Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Governorate of Estonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Estonia (1917-1918))

Cleanup

[edit]

External links need to become inline references, false claim that Nothern Estonia == Eestimaa needs to go (I doubt that one out of thousand Estonians thinks so, probably one out of ten knows it once did - as it has been repeatedly shown, Eestimaa is now used interchangeably with Eesti), language needs to be cleaned up ("leftist" is slang and redirect, Jaan Anwelt is redirect as well). Article reads like it was put together in a hurry and is hard to read. I cannot find any reference to "On November 28 (November 15) 1917 the Menshevik dominated Maapäev" - or any reference to mensheviks in given sources whatsoever - so that seems to be POV/OR. Article needs to be cleaned up and extended (good source seems to be Estonica. Sentence "Although it took almost a year for Estonia to be liberated from German occupation, this date is still celebrated as Estonia's independence day." is POV. Legal status of this country (not recognized) should also be made clearer.

I won't start changing this article myself just now - mainly because of recent events here in WP. DLX 06:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the article was created in under half an hour :-) -- Petri Krohn 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]

I don't see any merit in this article, it seems to be a POV fork similar to Republic of Estonia (1990-1991), challenging the legitimacy of the Estonian Republic proclaimed on February 24, 1918. I attempted to nominate this article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia_(1917-1918), but it was procedurally closed almost immediately. Martintg 08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could become a basis for main article about how Estonia gained independence, supplementing Estonian War of Independence. Another name is needed, though, and rather major rewrite. However, AfD deletion was really weird - closing it after one hour... this goes against Wikipedia normal procedures. DLX 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with article as long as people do not try to depict this thing as independent state.--Staberinde 08:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial objection too. I'm happy with way the article is evolving now. Martintg 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the procedural close is mainly due to bad wording of the explanation. A policy-wise valid explanation would be "This article is an unwarranted fork of topics belonging to the article History of Estonia." Digwuren 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to do a {{prod}}, but I'm not sure if it worked. Digwuren 12:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

