Talk:Territorial changes of the Baltic states

Votes for deletion

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupied territories of Baltic States

Occupied territories of Baltic States

Hmmm, there are some factual inaccuracies in this text. It suggests that the Suvalkai region (or the region of Suwałki) was annexed by Soviet Union and then attached to Russian FSR. I don't know, perhaps it might be right. However, that region was not in Lithuania at least since the Union of Lublin and certainly not in the 1920's and 1930's. It was claimed by the Lithuanian Republic, but it was not in Lithuania and was granted to Poland eventually. Perhaps the author was writing about Suvalkija, which was the Lithuanian name for the Lithuanian part of that region, which was Lithuanian both before WWII and after it (Lithuanian SSR, to be precise) and is in Lithuania currently as well. Halibutt 20:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. It doesnt says that Suvalkai region was attached to Russia, but it surely was occupied by Soviet Union after WW2: whole eastern Europe was occupied with Russian troops then. And then new state boundaries were formed (East Poland was attached to Soviet Union, and Poland was given part of East Germany). So by what is written "Ceded to Poland by Russians after the WW2 ended" I meant that after WW2 ended, Soviets decided that Suvalkai region should be remained as part of Poland, unlike eastern lands of interwar Poland, including Vilnius region, which were attached to SSRs of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. However you are right that Suvalkai region probably wasn't dirrectly ruled by Lithuania, unlike Vilnius region for a brief time (but I am not 100% sure here). Just forgot what I typed in the opening section by the time I started typing to that place lol. Suvalkai region is worth an inclusion here though in my opinion because it was claimed by Lithuania as an integral part of Lithuania, same as Vilnius region, up till 1938 ultimatum DeirYassin 20:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find the title of this article highly problematic. As far as I know, the governments of the Baltic States have no territorial claims on their neighbours at this time. They have officially acknowledged their current borders as legitimate and signed treaties with their neighbours to that effect. Therefore, from the standpoint of international law, there are no occupied territories of the Baltic States. So, the term occupied territories is an extreme formulation which does not fit the current facts. At the very least this article needs a different, more neutral title. In my opinion, information in this article should be moved to articles about the histories of the individual countries. Balcer 22:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that - current title is even more fun - "territorial claims...", although it is clearly stated that Lithuania has no territorial claims to any country. So what is this article all about? Maybe it should be renamed to "Absence of territorial claims..." :) Dirgela 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Latvian-Russian and Estonian-Russian border treaties are not ratified (and I think not even signed, though I am not 100% sure). Latvia and Estonia raises this in talks with Russia. Now Latvia is thinking about doing th eborder treaty with Russia, however there is a discution cause of Abrene region now, certain groups pressures on referendum werether Latvia should sign border treaty of the current border or continue to seek for Abrene region. Estonia continues to seek for occupied territories for now. DeirYassin 05:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed Russia is holding out on ratifying treaties with Latvia and Estonia. The treaty between Lithuania and Russia, on the other hand, has been ratified by both sides. (see [1] and [2]). So at the very least, if you want to keep the current title, references to "occupied" areas of Lithuania should be removed. Balcer 06:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions all territories which were considered parts of Baltic States in interwar, but are no longer now due to decisions of Soviet Union. The comparement of views towards those territories in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is also an important part of article. It says in the article that Lithuania doesn't looks back to the lost territories, unlike Latvia and (especially) Estonia, there is no claim to them and it didn't make any problems when ratifying border treaty. Also, these territories are now in Belarus (Eastern Vilnius region) and Poland (Suvalkai region), not Russia. A part which is now in Russia (Lithuania Minor) is mentioned at one place (bellow the article) but it is merely explained why that territory is not included.DeirYassin 08:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it also mentions territories which were never considered part of the Baltics and were no more than Lithuanian claims (just like with Suwałki), whereas the article presents them as areas belonging to certain countries and under foreign occupation. It's like saying that the Norman province of Great Britain is currently under Anglo-Saxon occupation... Or even more, that the French Ville Libre du Dantzik is under Polish occupation... Halibutt 23:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Suwalki was part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so it is not like French Ville Libre du Dantzik :) Dirgela 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is important, as you have seen in that Estonia map (and if you type "eesti" in google images great number of maps will be like that), by many they are regarded as occupied territories, and no official border treaties are ratified yet. There is a comparement of different countries view to those territories. Vilnisu region and Suvalki region were brifefly controlled by Lithuania. What is more important however, that during interwar they were always part of Lithuania in Lithuanian hearts: therefore it is still a big change that Lithuania decided not to look back to these territories, unlike say Estonia or Latvia (less than Estonia), and especially that such map was banned in Lithuania, despite of fact that similar maps are printed almost as standard in Estonia. You could similarly write an article on East Poland if you want too maybe, but in Polsih case it is more complicated as it received new territories too, so it should be an article about border change in general I guess. This is encyclopedia, the more info the better, and it Baltic States especially Latvia and Estonia these things are frequently being discussed about. DeirYassin 08:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But currently neither Suwałki (Suvalkija) nor Vilnius area are occupied by anyone. And the state that had occupied them does not exist any more. I agree that the more info we have the better, but it should be accurate and not some one-sided vision of history supported only with strong words. Halibutt 10:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, Suvalkija (Sudovia) is not the same as [{Suvalkai region]]. Suvalkija is not occupied, Vilnius city is not either, yes. It talks here about Eastern Vilnius region (eastern part of Vilnius region) and Suvalkai region, which are in Belarus and Poland respectively. The fact is that these territories were part of Lithuania (at least briefly, and considered by Lithuanians as part of Lithuania for long time) in the interwar, but they arent now. Occuppied IMO can be used here because all these territories of said Baltic States were annexed without consent of democratic nonpuppet governments of Baltic States. But if you'd suggest some other terms tell them. DeirYassin 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

How about: Territorial claims of Baltic States or maybe Historical territories of Baltic States, even Former territories of Baltic States or Border disputes of Baltic States. All sound much less extreme to me than the current title, with the highly questionable word occupied. Balcer 20:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Claims not good because there are no real "claims" as there are e.g. in Kashmir or Chinese clame on Taiwan or as there was in interwar on Vilnius region. Historical territories is very broad, might be e.g. whole territory of GDL and such. Lost territories of Baltic States' might be good, maybe former, maybe WW2 impact on territories of Baltic States but I dont know. DeirYassin 20:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the current title of the article is as strange as "Wild elephants in Lithuania" with thorough description that unfortunately there are no wild elephants in Lithuania. :( Dirgela 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Petseri region

Petseri region or Petchery never had a "clear majority of Baltic people later russified". Ethnic composition of the region was always mixed Estonian/Russian. Petseri/Pechery region also was a part of various East Slavic/Russian states before 20th century interwar period (part of Kievan Rus, Pskov/Novgorod, Moscovy, Russian Empire)

In 15th centry a Russian Christian Orthodox monastery was built in Pechery and became one of holiest sites for Russian Christians. Prior to 1721 incorporation of the Baltic into Russian Empire, Petchery was a Russian town fortified since early 16th century to defend the Russian border from German and later Swedish and Polish attacks.

The rest of the article is highly questionable as well.-(Fisenko)

It does not say that all of these territories had a clear majority of Baltic peoples nor that Petseri did; it says that some did however, which is true. Also, what I said in Talk:Abrene region applies.DeirYassin 08:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Vilnius region

I consider it as highly violent to call Hrodna and Lida 'occupied territories'. Due to ethnographical and historical reasons as occupied can be treated the city of Vilnia (Vilnius) with the surrounding region of Vilenščyna that was historically inhabited by Belarusian population, moreover it was declared part of the Belarus National Republic in 1918.

Please remove this "Eastern Vilnius territory" or whatever from the article. --Czalex 15:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it doesn't matters what nationalities inhabitted territories at the given time; the point of this article is to mention territories which blonged to the Baltic States during the interwar. Besides, in the Eastern Vilnius region actually there were big Lithuanian populations once, at places Lithuanians constituted majority (Gervėčiai, Rodūnia, Varanavas, etc.). Anyways, this article is about political dependency rather than national one. In Petseri region and Abrene region there were always many Russians too, but these regions belonged to Estonia and Latvia respectively, therefore are included here. DeirYassin 15:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, as to Eastern Lithuania/ Central Lithuania / whatever the problem is that there were three states in the interbellum to claim that territory. All three claims were somehow legitimate: the Belarusian claim was based on the agreement with the German government who, according to international law, wsas the ruler of that area after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Lithuanian claim was based on the fact that the Bolshevist Russia captured those territories in 1920 and transferred them to Lithuania following the Moscow talks of 1920. And finally, the Polish claim was based on the fact that the majority of the population of the said area voted to join Poland.

I'm listing here only the factors that are valid in the international law and I'm letting alone all the historical/ethnographical/whatever factors. So, in other words, all three countries were legitimate owners of the area - yet only one controlled it eventually. Saying that it was occupied is illogical, especially that it would be occupied by Lithuania should that state get it or occupied by Belarus should that state survive. Halibutt 09:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Majority voted to join Poland not of whole area, parts of area were not given right to vote and such, we discussed that in past. Also, is that really the case where there is international law? I think it depends on different laws of different states werether referendums of seccession are permitted, and before that referendum the region was Lithuania's officially so Lithuanian laws would have applied. Belorussian National Republic did not survive however. Therefore in case the region would have been controlled by Lithuania, it wouldn't have been occupied same as e.g. according to international law territories where referendums are not made aren't considered occupied as far as I understand. E.g. who knows maybe Crimea would vote to seccede but nobody considers it an occupied territory. Same for many other regions. And also, if some Lithuanian general would stage and inasion to Punskas and declare referendum in the region on werether it would want to be part of Lithuania, and people would vote yes, would you say that everything was done according to international law? Especially if territory in question would be somewhat larger than one around Punskas, but only people of Punskas and surrounding villages would decide the future of the territory.DeirYassin 09:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Deir Yassin, it was not only Lithuanian "officially". Personally, I believe that according to the international law, the Belarusian position was the strongest. Russia was the governor of the area following the Partitions of Poland. It ceded its rights to the area in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to Germany, which in turn ceded its rights to Belarus. So, in other words, the true successor to the power in the area was the short-lived Belarusian Republic.

