I found it a bit interesting that there are several motions, and some vigorous discussion of them, but no evidence yet. --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the hurry? The editing pattern of Korps! Estonia is well demonstrated on this very page. Take a look at the thread "politely" titled "Smear emanating from FayssalF".[1] Fayssal, you've got my sympathy for having to face what looks like ganging up on you. It is tedious and annoying to repeat your arguments each time a new look-alike account pops up on this page. The pattern is familiar: first there are aggressive accusations from Alexia and Digwuren, then the same from Suva and E.J., then you may expect Staberinde and Martintg to chime in, then, when you think it's over, the same accusations will be repeated by Sander Säde and DLX, etc, etc. This is what I had to go through on WP:ANI on a daily basis. And that's what my grievances are about. Wikipedians are not supposed to be ganged up on. Nobody likes to be witchhunted. This manner of editing results in nothing but stress and frustration on the part of everyone involved. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, put your evidence where your mouth is. Demeaning generalizing is just your thing and the bigest grievance I have with you.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksanddirt, exactly my thoughts. I expected that the accusers in this case present their evidence first... But for some reason this has not happened.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could see some motions being first as the actual scope of this is not well defined (to me at least), but everyone has also had several days at least to prepare the evidence statement for when the arb was opened. See the Seven of Diamonds one, within just a few hours of opening there were two very long evidence presentations, buy two involved parties. --Rocksanddirt 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the initiator of the case has not presented evidence, because he sees an "ArbCom axe" above the heads of Estonian editors more useful then presenting his rather meager evidence. He seems to have plenty of time for other activities on Wikipedia so it is getting harder and harder for me to AGF. Sander Säde 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "getting harder for you", don't try. But the evidence will be presented all right. I spend exactly as much time preparing it as I see necessary. The case is very young and its developments sadly generates new evidence. Just have some patience. I am not a lawyer or an evidence producing bot. --Irpen 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your biggest mistake in this case was involving other Estonian editors who were not party to the issues you have with Digwuren. I think you realise this to some degree, and its wider implications. Two of the 5 in the original RFCU have been offline since July, the third has had practically no involvement, and the remaining two are clean. The honourable way out of this mess is to simply state you have no further issue with these Estonian editors so long as they continue to abid by Wikipedia policies, as we all should. Martintg 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping one short of 3RR...

• Initial (biased) change: [2]
• Revert 1: [3]
• Revert 2:[4]
• Revert 3:[5]

Regarding using quotes and adding the word theory--this is a blatant pushing by Irpen of his personal POV that occupation is a politically motivated term. Still waiting for that source that supports the Baltics joining the U.S.S.R. legally according to international law. Just when I thought Irpen could sink no lower. Irpen's whole campaign is to bend Wikipedia to his unsubstantiated POV by attacking articles and editors. As far as I can see, there's not even any pretense regarding engaging in any discussion. I moved the article back. I predict one of Irpen's clan will now move it again so Irpen doesn't get blocked for 3RR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. the article was first moved by Martin[6]
2. your "revert 2" and "revert 3" are talk page moves that are automatic
3. read my edit summaries [7] [8]

--Irpen 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my miscounting/misunderstanding, I am not an expert in these things. That said, I fail to see how your fairly derisive (you ran out of letters before you could finish the word Afghanistan) edit summary (about content not reflecting title) pertains to inserting the quotes and the word "theory" in the article title. I don't see any scholarly articles cited by you et al. with a factual basis indicating occupation is merely a "theory." For you to call it a theory, especially in a title, a scholarly source must have specifically discussed it as a "theory". Source? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "derisive" to point out that the title does not reflect the scope. "Soviet occupation" in general applies to Afghanistan as well. The article does not (and cannot, judging from the scope) talk about that. Now, as I said repeatedly, there are two meaning of wiktionary:occupation meaning the "military action" and the "regime of the administration of the territory". That the term applies to "both" is a sourced POV. This by itself does not make it an NPOV. Scholarly POVs in annotated and attributed form belong to the articles, not titles. Finally, the general idea of Martin's initial move is something I support as it moves the scope of the article towards more sensible direction. However, can't you just see that the "denial POV" and "occupation POV" cannot be discussed without constantly invoking the other POV all the time! The issue of the applicability of the term "occupation" in both meanings is indeed a valid topic and valid content and I for a long time was proposing the Occupation of Baltic states (term) article were all POVs are presented and discussed. This article would then be linked from history articles but the debate will be constrained to a single page. This would be a narrow and clear scope and could even be made featured one day.

