that does publish a lot of books (IMO - precedent-creatig wise action of Lithuanian Government to disestablish any accusaition on Lithuanian nationalism and let historians do their work (please note the partners of the project)). If the trend of prosecution the others will continue, I think I'll scratch my head and go to the nearest book shop or I'll ask my fromer history study fellows to share their libraries. Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The participation of Ukrainian/Russian/Baltic auxiliaries in the Uprisings is mentioned in various sources, we could use more info on that (it was probably a relatively small contribution, but the sources are not very clear). Ex. : "a 337-man battalion of Ukrainian and Lithuanian fascist auxiliaries, called ‘Askaris’ by the German"; : "Sammern-Frankenegg dispatched groups of Lithuanian and Ukrainian SS auxiliaries and Polish police into the ghetto"; : "the remaining fugitives were discovered by SS troops and Lithuanian auxiliaries, who killed them all"; : "From his car Stroop carefully studied the ghetto borders and checked the vigilance of the security forces just outside the ghetto area. They were mostly Ukrainian, Latvian, and Lithuanian Fascists serving under the SS command... known as Askaris." More about the Askari/Askaris: , , , , . I wonder if they are just another name for the Hilfspolizei? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bandwidth is low (coffee break!) but I'll take a look at your searches. Ezergailis has reviewed all the archival materials available and has not found any records of Latvian SD units or personnel being dispatched to Poland--I've heard the story personally, but I don't recall the exact "nickname" used. —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Weiner example

Just some quick feedback reading through the refs (your through "more about" refs):

First of all, you will note the confusion in references as to who are the Askaris. They appear to be Russian deserters, not Balts or Ukrainians. (Also, I would have recognized the term if I had heard it before). But it immediately gets far more interesting:

• 1st ref, Weiner and 2nd ref, Weiner: I believe his reference is incorrect (and he repeats the exact same text!), he is not taking Askaris to be the correct constituency

NOTE: Weiner's source for Askaris being Balts and Ukrainians is, surprise!, the Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History, so Soviet documentary source; given to the extent the Soviets went to equate the Balts and Ukrainians with Nazis, this source is fatally suspect

• 3rd ref, Edelheit & Edelheit: I believe are correct, this is the only answer that makes sense without further research (and given the source for Askaris NOT being Russian is Soviet/Russian)
• 4th ref, Reitlinger: The Germans love (der Spiegel does this regularly) to reprint Nazi propaganda, that is, Hitler's creation of the Germanless Holocaust where the Balts were already slaughtering Jews, where Balts were so "vicious" that appalled German SS "saved" Jews from their grasp, etc. Himmler's statements on savage Balts (et al.) are documented to be pure propaganda. Unreliable reference. Note, Askaris are, however, the Russian deserters, at least that is correct.
• 5th ref, Grobman: Maintains there was no difference between the Waffen SS and the SD units (incorrect), maintains they were all convicted at Nuremberg (incorrect).

Extraordinary claims (let's stick to Latvians and Lithuanians, which I know better) that Balts were actively engaged in the Holocaust so far from home territory require extraordinary proof, such as orders of stationing. These sources exhibit the following flaws:

• are wrong on who Askaris is (apparently repeating Soviet misdirection away from Soviet deserters),
• repeat Nazi propaganda, and
• equate the Waffen SS with the SD units and indicate all were convicted at Nuremberg.

Despite some of the glowing reviews printed on the covers, not as impressive when it comes to the Holocaust with regard to Baltic participation. —PētersV (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I forget in which one, but "Askaris" was also declined as "Askari" (plural of "Askaris") as if Askaris is a Baltic Latvian or Lithuanian word, which it categorically is completely not. —PētersV (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tighina

I think the article Bender, Moldova should be moved to Tighina. See also my last comments in the talk page of the article. It's obviously that the city is mostly called Tighina in Romanian (Moldovan) language. --Olahus (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Encyclopedias reliable?

Perhaps you could comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Using all sources

Thanks Vecrumba, that's actually exactly what we're trying to do. My opinion is that we should not use a specific date (1931, 1937, 1939, 1941) and say that it is the true date which WWII started on; I'd rather present everything (within reason) and let the user decide. As a first step, I'm trying to get recognition that the sources I use which state something other then 1939 are reputable. After that, I'm going to head over to NPOV to get consensus that they do form, at least, a significant minority. Oberiko (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dictator FDR?

Can you source that for me? Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. No hurry. Trekphiler (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification on Baltic/Soviet subjects

Thank you so much, Vecrumba, for your insights. I'm more than happy to adopt them as guidelines for my tagging. TFCforever (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moldovan business, again

Hello, Pēters - may I ask that you provide a bit of outside input here? Thanks, and much appreciated. Biruitorul 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Estonia international rankings

I remember a long time ago you asked me about the removal of the table which you created and I replied that I will re-add it after adding some more sources and rankings. Now its done though just half of it. I hope it is okey. Also I made lot of copyviol. issue removals and added some new ones which should be 100% copyviol. free. Talk 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland administration

Could you comment on the edit war at Template:Administrative division of Poland? Thanks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: minor trivia (because I am too tired for more): smaller, but much more densly populated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Estonia

Hi, I know it's really none of my business, but I've been reading your exchanges on user:Victor V V's talk page, and I'm really impressed by how you've handled yourself. You obviously have a grasp of the facts, but more importantly you're displaying much more patience and kindness than many others (myself included) could muster, especially given the situation. Just thought you should know that... // Chris 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on yours. :-) —PētersV (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointless squabbles

...still, I'm curious, would you build a similar table for the various kinds of Russians who are now spread over different countries? You know, White Russians, Little Russians, Rusyns... Or Jews and Palestinians? Or Chinese and Japanese? What about Serbs and Montenegrins?