As per Lithuanian sovereignity over the city and its surroundings was based on the fact that Bolshevist Russia occupied it militarily and then transfered it to Lithuanian authorities. Yet, the Russian legal sovereignity over those territories is quite disputable, especially that it was a successor state to the Russia that ceded those areas to Germany. So, in other words, the 1920 treaty with Lithuania was in conflict with the earlier peace treaty ruling she signed with Germany. Polish claims to that area are even less based on international law. In other words, all three states were legitimate owners of the area, with the Belarusian position being the strongest - in legal terms, of course.

As to the Sejm elections themselves - the basis for the creation of the Central Lithuanian parliament was Entente's decision to promote the right of self-governance and self-determination. Whether it makes the Polish control over the area legitimate or not is not the point. The point here is that it was no more nor less legitimate than the Lithuanian claim to the area. Yet, this article expresses only one-sided POV.

And as to the hypotetical referendum: if such a referendum happened and decided the future of the said area, then it would most probably be binding, provided that all citizens were granted equal rights. It's the first time I hear that in the elections to the Central Lithuanian parliament not all areas were included, could you provide a source to back that up? Also, as a side note: have you ever wondered why the Lithuanian generals who seized the area of Punskas and Suvalkai in 1920 never planned such a referendum? :) Halibutt 10:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Quite short note - there is comparement of those boundaries (electoral and Vilnius region) in one of maps I sent you. Or you haven't got the maps I scanned? If so, maybe I should send them to other address or something as it said to me that they went ok. And as I said previously in this discution, what matters the most for this article is that Lithuania always considered the mentioned territories to be part of Lithuania, undisputably; which means that current removal of any such claims is, from this standpoint, equal to loosing territories as it was in Latvian and Estonian cases. But, of course, you can add more information to the article, as long as it is fully factual, if you think it'd be NPOV that way.DeirYassin 11:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I did get the maps, thanks. The text is in Lithuanian and I didn't figure what do the lines refer to, I'll take a closer look at them soon. Halibutt 14:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Busy Authors

There is a link in this article to another titled Abrene. The creative spelling conventions and innovations in the English language in the Abrene article smack a bit of this article. Can anyone think of a reason to keep the Abrene article? How many articles has this author written? JH. May 17, 2005

Well, of course there is a reason - it is an existing town, smaller towns have their own articles. Taht article is stub at a given time it does not mean that the article should be deleted, only that it should be expanded. It would be nice if you in future would expand too short articles and correct mistakes if there are any, instead of asking them to be deleted. DeirYassin 05:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

While working on Population transfer in the Soviet Union I saw some hints that ethnic cleansing of Pytalovo region was related to crushing the Latvian guerilla. Do you have any info in this respect, and about Latvian resistance as a whole? Any Abrene "Forest Brothers"? Mikkalai 19:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like propaganda. There was resistance everywhere in Lithuania for example, and there were repressions against people too; I am sure in Latvia there were resistance elsewhere too, probably even more elsewhere in more Latvian dominated areas. However it was Soviet policy to russianze the territories mentioned in this article, especially ones attached to Russia, and it was not on the first line of goals to russianise whole Baltic States, even though that was planned at first as some documents shows.DeirYassin 20:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Estonia is out

Yesterday Russia and Estonia finally signed a border treaty, which means that this article could be true only for one country: Latvia. Halibutt 18:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The vaste thing

Hy. We all should remember the main purpose of the Wikipedia, that is to inform our readers, what is exactly going on, was going on and is supposed to be going on. Looking from this point, the article doesn't give necessary distinction:

1. Real policy of the Baltic states is one thing.
2. What do think people in Baltic states, Poland and Belarus is another thing (I don't say it isn't worth to mention in the wikipedia, but everyone should remember, that people in even one certain country very often have multiple opinions and formal majority of one common opinion doesn't remain stable for centuries.)
3. And the description of historical events is the third different thing, even when these events imply some problems in the present.

We sink in formalities here. For example, Halibutt says, that The south part of Suvalkai region never depended to Lithuania after the Lublin union treaty. But one can say this about any city, town, place or region of Lithuania before 1918. This is an example of formal approach, which would be replied with other such formal approach, like that Lithuanians considered the territory of the Grand duchy of Lithuania (this way, including Suvalkai too) the basic, until the new treaties with respectable states were closed. Lithuanian politicians always insisted, that it isn't a problem of territorial claim to all the territory of the former GDL by the new Lithuania, but it's a problem of unsettled boarders. (That's why this page of history is rather finished than actual now, but let's look further into the problematic). Lithuania actually wanted righteous borders initially, but this problem was unsolvable without consent of Lithuanian Poles. When Lithuanians didn't attain this consent, the problem of righteous borders for Lithuania became unrealizable. When Lithuanian politicians understood it, they simply used this fact of unrighteous borders in complicated political struggle and no more. That's why many Lithuanian ideas on borders are naturally treated by other sides as claims.

The main psychological problem is, that Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Belarusians and Poles (and, perhaps, Finns) feel, that their borders weren't settled in the most suitable way of internecine negotiations, but that they were established by outer powers. The idea of pre-War League of Nations was more right in this sense than idea of Helsinki (so!) treaty, but the pre-War system didn't prevent later events, that were more dangerous than eventual problems of unideal borders. That's why, after 1990ties, all these countries were pushed, at this time by the international community, to accept all these unnatural borders of the Molotov -Ribbentrop.
Lithuanians and Poles perhaps could take their part of responsibility in it. For example, Lithuania got Klaipėda region and arranged the borders with Latvia according to procedures of the League of Nations. These borders persist to exist. We (i. e. Lithuanians and Poles) couldn't reach any agreement, and we have consequences now. But Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, and Poland in other cases, can't console themselves even by it. They simply were forced to accept the will of greater and more powerful states. (By the way, "occupied by Belarus" isn't NPOV in any case. Belarusians never occupied any country, and it should be “ruled by Belarusians” or “given to Belarus”).

But we'll never reach the borders, that were righteous in the 1918, and such ideas raised by Lithuanians and Belarusians are more from fictional literature than real. I think it's better to stop this article, and it would be action of good will, than to insist on actuality of these problems. Instead of it we can announce a request of an article about territorial problems of Latvia and Estonia (and, perhaps, Finland) with Russia. Linas Lituanus 09:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I told my opinion about it previously here and also during the VfD discution. I also said this suggestion that there might be an articles about teritorial changes or new territorial delimitations of certain regions of former USSR (Baltic States, Caucasus, Central Asia and Eastern Europe in particular, the arguementing why these regions and about similarities and differences is available there). My opinion is still that this is an existing issue with these changes of borders under Russian occupation. As for the way article is written, the way it mentions these things, it can be changed. I think official stance of states and historical reasons for these territories being detached are already more or less mentioned; opinion of people with time could be broke down into opinions of various political groups and parties in the countries; e.g. in Latvia opinions on this subject differs by parties; in Lithuania it is generally not seen as a subject by politicians. Also, as a sidenote, under common international law, genocide and ethnic cleanising should not change borders of states (that is the reason objecting for example creation of two states in Cyprus or in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or creation of independent Transnistria and such), so what was righteous does not loose it's righteousness. DeirYassin 12:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You simply may say that “Some people in Lithuania think, that true borders of Lithuanian should be different than they are now. They base their opinion on 1. - 2. - 3. - 4. - 5. Their opponents argue to it, that a)... b)... c)...” It would be all what is necessary in this case. And now, if somebody said, what profit anyone can get from all this fuss, it were interesting as much as all this argumentation above. The map is interesting too. But actually we see the only Baltic country with territorial questions with all its neighbours. If anyone tried to apply it in real politics such country would be called mad. It's clear, what answer this article will get from Latvians, Belarusians and Poles. The only solace in this case, that virtual policy is more capacious than real... Linas Lituanus 18:30, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Well, actually those are not territorial claims, I tried to remove the map but it was put back lol, maybe with current caption it is ok. Those are ethnographic regions of Lithuanian nation; the map is drawn by myself to put on Regions of Lithuania article, according to several other maps which couldn't have been put themselves due to copyright. The reason I don't like this map here too much is that it might give idea that all those territories are territories in question, while in fact article is not about that but rather about very clear and finite territories which were part of Baltic States butwere detached by Soviets. This area was a bit larger to Suwalki than ethnographic Lithuania, a bit smaller to the Byelorussian side, and it is not related to parts of Aukštaitija in Latvia or to Lithuania Minor now in Russia or Poland. I think I might draw a better map of Baltic States which would show the territories in question here when I'll have time. Latvians applies the claim in realpolitics BTW, and well, this is not about who thinks what, but rather about the actually existing detached territories. The opinions might be an additional information. The more information the better. Wikipedia should not be censored; I understand that there is common policy of silence in Europe regardting this question, e.g. by German or Finnish politicians, similarly by Lithuanian politicians; however Wikipedia is not a portal for political correctness or such, all views and all historical facts should be represented. DeirYassin 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

We are all Europeans now!

I must say I find these discussions so extremely old fashioned. Come on people, Poland and Lithuania are now part of the European Union. In about two years they will implement the Schengen treaty and border controls will disappear. In a few more years they will be using the Euro as the common currency. In about 5 years, I bet, one will drive from Warsaw to Vilnius and will not be able to tell where Poland ends and Lithuania begins. So, in a few years borders simply become irrelevant. This is pretty much guaranteed to happen. Furthermore, in the longer perspective the European Union has at least a chance to develop into a unified state, with the role of Polish and Lithuanian government reduced to, say, the role of individual state governments in the United States of America. The whole concept of nationality is likely to become much more fluid. Europeans will probably move from, say Warsaw to Vilnius with as little thought as Americans have when moving from Atlanta to Boston. So, can we not please leave this border issue behind us? It is not relevant anymore. Balcer 07:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What happens or happened in history is important. Maybe we should delete article about World War 1 too under this logic, because now we are all Europeans and not fighting anymore... Or information about conquests of Roman Empire, because it is also absolutely irrelevant now for today's politics. Also, please note that only Poland and Baltic States are part of EU, while Russia and Belarus aren't and I doubt they will be in near future, and four of five mentioned territories (all except for Suvalkai region; even parts of it are in Belarus however) are controlled by Russia or Belarus. So, whatever the future would be, the past still remains where it was, and present will become past; but history is an important thing to every encyclopedia.DeirYassin 08:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that this article should mention the loss of Finnish Karelia and the city of Vyborg to Russia in World War II as well. Then it would be truly accurate, because it would explain why these countries feel such antipathy towards one another.

