Talk:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

Untitled

Needed:

The name of the anthem. The Coat of arms. (i believ there is one) Ruler leader business needs to be dealt with.

---

What should i do about ranking for this? - fonzy

---

Another question. It appears (unless i have nto found the right source) that there is no name for the anthem of Estonian SSR. The only thing i found was this: Niinimetatudn "EESTI NÕUKOGUDE SOTSIALISTLIKU VABARIIGI" HÜMN, which is Estonian for "The so called Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic anthem.

Anthem

The anthem was: "Jää kestma Kalevite kange rahvas"

"Anthem of the Estionian Soviet Socialist Republic" is the title I heard the most, but the above line is just the first line of lyrics from the anthem (a lot of anthems from the former USSR have this practice) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the anthem did not have a proper title per se, so it was commonly referred to by calling it "the anthem" or using the first line. By the way, the line should have a comma in it after "kestma". Digwuren 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Estonian SSR

As far as I remember, the flag of Estonian SSR was slightly different from what is seen on this page! The "sea" was not "floating" like that, but was instead similar to what can be seen on the Latvian flag (i.e. no red line under the blue "sea").

Flag seems right to me. I remember that this was main difference between Estonian an Latvian SSR flags: estonian had some red space under "sea".80.235.27.168 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias?!

I can accept the effect of USSR on Estonia to some extent but how can you claim that every bad thing happened to Estonia was caused by USSR influence. The article starts with the term "puppet state", I think you must cite sources for that claim and give better explanation why you think like that. In my homeland, Turkey, we have a cliché sentence that we use after bad things happened, "Where is the state!" and the most famous answer to it is "Do at least some of your work yourself, don't expect everything from the state"... So throwing all the guilt to a collapsed socialist state is no good for Estonian history. At least, I think in this way. See you, Deliogul 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"...Estonia was caused by USSR influence." First of all, let's try and be accurate in our statements. It isn't USSR influence but USSR's occupation and annexation that is being written about. Second, how can you be raising an issue with calling the Estonia SSR a puppet state? If it wasn't a puppet state then from whom did Estonia declare independence from in 1991? And if it wasn't a puppet state then why is almost 1/3 of it's citizens natives from Russia with no historical roots to Estonia and who all arrived when Estonia was a 'supposed' puppet state? Why would an independent Estonian state send over tens of thousands of Estonians to Siberian work camps?(Claims are refrenced in below link) Maybe you should first become familiar with the subject matter before posting irresponsible claims of bias. Here is a nice start:[2]. After reading this then you will see how utterly offensive your entire post was and how poor it reflects on you as a user of Wikipedia. Please refrain from making more irresponsible claims of bias. Aleksanteri82 17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppet state is an established term in study of international politics, not mere empty euphemism. Digwuren 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Power output

The Great Soviet Encyclopædia's entry on power output changes is problematic. Specifically, it uses as a basis of comparison the data of 1940. 1940 happens to fall into WWII and the time of early Soviet occupation in Estonia; it is the first year of massive destruction, as documented in the Valge raamat.

I do not think this problem can be fixed. Until a better source for power output can be found, I'm removing the section on power output. Digwuren 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide references to other power output numbers, or references, where is claimed, that something comparable by power output to Narva Power Plants existed, but was destroyed prior to 1940, please do so. But once again, please, don't remove referenced inf. You freely cite modern Estonian sources, why someone can't cite Soviet ones? Cmapm 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular source is abstracted in a way that is highly misleading.

Specifically, it compares the 1975 power output against power output of 1940, which was a year of great destruction of industrial facilities, as documented by the ORURK report, and as I have described in the article. An indicative comparison would be against, say, the year of 1938.

Furthermore, for proper historical context, five other important things should be pointed out:

1. Most of the power output was used to run plants built by the occupation army to serve Soviet interests. Their output was "exported" to other Soviet regions without compensation; in essence, the power output's only significance to Estonian territories was that it was converted into industrial output here.
2. The Narva plants were fed by oil shale mined exclusively from local deposits in a robber-like way, causing extensive environmental damages.
3. The reason the plants were among the biggest oil shale powered plants in the world had nothing to do with them being especially giantic. Rather, it's just that Estonian oil shale deposits are among the largest in the world.
4. Burning oil shale is one of the most wasteful ways of using it, as it is an extremely valuable source for chemical industry, though, unfortunately, little researched. A more efficient development would have been extracting the carbon compounds, processing them into valuable chemical industry products, selling them, buying coal for the proceeds, and then burning the coal. Unfortunately, the necessary research was never properly funded.
5. Estonian oil shale has another interesting characteristic: it contains mineable amounts of uranium. The uranium used in the very first nuclear weapons manufactured in Soviet Union was primarily mined near Sillamäe, Estonia. If the Soviets had not occupied Estonia, a viable scenario is that by 1980s, Estonia's power needs would have had been met by a nuclear reactor powered by locally mined uranium. (Currently, the related technologies are being researched in Sweden.)

Digwuren 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So you once again decided to remove referenced inf. without presenting numbers for 1938 instead. I am to revert this. So far you didn't cite any alternative source, where numbers for power output would be presented. Look, I don't need your explanation, like you and any other Wikipedian don't need my explanations, we are here to cite our sources. Cmapm 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased article rewriting

I reverted edits by Digwuren, as they completely rewrote the article, removing references and citing almost exclusively modern Estonian source, which, taken alone, can't be considered to provide NPOV. One could compare Valge Raamat to Great Soviet Encyclopedia to see how different are modern Estonian POV from the Soviet POV. I think, both should be presented, as did, I believe, previous article version, to which I am reverting now.

Please, expand the article, instead of completely rewriting it to represent just one POV (modern Estonian in this case). Such rewriting, I believe, cannot be done at least without discussion on the talk page and consensus reached.Cmapm 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversal replaced well-sourced data with a few "touchy-feely" claims framed in POV. Thus, I have reverted it. This particular book is a report of results of ten years of historical research, backed with hundreds of underlying primary and secondary sources. It's about as authoritative as they go.

Your attempts to give undue weight to modernity of this book are indications of bad faith. If you push the issue, I will explain in the article why such estimates couldn't have been made earlier. I have a source in mind already. Consider yourself threatened. Digwuren 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on early industrial investments. I have currently too many other things to do to construct an overview of later developments, but I trust somebody will do it eventually. Perhaps, this somebody will even be myself. Digwuren 15:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is touchy-feely? The data on population? Please, present other figures on birth/death rate, in case you know them. I don't feel threatened - cite whatever you want, but please, respect alternative sources and don't make the article a modern Estonian POV solo. Note, I don't remove heavy accusation on huge "economic damages", which are supported only by an Estonian source. But if you want to go into edit war, I'll do this and present more figures, that you should like to omit or remove. I'll also consider adding this inf. into other Estonia-related articles to balance them. Cmapm 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is cited. Happy? Digwuren 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits once again. Look, your completely rewritten article cites Valge Raamat 17 times, while other sources are cited 3 times. Now we have not just a heavy issue of non-neutrality, but also copyright violation issue. Please, have a look inside Valge Raamat and pay attention to "All rights reserved" notice before citing it to such an extent again. Cmapm 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your unwarranted removal of sourced material amounts to vandalism. I will revert it. Furthermore, I'm pointing out that your understanding of copyright is severely lacking. Digwuren 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you're so full of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you're grasping at any straw that offers a pretext. I can't decide which of these two options is more charitable. Digwuren 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added text is NOT a copyright violation. It is a narrative supported by CITED source and not banned by ANY copyright law. Stop looking for pretext to removal instead of improving.--Alexia Death 16:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To both "Alexia Death" and "Digwuren": Where is vandalism? I just revert the article to the state, it looked like prior to Digwuren's "Thorough revision", i.e. vandal-like removal of existing references and subsequent extensive one source citation throughout the article. I don't think you can find too many articles in Wikipedia with such 17:3 score win by citations from a copyrighted source - I believe it to be a clear copyright violation by Digwuren. Not speaking about introduction of heavy POV as underlined above. Cmapm 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As said, removal of this fully cited material is vandalism. If you feel that your good source has been removed unduly by what is added(much more than one little bit) work it into the existing text with your own narrative in stead of reverting. As to your copyright violation claims, I say it again, they are completely and utterly wrong. Do read up on copyright before making a fool out of yourself. Do this again and I'll warn ya for vandalism. --Alexia Death 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You should familiarise yourself with copyright law. As it is, you're making rather foolish statements on the topic. Furthermore, there is no "underlined above" regarding "heavy POV" in the article; I checked above. You should add such "underlining" if you can base it on reality, of course. Digwuren 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet you didn't explain why are you constantly pushing Estonian POV more and more. Until no comparable amount of citations Soviet sources are present, I'll simply revert to revision where both sides were represented comparably. Cmapm 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet sources simply do not exist on a number of important topics mentioned in this article. For example, have you ever tried to find a Soviet source explaining how Soviet sources use propaganda for disinformation purposes? Digwuren 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They do exist, but you removed references to them, "thoroughly rewriting" the article to the current state, with easily seen overwhelming preference to modern Estonian references and heavy POV in almost each sentence. Cmapm 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OH! and as to NPOV, By trying to censor claimed POV out of this article, you wot achieve it. you WILL achieve it by adding your knowlege and countering the current text with your own neutalizing POV supported by reliable sources. Are you up for it? Or will you keep whining?--Alexia Death 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I'm lazy, so I choose another alternative, which requires less work from myself - to revert Digwuren's POV pushing in each sentence to the state the article was before. I see, that Soviet sources have no value for Estonian POV pushing supporters, so by my upcoming reverts I will also show you, that Soviet sources are much more reliable in my opinion than modern Estonian ones. Cmapm 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT! In that case I am in my full rights of reverting your actions. --Alexia Death 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not repent of any of my words. I believe this is not the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the case of initial removal of existing references and pushing heavy POV in almost each sentence since then on, and even with possible copyright infringement. Cmapm 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is disgrace, I see extremely limited argumentation here. Cmapm, lets look for a second article before Digwuren started editing it[3], and now after it[4]. I would say there is some progress. If you have some objections then be more precise what do you not like, and make your proposal how to fix it. Blanket statements in style "this is POV" and canvassing [5] is not going to help your cause.--Staberinde 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a large POV pushing (which is now present in almost each sentence) and possible copyright infringement progress. I've already specified all my points above, none of them are addressed yet. And let's respect other users' usernames and write them without mistakes, in this case this is very easy for a literate man - there are just five letters.Cmapm 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Balancing is not done simply by deleting content, otherwise in all disputed subjects wikipedia articles would be only short stubs. If you think that some paragarph is not balanced then you should consider expanding it so that it would expail both POVs, add content instead of removing it. And if you think there is copyright problem then you should probably ask some administator to check the situation.--Staberinde 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And I appologize for spelling mistake in your name.--Staberinde 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, apologies accepted, don't mention it.