Another interesting moment that is reflected in that table is that you acknowledge the existence of "Moldavians of old", but are quick to turn them all into Romanians in the next "step". From my understanding of the idea, its proponents maintain that the population of Bessarabia was "not there" when Romanianism culminated in the establishment of the Romanian nation (being a province of the Russian empire at the moment, pretty much isolated from the newly created Romania).

But the main point is, of course, correct - ethnic division is indeed political. Never ceased to be. --Illythr (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Romanian was called Moldavian in the principality of... more by the outside world. There's no suggestion that it's a case of anything except a rose by another name, so to speak. But, regardless. The bottom line is that at the dawn of the 20th century, every reputable source shows Romanians as the primary ethnic group inhabitants of the post WWI Romanian territory, including Bessarabia, including left-bank (Dniester) Transnistria. (We do have the Szélelys, pockets of Germans and Saxons, in the heart of Transylvania, as well Magyars of Hungary in the border territory, but that's a much longer story. I would mention that the post WWI redrawn Romanian border including Transylvania very closely followed the extent of Romanian settlement as the predominant ethnic group, the afore-mentioned heart of Transylvania aside.)

   So where claims of identity and rights are concerned with regard to modern-day Moldova, born of a historical lie created by the Soviet Union, including the Cyrillization of Romanian as a "language," my personal opinion is a pox on Moldovans as an ethnic group (as opposed to a group identity connected with the current Moldovan territory) and a pox on Russians' ethnic habitation based claims and rights to and in Transnistrian territory. I don't paint myself as a bearer of truth, but compared to extremists on both sides, my interests in the "ethnic" topic are unbiased. I do admit to a pro-Moldova disposition because of connections between Transnistria proper and more generally post-Soviet fall Moldova with the Baltics--and patently false Russian claims regarding events both recent and historical there. But I have no pan-Romanian or ethno-genesis-Moldovan extremist view to peddle. I'm just saddened that the extremists on both sides have hijacked identification as an ethnic group--something sacred to one's linguistic/cultural/historical identity--for nothing but political purposes. It's a whole lot of political posturing and invective creating nothing but bad blood (and here on WP) instead of a honest dialog over the actual issue: whether or not Romania and Moldova should be reunited and what that means to Bessarabian (Russian invention) Romanians who have had half a century to develop a Moldovan (Soviet invention) territorial identity apart from Romania. The adversity of 50 years of being occupied and annexed versus merely inhabiting a puppet state that on paper was still sovereign is going to have a major impact and create a schism in how people forced into those two groups subsequently view themselves. But let's not make that out to be anything other than what it actually is.

   As much as I'm rooting for Moldova, there's no "600 years". Voronin is in it for Voronin. Sad to say in that respect--financial self-aggrandizement and over-the-top rhetoric that fabricates history in direct support of the continuation of his own authority--he's more like Smirnov than not. And so a pox on politicians that use their authority for personal opportunity.

   Of course, a pox on me for using the word pox, but we're only discussing my personal opinion here. What I personally believe and what I contend and write editorially are two different things. I'm old enough to tell the two apart. —PētersV (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat that ethnic identification has always been a political tool. I see the situation with ... the population of Moldavia as a vivid proof of that: As Romanianism gained popularity in the three principalities to the point of becoming accepted inside and outside of the newly created state, Bessarabia remained unaffected by it due to it being am imperial province. However, since at that time nobody contested that the people on the two banks of the Pruth are the same, the new demonym was (externally) accepted for Bessarabia as well. The Bessarabians themselves (who were at that time 95% uneducated peasants) didn't care a whit about this development. Once Bessarabia joined Romania, a Romanianization attempt was conducted to bring the local population "into the fold". It failed for the same reason Russification had (largely) failed in the last 100+ years - education infrastructure, through which such ideas are implanted into popular consciousness was virtually non-existent in Bessarabia. The harsh economic conditions caused the peasants to think about feeding their families, not of "higher matters" of who they are. Once Bessarabia was Soviet once again, its authorities realized this and installed the education system, that was then used to "broadcast" the "right" national ideas. In the 1990s the unionists managed shake the foundation of the existing system, but failed to follow through, due to opposition from Snegur (who decided that ruling in Hell was much better than serving in Eden (and Romania wasn't much of an Eden too, at that time)), as well several major screwups of their own. Just how political this whole thing is is readily apparent: when I asked friendly...um, titular nationals (:-P) about their ethnicity, the first response was always "Why, X of course!" (X being Ro or Mo) immediately followed by some political slogan programmed into them either by unionists earlier or anti-unionists later. Only after a few provocative questions they became confused and confessed they really didn't give it much thought. Of course, I won't pretend to be a reliable source on that matter, as I have talked about this to, like, 5 people, but I think the situation had remained largely unchanged since the last couple centuries: the absolute majority of the people being largely inert, and a small but politically charged minority (elite) impressing their views (with varying degrees of success) onto the rest of the populace.