All the historical changes of borders should be better discussed in such articles as History of Lithuania, History of Latvia etc. Keeping a separate article of Disputed territories of Baltic States means that someone really wants to change existing borders (which is quite unrealistic). — Monedula 08:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. Especially because the territories discussed have different history and are grouped together artificially, only mentioning Baltic states as if only these countries had territorial changes after WWII ar as if the territorial changes are in some way related. Territorial changes after World War II would be much more justified.Dirgela 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the point is not to get rid of history, but to change how we think about it. The First World War is a good example, actually. In the past it used to be thought of in old fashioned terms, with all the attention focusing of what one's nation did in it and whether it won or lost. But in modern thinking that war is almost universally thought of as a colossal mistake and a European tragedy. And that tragedy was caused directly by the 19th century idea of Europe as a continent divided into nations with rigid borders and totally homegeneous cultures engaged in a Darwinian zero sum struggle with each other. It's hard to believe now, but there were actually many people who liked that idea of Europe and thought this was exactly the way things should be!

The whole drive for European integration after 1945 comes from the final realization that it is fundamentally wrong to have a Europe divided into states competing with each other, mainly by fighting for territory in the name of securing one's "lebensraum", "natural homeland", "ethnic territory" , "economic space", "historical lands" or whatever.

So, my main wish would be that this article reflect some of this change in thinking about Europe and its member countries, which I hope the editors here do share. The article as it is now is all about complaining where the borders were. Instead, it should express some sadness that there were borders in the first place, and happiness that they are finally going away. Balcer 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Balcer, you are only one of many operating here polish (you are Polish, not polish), which mind is free of bestial nationalistic chauvinism. Unfortunately most of your countrymen can't look to the past sane, this mean that they can't look sane to present and future as well. And we have to speak about history which was in reality, not in pan-slavistic (pan-polonistic, sarmatian) dreams. History always remain history. Without understanding of history we can't understand present and future. Agree with DeirYassin. Zivinbudas 09:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So, the fact that you refer to me and many others as poles and not with proper capitalization was meant to be an offense? Noted. Halibutt 14:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Map

When talking about Historic Regions of Lituania is it possible to indicate what year it suppose to correspond. Also we may need a decryption list connecting the historic names on the map with their traditional spellings like (Karaliaučius = Königsberg, Klaipeda = Memel, Vilnius=Vilno, Lithuania Minor= East Prussia, etc.). Lets not create anachronisms abakharev 22:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The move

The previous renaming of this article was wrong:

• Firstly (and most importantly) there are no territorial claims by Baltic States on these territories, thus the new name is wrong. You could read the article about the situation in particular states, and you can see that as for Lithuania, there are not even any considerations that these territories could be part of the country, while in Latvia and Estonia as well the situation is not that of direct claims (e.g. Argentine claim on Falkland Islands is a territorial claim, so is Indian claim on the Pakistani Kashmir; that is, one country considers part of anotrher country to be part of it. No such case exists in Latvia or Estonia).
• Secondly, unlike it was implied, "Lost territories of Baltic States" does not mean that these territories belongs to Baltic states any more than the term "Territorial claims" does so. "Lost" just means that they at some time of history used to be territories of Baltic States, but aren't any longer. Similarly e.g. Kaliningrad could be called a lost territory of Germany, Crimea could be called a lost territory of Russia (or Lost territory of Turkey as well). EDIT - now, after watching page history, I see that the name "Lost territories of the Baltic States" exactly was adopted as a neutral one; it seems previously it was called "Occupied territories of Baltic States" - now, that title for sure was not neutral.
• Thirdly, article "the" should be used before the term "Baltic States".

Hence I am renaming the article back. Please discuss here before moving if someone has any objections, as it takes much time to move an article with so many redirects so it is better to reach an agreement at first. Burann 15:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything is all right but you cannot move but cut and paste. If you want to move the article somewhere but can't for technical reasons, you list it at WP:RM and once the move gets support, the article is moved with the history preserved. --Irpen 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am still quite new so I don't know how to do that - could you please do that? Thanks in advance. Burann 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it very well can be reverted with cut and paste. Why not ? --Lysy ^(talk) 08:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with "lost", so I am not a proponent to move to such name but I agree that the current name may not be optimal either. Lets wait a little for other proposals at this page and then list the article for move. What do you say? --Irpen 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The only all-time neutral neutral solution would be to rename it Territorial changes of Baltic States and cover the whole movements since the collapse of the Russian Empire, a very definite point in time and the root of the whole mess. This will put all claims into proper historical context. mikka (t) 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka. Should we start Lost territories of Russia and list Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Estonia etc there - just for the sake of symmetry? The article on such territories as Kaliningrad Oblast sat for months at Occupied territories of Baltic States, and nobody seemed to be concerned that it's pure nonsense. Now that it was moved to a NPOV title, our Baltic friends are instantly here to voice their concerns. I wish they had been more active earlier and brought the article to NPOV without my help. --Ghirlandajo 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Lost territories of Russia would indeed be an encyclopedic article - it could list former territories of Russia and as well mention the numbers of ethnic Russians in each of those territories and the situation of ethnic Russians there (e.g. is Russian language one of official languages, are there Russian schools, do Russians get citizenship, etc.). And, as you've seen, the article was renamed from "Occupied territories of Baltic States" to "Lost territories of Baltic States", the latter name was not POV - as for the first name, unfortunatelly, it is impossible to notice every POV article that is being created, and at that time I was not even member of Wikipedia. But there are no territorial claims on this area; there might be some Latvian or Estonian radicals who'd want these territories, but Wikipedia should be neutral, not a voice of these radicals; there are no official claims on these areas and thus the article should be renamed somehow. I prefer the former name "Lost territories(...)", as, except for some radicals, the current boundaries are not really disputed. As with my above example, article "Lost territories of Russia" would be encyclopedic, but article "Territorial claims of Russia" which would list Crimea, Pridnestrovye, South Ossetia, Abkhasia on the sole basis that a few radicals wants these territories would be completely wrong as the Russian Federation has no claims over such areas; furthermore, it might ignite radicals of other nations to write similar articles about supposed "claims" (e.g. "Teritorial claims of Finland" about Karelia or even "Territorial claims of Belarus" about Smolensk), which does not really exist but some nationalists would want them to exist. So, I think the current name serves solely the radicals of Latvia and Estonia, who would want that this "problem" which is not really that important would seem rather important, and term "territorial claims" makes it seem that these claims are official and thus more important than those specualations actually are. Burann 13:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Historic territorial claims of Baltic States" or "Historic territories of Baltic States" ? "Changes ..." has the same flaw as "Lost ..." in that it would need to refer to previously owned land only. "Claims ..." is completely out of question as there are no such claims today. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yet again it would not be true. There were no historical claims by Latvia and Estonia over these regions; just that in the interwar they used to be part of Latvia and Estonia and now they aren't any longer. I don't think creating a single "larger" article is a good idea - this article covers a very specific territorial changes, which are not claims as such (the only real claims over Russian Federation are those by the Japanese on southern Kuril islands), but yet plays some role in politics of today and the Latvian-Russian, Estonian-Russian relations (e.g. prevented signing border treaties). I cannot think of any better name than "Lost territories", which on itself was reached after discussion. Another name might be "Former territories", but in that case someone might start adding all the former territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which is not the point of this article. I agree though that Lost territories might not be an ideal, but it is way better than current name, which, as me and Lysy said, is completely wrong as it is factually inaccurate (I would support most other proposed names over this one). Irpen, could you propose something yourself? Lysy, if you can do it, can you propose it on proposed moves? Burann 10:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather do what you just did, that is revert it, as Ghirlandajo's move was an arbitrary rename. I'm still waiting for Irpen though to explain why he thinks it is not appropriate to revert it. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Lysy, you voiced this q earlier at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision and I responded there. --Irpen 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your objection against Territorial changes of Baltic States is really strange: my proposed title covers a very narrow and a very specific subject. No make it even narrower and specificer is to cut out the immediate context: Treaty of Riga, etc. mikka (t) 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see what was wrong with Lost territories of the Baltic States, then. If Territorial changes of Baltic States is all right with you, than Lost territories of the Baltic States should be even better, as the subject of the article are the territories, not the changes. So again, what are the objections against the former title ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The article couldn't sit at Lost territories of Baltic States, as it featured such pieces of irrendentism as the following: "For historical and ethnical reasons, East Prussia (or at least its eastern part, without the city of Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg/Karaliaučius) can be considered lost part of Lithuania too." If the article is moved back, I reserve the right to insert sections on other "last parts" of Lithuania: Belarus, Ukraine, West Russia, etc. I have enough stuff on Lithuanian oppression of local Slavic population to add there. --Ghirlandajo 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the content of the article is far from perfect, and can be improved as signified by the {{accuracy}} tag. However I cannot see the passage about East Prussia that you mention there. I believe it was removed before you renamed the article. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so - it is actually Lithuanian POV that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was dominated by Lithuanians; in fact the major language there was Slavic and all nationalities there were equal; only after the Lithuanian revival in 19th century Lithuanians started to regard whole area of the Grand Duchy as if it would have been their own, while in fact they did not have greater power there than Slavic peoples. So, how could the Lithuanians have oppressed Slavs when in fact they weren't even ruling nation (it seems for me that any mentioning of such opression would only support Lithuanian POV that they were the dominant nation of the Grand Duchy)? What evidence/sources you have for this? It would be interesting to read. Burann 09:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy. As well, an objection I have against "territorial changes" is that such an article would need to mention very many historical changes (e.g. Latvian-Lithuanian border dispute of 20s after which Latvians ceded Palanga to Lithuanians and Lithuanians ceded Akniste and some villages to Latvia; aquisition of Memelland to Lithuania in 1923 and aquisition of it by Germany in 1939, all the changes due to Polish-Lithuanian wars and so on (and there were more changes over the time)), while this particular article is about very specific border changes - ones done to these Soviet Socialist Republics by the Soviet Union immidietly after World War 2. Burann 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning of Suwalki and Wilna regions