The point is that Digwuren completely rewrote the article, removing references and citing almost exclusively modern Estonian source. He did not propose such rewriting on the talk page, while I object to it and see all his edits since then to be full of heavy POV and contain copyright infringement, so, I'm reverting it to the state, the article was prior to his one-sided POV pushing. Cmapm 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian version

Just noticed Russian version is outdated (written from Russian point of view only) and needs complete rewrite. — lim 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing -- you should see ru:История Эстонии. Digwuren 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Institute of Cybernetics

I have heard a story that explained how the "politically proper" Party channels considered cybernetics to be a "nasty science", and thus opposed creation of the Institute of Cybernetics, leading finally to its formation under the Institute of Physics. The story also mentions that Gustav Naan was involved in developing this compromise.

Can this story be sourced, or is it apocryphal? If it can, it would fit nicely into the section on technological lag, as a prelude to the classical story of Juku and a number of Soviet clones of American computers. Digwuren 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Now that the article is protected, are there any constructive improvement suggestions?

Myself, I've been working on a subsection on activities of Glavlit in occupied Estonia. I'll probably shove it into my userspace when it'll be reasonably sourced. Digwuren 04:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe constructive improvement suggestions to be pretty clearly listed in the Talk:Estonian SSR#Biased article rewriting section above. I don't think we should create yet another thread for the same discussion. Cmapm 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The article links to Five-Year Plan, which is a disambiguation page. Please change the link to Five-Year Plan (USSR). Digwuren 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the year numbers of 1946-1950 should probably also be mentioned in connection with the Fourth FYP. Digwuren 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disambiguated Five-Year Plan (USSR), but any further trivial edits will need to wait until after the page is unprotected. - auburnpilot talk 07:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

As of June 8, the clash appears to have wound down. I'm going to request unprotection. Digwuren 11:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates to be included

{{Editprotected}} I've nominated currently protected version for possible copyright infringement. Hence, the following two tags should be placed into the article:

• {{copyvio | url=http://www.riigikogu.ee/public/Riigikogu/ValgeRaamat.pdf}}
• {{POV|Biased article rewriting|date=June 2007}}

Thank you in advance. Cmapm 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This editprotected request has been rejected. It's clear that you have a long history with this page. I believe that the listing itself on Wikipedia:Copyright problems will be sufficient. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about POV tag rejection? Isn't it clear, that POV dispute continues here? Cmapm 00:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I think, it's clear, where POV issues in the protected version and an alternative version of the article are discussed, so please, add the following tag:

• {{POV|Biased article rewriting|date=June 2007}}

Cmapm 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement examples

Cmapm, what specific items of WP:NPOV violations do you see on this page? The copyvio claims continue to be bullshit. Digwuren 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cmapm, please copy here the passages that you consider copyvio, and give the link to the sourse you suspect it was coppied from. To nominate for copyvio, you need to give AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE. The only obvious copyvio is when someone cut-and-pasted several pages, which is clearly not the case here. Writting an article about Coca-Cola does not require pre-approval from Coca-Cola, so please give some examples. Otherwise, I move for removing the copyvio tag within 96 hours of it being placed.

The same thing for POV - you need to explain the reason in the talk page. It can be understandable if you can not sourse any of your doubts right away, but without at least being specific to which sentences you refer, placing arbitrary tags is disruptive. Take 2-3 days, but then please respond. If you don't explain clearly that there is a different POV, then sorry - until the existence of a different POV in sourses is not shown, we should assume there is no POV. Again, a couple days to wait is ok, but if you don't come back, then sorry.:Dc76 10:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a glance into Digwuren's version of the article and here you are, Valge Raamat, p.49:

Nõukogude alkoholipoliitika toel tõusis alkoholism üleliiduliseks terviseprobleemiks. Eestis püüti seda tembeldada kodanlikuks igandiks ning avalikkuse ees maha vaikida. 1985. aastani oli keelatud ajakirjanduses avaldada andmeid, kui palju tarbitakse alkoholi ühe elaniku kohta.23 See näitaja saavutas kõrgpunkti aastail 1982–1984: 11,2 liitrit.

Please, translate it and find 10 differences with the following excerpt from the article:

Due to Soviet alcohol policies, alcoholism became a growing health issue. In order to save face, the Party organs attempted to cover it up; up to year 1985 (see glasnost), it was illegal to publish statistical data on alcohol sales. This indicator became the greatest in 1982-1984, when it reached 11.2 litres. Do you think, that if someone translates copyrighted work, the text becomes Free? Cmapm 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a nearly-exact translation of the Estonian passage you mention:

“ Supported by Soviet alcohol politics, alcoholism rose to be an all-Union health problem. In Estonia, attempts were made to paint it as a bourgeois relic and not be mentioned in public. Up to year 1985, it was prohibited to publish in media data on how much alcohol per person is being consumed. This indicator achieved its highest point in years 1982-1984: [then, it was] 11.2 litres. ”

Now, if you take a look at the passages, you see a clear rephrasing in work. If you understood copyright law, you would also understand that:

1. a rephrased text is not covered by the original copyright;
2. facts are not covered by copyright;
3. Wikipedia's WP:VER policy requires a significant amount of reconveying ideas published previously;
4. international copyright treaties make clear exceptions for such summarisation, even if a few sentences were plain copies or direct translations (which is not the case here).

This particular text summarises a number of findings from the book. Many pages are only covered in two-three sentences; clearly a reasonable volume for fair use under US law. (Note that this particular doctrine, or its analogues, have a lot of interesting names under most other copyright laws. In Estonia, for example, even straight copying (which I did not do) in the volume used would fall under the academic referral exemption.) Digwuren 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if Cmapm's copyright fundamentalist ideas on copyright were true, he would have committed a violation merely by copying -- directly -- the Estonian text into this talkpage. Obviously, this is absurd, and obviously he doesn't really believe this. Digwuren 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As to NPOV, it's Digwuren, who was expected to propose their changes on the talk page prior to their "thorough article rewriting", that BTW removed a lot of existing references. He did not ask for anybody on the talk page for this and later his additions, while I object to his revision and POV pushing since then, hence I'll continue to revert it to the version it was before his "thorough revision". comparing it to Wiki articles on administrative units of other articles, should give you some hints, e.g. compare it to article on the U.S. state Wisconsin. Look at the section headers to say the very least, do you see something like "Colonisation", "Stagnation and technological lag", "Occupation propaganda", "Demographic changes due to occupation" there? If it's not clear yet, I can point you similar POV in almost each sentence here. Wikipedia is not a court and we are not judges, the article should give a neutral overview of the state, presenting both opposite views: Estonian and Soviet in an equal manner. Cmapm 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer thee, behold: be bold! Digwuren 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Now that the article is nominated for possible copyright infringement and an example of large excerpt, believed to contain copyright infringement is provided here on the talk page, it looks very natural to place the following tag into the article to somehow notify readers of this:

• {{copyvio|url=http://www.riigikogu.ee/public/Riigikogu/ValgeRaamat.pdf}}

Cmapm 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to tag the page, because the foreign-langauge issue and the long length of the PDF (151 pages) makes it hard to deal with quickly, and the copyvio tag is meant for obvious violations. But if you present the evidence here, I'll review it and remove any sections that are copyright violations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What next? Please comment.

I have no illusions that if nothing is decided during this protection the edit waring will continue. So lets look at what we have.

• There is the old version, tiny text based on Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

My take: Encyclopedia from a country where telling unpleasant truths got you a visitation by KGB...

• There is the new version where based on modern retrospective research the developments in this country are represented.

My take: This research was not possible during Soviet times because it was not big on respecting liberty of speech and all sources to base such research on were hidden away from prying eyes.--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The modern source however is VERY unpleasant to people still identifying themselves as soviets. They feel that this research is POV both because of the content doubting soviet greatness and because it was made in Estonia and by Estonians.

Let me ask, who else BUT Estonians would bother to research this? Who else would it concern? And since this article is about Estonia during the SSR period this material is notable, verifiable and reliably sourced. If the reliability of the source is put to doubt then the Great Soviet Encyclopedia deserves exactly the same scrutiny. An if so, this article would suddenly be completely unsourced except that Estonian SSR was not de jure a recognized country.--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So what are the the complaints?

• That Digwurren did not discuss the improvements on the article in the talk?

My take: There is no such policy. Quite contrary, there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Be_bold that supports putting forth the effort. --Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• That the added material is somehow copyright violation.

My take: See above for all reasons Digwurren listed why it cant be.--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sources are out of balance because there are many more references on one side than the other

My take: How so? Theres the GSE on one side and there is "Valge raamat" on the other. Pretty balanced id say. The fact that GSE provides much less material and most of it is overturned by "Valge raamat" does not factor into it, it only natural with minority views and outdated sources. You are free to find sources to support your claims. Cmapm, you said somewhere that you have sourced unpleasant numbers... Show them!--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, GSE don't provide "less material", look at it to assure yourself. Just I don't want to translate all GSE article and push it here, like Digwuren did with Valge Raamat.Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider believing it when you show me the passages relating to wealth gap and mass deportations in the БСЭ. Digwuren 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: Soviet supporters start their own section titled something like "Soviet view" and write their views up there. These are clearly minority views but not insignificant.--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This certainly looks like the way to go, at least temporarily. In the long term, some of these 'Soviet view' sections -- those where the view differences are not topological -- should be accordingly merged. Digwuren 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How come Estonian SSR is so negative?

My understanding is that Cmapm and perhaps others object to the current version of this article because they perceive that excessively negative aspects of the occupation era are displayed, and feel it's because positive happenings during this time are being downplayed. I believe this idea is fallacious, but this fallacy is not necessarily obvious, so I'm going to try to explain.

Estonian SSR, with its applicable stresses and accents, is about occupation. It is about a puppet regime designed to mold local resources and society according to an ideological matrix. As we now know -- and many said decades ago --, the remolding attempts failed, leading to a lot of phenomena that would be seen as negative by many people.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, however, treats Estonian SSR not as a puppet regime but as a geographic entity, perhaps with a bit of pre-Soviet history. Thus, its stresses and accents are different; for example, it sees fit to comment upon industrial development and urbanisation, and is silent on their motivation and mechanics -- these being known to the readers already, because the readers would presumably be familiar with the Soviet system. And of course, its authors didn't have the benefits of modern retrospective, nor a free, uncensored thought environment.

