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

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Battle of Tali-Ihantala
Status	Closed
Request date	13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	— Mr. Stradivarius ♫
Parties involved	User:Wanderer602, User:YMB29, User:Whiskey
Mediator(s)	Mr. Stradivarius

Where is the dispute?

• Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Who is involved?

• User:Wanderer602
• User:YMB29
• User:Whiskey
• User:posse72

I, Mr. Stradivarius, am not involved. I am merely referring this discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the dispute?

This is a neutrality dispute over alleged pro-Finnish bias. There are secondary issues of how to present contradicting reliable sources, and whether edits count as original research or not. More details can be found at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

This dispute has been referred here from the dispute resolution noticeboard. In that thread the previous steps were listed by User:YMB29 as follows:

There are long discussions on the talk pages that go in circles.[1][2][3][4] I tried third opinion[5] and the no original research noticeboard twice.[6][7] There were reports created in the incidents and edit warring noticeboards.[8][9] Comments were also made on an admin's talk page[10][11] and he eventually suggested to go here.[12]

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The conversation needs to have a better structure to avoid talk page discussion running out of control, in my opinion. I think we will probably have to go through all the individual points raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread one by one, and to look at the different sources being used and assess their strengths and weaknesses. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Provide a supportive structure for the editors involved to build consensus on the issues involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wanderer602 and YMB29! I've decided to take this case on myself, if that is ok with both of you. I know that I'm technically the filer of the case, but as I am not actually involved in the dispute I don't think it should be a problem. It's a bit unusual, but hey, we have to ignore all rules once in a while. First I would like you to sign in the section below to indicate that you have read and agree to the ground rules. Once we have agreement on the ground rules, then we can progress to the mediation proper. I would like to progress by getting a short statement on the dispute from each of you, and then we can work through the issues involved one by one until we reach a consensus. If you have any questions about the process you can post on the talk page, or of course, on my user talk. I look forward to having a productive mediation with both of you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we have agreement on the ground rules - thank you for signing them so quickly. The next step is to decide exactly what is being disputed, and I'd like to get a statement from you both on what you consider the dispute to be. Have a look below to see exactly what you should include. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you both for the opening statements. Everything is going ahead nice and smoothly, so thank you very much for that. There is one thing that I'm a little concerned with, which is the somewhat negative tone of some of your opening statements. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you both that we should focus solely on the content of the article; it is really not productive to focus on the supposed motives of the other participants. If we just consider the article content and concentrate on how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relate to them, and keep an open mind, then we will have no trouble at all resolving this dispute. I will look over the statements, the DRN page, and the previous talk in the next couple of days, and decide how to proceed with the mediation. In the meantime, I invite you to kick back, relax, and maybe edit in a subject area you have never tried before. See you back here in a day or so. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
• Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
• When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both of you agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Agree -YMB29 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Whiskey (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - posse72

Hello again, and sorry to keep you waiting! It's strange how a couple of days in the real world can feel like a lifetime on Wikipedia, isn't it? I hope that you can both put your differences behind you, forget all the arguments, you've had on the talk page, and find the common ground that you both share. It's good to take a step back at this stage and remember that we are all here because we want to make Wikipedia the very best resource that it can be. I know that this is true for both of you, and I am looking forward to using the best of both of your unique perspectives and abilities to make these two articles the very best that they can be. Now, I've used a standard mediation schedule to show you how we will proceed through the mediation, and I've also drawn together a list of issues that we will cover. As you can see from the agenda, we will be going through each of the issues turn. First, here is the agenda:

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done

[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done

[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.  Done

[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, the naming of Vyborg/Viipuri. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done - referred to RfC

[22%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, use of sources. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done

[30%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, Baryshnikov. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done

[37%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, portrayal of peace deal talks. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  In progress

[45%] Initiate discussion on the fifth issue, Novyi Beloostrov. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[52%] Initiate discussion on the sixth issue, Soviet intent. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[60%] Initiate discussion on the seventh issue, the impact of the battle. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[67%] Initiate discussion on the eighth issue, the outcome of the battle. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[75%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.

[80%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.

[85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future

[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.

[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of issues which I have drawn up based on your statements and on reviewing the dispute so far. This is also the order in which we will cover them in the mediation.

1. What name to use for the city now known as Vyborg.
2. 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.
3. If we are to use Baryshnikov, what his position on the outcome of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala is.
4. How to describe the Soviet response to the Finnish government's questions about conditions for a possible peace deal.
5. How to characterize the sources' accounts of events at Novyi Beloostrov.
6. How far the Soviets intended to advance into Finland, and whether the Soviet intent was unified.
7. How to characterize the impact of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala on the rest of the Continuation War.
8. How to describe the outcome of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

We will start with the naming issue of Vyborg. I've left an outline of what to do below. If you have any questions, then you can of course ask them on the discussion page or on my user talk. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statements

The opening statements have been moved to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary provisions for an opening statement from User:Posse72

To Posse72 - before you join the mediation, I would like you to write an opening statement, no longer than 300 words, outlining the following points:

1. 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?
2. What problems do you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. 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? Please comment on how the issues you have relate to the key issues we have already outlined above.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

After you provide this statement, I will get the opinions of the other mediation participants, and then discuss the matter with other MedCab mediators to see if we agree on your participation. If everything goes smoothly, then we should just be able to continue from where we left off. I'm looking forward to reading your statment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement by Posse72

Issue one - naming of Vyborg

Issue one discussion has been archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue two - sources

Discussion on issue two archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue four - peace talks

As promised, I think we should move straight on to issue four. We have talked about Baryshnikov quite a lot as part of our discussion of issue two, and in my opinion there's no real reason to have that discussion again as part of issue three. We can save our discussions of his opinions for the issues in which they are relevant. So issue four it is. Here is the wording of issue four:

• How to describe the Soviet response to the Finnish government's questions about conditions for a possible peace deal

As in previous issues, I would like all parties to make a statement, no longer than 250 words, outlining your opinions on this issue. What has the dispute on this issue been centered around? Are there any contentious points of view in the literature? As always I will be looking forward to your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wanderer602 on issue four

As per several sources (references are in articles) the actual Soviet intent with the response is obscure but actual response is very clear in its wording. It requires Finns to first surrender without any conditions before any discussions could be held. Which (as per several sources) amounts to unconditional surrender demand, nothing more, nothing less. The actual Soviet intent is not even relevant since the only thing carried across was the message which - when read word to word - demanded unconditional capitulation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YMB29 on issue four

According to the Russian view, the claim that the Soviet government demanded unconditional surrender in June of 1944 has been developed by Finnish historiography to make it seem like the Finnish Army saved its country from occupation.

No where in the actual text of the Soviet message does the word "unconditional" appear, so the statement "as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender" is false.

Also if it was a written demand for unconditional surrender, why were the Finnish officials debating about how to interpret the message, with some wanting to continue the negotiations?

Even if we ignore Russian sources like Baryshnikov, there is clear evidence that unconditional surrender was never demanded. A good example is the recorded conversation between Stalin and the US ambassador (that took place after the Soviet message to Finland was sent), where Stalin suggests that the US try to clarify to the Finns that he has no intent to occupy their country. Quotes from sources are here: [13]

We have agreed before that the Finnish government simply interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender [14], and this is what is written in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. However, Wanderer602 decided to change his mind for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article... -YMB29 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Whiskey on issue four

I concur with Wanderer with this issue. I'd like to point out that contemporary players, working on the information provided by the Soviet message, Mannerheim and Swedish Foreign Ministry alike, considered it a demand for unconditional surrender. Also, the only available documentary evidence talks about Finnish unconditional surrender. There could be some informing documentary in Kremlin archives, but so far they have not been published for researchers, and it cannot be said which way they would tip the scales. I wouldn't put much weight to the public claims presented after Finns had rejected Soviet message. --Whiskey (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue four discussion

Thank you all for your statements. Let me start by summarizing the points on which I think we all agree:

• The Finnish government interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender
• The actual Soviet intent behind the message is not clear
• Some members of the Finnish government were in favour of asking the Soviets for clarification
• There are arguments by historians for both positions; a) that the message was a demand for unconditional surrender, and b) that it was not

By a process of elimination, then, it seems that all we have to do is find a consensus on the following points:

• Whether we should directly refer to the message as a demand for unconditional surrender (i.e. stating this as a fact in "Wikipedia's voice", without attributing it to a source)
• What weight to give to the arguments by historians for either position

I think the key to getting this resolved is in the details of the wording, so I have set up a proposals page for dealing with this issue. We can use this page to propose new drafts of the section in question, so that we can home in on a version that we all find acceptable. I would like you all to do two things next: first, please indicate whether you agree with my reading of the situation. Second, I would like you all to prepare a draft of the section in question that you believe is an accurate reflection of the coverage of this event in third-party, reliable sources.

While you are preparing your drafts I would like to remind you of our neutral point of view policy, which will be a very useful tool for us to find compromise here. As I'm sure you are all aware, this policy means that your personal preferences and biases should not affect your editing; we should all forget our biases and concentrate solely on accurately representing what is written in reliable sources. Statements that are widely reported as facts in reliable sources, we should also report as facts in Wikipedia. Opinions, or statements of fact that are contradicted by other reliable sources, should be attributed to their authors, and be given appropriate weight.

I would also like to remind you all that any comment that is not focused on the content at hand could be misconstrued. The pages involved here have a history of arguments, and so it is natural that people will react strongly if they suspect a comment is critical of them. To get these issues resolved as quickly and painlessly as possible, it is extremely important that you all refrain from negative personal comments. If you do feel that someone in the mediation has made a negative comment about you, then I recommend leaving a note about it on my talk page, or by emailing me, rather than replying directly. That way I can sort things out myself, and it should save us a lot of drama. Also, just in case you were wondering, positive personal comments are perfectly fine - especially when directed toward the mediator. ;-)

So, to recap, I would like you to:

1. Let me know if you agree with my assessment of this issue.
2. Create a draft at the proposals page that you think most accurately sums up all the arguments made on this issue by reliable third-party sources. If you think the current version suffices, then you don't have to create a new one, but instead please leave a note below so that I know what's going on.