It seems this had been discussed above; these regions are mentioned because they were always regarded as an integral part of Lithuania by the Lithuanian government, while the government of Lithuanian SSR dropped such recognition. In fact, it seems they are the reason for the disputed tag. As that tag is in place anyways, I am readding that information. To make it NPOV, it should be explained in the article that in the interwar only parts of the said regions were actually controlled by Lithuania at different times, but the removal of whole paragraphs is unnecessary. Kaiser 747 11:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaiser, you forget that it were you who arbitrarily moved the page to Territories detached from the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. Actually, Vilnius and Memel - the largest and the third largest cities of modern Lithuania - were added to the country by the Soviet Union. This has to be explained in the text. For the time being, I propose to move the page to Russian territories occupied by the Baltic States in 1919. --Ghirlandajo 11:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A completely POV proposal. These borders were agreed upon by Russia in 1920 border treaties. I seriously do not understand you; if you want to write something against the Baltic States, write about the situation of Russians in Latvia, the new educational reform which makes many subjects in Russian schools to be taught in Latvian and so on. There are many topics where it is really possible to write about bad things the Baltic States does. Why to invent such topics somewhere where they don't exist? Burann 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to reason like a kid. I do not wish to write "bad things" about Baltic States. The only articles I contributed on them are Yelgava, Daugavgriva, Gedyminas, Algirdas, and Svitrigaila. I don't know where you found "bad things" here. My only wish is that the Baltic (and Polish) contributors wouldn't write "bad things" about Russia. Therefore, I am going to strip the article of these "bad things" as you call them. --Ghirlandajo 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my native language is not English, it is not even my second language, so please forgive some overly simple words that I might use sometimes to express myself. As for the negative things, I was having in mind that you are changing the Baltic POV into a Russian one, while in order to be a neutral article both points of view needs to be represented. Thus I think there is no reason to delete almost any text from this article but it needs to be put in proper context. That is, instead of "is occupied land" it should be written "According to the opinion of some Estonians [best to name what political powers exactly] it is an occupied area because (...), while official Russia denounces such claims by mentioning that (...)" - then the article will stay unedited and unreverted for long as opinions of everyone will be mentioned, while the reader will be able to decide himself/herself what is right. This article should have less speculations and more worthvile information about such things as realdifferences between borders in 1920 treaties and now, how those territories influenced the fact that Russian-Latvian and Russian-Estonian border treaties were not ratified, what were comments about it from the Russian, Latvian and Estonian officials, what radical organisations in Latvia and Estonia are major proponents of keeping this issue active and so on. Burann 13:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your words make sense to me and I second them. Let's see what other editors say. --Ghirlandajo 13:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wanton moves by Kaiser 747

Kaiser, stop your arbitrary moves by cut and paste! They ruin the page's history. I'll have to apply to admins for the page to be restored to its original location, until the issue is resolved by move vote. --Ghirlandajo 11:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The original location was Lost territories of Baltic States by the way. I think however this article should be protected and we should at first decide what edits to do in the discution page. As now everyone edits it, changes one POV by another, changes names frequently as they sees fit and so on. So it should be protected and the decition about how it will look in future should be done here. Burann 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

POV was added to the article

People, please stop changing one POV by another POV - let's try to make a neutral article together.

• Baltic States were liberated from the nazis by the Soviet Union. Memelland was occupied by nazis similarly as other parts of Lithuania were, just that at different times (but we say that e.g. whole Czechoslovakia was occupied, including Sudettenland which was occupied earlier). Memelland was part of Lithuania prior to nazi occupation; it was not added by the Soviet Union.
• The situation with Western Vilnius region was similar. Eastern Vilnius and Suwalki region, unlike other parts of Lithuania, were not liberated by the Soviet Union and instead given to other Soviet Republics. Note please that I do not' support the view that these areas should belong to Lithuania - I am merely speaking about juridical things, comparing the boundaries of Russia-Baltic States border treaties signed in 1920 and the current eastern boundaries of the Baltic States.
• The reason of this article is the particular areas of Pytalovo, Pechory and Ivangorod, which creates some diplomatic tension up until today (e.g. it does not allow the ratification of border treaties), not trying to decide what Soviet Union taken from Baltic States or what it gave (the article is called "detached" rather than "attached"). Same as any Wikipedia article, this one should be neutral; it should not claim to whom the territories should belong or who has more rights to them, but rather just list the claims of opposing sides. Changing one POV by another POV is definitely not a solution.
• What was natioality of count that ruled the area in 9th century does not matters. E.g. there were many rich Germans all over the Eastern Europe at the time, including Baltic States, Romania, etc.; that couldn't work as a claim for Germany for those areas. Burann 13:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As well, I'd seriously prefer if people would discuss their edits here prior to doing them; there is the "disputed" tag over the article, thus nobody will believe that it is neutral anyways, so it is safe to discuss. Burann 13:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Tell me who you discussed with your frantic moves of the page merely an hour ago? --Ghirlandajo 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not move the page an hour ago; and as for the attempted move a couple of days ago, I am sorry that it was not discussed about. It was reverted soon anyways by Irpen. Now however when there are a few different versions of the article and a discution, undiscussed edits should not be doen. Please reply my points and let's settle everything peacefully. Burann 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should sign you comments, so that we could distinguish you from another user who posts his comments at the same time with you. Rurik was not a count but konung, but I'm afraid it doesn't make much difference to you. I advise you to study the history of Izborsk, Pechory, Ivangorod - all core Russian territories and strongholds of Russian statehood for so many centuries. They had *never* been Estonian or Latvian until the German army forced Russia into signing the 1919 treaty. The article makes it appear as if these were ethnically Estonian territories seized and renamed by bloody Russians. This is POV, and it should be changed. --Ghirlandajo 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my previous comment, I did so now. I actually agree with you that the article as it is currently is POV (especially such wordings as "Estonian territory occupied by Russia"). I just don't agree with the way it is changed and preffer discussing it prior to changing it; there are very many sides involved here (Belarusians, Russians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians), each with their own opinions and hence in order to create a text of the article that would stay for long and undisputed, the only possible way to do so is to discuss everything here at first. Let's not rush to the editing of the article itself - it's tagged as disputed anyways; at first let's hear opinions of other people, such as Mikkalai, Irpen, Lysy. I believe the most important thing in the resolution of this dispute will be to include as much of everything as possible, but state that those are just opinions of different sides (that is, instead of changing one POV by another, write the opinion of Russia, opinion of Baltic States, opinion of Poland about these things, supported by the arguements they use. There were Putin's speeches about the issue I believe after the unratified border treaties, there were as well speeches of Latvian and Estonian officials, therefore there is material to base the information about the official opinions on). The reason of this article is not to decide who is right and who is wrong, but just to give information, same as that of every article of Wikipedia; therefore, we shouldn't delete the opinions we disagree with, but instead just tag them as opinions instead of "accepted truth" as they were tagged previously. And, actually *no* territories were part of Estonian or Latvian states prior to 20th century simply because there were no Latvian or Estonian states back then. Burann 13:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move, 2

I absolutely and categorically disagree with splitting the subject. In order to have the neutal picture, the article must list all: both attached and detached, and since the beginning of the independent history of the states. Territorial changes of Baltic States is the most neutral and appropriate title. I am reverting the page move and protecting from moves until the consensus reached. mikka (t) 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support mikka on the prefered page name.Dirgela 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised (or shouldn't I be ?) that you've reverted Kaiser's move but not Ghirlandajo's, which in fact is the reason for the controversy, but that's your choice. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't undrerstand myself how various Latvian-Lithuanian border disputes of early 20s and their resolutions, and other such events, which are forgotten by now and does not influence the politics anyhow, are related to this issue; all territorial changes of Baltic States are covered in articles about histories of respective Baltic States, while this article is about those specific territories which plagues Russian-Latvian and Russian-Estonian relations even now. I don't understand by the way why you have moved the article to this place, when it is clear that there are no real territorial claims and thus the name is misleading. Burann 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is your opinion about the scope. Current disputes sre rooted in history. They did not appear right from thin air. Historical perespective in such heated issues is a must. mikka (t) 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Baltic states