As for Transnistrian claims of "separateness", afaik, it's mostly centered on the current (i.e. since 1989) population proportions and the fact that upon independence, the Moldovan government declared the resolution that created the MSSR, and glued the MASSR to it, null and void (they also kicked the dead horse of the M-R pact too, for some reason). --Illythr (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

About the article Latin European peoples

On Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard there is a discussion about this article where you've been involved too one month ago. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

M-R Pact

I wonder if your last post there makes you (and Whiskey) Russian nationalists. Probably not. But damn it was close... --Illythr (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. Hey, if it's good enough for Nikita (with swap in word order) it's good enough for me. It's during his reign that what's left of the family made it back from Siberia. More to the point, there's no point in the wailing and gnashing of teeth to come that the "inappropriate juxtaposition" by "ethno-fascist Baltic (et al.)" editors of "Nazi-Soviet" "insults the memory and sacrifices of those who gave their lives in the Great Patriotic War to rid the world of fascism." —PētersV (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian salad

Seeing as how you seem to enjoy it with at least some regularity, would you mind grabbing a camera and shooting one during one of those times before it goes in? As someone had correctly pointed out on the article's talk page, the present pic of the thing is not at all typical, leaves and all. --Illythr (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Have my little digital camera here somewhere. Next time I get a particularly appetizing looking batch, I'll be sure to update. In the current picture, the garnishes (lettuce, cucumbers) have taken over and there's only a little dollop of stolichny. Can't see a damn thing! —PētersV (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Livonia?

I've read through the talk page, and skimmed through the article history, and I'm still not completely clear on what you (and the others) are saying.

The Kingdom did exist, but nominally, and only for eight years, after which it was conquered and divided up among multiple new owners? Is that it? DS (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Not to be confused with historical Livonia. The "Kingdom of Livonia" of the article, as properly described in the talk section from my translation from the Latvian WP (and I have published sources that agree), was a plot of Ivan the Terrible to put Livonian (now Estonian and Latvian Vidzeme) territory under Russian suzerainty. No territory was ever conquered. No subjects ever owed allegiance. The plot failed utterly and miserably. No such kingdom ever existed. Hope this helps! —PētersV (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Something non-Baltic

This is a continuation of an off-topic off-shoot off that off-topic discussion over there.

Whether it was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference. - 500 years make no difference, you say? Then let's take another example...

I understand, you're a citizen of the United States - a vile regime of occupation, part of a more general ongoing European occupation of the Americas. The blatant illegality of this regime is readily apparent - it was established amidst mass enslavement and genocide of Native Americans - the only legal owners of the territories, which were taken from them by force, open fraud, and even what can be considered medieval biological warfare. Even the two nearest and dearest buddies, Stalin and Hitler, powerful and vile as they were, cannot boast the annihilation of an entire civilization on their otherwise impressive crime lists (although Hitler did make an honest attempt). Currently, what is left of the once populous tribes has been forced into concentration camps reservations and is being thoroughly USsified. They are also forced to learn a foreign language which makes them way below second-class citizens in their own countries.

As a person of utmost integrity, surely, you are utterly disgusted with this historical injustice and are doing all that is in your power to end it, so that more nations can enjoy freedom from their historic oppressors? While you're probably not a warrior to try and dismantle the entire utterly illegal legislative and military infrastructure of even one such occupation regime directly, surely, you are doing your part by helping to stop the McDonaldization of what little remains of Native American culture in your area...

...which is Wichquawanck, Lenapehoking, yes? So tell me, how's your Lenape? Are you going to teach your children Seneca? Have you considered teaching web design in Munsee? After all, when the hour of Freedom finally comes, the oppressive and illegal occupying Evil Empire collapses and the Sovereign Native American Freedom Union is established, only those languages will become official in your vicinity (plus another 20 or so; English, French and Spanish certainly not among them, being tools of oppression they are). Also, a number of political measures, strategically aimed at the increase of the proportion of Native Americans in America will have to be implemented (surely, you understand). Evidently, such an increase cannot be achieved without stimulating a big number of non-Natives to leave the country. No less important incentive for the remigration of all those Brits, French, etc, etc, are the ever declining birth rates in their respective home countries, which would certainly welcome the influx of titular ethnics, are surely waiting for their compatriots with open arms, and will be eager to provide for all their needs upon arrival. The young state will certainly follow the shining example of other, more experienced, young democracies, and will not automatically grant citizenship to any of the guests who have overstayed their welcome for just over 500 years and brought only death, disease and suffering to the previously flourishing lands. Citizenship will have to be granted only to those metics, who pass a university-level test on at least three local languages (really now, after the 500 years of ongoing occupation they could have learned ALL of the continent's languages, if they had really wanted to learn the culture of the lands they came to rape live in) as well as intimate familiarity with sacred totemic knowledge of the nearest major tribe. Part of the examination will also cover the knowledge of New History, a subject that will cover in great detail the misdeeds of such vile criminals as Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and, of course, the two intimate friends Hitler and Stalin - typical representatives of the rotting haven of oppression that Europe was during the last 500 years.

