Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala

Mediation page archive

Opening statements

Here I would like you both to write an opening statement, no longer than 300 words, outlining the following points: What are your interests in regards to the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and related articles? How did you discover and start editing the articles? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? What problems do you think have caused this dispute to require mediation? What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible. What do you hope to achieve through mediation? I note that YMB29 has already included a list of issues in his DRN post (soon to be archived here) under the heading "The dispute can be narrowed to specific statements in the articles". There is no need to list all of these points again in your statements - linking to them or referring to them will be fine. If there are any of those points that are no longer issues, or any additional points you wish to raise, then you should do so directly in the statement. The point of these statements is to get agreement on what the issues are exactly, which will enable us to work through them one by one. After you have both submitted your statements I will have a look through them, fine-tune the list of issues, and decide the order in which we should work through them. Thank you both for bearing with me on this - I really appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Opening statement by Wanderer602 Having read quite a bit of Finnish military history of WWII i chose to look at the related pages. Since quite a bit of the new material introduced was not supported (actually they were opposed) by the literary sources which i was familiar with i chose to participate to the discussion. Unyielding stance of certain of YMB29's views which are contradicted in at least some of the literature. Attempt to reach compromise by representing both sides resulted in edits being marked 'dubious' or 'original research' and repeated claims of sources not being reliable (most notably Finnish war diaries which however as discussed in wiki-IRC and as per guidelines in reliable sources pages are reliable sources). The summary of the dispute above is fairly accurate. There has been several edits to mark certain viewpoints as solely Finnish while there are several non-Finnish sources cited for the statements. Criticism of Soviet version of events has been removed or seemingly attempted to be discredited. Naming issue, since the name of a town in question is variably known as Viipuri/Viborg/Vyborg. I suggested applying previously made Talk:Gdansk/Vote resolution and use name of 'Viipuri' for the duration of the war. Criticism applied to the other issues mentioned in YMB29's lists as per discussed in DRN. I hope we can get this mess sorted out. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Opening statement by YMB29 I started looking at and editing World War II related articles. Then I came across articles about the Soviet-Finnish wars and noticed that they are too one sided; the Soviet/Russian point of view is not represented enough or not present at all. I started doing some research and it confirmed this. For Finnish users these articles are very important, since the topic seems to be closely tied with their national pride. They have their specific point of view, but often are reluctant to take into account other views. With most of them it was possible to find a compromise, even with Wanderer602. However this was not the case for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article. Maybe because that battle holds a special place in Finnish historiography. The issue from the Continuation War article also can't be resolved and has been there for many months now. I think the disputes could have been easily avoided if the rules and guidelines concerning neutral point of view and original research would have been followed. The problems I listed before in dispute resolution still apply. I hope that after this mediation the articles will accurately reflect reliable sources and be balanced. -YMB29 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Opening statement by Whiskey After I found Wikipedia at 2004, I've been editing articles concerning Finnish history in World War II. At the time, Finnish wars had very small and biased articles, most likely due to language barrier between Finnish and English speaking countries. Practically that meant all works published in English were either propaganda works or based only on German or Russian/Soviet works, lessening their reliability in the factual side. I have wanted to balance that. I don't have any conflict of interest other than being a Finn on these issues. This meditation was caused by general mistrust between parties and their unwillingness to compromize. Provided list is quite good, except number 4, where Ribbentrop should be changed to Finnish government. I hope we could reach a version we could live with. Not like, but live with. --Whiskey (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the statement. I think you're probably right about Ribbentrop, so I've changed step 4 like you suggested. (Not that it would probably affect the way it's mediated, but hey, it's nice to be accurate.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue one - naming of Vyborg/Viipuri