Please list all known territorial changes here, for consistent reference, because of disorganized editing of the aricle. And please stop accusing each other of POV pushing. Please understand the difference between POV of editors and POV described in the article, i.e., please re-read NPOV wikipedia policy. For example, some nationalist Belarussian activists for some time argued for returning Vilnius region to Belarus. I see no reason why this should not be included in the article. mikka (t) 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, let me remind you that deletion of correct information without consensus is against the rules of wikipedia. When disagreed, talk first. mikka (t) 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I did not deleted any information, just temporarily commented it out. In fact, it is you who deleted information now - you preffered one of the versions of page while deleting another version. And you similarly commented out mentionings of the regions of Belarus and Poland formerly recognised as part of Lithuania - in the neutral temporary solution I had written very clearly the suituation of them, that they were actually controlled only briefly by Lithuania and that they were just recognised to be part of it by Russia through the interwar. You are unilaterially trying to make an article that is about a few very specific territories and related Latvian-Russian and Estonian-Russian disputes into something much broader. And it does not matters what *some nationalists* wants, all that is just speculations; would you really write in an article "Some Belarussian nationalists once argued that Vilnius should belong to Belarus?". If we start this, what next? Lithuanians claiming East Prussia, Belarusians claiming Smolensk, Poles claiming whole western Belarus, Ukraine and Vilnius, Germans claiming all the territories detached after World War 2.... There are many nationalists, trust me, but what matters in Wikipedia are the viewpoints of key political figures and official opinion of the state, not viewpoints of some nationalists. Here we should write official viewpoints of Russia, Latvia, Estonia towards these territories (I commented that in my words to Ghirlandajo above). Besides, there seems to be double standards - when I tried to revert move from "Lost territories of Baltic States" to "Territorial disputes(...)" by copy and paste I was immidietly reverted, this time you, an old contributor to Wikipedia, do the same... Burann 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't try to make anything unilaterally. I see you deleted a big chunk of text, so I reverted you. Please re-read Be bold: ...but don't be reckless. If your text contained something new, please feel free to reinsert. Commenting out is the same as deletion. After some time someone will come and clean it out as garbage, and will be right: comments are for editorial comments only.
• Yes, in encyclopedia all matters: both opinions of politicians and opinions of notable political movements, and all opinions must be attributed.
• I did not move by "copy and paste". I reverted Kaiser's article move by article move. mikka (t) 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree "opinions of notable political movements" but not opinions of some random unnamed nationalists (not according to the lines of "some nationalists think that(...)"). Everything needs to be sourced and refferenced as I understand. Sorry about the accusation that you copied and pasted the article, at first it seemed to me that article history disappeared. I am still quite new to Wikipedia so I don't understand everything well enough yet. Burann 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said previously, Memelland was part of Lithuania prior to the nazi occupation; it was liberated together with whole Lithuania in 1944 from the nazi rule rather than attached. As for attached territories, we can speak about certain areas in Vilnius region, which were not actually controlled by Lithuania before nazi occupation. However, as for now I leave the entry about Memelland and wait for further discution. Burann 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to clog the poll with discution so I will answer to your (Mikkalai) point about the article name here. I personally don't like the name "Territorial changes after World War 2" as it is too broad when article would be only about these specific changes. Although it might seem that no other changes happened since World War 2, it is not the case actually: for example, the Russian-Lithuanian border treaty ratified in 2004 actually included a minor exchange of territories (namely, Russia ceded the eastern part of Vistytis town, which is inhabitted by Lithuanians, to Lithuania, as well as waters of nearby lake, while Lithuania ceded equal sized uninhabitted tract of land and territorial waters at Curonian Lagoon to Russia in exchange); I wouldn't be surpirsed if there were more such minor changes over the time of USSR, and as well if we'd the name article "Territorial changes after WW2" then that article would have to include any possible changes in future, should they happen. Thus I think the "detached territories" is the best name, I don't see POV in it myself as it is exactly the detahed territories what prevented the Russian-Latvian and Russian-Estonian border treaties to be ratified. And the attached territories in case of Lithuania are a complicated issue (as Vilnius region as a whole was recognised to be a part of Lithuania by Soviet Russia throughout the interwar period, thus de jure territories were detached (that is, Soviets dropped the recognition of those areas as part of Lithuania), however de facto no territories were detached from Lithuania as Lithuania did not actually control them - thus de facto some territories were attached). In general, I believe the issues in Lithuania are different from those in Latvia and Estonia - countries on which the article should concentrate - as Lithuania already signed and ratified border agreements with Russia, Belarus, Poland and does not look back to these territories. So, it would probably be better to be concentrating more on Latvia and Estonia (due to reasons already explained about border treaties and importance of these territories at straining Russian relations with those countries), while Lithuania and its issues should be mentioned as well, but primarilly as a comparement. By the way, I have nothing against a separate article Territorial changes of the Baltic States you proposed as well; I would suggest however that that article if you will create it would stick more to the facts (dates, reasons, etc.) rather than speculations for what country each of the territories should belong. As for articles on separate border changes, I think it can be done even with the broader article in place, if someone will be able to write enough about those specific changes (Latvian-Lithuanian border negotiations of 1920s, Lithuanian-Polish armistice line and so on) to merit their own articles; as far as I noticed that is the way how it is usually done in wikipedia. Burann 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly: " how it is usually done in wikipedia". If you want to narrow down the topic, cut out a separate article, but not cripple the original one. mikka (t) 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I had not crippled the original article; this article it seems was originally created only about these particular territories, there was never written here anything about any other territories. You have proposed an expansion of the article however to write one about all the territorial changes of Baltic Sates - that article would have a larger scope. As for my previous edits, I just was trying to make a temporary neutral version (that is, a version where only those facts agreed upon by all sides are written), which would have stayed until the final decition in discution page. However, you insisted on keeping the current version - I have certain objections with it which I have named in various of my entries here in the past, but as long as it is a temporary version and is planned to be improved in future, it can stay for now. I'll wait for opinions of more people and the decition. Burann 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that you decided to revert my move (which was, by the way, not done by copying and pasting but rather by "move" button); I do respect that decition and I do respect the attempts of people here to find a neutral solution for this article. I will try to assist to finding such a solution. In order to create an article that will be as neutral as possible, and in order to attract possibly interested people to this vote, I will try to inform the Wikipedians that had contributed to this article and discussed it in past, who might not have seen this discussion yet as they might no longer watch the page. When more people will take part in the the discussion it will be possible to find as neutral solution as possible. As well I would advice to avoid using words such as "liberated" or "occupied" as they tend to be non-neutral, for example it could not be said that the Baltic States were liberated by the Soviet Union as they were annexed and did not become independent states; thus usage of such terms will inevitably lead to revert wars, but this is just my note on the future formation of this article. I support the attempts to find a neutral solution and I hope it will be found. Kaiser 747 10:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "liberation" which I have used in past is just an opinion - I used it only in the talk page rather than the article itself; of course everything was more complicated and I ensure you that I wouldn't used neither "occupation" nor "liberation" in articles about these territories, for the sake of NPOV. Thank you for contributing to this discution. I am sorry by the way if that remark was not actually directed at me but was a general thing instead, I answered just in case. Sorry as well for talking about a different topic than this discution should be about; now we could get back to the main topic. Burann 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As per what has been said, an article on both detached and attached areas should not mention only one of those processes in the title. I voted for one article in the poll below as I believe that one article could say it all. Similarily, I would support the article on Revision of borders of Poland (1945) to be moved to Territorial changes of Poland after World War II, eventhough it should include info on Polish-Czech land exchange of 2004. After all the world we live in is a world after WWII and I see nothing wrong with that. Halibutt 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've voted for two articles below, but in fact I'd have separate articles on territorial changes of each individual country, and this one moved back to Lost territories of the Baltic States to match its contents. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the article

If someone really insist that there should be an article that describes only territories detached by Soviet Union, I see no reason not to start a separate article Territorial changes of the Baltic states, which will be done if this silly revert war will not stop. mikka (t) 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So, here is a poll (please remember, polls are not binding; Wikipedia is not democracy):

Single article

(1)"Territorial changes"

1. mikka (t) 17:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2. --Ghirlandajo 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Halibutt 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Kuban kazak 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Defintely single article, but why limit to the baltic states?
5. Ditto. Why Baltic states are so special?Dirgela 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
6. abakharev 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Linas Lituanus 18:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC) . See arguments and other notes below
8. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Two articles

(1)"Territorial changes", (2)"Territories detached after WWII"

1. Burann 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ; Note: the ideal article on the detached territories will as well mention the fact that prior to WW2 Lithuania did not actually control Vilnius region and thus some territories formerly not controlled by Lithuania were attached to it. Therefore, I don't see a reason to have a separate article on attached territories.
   • If you want both detached and attached, then the title must be "Territorial changes after WWII". The third version, with separate article on the "attached territory" is simply demonstrate that our friend didn't quite understand the meaning of his article move. mikka (t) 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
     • I answered this and other things above the poll (didnt want to clog here too much) Burann 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Kaiser 747 10:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) - for the reasons mentioned already by Burann.
3. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC), these are two different issues.

Thee articles

(1)"Territorial changes", (2)"Territories detached after WWII", (3)"Territories attached after WWII"

Discussion

• "why limit to the baltic states?" (by kazak) and "One article for each change"

  There were quite a few territorial moves in the Soviet Union. While it would be good to have a timeline of all transfers, it is a reasonable idea to group them by regions. When a particular transfer stirs much sentiment, we already have separate articles, like Abrene region or Karabakh. "Baltic area" is a separate region. Still another is Caucasus, and there is Central Asia. Individual countries may have the corresponding subsection in their "Geography" articles: e.g., "Ukraine" is a "resized" region (ukraine vs. moldova, ukraine vs. mainland Russia, transfer of Crimea). Belarus has a notable history of initial definition and moves. (and so on)

  If Estonian and Latvian case is rather similar - the territories were gained under Tartu treaty and lost after WW2, Lithuanian story is rather different and much more complicated - it involves Poland, Belorus and general situation in interwar period. Therefore I find "Lost territories of the Baltic states" rather artificial grouping. Current articles proves it quite well, because it is quite difficult to write on the subject without splitting it into parts for Latvia-Estonia and Lithuania. Especially the last chapter is a mess because some statments are valid for Estonia-Latvia and not valid for Lithuania and vice versa.Dirgela 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  I am in favor of having general articles then local ones, because first, it is a general way of wikipedia: topics grow and then split. Second, isolated ones in absense of an overview give an impression that the idea in Soviet times was to somehow "cripple" the constituent republics in favor of Russia. While in many cases it was exactly vice versa. For example Moldova was a backwards rustic land where all planted grapes, made wine and were happy. Now it has industry. But all they see is that now it has lots of Russians. mikka (t) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  That's a very interesting point that you rise. Indeed the perception usually is that Russia took advantage of the other republics. If that was the other way round, it might be worth explaining. Of course not on a base of personal judgements but facts or independent research (like: how much did it cost Russia to industialize Molodova ? Did Russia get anything back in return for all this effort ? Was it better for Moldova to be industrialised or stay agricultural ? I know these are naive questions). This is only to illustrate, that it might be useful have an article no on territorial changes only, but mutual influence of Soviet Russia and the Baltics, Soviet Russia and Ukraine etc. in the Soviet Union and after its collapse. I've been travelling in Ukraine in the beginning of the 1990s and I've seen how much its economy was dependent on Russia. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  And I agree it's good to have general articles and then the local ones grown on them, where possible (and reasonable). --Lysy ^(talk) 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes

I changed the layout of the article since Latvian and Estonian loss of territories are a bit different story then Lithuanian. Latvia and Estonia lost some territories after WWII and Lithuania has actually never fully controlled all the claimed territories in Vilnius and Suvalkai regions. However the last part of the article is too difficult for me to edit - it contains large generalizations like "redistribution of lands after WWII was based mainly on ethnicity of local populations", "shown in many maps" which are neither accurate, nor useful. There are many inaccuracies like "Suvalkai region - part of Vilnius region in interwar" (Suvalkai have never been part of Vilnius region), "Baltic peoples" and "Baltic languages" refer to articles about Lithuanian and Latvian languages and peoples, Estonians are not mentioned here for some reason. I would suggest to delete this part of the article. Dirgela 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree: delete. This part is broken beyond repair. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

About Lithuania: Only the marginal political groups use the "issue of borders" in their political rethorics. How marginal ? Worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article or not ? --Lysy ^(talk) 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

They have no representation in Parliament at least. How are these parties represented in local governments needs to be checked. Dirgela 04:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the grammar?

