Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Battle of the Lower Dnieper

Mediation Case: 2006-06-25 Battle of the Lower Dnieper[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

I hereby formally close this informal Mediation Case. Status: mediation failed, case sent to formal Mediation. TruthCrusader 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Mainly on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper and Talk:Lviv. Another discussion started on Village pump but must have been deleted, and another is currently going on WT:WTA.

Who's involved?: The following people formulated their desire to participate in the mediation (see: here)

A few other people could be informed/questioned since they took part in the dispute:

What's going on?: A few months ago, I wrote the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper, about a great WWII offensive that, amazingly, had no Wiki page, not even a stub to begin with. I tried to base that article on both Western and Eastern sources, as to try and achieve NPOV. In a number of Western sources, the action of clearing Ukraine (and not only Ukraine) from Nazi forces in 1943-1945 is refered to as "liberation of...". This term is used by most mainstream historians and is even included in Britannica. About one week after the article was finally online, User:AndriyK started to put a POV tag on the article and starting to explain everybody that 1944 arrival of Soviet forces was occupation, that Ukraine being part of Russian Empire before 1917 was also occupation, putting a POV tag with cliches like "Stalinist dictatorship" and so on. Followed an short edit war and protection of the page by an admin at my request. It has to be noticed that the said user was already banned one month for excess edit wars last January, therefore creating a precedent.

A straw poll among people taking part in the debate gave a result of 10/3/5 (In favour of the word "liberate"/In favour only in the phrase "liberate from Nazis"/Object).

Subsequent attempts to reach consensus by me, Piotrus, heqs, and a few others have failed, as one can see on the talk page and its archives. No amount of argumentaiton was apparently enough to convince everybody. A very important argument by Cglassey, who is a professionnal historian, was of course ignored by my opponents.

Finally, a quite reasonable compromise offer was made by Piotrus, as he proposed to use the word "liberate" only in a specific wording "liberation from Nazism". The page was unlocked and the said changes started being implemented. But regretfully, it wasn't apparently enough for some radical people and the page had to be locked again.

So, what I would like is to cool down some radical POV-pushers and try to achieve a consensus with people that are able to achieve consensus.

No one is probably innocent in this whole affair, as it takes two to do an edit war (although the said edit war was largely reduced by the page protection). The main difference is that some listen to other people's arguments and others don't. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndriyK

The word liberate is generally understood as to set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control [1]. Or "to change from not having freedom to having freedom". Athough there is no doubt that Nazi occupation was oppressive and definitely can be characterize as "not having freedom", (re)taking the territories of Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries by the Red Army did not bring freadom to the people. Stalinist regime that was (re)established on those territories resulted in new repressions and one more artificial famine that claimed more than one million human lives. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia. Ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Germans and others) were deported en masse, many people died on the way. Calling this "liberation" is extremely unneutral and can be even considered as offensive by the people who lost their relatives in the famine and the repressions.

The word "liberate" assumes sympathy to the Soviet Army, which contradicts to WP:NPOV stating that the neutral point of view "is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".--AndriyK 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?: I would like to be able to edit peacefully this page without having to engage myself in ceaseless revert wars, at the very least. I would also like the most radical POV-pushers cooled down.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No, this affair should be public.

Mediator response[edit]

Hello. I am extremely familiar with this battle, as it was the subject of a 30 page paper I did at University, so I am hoping that this knowledge will somehow help the situation. If no one objects, I will try my best to mediate this situation so we can all arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. TruthCrusader 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, go for it! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this sure seems to be a volatile topic. I think, from what I see anyway, is the use of the word "liberate" is being seen in different views by most parties. Now, as a background to this, i wrote a 30 page paper on this very battle in University. I can tell you that I used the word "liberate" in my paper. I can also state that throughtout my 8 year academic study, "liberate" was the word used when an occupied territory was re-taken by the original owners OR a third party, in a conflict. However, this did not imply "freedom" because that is a totally different animal, this ONLY meant that the shorter term conquerer was displaced by the original owner of thrid party. It did not imply, nor was it meant to imply, any sort of National sovereignty implication.