Insomuch as the industrial development was not influenced by the Soviet ideology, it is not really specific to Estonian SSR, and rather belongs to History of Estonia. To the extent it *was* influenced, it belongs into this article, but for proper understanding, the background and motivation of the development needs to be explained. The same goes for all the other "interesting" topics, from immigration to urbanisation and alcoholism.

OTOH, attempting to give USSR credit for natural developments such as a slow increase in life expectancy makes about as much sense as giving American slaveholders credit for teaching their slaves to read and write, or pointing out the "positive aspects" of slave traders' forceful moving of "savages" into "modern democratic countries". Digwuren 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, why I'm object to your version, if not yet, remember our discussion [[See Talk:Estonian_SSR#Biased article rewriting and address my points there. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources to be added

Jaska, E. (1952). The Results of Collectivization of Estonian Agriculture. Land Economics 28.3, 212-217. Colchicum 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

What is the basis of keeping the POV tag on the article? Digwuren 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the tag now. If there's any basis for reattaching it, detail it here. Digwuren 08:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See below (show both the Estonian and the Sovjet view in neutral terms). Otto 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Before things get out of hand with POV-s

Hi guys, lets take a deep breath here and be smart about this! I hope nobody wants to have another Cold War her. So lets make certain things clear for everybody. For Estonians Estonian SSR means the Soviet occupation. For Russians perhaps something different. So before those different POVs start colliding here, how about putting some rules down. For Estonians the use of Great Soviet Encyclopedia is nothing more than a source of soviet propaganda. Lets say that the same is Valge Raamat for Russians. Therefore I'd suggest avoiding using those sources and only relying on references that have been published internationally preferably in English since we are at the English Wikipedia. If we can find this kind of compromise, everybody can hopefully coexist happily together. Therefore I'd suggest Digwuren removing all Valge Raamat references and entrances and the opposing side their Great Soviet Encyclopedia things and lets take it from there. If a compromise is not reached, I can already tell things are going to get ugly here. --Termer 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out there's an English translation of the White Book. I didn't know it back when I used it, but I can over time replace the references with English version's references. Digwuren 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, deleting references is a bad idea, it can be done only if supported claims are deleted as well (and it is useful to know existing POVs even if they are fantastically stupid). But additional references are certainly necessary, I agee. I will try to find some. Colchicum 10:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See Further reading. Colchicum 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough work on adding references. Digwuren 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't accept article's one-sided rewriting by Digwuren and their removal of all references that existed. So, I'm reverting to the state, the article was prior to this - please compare reference variety there and in Digwuren's Ralge Vaamat translation and pushing as a "wikiarticle" feat. See Talk:Estonian_SSR#Biased article rewriting section, for my points, which were not addressed. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that difficult for you to leave the references intact. Try not to damage others' contributions when you are engaged in edit-warring with someone.Colchicum 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that working on the article enough to be able to do that is rather painful to Cmapm. Nevertheless, it's one of the few proper approaches. Digwuren 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Working on the article"? Do you mean translating one source and replacing the current article with it - like you did with Valge Raamat? I think, you'll finally force me to translate an article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and push it as a "Wikipedia article", if you continue to push your Valge Raamat translation as a "Wikipedia article". Cmapm 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate that you understand my position. Until that time, I'm going to ignore your contentless diatribes. Digwuren 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Show both the Estonian and the Soviet view in neutral terms

Also in response of the above: Don't delete points of view but put them in context and give them both. Now the lemma is one sided. Otto 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't accept article's one-sided rewriting by Digwuren and their removal of all references that existed. So, I'm reverting to the state, the article was prior to this - please compare reference variety there and in Digwuren's Ralge Vaamat translation and pushing as a "wikiarticle" feat. See Talk:Estonian_SSR#Biased article rewriting section, for my points, which were not addressed. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted a dozen of references I have added. This is highly inappropriate. I think you should explain your position better. Colchicum 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to make specific objections. And as there was a considerable period of protection, you better explain why you didn't raise them back then. As it is, you're vandalising an article by reverting it to an old-old version, removing dozens of references. Digwuren 18:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I should point out that "I don't like it" is not a specific objection and "These facts make entity X look bad" do not constitute WP:NPOV violation. Digwuren 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I raised them, but you still "don't notice" them. Hence, I'll continue to revert again and again. I believe, it's you, who don't like the state the article was before your pushing Valge Raamat translation as "a wiki article". Cmapm 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cmapm, I don't know what you have with Digwuren, but I require you to stop deleting my contributions. Otherwise I'll report you. Colchicum 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, "report me", if you want, we'll see what sort of justice we have in Wikipedia. I deleted these your contributions, because I don't see much value in a "Further reading section" unless those sources are directly cited in the article. I could find tons of books on Estonian SSR in a library catalog and add all of them here. If you still see the section to be so important, I'll consider adding those tons of "useful" inf. here. Cmapm 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree this article being POV. But unfortunately it's very hard to cooperate with sovjets. Instead of elaborating they just reverted back to soviet POV, removing work of several people. I call everyone for normal cooperation instead. Suva 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any particular suggestions? Digwuren 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As an illustration, let's suppose that the article Racial policy of Nazi Germany says this:

“ On November 7, 1938, a young Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan attacked and shot German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in the Nazi-German embassy in Paris over the treatment of his parents by the Nazi-Germans. Joseph Goebbels ordered retaliation. On the night of November 9 the SS conducted the Night of Broken Glass ("Kristallnacht"), in which the storefronts of Jewish shops and offices were smashed and vandalized. Approximately 100 Jews were killed, and another 20,000 sent to concentration camps. ”

(Never mind that it actually does say this.)

Any non-biased person would feel, and see, a sympathy for the repressed. Yet, no reasonable person would accuse this characterisation of being biased against the Nazis. Digwuren 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to observe that "show both the Estonian and the Soviet view in neutral terms" makes the apriori determination that both views are equally valid, this despite the fact that Soviet policy stated that the purpose of history was to serve politics. It would appear to be suggested that it be left to readers' instincts and feelings which of the two historiographies are valid: Estonian or Soviet. The problem is that Soviet historiography is largely a lie. It is not the purpose of encyclopedia articles to present two sets of viewpoints and leave it to the reader. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to present incontrovertible facts based on reputable sources so as to inform the reader. If Soviet historiography happens to be debunked in the process, said debunking is fully deserved. If there is any truth to it, that will come out as well. But to insist that one should present "both views" neutrally is a misguided view of neutral editing. If I have misinterpreted this suggested leaving of "interpretation" of "two views" to the reader, please let me know where/how. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions for improving.

First of all, the intro shouldn't start with the claims of being a puppet state, military bases and occupation. It should laconically and neutrally describe the place. Something in style: ESSR was a part of Soviet Union. It was officially annexed at XXXX. The territory was previously known as Eesti Vabariik. etc

Then in later chapters more detailed overview of the annexation and occupation should come. From the POV of both sides. In the style: Estonian and western authorities concider this as occupation and see it as illegal, while Russian authoritis still deny occupation and claim Estonia joined USSR by free will.

Claims of puppet state and etc should also come later on.

The reasons behind my suggestions are simple. Although the articles currently is largely correct (and proven by many authorities), the feeling you get by reading this article is the same as mentioned: Written by estonian nationalist. But the problem is not the incorrectness of the article, but the form. It doesn't have the neutral point of view. Neutral Point of View means to have several pieces of information available so everyone can analyze it and decide on the facts. Suva 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not work. Estonian SSR was primarily a government, not a territory, and the current structuring reflects that, even if the particular wording can be improved upon.

I remind you that WP:NPOV is not defined through feelings. Digwuren 09:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that detailing the process of occupation in the summary can be seen as distracting from the point of a summary, and accordingly, moved these details into a subsection. Digwuren 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing my line of thought. Saying ESSR was "puppet state" is POV. Although it largely was a puppet state, it is not really correct. ESSR didn't have much liberty to make decisions: When they had an idea it had to be consulted on higher level, before it could have been a decision. This doesn't actually mean being a puppet, but meaning to be in very low end of decision chain. Puppet would mean that the gov did exactly what they were told to without any ideas on their own. At the same time, it stands true because whatever was told to the government to do HAD to be accepted and approved. So, the puppet state is not a FACT, but well supported claim. And should be presented as: ESSR could be largely concidered as puppet state because of ... Suva 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the article on puppet state. Digwuren 09:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, but it's not that important right now. It should still be mentioned as claim. Because not everyone visiting this page might want to read on. The article should be clear and NPOV by reading it not by reading all of the cross references in it. Suva 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That was not my point. I was instead pointing out that you're applying a personal definition of puppet state, not the generally accepted meaning. Specifically, your criteria require total control of the puppet's actions; this is not generally required. Digwuren 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I still see this declaration POV without explanations. Suva 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is factual. However, feel free to offer an explanatory section. Digwuren 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From the article puppet state: "Puppet state is mostly a term of political criticism, used to denigrate a current government". It is POV and not encyclopedic to use political colored, denigrating and pejorative terms as an impartial description of a government. These terms should be brought in the context of the opinion of criticizers. This is not the place to discuss how "puppet" a state is, but to describe the different views about it. Otto 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Otto for your opinion and hello to you in Netherlands. Since you think a term puppet government is a POV and not encyclopedic I presume you're just about to remove the mentioning of puppet governments on the History of the Netherlands Wiki page? Please let me know! Thanks--Termer 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Suva' suggestions and others that support NPOV. Although in my opinion Estonians should own the History of Estonia, including the history of Estonian SSR, Estonians don't own Wikipedia. Therefore both sides should be cited. And the reason for this Digwuren first of all is simply that personally I as an Estonian don't wish to see an editing war here between the Russian and Estonian supporters. If Estonians push the Estonian POV, it shouldn't be expected that Russians wouldn't push theirs. So please Digwuren, even though every Estonian might agree with you, take puppet state as a fact because thats what we Estonians have heard since early childhood from our parents and grandparents, lets have an NPOV opening statement here and thereafter everybody can have their POV-s cited.

Thanks! --Termer 07:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements by Colchicum, but still a heavy POV article

As more references were provided by Colchicum and the article ceased to be an exclusive Valge Raamat translation, I'm stopping to revert the page to the previous state, beginning to address article's POV issues from now on. As seen from the number of references, the article now mostly represents the modern Estonian POV and to some extent Western POV.

But as Estonian SSR was a part of the Soviet Union and Russia is the successor state of the USSR, Soviet and Russian POV is as important as modern Estonian and Western one. So far we have 45:2 prevailing of Western and modern Estonian references over Soviet and Russian ones. So, we have a long long way to go to make the article neutral.