I'll be looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Yours, as always — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. I'd like to point out, that this stuff doesn't belong to the scope of this article, there should be only a very short mention about this here, and more thorough discussion presented in the Continuation War or Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive articles. --Whiskey (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with similar notes as presented by Whiskey. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment. I created a draft with some notes. -YMB29 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read all existing drafts and though i'm satisfied with current version (draft 0) i find the one presented by Whiskey (draft 1) to be better. Therefore I see no point in posting yet another draft. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask a comment from other participants to a point which greatly affects to this issue: This interpretation affects many articles, including Continuation War, Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Battle of Tienhaara... So, do we A)Copy this thing to every article or B)Concentrate the handling of the issue in depth in one article (CW, V-P O or it's own) and create a short reference to that article from other articles? Please answer A or B. --Whiskey (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question, and I will go with whatever the consensus here turns out to be. However, I think that for drafting purposes we can just stick with the long version for now - it will be fairly easy to agree on a shortened version once we've agreed on the full-length one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look - Wanderer602, YMB29, you really have to stop making negative remarks about each other. Speculating on other editors' motives and competence is simply not acceptable. If you want to continue with this mediation then this must stop. If you still want to make these kind of negative remarks, then it will have to be outside of mediation. I warn you, though, that if you continue these kinds of behaviour outside of mediation then the things that may be awaiting you are not pleasant: they include topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for civility, or blocks for edit warring - see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for details. Let's take this discussion forward instead of arguing about each other, so that we can avoid going down that route. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showing both sides of the debate

Hi again guys. Thank you for all your comments and work on creating drafts - it has been very helpful, and I think that we now have a much better handle on what exactly the issues are here. Now, I have been discussing this with some of the other MedCab mediators, and we have come to the same conclusion: the dispute over this particular issue stems from a discrepancy in the sources. On the one hand we have Lunde (2011), who uses "unconditional surrender" and "basically a demand for unconditional capitulation", and Apunen & Wolff (2009) who are even more explicit in their description of the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. On the other hand, we have Maude (2010) who says the memo was "far from a demand for 'unconditional surrender'". There are also undoubtedly other sources with various opinions on this issue. In cases like these, we cannot pick sides. The neutral point of view policy says that we must include all major points of view, and that means that we cannot and should not try and simplify this debate to make it look as if the sources agree on how to interpret the Soviet memo.

So, I have some more homework for you, if you will humour me some more. I would like you each to suggest a wording for the sentence(s) in question that describe both sides of the issue. It might look something like this: "In their 2009 book, Apunen and Wolff argued that the Soviet memo should be interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender; however, Maude (2010) was of the opinion that there could have been some room for negotiation". You can have a look at WP:ASF for some more hints about how to do this. This kind of writing will be the key to finding a compromise that we can all live with, in my opinion. As usual, let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that this is making it more complex than it needs to be. The main problem I have is with the phrase "as it was written" (the Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender). Since sources don't agree on this, there is no reason to have that phrase there. With it removed, the statement will look neutral and won't suggest that any side is wrong.

Furthermore, Lunde is contradictory about this. He not only writes that the demand was unconditional surrender and basically a demand for unconditional capitulation like you said, but he also states that it was interpreted by the Finns as a demand for unconditional surrender (page 302).

The Apunen & Wolff quote does not say that the Soviet demand was directly asking for unconditional surrender, but that conditional surrender to the allies basically meant unconditional surrender. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you are after with this. That is Soviets demanded Finns to surrender without conditions, or at least without knowing any of the conditions, which as it happens is by definition an unconditional surrender. It simply does not matter what the actual demand said in this regard (ie. surrender/capitulate/unconditional surrender), as it explicitly demanded Finns to surrender/capitulate without knowing the conditions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer, let me stop you there just one moment. Previously in the discussion of issue four many of your arguments have been based on what actually happened at the time - "the Soviets demanded Finns to surrender without conditions", "Finns did not have chance to see any of the conditions before accepting the surrender in June 1944", etc. I've been trying to break this to you as gently as possible, but arguments like this are actually totally irrelevant to the decision of what we should put in the article. We can only include what has been written in reliable sources, and those should preferably be third-party sources, especially for a subject like this. We simply cannot include interpretation of events by individual editors. If you take a look at our page on verifiability, not truth you might start to see the logic of this approach. Following on from this, when there is more than one viewpoint expressed in the sources, we must express all the major viewpoints, as outlined in our neutral point of view policy. If there is a discrepancy in the sources, as in this case, then according to Wikipedia policy we cannot present one single narrative. It is very important that you understand and accept this before we move on, because this is really the key to finding a version that we can compromise on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except both of those statements are as per sources. In June 1944 demand the terms were not shown to Finns, instead it demanded surrender without seeing the conditions. ALL sources support this statement so there is nothing wrong with that. That combined with the demand of surrender demand (which was included in the Russian note) means by definition that the demand was a demand for unconditional surrender (even if it was by accidental phrasing of the matter by Soviets or more accurately the Soviet representative in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai). As the demand was written refers to the fact (again supported by the sources) that Finns did not seek clarification from the Soviets and instead made their decision according to the written note. Both facts are supported by plenty of sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so how about you provide some quotes and stop with your own analysis? -YMB29 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes have been provided over and over and over. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have them just admit it. -YMB29 (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems to me here that the problem that we differ in how we are interpreting the sources. It is true that as Wikipedia editors we are allowed some leeway in interpreting the sources - we must often condense many paragraphs of source prose into a few short sentences in articles, and how to do this is of course a matter of judgement. Having said this, it is good practice to stick to the sources as much as possible, especially in disputes. Although I appreciate that quotes from sources have been shown many times before, I think it would be useful for this discussion if we could get a list of quotes and keep them all together, so that we can see at a glance how different authors have characterized the Soviet memo. I'll go ahead and start a new section on this below. Hopefully once we can see all the quotes together it will give us a good picture of whether the sources agree or not, and how many major points of view there are. It should be a lot easier to talk about the sources objectively after that. If, after that, we still have disagreement, then we will have organised the quotes well enough that we can ask opinions from uninvolved editors to break the deadlock. I would appreciate it if you could dig up the quotes on this subject that have been left in various talkpage archives, and list them in the section below. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from sources on the Soviet memo