Look at it like this: Israel captures the Golan Heights from Syria. Israel states it is a "liberation" because, in their minds, this land is part of their dream of "greater Israel" and they won it fair and square in a war. In the Syrian mind it is an occupation, because it was their land first, whatever the Israeli's think and despite the fact there was a war. Syria attacks and retakes the Golan heights (I KNOW it hasnt happened). The Damascus newspapers proclaim "Golan Heights liberated from Israel". This is a liberation to Syria, in thei rminds, because they consider it their land. Israel considers it an occupation, because they won it fair and square previously, so its theirs.

The point I am trying to make is we need to drop the idea that the word "liberate" has any other meaning other than "territory re-conquered in a conflict by previous owner or third party". Because I am telling you, thats what most historians honsetly mean when they use it.

I know we are all passionate about the political ideas behind the word, but it is just a word, please lets remember that.

How about this:

"Soviet (or Russian) forces liberate Ukranian territory previously held by Nazi Germany."

See, in this sentence we make the distinction that yes, this territory is Ukranian, yes it has been re-conquered by Russia from Germany, and no political connotations are presented.

Anyway, this is just my opening thought. Comments and please, lets all be civil to each other, we are all humans, we are all passionate, ;ets try and set an example on how a situation can be resolved peacefully. TruthCrusader 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again TruthCrusader, and thanks for your response. Actually, I have about the same opinion as you do - that the use of the word "liberate" in military history has nothing to do with the dictionary definition AndriyK is putting everywhere.

Moreover your argument "territory re-conquered in a conflict by previous owner or third party" is more or less what I suggested with that "timeframe" and "state as of June 22, 1941" story.

What I also would like to point out is that some (not all) of my opponents in this story clearly mistake WP for a soapbox that would allow them to impose their deeply nationalistic views. These need, IMHO, to be cooled down.

Thanks for your response, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I just await AndriyK's response. TruthCrusader 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TruthCrusader!

As you have shown, what Israel sees as "liberation" Syria would see as "occupation" and vice versa. Therefore, using any of this two words in the article would reflect either Israeli or Syrian POV rather than NPOV.

If a territory was re-conquered, why not to say merely "it was re-conquered". What is the reason for using "liberate"?

In view of your background, (you wrote an article about WWII and used the word "liberate" in the places, where the word "re-conquered" had to be used), do you consider yourself neutral enough top mediate this dispute?--AndriyK 08:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you, from a historian's point of view, the word "liberate" does NOT carry the political weight that some here have assigned it. Mediation means we all talk together and come to a compromise, but honestly that is hard to do when one side refuses to budge. "re-conquer", in the sense you have described it, means "liberate". The problem is the political association with the word.

Now then, how about this, I'll just throw some examples up Andriy, tell me how you feel about them:

1. Russian forces liberated sovereign Ukranian territory from Nazi occupation. 2. Russian forces liberated historically Ukranian territory from the Nazi occupation. 3. Russian forces liberated what was historically, Ukranian territory, from the Nazi occupation.

Are any of these acceptable? TruthCrusader 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither is acceptable. If Soviets "liberated" (sovereign,historical,etc.) Ukrainian territory from Nazis, then, with the same logic, Nazis "liberated" it from Soviets three years before. Both are propaganda cliches. One is Soviet another one is Nazi propaganda.

You act as a partie of the dispute supporting a certain POV rather than as a mediator. I propose to request an official mediation. You may consider to joint it as one of the parties.

If you would like to continue the discussion, please answer my questions:

If "liberate" in your view means "re-conquer", what is the reason to use "liberate"? Why not to use "re-conquer"?
How using "liberate" can be neutral if another side sees it as occupation? Your example with Syria and Israel is very illustrative.--AndriyK 07:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andriyk the whole point of this is to reach a compromise. I threw several compromises out there. You refused them all. I tried to give you my PhD knowledge of what the word "liberate" means to the vast majority of historians, you refuse to accept my statement. I have had work published in peer reviewed publications, and the word "liberate" is used, with no side addition, in these sorts of articles with NO covert political meaning behind them. Despite this, we are trying to accomodate you by using more than the word "liberate", by specifically mentioning it is Ukranian sovereign or historical territory, which is being liberated, and which I can tell you from over 20 years of writing in this field NO legitimate historian, UNLESS he/she IS pushing a POV, would ever use.