I find this debate fascinating. I've no idea who's right and wrong but the grammar of the article was very poor. Allow me to tidy it up before you delete the lot.... (Mdhinton 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks. I wonder if it can be reanimated, anyway ... --Lysy ^(talk) 22:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My proposal: one huge comprehensive history

I was asked on my talk page to express my opinion. So here it is: I suggest we expand the whole topic to include ALL Territorial changes of the Baltic States in the 20th century. That means tracking down anything that happened to the borders right from the WWI to the ratification of boarder treaties in 2004/5. Why? Because otherwise noone will be able to NPOV it. A lot of stuff that happens after the WWII is directly dependent on stuff happening in the interwar. You cannot explain one without explaining details. If you create one comprehensive article explaining and describing all views and positions, I think it could be settled. Because noone is gonna be happy with some "trimmed" version.

Who's for it? Renata3 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Renata. I added some comments to the section below. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• My proposal above was Territorial changes of the Baltic States: the term Baltic States is applied only within the 20th century. mikka (t) 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But then you'd miss the chance to mention that Vilnius was Lithuanian capital for 1000 years ;-) (just kidding). You proposal seems fine to me. But what were the initial territories of the Baltic States before they were changed, then ? --Lysy ^(talk) 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A natural cut-off would be guberniyas of Imperial Russia, then talk about the post-Russian Revolution chaos, Litbel, Freedom wars of Lithuania, etc., then there were some treaties, right? mikka (t) 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe just a timeline of the territorial changes only ? Otherwise this is covered by History of Lithuania, History of Latvia etc. (BTW:Do we have any maps to illustrate this ?) --Lysy ^(talk) 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

why for the article:

I'm afraid, that the article seems bad not because of inaccuracies, impossibility of an article like this or of some deviations from npov, but because of political creeds of editors. I think, it can exist as a mirror of the problem (it would be best to believe, that it's historical and of the past). The problem isn't only of territories, but also how bigger nations deal with the smaller, so it's a problem of humanism. Perceiving this aspect , this article, that is an instance of all this, can exist as a separate one. On the other hand, it could be better.

What concerns Lithuania, the information given in the article may be useful, but it also may mislead because of disputed framework of the explaining. And when one stresses the word lost, it could be understood incorrectly, because Lithuania as it is never controlled these territories. The problem nevertheless existed and it isn't fictional or purely nationalistic idea, but it had a bit different plan than it could be supposed from the article. The starting-point of this controversy was the fact, that all neighbor nations of Lithuania had recognized wider territory as Lithuania before Lithuanians relieved outer control and founded an independent state after 1918. But then Lithuania escaped from their real or expected control, the neighbors refused to acknowledge recognition of all the territories, that previously were considered as Lithuania by the same nations, for the new state. All the neighbors (Latvia as a new state is excluded) started to claim to certain territories, using mostly ethnic or linguistic demographic data as argument. This argument was unreal, because Lithuania hadn't been monoethnic state since the times it was founded the first time (meaning the state that later was known as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). But Lithuania as a minor force could use only a strength of argumentation or sometimes use small disagreements of the neighbors as a tool of political contest, what it did more or less successively during the inter-war period (see the note below). So, the situation was following:

• (1) Lithuania was forced to recognize border with then Germany after WWI (it persists to exist till now as the border with Kaliningrad oblast), recognising division, that was made, of Lithuania Minor into two parts, German and Lithuanian.
• (2) Position of Poles highly dependent from their hopes to control the whole Lithuania, but , in about 1919, Poland resolved to claim to indefinite (but including Vilnius city) territory of the former gubernya of Vilnius, recognizing a remaining part of the country as an independent state.
• (3) Lithuanians had been refused from any conflicts with Belaruses, that were in even more difficult situation than Lithuanians then. So this aspect of the problem remained unclear.
• (4) The only state, that recognized the common territory of Lithuania for the newly founded state was Russia (The Soviet Russia and, later, the Soviet Union). But this recognition was more formal than real. Russia delayed to implement this recognition in 1920 and denied it in 1939 (already as The Soviet Union). Lithuania was forced to sign a treaty then, that legitimated different eastern border of Lithuania, than it was promised in 1920. More or less this border persists to exist nowadays, being partially corrected by earlier mutual treaties between Lithuanian SSR and Belarusian SSR. This situation is similar to Latvian and Estonian ones but in some aspects only. It's because
• (5) Poland annexed a part of Lithuania, that was closer to Poland itself and to Belarus and could be considered less Lithuanian, in 1920. The main problem of this annexation was, that the western border of annexed territories (the then administrative line with Lithuania) was chosen arbitrary, mostly by Polish side, because no natural ethnic borders had existed neither they could exist. The part of this arbitrary chosen line exists till now, already being recognized as a state border between Lithuania and Poland after 1990.
• (6) Lithuania hadn't border conflicts with Latvia, the border was set peacefully and exists till now with microscopic corrections after 1990.

In this situation governments of Lithuania of the inter-war period didn't recognize Polish annexation and considered all the territory, that was defined in the treaty with Russia of 1920 as the territory of Lithuania. And now if we consider the territory, that was declared by then Lithuanian governments as Lithuanian, as the base, we would get, that it's true: Lithuania have lost some territories. But a more real approach to it is to say simply, that neighbors of Lithuania negated territories, that had been recognized both commonly and by them as Lithuania, and Lithuania as the real state, became smaller, than an objective geographer could draw it before 1918. This is the sense of 'the lost territories' and it isn't something biased and, i think, it is npov.

I suggest, we should consider the future revising this way.

(NOTE: This was not the situation, when a nation claims to all territories that were ruled by its ancestry in historic or prehistoric times. Claims of Lithuanians were modest and territory of Lithuania designed by Lithuanian leaders was much lesser than the territory of Lithuania designed by Polish parties, if before 1918).

Linas Lituanus 18:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While I may not agree with all your specific arguments, I agree that it's better to have a comprehensive article. I also think it should be completely rewritten anew. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting sidelight that illustrates what Linas Lituanus is saying is how the border between Lithuania and Latvia was drawn. It's not quite true that there was no conflict, initially; the difference is that the conflict was resolved through arbitration. At one point, Lithuania claimed Latvia's second and third largest cities, Liepāja and Daugavpils -- and wanted to count all Catholics in Latgalia, a multicultural area where identity has long been mutable, as Lithuanians, which would have given the easternmost province of Latvia to Lithuania. The disagreement was resolved by an arbitration commission led by the Scotsman James Young Simpson (see "James Young Simpson and the Latvian-Lithuanian Border Settlement 1920-1921: the Papers in the Archive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society" in the Scottish Geographical Journal, Vol. 118 [2002] No.2 p. 87-100). Again, ethnographic frontiers were by no means the only criteria -- part of the coast was ethnically Latvian (you can still see the Latvian inscription on the church at Palanga, for instance), whilst areas in eastern Semigallia (a large part of the Ilūkste district) were ethnically Lithuanian.

I think a comprehensive article with a neutral and general title like "Borders of the Baltic States" should be written anew, with separate main sections and especial attention to international law; in the case of the annexation of the Abrene district by the RSFSR, for example, the border had been negotiated in 1920/21 -- again, with ethnic Russians and Belarusians left on the Latvian side and ethnic Latvians left on the Russian side -- whilst the joining of the eastern civil parishes to Russia in 1944/45 was by fiat, unconstitutional even according to Soviet law. Regarding the earlier question by Dirgela: "Why Baltic states are so special?" The answer ought to be obvious -- the Baltic States were occupied and incorporated into the USSR, and the territorial changes made to Estonia and Latvia at the end of the war were made in those circumstances, rendering them formally null and void. In international law, there is no ius cogens leading to a tabula rasa in the case of the division or incorporation of a state, and this is made clear in the 1978 Vienna Convention -- to put it simply, agreements do not expire unless they are specifically abrogated by other agreements. A relevant example of such would be in the 1920 Treaty of Rīga, Article II explicitly stating that all other treaties are no longer in force. You have to spell it out, in other words. No such agreement was concluded after the forcible annexation of the Baltic States, and the current difficulty of concluding border agreements with Russia is rooted in the insistence of Estonia and Latvia that the 1920 agreements are still in force. --Pēteris Cedriņš 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Latvia and Lithuania ended the process of delimiting of the border peacefully then. I also can add some details. What You call Lithuania's claim to Liepaja, it was a variant (perhaps the most radical and unreal) of one Lithuanian idea. Klaipėda hasn't been yet acknowledged for Lithuania then, and Lithuanians wanted to have a path to the Baltic Sea. This idea was solved positively and Palanga and Šventoji were given to Lithuania after the arbitration by J. Y. Simpson. Daugavpils, as i know wasn't an object of claim, but it was seized by Lithuanian forces when persecuting retreat of bolshevik Red army (not in a conflict with Latvians). The city was useful as good rearguard for Vilnius region and was hold by Lithuanians for some time, and later it was transferred to Latvian administration (perhaps i omitted some sharper sides of this dispute, but it wasn't escalated). But i didn't say about this in detail not because it could be inexpedient for Lithuanian position (in contrary, these are very interesting and revealing facts), but i don't seem the main thing of it in the problem, whether Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians negotiated well or not well. Even if one of these smaller nation failed in a negotiations or made something curiously, it doesn't gives a right for greater nations to partition borders arbitrary without any consent with geography and previous treaties. - Well I can yet understand such then (although irrational) sentiments of Poles: Vilnius was the capital city at least. But how could Abrene district and Petseri district enrich and enlarge the solid and indivisible Russia? I don't have an answer to it, but perhaps Russians do.