• Please list quotes from sources here. Don't include a sig, and include links to the source if possible. If you feel a particular author or book would be better represented by a better or longer quote, feel free to add it. Please also refrain from adding commentary in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Aspects of the Governing of the Finns [20]:

...the American legation in Helsinki was reduced to one man, Edmund Gullion, by 29 June 1944. The US ambassador in Moscow, Averell Harriman, had discussed this move with Stalin on 27 June. Stalin then stated that the only thing the Americans might now try was to suggest informally that the Soviet Union had no designs to take over the country. This was remarkable and far from a demand for "unconditional surrender". But the badly-drafted Soviet note demanding "capitulation" had already been sent on 23 June...

From Moisala & Alanen (translated) pp. 58-59:

Kreml informed on 10 March 1944 that the given terms were minimum (level) requirements. .. After two days Finland was informed that it was allowed to sent 1-2 negotiators to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms.

pp. 66-67:

With the message he sent (on 23 June 1944) Stalin had now applied in practice the method of applying force granted for him by the joint Allied agreement: Finland had to surrender unconditionally.

From Capitulation for the Sake of Pristege [21] (original in Russian):

The next day, Kollontai reported to Boheman: "We respect Boheman and believe in his peacekeeping mission. However, since we have been deceived by the Finns several times, we would like to get from the Finnish government an official statement signed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. In the event we receive such a document from the Finnish government, Moscow would be willing to receive a delegation from the Finnish government." The Soviet government did not receive a response to this statement. Finland's Prime Minister E. Linkomies interpreted this statement as a demand for unconditional surrender.

From Lunde pp. 259-260:

That peace offer was now made through the Soviet ambassador in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai. Finland did not dare to jeopardize its relationship with the US and dispatched the former prime minister Dr. Juho K. Paasikivi, to Stockholm to receive the Soviet terms. .. Finnish delegation returned from Moscow on April 1, 1944. The conditions given the Finns for a peace were no more lenient than those offered in Stockholm.

From Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947 [22]:

At the summit conference of the Big Three at Teheran in November-December 1943, Marshal Stalin was at pains to stress that an independent Finland remained one of the Soviet Union's war aims. Churchill and Roosevelt expressed their approval of the peace terms proposed by the Soviet Union for Finland, though the British prime minister doubted the ability of Finland to pay the war reparations demanded. Having expected the Soviet Union to demand unconditional surrender, Churchill and Roosevelt were agreeably surprised by Stalin's readiness to negotiate with Finland. Through their press and radio, and diplomatic channels in the case of the United States, the Western powers sought to induce the Finns to start discussions.

...The Finnish government interpreted the Soviet reply to their offer of negotiations as a demand for unconditional surrender, which was not considered acceptable.

From Vehviläinen (2002) Finland in the Second World War pp. 139-140 [23]:

The reply from Moscow came the following day. It referred to previous fruitless negotiations and required from Finland a declaration signed by the President and the Foreign Minister that Finland was prepared to surrender and to sue the Soviet government for peace. On receipt of such a document, Moscow was willing to receive a Finnish delegation.

...Thus the Finnish government was left to choose between the surrender demanded by the Soviet Union and the undertaking required by Germany.

From Baryshnikov (2006) The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation' [24]

Stalin said the following: "...the Soviet government was willing to receive from the Finnish government a document signed by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister, which would indicate that Finland capitulates and asks the Russians for peace. However, it has been almost a week since the Finns were notified, but no reply was received from them."