You therefore represent Soviet sources as factual, this from a government which explicitly stated (as I mention also, below) that history serves politics. Soviet sources can (and should) be used to represent and discuss the Soviet version of Estonian history, but no more. Feel free to write a Soviet account of Estonian history--in its own section, and represented as the "Soviet version." And let me be clear: VERSION, not VIEWPOINT. Viewpoint implies perception of fact. The Soviet version cannot be taken as factual, e.g., despite economic "achievements", real progress in standard of living suffered in all three Baltic states under Soviet rule relative to pre-war. (Soviet accounts also ignore the pre-war world-wide depression.) Your "method" of citing "50:50" is nothing but a demand to fill the article with 50% lies to "balance" 50% facts. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence, I'm adding two more references into the lead section and marking most of the other sections with {{POV-section}} tags. Paragraph in the lead on non-recognition by the West needs references on decisions by governments of corresponding Western states, because European Parliament's resolution just calls for such decisions. Cmapm 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it as an attack, but are you from Nashi? :) I do agree the article needs much more work, but personally I find citing content of Great Soviet Encyclopedia as facts, bit offensive. When citing content from Mein Kampf or other nazi propaganda books, it is clearly marked as content of those books, so it should be done here. But anyways, great thanks to Colchicum for his work! Suva 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cmapm. Please stop posting communist propaganda on Wikipedia. A fact is not: The "Socialist Republic" founded during the war of independence by the Bolsheviks in City of Narva in 1918 was not called Estonian SSR or 'Estonian Socialist Republic' but The Estonian Proletarian Commune , Estonian: Eesti Töörahva Kommuun.

Even though I personally like your POV, the way you have laid it out, "according to Estonians they were occupied and according to communist Russians they did nothing wrong like any criminal would deny the crimes", a fact is not "According to modern Estonian...". All "accounts" of the Republic Estonia, including it's diplomats abroad stated the fact since it happened in 1940. Therefore I'm removing the communist POV and factually false statements from opening section! Please have these listed as a communist POV following any other POV's if you think it's necessary. Thank you!--Termer 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remove or make a separate section for statements which I consider to be nationalist POV. YOu cite your sources, I'm citing my ones. Let's respect each other. Otherwise I'll begin to answer in your style - removing references which I dislike, labelling them as nationalist propaganda. Cmapm 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not a member of any political party or activist organization, I give you my word of honour, and what about you? :) Well, I find citing modern Estonian sources as offensive to me and my country (USSR), as citing Mein Kampf, but I don't remove those references and don't suggest to "mark them". References are references. You can find out the source of each one by one click, is this too difficult? If yes, then let's "make it simpler" for all references in the article. Cmapm 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is sad if you find throughly investigated historical research offensive. I can assure that historians do a lot of work to find correct facts for their books. And other historians often try to to make sure whether those theories are correct. Also they communicate with their colleagues from other countries. This is no way comparable of political propaganda existant in ALL of the soviet time publications. Suva 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer to my question in the first sentence, was this because you don't want to answer or you just did not notice it? :) Do you believe, that modern Estonian POV on history isn't considered political propaganda in Russia? So, let's distinguish Estonian and western historians from Russian and Soviet ones. They all do and did a lot of work, and a priority to either of them looks strange and calling "propagandists" another side looks strange.Cmapm 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The new heading:was a self-proclaimed Soviet republic in 1918-1919 ...short-lived Soviet-backed independent state in 1940 OK guys, thats not even a POV any more but simple nonsense. It shouldn't be hard for you Cmapm, at least open one of your sources or the Soviet History books and check out what did they call the "Soviet republic" in 1918-1919. For heads up, it was founded in Narva on 29. Novemebr 1918 and ended in Staraja Russa, Novgorod oblast in Russia on June 5. 1919. The name of the "Soviet republic" contained words like Estonian and Proletarian and Commune. Regarding "Soviet-backed independent state" what is this, independent of what, "Estonian nationalists"? I'm sorry to say that a statement like citing modern Estonian sources as offensive to me and my country (USSR)is not a POV, not a nonsense any more but crazy talk in my opinion. There is no such a country like Soviet Union any more even though The Great Soviet Encyclopedia might still state is as a fact that it exists. Wikipedia is not for posting someones dreams but facts of history. And none of those are facts that currently have been posted in to the opening section of Estonian SSR page.--Termer 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more, I'm reverting the header into NPOV statement and thereafter everybody can have their POV-s cited. The way Cmapm has merged the "modern Estonian" POV into the Soviet-communist POV can't be interpreted in any other way than pushing a political agenda in Wikipedai in my opinion.--Termer 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, all POV-tagged controversies have been ruffed out, everybody should feel free to add their POV-s and sources now.--Termer 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't make from the article a collection of opinions. If you are too new to Wikipedia, please, look through other articles, for example, Wikipedia's best articles - Wikipedia:Featured articles to understand what article structure should be like, and read WP:NPOV to have hints on how different POV's should be represented inside the article.

Establishment of the Estonian Soviet Republic is recognized even by modern Estonian sources, let's cite Narva museum:"1918, november 28.11. läheb linn uuesti enamlaste kätte. Eelneb linna pommitamine. 29.11. kuulutatakse Narvas välja Eesti Nõukogude vabariik – Eesti Töörahva Kommuun." I hope you've understood the phrase "Eesti Nõukogude vabariik" - Estonian Soviet republic. In another Estonian source it is even called "Eesti Sotsialistlik Nõukogude Vabariik". This should be reflected in the lead section. Cmapm 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Estonian SSR. The article is about Estonian S(oviet) S(ocialist) Republic, not about Estonian Soviet Republic. The information about 1918-1919 is not relevant and should be deleted. Colchicum 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Cmapm, it's clear for me by now that you have chosen to spam this page with nonsense and take this to an edit war, thats fine with me. Regarding your political agenda here, making a link between the Estonian SSR and "the socialist republic" not recognized de facto or de jure by anybody else in the world other than the Soviet Russia is not relevant in my opinion in any way to the puppet state controlled by the Soviet Union from 1940 on. I'm giving you exactly 5 minutes to remove your political POV to "the opinions of the Soviet sources" section, restore the heading to a NPOV. If not replied, thereafter I'm going to take it as an attempt to virtually occupy a section from the history of Estonia by an ex citizen of a nonexistent country with personal political agendas. If you declare an edit war, thats fine, you're going to get it. Hope that you'll come to your senses. Thanks. --Termer 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it to make it clear that (1) the name Estonian Soviet SocialistRepublic is applied to the 1918-1919 republic occasionally and (2) the republic existed simultaneously with the Republic of Estonia. Colchicum 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colchicum I'd need to look up my good old soviet history books but as I recall it, it was never called Estonian-Soviet-Socialist-Republic. There has always been ENSV and Töörahva Kommuun, sometimes referred to as Eesti Nõukogude Vabariik by later Soviet historians but even that's rarely. And even if it is, its stated in a political manner a la Soviet Estonian Republic versus the bourgeois Estonian republic during the Russian/Soviet Civil war from their POV. Or another way to put it, they founded a Soviet Estonian Republic and called it Estonian Workers Commune. Also the link Cmapm provided said Estonian Soviet republic, that is more a nickname anyway not a factual one. But of course, in case you have any Soviet history books still laying in garage by yourself, you could go ahead and confirm it since you insist with the Estonian-Soviet-Socialist-Republic during 1918-19 and check out if my memory has failed me indeed. thanks!--Termer 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we really need this information, but if Cmapm insists, it is ok to have such details in the description of the Soviet POV. Certainly, stating that "Soviet power was established in Estonia in 1917/1918/1919" in the first paragraph without attribution of this POV would be ridiculous. I have also never seen the name Estonian SSR applied to this political entity, except in the reference provided by Cmapm (but e.g. Latvian SSR is sometimes applied to Iskolat, so it wouldn't be totally unexpected). Colchicum 10:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those references say that the workers commune was called Estonian SSR. There is a "Estonian SSR, a Reference Book" that clearly says Estonian Workers Commune sovereign Soviet Estonian...then there is narvamuuseum.ee thats says 'Eesti Nõukogude vabariik – Eesti Töörahva Kommuun'- the Estonian Soviet republic- Estonian Workers Commune. And the third, The Journal of Baltic Studies says nothing about the thing. So I don't know where is this reference about ESSR in 1918? It doesn't exist because it was "Estonian Soviet Republic", exactly like it says now in the article. Further on, back then , since the october revolution it was all about communism, not about socialism that came into use later on. Back then the socialist parties were the "enemies of the working people", the ones like The Mensheviks etc. that were in opposition with bolsheviks, thats why anybody even would have not called anything socialist by the bolshevik/communist party back then... --Termer 09:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a completely appalling POV piece. Something must be done. Everyking 17:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Everyking for pointing it out. I made a clear split between the Western and Estonian sources versus Soviet and Russian so everything should be according to NPOV

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.

• As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

PS. actually, as I recall it, it has been done in the past. someone keeps merging the 2 viewpoints together into 1 section. I think this should not be tolerated in the future. Please keep it clear who says what to maintain the NPOV. Thaks!--Termer 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian POV is not a "minority" view, because Estonian SSR was a Soviet administrative unit for 50 years and a lot of researches were published on it in the USSR. And Rusia is a successor state of the USSR, so, it's opinion is as important as Soviet one.Cmapm 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So, with the "help" from Termer, a Wikipedian since June 14 2007, we arrived to the lamest wikiarticle ever. We have:

• corrupted references (number 34, number 17)
• a sentence in "Soviet capital investments in Estonia" section is duplicated as a separate "Moscow olympic games of 1980" section (by the way, what's the need in this section, unless "Sport in the Estonian SSR" section is created?)
• we have Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Soviet statistics cited as "Estonian sources" in "Occupation propaganda" section (BTW, if you want "propaganda" section to remain, I'll add corresponding "Nationalist propaganda" section)
• we have POV's separated in each section, personally I see this to be very good, because it's now very easy to provide more Soviet/Russian references. But as a Wikipedian, I've never seen such structure among Wikipedia's best articles (WP:Featured articles and even WP:Good articles). Due to this, the article have no chances to be in either of these two categories in the future
• we have no "NPOV" tag, although article's non-neutrality is obvious even to a man from the side (User:Everyking), but even without that, we are discussing POV issues for a long time here and at least one user, me, did not accept article to be NPOV so far. This one is easy - I'll try again to readd it, but I'm almost sure, that I'll be reverted, as usual with such "opponents".