You state you think the others are trying to push some sort of POV by sole use of the word "liberate", yet you yourself are pushing a POV by refusing to accept any alternative other than to delete the word. Compromise my friend, this is about give and take. I can tell you this, if this article DOES go to official mediation, the article will NOT come out to your satisfaction. Why not try and deal with it here and now? TruthCrusader 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, please learn more what mediation is, before you decide to mediate one more article.

If one side consider the event as "liberation" and another one as "occupation" the compromise should be somewhere inbetween.--AndriyK 11:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insult the mediator with remarks such as "please learn more what mediation is". Mind WP:NPA. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misuínterpret my words. I did not insult anybody. I suggested our friend to learn more about mediation. This has nothing to do with PA.--AndriyK 12:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot mediate when one or more sides of a dispute refuse to compromise or budge. My advice is non-binding, but if this case goes to offical mediation than the decision WILL be binding, it it will in all probability use the word "liberate" on its own. I am trying to help you out of this, yet you refuse to offer any compromise other than your own initial solutuion. Sometimes one must bend. TruthCrusader 12:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot mediate if one supportes the POV of one of the sides of the dispute. Your very first statement showes clearly that this was the case. I'll try to request a formal mediation and you may consider joining it as one of the parties.

Thank you for your efforts anyway.--AndriyK 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, AndriyK. You see this as an occupation. But that does not mean everyone is supposed to think so. This is nothing more than an attempt to give a fringe theory the weight of a historical fact. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but honestly that is hard to do when one side refuses to budge. I think you summed it up pretty well, Crusader... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of his background, TruthCrusader is a historian, so it is difficult to find someone better to mediate this case. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a historian does not mean being neutral. Rather otherwise.

Why not to request an official mediation?--AndriyK 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, if it wouldn't be fun, it would be annoying. You get told the same thing ten times by ten different people and now by a third party, and you still don't want to accept... Well... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sence in mediation if the mediator take side in his very first statement. He could participate in the dispute as one opf the parties on your side rather than as a mediator.

You have been told by many times many other people that "liberate" is not neutral and you don't accept either.

Let's request a real mediation.--AndriyK 10:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I answered as many times as I've been told that NPOV should not prevail on NOR. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I'm just a completely random person looking at this from the outside. I looked at the paragraph and it seems to have grammar issues as well, explaining things in the passive tense which may also be why it's hard to rewrite it. How does this sound for a compromise? : During this four-month campaign, Soviet forces retook control of the left bank of the Dnieper and crossed the river in force. They then created several bridgeheads on the right bank, taking possession of Kiev in the process. "From the nazis" would be implied. Cowman109^Talk 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds perfect to me.--AndriyK 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object as per everything I stated above. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

I'll be plain and clear about a possible compromise. To me, there can be only one that Piotrus suggested: "liberation from Nazi forces" or "troops" or whatever floats your boat. That is an excellent solution IMHO. (see the diff).

The word "Liberation" is important for several reasons:

First of all, it is used in mainstream historical research, so any attempt to use another wording is potentially OR. (An excellent comment was made by User:Cglassey, but was of course ignored by my opponents. Oh no, pardon me, I got a personal attack instead, heh...

Second, it is used for areas retaken by USA and UK, and there should be no double standard for USSR (especially since it was its own territory). Like it or not, but Allies were Allies.