I gladly accept your apology. I indeed reverted the move (but only once and, btw, you reverted the moves twice) and besides, I was not the first one to move the article. It was moved by Martin. I hear that this page and article talk is not the only place where this is discussed. Alexa Death immediately cried for actions at IRC, as she did earlier, but this time she was shown the door at IRC in no unclear terms. Let's just settle this content dispute once and for all, or at least try to. --Irpen 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading User talk:Jimbo Wales#Eastern Europe, one might suspect that Irpen's main motivation in bringing this ArbCom case is so that he'd get a new chance at pushing his weird "remedy" of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision#Proposing a novel solution that may actually work. The moral standing of such a "strategy" is, needless to say, questionable. Digwuren 04:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of having a central committee dictating content, like this so called "Eastern European Work Group" that Irpen proposes, goes against the whole philosophy of Wikipedia of being an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But Irpen seems to want to turn Wikipedia into a closed shop where only the most "politically reliable" editors were permitted to edit articles. Imagine a Wikipedia where Estonians were not permitted to edit articles about Estonian history while Petri Krohn or Ghirla could, because they were anointed committee members. A Venn diagram with the set of supporters of this proposal and the sets of the protagonists in the various East European disputes would be very revealing. I guess some more cynical people may suggest than in order to propose remedy, one needs to manufacture the problem first. Martintg 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I see the goal of this ArbCom as sanctioning users guilty of disruptive conduct. --Irpen 05:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Irpen will change his mind once he realises that there's only three Russias, but more than a dozen of former Warsaw Treaty countries, all full of people who know first-hand that Soviet historigraphy is, to a large extent, deliberate lie.