I leave aside ultimatums and accusations in "political agenda" (see my reply to User:Suva above to realize value of the latter ones, BTW, other guys are free to answer to my question there, but honestly :)), because I don't bite newbies. I also leave aside their removal of a reference to Statistics Estonia. In this comment I'm speaking of the article as a whole. Due to this I add {{wikify}} tag and as a Wikipedian since 2004 I'll continue to keep this "piece of creativity" the last in my "to do" list. Cmapm 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you try to add more specific tags, and preferably place them in the sections where they should be. For example: *{{cleanup}} *{{review}} *{{copyedit}} *{{linkless}} *{{unreferencedsect}} *{{Sectstub}} *{{Expandsection}} *{{expert}} *{{context}} *{{confusing}} *{{incoherent}} *{{Citecheck}} *{{globalize}} *{{weasel}} Your objections are better described by "cleanup", not "NPOV". They should be addressed, and repaired. Explaining facts and then different interpretations is a matter of style, not standarad. And in fact I think it is a pritty good style, b/c it is clear to the reader. Article's non-neutrality is a myth, imho, the article needs a good clearnup from an expert.:Dc76 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already specified above, why the article is not neutral in my view (only Estonian sources cited in most sections), those my points were not addressed so far. I'm not going to repeat them - go and read there. So, at least I still consider it non-neutral. This is enough to place {{NPOV}} tag. Cmapm 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you want to make this article lame "POV-separation" piece,I'm beginning to cite Soviet/Russian sources. For the start, I fixed references corrupted by User:Termer and added citations from Soviet sources into "Creation and abolition" section, which now represents both POV's in equal manner in my view. I included "POV-section" tags to sections, that cite only Estonian/Western sources so far or contain bias towards Soviet sources ("Occupation propaganda" section). I also re-added a citation from Statistics Estonia, removed by Termer. Cmapm 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Western sources are not Estonian. Eesti Nõukogude Entsüklopeedia is an Estonian source, sure, but also a Soviet one as well. Could you please elaborate on what bias is contained in the collectivization section? What are other POVs? The Estonian Soviet Encyclopedia claims exactly the same things (the only difference is that according to it kulaks were certainly bad guys, but the article doesn't judge them at all).Colchicum 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. But here we see a side effect of our "POV separation" doctrine. E.g. no Soviet sources can be cited in "Estonian sources" section and vice versa. Cmapm 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Soviet sources -- quantifier needed. You probably meant according to most Soviet sources, but acccording to Soviet sources means just something like according to some Soviet souces. IMHO according to the Soviet historiography sounds more appropriately and conveys that this was the mainstream Soviet position. Colchicum 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "according to most Soviet sources", because that this is "historiography" follows from the content of "Creation and abolition" section itself. Cmapm 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Start, you obviously are absolutely welcome to bring in good (e.g. peer-reviewed) Soviet and Russian sourses, but if can not ask another eiditor to bring equally many sourses from Estonian and Western vs Russian ones. Some people don't know Estonian, others don't know Russian, others don't know where to find Russian sourses, others have run accross 2-3 reputeble sourses and want to add them to the article without being interested to edit much, others just like to edit and clean up other people's work. It is a common effort, and everyone is not obliged to be use the same proportions of sourses. If you find 1000, use 1000, if you find 2, use 2. Their quality, not quantity matters.

IMO, it was a good idea to put tags for sections where their belong instead of tagging the whole article. But you also have to put a tag that corresponds to the test that is to be done there, hence I provided you with a whole array of examples of tags - and you can find even more. POV/NPOV tag is the most strange of these, b/c it does not explain what kind of problem each section has. A good tag would say: cite more sourses, use less wessel words, clean up for style, for grammar, clean up the exposition style, etc. Not every sentence and section is equally POV even from your regard. Surely you object to some of them more than to the others. It is much easier to discuss constructively than "no, i don't like, no, i don't like". The objections you have listed (except the last 2 which are statements) will be taken care of, I am sure. One user will clear up one, another use - another, etc. :Dc76 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian Sources

Please note since there is a conflict between the Russian sources and the former Soviet Sources + the political opinions of the Russian government, therefor general "Russian Sources" in the article can't be further used for supporting the political viewpoints of the current Russian government.

There is a Russian source that confirms military blockade of the Republic of Estonia prior to actual ultimatum, invasion and occupation of the country. According to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) according to the records in the archive the order for total military blockade of Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given on June 12, 1940. Thats 4 days before the actual ultimatum on June 16. and the Soviet invasion on June 17.

As we all should know: according to this order the Soviet air force shot down a Finnish passenger airplane "Kaleva" flying from Tallinn to Helsinki carrying three diplomatic pouches from the U.S. legations in Tallinn, Riga and Helsinki.

As we all should know, military blockade classified as an act of a Aggression according to The Convention for the Definition of Aggression defined in a binding treaty signed at the Soviet Embassy in London by USSR and among others, The Republic of Estonia.

Further on, according to the convention, Aggression was defined as an invasion by armed forces of the territory of another State even without a declaration of war.

Therefore, splitting up the article according to Russian/Soviet sources is not accurate according to the facts. Since Soviet sources are not really relevant as an historic viewpoint, the only thing that's needed here is a political viewpoint of the current Russian government as a source that has different take on things. I'm going to format the article accordingly ASAP. Any suggestions welcome meanwhile--Termer 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it's done, hope everybody likes it. And since this article has that many viewpoints the best would be to keep it so that everybody can speak for themselves and later, only reliable facts and sources should be used, not political refs of any kind. Thanks!--Termer 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Tightened up controversies, made a new section, political history, added the pre-perestroika Soviet sources + the position Russian government under it.--Termer 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalized by IP. 24.45.189.189 at 21:57, on 30 June 2007) continiues addition of "weak and stupid" in front of "Estonia".--Termer 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Population

I quote: "Demographic changes: Population of the Estonian SSR grew from 1,054 million in 1940[16] to 1,565,662 million in 1989"

1,565,662 million sounds like a huge number, almost third of the world population back then. Can someone fix this please? 87.109.3.77 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1.5 million is third of world population at 1989? I don't think so, you better check your sources. I can confirm the 1.5 though. Suva 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he is right. The commas should be replaced with dots.Colchicum 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The typo was actually "1,565,662 million" which should be just "1,565,662". Or "1.566" million. Suva 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

50 years -- short-lived?

The lead currently says "Estonian SSR... was a short-lived Soviet-backed puppet state". It is referred to as "short-lived" even though it existed for over 50 years. Shall we remove the "short-lived" statement? (I am aware that this is a sensitive topic, so I am not being bold). --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the lead, the "puppet" refers to the bogus elections and the regime which took charge and petitioned for membership in the U.S.S.R., the lead talks about the constituent republic following. Short-lived is from the elections to annexation, so correct--it's not referring to the 50 years. —PētersV (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I clearly misread the sentence. It's probably just me, but ordering different meanings in the order of importance rather than chronology would make the lead clearer. I think when people refer to Estonian SSR they usually mean "a constituent republic of the U.S.S.R. [existed] between 1940-1941 and 1944-1991." --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the intro slightly to try to better distinguish the Soviet state proclaimed after the elections following occupation from the SSR as of annexation. See if that works better for you. —PētersV (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the better part of this evening cleaning this article up (mostly correcting English language issues) and I concur. Most of these articles are written from the perspective of young adults who have grown-up in the post-Soviet era. My Russian fiancee (not Estonian but he went there before independence) believes that the Estonians benefited quite considerably from being in the Soviet union, therefore perhaps these articles ought to be drastically edited to cut out the nationalist waffle and provide a more sober assessment of the period. It is Estonia's good fortune that there is much more on this particular page than on the Latvian and Lithuanian pages, so Estonian writers are obviously acknowledging that there were actually periods between 1940 and 1989 when Estonia functioned, rather than just brushing the entire period under the map so the period cannot be soberly assessed for the advantages and disadvantages of Soviet rule. Lstanley1979 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. Estonia's standard of living was ahead of Finland before WWII. It is a myth that Estonians and the Estonian economy benefited from Soviet intervention when you look at the shape Estonia was in following reestablishing independence compared to Finland at that time. The opinion you mention is an opinion based on Soviet history writing (extolling all the "investment" in the Baltics), not on hard economic fact. Please don't mistake Russian popular opinion or leftover Soviet propaganda for fact. —PētersV (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is because of perspectives such as yours (no judgement being made here) that the so-called "nationalists" (used in a derogatory fashion, not saying you did here, though "waffle" is a bit problematic) make sure everything stated has reputable sources behind it. Your fiancee's opinion, unfortunately, does not. —PētersV (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed rewriting the section on the economy

I have deleted two sections on the economy because it is mostly propaganda on behalf of those people here who refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet period actually existed. (See similar articles on Latvia and Lithuania.)

Since Estonia was a part of the USSR (whether legitimately or not) and since it fell on the "wrong" side of the Iron Curtain, it is obvious that this meant the growth was slower than in the West or in comparable countries such as Sweden or Finland. The sections there were unfavourable comparisons with Western countries whereas what should have been written was either a comparison with the rest of the Soviet Union (which would heavily favour Estonia being one of the economic success stories of the USSR) or a NPOV summary of how Estonia was a backward, peasant-based economy in 1940 and a modern, largely tertiary and industrialised country in 1991, thereby almost "outgrowing" the Soviet system. Having studied the USSR for a while and knowing the Baltic States intimately, I nevertheless have to agree with my Russian fiancee that Soviet occupation was inevitable given the geographic location, more beneficial than not in terms of modernising the Estonian economy and outperforming the RSFSR and other republics, and that Estonia probably would have otherwise lacked the investment and capital to industrialise had the USSR not been present.

I do understand that history has not been kind to Estonia but a more balanced assessment of the Soviet period in economic and social terms is needed, not some waffle about how Estonia should never have been part of the USSR in the first place and was backward compared to Sweden (something you could also say about 90% of the countries in Western Europe, let alone the former Soviet bloc). If it is possible to take a step back from national sentiment (I am not Estonian but have been there twice and am besotted with the country, particularly Tallinn and Tartu) and look at the period objectively, I suspect a much better picture will emerge.

If anyone objects to my cuts then please by all means revert them, but I have heard both points of view over the last ten years and have studied the countries involved and it seems to me that had it not been for Soviet investment Estonia would still be a largely agriculturally based country along the lines of Ireland or Greece rather than one of the recent Baltic "tiger" success stories. Lstanley1979 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored a large part of your last delete with some addition of information and a reference. Don't denounce article content unless you've read enough references about the Baltic states to be knowledgeable on the topic. Unfortunately, most popular knowledge of the Baltics outside of the Baltics these days appears to be based on ignorance and what people here the Russian government proclaim. I genuinely appreciate your efforts to improve readability here and elsewhere, but please don't assume that now makes you an expert to add and delete content. It is precisely because of my own "nationalist" background that I've gone out and bought quite expensive references on the Baltics written by "outside" scholarship to counter constant charges of "nationalist POV". BTW, I had to correct your correction about the 1918/1920 war/treaty, back to Bolshevist Russia from the Soviet Union (Occupation of Baltic States article), the Soviet Union did not exist then--the section title would have been too cumbersome including anything beyond the USSR.