Good thing that most of the surviving tribes still have their chieftains whose ancestors were legally appointed by gods to be stewards of their sacred lands - legal continuity won't pose a problem once the SNAFU is firmly established and Functioning Normally. --Illythr (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• This up here is a complete soapboxing. Just that changing some words would put things into a different perspective. So I'm sorry for this trolling here but I couldn't resist:

I understand, you're a citizen of the Russian federation - a vile regime of occupation, part of a more general ongoing Russian occupation of the Finno-Ugric peoples and Indigenous peoples of Siberia. As a person of utmost integrity, surely, you are utterly disgusted with this historical injustice and are doing all that is in your power to end it, so that more nations can enjoy freedom from their historic oppressors?
The fact is, both USA and Russia have similar history. Europeans colonized the lands of indigenous people of America, Russians colonized the lands of Indigenous peoples that lived east of Novgorod and Kiev.--Termer (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not a citizen of that particular Evil Empire. Been there for, like, a year tops some 20 years ago... Integrity? Didn't you know I'm a KGB employee? I'm also evil enough to not recognize these long-term occupations as such, so the second mirroring won't work. :-P

But you are, of course, correct about similar history of those two EEs. Except unlike other European powers, Russia/USSR was fortunate enough to have its colonies right nearby (including the lands of the indigenous peoples that lived to the northwest of the two cities you mention). --Illythr (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

not recognize these long-term occupations as such?? That's fine as long as you're not evil enough to apply double standards to native Americans of European descent whose ancestors just arrived to Americas a bit later over the Atlantic ocean than the ones that were pushed from Siberia into Bering Sea a bit earlier and were forced to swim across and had colonized the lands that belonged to dinosaurs and mammoths--Termer (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, an excellent point! Surely, all of the land modern humans live on had previously belonged if not to someone, then to something else! With but a minor extension of the same "still an occupation after X years" logic from X = five hundred to X > five hundred thousand, we can make use of your ingenious suggestion and conclude that the entire human species is, in fact, an illegal occupant here on Earth (just think about the fate of the poor Neanderthals... or the mammoths! Or the dodos! Or, or, or...) by some divine law. Shame on us! And may a holy bolt of divine power strike me down if I dare to assume that you apply similar double standards by failing to extend your definition of occupation to all of the still ongoing occupations in the world, as long as they involved a forceful change of local leadership by a foreign entity and happened at some point (-5e1, -5e2, -5e5) of human history! --Illythr (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can ensure you no double standards from my part. I've always known that history is written by the winners and therefore, only the winners are allowed to call their former oppressors illegal occupants. Starting with a loser Mongol Empire who illegally occupied Russia for about 200 years once, ending with USSR losing the cold war and therefore Eastern Europe can call their former Soviet oppressors illegal occupants now. As another example, since the indigenous peoples of Russia and Americas are still losers, they don't have that kind of opportunities to call anybody illegal occupants. So, the bottom line, no double standards, just one standard, only the winners can call their former oppressors illegal occupants.--Termer (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a most shrewd choice of standards there! Applying a single standard selectively (just to the "winners") obviously doesn't count as "double standards" because what is single can't be double!

On a slightly more serious note, you are, of course, correct about the winners being the writers of history, but in the original post this "discussion" is building upon, no hint of this was given in the (rather categorical) last sentence. If Vecrumba here will agree with your assessment that only winners are entitled to establishing the (il)legality of a given territorial transfer, this discussion can be closed without further... diatribes trolling constructive comments. --Illythr (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my choice of course, it's the way the World works. If it was up to me I'd make it so that a lion and a lamb would be the best of friends. And surely, I took a look at the(rather categorical) last sentence and what came to my mind was that Whether Tataro-Mongol occupation in Russia was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference. At the same time I'd bet, when Russia was a part of the Mongol Empire, I hear the Mongols said you can't occupy what belongs to you. Since Russia doesn't belong to the Mongols and for example Eastern Europe to Soviet Union any more, there you have it: it means there was an occupation that has ended and Whether it was 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years makes no difference.--Termer (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point that I am not the one to recognize these illegal occupations as such. That particular one is commonly known as the "Tataro-Mongol yoke" in Russian (and, apparently, just "Mongol yoke" in English), the change to "occupation" was made hours before your post. The actual occupation occurred only during the first few years, after which the Mongol hordes withdrew and left the Russian states largely to their own devices as long as they paid their tributes, making this more of a sovereign-vassal relation. Some Russian historians even claimed that the invasion didn't happen because of the Mongols' rather tolerant attitude (after all the pillaging and looting, indeed). This is actually written here, albeit the tone is kinda pro-Mongol... --Illythr (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I keep missing the point how is this relevant to anything what do you personally recognize? As of calling the periods under foreign domination yoke instead of occupation, that's very common as well: either 'Mongol yoke' you mentioned or Soviet yoke or etc. --Termer (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original post of this topic is addressed to Vecrumba, and deals with an example of what clearly is an ongoing occupation according to his own logic (the 500 years thing, specifically). Since you jumped in, you've been trying to conduct a mirroring, failing to realize that, aside from a few local nationalists (and, interestingly enough, some Western historians), the things you've been producing are not normally recognized as occupations (certainly not by me).