On a more serious note, the anointment's main problem is similar to that of self-selection: it's mostly biased people who tend to self-select themselves, and it's guaranteed biased people who are anointed into such a "committee". A proper siki-spirit alternative would be something diametrically opposite, like setting up something akin Wikipedia jury duty: in case of (some kind) of disputes, the machine would choose a random selection of jurors, who would study the presented arguments, and then decide the proper outcome. Not perfect, either, but still better than what we have now, and even more better than what Irpen is proposing. At the very least, instead of endless edit wars, there would be endless debates. Digwuren 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an idea to consider too. However, the ideas along the lines of my proposal for Piotrus case are irrelevant to this case. That case was about the content disputes. This one firmly rest on your exceedingly poor conduct that needs to be addressed by the ArbCom regardless of the particular POV that you are pushing. If there was a Russian or Ukrainian nationalists similarly boorish and prone to edit warring I would have called for sanctioning him in just the same way. --Irpen 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true at all. You also showed a lot of support for RJ CG here User_talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations_of_WP:SYNTH_and_WP:OR. BTW, RJ CG has be recently blocked for 96 hours for edit warring Rein Lang, again. [9]. Where are your sanctions against him? Martintg 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg, Irpen is not an administrator. Sander Säde 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that. What I meant to say was: "Where was your call for sanctions against him?" Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, saying "I showed a lot of support" is a misleading oversimplification. All I did was reprimanding an arrogant admin not for a block but for brushing off the questions that were originally asked in quite an acceptable form. Also, from my past experience with the fellow, I kind of recognized the pattern. --Irpen 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you must ask yourself to what degree your reprimanding of an "arrogant admin" on behalf of RJ CG contributed to RJ CG's hubris which has subsequently earned him a 96 hour block for edit warring another Estonian related article. Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --Irpen 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If ProhibitOnion is dragged into this, then by causality is RJ CG.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:ProhibitOnions vs. anti-Fascist editors (redux), started by User:Ghirlandajo. Sander Säde 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the evil Digwuren is at it again. This time, using a sockpuppet that looks just like Ghirlandajo, he created a threaded discussion in the Workshop's principle section. Can a clerk come and clean up the never-ending mischief sowed by that sneaky bastard? Digwuren 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... threaded discussion is frowned upon on the evidence page. As indicated in the instructions there, the format of the evidence page is for each user to be able to present his or her own evidence in a discrete, uninterrupted section that the arbitrators can follow. By contrast, threaded discussion is permissible on the workshop page, where the idea is to formulate proposals for discussion and possible consensus. I know that the procedure can be complicated for those who have not been on the pages in the past. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad. So, could you please clean up the evidence page? And please keep an eye on it. I am about to post my evidence and I don't want it to be subject to a similar disruption. Thanks in advance, --Irpen 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the page looks to be organized acceptably as of now. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. Going forward, now that everyone is apprised of the ground rules hopefully there will be no further problems. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, who clerks the case? Why is Digwuren allowed to blank portions of the Workshop, including multiple comments by other editors? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Happened three weeks ago, nobody mentioned anything in the mean time, so it's not an issue. Martintg 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not on my watchlist and I have not consulted it since August, I think. You may yawn elsewhere. Your reply is not helpful and intended to obfuscate the deletion. I see that both Workshop and Evidence pages are a mess and I take issue with it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this later today. Please identify the specific aspects of the pages that you believe are "a mess" and call for clerk attention. In the specific example you give, I told Digwuren that I thought the wording of the proposal was uncivil and unhelpful (I am sure you will agree) and as a result the proposal was withdrawn. Perhaps it should have been stricken through rather than simply deleted but I don't see that any harm was done. If you believe the making of the original proposal proves something you can mention it in your evidence. Newyorkbrad 10:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that proposed decisions are normally stricken out, rather than blanked together with all comments that follow an original suggestion. Never mind. What I really have problem with is the Evidence page, which starts with Martin's rambling rebuttal of the diffs presented by his opponents at the bottom of the page ("In regard to Grafikm's evidence", "Concerns regarding Ghirlandajo's evidence"). This presentation of evidence is disingenuous and makes the page rather confusing and difficult to follow. Since it was Irpen who initiated the case, I believe it is his evidence that should be presented at the top of the page, rather than Martin's. Only then all sorts of refutations and excuses should follow (if they really have to follow), rather than the other way around. I am aware that Irpen has not submitted any evidence so far, but a primary reason may be the sorry structure of the Evidence page which would make his statement, when placed at the very bottom of the page, appear inconsequential or confused. I may be mistaken, though. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't design how these pages work, but the basic format of /Evidence as you know is one section for each editor, and they generally appear in the order the editors post, so this is how things wind up. I don't see what the clerks could do to restructure the page that would not create more hassle than it would solve, unless the arbitrators request a refactoring. As long as everything is clearly labelled, I think the parties should focus more on the substance of the evidence rather than the formatting. I also think that any parties who have not yet submitted their evidence should do so right away, as an arbitrator may start drafting a /Proposed decision at any time now. Newyorkbrad 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I also agree that the editor should not remove the sections from the woprkshop that includes the comments from three other editors. The user has already been reprimanded for editing and removing other people's comments from [[Wikipedia:]]-space and he is doing the same at the workshop. In the extreme case, I would accept removing (or moving) other's comments posted into one's own statement section at the evidence or main arbitration case page, if clerks are missing it but not the workshop.

Oh, and apologies for the procrastination. I started posted diffs and links to the /Evidence page and will post more unless arbitrators speedily move to draft the /Proposed decision and quickly close the case. --Irpen 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case not anywhere near closing yet, so you should post them if you want to. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more time we just got a massive blanking of the workshop, including the comments blanked by their author despite other editors have already posted their response. Such blanking left the responses hanging in the thin air adding more chaos to this workshop already chaotic enough to be practically useless. What this workshop needs is the input from arbitrators who might want to blank some of the nonsensial proposals if they view any as such. But the last thing we need is adding more chaos to already existing one. I reverted blanking with no prejudice to the editor who has done it. --Irpen 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irpen for taking care of it. I wondered why the blanking was done as well since it made the discussion and responses to the posts removed look like nonsense.--Termer 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, probably. I would not expect any malice on anybody's part here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that my user page ([10]) contains a user box saying that "This user is a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad." Every word is important there, and every link. I know very well what the KGB meant for people - I link to its article. The link to the Internet Brigades article is also important: it explains why the thing is on my user space at all (the fact that I deplore that Wikipedia seems to be slanted in favour of conspiracy theories). The word "is" is also important: except for the silly suggestion that I am paid by that stupid dictator (oops, there goes my chance of ever getting a visum while that guy is in control), it must be clear to anybody that this is a joke on conspiracy theories.

