text:
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:. 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:
 * 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.
 * The Narva plants were fed by oil shale mined exclusively from local deposits in a robber-like way, causing extensive environmental damages.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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, and now after it. 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 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 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. -  auburn pilot  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: 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 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: Cmapm 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] 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:
 * a rephrased text is not covered by the original copyright;
 * facts are not covered by copyright;
 * Wikipedia's WP:VER policy requires a significant amount of reconveying ideas published previously;
 * 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: 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, 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 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 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 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 - 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: 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)
 * 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".

How about you try to add more specific tags, and preferably place them in the sections where they should be. For example: 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)

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
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. Tammbeck  talk  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. Tammbeck  talk  16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Renewed discussion regarding variant
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)
 * It is more formal than that. The RFC at talk:Ruble 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)

title: Talk:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic


text:
Farthing

Farthing or farthings may refer to:

Coinage

 * Farthing (British coin), an old British coin valued one quarter of a penny
 * Half farthing (British coin)
 * Third farthing (British coin)
 * Quarter farthing (British coin)
 * Farthing (English coin), the predecessor to the British farthing, prior to the union of England and Scotland
 * English Three Farthing coin
 * Farthing (Irish coin), its counterpart among the pre-decimal Irish coins
 * Farthing, used in the King James Version and Douay–Rheims translations of the Bible to translate κοδράντης (kodrantes, quadrans) and ἀσσάριον (assarion, as), both Roman coins

Arts, entertainment, and media

 * Farthing (magazine), a defunct British science fiction magazine
 * Farthing (novel), a 2006 novel written by Jo Walton
 * Farthings (Middle-earth), the four quarter divisions of the Shire
 * Timothy Farthing, a fictional character from Dad's Army

People

 * Alan Farthing (born 1963), British obstetrician and Surgeon-Gynaecologist to the Royal Household
 * Charles Farthing (1953–2014), New Zealand AIDS doctor
 * Dan Farthing (born 1969), Canadian wide receiver player of Canadian football in the CFL
 * Hugh Farthing (1892–1968), Canadian politician
 * Jack Farthing (born 1985), English actor
 * John Farthing (1897–1954), Canadian philosopher
 * John Farthing (bishop) (1861–1947), Canadian priest and Anglican Bishop of Montreal
 * Matt Farthing, British musician and sole member of Stay+
 * Michael Farthing (born 1948), British medical researcher
 * Paul Farthing (1887–1976), American jurist
 * Robert Farthing (fl. 1394–1397), English politician
 * Stephen Farthing (born 1950), British painter
 * Walter Farthing (1887–1954), British politician

Places

 * Farthing, Wyoming (also known as Iron Mountain), a railroad station and post office in Wyoming
 * Farthing Common, a common in East Kent, UK
 * Farthing Downs, a down in Croydon, London, UK
 * Farthings of Iceland, historical administrative divisions of Iceland
 * Farthings Wood, a woodland in Buckinghamshire, UK
 * Farthing Horn, subsidiary ridge of Denali to the north of the main peak
 * Stoke Farthing, a hamlet in Wiltshire, England

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Farthing


text:
Foreign relations of Guinea-Bissau

The Republic of Guinea-Bissau follows a nonaligned foreign policy and seeks friendly and cooperative relations with a wide variety of states and organizations. France, Portugal, Angola, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Libya, Cuba, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ghana, and Russia have diplomatic offices in Bissau.

Diplomatic relations
List of countries which Guinea-Bissau maintains diplomatic relations with:

International membership
Guinea-Bissau is a member of several international organizations: the United Nations and many of its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Group of 77, and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Guinea-Bissau is also a member of the African Development Bank (AFDB), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the African Union (AU), and the permanent Interstate Committee for drought control in the Sahel (CILSS).

title: Foreign relations of Guinea-Bissau