This is disgusting. Izborsk is one of three oldest Russian cities, Pskov Monastery of the Caves (Pechorsky Monastery) is the oldest continuously working monastery in Russia. They were Russian for as long as Russia exists. The fact that Estonia made good of the appaling state of Russia, torn by the Civil War and threatened by the German army, to seize these historic regions for a couple of decades, doesn't say much in its favor. They even couldn't pronounce the Slavic word for caves (Pechory) correctly, and so you have Petseri here. Please stop flooding this encyclopedia with irredentism. Inferiority complex of the political dwarfs should be respected and all, but as for land they will get "a pair of dead donkey's ears", to quote Pres. Putin. Case closed, as mikka says. --Ghirlandajo 15:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit disingenious to claim Setumaa was always Russian because an Orthodox monastery is located there. Does Germany have a claim on Estonian territory just because Lutheran churches are located in Estonia? The fact is that the area in and around Petseri was orginally populated by the indigenous Setu, a Finno-Ugric people who speak a dialect of Estonian but were converted to the Orthodox faith by Russian missionaries. Naturally the indigenous Setu people wanted to be a part of the new independant Estonian state, that is why the 1920 border was drawn as it was, to include Setumaa. As it stands, the current border splits the traditional homeland of the Setu people between Estonia and Russia. -- Martin

I also agree with the possible change of the title, especially with the variant by Pēteris Cedriņš , but this problem seems secondary to me. Contents, quality of the contents is crucial here. What can a change of the title benefit, if the contents itself is rough? The title was already changed once or twice, by the way.

Linas Lituanus 14:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, I see, that Russians are essentially resentful. But I'm afraid, I was misunderstood a bit here. My idea was a bit different, when i was saying “how could Abrene district and Petseri district enrich and enlarge the solid and indivisible Russia?”. I wanted to ask a question, similar to, why Russians did take these territories from Estonia and from Latvia? and not to discuss about how Russia should treat it now. I think, that if anyone thought more about motives of this event, he would make conclusions different from ones, that people often make. Because, as i think, hair-splitting doesn't fit for a great nation, if it's great indeed.

I don't want to teach Russians; and it's obvious, that the question is closed not only for the case of Estonia. I prompt to treat this question as completely historical here too. And if we recognize history as a teacher for the future, we shouldn't exclude even controversial instances from it, should we?

Linas Lituanus 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

After the name change

Hello, I have improved the article as it seems everybody agreed here previously that it should stick less to discussing who should the territories belong to, but instead it should focus more on actual numbers, facts, quotes, events, et cetera. As well I would like to ask, what do you think, should this article stay only about these territories or territorial changes of Baltic States in general, as it's new name implies? Burann 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That Axisglobe article

I personally don't see much point in the point that Axisglobe article tries to make. Of course the Soviet intelligence recognised the area as a Latvian territory, because it was not yet detached (the detaching happened in 1944, while the Soviet partisans were active during the Nazi occupation, which was earlier. During the 1940-1941 the borders of the Latvian SSR were the same as those of the interwar Latvia, and official Soviet-recognised boundaries of the nazi-occupied SSR remained the same). Therefore, these documents proves nothing, not that "Abrene is a Latvian territory" as a name of the article suggests. The first part of the article, the one that does not deal with those documents, has some valuable information about the region itself. However, with the second part of the article trying to pass the message that is doubtful, I have added that explaination about Latvian point of view being represented here. If user Vecrumba has some other suggestions for the naming of that link, say them here, but please take into account the points that I have made. Burann 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a definite and valid point to be made with the Axisglobe article. Russian nationalists have been claiming the Abrene region was heavily Russian, always Russian, historically Russian; that the Russian place names are the historically correct names, etc., etc. They are only reflecting the position Russia takes today regarding the Abrene region. That the USSR had already determined to incorporate the Baltics en masse is proved by the Latvian SSR et al. maps already printed before the pacts of mutual assistance were signed. The point of the Axisglobe article is that while Russia today refers to the Abrene region etc. by what it alleges is historically accurate terminology and stakes ancient geo-ethnic claim to this territory--that is a Russian propaganda that even the Soviet Union did not subscribe to, because if it had, its documents regarding the Abrene region would have (also) used the "correct Russian" place names at that time--especially as these were internal Soviet documents and incorporation was a done deal from the Soviet perspective. The article can only be tagged as Latvian opinion if there were any Latvians involved in its production or dissemination, which there are not. If anything, it is more an alternate Russian opinion (you will note the site is available in both English and Russian). What is a Latvian opinion is my personal belief that instead of admitting to the criminality of its Soviet past, Russia has embraced that past and is even trying to out-propaganda Soviet propaganda. The way Russian politicians and Pravda (as their mouthpiece) deride Baltic politicians today hasn't changed since 1939, see "A Buffoon Holding the Post of Prime Minister" (front page article) calling the Finnish minister a "clown" and worse for not accepting the Soviets' pact of mutual assistance. --Pēters 06:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe list all territorial changes ?

After WWI there was a certaint period of time until borders of Baltic states were set, in that time borders were different i.e. Palanga was in Latvia. This article deals with period after WWII, but since it has been (re)named so that name doesn't reference certaint time maybe it could mention period before WWII ? -- Xil/talk 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked this some time ago in fact. I didn't get much response. So, I guess most of contributors wants to keep the de facto situation. Probably it is the best unless somebody would actually be keen to write about all the changes, as otherwise article would be incomplete. If you want to write about the Latvian-Lithuanian border treaty and territorial exchange when Palanga and some villages went to Lithuania, Akniste and other places - to Latvia, you can start a separate article Latvian-Lithuanian border treaty however. Burann 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be senceless to start article about that, especialy with name you suggested - firstly there were other issues as well, secondly it would remind of current border problem between Latvia an Lithuania and after all it would make information fragmented. Besides currently article reflect only Baltic-Russia border dispute not all teritorial changes and claims, so name still is disputable if you don't want to mention other issues. I somehow didn't notice that you already asked that, sorry, but from other hand it doesn't mean that no one wants that change since no one responded to you - it seems that either people don't have opinion about issue or they simply wait when someone else will make the change -- Xil/talk 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are the reasons why I was not keen on this name for this article, but all the other proposed names and solutions were either seen as POV by one side or another or were factually incorrect. Therefore, this name was chosen (you could look through the discussion above). The article however is and always was it seems solely about this particular issue. Currently, it explains the issue relatively well. If someone would add explaination of another event when boundaries changed, the article would suddenly become a stub (as only a small frraction of all chanegs would be listed, while it would be assumed that the article is meant to list all changes). As well, I think "Territorial changes of Baltic States" name and scope would be not good to list all changes. This is because at some times Baltic States had different history; e.g. if someone wants to read about territorial changes of Latvia, and in the middle of them there would also be lots of information about the changes that are not anyhow related to Latvia (e.g. Polish-Lithuanian wars), the article would be hard to read and it would be hard to find correct information. Besides, the definition of "Baltic State" changed over the time, with Finland as well being considered one of Baltic States in the interwar. Thus, generally, I would suggest creating three separate articles: Territorial changes of Latvia, Territorial changes of Estonia and Territorial changes of Lithuania, where whole history of the territorial chanegs would be listed. The only question then would be werether to write the articles only about the territorial chanegs that happened since World War 1, or as well include the changes of pre-modern entities that existed in the areas of those nations (e.g. governorates of the Russian empire, Livonia, Duchy of Courland, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and so on). Burann 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the naming problems. Finland was named as a Baltic State only in interwar period, while the name itself was used long before that. Anyway interwar border issues were (copied from map): Poland vs. Lithuania and Latvia, Palanga given to Lithuania by Latvia, Ruhnu island given to Estonia by Latvia, Klaipeda Region joined Lithuania only few years after war, three small rural districts given to Latvia by Lithuania, Estonian claims for Latvian territories as reward for partipicaiting in Libertation war, borders with Russia and Lithuanian radicals claimed that 1/4 of Latvia should belong to Lithuania (namely Latgale and area around Liepāja) -- Xil/talk 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Latvian-Lithuanian border treaty of the interbellum article would be useful for explaining the entire history of the treaty, including the initial Latvian and Lithuanian claims (Latvian claims on Mazeikiai, Memel, the Curonian Spit and othe rplaces, Lithuanian claims on Latgale, Liepaja and other places) and the downscaling of them later and the eventual deal on territory swap (backed by superarbiter Simpson). Similar article might be written about the Latvian-Estonian border treaty. Ruhnu, as far as I know, never actually belonged to Latvia - it was just a treaty which designated that it would belong to Estonia and Latvia would drop the claims. When such articles are prepared it will be easier to write a single non-stup article about Territorial changes of Latvia (and similar articles on Estonia and Lithuania) with links to those particular articles about the particular changes. Burann 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant "gave up" when I said "gave" acctualy, anyway I won't write about this - it was only suggestion and I think it would be nice if someone else would comment this -- Xil/talk 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that Petseri and the eastern bank of the Narva River - which were part of Estonian territory from 1920-1944, should be considered 'occupied territories.' Estonia and Russia agree on their borders - Russia just refuses to ratify the border treaty because Estonia's preamble to the treaty mentions documents that mention the Soviet occupation. Estonia no longer claims those territories. There are some right wing parties in Estonia that do - but there are some right wing politicians in Russia (Zhiranovsky) that think Alaska really belongs to Russia. They are not of importance because neither has officially disputed this territory. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this week that Russia is willing to sign the agreement with Estonia, so long as there is no political declaration attached. There is no contest over territory.

My opinion on the article is this - it should include information on Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - the eastern front of Operation Barbarossa from World War II, and it should discuss the territorial shifts in those four states in the aftermath of World War II. And that's that. It can be linked to a larger article on Operation Barbarossa, or Soviet Empire, or whatever. The information deserves discussion, but only within the larger context.Polaaroo 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Polaaroo

Pre-Republic changes

Petri Krohn had removed an old map dating from pre-Republic era, providing nothing but petty claims of irrelevancy that do not apply in the historic situation of the Baltic territories as the rationale. I reverted, and I express my displeasure. Digwuren 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the disagreeable to you edits is often a proper course of action. Expressing displeasure may also be warranted (I take no position on this particular instance). However, reverting edits that do not fall under WP:VAND categories using any automation tools such as rollback, AWB, TW, undo, etc. should be avoided at all costs. Not only it unnecessarily adds to a conflict, it gives a meaningless edit summary while something like "restoring deleted old map from pre-Republic era" would have been much helpful for editors who see the latest summary at their watchlist. Please give this some consideration for your future actions. Thanks, --Irpen 07:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In a watchlist, a reversal typically follows the reverted change, so this does not become an issue. I in general accept your idea that useful change summaries are, well, useful, and thus try to prefer undo over the other tools in this case.