"Soviet yoke" is already a step in the right direction (at least it's something that can last longer than 5 or so years). Still, the Mongol influence on the Russian state(let)s has been rather modest over the years (aside from the initial invasion, of course) and pretty much one way - mostly taxes and punitive expeditions when someone didn't pay (enough). The states to which you'd want to apply this definition were, on the other hand, fully functional and integral parts of the country, sharing everything fully - their economies and cities (re)built from scratch, receiving state-sponsored projects and facing the same repressions and ideological indoctrination. --Illythr (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Illythr (and to Termer, trolls welcome here!)

Illythr, you must be confusing me with someone else, as my parents were citizens of Latvia at the time that Latvia joyfully and freely petitioned the USSR to join the great Soviet family, they thus became Soviet citizens, regardless of what they did or where they went thereafter. As the child of Soviet citizens, I am therefore myself a Soviet citizen (former), and regret to inform you that I am, in fact, aligned with the other vile occupying empire.

   And so, to what I believe is your point, if I could be so bold as to oversimplify (!):

P.S. "uSSified" is the proper spelling regarding inculcation by the other vile fascistly-individualism-erasing occupying empire. I'll reply in more detail when I've had a chance to more thoroughly regale myself over digest your diatribe tome monograph.

P.P.S. And I'm sure it won't be lost on Termer that there's only one letter difference between uSSified and ... :-) —PētersV (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you mean you still use one of those as a legal ID document in your day-to-day life? o_O

"uSSified":Naaw. While some of them did serve within the ranks of the occupation forces, I highly doubt any could advance that high. The cultural influence is readily apparent, however...--Illythr (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I agree with your oversimplification above, although I have to admit that in "great rhetoric" I see an appraisal similar to "beautiful murder" or "flawless robbery". --Illythr (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes

1. Bolded Underscores™! There for those of us who don't get it the regular way!
2. Note the redlink - obvious political censorship here!
3. Beautiful jewellery and high-tech items for worthless dirt! Only 1 km² of dirt for 1 guilder's worth of priceless treasure! Make haste, stocks are limited!
4. The famous gifts of blankets
5. Text in italics is meant to look familiar.
6. ^ Happily dancing polka hand in hand, whispering into each other's ear where their naughty hands will wander next without the other noticing.
7. No, the firrst letteR wasn't deleted, you'Re cleaRly delusional if you think so! :-P
8. An example of a similarly political neologism is meant here.
9. Another redlink? What, THAT little?!
10. Growth rate falling to as low as -0,67% in some of them (hint-hint)
11. As per the original definition.
12. Not a very good attempt at portraying a certain entity as if it were exactly the same economically, politically and ideologically in 1492, 1942 and 1992, but hey, it's just an attempt!
13. My sincere apologies to the Native Americans for using them like that in the above piece of... text.
14. _{Not sure where to hide this better, as it necessarily must be present in the fine script somewhere around here: No, I don't exactly support this particular point of view. In fact, I tend to oppose it whenever I can be bothered to oppose something on-wiki. I think I managed to stay firmly within bounds of the "not even after 500 years" logic I blatantly plagiarized gratuitously parodied poked innocent fun at temporarily adopted here, however.}
15. Prooflink - note the top pic - I'm there in the background...

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting

Hi there Vecrumba. You left a response here to a proposal to make the dates plain rather than blue-linked in the article. I'm unsure whether you're in favour or not, since the removal of the link/autoformatting will render all dates as almost all of our readers see them, i.e., in the raw format that was input. We hope it's the appropriate one for the article. Shall I go ahead, then? Tony (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Hello Pēteris. Just found this book in English that is right up your alley:

• Rislakki, Jukka (2008). Case for Latvia : disinformation campaigns against a small nation. Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers. ISBN 9789042024236. OCLC 233026199.

It is well written, enjoy! /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz edits