   The competing opinions of the last decade do not define scholarly encyclopedic balance. Please insure that your expertise is based on sources that discuss the full extent of the time period starting with the establishment of the modern Baltic states. Please do not change the article based on your assessment of opinion or that opinions need to be equally represented (implying they are both equally based on fact). —PētersV (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually on the eve of Soviet occupation in 1940, Estonia's economy and standard of living was on par with Finland. This fact has led to the comparison of Finnish and Estonian economies as a measure of the degradation of the Estonian standard of living under Soviet rule, which has been extensively covered in the literature, for example the chapter by Jan Dellenbrant's "Estonia's Economic Development 1940-1990 in Comparsion with Finlands" in the book "Market Socialism or the Restoration of Capitalism?" edited by Anders Aslund (ISBN 9780521411936), or the article by Robert Higgs "Results of Still Another Experiment in Political Economy" in the journal "The Independent Review" Volume 12 Number 1 , Martintg (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Once I have references unpacked I'll be working on all three Baltic articles particularly the SSR ones. I invite Lstanley1979 to read Latvia, Our Dream is Coming True for a prime example of Soviet propaganda. It sounds both plausible and factually convincing. It's also all propaganda. Consider that opinions you encounter that mirror the content of that text are not the result of being informed based on reputably confirmed facts or circumstances. Best regards, PētersV (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

which would heavily favour Estonia being one of the economic success stories of the USSR - I think we can all agree that USSR was an economic disaster. "Succeeding in failing", I like the sound of that. Besides, inserting Russian imperialist ideas is not the way to improve this article. Oth (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional references on the comparison of the Finnish and Estonian economies

I'll add some additional references I've found here:

• Detailed 400 page report "Estonia and Finland - A Retrospective Socioenonomic Comparison" published in 1993 by Finland's Government Institute for Economic Research (report freely downloadable, 30MB in size)[6]
• A journal article titled "A General Method for the Comparison of the Price of Living" published in the "The Review of Economic Studies" in 1937 that compares the similarity of Estonian and Finnish incomes in the 1920's [7]

--Martintg (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<div> with auto overflow near references and notes

Please get rid of them, because in prints as many showed as on screen. It's very annoying. 88.209.227.229 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "TM191940" :
  • [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764407,00.html Justice in The Baltic]at Time magazine on Monday, Aug. 19, 1940
  • [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764407,00.html Justice in The Baltic] at Time magazine on Monday, Aug. 19, 1940

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Is there any reason for the section about the Sinimustvalge atop Pikk Hermann being placed out of the chronological order of events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thathánka Íyotake (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"backed by Soviet Union on the territory of Republic of Estonia"

This is a strange page, because every other Soviet Socialist Republic page ('cept the Latvian SSR) doesn't mention anything like this.

First, it wasn't "backed" by the Soviet Union, it was clearly both de facto and de jure within the Soviet Union as a Soviet Socialist Republic. Secondly, it was not "on" the territory of the Republic of Estonia, for all intents and purposes it succeeded the Republic of Estonia. It's like saying that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a state "on the territory" of the Republic of Vietnam. There was no civil war or massive rebellion that persisted throughout the SSR's existence to such an extent that the SSR can be merely "on the territory" of the Estonian Republic. It was clearly in control of every area it claimed to be in control of for 40+ years. And finally (the most damaging), Etonian men and women from exile did not suddenly enter the Estonian SSR in 1991 and overthrow the government. Instead the Estonian SSR was renamed and declared independent, just like every other SSR and even the Russian SFSR. The way the article makes it sound, Lennart Meri would have been executed as a collaborationist traitor to the Republic along with many others as order is restored by freedom fighters.

So either we revert this page to the same status as the Lithuanian SSR page, or we note that the occupation was seen as illegal according to international law but that the Soviets clearly had de facto control and ownership over the territory. --Mrdie (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mrdie. The Baltic states were never de jure part of the USSR. PetersV       TALK 05:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, besides that Mrdie's suggestion that “we note that the occupation was seen as illegal according to international law” should be mentioned indeed, if it has not been done so far (obviously, that “the Soviets clearly had de facto control and ownership over the territory” is there in the article).Miacek (t) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The actual sentence in question is cited from a book by David J. Smith, who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He has published extensively in the area of contemporary Baltic history and international relations, with particular reference to issues of nationalism and identity politics, so he is certainly an expert in the field. Martintg (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, this piece of information has already been stated three time in the article text (in what is now "International reaction", "Stalin era", and an entire section dedicated just to that, "Controversies"), four times now, thanks to Digwuren's edits. They should probably be merged. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people might ask, why didn't the international community retaliate against Soviets' illegal actions in invading Baltic countries. For example, why didn't the League of Nations expel USSR from its midst?

The answer may be surprising. It turns out that the League of Nations didn't expel USSR for invading Baltic states because it wasn't a member of the League anymore. USSR had already been expelled on 14 December 1939 for invading Finland in what became the Winter War. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That invasion making good Stalin's threat to attack Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should they not sign the pacts of mutual assistance. PetersV       TALK 13:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In case of Finland the demands were more of a territorial nature. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

('od') General comment... since the events/relationship split of the occupation as regards all three Baltic states, perhaps let us focus our efforts there because of the parallels of circumstances and the SSR articles can focus more on events in each Baltic state while it was a SSR (no implications on the meaning of "was"). PetersV       TALK 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that whatever happens to that article(s) (most likely, nothing) will affect these individual ones in any significant way. That the same info is repeated three times here is more of a structural problem. --Illythr (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Territorial dispute

When was it settled? Last I heard (2007) the talks had failed once again. --Illythr (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no more talks. The border treaty was completed and signed by both sides. Estonia proceeded to ratify the border treaty, and from Estonian side, it's settled. Russian Duma did not ratify the treaty, hence, it still has no legal basis for controlling in the Petseri area. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does the border lie, according to this treaty? --Illythr (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the draft treaty, the border would lay at the current location of the border. And the reason why the Duma refused to ratify the draft was that the Riigikogu unilaterally changed the preamble of the draft, originally produced by bilateral negotiations between Estonian and Russian delegations. More specifically, the Riigikogu added words declaring Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. Obviously, the Duma saw this as an act of bad faith and couldn't ratify such a document. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I've gathered as well. So there is no dispute de facto, but there's one de jure. I'm not entirely sure if this information is relevant in an article about a political entity that existed before the dispute arose, but I'll try to reflect this in the article in some manner. --Illythr (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody changed anything. This was the preamble of the Ratification Act (not a treaty itself, but the Estonian domestic act), which caused the reaction of the Russian Government. And the main reason for the Russian reaction was a reference to the Tartu Peace Treaty. The new border treaty was never presented to the Duma for the ratification. The information is here: Estonia-Russia_relations#Territorial_issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Thanks for doing it the constructive way. Now, some issues:

• With few exceptions - most notably, Nazi Germany and Sweden... That the author chooses to break Godwin's law by equating everyone who had recognized the ESSR as part of the USSR with the Nazis, doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit, especially when better sources are available.
• ...the international community refused to recognise... - Please provide a source that these countries have left the international community for a significant period of time between 1945 and 2009. In the meantime, the article should stick to the facts: there were countries that recognized the Baltic representatives (to various degrees), countries that recognized the ESSR and countries that didn't make a statement on that matter.
• On June 16, when international attention was focused on... This is the kind of editorializing that has been recently used in Russian media for the same reason as here: "On August 7, when international attention was focused on the Olympic games in Beijing..." It is better avoided.
• The Kellogg-Briand Pact - does it really state that if one side threatens the other with the application of overwhelming force, its demands must be accepted? If not, what does "according to" mean?
• The article "Justice in The Baltic" from the Time Magazine states: "Tribunals were set up to try and punish "traitors to the people." Traitors to the people included not only active opponents of sovietization but all those who have fallen short of their political and economic duties, including the political duty of voting their countries into the U. S. S. R. in recent elections. Those who failed to have their passports stamped for so voting may be shot in the back of the head." (Note the word "may" in the last sentence, it's small and might be hard to notice) - The last sentence is actually a journalistic trick meant to attract the readers' attention. Now, let's compare this to the usage in this article and elsewhere: "and those who didn't were later arrested on charges of treason and executed." And better yet, "Although it is evident from documentary evidence at the time that in all three Baltic States those who did not turn out to vote in the 1940 referendums were later summarily tried and executed on charges of treason..."
• These were conducted for the most part under the guise of "postwar reconstruction". - what's with the scare quotes? And "under the guise of"? This sentence basically implies that the postwar reconstruction, in fact, wasn't, meaning that the country remained in ruins up until 1991, which is patently ridiculous. I suppose I can provide a gallery of photos from the 1960s...
• I have also restored an important fact and attribution that was apparently deleted by mistake. --Illythr (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Quickly on a couple:

• ...the international community refused to recognise... - Hough is sourced in Occupation of the Baltic states, "majority" did not recognize de jure
• On June 16, when international attention was focused on...- not "editorializing", this has been stated this way in a number of scholarly sources including non-Baltic; invading while the world was focused on the fall of Paris to the Nazis is significant

Hope this helps clarify. PetersV       TALK 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially. There's a difference between simple inaction ("did not") and active opposition ("refused"). The way it was as I copied&modified it from there was better, NPOV-wise, although still imperfect, lumping together different types of recognition/non-recognition like that. As for the June 16th event, this is the same kind of POV that talks about Georgia invading while the world is focused on the opening of the Olympic Games. But whatever, that one is probably the smallest issue of them all. --Illythr (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes implemented, taking Vecrumba's points into account (replaced "international community" with "most countries"). --Illythr (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Been away for a bit from here. However, "puppet state" then annexed will need to return. As the accidental release of Latvia's election results prove, there were no "elections" in the Baltics, these were all puppet regimes which then "petitioned" for admission to the USSR, then graciously "granted." PetersV       TALK 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Puppet state" is already mentioned in the appropriate section. It is wrong to slap the label into the infobox like that, equalizing a 3 week period with the rest of its existence. Anyhow, I tried to clarify that part further. --Illythr (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Mosedschurte, would you at least agree that the Estonian government could not have decided not to resist before receiving the ultimatum? --Illythr (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Speculation. The Baltic governments were not blind to the military movements outside their borders and took steps regarding continuation of sovereign authority prior to the Soviet ultimata which came before the invasions. PetersV       TALK 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding? Did these steps include the decision not to resist and accept whatever Stalin may desire? The decision to yield and accept an ultimatum cannot logically be made before such an ultimatum is issued. Anyhow, what do the sources say? According to this timeline, the chain of events on the 16-17th of June was as follows: 1) 14:00: ultimatum note issued, with the deadline set to 24:00. 2) 23:00: Estonian government accepts the ultimatum. 3) 17th, 01:00: Molotov informs the Estonian representative of the time the additional troops will cross the border - 05:00. 4) 05:00: They do. --Illythr (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out this image from September 1939. Martintg (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much illustrates my point. The timeline problem was fixed anyway. --Illythr (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rahva Hääl

Can anybody add a translation of what the headline says to the pic's caption? --Illythr (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A constituent republic?

