`/Archive_9#Intent_of_the_RFC_request HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]. ~~     == Much ado about exactly what? == Just to put the alleged POV title debate into perspective: # Occupation one = ``Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941`` = article section title # Occupation two (of the Baltic states, not Baltic SSRs) = ``German occupation 1941–1944`` = article section title # Occupation three = ``Under Soviet rule 1944–1991``  = article section title So, what we have, is * ``Soviet, Nazi, and Soviet rule over the occupied Baltic states, 1940-1991``, or more succinctly, * ``Occupation of the Baltic states`` Soviet annexation (1940) is appropriately represented and mentioned in the section title where it belongs. There is no need to change the title of the article nor the scope of article content. While I have quietly expanded the section on contemporary Russian (BTW, polarized) scholarship on the topic with respect to the Soviet aspect of the above, my editorial opposition insists that mediation and arbitration will be necessary if I don't start to see things their way. What, exactly, is missing that requires the threat of mediations and arbitrations, when I myself (who is regularly portrayed as a rabid nationalist ignorant of mainstream scholarship) have added and expanded национально-патриотическое versions of history which have no basis in fact and have done so without denigrating the proponents of those versions in article content? De jure and de facto recognition all belong in the article on state continuity; neither, with respect to the act of annexation, have anything to do with the Baltic or Soviet or Russian positions on the so-called ``joining`` of the Baltic states to the Soviet Union, which are: # Soviets/Russia/национально-патриотическое - workers revolutions overthrew the Fascists and demanded a government friendly to the USSR; Baltics originated/petitioned to join; (and Latvia originated/ petitioned to give away Abrene to Russia); joining was completely legal according to all international law = hence, no occupation # The rest of the planet and including либерально-демократическое - annexation was forcible, joining illegal = hence, occupation Any points editors wish to make over de facto or de jure belong in the state continuity article. As far this article is concerned, there are no tangible POV issues, there are no censored or suppressed controversies (whether or not they even have merit). As for myself, I have been constructively expanding appropriate content while editors with fluent Russian language skills don't lift a finger. So, exactly who has the interest of objective and inclusive content at heart? Judging by the addition of content representing reliable (and where not reliable to fact, at least reliable and representative as to opinion) sources fairly and accurately represented, that would be myself.  ►  :Martin and I have started what can become a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states`