Talk:Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940

message: Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of WP:NPOV ,WP:Verifiability, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:OR?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Noncompliant

message: *
====Comments by User:Novickas====
Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith. 
The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.
The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant  minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.
The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.
It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled. 
Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. Novickas 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by those previously involved

message: Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith. 
The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.
The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant  minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.
The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.
It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled. 
Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. Novickas 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Novickas]]

message: The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely zero evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history.
     The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed.
     I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... I believe I've covered them all.
     Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Vecrumba]]

message: For now I'm just going to continue counting on Encyclopædia Britannica as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias.  The encyclopedia that has an article:Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation , the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika + Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991 . After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.. Thanks!--Termer 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Termer]]

message: I'm sorry, but this article is not meant to be a repository for a list of all possible occupations including ones not even remotely related. Japan???? What is appropriate would be Baltic/Estonian/Lithuanian occupations, that's it. I'm sure there's some more appropriate list of occupations somewhere. Wasn't this already deleted once or was that in another article? —PētersV (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laundry list 

message: :Image:Riga 1941 Nazi Welcome.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Riga 1941 Nazi Welcome.jpg

message: The image :Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

message: This article should be moved to Soviet occupation of Latvia. We don't need the "in 1940" in the title, and it's wrong - the article discusses post-1940 period as well. I hope this is not controversial... barring any objections, I'll move this article in a few days. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name (uncontroversial)

message: The section on Soviet terror is quite dubious and only cites 2-3 sources, when its over 4 paragraphs long. This needs work. Please be civil if I attempt to make the language less POV, in the near future. I won't delete unsourced material, I'll leave that for discussion. But the language in the article, especially this part, is quite POV and I might work on it in the near future is there isnt any convincing opposition. ValenShephard 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Article

message: The photo of the three military commanders bears a controversial comment: "Common parade of Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein". 
It cannot even be confirmed, that this is the city of Brest. Also, there can be seen NO military parade - what the photo claims to depict. I would also like to point out that the film "The Soviet Story" is highly controversial and shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and for that reason can be not used as a source of information. So, if a valid source is not provided, I request this photo to be renamed to something more adequate, like "Meeting of German and Soviet military commanders". In fact, I am going to change the description, anyone is welcome to roll the change back when they are ready to provide a valid source.
:Here --Sander Säde 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, that counts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.197 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconfirmed Photo

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Latvia 1944 Liberation from Nazis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Semen Shustin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The appropriate title for Soviet re-occupation is re-occupation, not the Latvian SSR. Do not POV-vandalize the section title again. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the dispute which spilled over here with Altetendekrabbe has been suitably addressed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over section title

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123015238/http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/ to http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325013623/http://www.afsa.org/fsj/may07/lastflight.pdf to http://www.afsa.org/fsj/may07/lastflight.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120801042342/http://www.eurotopics.net/en/archiv/results/archiv_article/ARTICLE71606-Latvia-still-occupied-today to http://www.eurotopics.net/en/archiv/results/archiv_article/ARTICLE71606-Latvia-still-occupied-today
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The beginning sentences of
 
"The occupation took place according to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government of Latvia, the United States Department of State, and the European Union."
is quite confusing in what it's trying to convey. Is it supposed to mean that those groups simply acknowledged the fact that an occupation happened or is it trying to say the occupation followed all the the laws and rules that those groups put out? If it's the first then there should also be added a sentence about groups who deny the occupation, likely the USSR, if it is the latter then it should be made more obvious that those groups are attempting to condone the action. This is especially confusing since the EU didn't even exist at the time of the invasion. EnzoTC (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a terrible opening. It means that those groups regard it as an occupation and not a legal annexation, as the Soviets claimed. Since you cannot occupy yourself, the Soviet position would deny that any occupation occured. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The occupation took place according to the EU Courts, Gov't of Latvia ..." is far too vague