It is not the only joke user box on my user page - for the other one you again have to click on the link.

I do not mind people insulting me over this. No, I do not mind being called "a paid KGB Internet troll". And no, I do not mind being called a "Moskal". However, as anybody will readily notice, the pro-Digwuren bunch tends to misquote the actual text as it is there - and never quotes the links, the second one of which is the primary reason for the presence of this thing. I suppose what they are doing is at least contrary to WP:POINT, and perhaps even OR by way of SYNTH, but I am not going to be the first one to object.

However, anyone who thinks that therefore, others can be called "paid KGB internet trolls", is obviously overstepping the line from WP:POINT into WP:NPA: [11] (note that there the word "internet" was dropped).--Pan Gerwazy 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I'm perplexed by your contention that "if we'll only click on the links" the joke will make sense. The internet brigades article is a satire piece? There are better ways to indicate you're anti-conspiracy-theory. You feel free to lump edititors into the "pro-Digwuren bunch" (conspiracy?)--any attribution of KGB trolldom from "their side" is only drawing comparisons to you.

   I get attacked as a rabid POV-pusher for my user box which simply states I dispute Stalinism based on fact, meanwhile, we should all chuckle at your userbox and go away? Or click the links to find the humor? Am I missing something here? Do you even care that it's an even greater insult to those--most of all Russians--who suffered under Soviet rule since the inception of the Cheka--long before the Soviets took over the Baltics and Eastern Europe? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do find it interesting that you and User:Colchicum who object so much to the use of the template as a joke, do not object to user:Digwuren's linking to it for a combined personal attack on me and User:Irpen. So, when it is a joke, you cry scandal, but when it is a personal attack, and it emanates from Digwuren, it is normal Wikipedia practice. Duly noted. --Pan Gerwazy 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it even more interesting, as mentioned, that:

• Grafikm_fr attacks me for POV pushing for having a userbox that states I dispute Stalinism based on the facts
• You create and defend (as a joke) a userbox which everyone on the planet affected by Cheka, NKVD, and KGB atrocities would find reprehensible (that's tens, if not hundreds, of millions)
• You cry when you're personally attacked for said personal reprehensible userbox?
• Your userbox is even tolerated

Perhaps I'll satirize claims that Latvians are Nazis and create a userbox "joke" on my user page. Anyone have a good template for "member of Jew-killing Gestapo Internet Nazi goon squad"?

   How old are you and your parents? Did they live through the atrocities of WWII? Did they have family taken away in cattle trains to die in Siberia? Did they go to warn Jewish family friends of the Nazis only to find their decapitated bodies? Consider that your "joke" might be an indication you should spend some time learning a bit more about history before thinking you know it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a prior ref and found this on Jimbo's talk page:

So, passion about not using sources created by a lying thieving murderous totalitarian regime which declared that history served politics (where erasing purged politicians from photographs was an industry in and of itself) demonstrates (sad smiley) a problem?
  That anyone would even imagine to contend on Jimbo's talk page that this is a problem IS the problem. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's a sad commentary that Petri, who has been the most vociferous about anti-Soviet = Nazist (or at least hard to tell apart from...) is the one who has apparently had the good sense and good faith to recuse himself from Baltic/Eastern European articles/edits regarding Soviet actions. (I see no need to not take Petri at his word describing his recent edit participation--outside of this area, Petri has been a valuable contributor.) That unfortunately leaves the rest.