I emphatically reject the seemingly neo-Luddite idea that automation tools should not be used as a matter of principle, however. Digwuren 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo proceeded to remove the old maps again, without any explanation. I reverted again, still under the theory that understanding of historical borders is necessary to understand the issues relating to territorial history of Baltics, especially the discrepancy between the districts of Estland, Livland and Kurland versus the countries of Estonia and Latvia. Digwuren 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And again in [3], merely repeating the stance, refuted above, of Petri_Krohn. I reverted and provided an explanation of relevance on the page. Digwuren 10:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll also chime in as one who removed the maps, I think my summary of "removed maps that are before the timeframe of this article, nice as they are the article is talking about changes from WWI and WWII, not medieval history" was clear. Having 1260 and 1680 maps for an article that starts in 1917 does not help the article - if you really want the map you could expand the article to discuss changes before 1917, and that means more than one sentence covering 700 years in the caption. Having maps from a completely different era from the article with minimal explanation doesn't add context, it just adds confusion. They would be more appropriate over in Baltic states which actually covers the time period of the maps. Kmusser 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Estland

Petri Krohn Insists on having the link to a disputed and under AfD Estland. This article contains nothing more than restatement of the fact that there was a was part of northern Estonia refferd to as Estland(but this use in english is under debate because it simply means Lands of Estonia) and some uncited and AFAIK unsubstantiated claim of a short lived country of the same name has existed. The rest is links and redirects largely irrelevant to the context. Whats the logic behind this demand? --Alexia Death 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, 'Estland' means 'Land of the Ests', just like 'Finland' means 'Land of the Finns' and 'Sweden' means 'Home of the Sweas'. It's just an accident of historial linguistics that the 'n' in German adjective 'estnisch' grew strong in English and gave rise to the modern root 'Estonia'.

Nowadays, 'Estonia' is the standard English term, and the old-fashioned 'Estland' is used in German and a few nearby Germanic languages such as Dutch. Some pundits have suggested changing the English name to 'Estland', too, suggesting it has a better sound. While this is not a bad consideration, the suggestion never gained any traction.

What Petri Krohn is trying to do, I'm not sure. Earlier, he has attempted to push an idea that Estland is a translation of Eestimaa in the sense the latter was used in pre-1930s' writing -- which is quite wrong --; perhaps now he's trying to make the WP:POINT? Digwuren 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it bad faith to delete 30 Wikilinks to the article on Estland and then do a WP:AFD claiming that "no other pages link to this page" as you did here. I find it an even stronger indication of bad faith that you (and your meatpuppets) repeatedly remove the recreated links, while Estland is still under discussion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland). -- Petri Krohn 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no insight to the history of that article. All I know is that contains nothing relevant(and very little anything else). I will not however haggle over single link. Keep it as long as it éxists... There are bigger wrongs to right.--Alexia Death 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll get the ears of the dead donkey, and not Pytalovo

I have removed the above from the article as it is a complete fabrication. Axisglobe.com is NOT a reliable source for information, it was a self-published site first and foremost. Haaretz even regarded it as a CIA-front. None of the authors names are real. There is no phone number nor address for the "AIA" agency. And the domain was hidden behind a privacy wall. Screams self published.

Secondly, the press conference where Pytalovo was mentioned was on 10 May 2005. Thankfully, the Kremlin, has transcripts of all press conferences, and has videos of many of them as well. The transcript of the press conference in question is at http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2005/05/10/1823_type63377type63380type82634_88013.shtml. The relevant text from the transcript is:

Что касается других вопросов территориального характера, то такие вопросы есть с Латвией, которая, по сути, поставила вопрос о передаче им Пыталовского района Псковской области, со ссылкой на договор 1920 года. Латвия готова, как они заявили нам, подписать с нами договор о границе, но в текст этого договора о границе хотят включить оговорку и ссылку на договор 20-го года, по которому Пыталовский район относится к территории Латвии. Вы знаете, в результате распада Советского Союза Российская Федерация потеряла десятки тысяч своих исконных территорий. И что, Вы предлагаете сейчас начать все делить сначала? Вернуть нам Крым, часть территории других республик бывшего Советского Союза и так далее? Давайте Клайпеду вернем нам тогда. Давайте сейчас начнем все делить в Европе. Вы этого хотите? Ведь нет, наверное? Мы призываем латышских политиков прекратить заниматься политической демагогией и перейти к конструктивной работе. Россия готова к такой работе.

I have also watched the press conference video at http://media.kremlin.ru/2005_05_10_01.wmv and the transcript is a true transcript of the words that were spoken.

An English translation of the press conference is also provided at http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/05/10/2030_type82914type82915_88025.shtml, and the relevant section states:

Concerning other questions of a territorial nature, we do have issues to settle with Latvia, which is essentially raising the question of us handing over to them the Pytalovsky District in Pskov Oblast, citing the 1920 treaty [Treaty of Riga]. Latvia’s representatives have informed us that they are ready to sign an agreement on the border, but they want the text of the agreement to contain a reservation and reference to the 1920 treaty, which gave the Pytalovsky District to Latvia. You know, the Russian Federation lost tens of thousands of pieces of its historic territory as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. And are we now to divide everything up again? Should we demand the return of the Crimea and parts of the territory of other former Soviet republics and so on? How about giving back Klaipeda then? Let’s all start dividing Europe again. I doubt that this is what you want. We are calling on Latvia’s politicians to stop their political demagogy and begin constructive work. Russia is ready for such work.

Alternatively, a Google search for the phrase "Уши мертвого осла они получат, а не Абрене!"[4] returns only AxisGlobe. The fact that this was not reported by anyone but this black PR website, and that the Kremlin has provided a complete transcript (and video and audio), indicates this is a hoax, and I have removed it from the article due to that. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "dead donkey ears" story has been widely reported in the news: Izvestia, Kommersant, Forbes, UPI. It has even found its way into published books[5]. Apparently the expression "you'll get dead donkey's ears" is simply a colourful Russian expression for "you will get nothing", so I don't know what the big deal is. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Per http://www.rg.ru/2005/03/24/putin-kp-anons.html, e.g.,

Владислав Воробьев

"Российская газета" - www.rg.ru

24.05.2005, 02:10

В понедельник Президент России Владимир Путин посетил редакцию газеты "Комсомольская правда" и поздравил ее коллектив с 80-летием издания. После этого он ответил на вопросы журналистов, объясняя ключевые элементы своей внешней и внутренней политики. Один из моментов, которые он затронул, это - отношения со странами Балтии. Как заявил глава государства, Кремль не намерен вести переговоры с ними по каким-либо территориальным вопросам, назвав подобные попытки прибалтийских политиков "бреднями": "Не Пыталовский район они получат, а от мертвого осла уши. Нам тоже есть что предъявить в ответ, что посчитать, причем не в режиме конфронтации, а в режиме того, что положить на вторую чашу весов. Я считаю, это можно делать", - сказал президент.

A simple explanation is that Putin's comment has been discretely edited out, but that is pure speculation on my part. This link would suffice for attribution of "donkey ears". Izvestya and other Russian media outlets have articles quoting (in original Russian) as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery solved. A simple Google search of "donkey's ears" at the web site of the Russian President:

"осла уши" site:archive.kremlin.ru

returns:

23 май 2005 – От мертвого осла уши им, а не Пыталовский район. А что касается тех, кто хочет с нами сотрудничать, мы будем, конечно, это делать, спокойно, ... (link)

... being a transcript of a meeting with the creative team of the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda ("Комсомольская правда" in the news report above).

Excerpt in context follows:

Но, повторяю, мне кажется, что это делают люди не в расчете на то, чтобы что-то получить территориальное от России. А в расчете на то, чтобы разжечь и испортить отношения. Мы не должны помогать этим людям решать их задачи. И не будем этого делать. Естественно, никогда не будем вести никаких переговоров на платформе даже обсуждения каких бы то ни было к нам территориальных претензий. Пыталовский район Псковской области? От мертвого осла уши им, а не Пыталовский район. ("...Pytalovo region of the Pskov province? A dead donkey's ears to them, but not the Pytalovo region.")

This doesn't quite match the news story, so we should cite the Presidential archives for the "dead donkey's ears" as the definitive source. (I did verify that if you go to the Presidential web site and enter "осла уши" as a search term, it does return the same Komsomolskaya Pravda meeting as Google.) Putin's statement about loss of territory can also now be appropriately quoted and attributed to the press conference transcript at the Presidential site. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-added (reworded)

Thanks for the find. I have re-added information to the article, but have dropped the "donkeys ears" idiom, as it isn't a term for which the meaning is widely known outside of Russia. Also, the article needs updating, as the treaty with Latvia has been signed already (in 2007). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the ears out understates Putin's resolve and the message his, shall we say, earthy metaphor was intended to deliver. Readers may well find the donkey's ears more confusing when they run the cited text through a machine translation whereas here the ears can be quoted and appropriately explained for the uninitiated. No more or less earthy than, say, explaining "bubkes" abbreviated from kozebubkes, originally, "goat droppings." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed an appropriate footnote can be added to the article to explain the meaning of this notable quote. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Forbes article is a most inappropriate link, as it is not on the issue of the dispute of the border treaty between Russia and Latvia, but it is on something totally unrelated. The only link to this article is that it mentions Putin's use of the "donkey ears" idiom. I have no objection to the "donkeys ears" idiom being inserted, so long as there is a reliable source for the explanation of exactly what it means. I believe the book that Tammsalu provided explains this, so it can be put in the footnotes as a simple explanation. We just need to remember that we are on this article discussing territorial changes of the Baltic states, not the donkeys ears idiom. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As the territorial changes article includes commentary on the changes, idioms do apply. As far as I am aware Forbes is considered a WP:RS. "In Russian, 'donkey ears' are what you get when you get squat. President Vladimir Putin famously illustrated the proper use of the idiom in the course of a 2005 spat with Latvia over border demarcation, undiplomatically quipping, 'They're not going to get the Pytalovsky Region; they'll get the ears of a dead donkey.'" succinctly addresses the meaning of the idiom and ties it to Putin's invocation. The Forbes article does not have to be primarily about donkey ears to be applicable; nor is the donkey ears idiom being used as a pretext to bring ancillary or unrelated content from the Forbes article into the WP article, which would be the only concern here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The article does not discuss centuries of "evolution", please do not rename articles without appropriate discussion first. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)