Thus in this case Stalin was not talking about unconditional surrender, but just of a surrender, which included the bilateral negotiations concerning the determination of terms for the armistice agreement. For this a Finnish delegation was expected to come to Moscow. In other words, with this formulation capitulation meant to only follow the demand to lay down arms, that is to stop the hostilities so that peace talks could begin. Furthermore, the Armistice Commission, headed by K. E. Voroshilov, that existed in the Soviet Union since September of 1943, was preparing during June-August of 1944 protocols of the surrender terms for Finland, Romania and Hungary, in place of the previously existing draft documents for unconditional surrender of the three states. These new "conditions" were given to V. M. Molotov and later used as the basis for preparing the corresponding peace agreements.

From Apunen & Wolff (2009) Pettureita ja Patriootteja ("Traitors and patriots") pp.355-356

Gripenberg received Moscow ultimatum fighting with his emotions and neither did heavily disappointed Boheman hide his feelings. Allied diplomats tried to calm down Swedes in Moscow, that Russians were still ready to negotiate. Boheman knew exactly what was there, as he tried without success to get Russians to change word "surrender" to some other expression. Kollontai didn't accept "ending the war" or " laying down the arms", what in any case was a traditional sign of surrender. Kollontai comforted Boheman, that Finland was not demanded to surrender but only to announce that it was ready to surrender. In practise the difference mentioned by Madame was next to nothing, because Soviet response followed the form of unconditional surrender western allies had used in Italy. According to that enemy should announce it's readiness to surrender and send it's representatives to deliver instruments of surrender and to receive conditions of the surrender. The mediators decided to give up. Foreign minister Günther announced that Swedish participation was only harmful. Boheman advised Finns to act quickly according to Soviet demands. Instead of surrender they should offer "to lay down their arms".

Laying down the arms hardly would have helped in this situation, as comission lead by marshall Kliment Voroshilov provided - apparently for Finnish delegation - June 26 1944 to the commissariat of the foreign affairs 56-sectioned document for unconditional surrender of Finland. It was originally prepared already in October 1943 when preparing to Teheran Conference.

From Apunen & Wolff (2009) p. 371

The intentions of Kollontai were clarified from other sources. She invited in her own initiative July 14 1944 ambassador Hans Beck-Friis to tell him, that there still was a small possibility to make peace with Finland...

Beck-Friis noticed, that Kollontai never mentioned surrender, so he asked, didn't the demand of surrender affect the issue. To this Kollontai muttered something about "misunderstanding". The question wasn't at all about the unconditional surrender. Beck-Friis thought, that Russians were talking about "political surrender", the negotiations would be started without ending the hostilities. But in this part Kollontai was very vague.

From Polvinen (1964) Suomi suurvaltojen politiikassa 1941-1944 p.265

Mrs. Kollontai thought that "surrender" perhaps meant just "ending the fight", but couldn't say anything sure about the issue. At Helsinki this definition was interpreted literally.

Moving forward

I have moved this thread from the end of the initial issue 4 discussion above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so let's move forward. Almost all the quotes listed so far (except one) don't support the statement that the Soviets demanded unconditional surrender ("as it was written"); the sources agree that the Finns interpreted it as so. -YMB29 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly per sources, Finnish interpretation was based on the written note. Hence as it was written, if Soviet stated intent differed from of the demand written to the note then even more so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting does not mean reading it as it was written... Again, we have the actual text and the word unconditional does not appear there. If you are making the argument that it must have been a direct demand for unconditional surrender because that is the way the Finns interpreted it, please provide a source, otherwise it is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per what was discussed earlier that word does not need to appear in the text. All that matters is that demand explicitly demanded Finns to surrender without knowing the conditions which would have been by definition an unconditional surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is your interpretation. Once again, can you provide a quote from a source for this analysis of the text? -YMB29 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See unconditional surrender, first statement: "Unconditional surrender is a surrender without conditions, in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party". Which is exactly what Soviet demanded stated. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it exactly stated. This is an interpretation. Are you going to provide a source or not? -YMB29 (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mannerheim (Memoirs, part II, p. 450, translated):

"Because the Finns have repeatedly betrayed us, we want Finnish government to issue an announcement signed by the President and the minister of foreign affairs that Finland is ready to surrender and turn to Soviet government to request peace. If we receive this kind of announcement from the Finnish government the Moscow is prepared to receive Finnish delegation."

Moisala & Alanen (p. 66, translated, attributed to Tuomo Polvinen from book Teheranista Jaltaan. Suomi kansainvälisessä politiikassa II: 1944 - From Teheran to Jalta. Finland in International Politics - written 1980. p. 68):

"As Soviet Union has been repeatedly betrayed by the Finns we wish to receive from the Finnish government a report signed by the President and the minister of foreign affairs that Finland is ready to surrender and request peace from the Soviet Union. If we receive this kind of document from the Finnish government the Moscow is prepared to receive Finnish delegation".

Moisala & Alanen (p. 66, translated, attributed to E. Salminen Ribbentrop-sopimus - Ribbentrop-pact - written 1955):

"Because Finns have repeatedly betrayed us, we want Finnish government to issue an announcement signed by the President and the minister of foreign affairs that Finland is ready to surrender and turn to Soviet Union to request peace. If we receive this kind of announcement Moscow is ready to receive Finnish delegation."