  Still waiting for any reputable source in any way even attempting to rationalize (let alone substantiate) the Russian Duma proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally and therefore was not occupied. I know, it's an old saw I keep repeating, but, to my comment above, continued lack of any such source is just corroboration that we're not engaged in some content dispute over what reputable sources say. Just an endless cycle of enough totally unsubstantiated opinion-only WP:IDONTLIKEIT to produce a reaction from editors who do bring reputable sources to the table, then assail those editors for their reaction as bad behavior. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that of course we do use nazi sources, provided that they are verifiable and we do not have to resort to OR to incorporate them in the articles. The Nuremberg trials used nazi sources - you see, the nazis were both meticulous and proud of what they were doing. Without the nazi sources they used, we would not be able to quote Bernhard Fisch and Gerd Ueberschaer on the Nemmersdorf massacre and that article would still be what de Zayas supporters made of it, quoting a left-winger (Marion Dönhoff) to prove Goebbels, pardon me, de Zayas ("Goebbels was a nazi, yes?"), right. The article also links to the testimony of the first witness who arrived in Nemmersdorf on the 21st, not on the 23rd, testimony which until recently could only be found on nazi sites. As for Stalin's idiotic ersion, that Soviet troops never entered Nemmersdorf, it was confirmed by the BBC at the time (so much for BBC accuracy). In view of what is happening here to non-Russian editors, it is perhaps interesting to note that since the publication of his book, Bernhard Frisch is usually called "former teacher of Russian" in German right-wing publications on Nemmersdorf(eg "gebürtige Ostpreuße (now that is going to kindle [[User:Molobo]]!) und ehemalige Dozent für Russisch Bernhard Fisch") in order of course to cast doubt on everything he said. Basically, saying that everything nazis or communists once wrote is by definition non reputable, will simply mean that we stop writing articles about whole periods of history, because anything "reputably sourced" will be completely biased anyway. I once experienced how a source about the number of Rusyns who died in Austrian and Hungarian concentration camps during WWI was challenged as non-reputable, because the Austrian (!) professor of history (and member of a number of humanitarian NGOs, some of them definitely not pro-Russian) who had written it, had once stood as a communist during local elections!--Pan Gerwazy 09:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both Nazi and particularly Soviet materials, and particularly (yes, had to use the word twice) with respect to the Baltics and Eastern Europe, is that there is so much propaganda, from the Nazis saying how well the locals are supporting the eradication of Jews even before the Nazis arrived (they weren't) to the Soviets reporting the Nazis killed 300,000 in Latvia (total fabrication) that it's simply better to stick to reputable sources. To contend that the Nazis, for example, as "meticulous" Germans never falsified reports is not supported by the facts.

  If reputable scholarship mentions a (corroborated) Nazi or Soviet source, that's fine. But to suggest that Wikipedia editors have the academic wherewithal to properly discriminate between fact and fiction in Nazi and Soviet sources is sheer hubris that will doom our collective efforts to failure.

We should never use Nazi or Soviet sources directly, and certainly not where they have anything even remotely to do with politics and history, other than to report what those sources say (as opposed to representing what they say as fact). This includes any newly discovered "archives"--if Stalin erased people in photographs, why would anyone assume the archives contain the "truth" as opposed to also being subject to the same erasures, etc.? Stalin was, if nothing else, meticulous about his propaganda.

  Using any Nazi and Soviet sources directly and drawing conclusions in articles, even if those conclusions are completely accurate, is WP:OR. Is it possible to agree on this point? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake in this discussion, but I see a disturbing tendency here, to create a "blanket license" allowing to selectively veto the inclusion of anything, just on basis of the originating historiography.

Rather unsurprisingly, there's no complementing tendency to veto everything conforming with POVs taken by those historiographies (which confirms my claim on the aim is selective veto license).

No historiography is objective, esp. where the political gain comes in, and the concept of artificial history wasn't invented yesterday.

So I'd say, that as long as there's a contention in the history/political topics, then no source (or historiography POV) on history/politics should be used "directly as a fact", all of them should be used as "opinions".

I rather feel that's what the Wikipedia is about. Yury Tarasievich 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to write NPOV articles. Anyone who comes here with the mission statement "I want to rid this wonderful resource on the Internet from all Soviet (feel free to replace with nazi, fascist, Prussian nationalist, Imperial Russian, Putinist, Zionist, Gengis Khan nationalist and so on) bias does not really belong here.