Issue one

Here, I would like you to provide a statement about the naming issue of the city now known as Vyborg. What name would you prefer for the city, and why? What Wikipedia policies and guidelines have informed your opinion? Remember that the most pertinent guideline here appears to be the naming convention for geographic names. Your statements should be no longer than 250 words. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by YMB29 The current widely accepted English name is Vyborg. During the Continuation War (1941-1944) or World War II in general (1939-1945) there does not seem to be a single widely accepted historical English name. For example, the NY Times used the name Viborg,[1] while Wanderer602 found English language news articles that use the name Viipuri. Vyborg was recently changed to Viipuri in many related articles, so the users making the change had to prove that this was indeed the widely accepted English name at that time. There was no proof provided and no discussion (on the talk pages of those articles, before the change was made). According to the naming rules, we have to use the modern English name (Vyborg), unless there is a single historical English name established. Is that right? Furthermore, looking at the related articles it looks like most of the sources cited use Vyborg when writing about the events of the war.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -YMB29 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC) By the way, the sources linked above are actually from the articles and not just those I found using Google Books. -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Wanderer602 As there is no established name in English language for the town in question it seems to me to be that similar approach as in Talk:Gdansk/Vote - which is mentioned in the article referred to by the mediator - ought to applied to (de.) Wiborg/(sv.) Viborg/(fi.) Viipuri/(ru.) Vyborg case as well. In other words the local name in use at the era that the article handles to should be used. This for the town in question was until the end of the war still (predominantly) Viipuri (Examples from Google book search with 'Viipuri 1944' - which include quite a few of sources used in the article - [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]). Technically Viborg could be used as well since Finland is bilingual however the town of Viipuri was not a bilingual town in 1930s - not in Finnish sense ([22] - only 3% of population was Swedish speaking). - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Statement by Whiskey Vyborg doesn't have similar English name as Vienna (Wien) or Cologne (Köln), but in English texts there has been used direct transliteration of the name at the day. YMB and Wanderer have provided lot of sources which show that even today the handling of the name in the historical context varies. There are numerous bordertowns whose names has been changed several times during the written history, and their naming rises great feelings in the countries involved. For this reason the Gdansk/Danzig-vote was arranged, as a compromise and the recognizition of the heritage of those towns in the history of more than one country. For this reason, the Gdansk-vote should be used here and Vyborg should be called Viipuri up to September 1944, when it was officially transferred from Karelo-Finnish SSR to Russian SSR. --Whiskey (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (Late) Statement by Vecrumba From reading (much) earlier historical records (i.e., dating to Finland under the Russian empire), I was tending simply toward Vyborg as common English usage. However, in researching further, popular news media accounts of the time (WWII), including reports from the front lines (e.g., ongoing reports in LIFE Magazine, which was/is as mainstream an English-language source as you can get) do, in fact, use Viipuri (for example, 1940). That would be the proper usage for the time in question, and, as Whiskey notes, until sovereignty passed to Russia in 1944. Current (as a location in the Leningradskaya Oblast) usage per BGN is Vyborg ("Approved" = no exception for other more common English language usage), with variants: Viborg, Viipuri, Vipuri and Wiborg. And so I find myself generally agreeing with Whiskey's assessment. For articles whose time wholly predates 1944/Viipuri in Russia as Vyborg, I would suggest "Viipuri (Vyborg)" at the first occurence of Viipuri in said article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Discussion of issue 1 Thank you both all very much for your statements! It is great to have such punctual mediation participants. Let me see if I have understood your positions correctly. YMB29, you are interpreting the naming guideline as saying that we have to use the modern name, as a historical English name does not exist. Wanderer602, you are saying that we should use the local name used at that time, and that this is the approach proscribed by the outcome of Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Let me know if I have misinterpreted anything. Now, I have a few comments to make. First, about Talk:Gdansk/Vote - actually, this only applies to a small set of articles that can be clearly seen by looking at {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}. I invite you to look at the recommendations yourself; it doesn't seem that they would automatically apply to Viipuri/Vyborg. It seems a much better approach to use the naming guideline linked to above to guide us in our approach. Secondly, about what that guideline says - YMB29, you came close to what I understand the guideline to say, but what it says is actually much simpler than that, I think. The gist of the whole document, in my opinion, is that we should follow widely-used names in English-language sources which discuss the topics we are writing about. If these sources don't exist, then only then do we need to worry about local names and other rules. So, it would not be the modern English name that we should use, but rather the name that modern English-language sources use when writing about Viipuri/Vyborg in the period in question. (And Wanderer602, if you look at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion, then this is the criterion that most of the editors use in that discussion as well.) What I like best about this guideline is it has a handy list of steps for editors to go through to find the name most widely accepted in English-language sources, if one exists. And you can call me old-fashioned, but I like to do things just like it says in the rulebook. I think that the best way to find any widely-accepted name for Vyborg/Viipuri would be to use these exact steps in the exact order the guideline recommends. So, I have a question for both of you: would you accept the outcome of using these steps, even it is not the name you prefer? Please answer "yes" or "no" below, and you can also comment or ask questions if anything is not clear. I'm looking forward to your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Yes. Comment: Wikipedia:PLACE#Use_modern_names: "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods." Since article is not discussing the present the modern name does not matter; neither does the town have an established English name, "Vyborg" being only transliterated Russian name for the town and not the name of the town in English. As there are plenty of sources either way the proper way would seem to be to use the historically appropriate name for the town akin to Danzig/Gdansk issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, we can use those steps, but if we still are not able to establish one widely accepted historical English name using them (name varies with sources and no clear majority in usage), then we have to use the current widely accepted name? -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Here's what the guideline says: "If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." So in that case, it would be the "modern local historical name" that we should use. Unfortunately, this term isn't defined further, because I for one still find it confusing. Presumably it means the local name now used to refer to the town as it existed during the Continuation War, but this does leave the same problem of whose local name we should use. Presumably, this would be Vyborg as the town is now locally known as Vyborg, but I wouldn't feel comfortable deciding this without asking someone more familiar with naming disputes. In this event I think it might be best to ask at a noticeboard, or maybe start an RfC. Anyway, we should try going through the steps first, as it may not come to that at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The part If neither of these English names exist refers to the current English name and the historical English name, right? So if both don't exist then we have to use the official name or the local historical name. However if there is a current widely accepted English name then we have to use it. At least that is the way I understand it. -YMB29 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Whiskey, thank you for your statement on this as well. I think we should talk about this and make sure we are on the same page before thinking about moving to step two of the naming guidelines. My understanding of the Gdansk/Danzig vote is that it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but rather that it set a precedent. Precedents can be useful, of course, but as I understand it they do not carry the same weight as policy or guidelines - that is why the naming conventions guideline was written, and indeed elements from the Gdansk/Danzig vote were incorporated into it. Because of this, I think we should follow the guideline through to its logical conclusion first, and only think about what part precedent should play in our decision after we have done this. Doing this also gives us a nice clear set of steps to work through, and will make it easier to resolve the issue, in my opinion. Would you agree to stick with the approach that I have outlined here (and below)? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. --Whiskey (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Naming guidelines step 1 So, let's get straight down to business. Here is the text of step 1 from the naming guidelines: Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world. So, I have a task for both of you: please go through these three encyclopaedias, and find articles that mention Viipuri/Vyborg during the period in question. Please post your results back here, with links if available, and with publication details and page numbers if not. ({{cite encyclopedia}} may be useful.) Remember, the mentions must refer to the period of the Continuation War, from 25 June 1941 – 19 September 1944. I'm looking forward to reading your findings. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Those are proprietary sources. Exception could be Columbia Encyclopedia, however it does not - according to available search function - contain any information regarding Viipuri/Vyborg at 1941-1944. As the only means for me to access the articles is via Google (books) search i fail to see the point in this exercise. However what little information i could get from EB is as follows... With Google book searches of Encyclopaedia Britannica viipuri 1944 and Encyclopaedia Britannica vyborg 1944 the first entries mark the name of the town in 1944 as follows: "Viipuri (Vyborg)" (or equivalent - same results with both of the search options). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Well-found, thank you. Just a link to the general book isn't what I meant though - really, we need the article name, publication date, some context, and preferably the page number, in order to make accurate judgements about what is being discussed. Luckily, I found the same text on the Britannica website here. The article looks to be the latest version of "World War II: The Eastern Front, June–December 1944", and is within our timespan, so this checks out so far. Let me know if you find any other Britannica articles, and I'll be waiting for the results from the other encyclopedias. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Also, about the sources being proprietary - that is the nature of sources, I'm afraid. It might be that you need to go to a library to investigate this properly. Is there one near you that would have access to these encyclopedias? Often the best way is to use the library computers, as they will likely have access to the online, up-to-date versions of the encyclopedias. Or if that's not practical, we could make a request at resource requests. - if we're lucky we will find someone with access to these websites from their home computer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Are articles describing the Winter War good enough? It is still WWII, and I don't think they would use different names for events in 1940 and 1944. I found entries for Russo-Finnish War in these encyclopedias: Britannica (2011) uses Viipuri as mentioned above [23], Columbia (2008) uses Vyborg [24] and Encarta (2002) also uses Vyborg (I have the disk). For the first two encyclopedias the links have all the information, and for Encarta I can provide more information if needed later. -YMB29 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Hmm, articles about the Winter War aren't quite as good as ones about the Continuation War, as the encyclopedias may have different criteria depending on who held the city. The Columbia article you found mentions it at the exact point of the handover, too, which doesn't help! I think that the things you have found so far are good indication that the encyclopedias don't agree, though. In the end it is up to you two how far you want to go in researching this - if you want to dig around and see if you can find better material from the encyclopedias, then I encourage you. However, if you are both satisfied that these encyclopedias don't all name the city in the same way during the period in question, then we can move to step two. Let me know when you're satisfied with your searches. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) We can move to step two I guess... The handover after the Winter War was from Finland to the USSR, so the city's name could have only changed from Viipuri to Vyborg. -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) A comment: During the Winter War Viipuri was part of Finnish Democratic Republic (Terijoki government), and after the war all remaining areas of the FDR (The area Finland ceded to Soviet Union) was used to create Karelo-Finnish Republic by incorporating Karelian autonomous area to FDR. Only southern Karelian Isthmus, Terijoki-Raivola area, was incorporated to Leningrad Oblast (in fact already done early December 1939). It was only at September 1944, after the Continuation War, when the rest of the Isthmus was incorporated to Leningrad Oblast (and Russian SSR). --Whiskey (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) A Second comment: After the Winter War the official name was Viipuri, as produced by the Soviet map of 1940 [[25]], where the name is given in Cyrilic first as Viipuri, and after that Vyborg. --Whiskey (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Well other Soviet maps exist that say Vyborg (Выборг). [26] And please read what we are actually discussing... -YMB29 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, the official name doesn't come into it really, at least not in this discussion. Let's keep our talk related to the matter at hand. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC) An other source: The Oxford Companion to World War II, 2001, I. C. B. DEAR and M. R. D. FOOT: Finnish-Soviet War: "On 9 June 1944 a massive offensive on the isthmus achieved an immediate breakthrough and drove the Finns back beyond Viipuri" --Whiskey (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Whiskey, and thanks for the statement. I'm afraid your source is a bit premature - at the moment we are only looking for encyclopedia articles about Vyborg/Viipuri during the Continuation War. (Preferably, from well-known encyclopedias covering all of general knowledge.) There might be a space for your source in step two or step three, but these kind of sources will have to wait until we get round to that. Have a look at the guideline excerpt at the top of this section for the kind of thing that would be acceptable. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, my bad. I thought Oxford would be counted to the encyclopedic sources... --Whiskey (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC) No problem. If anything it sounds most like one of the standard histories referred to in step three of the naming guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I'm ok with moving to step 2. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Encyclopedia Britannica uses Viipuri in the links above, but in the article for Vyborg it says: From 1918 to 1940 the city was part of Finland and held the name Viipuri [27] This suggests that the name Viipuri applies only for that period (1918-1940)? -YMB29 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Naming guidelines step 2 Sorry for keeping you all waiting! As we've all agreed there is no widely-accepted name in the encyclopaedias mentioned in step 1, we can proceed to step 2. Here it is, from the guideline: 2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted. Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines [in the guideline]. As you can see, the ratio of sources needs to be at least 3:1 in favour of one of the names for us to accept it under the guideline; that's quite a difference in numbers. Before we start looking at actual sources, I would like to pose a question to the three of you. Based on preliminary searches and your existing knowledge, are you confident that you might be able to find such a disparity in numbers? If you don't think you will be able to find one, then we can skip step two and move on to step three. If any of you aren't comfortable with skipping a step, however, we can go through it in detail. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I do not believe that we can find 3:1 ratio one way or another, so I'm fine with skipping this step. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Yes we can skip it. It would be just a waste of time. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I agree. --Whiskey (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Naming guidelines step 3 Thank you all for getting back to me. So surprise, surprise, next we will be covering step 3 of the naming guidelines. Here it is: 3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for. This is very similar to step one. There are only so many standard histories, so if you are in doubt as to whether a particular history is "standard" or not, then it probably isn't. To avoid argument here, I think we should stick strictly to the wording of the guideline - it really won't serve our purposes here to argue about what histories are "standard", in my opinion. Looking at the source that Whiskey found above, the Oxford Guide to World War II, actually it isn't quite what the guideline is looking for if we interpret it conservatively. I think what the guideline is pointing to is something more like the Oxford Dictionary of World History or the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary World History. So, let's search for mentions of Viipuri/Vyborg, for the period of 25 June 1941 – 19 September 1944, in only the sources strictly specified in the naming guideline - the Cambridge Histories, the Library of Congress country studies and subject headings, and the Oxford dictionaries of history. (I am not sure if the Library of Congress sources will include historical information, so sorry if I make you search through them unnecessarily.) After we've found the sources, we can evaluate them to see if they are dated, or not written by a native speaker. If after this all the sources agree, then that's the name we should use. If not all of them agree, then we can go onto the next step. Again, when you post sources, please use a link if available, or a full citation using {{cite book}}. And if you have any questions, you can of course ask them below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Well... again i end up with whole lot of nothing regarding those sources. And 'countries studies' site even makes separate note not to include links to the page. Of the country studies (of Library of Congress) site, regarding war years, in Finnish section there is one reference to 'Viipuri' in Winter War page, no mentions of 'Viipuri' or 'Vyborg' elsewhere in war articles. And no mention of either in Russia/Soviet Union page either (in war related pages). Congress subject headings yield both results (but i have no idea how to refine the search to just 1941-1944). Nothing even remotely conclusive regarding either search term. I hope better luck for the others. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not be too hasty there - I just had a quick look at the Library of Congress Country Studies, and I found this: "By the terms of the Peace of Moscow, Finland ceded substantial territories: land along the southeastern border approximately to the line drawn by the Peace of Uusikaupunki in 1721, including Finland's second-largest city, Viipuri". This is the Winter War rather than the Continuation War, but it's still pretty close. Because these are standard histories, they won't be overly long - I think you could probably just read through them to find the information you're looking for. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I found a relevant mention of Vyborg in the Library of Congress Subject Headings [28] (Vyborg, Battle of, Vyborg, Russia, 1944 under Narrower Terms). The Cambridge History of Russia has Vyborg on a map but it refers to 1945. [29] -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Again, thanks for your replies. The answers we have found so far are enough to convince me that we won't find one particular usage in these histories. Let me know if you are also convinced, and we can proceed to the next step. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, we can proceed but I don't know if the next step will be any better in helping us resolve this... -YMB29 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I think you're right that the next step in the naming guidelines may not be better than the previous three, and I wasn't planning on playing things strictly by the book this time round anyway. I want to make sure I have everyone's consent to move on before I let you know what I have in mind, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, we can proceed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, let's move on. --Whiskey (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC Looking at the other steps in the naming guidelines, none of the remaining three look like they will suit our purposes. News articles about the conflict will, by definition, not reflect modern consensus of historical terms; the article doesn't need moving, so a requested move would be frivolous; and as far as I'm aware Viipuri and Vyborg are both used without any additional translation into English. So, I think we have determined, in a reasonably thorough and systematic way, that there is no widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri. Let me extend my apologies to those of you who thought this was the case from the start, but I also want to assure you that we haven't been wasting our time. The work that we have done will come in handy in the next step, which I think should be an RfC. I want to bring this to RfC because I think the naming guidelines are quite vague on what name we should use if there is no widely-accepted English name. In this case, the guideline says we should use the "modern local historical name", but as I noted above, it doesn't explain this term further, and we are still left with the problem of which modern local historical name we should use. An RfC will bring in editors who are experienced in these kinds of naming disputes, and who will know what precedents have been set. It will also give us a definite decision at the end of the debate, and if we pose the question well, we should be able to use the result to settle the debate on all the related articles as well. But perhaps more importantly, at this point I can't think of any other way we might resolve this issue, short of doing a straight majority count in Google Books, or just using random.org. So I hope that you agree with my idea here. Although an RfC can be a separate dispute resolution process, and the one I'm proposing will take place on Talk:Continuation War rather than here, this particular RfC will still be part of this mediation process. As such, in the debate I would like you all to stick to the ground rules that we have agreed to, especially regarding editing decorum. Though it is acceptable to reply to each others' posts, if this escalates to just arguing back and forth with no real discussion, then I reserve the right to refactor your comments (though I will leave third-party comments untouched). This kind of arguing is a big reason that this dispute has come to mediation, and I would rather avoid it in the RfC. Also, I would like your agreement that you will not advertise the RfC discussion anywhere, to avoid allegations of canvassing. We can decide the places we want to advertise this together, by consensus, and I will post the advertisements myself, using neutral language. Please let me know whether you agree to all of this by commenting below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft one This is a draft of the RfC I proposed in the section above - it is not meant to be voted on yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/Vyborg. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name. This town has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia on March 31, 1940. Finnish troops recaptured it on August 29, 1941, and it was annexed as part of Finland soon afterwards. On September 19, 1944, the town returned to Russia as part of the Moscow Armistice, and has remained as part of Russia since. In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town in the Continuation War, which lasted from 25 June 1941 – 19 September 1944, and by extension all the articles about that war, including the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. This issue is one of the issues being debated in the MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through the various steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. According to the naming conventions guideline, if there is no widely-accepted English name, then we should use the "modern local historical name". Unfortunately, the guideline doesn't define this term further, and still leaves us with the issue of whose local historical name should be used. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft one discussion Please leave any comments about this draft in this section. I'm particularly interested in what articles we should include, and I will be happy to change the wording in light of reasonable requests. Also, if there's anything you think I've left out, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Well, in the lead section of the draft there are couple of things that in my opinion could be expressed in more clear manner. After Finnish annexation (or rejoining) of the territories lost in the Winter War to Finland both Finland and Soviet Union held claims to the land (and town) in question but it was in Finnish control. But Soviets did capture the town on 20 June 1944 after which (until September 1944) again both sides held claim to the town but this time Soviets controlled it. That should probably be reflected in the lead section since it currently at least implies that Finland would have held it until September 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Also, one should remember that after the Winter War Viipuri and the rest of ceded Karelia except the southern Isthmus, the areas that were part of the Finnish Democratic Republic, were incorporated to Karelian ASSR to form Karelo-Finnish SSR, and only at September 1944 were Viipuri area transferred to Russian SSR. As seen from the map I provided, even Soviet Union considered the name first as Viipuri, then as Vyborg. (The map YMB provided, was produced after the war, not during it.) And another thing: Even modern Russian literature seems to use Finnish transliterations to the battle locations at Karelian Isthmus instead of modern Russian names (Kuuterselkä, Tali, Taipale...). Modern names are sometimes given afterwards. --Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I think your specific concerns might be better addressed in your comments to the RfC, rather than in the formulation of the question. To save argument, it might be better to just leave it at "This town has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II" and then direct editors to Vyborg#History. How does this sound? Also, please note that other than which country the town belonged to at which time, the specific historical facts surrounding the war won't have all that much bearing on the discussion. This is more about the naming guidelines and precedents made in other, similar discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Sounds fine to me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC) About the city during the period of the Continuation War, it does not matter who held it or claimed it since formally it still was part of the USSR after the Moscow Peace in 1940. Also about the Karelo-Finnish SSR, is there a reliable source that says that the city was renamed to Vyborg only after it was transferred to the Russian SFSR? I don't know when the map I found [30] was created, but it shows the period we are discussing and it has Vyborg. If the Soviets considered the name to be Viipuri, why was their offensive called the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive? -YMB29 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Stalin didn't use the name Vyborg-Petrozavodsk but "Liberation of Karelo-Finnish Republic". The name was later production. Vyborg has been the old Russian name of the city, so it is understandable that Russian texts use that name regardless how the city was officially called: The same naming convention (Cologne <> Köln, Vienna <> Wien) we have tried to find here. The official language of Finnish Democratic Republic was Finnish and also Karelo-Finnish SSR had two official languages: Finnish and Russian. -- Whiskey (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC) So then we have to look at who actually lived there and what language was spoken most... It does not matter what Stalin called it, if Vyborg appears in military orders then that is the name used. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I don't understand, if we could not establish the historical English name but the widely accepted modern English name exists, why do we need to worry about the local historical name? -YMB29 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. So in our case only the historical English name does not exist (or cannot be established). -YMB29 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC) It's at the end of the passage you quoted. Allow be to add my own bold: If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. So it is not the modern local name that is at issue here, but the "modern local historical name" - whatever that is. It is not obvious to me how this should be applied in this case, hence my idea of asking for outside opinions. We might even end up updating the guideline depending on what we decide here. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I am not talking about the local names, modern or historical. I am saying that there is a modern English name (it is Vyborg) and we should use it since we can't establish the historical English name. The guideline says to check the local names only if there are no English names. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Actually Vyborg is not a modern English name - it is just transliterated name from Russian not an English name. Second, article is not handling the present, and as per guiddelines that instructs us to use 'modern local historical' name. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC) No, read the part I highlighted. It does not matter if Vyborg is a transliteration of the Russian name. It is still the modern widely accepted English name, or are you going to argue that too? -YMB29 (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Actually it does - as it means that Vyborg is the local name (modern official name) for the town. Just because it is used of the town does not mean that it would be English name - it is widely used (as is proper as we can see from naming guidelines) name of the town when referring to it in present time but it is not English name. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC) What do you mean by English name? The English name just means the name widely used in English, which is often the local name too. Read above. -YMB29 (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) No it is not. For example Finnish town of Helsinki, it is known in English sources as Helsinki, as the town has no English name and modern official (local) name of the town is Helsinki. On the other hand that town has Swedish name and therefore in Swedish sources it is known as Helsingfors - however that does not change the local name which used in English in absence of an English name of the town when referring to the town (at least) in modern context. Exact same applies to Vyborg as it has no English name either - so we need to use the 'modern local historical name' for it when referring to the town in context of the historical events. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Oh dear, it looks like we have got in quite a mix-up! It looks like each of us is interpreting the same paragraph of text in different ways. If I am understanding this correctly, YMB29 is interpreting the guideline as saying that a town should use the modern English name if no widely-accepted historical name exists, and I am interpreting it as saying that historical sources should always be used for historical names. Wanderer602 is interpreting it as saying that "English name" means a name that is used in English but not the local language, and YMB29 is interpreting it as saying that "English name" means the name that is commonly used in English-language sources. Now, I would like you to try and experiment. I want you to forget who is "right" and who is "wrong", and what the "correct" interpretation of the guideline is. After all, it is only a guideline - it is not a policy, and it says right at the top of the guideline page that it is "best treated with common sense", and that "occasional exceptions may apply". The most important thing here, in my opinion, is not to decide a "right" interpretation and a "wrong" interpretation, but to find a consensus on what name to use so that we can solve this part of the dispute and progress on to the more important task of making Wikipedia a world-class reference resource. The steps in the naming guideline suited us when we were trying to find if there was a widely-accepted historical English name, but if the guideline is now getting in the way of making the encyclopaedia better, then I suggest that we consider ignoring it. After all, I think that at least part of our problem is that some of the guideline is unclear and badly-worded. I think that it is very likely that we could end up being on the cutting edge of Wikipedia policy, and using this mediation as a test case for updating the guideline itself. So, making decisions by consensus is a Wikipedia policy, but the naming guidelines are not. And if the naming guidelines get in our way then we may ignore them. I hope if you see things from this perspective then you can begin to see why an RfC would make sense. If one of us is clearly right about our interpretation of the guideline, then when we start an RfC the uninvolved editors coming here to comment will obviously favour the position that is correct. There is no need for us to argue back and forth about the specifics - consensus will be decided in any case, by the other editors commenting. Also, if the interpretation of the guideline is a little fuzzier - as I think part of it is in this case - then having more editors commenting will allow us to discuss the issue more calmly, and reach a decision that is informed by all the facts, rather than just arguing back and forth. So an RfC is win/win, in this situation, I think. All in all, I think the best thing would be for us to have the RfC, and abide by its outcome. (Of course, you have already agreed to abide by the outcome of this mediation when you signed the ground rules, but I digress.) In the end we are going to have to choose one name or the other, and some of you will end up being disappointed. Although I can appreciate that each of you would like to see your preferred name in the article, this cannot be possible for everyone. In the event that your preferred name is not chosen, then I want to remind you that we are here to make the whole encyclopaedia better, and that sometimes we must swallow our pride, forget our differences, and put up with results that we don't like for the benefit of our readers. In light of this, next I would like to step away from arguments about the naming guidelines, and focus on practical matters about this RfC. So please leave me a comment below, answering the following points: Whether you agree to having an RfC on this question, and whether you will abide by its outcome. What articles this RfC should affect. Should it just be the Continuation War and the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, or are there others? What places you would like to see the RfC advertised. Whether you would like to change any wording of the draft of the RfC, other than what has been discussed already. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to reading your replies. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, and yes. All relevant articles, including any articles referring events related to the nominated articles. For example Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive... Not sure, probably military history project pages? No - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Yes and yes. Let's start with these two and see how it spreads by the result of the vote. WP: WikiProject Germany, WP: WikiProject Poland, WP: WikiProject Military History, WP: WikiProject Cities, WP: WikiProject Finland, WP: WikiProject Russia I'd like to see clarification of the official name between 1940 and 1944, also specific note to the Gdansk vote... --Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) You know, when this hits the fan this is going to affect a lot of places and raise major nationalistic discussions everywhere. I personally consider Gdansk Vote a major diplomatic triumph which has done much to diffuse these potential disagreements. This RfC is going to effect naming in several countries: Russia, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Baltics, -stans, Georgia, Turkey, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Morocco, former colonies, etc. --Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I agree that this could be wide-ranging. It could mean that the kind of thing that was previously decided by consensus in individual articles will end up being affected by the guideline instead; however, it could be that there is no consensus to update the guideline, and that this case should stand on its own. That is an issue for the wider community to decide, really, and this RfC will just be a first step towards any possible change. On a different note, could you tell me more about the Gdansk vote? I was under the impression that it only affected the issues listed in Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, but your comment about it being a "major diplomatic triumph" has made me curious about the kind of precedent that was set there. Is there reason to believe that it affects other issues than these? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I don't understand how the guidelines can be interpreted to mean that the English name is the name that is unique to English (Wanderer602's interpretation), when they clearly say that the English name often will be a local name, or one of them? The guidelines also clearly say, at least the part that I quoted, to look at the local names only if neither English names (modern and historical) exist. I guess we can go with the RfC, but I am afraid that it will be a further waste of time... Yes and will abide if the decision is fair and neutral (no canvassing, nationalism). The articles discussed here and others that mention the city during the period. I don't think that advertising on WP: WikiProject Finland and WP: WikiProject Russia is a good idea. We need to avoid responses based on feelings of nationalism. When it is mentioned that Finland annexed the city during the war I think it should be made clear that there was no treaty signed that officially gave it back to Finland. It should also be mentioned that the widely accepted modern English name is Vyborg, and the guidelines say, or at least can be interpreted to mean, that we have to use this name. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. Actually, I also think the guideline is clear that "English names" are names that are used by a majority of English-language sources, rather than names that are unique to English. I was just trying to make the point that it should not matter in the RfC, as positions that aren't support by policies and guidelines are not likely to draw much support. We will have to explain all our reasoning in the RfC anyway, so there's not much point debating it all to death before it even starts. As for the possibility of it being a waste of time, I think you are missing two important points. The first is that even closely-contested RfCs can be closed with a definite outcome - if this is the case then I will ask an uninvolved administrator to make the close rather than do it myself. The second is that even if it is closed as "no consensus", then it is no longer strictly "our" issue - in that case the dispute will move on from just a dispute on these articles, and it will become more about the naming guidelines themselves, and whether there is a need to update them. In the unlikely event that this happens, then it will cease to really be our issue, and it will become an issue of the wider community. I would say that we could probably just move on from the issue if this happens, but we can always make that decision when the time comes. It's not worth worrying about things that might not actually happen; mediation will work better when we deal with the here and now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft two There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/Vyborg. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name. Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia on March 31, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. On September 19, 1944, the town returned to Russia as part of the Moscow Armistice, and was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. It has remained as part of Russia since. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939, to its transfer to Russia in 19 September 1944. This particularly affects articles involving the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others. This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft two discussion In this second draft I have gone for the option of including the full history of the town's changing of hands during WWII, but I have updated it to make it reflect the concerns you have raised. As both Wanderer602 and YMB29 were interested in having this RfC about all articles during the period in question, I have expanded the dates to include everything from 1939 to September 1944. This should avoid any possibility of more arguing about dates after March 1940 but before August 1941. I have opted for not including all of our different positions on the naming guidelines, but instead just noting that we disagree on their interpretation. Hopefully this should be neutral enough for you all - if not, we can change it again. I agree with YMB29 that we should not advertise this RfC at the WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Finland, as we want editors to comment who are not involved with either country to get truly neutral opinions. (Note that the RfC will show up in WikiProject article alerts, though, so there's every possibility that we could get editors from both projects commenting even if we don't advertise.) So here is the list of places that I think we should advertise the RfC: WikiProject Military History (maybe one of their task forces as well?) WikiProject Cities Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) Talk:Vyborg The talk pages of the main articles involved, namely Talk:Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Talk:Battle of Tienhaara, Talk:Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Talk:Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). (I'll accept more articles onto this last item by request.) Let me know if you agree with the latest version and the advertising locations, and also if there is anything else you would like to change, please include it below. If everything is ok then I'll go ahead and put the RfC up at Talk:Continuation War and place the ads on the pages listed above. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Could you put this also to WP: WikiProject History, as not all history is military. --Whiskey (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid that I'm inclined to turn it down. At Wikipedia:WikiProject History#Scope it says "There are already several other history projects with more specific scopes so the majority of our work is on articles that do not seem to fall into other projects' scopes." This period of history is most definitely covered by WikiProject Military History, and the editors who are interested in it will have joined the latter project too, I expect. We have to strike a balance here - we want the discussion to be widely-advertised, but we don't want to be accused of spamming. I would still be open to other suggestions, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Seems to be OK to me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg was captured by the Soviets in June of 1944 and the Moscow Armistice in September just reconfirmed its status that was set by the treaty of 1940. Also, if the period is expanded to start from the beginning of WWII then we need to include the Winter War article too. -YMB29 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft three There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/Vyborg during World War II. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name. Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia on March 31, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. Russian troops captured it again in June 1944, and on September 19 the Moscow Armistice was signed, in which Finland agreed to cede it to Russia. Also at this time, it was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. Finland formally relinquished all claim to the town in 1947. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939 to the Moscow Armistice in September 1944. This affects articles involving the Winter War and the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others. This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft three discussion I have updated the draft in response to YMB29's concerns above. See what you think, and please let me know below whether you agree with this latest version. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC) It is alright, but to be more accurate Finland agreed to cede it to Russia should be Finland agreed to recognize it as part of the USSR/Russia again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft four There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/Vyborg during World War II. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name. Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia on March 31, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. Russian troops captured it again in June 1944, and on September 19 the Moscow Armistice was signed, in which Finland agreed to recognize it as part of the USSR again. Also at this time, it was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. Finland formally relinquished all claim to the town in 1947. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939 to the Moscow Armistice in September 1944. This affects articles involving the Winter War and the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others. This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. Vyborg/Viipuri RfC draft four discussion I've changed the draft per YMB29's suggestion. Again, let me know if you are ok with this version, and if so I will start the RfC proper. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I'm OK with it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) It looks ok now. -YMB29 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Eh... Should it be March 13, not March 31 (Moscow peace)? Otherwise Ok. --Whiskey (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I'll just change it to March then - there's no need to be precise down to the day. Otherwise, it looks like we're good to go. Remember, play nicely! I reserve the right to reformat any comments that go off topic or are inflammatory. I think we should let the RfC run for a few days to see how things go, and then we can talk about moving on to issue number two. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, the RfC is up at Talk:Continuation War#RfC: Naming of Vyborg/Viipuri, and has been advertised in all the agreed places. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I just realized that the Vyborg article should also be included, right? The history section uses both names. -YMB29 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC) As does the Danzig/Gdansk article uses both names of the town: each one according to how the town was called locally.--Whiskey (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) After it was decided when each name should be used... -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Right. --Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, it looks like I might have been unclear about this. Yes, you are all free to participate in the RfC, including recommending your preferred name. This RfC is for deciding consensus, and it wouldn't really be much of a consensus if you weren't allowed to take part. Just make sure you keep comments on topic, and focus on the content, rather than other editors. Sorry for the confusion. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, so we've had a couple of days with the RfC, and we've had a few outside editors contributing. Things look pretty evenly split so far, and I'm not sure that I could make a call about which name to use for which time periods just yet. I think we should let the RfC run for at least two weeks while we get more outside input, and we can decide what to do with issue 1 after that. In the meantime, I want to ask you what you think about moving on to issue two. Would you prefer a little bit more time to comment at the RfC, or would you like to get going on to issue 2? As always, let me know below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Let's go forward. --Whiskey (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, let's move to issue #2. -YMB29 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for getting back to me. You've probably noticed the new rule I added at the RfC - sorry for being heavy-handed, but it defeats the purpose of having an RfC if we just use the RfC thread to argue amongst ourselves. I am also anxious to get on to the next issue, but I think I shall wait until you have all made your statements over on the RfC page and things have calmed down there a bit. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC) For the RfC, I don't think people are understanding exactly what we are asking them to comment on. -YMB29 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I agree, it looks like the question was perhaps not as clear as it could have been. I think your latest comment should go some way to clearing up the confusion, though. Hopefully we should get more of the type of input we are looking for over the next week or two. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue two - sources