All three versions are the same in their core content. Finnish government must first produce an official announcement - written document - signed by the leaders in foreign affairs that it is ready to surrender. Which in itself is already document of surrendering. Again, Finnish delegation would not be allowed into Moscow before this. None of the versions state that there would be any kind of discussions of peace terms, only that Finnish delegation should be sent to Moscow (could be for negotiations, but could as well be only for hearing out the terms). As per unconditional surrender it should be rather straightforward to see that in this demand - either by accident or by intent (irrelevant) - Soviet leadership demanded Finns to issue a statement of surrender without conditions. If that is not unconditional surrender then the definition of unconditional surrender is wrong. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me frame this disagreement in a different way. I think we are disagreeing about which statements in the article are fact, and which statements are opinion. I am sure you are both aware of our policy of attributing points of view, part of the neutral point of view policy, which says that we must always attribute an opinion to its source. My idea in the "showing both sides of the debate" section above was that we could use this policy to attribute different opinions in the article, resolving the dispute in the process. However, this obviously won't work if we are disagreeing about what is fact and what is opinion. While I think we are in agreement on the vast majority of the facts in the drafts that have been made so far, we are obviously not in agreement about the claim that the Soviet draft memo was a demand for unconditional surrender. As I see it, Wanderer602 thinks this is a self-evident fact, but YMB29 thinks it is an opinion which should be attributed to a reliable source. As this central disagreement between you two doesn't look like it has come any closer to being resolved here, how about asking outside editors for their advice? I was thinking that we could post at a noticeboard such as the neutral point of view noticeboard or the original research noticeboard. Would you both be willing to give this a try? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the same to me, though i did provide several reliable sources (even post-1991) which state that it was demand for unconditional surrender. All I'm saying is that what eventually reached the Finns was a demand for an unconditional surrender, Soviet actual intent (originally) may have been different, after all it is known that there were intermediaries involved. But the Soviet intent does not change what was in the note Finns received. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the quotes above that clearly say that unconditional surrender is how the Finns interpreted it and not that it was a direct demand. Then we have Wanderer602's own analysis of why it was really a direct demand for unconditional surrender, which he still has not provided a source for. Do we really need outside help to determine what is opinion and what is not? Also, those noticeboards did not really help resolve any disputes for us. -YMB29 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the collected quotes you can easily see that understanding the demand as a demand for an unconditional surrender is not limited as to being Finnish interpretation. It is after all exactly what the note said. Stated or actual Soviet intent is irrelevant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So YMB29, does this mean that you took this dispute to one of these noticeboards before? Do you have the link to that discussion? As for whether it is necessary, let me explain my reasoning. I have already explained to all of you that we must include all major points of view, and that we must attribute opinions to their author. So now we have reduced the current issue down to a binary choice - is it a fact, or isn't it? With these sorts of choices, getting outside opinion is usually the best way of resolving things. As for what policy says on this, we have WP:ASF which says that a fact is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". I could try and argue whether the claim in question is disputed or not based on the sources we have, but then this would just be my opinion on the matter. If we can get multiple uninvolved editors to comment on this, then the consensus will become much more convincing, and the proper course of action should start to be become clear to all involved. Does this answer your concerns? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I mentioned attempts to resolve an issue at the original research noticeboard before.[25][26] I think we will be lucky to get a couple of responses there...