If article sticks to its current content(from autonomy to german occupation) then it needs to be renamed because current name is misleading. Best idea what I have is Estonia Autonomous Governorate.--Staberinde 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the best approach is to merge this article into History of Estonia. When that article starts to grow too big, spin-offs may be created according to the natural structure of the history. Digwuren 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be POV, as this article now merges three or four political entities:
  1. Autonomous governorate
  2. Maapäev, with supreme legal authority
  3. Revolutionary Soviet republic under Anvelt, with unknown relationship to Russia
  4. One-day "independent" Republic of Estonia
-- Petri Krohn 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be ridiculous, Maapäev was local authority established at same time then autonomy. Its declaration of being supreme local authority was just part of power conflict inside governate between Maapäev and Estonian Soviet Comitee(translation is mine so probably not 100% correct, original: "Eestimaa Nõukogude Täitevkomitee", led by Anvelt). Autonomous governate continued to exist until german occupation.--Staberinde 11:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the name change. As is the title is misleading. It was an autonomous part of a bigger country not a country on its own. --Alexia Death 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the content of this article into a section of History of Estonia and replaced the page with a redirect. I will later move for deletion of the redirect. Digwuren 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the article for deletion through the RfD process. Digwuren 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S What are the grounds for Petri Krohns bizarre opinion that a change in politics automatically creates a new state? Most countries would be born again after each election this way... --Alexia Death 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My expertise in psychoceramics suggests it is a process similar to WP:POVFORK taking place in his mental map. Specifically, if history is broken into small pieces, it's easier to label each piece individually as good or evil. Digwuren 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claming (nor is the article), that Estonia in 1917 or 1918 was an internationally recognized independent country. Independence was however claimed by the Maapäev during the pre-occupation period covered in this article on Estonian political history.
What the article says is this: Estonia as an unified and separate political entity first emerged in 1917. It does not really matter (for the worth of the article) if independence was recogniced or not. What is important is that Estonians as a nation for the first time had any political control of their destiny. -- Petri Krohn 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You signed this claim of non-claim late May 27. Then, you proceeded to make this edit early May 28. I would say you're lying about "not claiming" that Estonia was a country. Furthermore, 'state without international recognition' is quite a problematic concept. Finally, your attempt to consider a structure state without listing any WP:RS -- such as documents of recognition --, merely on the basis of Yet Another Pet Theory, is most definitely WP:OR and does not belong to Wikipedia. Digwuren 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maapäev did not claim independence, it claimed to be highest local authority. At that time there even was not consensus what is best option for future and many possibilities(like protectorate of Germany or Russia or joint state with other Baltic states etc.) were discussed. You see, these were complicated times, at first nobody even thought realistically about independence, first goal was simply little more autonomy, and as events progressed, situation started looking more and more promising and higher level of autonomy started looking realistic until at one moment independence sounded as realistic option. Nobody would had even in their wildest hopes believed about realistic independence in 1916, at 1917 it was already considered an option and in 1918 there was actual possibility to declare it out and later even defend it. And Estonians control over their destiny was still very small at that moment then Maapäev made declaration as Estonian communists who got to power at october revolution were strongly anti-independence(only major party with such position) and followed orders from Moscow. There is reason why Estonian independence was declared out just before german occupation. It was simply very problematic earlier as communists opposed it, so pro-independence forces needed to wait for moment then one foreign power leaves but other one has not yet arrived. So Estonian autonomous governate was not yet independent state, just it was preparation ground for actual struggle for independence. So please stop adding categories which are inappropriate, they will be removed without hesitation.--Staberinde 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what so special UNIQUE information does this contain that it cant be part of History of Estonia? If you are not claiming that this is about an independent recognized country than I see no reason for keeping it separate. You can say it just as well in History of Estonia. Right now you've made an article just to exhibit pretty much one sentence out of all context. If you don't come up with a good reason for keeping this I will support Digwurren in making it a redirect.--Alexia Death 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia article have size limits. Every small detail cannot be covered in XXX or History of XXX. We therefore have main articles on the smaller details of the long history.
For Finland we have:
-- Petri Krohn 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of article length restrictions are wrong. Furhtermore, "1917-1918" is a rather arbitrary slice of Estonian history. If this article should be outside of History of Estonia at all, it should bear a name such as Creation of the Republic of Estonia. Digwuren 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of Estonia is currently not too big and is one article. If it becomes so big thad it should be split, then it will be done on some sensible grounds and in uniform style. This currently is not sensible and is out of style with the rest of the depictions of history. sorry, this argument is not enough.--Alexia Death 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. After AfD failed Martin tries an alternative way to remove the article through blanking. Propose the move/merge and wait for the feedback. Article restored. --Irpen 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my name is not Martin. Second, the original AfD did not fail failed speedily due to misstatement of the reason to delete. And third, the merge is already complete.
I will restore the redirect again. Keeping the data on this page as well as History of Estonia would constitute a Wikipedia:Content fork, and that's bad. Digwuren 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought Martin did it. Now, you can't decide which topics a worthy of separate articles and which are not. Unilateral blanking will be reverted. Propose another AfD if you want to get rid of this article and are anhappy with the result of the first one. Happy edits, --Irpen 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, you can see the consensus above. And fifth, the first AfD didn't achieve a result.
Finally, sixth, you have repeatedly removed the {{rfd}} template from a redirect being considered for deletion. This is against policy; you should revert yourself. Digwuren 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages, that is not correct method for solving problem and it will not contribute for positive solution any way, deletion should be done differently if it is neccessary.--Staberinde 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the proper process for turning a page into a redirect? Because currently the information here and in History of Estonia overlap word for word and unless any information is presented that would be too lengthy to be in there there is no purpose for this article.--Alexia Death 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the article to WP:AFD, and asking for the article to be deleted and replaced with a redirect. However I am not sure this is what you are after. The intent here seems to be to turn this into a redirect, so that the WP:RFD process can be misused to delete the article history. -- Petri Krohn 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The texts should not overlap, this article should be expanded (to WP:FA :-) and the section in History of Estonia should be pruned. In fact I have already done that, merging useful parts to the old text and deleting most. -- Petri Krohn 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories?

[edit]

For some reason User:Staberinde has repeatedly removed categories Short-lived states of World War I and Post-Russian Empire states.