That the nazis did falsify some primary sources (interestingly, often historical material that preceded their reign, sometimes by hundreds of years), is true, but it cannot be compared to what the Soviets did, particularly under Stalin. Some nazi decisions were ultra secret (Wannsee conference) and therefore did not need to be falsified, but most of what they did they were proud to announce to the whole world. The Kommissar Befehl and the refusal to follow the Geneva Convention on the Eastern front, were no secrets, anyone who wanted to know, knew about it. Of course, both when there is total (or totalitarian) secrecy and when people are proud of what they "accomplish", there is not much need to falsify primary sources anyway.

Excluding everything Soviet (and of course, by extension, anything Imperial Russian, Polish editors would say - and add anything Putinist some other editors with a mission statement would say) from Wikipedia is not a quid pro quo for deleting anything nazi. The nazi reign lasted 12 years and more than 60 years have passed, enough time for "other" Germans to wade through all the sordid primary sources and make up reputable secondary ones. The Soviet era lasted 72 years. It is plainly not comparable - and would leave a big hole in history. Unless you want to keep articles in a sordid POV state, of course (loading the dice, I call that).

What is the answer? To come back to De Zayas, he is known to have used secondary nazi sources without querying them much. He still thinks the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir is a British war crime. Whatever he may have been in the past, the message of his history books, which he is proud to proclaim at Silesian and Sudeten gatherings is plainly "Western allies, Poles and Czechs as bad as nazis, Soviets worse than nazis". He is entitled to that opinion, but it does mean that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a history book with a message, any quote from him should be examined closely according to our rules on reputable sources, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The same thing should certainly be done with Soviet secondary sources, and probably to some extent with all secondary sources on contentious material. I already mentioned the BBC on Nemmersdorf, but I know that reporting in the British press on Russo-Turkish wars during the 19th century was pro-Turkish to the extent that it would embarrass journalists at the same newspapers today (so much so for NPOVing those articles by getting rid of both Russian and Turkish sources).Pan Gerwazy 09:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you we should use Soviet sources telling that in the Winter War Finland attacked Soviet Union, denying the existence of secret protocols of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that Prague Spring was uprising of capitalist-fascist minority financially supported by imperialist Western Europe, that Baltic States voluntarily and willingly joined Soviet Union, that Gulag never existed, that Soviet war crimes never happened, there was no Katyń massacre - and so forth?

There are historical Soviet sources that can be used. Most cannot, as they are not historical sources, they are pseudohistory. In Soviet Union, historians couldn't describe the events, everything was rewritten according to party line or simply omitted. There are sources about Middle Ages and earlier periods that no one disputes - largely because of the censure, Soviet historians were working not on modern history, but on older periods. But anything about... starting from mid-19th century should only be used if there are solid Western sources supporting it.

Even this AfD case is largely about Soviet historiography. One side wants to use Soviet sources without any prejudice, the other sees those in the same way as modern historians worldwide - as an example on rewriting of history, that can be used only if there are independent sources supporting all the claims. Note that this debate about validity of Soviet sources does not even exist among professional historians, only here in Wikipedia. If someone would attempt to publish an article in peer-reviewed scientific journal based only on official Soviet historiography, it would have as much chance to be published as article about intelligent design. The amount of scientific content in both of those articles would be very similar, too.

-- Sander Säde 12:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out the part on WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. In the case of Nemmersdorf, the Stalinist view (Soviet troops never entered the village) is not even mentioned, even though it had the backing of the BBC (who in this case got its facts wrong - probably their source at the Ministry of Defence mistook Nemmersdorf for Angerapp bridge, or the Ministry got the time table wrong, after all on the basis of the German witness accounts the Soviet Army could only have been in Nemmersdorf for three hours maximum). Before anyone wants to add that view to the article, consider why it falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE: not only have those two German historians (and the German television channel ZDF) established that presence but there is actually a military cemetery at the place, mentioning the Nemmersdorf massacre date as their death date (I mentioned that cemetery on the talk page). Since no one still mentions that "theory", there is no reason to mention it, only to debunk it.