You are the mediator so your opinion does count for a lot here, but I am not even asking for your opinion. I am just asking you to make sure the rules and guidelines are being followed. The point is that Wanderer602's claim (and his arguments for it) that the text of the Soviet note directly demanded unconditional surrender ("as it was written") is not backed up by any of the quotes, so it is his own interpretation, original research. He is presenting it as a fact when it cannot even be attributed to a source. So why do we need outside opinion to tell if original research is a fact or not? -YMB29 (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding my role here. Mediators are neutral parties, and should not take sides - if I took a side and tried to issue a ruling, then I would be an arbitrator, not a mediator, and other people are doing that job already. My role is more that of a facilitator, trying to get both sides to agree with each other. Besides, it's not like I have kept my opinions completely to myself - last time it didn't get us very far though. Of course, you're right that we have to stick to the policies and guidelines strictly; I am just trying to do that without issuing judgements, as any long-lasting resolution is going to be one that all editors agree on. Maybe we can try a couple more things before going to an outside noticeboard, though. Wanderer602, are you sure you would not be willing to soften the wording at all? How about using something like "because of the way the memo was phrased, the Finns considered it tantamount to a demand for unconditional surrender"? Remember that you will both have to compromise to get this dispute resolved - you agreed to that when you signed the ground rules. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to take sides here, but to just point out things for what they are. I know we have to compromise, but if one side is not following the rules, why should this go unnoticed? If we will be constantly trying to find a compromise between reliable sources and original research, we won't get anywhere... -YMB29 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem there is that the note is not really ambiguous in any way. It demands are clearly stated 1) Finnish surrender 2) no negotiations (or even terms) before surrender (actually there was no mention of negotiations of any kind). Therefore I see there no point in making such statements, what can be mentioned is that Soviet leadership at least later on claimed that it was not demand for unconditional surrender or that use of intermediaries in getting the message across could have corrupted it (IIRC Soviet representative in Stockholm, mrs. Kollontai, even stated so, can't remember the source though). However the final message the Finns got was not ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or another plan - how about including the translated text of the memo in the article itself? That way we could leave readers to decide for themselves whether it was a demand for unconditional surrender or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly acceptable solution to me. I have no problems with that assuming the context in which it is presented is neutral. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we still have to write how the Finns took the response, so same problem... -YMB29 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to everyone! I'll add the relevant quotes later today, but to move forward this discussion one should be aware that Swedes, who were acting as mediators, asked Kollontai to remove the term "surrender" from the June 23 answer. When Kollontai refused, Swedes decided to withdraw from mediation. So Swedes clearly considered the given formulation for something malevolent, not just an invitation to negotiations. Also, later in June, when Swedish ambassador in Helsinki Mr. Friis-Beck visited home, he met with Kollontai in an attempt to restart peace process. During her answer, Mrs. Kollontai didn't use the word "surrender" at all and finally Friis-Beck queried about that directly. Kollontai answered evasively that it was a "misunderstanding". --Whiskey (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the message was not meant to be a friendly invitation... We could argue about what the Soviets really meant, but the issue now is what exactly does the text say. So far the quotes from sources show that the text might not have been clear about what exactly was demanded, but not that it was a direct demand for unconditional surrender. -YMB29 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was reading through the archives of the mediation committee yesterday, and I came across a quote which I think applies to this situation very well. It was: "no amount of mediation can fix the 'point of view' that black is white". In other words, if we have a dispute over the basic facts, rather than over how to portray opinions, then no amount of negotiation will find a resolution. At the moment we have a situation where YMB29 and Wanderer602 are both pointing to the same set of quotes, and using them to draw different conclusions about the facts of the matter. Let's start from where we all agree - the actual text of the Soviet memo, as quoted by Wanderer602 above. I hope you will all agree that the actual text is indisputable.

Now, any interpretation of that text is opinion, of course. But we are disagreeing here over what constitutes an interpretation of the source. Wanderer602 is arguing that calling this text a demand for unconditional surrender is a paraphrase of the source - that it is inherently obvious from the text. YMB29 is arguing that this is an interpretation, and that summarizing this text as a demand for unconditional surrender amounts to original research. Despite all that we have written about this over the last few weeks, we don't seem to have come any closer in reaching an agreement on this central point.

So, as we disagree about what is fact and what is opinion, the next logical step here is to ask uninvolved editors what they think on the matter. This way we can find wider community consensus on the issue, which will be a lot more productive than arguing about what is white and what is black. We can do this by going to a noticeboard, as I suggested above, or by having a small RfC. If we go the RfC route, there's no need to make it a big, structured debate like the last one - we can just have a simple discussion, and end the RfC when people's opinions become clear. Let me know which one you would prefer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any need for such especially after the quotes provided by Whiskey. However, if it is decided that outside opinion is needed, then so be it, I do not oppose it. As for the method, that is all the same to me, though i have my doubts (as seen from previous attempts) that either route would actually produce any concrete results. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC will probably be better since the noticeboard did not help the last time. -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only criticism of the RfC below is that it neglects to mention that there are sources which state it was a demand for unconditional surrender. For example Moisala & Alanen does so without any remarks that it would be just Finnish leaderships interpretation (p. 66). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have two interpretations from the same source from above: Baryshnikov states that Voroshilov's committee changed the demanded unconditional surrender from the document prepared for Teheran Conference to something else during June-August 1944, while Apunen & Wolff describe it was this committee which proposed the unconditional surrender at June 26,1944. Necessarily these two interpretations do not contradict each other, as it could be possible that the committee changed it's recommendation during the summer. But I'd like to know it's exact text it provided in June 26,1944 to clarify this issue. --Whiskey (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the RfC text... I think we don't agree about the Soviet intention. In fact it is the stumbling block, as YMB29 prefers that Soviet intention was not to demand unconditional surrender, and Wanderer602 and I consider that the Soviet intention was to demand unconditional surrender. --Whiskey (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Soviet intention does not even matter, after all what matters is how this information was conveyed to the Finns. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the part about Soviet intention. I think it would be helpful to bear in mind, however, that it doesn't matter what we think the Soviet intention was - the only thing that matters is what reliable sources think the Soviet intention was. Our opinion as editors should have no bearing on what goes into the final article. But then, that's probably what you meant to say, right? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Soviet intention has any relevance regarding to what is actually said in the note. After all information was not relayed in in-depth discussions but instead on a single note. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the part about Soviet intention as just background to the RfC. We may discuss how to portray Soviet intention later on, but for now we are just dealing with the text of the memo itself. Apologies if my reply confused the issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: interpretation of sources