This historical revisionism I see on Wikipedia regarded World War II is simply sickening, with all those "sources" of dubious origin written (oh how strange) by political journalists (or plain provocators like Suvorov) and other "experts", that are nothing but BS. How sad that people have the reflex of spotting Holocaust denial, but not other, more substle forms of revisionnism. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly appreciate filling the Compromise offers fields, the above proposal does not smell of a compromise at all to me. First of all, branding those you disagree with as revisionists and suggesting they are somehow related to Holocaust deniers is unfair and should not take place here. In fact holocaust denial is officially considered a serious crime in legal systems of many (if not most) European countries. Then, the "L" term is not used exclusively in all mainstream publications, regardless of how we define the mainstream. Therefore we are not limited here as other, more neutral terms are also used. Agreeing to use one of the terms used in mainstream publications that would be less loaded would be much more reasonable to me. Thirdly, the scope of the problem is not only the battle of the lower Dnieper, but also other articles where various users have suggested that the Red Army was the liberator. Lwów, Łódź and Maladechna come to my mind, though I'm sure there were plenty of others. If you're so preoccupied with double standards, then I'd say that we should either agree to use the "L" word in all contexts or dump it altogether. If it's the earlier, then there is no problem with restoring the mention that the Poles liberated Molodechna from the Russians - but also that the Germans liberated Ukraine in 1941. This however does not seem fine to me and I'd rather we agreed to use neutral terms in all contexts, including those in the West (except perhaps for the cases where the name became some sort of a proper noun ("Liberation of Caen", "Liberation of Paris", "Liberation of Dachau" and such). //Halibu tt 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the dispute over the particular article is a part of a larger dispute, whether it is permissible to use the word liberation in the WWII-related articles. Below there are my thoughts on the matter.

Word Liberation used for description of a historical event obviously implies that there is an improvement in the human rights and liberties due to the event. The word contradicts the point of view that the event decreased the human rights and liberties. According to the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well...

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Thus, a blanket ban on use the word liberate for the recapturing territories from Nazis is seen by many users as a confirmation that the Neo-Nazi Point of View that the take over of territories from Nazis by Allies always had a negative impact on the rights and liberties of the population of the territories is in fact a valid majority view. Naturally, they oppose the ban.

On the other hand it seems to be a valid view that taking over of German (or say Finnish) territories may have a negative impact on the liberties of some population. It seems that recapturing by Soviets of Polish territories annexed in 1939 had a strong negative impact on the significant Polish minority there. I am actually surprised but there exists a significant group of Ukrainian editors, who object with the usage of the word Liberate for the recapturing of Eastern Ukraine from Nazi. Taking all of these into account I suggest the following: Consider the word Liberate valid for the pre WWII territories of Russia, France, Belgium and other Allies. Never use the word Liberate for the territories of Germany, Austria, Finland, Italy and Romania. Never use the word Liberate for the territories annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939-1941 years. Avoid usage of the word Liberate for the Ukraine and Belarus, use it only in the phrases like Liberate from Nazies. Obviously, the permission to use the word does not mean that the word should always be used.

For the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper I would not mind to remove the dreadful L-word all together, but it seems to make many editors furious. I would suggest then to adopt the current version by Battle of the Lower Dnieper - it removes the phrase Liberation of Kiev that seems to trigger the wraith of some editors, but keeps the liberation somewhere in introduction. abakharev 06:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fine proposal to me, although I'm afraid this would not do, as I can see no difference between, say, statement that The Red Army liberated Lwów and expelled all of its inhabitants instantly and The Red Army liberated Lwów from the Nazis and expelled all of its inhabitants instantly. Except for this loophole that allows those who support the usage of L word to add it anywhere they please anyway, the proposal would be really nice.

As to the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight quote, I'm not sure it really fits here well, as there is no way we could determine which view is a minority one and which one is the prominent one. I guess that for every book on WWII using the L word there would be 3 or 4 not using it, but there's no way we could check that and it might as well be the other way around. //Halibu tt 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibu, in my proposal I said ..Never use the word Liberate for the territories annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939-1941 years.... Since Lemberg/Lwow/Lvov/L'viv is a part of such a territory, the proposal explicitly forbids using the word in the context Liberation of Lwow abakharev 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with this proposal:

First, it considers that Stalin's regime was somehow more harsh in Ukraine or Belarus than it was elsewhere. If nothing, this statement is a double standard.