Hi, Vecrumba. I edited your version somewhat, because it seems clear that neither Gross nor Margolick in any way support a "Germanless Holocaust" perspective. Margolick clearly is describing what he calls instances of Poles "applauding", pitching in", "watching approvingly or even helping out," etc the Nazi actions. And Gross in all of his writings clearly has never supported such a view. Cheers. Boodlesthecat 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Margolick does also cite Jan Karski, among others, and its not clear that he entirely accepts the Nazi reports veracity, nor does he base his statements solely on them (in fact, he is largely basing them on Gross' account). So its still a little skewed--if you want to clarify it, I think that would be good. I won't make any further changes for now. Boodlesthecat 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the article went through a revert war few weeks ago, one that ended when Boody got blocked for 3RR and other editors reached an agreement that fewer the quotes the better. We have removed emotional anti-Polish quotes from the newspapers and their criticism from PIAST institute; now it starts over again... I strongly suggesting keeping unencyclopedic quotes out; we can ref the reviews, link them in external links - but Wiki is not a book review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please don't argue a point by casting one-sided aspersions on other editors to bolster your POV. In fact, you participated equally in a revert war, and were not blocked yourself because unlike you, I tend to not like to use 3RR as a weapon. Please note as well that for a long time, the article contained nothing but strongly worded negative reviews from critics, which you or others supporting your view did not find to be a problem--it was only when some of the many positive reviews were added did you complain about a "quote farm," and attempt to remove only the positive reviews (while leaving in truly non WP:RS self published reviews such as the ones Piast Institute, who held a so-called "Symposium" which doesn't even have any participants, dates of the supposed symposiium etc even listed.) So please stick to the actual history of this article, without self serving rewrites of the history if you are going to argue a point of view. Thanks! Boodlesthecat 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated here, the problem is that quotes are emotional and non-encyclopedic; in other words they can be used by POV pushers to "sneak" claims and language that would otherwise not be found on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps paraphrasing of Margolic could be kept, but his original quotes are not neutral enough for the encyclopedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at...

Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II: there is a brewing revert war, and we could use some mediation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest you to begin looking from this: .--Lokyz (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force

Hi Peters,

this is suppose to be a joint taskforce run between Wikiproject Films and the national WikiProjects, so you may want to look at the discussion on this page. Martintg (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I could use a neutral opinion re this. You wrote that "I have not found Greg park avenue to be an extremist in past interactions." Neither did I, but perhaps I/we are missing something here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to read through more history between the two, but the thread in question is to me an example of exasperation on the part of Greg park avenue, not anti-Semitism. See my comment here. The tag "anti-Semite" is thrown about all to easily and without consequences in matters of editorial disagreement. Growing up, all my very closest friends were Jewish, I celebrated Sedir--I'm tired of coming to WP and being called a Nazi, Hitlerite, fascist, etc. only because of my ethnicity and standing up for the facts. (Sound familiar?) —PētersV (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Greg can be too flowery and emotional, but I saw no antisemitism in his posts. He is "guilty" of using a word "Jew", perhaps - and we know that's a loaded term... One of my best friends is Jewish(-American). I will ask him to review greg's comments when I see him. He recently assured me that he never heard an accusation that Poles (or Balts) are especially anti-semitic. On wiki, we are too often dealing with extremists - and we forget that they are only a small, sad sample of the general population.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish "scholars"

In a note on my talk page, you made reference to Jewish "scholars" going through Soviet and Nazi archives. Which scholars are you referring to (names, refs etc), and why is "scholars" in quotes? Boodlesthecat 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For example, one author in his book regarding the Holocaust in Eastern Europe described Russian deserter units as Ukrainian and Lithuanian--in direct contradiction to other encyclopedic sources, taking as unchallenged materials in a Russian archive whose mission is to preserve Soviet materials and with it, the Soviet "version" of history. See the discussion of Weiner, above. "Scholars" is in quotes because this author published false information based source information he did not validate, presenting "facts" which are in direct contradiction to reputable--and, moreover, accurate--Judaic and other historic research on the very same topic.

   "Scholars" is also in quotes because many authors who study and write on the Holocaust are not trained as historians. Someone might be an excellent journalist, but that does not make them qualified to be a Holocaust scholar. A relatively recent (within the last 1-2 years) informal, but well documented, survey regarding the Holocaust in Poland, for example, showed (majority opinions):

• popular Jewish opinion and in non-historian writings on the Holocaust = Poles are anti-semitic, actively supported Holocaust,...
• popular Polish opinion = Poles are not anti-semitic, Poles were actually the first to suffer in Nazi labor and concentration camps and among Eastern European collective ethnic memory can most closely identify with their Jewish neighbors who also became Nazi victims,...
• opinion among both Jewish and Polish trained historians = generally speaking, a middle course and in much closer agreement with each other than popular Jewish and Polish opinion are to each other (basically, diametrically opposed) ***

Published last year I believe, I'd have to go back and find the author of the book (not that it matters, but Jewish), I attended a seminar on the topic featuring the author as speaker.

Not the detailed answer you wanted--my time is limited with family health issues--but hopefully useful.

*** It was not pretty when one Jewish person in attendance at the seminar asked, during Q&A, "Do you think Jewish death camps would be just as successful in Poland today?" and a Pole in the audience countered asking if they were remotely aware of who first died at the hands of the Nazis at Auschwitz.