Issue two

Now that the RfC is well underway, I agree that we can turn our attention to the next issue. Sorry to keep you waiting for so long! Hopefully issue two will take less time to resolve than the naming issue has done. I'm sure that we can deal with this fairly quickly if we pay attention to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So without further ado, here is issue two: What sources we should use. How we should deal with foreign language sources; the various Soviet and Finnish sources, including Baryshnikov; and primary sources, such as the war diaries. So first, I would like you all to give me a statement of your opinions on the issue. What have been the issues surrounding sourcing in the article, and what have you agreed on? Have any of the sources been assessed by external editors, such as at the reliable sources noticeboard? Again, let's keep our statements short - no longer than 250 words, please. I'll be looking forward to see your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Statement by YMB29 on issue two The articles about the Soviet-Finnish conflict are mostly dominated by Finnish sources or those that represent the Finnish view. It is very difficult to add sources with Russian or other views that contradict the Finnish ones, as this is met with resistance by Finnish users. We managed to agree and compromise on some issues and a few of these articles are now more neutral, but many issues still remain. Major problems are misrepresenting sources, original research, and presenting disputed conclusions from sources as facts. The use of war diaries was assessed by a couple of editors [31][32], but this did not resolve the dispute. I just want all sources to be fairly and properly represented in the articles. -YMB29 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Statement by Whiskey on issue two The Continuation war is a forgotten war both in the western world and in the Soviet Union. Up to the end of the last century, most books written in English used only German and Russian sources with few remarks from the memoirs of C.G.E.Mannerheim, so they were biased to Soviet view. There has been only a small number of books, counted by fingers, which had used Finnish sources extensively, but they were regularily very biased to the Finnish point of view. Even today, most military historians writing about this conflict, make very basic errors and misunderstandings in trivial matters, which shows their total disregard to Finnish sources. Anyway, the Finnish war diaries are official documents, primary sources, and as stated in WP:PRIMARY, they could be used as a source to what they say. War diaries are also officially published in web by Finnish national archives (www.narc.fi). Especially, in this occasion in question, they are used to identify the location where the unit writing the diary was located at the given time. The heart of the problem in question is that Soviet sources claim that Finns were in a certain place at a given time and fought a battle there. Finnish secondary sources know nothing about such a battle, and don't place any units there at the time. The war diaries were used to identify the exact locations of the Finnish units and their neighboring units as well the unit's impression about fighting level. There is also two specific Finnish secondary sources which concur the war diaries, the only ones which go into the level low enough to present infantry regiment and batallion level actions and locations. The problem is that they are in Finnish, and no English ar American historian had bothered to learn Finnish to use them. --Whiskey (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Statement by Wanderer602 on issue two As for war diaries as reliable sources. I asked about the issue in wikipedia IRC page (#wikipedia-en-help connect) as where i was replied that since they are a official and published documents (online) they are a reliable, if primary, source. I further inquired the need to use RSN to determine that but no one implied in any manner that it would have been necessary. Not sure how to comment rest of the listed issues though. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Issue two discussion It seems to me that there isn't really much dispute about the sources themselves, but rather in the way that they are used. I think we should be able to move on from this issue fairly quickly, but first I want to check that we all have the same understanding of how we will use the sources. I think the best way for us to progress would be for me to list the points that you have collectively brought up and see if you all agree with them. Looking through, there were really only two points that stood out: There is a clear split between sources biased towards a Finnish point of view, and sources biased towards a Russian point of view. The Finnish war diaries are a primary source, and can only be used in the article under the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY. Would you all agree with these two statements? Please discuss below. Also, I noticed that no-one included anything about Baryshnikov in their statement. I seem to remember that some editors thought that there were issues with the Baryshnikov source - is this still a problem? And finally, is anyone aware of any sources that they consider truly neutral with regard to Finland and Russia? From your statements it looks like there might be no such sources, but if there are it could help us a lot with what to include. As always, looking forward to reading your comments. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. As for the other matters, Baryshnikov is more controversial than contested - not the least because his works (at least some of them) have been published by even more controversial figure (Johan Bäckman & Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee - pages also include criticism related to the Baryshnikov's works in question). I would hope that some other source (less criticized & less controversial) would or could be used instead but i have no direct objections against it. As for truly neutral sources, there are the German sources but those are generally biased in their own way as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC) N. Baryshnikov is important because he is one of the only Russian or non-Finnish historians who wrote a lot about the Soviet-Finnish conflict during WWII. This is so because for the Finns the conflict was the whole war, but for the Soviets/Russians and other participants of WWII this was a secondary or tertiary theater of war; who wants to write about the Battle of Tali-Ihantala or similar battles when one could write about the battles for Stalingrad and Moscow... Baryshnikov's arguments and conclusions often contradict those that are common in Finnish historiography, and so Finnish users of course are critical of him. At first his credibility was not questioned, and he was just claimed to be "not widely supported." However, a user then started making accusations about him, because he does not like the publisher of one of his books.[33] So Baryshnikov is now "not credible and not widely supported." There are no real arguments about why he is not credible, just that his book was published by Johan Bäckman, who is apparently a controversial figure in Finland... As far as neutral sources, some English language books can be considered more or less neutral, like books by D. Glantz. However, they don't cover the Soviet-Finnish conflict in great detail. And I agree with those two statements. -YMB29 (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC) English language books often relied on only single set of sources (either Finnish, Russian or German) so they have been biased to a certain degree according to source materials used. For example English literature on the Continuation War has in the past been mostly based on Soviet sources - including Glantz's books. Very few if any English language books have actually made thorough use of all Finnish, Russian and German sources. Lunde (2011) tried to do so but due language barriers had to rely on translated material (with Finnish & Russian sources), or to English and German sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) I don't think you can say that Glantz and other English language authors are ignorant of Finnish sources and only use Soviet ones... -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) It is descriptive, that Lunde blames that it took to 1994, before the official history of the Continuation War was written. He apparently wasn't aware of the project which started already during the Lapland War which produced the First official history of the war starting from 1951 and finnishing at 1965, 10 books and the late eleventh book addition about wartime economy at 1975: Suomen sota 1941-1945. It was the opening of Soviet archives 1990 which prompted the renewed effort to produce updated version. Similarily, Glantz's books still have this peculiar "South-East Army", which nonexistence could have been very easily checked from Finnish sources. So, Glantz and others are ignorant, most likely due to language. --Whiskey (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC) They might be missing some details, but to say that they are ignorant of Finnish sources is really stretching it... -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Not really, they represent no actual details from the Finnish side and even major facts are at times wrong as described above by Whiskey, facts like that could have been checked from any Finnish source handling the events. So it is not stretching it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I think we will end up attributing a majority of statements to their authors anyway, so this is probably not worth arguing about. It might make more sense to think of our task in writing this article as documenting each of the authors' points of view. We won't take a point of view ourselves, but we will attempt to faithfully render the different points of view of the authors on the subject. So if something is disputed, then we can just attribute it in the text. This should keep us from worrying about who is correct about events and which theories are best - we can leave that debate to the academics. I would be more interested to hear if any of the Finnish historians have rebutted points of view by Russian historians, and vice versa, as then we will be able to comment on their debates in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Baryshnikov analyzes and criticizes specific conclusions Finnish historians make. I made the point before that Baryshnikov's criticism of Finnish historians in the article (Battle of Tali-Ihantala) comes directly from him, while attempts to criticize him in the article are original research based on the contradiction between his conclusions and those by Finnish historians. -YMB29 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Actually only original research according to your interpretation. However that is not the point yet in this mediation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Ok we will see... -YMB29 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Then there are some sources, like Ari Raunio's and Juri Kilin's joint (jointly edited?) book series (Talvisodan taisteluja, Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941, Jatkosodan torjuntataisteluja 1942–44) which describes battles of the (Winter, Lapland and) Continuation War according to the archive data on the respective sides - each chapter has several subsections, often first one side's description of the events followed with the view from the other side - but apparently for some reason this does not seem to be considered as neutral by some; possibly because they are written in Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC) About Raunio & Kilin - this sounds like the kind of treatment necessary for us to consider the source neutral, yes. We shouldn't put too much emphasis on what language a source is written in when talking about neutrality, either, although it is obviously an important clue to look for. YMB29, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Well how can we judge their books if we can't read them? I think there is a reason why their books are only published in Finland. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Well, there are at least Platonov & Morozov and Juri Kilin as Soviet/Russian historians who have written about this conflict. And they have written more about the war than N. Baryshnikov. Basically Baryshnikov concentrates critisizing Finnish historians and uses worst case interpretations of any Finnish actions, political statements and newspaper articles regardless and omits all more moderate statements and views, although those were supported by majority of government, parliament and media. It would be acceptable solution if his views are not presented as absolute truth but accompanied with a clarification offered below. For the reason why Finnish books are not translated to English, the simple reason is economy. It is too expensive to publish translations and no British or American publishers are willing to publish books which do not sell, not to mention no bookshops will keep those in their inventory. If you are worried their contents, there were a very vocal and extremely marxist generation of young historians who did their best to question existing historical view, so if there had been any inconsistencies or conflicts, they would have found and published those faster and easier than you could say "Finnish Communist Party". --Whiskey (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Well there might be those who question the main historical view in Finland, but that does not mean that the view is not dominant there. As far as Baryshnikov, he does criticize Finnish historians, but your generalizations of him are not accurate. Also I don't know how you can say that Kilin wrote more about the conflict... -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I don't think we need to get too worked up about who wrote the most material - that won't really matter when coming to write the article. It will be better just to have an idea of which author has which point of view - but that is probably best saved until we deal with the specific issues, not in a general discussion about sources. As to the language issue, a lot of this is going to have to be done on trust. I don't speak any Finnish or any Russian at all, so I have to trust all of you to give me accurate representations of sources. In the worst-case scenario, we could find other editors to assist, or other outside help with translation; but do remember this will take a lot of time for outside editors, and you should also bear in mind that we are going to have to work together to find a compromise on this article anyway. I think it is simply the case that we will have to trust each other to be accurate when dealing with sources, so we may as well start getting comfortable with the idea now. It won't be so bad, you'll see. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC) We have translated passages from sources for each other many times so that is nothing new. -YMB29 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) From the remarks about Baryshnikov above, it sounds like his books are reliable, but likely biased toward the Russian point of view. In this case, we can still use his books as sources, but we should attribute our statements specifically to him, with language like "Baryshnikov says x", rather than stating his opinions as fact. (Please note that we will probably have to directly attribute several of the other sources as well.) We can go over the specific claims later, if we can agree on this general principal now. Does this sound reasonable to all of you? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) That is exactly what I was doing in the article, attributing statements to him and other authors. However, Wanderer602 insisted on not doing this for authors that support the Finnish point of view and presenting their statements as facts. Baryshnikov might represent the Soviet/Russian view, but it is not like he blindly supports it and is not objective. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) I see - my wording "biased" was probably too strong, then. If we are all satisfied with attributing his point of view directly in the article text, then we can move on here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, as long as that applies for other authors too. -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think it will apply to most authors that we use. It might actually be wise to apply it to all of them, although that will depend on the context. A good modus operandi here would be to directly attribute anything that is an opinion, or anything that may be disputed by other sources. Given the nature of the topics we are dealing with, I would not be at all surprised if a majority of statements in sources are disputed by someone. On this topic, I recommend reading WP:ASF if any of you haven't seen it already. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, presenting disputed statements as facts is misleading. -YMB29 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Erasing other peoples talk page messages is rather rude - even though the comment was not mine. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Whose comment was it? The person did not even sign... You can restore it if you want, but what does it have to do with what we are discussing? -YMB29 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I want to focus on the fact that certain of the Russian sources even question if the battle of Tali-Ihantala ever happened (like Barysnikov) That at least the experience I had from the discussion in the article. Among sources we have a third alternative in Swedish sources, who have written more about the battle than English ones like for exampel the Swedish military-historian Niklas Zetterling who in his book about the eastern-front 1941-45 writtes one whole chapter about the Finnish fighting in 1944. He can not be accused of being biased.Posse72 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC) All Russian Sources are not coherent, for example Russian historian writer Mark Solonin in his book "25 June 1941" has done a extensive Soviet archive research and he is fairly coherent with the Finnish mainstream view.Posse72 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Solonin is a writer, not a "historian writer". So you were allowed to join this mediation? -YMB29 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Posse72, and thanks for expressing interest in the page. I see that you have been interested in the disputed pages in the past,[34][35] but I don't think we can just launch into discussions with an extra editor right away. Before you make any more comments here, I would like you to write an opening statement in the section I prepare for you above. Then I would like to get the opinions of the other participants here, and finally I'll have a word with the other MedCab mediators to see if we agree on what to do. But basically it will come down to, if you are cooperative and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then there shouldn't be a problem. Have a look at the #Opening statements section for instructions on what to do. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The more participants we have the slower the mediation will go. Also, we already have two Finnish users here. -YMB29 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC) We do indeed already have good representation of the "Finnish" point of view, and Posse72 might be better off delegating either Whiskey or Wanderer602 to state their position on the individual issues, as they seem to only edit very sporadically. We can wait and see if Posse72 gets back to us, but in the meantime it is probably wise to move on. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I have only been waiting for the mediation to continue. Did not see much point in commenting after comments like "I think there is a reason why their books are only published in Finland." Which openly illustrated unwillingness to compromise on the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC) So, it seems that we have agreed on the following points: The Finnish war diaries are a primary source and should only be used with the caveats listed at WP:PRIMARY. In the majority of cases we should attribute statements to their sources directly in the text, with the exception of simple facts, using a process similar to that outlined at WP:ASF. None of the sources discussed so far are particularly unreliable, though some may contain errors or disagree on certain facts. Although many of the sources have a particular point of view, none of the viewpoints discussed so far can reasonably be considered "fringe". Please let me know if you agree with my assessment below. If we have agreement here, then we can move on to the next issue. I think we have discussed Baryshnikov in enough detail here, so I propose skipping issue three and moving straight to issue four. Let me know your thoughts. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed with certain notes. Well with Finnish war diaries it should be acknowledged that in certain cases they (even if primary sources) are the sole sources handling the matter (proving or disproving) from Finnish side. As for that matter i do consider certain of Baryshnikov's views to be fringe views which is the reason why i hoped for alternate sources to be used instead if possible. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Otherwise I agree, but I should point out the problemacy of "non-existence" and how it should be handled in the sources. We will meet that again in the discussion about Beloostrov and what happened there. Basically it is a question what sources could be used to prove that something didn't/couldn't happen? --Whiskey (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC) To Wanderer602 - I'll take both your points in turn. The first one, on the war diaries, also touches on Whiskey's concerns. With the war diaries, there is no doubt that in some instances they are the only sources for certain events from the perspective of Finnish troops. Now, in the article, we can only use the war diaries to "make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" (from WP:PRIMARY). That does not mean that we cannot use the war diaries to inform our knowledge of what happened in the events in question; it means that we cannot use these informed opinions directly in the article, as they would be original research. However, there are a variety of ways in which we could phrase our coverage of these events to reflect our informed opinions without resorting to original research. What this will entail exactly can wait until we reach the actual issue involved. Roughly, however, the process will go like this: Informing our opinions on the events from all the sources we have available. Coming to an agreement between mediation participants as to what actually happened in the events in question, or failing that, on what the Finns' and Russians' perspectives on events were. This understanding will become our unofficial "editorial policy" on this issue. Working out how we should present the various points of view present in the sources, based on the editorial policy we agreed on in the previous step. This should provide us with a version that is based on our full understanding of the sources, adheres to Wikipedia policy, and is agreed upon by all the participants. As for Baryshnikov, let me explain what I mean by "fringe". In this context, I meant "fringe" as any theory that has received so little acceptance in mainstream scholarship that to include it in the article at all would be giving it undue weight. Saying that a theory is not fringe is not the same as saying that it is accepted by mainstream scholarship; it is possible for a theory to not be fringe, and to be disputed by mainstream scholars, for example. From the discussion above it looks like Baryshnikov's works form a good portion of the historiography of the Continuation War, so we should probably not ignore his views. This does not mean that we should necessarily present them as mainstream, or to give them undue weight; rather we should present them as they have been received in mainstream Continuation War scholarship. This could be a complex process, so I think the discussion of exactly how we should do this is probably best left until we come to the specific issues where his opinions may come up. Please let me know if you are happy with my explanations here. If you have any more questions, then I'll be happy to go through them until you're satisfied. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) The meaning of the word "fringe" is the same for both of us then. That does not change my opinion of 'fringe status' of some of his opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Ok you can have your own opinion, but your editing here cannot be based on it. -YMB29 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Ok. Let's handle these issues later when we reach the issues. I'm satisfied. --Whiskey (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I may have expressed myself in unclear manner. I do not consider Baryshnikov to be unbiased source, instead i consider him to be biased source who occasionally expresses opinions or comments which belong to fringe theory category. And that is not just my opinion. But this can be discussed later on. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, that sounds good. Let's discuss it issue-by-issue. I'll wrap our discussion of issue two up, and move on to issue four. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Ok I agree. Let's move on. -YMB29 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