To all the uninvolved editors who have contributed here, thank you very much for your comments! I think they have been very helpful. Let me have a look at the results we have got so far. Three of the four uninvolved editors, Buggie111, Noleander, and Czarkoff, have argued against saying that the note was a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice; the fourth, OrangeMike, did not directly comment on the question. To me, this looks like a consensus against including the claim of a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice. I am aware of Wanderer602's views on the issue, but consensus does not equal unanimity, and I hope he will be willing to accept the opinions of the outside editors on this issue with dignity and good grace. Wanderer602, would you be willing to continue in this mediation with the understanding that we will treat the "unconditional surrender" claim as opinion, not as fact? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the phrasing is set into something akin to "The Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response - which required Finnish government to announce Finnish surrendering without knowing the conditions - as a demand for unconditional surrender." then i suppose it is fine. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! Sorry to concentrate on the small details here, but before we talk about the phrasing we will use in the article, would you specifically agree to treat the claim that "the Soviet memo was a demand for unconditional surrender" as an opinion, not a fact? I think it is important that we are all on the same page before we continue our discussion. In fact, I think this is so important that I am going to create a new section for it, so please answer in that section, not here. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on how to treat the Soviet memo

Per the comments of the uninvolved editors at the recent RfC on this page, it looks as if we have reached consensus about the nature of the Soviet memo, although agreement is not unanimous. In light of this, I would like to get a statement of agreement from all the mediation participants, so that we can proceed with realistic expectations of what the outcome of the mediation will be. Here is the statement I would like you to agree with:

Please sign below to indicate that you agree with this statement. Any discussion should go in the section directly above this one.

• — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is too obvious. -YMB29 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With same reservations as stated before and with clear understanding that it was not solely interpreted as such by Finns (ie. what for example Moisala&Alanen, Lunde, etc. state), i can agree. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but with strong reservations. I still view it better if we do NOT make a stand if the memo was or wasn't a demand for unconditional surrender, but state simply that "Soviets demanded Finnish surrender, which Finns rejected." All the rest should be explained in some place deemed suitable. Otherwise we do make a stand that the Soviet memo was not a demand for unconditional surrender, which is NOT a consensus among the researchers. --Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the coming editors, we need a wording which will form a stable version to the article. Otherwise it will be repeatedly edited, expanded and replaced for both ways, as there are reliable sources going both ways (as has been established...) The statement above is a simplest of forms and summarizes what was in the Soviet memo and how Finns reacted to it. I truly think we could all live with that, especially if we make the expanded version somewhere (but not in this article). Comments? --Whiskey (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for agreeing to this. Whiskey, I completely agree with you. I think there are two levels involved here: the level of fact (that the Soviets demanded Finnish surrender, and that the Finns rejected this) and the level of opinion (the different views that historians/the Finnish government have as to whether the demand for surrender was unconditional or not). Now that we have all agreed, despite our reservations, not to treat "unconditional" as fact, we can choose which level we would like to see in this article. If we want to keep it simple, then Whiskey's wording above sounds good to me. If we want to make it longer, then we can include all the different viewpoints from the Finns and the scholars about the "unconditional" claim, attributing those viewpoints to their sources. I also agree that the simple version would work well in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article, and that a longer version might work better in another article (Continuation War?), but I will leave this decision up to all of you. YMB29, Wanderer602, what do you think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be changed to something like "the Soviets demanded an official Finnish statement of a willingness to surrender, which was rejected", it will be more accurate. -YMB29 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, things have been very quiet here recently. Now that we have agreed about the "unconditional" claim, at least in principle, how would you feel about taking this back to the talk page and discussing it between yourselves? It could make this process a lot quicker, as long as you behave yourselves. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

I'm closing this now, as things are simply moving too slowly for us to make meaningful progress with this dispute. I don't like to do this when we still have many issues left to resolve, but I think it is probably time to take things back to the talk page and try and work them out there. Continuing this dispute resolution thread doesn't look like it will be a productive use of our time. I will still be watching the article to make sure conversations are productive, and I have witnessed you all become better at working with each other since October, so I think with a little bit of good faith from all sides there is no reason why you can't work out your differences on the article talk pages. I will still be around to give advice, and feel free to copy any of the content from the drafting page to use. I wish you all the best of luck with your editing. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see a point in closing this when little got resolved.

This would have moved faster if we did not have to wait for Whiskey all the time, who is not really active.

Also having an RfC to prove that 2+2=4 wasted a lot of time...

So what now? I guess back to going in circles on the talk page and edit warring? -YMB29 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against opening this back up if it looks like there is a need for it. Before I closed this, there was hardly any participation at all, and therefore hardly any need for mediation. Give this another try on the talk page, and this time try and concentrate on resolving one thing at a time. If you still run into problems, then you can either leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll re-open the case, or you can file a new case at the Mediation Committee. (As this dispute has already been through MedCab once, it now qualifies for the Mediation Committee if it has not been resolved.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were leading the discussion and waiting for every participant to respond before continuing, so I did not add anything new after I answered your last suggestion. I thought you would ask us about closing this first. -YMB29 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was, but things were going far too slowly that way. Think of this as a wake-up call. :) And remember, I will be around to help if things start to go wrong. We can continue this conversation on my talk page if you like, but I won't reply here any more - it is closed, after all. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]