I should mention it is for this reason--a plethora of sources on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe many of them incompletely researched and less than accurate but containing the most sensational and grievous of charges against entire ethnicities and nations which we are expected to simply accept at face value--that I see both your willingness to jump to the charge of anti-Semite (Greg park avenue) and that your charge is accepted as proof of anti-Semitism, as both being poorly informed editorial actions. —PētersV (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell from what you wrote which Wiener you are talking about. You also mentioned Jewish "scholars" (plural), Is there more than one scolar you are referring to? And what is the significance of Wiener being Jewish? Boodlesthecat 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First Weiner book referenced in the discussion above the section linked to is "Landscaping the Human Garden", on page 11 in the intro, calls Askari (incorrectly implied Baltic-language plural if "Askaris" were a Baltic language word, which it is not) Balts and Ukrainians, cites (his note 31) RTsKhIDNI, f. 17, op. 88, d. 376, l. 5. (Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History). "Askaris" were, in fact, Russian deserters, plain and simple. Any Soviet-originated materials indicating they were Baltic and Ukrainian nationals are likely to be fabrications. Recall that in the Soviet Union, "history served politics." Post WWII, those politics were a concerted campaign against all the Eastern European nationalities resisting the Soviets either at home or in the diaspora.

   That section I pointed to discusses other errors besides Askaris, for example, what SS units were convicted in the Nuremberg war trials. Hence plural of "scholars." And in quotes because someone who has "studied" the Holocaust is not then a qualified historian of the Holocaust. I believe I already answered this question above.

   The "significance" of Jewish writers on the Holocaust is that the connection in their personal background to one of the greatest crimes and tragedies in human history (and which may include direct familial connections to Holocaust victims and survivors) can garner a sense of implicit trust on the part of the reader regarding the ultimate veracity of materials the author presents when, as we well know, ethnicity and nationality, while strong motivators to dig for the truth, do not in and of themselves guarantee accuracy. —PētersV (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the significance of Weiner being Jewish is, particularly if what you are objecting to is what you consider to be a mistake in his book regarding "Askaris." How does his being Jewish fit relate to this issue, which may or may no be a mistake in his book? And are you saying that Jewish writers cannot be impartial on the subject of World War 2, the Holocaust etc? Or only those connected with the Holocaust in some way? Is Weiner a Holocuast survivor? I'm still not clear what the relevance of his being Jewish is with regard to your dispute with him over the Askari issue. If this is indeed an error, did he make the error because he was Jewish? Please clarify. Boodlesthecat 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the significance of an author's ethnic heritage engendering trust on the part of readers. Someone Jewish writing of the Holocaust, someone of native American Indian descent writing of the massacre at Wounded Knee, someone Japanese writing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, someone German writing of the fire-bombing of Dresden,... That trust is not always rewarded. It's as simple as that.

   You're asking me whether I'm making a whole pile of contentions which I'm not. Try to take my response at my word, not as hiding some agenda you seem to be intent on unearthing. There is no agenda. —PētersV (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My question was simple--do you think Weiner cannot be trusted because he is Jewish? That no Jewish historian can be objective? That view wuold certainly put you in conflict with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on WP:RS and WP:V, where no such assumption is made. Boodlesthecat 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your "question" and your offerings of my potential opinions reprehensible. The words you would put into other people's mouths speak volumes of your own. —PētersV (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Your words: "The "significance" of Jewish writers on the Holocaust is that the connection in their personal background to one of the greatest crimes and tragedies in human history (and which may include direct familial connections to Holocaust victims and survivors) can garner a sense of implicit trust...trust is not always rewarded." In other words, Jewish writers cannot be trusted on the subject of the Holocaust? I don't think I'm putting these words in your mouth; they are, rather, apparently from your own mouth? It would seem you are saying, in response to my asking why it was important to note that Weiner was Jewish, that Weiner cannot be trusted on athe subject of the Holocauset because he is Jewish. Boodlesthecat 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question multiple times, consistently and clearly. Nowhere have I made any of the reprehensible blanket contentions you say I "seem" to be saying "in other words," so of course you are putting those words in my mouth. —PētersV (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a blog

I would take it as a compliment that you were able to invoke such an action from a non-compus-mentus. Bandurist (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, own user page vandalism should be generally taken as inspiration, although the "non-compus-mentus" part kinda spoils it. --Illythr (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting on arb

In case you arent aware, you should post in your own section, not other editors, as you did here. I've asked that it be moved, or you can do it yourself.

Read the instructions at the top:

"This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move."

Boodlesthecat 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your post was removed by a clerk. This is SOP for ArbCom; you have to make replies in your own section or on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I try not to be a regular at these affairs. Apologies. —PētersV (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional clarification

Just catching up on some conversations, and just read through an exchange from a few days ago. Regarding Greg park avenue's post of "Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor" (a post which was removed as a BLP violation), you wrote:

"Come now, if someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim when they are not, exactly what is "anti-" that person's ethnic background to point that out? That's a ridiculous contention."

However, Rosenbaum actually is the son of Holocaust survivors. He has never claimed to be a Holocaust survivor himself, or any kind of victim, Could you explain exactly how you see him "(falsely) portraying himself as a victim?" Thanks. Boodlesthecat 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually responding to your rather long rant about Poles would be up in arms if accusations were slung in the other direction, etc. Mine was a general comment that if someone does indeed portray themselves falsely as a victim (and unfortunately there have been those where the Holocaust is concerned), to point that out has nothing to do with a person's ethnicity. Your retort about Poles was not the appropriate response.