Between July 21 and August 6 it wasn't a constituent republic of the USSR, though it existed. Colchicum (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll make that clear shortly. --Illythr (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Illythr (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Please be careful. I know that unlike many others you are a neutral editor. However, as you may understand, the regular editors on this page are not particularly used to neutral editors. It is easy, but unnecessary to provoke a confrontation here. Colchicum (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my first impression was that "puppet state" was referring to the pre-ESSR period. Hopefully, my last addition clears that up. --Illythr (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Puppet state

I don't understand why mention of the puppet state is being removed. The two references given in the text clearly characterizes the Soviet state proclaimed on July 21 as such:

• The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, David J. Smith from Front Matter ISBN 0415285801
• Estonia: Identity and Independence, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, David Cousins, Alexander Harding, Richard C. Waterhouse on Page 246. ISBN 9042008903

So certainly it was a puppet state before it became a constituent republic. Here is a another reference --Martintg (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See above. In short, it's inappropriate for the infobox, and the wording was weird. The info is already in the article (and in a more more appropriate/closer to the source form - "puppet government"), and I'm not sure it needs to be in the lead, provided the period between declaration and incorporation is mentioned correctly. Still, while I don't think that using "puppet state" in the lead is a good idea due to NPOV concerns and possible confusion, I'm not entirely opposed to it, if it's given due weight.

Mmh, if you're absolutely sure that the current wording is not enough and it must be in the lead, say so, and I'll try to stuff it in myself. --Illythr (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The current "was a Soviet republic and a constituent republic of the Soviet Union" is definitely misleading and unclear. First of all a "Soviet republic" and "a constituent republic of the Soviet Union" can mean basically the same thing. Before the Soviet annexation in August 1940, and after the Soviet invasion in June 1940, Estonia was a sovereign state only nominally after the new government was installed by the Soviet Union. And a nominal sovereignty controlled effectively by a foreign power = Puppet state. So there were 2 stages of the Estonian SSR, at first it was proclaimed and existed as a puppet state of the Soviet Union. and then in August the puppet state was annexed and became a "republic" of the Soviet Union, and "republic" in the context means simply an administrative unit of the unitary state, Soviet Union.--Termer (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First, that Soviet republic and republic of the Soviet Union means two closely related but distinct things should be clear from the appropriate articles. Second, you are correct about the two stages; the problem is giving a 3 week period and a 50 year one equal representation in the lead section (the old version actually made the latter period secondary with that weird "...was also the name of..."). I'll try to reformulate a bit further, then. --Illythr (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Better now? --Illythr (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out an article about Soviet republic. Possibly one of the best joke-fantasies on Wikipedia created by some sock called User:Nixer. Other than Soviet republic there is even better one called Soviet democracy, an article that is entirely based on marx.org. In the context, ESSR definately wasn't a "Soviet republic" - a system of government in which the whole state power belongs to the Soviets - councils of employees - the way it's defined in the relevant article. The fact is that the whole power in occupied Estonia belonged tho the Soviet plenipotentiary Andrei Zhdanov.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a problem of those articles that their content describes those things more how they were supposed to be, and less how they actually were. The idea is to underline that a Soviet republic is not necessarily a part of the USSR. Um, what's with the "was a nominal constituent republic"? "Nominal" may be used to refer to the late 1980s period, but for most of the time it most definitely was a SSR along with the rest of them. --Illythr (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominal republic, that is. After all, SSRs were not republics in any way but their name. Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic. Sometimes Soviets claimed that "republic" merely meant there was no king. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This "Soviet" definition - "there is no king" - has somehow made it not only into Wikipedia (see Republic), but also major Western dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and encyclopediae such as Encarta. Regardless, it looks like you've merely confused the definitions. In Merriam-Webster, it's the third one, not the first. --Illythr (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Constituent republic" is simply misleading , in fact none of the SSR-s were anything else than local administrative units of an unitary state Soviet Union.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See definition 3 in the Merriam-Webster entry I provided above. --Illythr (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the thing with those "Socialist republics" that those were neither Socialist nor republics. The first source coming to my mind who nailed the essence of a Socialist Republic has been George Orwell in 1945.--Termer (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, most counties aren't ruled by a count nowadays, nor do most of these states, actually possess statehood. That's why all those disambigs are there. Anyhow, since the original idea was to denote the administrative division and distinguish the first three weeks from the rest, and this is now done by other means, I just whacked that part. --Illythr (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article Ohio (or any of the other ones I bothered to check) does not contain the definition of a US state in the lead, relegating this to the corresponding article. Since Termer provided an acceptable definition of an SSR in the root article, I will remove the unnecessary level of detail here shortly. --Illythr (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unlike a republic of the Soviet Union what exactly is the status of a US state is much more considered common knowledge in English speaking countries. And considering that the term "Republic" in the context is completely misleading, I mean up to the death of Stalin those republics were ruled by a king like dictator, therefore I think it doesn't hurt if what exactly was the de facto status of a "republic of the Soviet Union" is defined here as well.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of the Soviet Union" is not really misleading here, as the context is quite unambiguous (even more so than usual). Similarly, a county is usually no longer ruled by a count (completely misleading), but you probably won't find an explicit definition of it anywhere other than the root article. Therefore, I don't see a reason for making an exception for this one article and clutter its lead with a definition that is one click away in all such articles, thanks to one of the key advantages of a digital encyclopedia. --Illythr (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only someone who is very familiar with the subject could claim that "Republic of the Soviet Union" is not really misleading here, as the context is quite unambiguous". Just that Wikipdeia is not written only to the people who are full around experts on the subject.--Termer (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For these people we've got this feature called wikilinking. If a term in unfamiliar to you and looks blueish, you just click it, and voila! ---Illythr (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, a term "Republic" is not an unfamiliar to anybody and in the context it's misleading.--Termer (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Template

The template that is in use for this article is not the correct one. The template is for that of a Former Country, not for a Soviet Republic. Despite my efforts, the old template is still in use. This template is not used for any other Soviet Republic, and thus should not be used for this article. 24.235.232.11 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because you've also removed a good chunk of text by Termer. I dunno, the SSR template seems kinda weird, with inactive parameters and that weird "Medals=none" thingy... --Illythr (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just a technicality and it doesn't really make a difference what kind of template to use, often the former country template is used instead of Template:Infobox Former subdivision. But as it seems someone has created Template:Infobox SSR why not to use it. But it doesn't justify the removal of all other facts from the infobox. So in case this Template:Infobox SSR is not developed well enough Template:Infobox Former subdivision should be used instead.--Termer (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What I noticed though there was a note in the enlarged infobox: "As of 2009, 2,323 km² of this territory remains within Russian borders and is the focus of a dormant border dispute between the two states" that is completely untrue. There is no border dispute between Estonia and Russia.--Termer (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look up. --Illythr (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

About this edit [8] by User:Pianist_ru: First of all, this information about 47,549 km² were defined according to the Tartu Peace Treaty in 1920 between Estonia and Russia. As of 2009, 2,323 km² of this territory remains within Russian borders...etc. is irrelevant in the article about ESSR. the Tartu Peace Treaty was signed by Republic of Estonia and RSFSR. This article is about ESSR, a soviet union republic. For second there is no "border dispute between the two states.", meaning Estonia and Russia nowadays. And even if there was, again, it would be irrelevant regarding the ESSR.--Termer (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put information from the old template. Use footnotes if necessary. --Pianist 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get confused with this. ESSR was established in 1940. It had Petseri County as an administrative unit inherited from the Republic of Estonia. The Petsery County of the ESSR was annexed with RSFSR in 1944. After ESSR was disestablished and the Republic of Estonia regained independence de facto, there were discussions about the return of the Petseri County to Estonia. But such talks were already dropped about in 1995.--Termer (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This note was originally put there to state that Russia still illegally occupies something. Are you absolutely sure you want to remove it? --Illythr (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was added, and I have no idea if "Russia still illegally occupies something", but even if it is so according to any reliable sources out there, it would be utmost irrelevant to an article about administrative unit of USSR that ended it's existence about 20 years ago.--Termer (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1990 or 1991?

On 8 May, 1990 Estonian SSR was renamed "Republic of Estonia". Despite the central power of the USSR in Moscow continued to regard Republic of Estonia as Soviet republic in 1990-1991 the name "Estonian SSR" was not used in official documents in 1991.--Pirags (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The article lead states that "most countries" yadda yadda yadda. This is a most erroneous statement to make, as it was based mainly upon 1960 data, a year when MOST countries did not yet exist. For example, most of Africa had not been de-colonised by that year, and the statement also fails to recognise that for every western country that didn't recognise, there was an eastern country that did recognise. Such dubious statements have no place in Wikipedia. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact) is irrelevant as Soviet puppet states. Relationships with new countries (e.g., Africa) accorded de jure by implication (not explicitly) if not making an exception. The primary and appropriate focus is on countries which were sovereign prior to WWII and were not Soviet puppet/satellite states subsequent to WWII. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. One does not discount the POV of a hundred-odd countries simply because one wants to concentrate on using data from 1960 to back up their opinion on the realities on how they existed for the last 40-50 years. More countries, by way of establishing diplomatic relations with the USSR, recognised that all 15 constituent republics were part of the USSR, than did not. It's like statistics; except here it's "there lies, damn lies, and Wikipedia". Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Years of

It occurs to me that a single span of years rather implies it was the ESSR, not the Estonian republic, which was occupied by Germany. This is incorrect. The infobox should state "1940–1941, 1944–1991" as the years. There was no ESSR from 1941–1944. To imply that also implies that the ESSR regime was legitimate, was evacuated during the occupation, and legitimately returned. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox to change "Interrupted by" to "Succeeded by" regarding the Nazi occupation. At this time, I don't see any means for inputting multiple date ranges for the "former country" infobox. Separately, it really should use list items, not hyphens, for the various events, separate discussion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it correct to refer in the infobox that ESSR is preceded and succeeded by Estonia. Republic of Estonia has always existed and thus the infobox is misleading and false. Continuity of Republic of Estonia is stated in the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.26 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Elevatorrailfan (talk · contribs), please stop edit warring, your change has been reverted by two people already, so therefore please discuss your proposed change on talk per WP:BRD. The template style guide is clear, "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period", the State continuity of the Baltic states is well established, the Estonian government-in-exile is not relevant to that continuity as discussed in the sources, and in fact Latvia and Lituania had no "government-in-exile". --Nug (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Re adding predecessor and successor flags.