4. How to describe the Soviet response to Ribbentrop's questions about conditions for a possible peace deal.

Did you mean Ryti or just Finland instead of Ribbentrop? -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just noticed this now. Whiskey noticed this as well, and I've changed it to the "Finnish government" to keep it nice and broad. We can always hone things down a little more when we get to it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if User:YMB29 would not try to depict issues as something else than what they were. Link to statement. I did not press the point regarding unconditional there since i thought something might be gained by compromise (however such an approach was not agreed by YMB29, not at least at the time) since it was not relevant at the time to make the point regarding conditional surrender. I however did not agree that it would not have been unconditional surrender at any point. I hope such deliberate misleading of the mediation as done by YMB29 in his statement can be avoided in the future.

Ok so you are saying that you did not make this[36] edit? -YMB29 (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't see any conflict there: "...was interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender..." - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me help you:

the Soviets made in June 1944 an ambiguous demand for a surrender which in Finland was interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender

vs.

the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender

Still don't see it? -YMB29 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Both still explicitly state that it was understood as a demand for unconditional surrender. Other implies that it was understood as it was written while second one states that outright, nothing else there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second, guys - we're jumping the gun a little here. We'll be having structured discussion on this shortly, so can I ask you to wait until we start? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss matters politely but i will not accept what he did at any level. If he wants to discuss matters all fine but i will not stand for him to place words in my mouth like he did. Not only is it against the spirit of the mediation but it is also insulting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't see a difference between those two statements, you are lost... The whole point of the argument is the "as it was written" part.

I am not putting anything in your mouth... Your edits speak for themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough, both of you. Anything here that is focusing on the contributor rather than the content here is counterproductive. I can understand how both sides might feel aggrieved here, and I think that this is likely just a big misunderstanding. However, whatever the origins of this argument, turning it into an argument about each other is not going to help resolve the situation here. I've a good mind to just remove this entire thread, if that's what it will take to keep you both focused on content, but I won't go for extreme measures like that just yet. I only have time now to dash off this quick comment, so more progress in the mediation will have to wait till tomorrow - please, no more comments about this until then. Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Thanks for bearing with me through the mediation everyone! As I said in my message on the main page, I will still be around over the holidays. However, I can completely understand if people want to take a break, and I think it might be good for all of us to take our minds off Tali-Ihantala. Please let me know when you are going to be available - or also, if you have a burning desire to carry on with the mediation over Christmas, then that's fine too. Merry Christmas! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)