Independent Estonia in early 1918 was certainly short lived (one day). Is there some kind of implication that de jure the state still exists. This legalize POV, and should not affect the categorization. Also, Estonia emerged from the Russian Empire. I do not see the category in Estonia. I do not think you are suggesting we place the category there. I am restoring the categories. -- Petri Krohn 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you want to elaborate the view, that Estonia (1992 - present), Estonia (1919 - 1940), Estonia (1917-1918), the Estonian government in exile and the three episodes of fierce flag waving on Toompea are incarnations of the same state, you can contribute to the Estonia section in Legal continuity of the Baltic states. -- Petri Krohn 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying amounts to "This is my POV and it shall be covered! If you want your POV in Wikipedia, get your own damn article!". Despite what you might have heard, this is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, most importantly WP:POVFORK. Digwuren 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way you are going to add such cats to this article which dominantly is about autonomous adminstrative subdivision and does not qualify any way as independent state. Your attempts to push your own strange view of Estonian history are starting to get annoying.--Staberinde 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put the question this way: What were the German occupiers occupying?
-- Petri Krohn 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do your references say in regard to your question? Could you post cites to these references too while you are at it, thanks. Martintg 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anvelt's view" should probably read "what Petri Krohn, albeit without any references, wants to believe was Anvelt's view". --3 Löwi 06:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious, really, by this time. Most of what Petri Krohn has been doing for the past month has been attempts to push pet WP:OR theories into articles. There was time when his divine commandment was to continuously declare how the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn was demolished (never mind it wasn't) or that the Estonian government had been under undue influence of the Ministry of Defence (never mind it wasn't). Then came the attempts to push non-continuity of the Republic of Estonia (never mind that the continuity is generally accepted), and to insert references to "the theory of Soviet occupation" into a number of articles dealing with post-WWII Estonia. For a while, he attempted to pretend that "Independent Estonian SSR (1990-1991)" was a separate country. And then, came the numerous claims of "disenfranchisement", "denaturalisation" and "housing discrimination" of ethnic minorities in Estonia and Latvia.
The tireless fighting for revelation of "denaturalisation" and "disenfranchisement" in context of Estonia is even more curious considering that another of his pet articles, Southern opposition to Reconstruction (currently being considered for deletion for absolute lack of sources and extreme WP:POV) attempts to refer to the post-American Civil War *real* Southern disenfranchisement of blacks as "making them denizens", which apparently is supposed to both 1. be a positive development, given that the black slaves didn't really have any rights in South before the Civil War, and 2. replace references to the processes of disenfranchisement (never mind it's the generally accepted description of the happenings in question).
This Pushism of Pet Theories is not restricted to these topics. He caused quite a stir at Mongolia, trying to push the neologism of "competitive democracy" as the form of Mongolian government. Characteristically, he never proposed the change at Talk:Mongolia, even after repeated reversals, but at least, he stopped (so far) pushing it having been pointed out this was not a wise move. ([1] is quite illustative in the assessment of the efficacy of this campaign.) Digwuren 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case both of these cats are cats for articles about STATES. Didn't we establish already that this article is not about a state on its own but a historical period? The brief mention of Republic of Estonia does not make it one. Besides, Republic of estonia can in no means be called shortlived. It is now 89 years old and still kicking in spite numerous efforts by several bigger fish trying to wipe it off the face of the Earth.--Alexia Death 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by Staberinde and Alexia Death. Categories of countries most definitely do not suit this "slice of history" article; the only reason they were initially added was that an adder thought this article was about a short-lived country. He was mistaken. Digwuren 11:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Anyone find it a bit weird that primary reference concerning Estonia (1917-1918) is the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica? Martintg 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article

[edit]

Now there are two options:
1)Article is about autonomous governate of Estonia, that means article will be moved to proper title: Autonomous Governate of Estonia

And anything irrelevant to that moved to history of estonia or article on its own.--Alexia Death 08:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Article is about everything in Estonian in years 1917-1918, that includes, autonomous governate, german occupation and start of estonian war of independence, in that case current title is appropriate but article needs to be expanded and infobox and some cats get nuked.
You can not have both, you either have article about administrative unit or article about timeperiod, retarded mixture of both is not an option.--Staberinde 08:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the second case the articles title woud be no good. To give accurate description of this period some events from much earlyer and much later than 1917-1918 need to be mentioned. if the course is to be option 2 then I propose this article to be named Creation of Republic of Estonia. A redirect with current name might be acceptable.--Alexia Death 08:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a redirect would be instant deletion fodder. Nobody types "Estonia (1917-1918)" into the search box!
As outlined above, I agree with your position, though. Some alternative options for the name might be worth considering as 'creation' in this context seems somewhat wooden, but I do not have a better suggestion at this time. Digwuren 11:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Development of independent Estonia ? I agree that title needs some tought.--Alexia Death 12:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Independence', in context of Estonia, is inherently ambiguous, but this is better than the other independence-related titles I thought of. I think this could work. Digwuren 12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Petri has created a redirect page Governorate of Estonia pointing to this page, implicitly implying a rename of this article is order. In my view this article ought to be about the Autonomous Governate, the general period between 1917-1920 can be covered in History of Estonia. That being said, I have no real objections to the second proposal either. Either way, as long as it's not psychoceramic anti-Estonia propaganda, I'll support it. Martintg 00:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of moving (or proposing a move) the article to Governorate of Estonia. User:Klamber however claims that Reval Governorate was renamed Governorate of Estonia in 1796, so this name would not be unique either. The present name Autonomous Governorate of Estonia seems perfect, if not a bit loooong. -- Petri Krohn 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Petri has not presented any notable counterarguments(yes, I specifically waited to give him chanche to say something) then I will make a move.--Staberinde 11:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much are you willing to bet that now he shows up screaming rape, moves it back and still wont give any reasons?(Note: this is intended as a jest snot as an attack)--Alexia Death 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the flag

[edit]

..needs a good reference. it might be me that I've never heard of or seen anything like this before other than on wiki. But in case I'm wrong and the flag is not a complete hoax, I'd like to get it verified by a good ref for it that such a flag ever existed indeed. Even if we're dealing with an authentic tricolor, I'm positive that the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia never used the colors that are like it seems being claimed, the colors of the Baltic nobility. But then again, I might be wrong and have missed something. In case good refs are not provided withing a reasonable time frame, I'm going to list the image of the flag for deletion from WP. Thanks--Termer 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the flag. Check out the history of the image here: [[Image:Eestimaa_värvid.svg]], definitely a hoax by Petri Krohn. -- Martintg (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Governorate_of_Estonia&oldid=1222852211"