Without the previous and successor flags, anyone reading the article can not see/navigate the previous and successor, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic's predecessor was the Republic of Estonia (the Republic before 1940) then the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was under the German occupation. Then the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was succeeded the German occupation, and the present day Republic of Estonia is the successor to the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Elevatorrailfan (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your way was really misleading with Estonian SSR being the predecessor of both Republic of Estonia and Reichskommissariat Ostland? Also all kinds of pipelinks won't make things clearer. Search To which entries should I link? here: Template:Infobox former country. Klõps (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It should have shown up as 1940-1941 1941-1991 instead of 1940–1991, unfortunately I did not notice it until I viewed the history of the article.Elevatorrailfan (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here

6. If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary).

Example: the Confederate States of America broke away from the United States of America before becoming again part of the USA after the American Civil War. Detailing predecessor and successor states here as the USA is redundant, since the USA still existed in some form during this period, so say nothing.

1. Republic of Estonia continued to exist

2. How does pipelinking help to navigate? Klõps (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The republic of Estonia was in exile. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This argument is your personal opinion, published sources tell us that the Estonian government-in-exile was irrelevant to the continuity of the Baltic states. Wikipedia is based upon reliable published sources, not just personal opinion, read the Wikipedia policy WP:RS. Reliable sources tell us that the Republic of Estonia before the Soviet occupation is the same and continuous with the Republic of Estonia after the Soviet occupation. The following is a list of sources:

• Hiden, Johan; Salmon, Patrick (1994). The Baltic Nations and Europe (Revised ed.). Harlow, England: Longman. ISBN 0-582-25650-X.
• Gerard, Craig. The Baltic question during the cold war. Routledge. ISBN 9781134197309.
• Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. M. Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.
• Marek, Krystyna (1968). Identity and continuity of states in public international law (2 ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Libr. Droz.
• Van Elsuwege, Peter (2008). From Soviet republics to EU member states: a legal and political assessment of the Baltic states' accession to the EU. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-16945-6.
• Van Elsuwege, Peter (2003). State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States. Leiden Journal of International Law (Cambridge Journals) 16: pp.377–388. doi:10.1017/S0922156503001195.
• Ziemele, Ineta (2005). State Continuity and Nationality: The Baltic States and Russia. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-04-14295-9.

It doesn't matter what you or I think, what matters is what published books say. --Nug (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The template states:

If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary). Example: the Confederate States of America broke away from the United States of America before becoming again part of the USA after the American Civil War. Detailing predecessor and successor states here as the USA is redundant, since the USA still existed in some form during this period, so say nothing.

The Republic of Estonia was the predecessor of the Estonian SSR and the modern Republic of Estonia was the successor to the Estonian SSR. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the Republic of Estonia before the Estonian SSR is identical and continuous to the modern Republic of Estonia, see the sources listed above. --Nug (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

August 6 or August 9?

This article says the ESSR was annexed to the USSR on August 9, but other articles, and most sources I find online, say August 6. --Golbez (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic → Estonia under Soviet rule
• Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic → Latvia under Soviet rule
• Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic → Lithuania under Soviet rule

– If we might go with the shorter forms of the Baltic SSRs per WP:COMMONNAME, even they were used by the Western media, those articles should be renamed just like how Korea under Japanese rule and Taiwan under Japanese rule did. Likewise, those were never Soviet republics by the United States and other western powers because they were illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:FCD4:BB2F:46A:D495 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:FCD4:BB2F:46A:D495 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. While, given enough material, there might be a call for an article such as Estonia under Soviet rule with a historical narrative, these articles in question are about the SSRs as a whole and are organized as articles about the union republics like the other articles in Category:Republics of the Soviet Union. —  AjaxSmack  19:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - states and territories (no matter international recognition) deserve their own separate article. Article titled "Estonia under Soviet rule" should be equivalent to article that's titled "History of Estonia (1945–1990)". Renata (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being unfamiliar with the Japanese-occupied cases, articles like Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia show that an article with the official name given by the occupying power is a common way to go. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - regardless of the legality of the occupation, these "states" were established and should have an encyclopedic article on them, just like Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Manchukuo. Taiwan or Korea are not good examples, since, as far as I know, the Japanese outright annexed them and did not establish any state-like organization there, unlike in Manchukuo. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all the above. AusLondonder (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. That's what they were known as, whether you like it or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all the above. --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV - "unrecognized"

The Estonian SSR was the de facto government of Estonia for almost 50 years. It was the only government whose sovereignty over the territory was internationally recognized and, through the Soviet Union, the UN-member government of the territory. While the government in exile was partially recognized by some UN member states, it was not itself a UN member state, and the retroactive "state continuity" granted the post-Soviet government was essentially a legal fiction of Cold War politics.

Compare Taiwan, which has, like the government-in-exile of Estonia during the Cold War, a government with very limited international recognition and no UN seat. Unlike the Estonian government-in-exile, however, the ROC (1) actually has de facto control of Taiwan and operates as a government, rather than a lobby group of exiles (2) participates in a significant number of international organizations, including UN-affiliated organizations.

In fact, the Government of Taiwan is more like the Estonian SSR than the Estonian government-in-exile, and the Wikipedia articles for the Taiwanese government reflects its existence as a partially-recognized, de facto government over a real territory. In fact, the Estonian SSR had substantially more legal, diplomatic and political recognition throughout the Cold War than the Taiwanese government has had since the 1970s. The sovereignty of the Soviet Union over Estonia was not actually disputed in a serious way, beyond the rhetoric of Reagan-era sloganeering.

Whether the various people who, suddenly after 1945, no longer felt comfortable living in Estonia - perhaps they were worried it would cease to be "judenfrei" - like it or not, the Estonian SSR was objectively the internationally recognized government of Estonia until at least 1989, and this article needs to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.225.20 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense. Removed "unrecognised" from the info box. If it reappears I think it should be treated as vandalism. 95.91.245.249 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Diplomatic Recognition.

Who exactly recognised the ESSR De Jure? This source says Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, and New Zealand among western countries, but I cannot find a source for all countries. https://books.google.de/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA103&dq=&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false 95.91.245.249 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

On a similar note, can anyone provide a quote for the source backing the claim "Most countries did not recognize the incorporation of Estonia into the Soviet Union"? The map File:Map_of_non_recogntion_of_the_Baltic_states.png doesn't seem to back this claim, in fact it seems that the US was fairly alone to explicitly reject the integration of the Baltic SSRs into the Soviet Union. --Soman (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Type of English tag

Thread started by a ban evading sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all. A user recently changed all the "-ize" spellings to "-ise" in the belief that this is exclusively American English, when this is the Oxford spelling, and I would like to place the Oxford tag on it to avoid further issues. 92.21.251.88 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Disagree with change to Oxford spelling, as opposed to standard British English. No good reason has been presented to support this change. Tammbecktalk 10:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC) My reasoning is that this was the variety already used in the article before a recent edit, it would merely be making it official to avoid problems. 92.21.251.88 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Assuming you're right that Oxford spelling was consistently used in the article (I don't particularly want to plough through it) then MOS:RETAIN would apply and I would have no objection to the Oxford spelling tag being added. Tammbecktalk 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Renewed discussion regarding variant

@Bgsu98, Black Kite, John Maynard Friedman, and Tammbeck: I hatted the discussion above, but there is a salient point raised about which variety of orthography and vocabulary to use.

For record, the net diff resulting from ban-evasion is this.

The MoS procedure for determining which variety to retain in case of dispute is that the variant used by the first non-stub revision stands, or if there is no clear variant at that revision then whatever variant the article naturally evolves to first is retained.

Determining the first non-stub is a bit messier here than usual since the first revision was sectioned, but mostly empty. However, by the 50th revision we have a non-stub. Unfortunately all that we can really derive from that is to use ruble rather than rouble.

Ironically TCG's usual line of argumentation that ruble is unacceptable in EngvarB would lead us to conclude that the article must be something else, but in fact ruble vs rouble is more of a STYLEVAR thing, and many respectable EnvarB publications use it (example).

Now I have no intention of going through line by line, but looking ahead a bit by mid-05 -ize is preferred to -ise (revision) but even that doesn't tell us much, could be Philippine or Nigerian or Oxford Commonwealth.

By mid-07, airplane has appeared (revision) which means not British, but doesn't rule out say Australian with Oxford spelling, and while -ize still predominates, forms are becoming mixed.

If forced to choose, I'm inclined to just go with Canadian because I seem to remember a few Canadians branching out and doing a good deal of the early work on the climate and geography of Northern Asia and Europe, but any variant that combines a preference for -ize with a tolerance for North American vocabulary could be correct. Singaporean with Oxford spelling anyone?

Personally, it would probably be better if we just didn't pay much attention to this sort of thing, and I think that in general only MoS pedants are actually bothered by articles that use mixed forms, but unfortunately the ruble vs rouble thing came up so we're here.

Anyway it's possible I missed something, happy to hear everyone else's thoughts. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as the spelling is consistent, it shouldn't matter which version of English is used. This is not a topic that is inherently British or inherently American. But the back-and-forth edit warring over a choice of English cannot continue. And there's only one person I've seen who's stuck on "rouble" and his opinion no longer matters, so "ruble" it is! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The -ize ending is vanishingly rare in the UK, to the extent that if the author didn't also add a {{use}}, it is reasonable to assume that it is not Oxford. Most British readers have never seen it. To illustrate: there was an episode of Inspector Morse (which is set in Oxford) where the perpetrator of the "perfect crime" was only unmasked as "an Oxford man" by his use of the -ize ending in a forged suicide note. So that possibility can be dismissed with a clear conscience. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: It is more formal than that. The RFC at talk:Ruble#Request for comment concluded that WP:Engvar determines which form should be used, so 74.73.224.126 is correct in first identifying which dialect was first in use. (And while this discussion is still in progress, you should not really have jumped the gun – even if the outcome is fairly obvious.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)