Second, I would like to stop quoting 1939. This is Battle of Dnieper, not Polish September Campaign. If someone wants to talk about expulsions and things like that in articles related to 1939, fine by me. However, in the case of Battle of Dnieper, what one should not forget is that the time frame is different. We have two opposing powers (Germany and USSR) declaring war on each other on June 22, 1941. Thus, all things must be considered from there. Sure, some of these territories were obtained by conquest, but heck, what was not? About every country in the world grew through (more or less militaristic expansion). Consequently, I suggest we stick to the June 22, 1941 - May 9, 1945 frame.

Third, as WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, a point of view held by a small minority should not even be considered. It is blatantly the case here, since Ukrainian editors advocating the removal of this term represent only a minority (unless proof of the contrary is provided, which I doubt).

As for Germany or Finland, I never said anything about using the word "liberate" for those.

Alex, you will also notice that your version with the L-word removed in several places still underwent an edit war. That is the definition of POV-pushing... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just noticed that nobody objects of Liberation of Novgorod or Liberation of Paris, but there is a vocal group of editors, who objected Liberation of Kiev. I do not know if they are minority in the modern Ukraine. I, personally, have no objection over Liberation of Kiev or Liberation of Minsk. The word Liberation causes edit conflicts in a number of articles and I would like to establish some uniform rules for this word. abakharev 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object gainst using "liberate from Nazis" in the context under discussion. With the same logic "Axis forces liberated Ukraine from Stalinism in 1941-42" would be a legal phrase. But it is nothing else as Nazi propaganda cliche.

Wikipedia should be free from any propaganda whether Nazi or Stalinist. Therefore "liberate from Nazis" is inapropriate in any case.

Along with militaric terms proposed before, I propose as compromise to use "cleared from Nazis" or "cleared from Nazi troops".--AndriyK 10:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafik, the discussion is by no means limited to the case of Lower Dneper, partly because of the fact that several editors encouraged us to keep the discussion at one place - and the place chosen was Lower Dneper. Why not settle all related issues if we can? As to the rest of the issues you raised, I can't agree to your proposal to set the time-frame for "L" usage to Great Patriotic War only, as it would basically confirm my assumption that to many users the L word is acceptable only in the context of the Red Army. Also, why set it arbitrarily to June 22, 1941, and not, say, May 1, 1940? Or December 13, 1939? And why not some day in 1791? As to undue weight argument, I already pointed out above that this is not the best example here as there is no way (at least none I could think of) to check which is the prominent view and which is represented by but a minority. Sure, there are more Russians in Wikipedia than Belarusians, but does it mean that the larger community is automatically right? And if we use the criterion of scholarly works, then how are we to count them? Count all books we can find that use the term and count all that don't? //Halibu tt 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It's a pity, Grafikm_fr started this reasonable attempt to resolve the dispute with misinformation. I never wrote anything as "vile Muscovites that came to enslave Ukrainians" or similar. I suggest Grafikm_fr rephrase his statement. This would insure a more constructive start of the discussion.

To be clear, I've never proposed to use the wording "Stalinist occupation" in the article.

No but you used it in the POV tag. [2] -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be precise, I used there "Stalinist dictatorship" rather than "Stalinist occupation". This is not quite the same.

Could you find a link at "vile Muscovites that came to enslave Ukrainians"? Or you prefer to refrase your statement?--AndriyK 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did rephrase it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please note that using the phrase "Stalinist dictatorship" in the tag does not imply that I insist on using the same phrase in the unPOVed text of the article. Please do not consider it as one more point of disagreement.--AndriyK 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this as a point of disagreement, I use it to set the context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--AndriyK 16:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

I'll be glad to help settle this. Please let me know the issues on my talk page. Arthur Ellis 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, you should start by telling everyone in the list (including people on that second list, since their opinion is also important) that you're taking the case and inviting them to voice their opinion here... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]