   If I had meant Rosenbaum specifically, I would have mentioned him specifically. (I've read his review of Gross' work, I'm aware of who he is.) I do have grave reservations regarding authors who write fiction based on the Holocaust--it relieves them of the need for accuracy and objectivity--but that is a separate issue. Hope this clarifies. —PētersV (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Greg park avenue as for whether this is what he meant, but the point can be made that fictional characters based on and suffering in the aftermath of the Holocaust do, to use his word, masquerade as victims. —PētersV (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why else this would be being discussed other than with respect to greg's example of Rosenbaum; otherwise why would you bring up an example of "someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim" out of nowhere? The whole point was in regards to greg's defamatory claim about Rosenbaum; there is no ther reason to be having some abstract discussion of people "masquerading as victims"--greg was talking specifically about Rosenbaum, and that was what I was responding to, and the fact that his post was defamatory is why it got deleted. In any case, I assume we can agree that Greg made a entirely false and defamatory claim about Rosenbaum when he accused him of being someone who "masquerades as son of holocaust survivor"? Boodlesthecat 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Rosenbaum's parents died when he was young (just after completing college, I believe), both were Holocaust survivors. This is quite well known. Since you seem to want to discuss this in detail... Greg park avenue's comment (intent) was either:

• misinformed,
• unfortunate over the top language regarding reaction to Rosenbaum's fictionalization based on the Holocaust, or
• intentionally and falsely accusatory.

You'll have to ask him which, I can't answer that, I have no basis for speculation.

   As I can gather, Rosenbaum's use of the Holocaust as a literary device and expression of his POV--God died, Shindler's list is an "insulting inversion" of truths (the Holocaust is about death and not about anyone who tried to save anyone), creating characters whose having survived the Holocaust pardons their subsequent moral indiscretions,... has both its admirers and its critics. Nor is Rosenbaum the only author writing in the offspring-of-Holocaust-survivor genre. As I've said, I have my own personal concerns about creating fiction based on the Holocaust. Some parts of the collective human experience should be sacred and beyond use as a literary device for fiction. —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on arbcom

It is my experience arbcom members may not read talk pages. Posting in mainspace may be useful, posting on talk - much more of a waste of time... of course, I myself post a lot on talk, but I think those posts are much less useful than mainspace ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I have to disagree with some of your arguments at the talk page. Please see this discussion. You should separate conduct issues such as WP:DE, and content issues. In the latter case one should prove that a user was lying about the sources (for example), and I am not sure you provided evidence about that.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I concur with Biophys in his sentiment as I was totally bemused, as I expressed at the evidence' talk page, by your posting to the arbcom pages some stuff that is utterly non-arbcom matter. I explained my position towards Conquest in a great detail at talk:Holodomor and if you have anything to say on the matter, please use the appropriate pages.

Now, that you recalled how I several months ago characterized your behavior (I indeed used the term vicious), if you think that my characterizing your conduct on the issue that took place back then as vicious was so inappropriate that it warrants the ArbCom attention within this case, you are free to resurrect that old matter with diffs at the evidence page and I will then post my opinion on why I think your behavior warranted such characterization (for the very same conduct you were reprimanded by several completely uninvolved admins back then.) In my last post to which you replied, the term "vicious attack" was not used. You bring it completely out of the blue, from the remote past and without diffs. If you think that old issue belongs to this ArbCom, please bring it in properly so that I can respond to it. If not, please try to keep all discussions on topic. Thank you. --Irpen 21:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen. I was remarking on the ease with which you assume bad faith on the part of some editors while you have quietly reprimanded other editors (whose POV you support) and removed their potentially offensive remarks for them. "Harmony" starts with all editors treating each other first of all equally. And with respect and always assuming good faith--even if it hurts to do so. This ArbCom, like all of those, and there have been so many of them, before this, is little more than a rehash along relatively familiar lines of editors on one side or the other who are active in Baltic/Eastern/Central Europe. I am tired of the endless emphatic spleen venting expending more effort on on trying to censure/get rid of editors than working on content. I am dismayed you have chosen at your latest return after a hiatus to jump into this fray, but that is your choice to make as you see fit.

   To Biophys, I did have a particular sequence of edits in mind on that issue. —PētersV (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith does not say "be a fool" anywhere inside it. You are an experienced editor. You know what pages should be used for what purpose. Nevertheless, you make a post to Wikipedia_talk:Evidence that you certainly know to not belong anywhere but talk:Holodomor. Where is any room for assumptions here? Don't you know what belongs where on Misplaced Pages?

As for improving the climate here, I passionately share your concern. I just happen to know, or at least think that I know, where the hurdle is. The hurdle is dishonest conduct of the editors and not their differences of opinions. I am now having a discussion with Piotrus at my talk about the possibility to come to an agreement about the rules of conduct. Perhaps, Piotrus and I would arrive to an amicable solution now. We will see. You are welcome to follow the discussion Piotrus and I are having but I would ask you not to join it for now. This is only because I want to do all I can to prevent it from straying of topic. And I never aimed at ridding of editors. I did not call for a block even of Digwuren, who I consider to be the worst nightmare we had at the EE corner of this project. YMMV, I understand. But please do not just make stuff up. --Irpen 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)