In the case of Katyn, the denial in Soviet times is definitely worth mentioning (in the way Dr Kiernan put it below), if only because while it was going on, most people thought it was worse than the actual crime itself. The recognition by Gorbachov and Yeltsin should also be mentioned, of course. There is no reason to give "equal time" to the Soviet version (WP:UNDUE), and no reason to elaborate a story of what happened accrding to the Soviet Union (WP:FRINGE), only stating what they claimed is enough there, but any (partial) Soviet refutation of German findings should be mentioned in the appropriate section of course - lest people who are prone to believe conspiracy theories find "refutations of Katyn" on the internet, and then believe Wikipedia is hiding this info because it is dominated by XXX. The only problem I have with the Katyn article is the claim (based on nazi sources, by the way) that Germans were actually hanged for Katyn. The talk page is clear: what really happened was that at one Soviet trial (not about Katyn) one of the German accused confessed to having participated in the Katyn killing and got preferential treatment compared to the other accused. --Pan Gerwazy 15:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what he's saying. We should use Soviet sources as part of the examination of an event's historiography but maybe not as part of the description of the event. DrKiernan 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_(EC) And we - meaning Baltic users here - have been perfectly willing to do so. See Estonia in World War II#Historical Soviet sources. It is included, to show the Soviet viewpoint - and without any commentaries. As the facts have been presented as well, it is up to user how much trust s/he is willing to put to those sources. But the problems are in cases when someone starts screaming "POV, because I don't like it" and tries to (re-)write articles to suit his own personal view - or just tagging everything with {{POV}}. See Occupation of Baltic states for a perfect example where Dojarca has followed that tactic - article even includes sections Occupation of Baltic states#Historical, pre-Perestroika Soviet sources and Occupation of Baltic states#Official position of the Russian government, is sourced better then heavily warred Race and intelligence - 100 sources - and yet Dojarca insists that article is POV, although he has never been able to articulate what exactly is POV - nor has he been able to bring any sources or improve the article in any way whatsoever. As an humorous side-note, Latvian user Zalktis was finally able to find the source supporting the claim refuting the legal continuity of Latvia - a divorce case in marital court of Belgium in 1951. While the fact itself is just humorous, it shows very clearly to what length are Baltic users willing to go in their attempts to represent facts in NPOV manner, ie searching for sources supporting viewpoints of "the other side". Sadly, this is so far the only source to support that particular viewpoint.

-- Sander Säde 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "other side" can be applied to both sides. Soviet sources are biased towards the Soviet Union; Estonian sources are biased towards Estonia; Western sources are biased towards the West; Czech sources are biased towards Czechs. "Czechoslovakia was occupied" and "Czechoslovakia was not occupied" may be claimed as opinions, whereas "The current Czech government claims that the country was occupied" can not; that is a verifiable, reliable, true fact. Having "Soviet occupation" blazoned across the top of an article can be claimed as an opinion. The title should be factual.

To get back to the issues in the ArbCom, i.e. conduct not content, let me give an example. "James I of England" is clearly a bias title. He is "James VI of Scotland". I want it changed. I move it. Someone disagrees and they move it back. I am expected to behave reasonably and calmly and civilly. I am not expected to call all English editors "trolls" and "vandals" whenever they move it back to "James I". Nor am I expected to engage in an edit war, moving it back and forth. Nor do I expect to be told that he is referred to in virtually all sources as "James I" except Scottish ones, which are biased and only useful as an example of opinionated historiography. What is expected is that I and the other editors involved discuss the issue sensitively and sensibly, and come to an agreement. DrKiernan 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you - and let me remind you, that Estonian users were not the ones who started edit warring, we have always asked to discuss changes on resp. talk page. Move warring, page blanking, lies and accusations have been the tools of the opposition, as can be seen from diffs in the evidence page.

However, as for the "biased Estonian sources" - as claimed by the opponents, these include European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States, BBC, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, various scientific books and peer-reviewed journals - all of which are covered with "Russofobic propaganda". That is what we have to deal with daily.

-- Sander Säde 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]