Talk:Russians in the Baltic states

message: What is the reason for this revert? Also, your (Lowi's) statement that it is a partial revert is untrue. Moonshiner 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you could see from his user contributions, that revert was his last edit so he didn't log in since then most likely (it seems he edits relatively rarely); as it might be so that this page is not on his watchlist, it might be good to contact him on his talk page instead, then he would see immidietly after logging in the next time. Burann 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with some of the changes proposed by Moonshiner (e.g., "citation needed" placeholders are rather OK), while with some others I do not. For example, i) The term "Baltic Russians" really dates back to the end, not the beginning of WW2. ii) Introducing a new construct "Russian Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians" (to denote "Baltic Russians" living in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) is bound to be confusing to many. iii) Deleting the whole paragraph in the beginning which explains why "Baltic Russians" as such can be found only in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but not in other former (Finland, Poland) or current (Kaliningrad) parts of Russia located by the Baltic Sea, again, risks leaving it unclear for many readers how such a pseudo-ethnic quasi-subgroup of Russians has come to be defined the way it is. Cheers, --3 Löwi 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, as I suspected, most of your issues are with the language barrier. Regarding the origins of the term "Baltic Russians," unless it was coined by some person at a specific date, in which case you can say it was coined by that someone at that date, you really cannot say that at May 9, 1945 it came into popular usage (which applies to phrases coined as well since the process of introducing new phrases into popular usage generally takes a long time). With regards to "Russian Latvians," in English it is customary when pointing out citizens of a particular country of a particular ethnicity to put the ethnicity before the country (ex: African Americans, French Canadians, etc.). As far as the introductory paragraph, after stating that "Baltic Russians are ethnic Russians who live in the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania," there is as much need to point out that the article does not refer to Russians in other countries with Baltic coasts as there is need to point out that it does not refer to Russians in Africa. If you want to clarify further, you are certainly welcome to in the main body of the article (maybe a separate section about incorrect usage of the term "Baltic Russians"), but the introductory paragraph should be concise. Moonshiner 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not good at English either, but I would just like to note that far from all Russians of Latvia and Estonia has citizenship of Latvia and Estonia, while in Estonia many local Russians has the citizenship of the Russian Federation, which they had opted to receive after they understood that getting Estonian citizenship is hard. As you say "Russian Latvians" for example would be Russians who are citizens of Latvia, so this term does not includes people who lives there permanently but aren't citizens? In that case perhaps it would be better to use "Russians of Estonia" and such to denote whole communities. Burann 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More issues with edits by 3 Löwi

message: Who should be included here? For example, was Yuri Lotman a "Baltic Russian"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.235.60.66 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuri Lotman was not a Russian, he was a Jew. So if you consider Jews living in Baltics to be Russians, like the section below suggests, then he was. In my opinion he would not have liked to be considered among "Baltic Russians", but that, like I said, is my personal opinion. DLX 07:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'd say he was a Russian Jew. Whether he was a *Baltic* Russian is more disputable -- but the mere fact of being a Jew should not exclude him from the list. There are other Jews who are in the list (Eisenstein, Tynyanov), and Wikipedia article on Lotman says he was "a prominent Russian formalist critic ... etc". Lebatsnok 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The main article deals with the situation of post-WW2 Russian-speaking immigrants and their descendants. I would suggest limiting the list of Notable Baltic Russians to Notable Russian-speakers currently living in the Baltic states, or born there post-WW2. That would eliminate many, such as Eisenstein, or Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who shouldn't even be considered. Notable Baltic Russians in general already have their place in History of Russians in Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania.--Joostik (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Baltic Russians 

message: Jatder wrote: Actual ethnic identity of "baltic Russians" is unclear. People, who are called "Russians" in this article are not only Russians ethnically; many can track their roots in today's Ukraine, Belarus, and other counties, that were parts of USSR during the mass migration time (1945 - 1991). But many of these not Russians (that are called Russians in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) speak russian at home and consider themselves as "Russians". Most of jewish poulation of the Baltic states (I mean Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania again) are also usually referred to as "Russian - speaking". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3 Löwi (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valid issue.  These people tended to be easier to assimilate in the Russification policies of Soviet Union than moost local people.  It's probably worth mentioning in the article in some way. Digwuren 11:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion para moved here from article 

message: Well, most of incarcered in Baltic states are ethnic russians. And most of lower class jobs are done by ethnic russians. Something like algerians in France. There are some places, what could become a russian gettos.
:Also, a surprisingly large part of private enterprises are owned by Russian-speakers. For example, in Ludza, where I live, there would be hardly any private firm without them. Public servants tend to be Latvian though.--Joostik (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  marginal minority 

message: I'm changing the first sentence, the term is usually used to refer to the Russian-speaking community as a whole, not only ethnic russians. Even Armenians/Azerbaijanis fall under the category, let alone the fact that it's often impossible to distinguish one slavic ethnic group from another. BanRay 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was better as it was, because rest of the article explicitly deals with ethnic Russians, not all Russian-speakers. Oth (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, there's also a slight dispartity in numbers bewteen this article and the Tallinn one, according to the latter, Russians make up 36.5% of the population. According to the "Baltic Russians" article:"36.86% of city's population are Russians" (ethnic Russians?), needless to say that both numbers are unsourced. And, honestly, it is beyond me, how someone can distinguish ethnic Russians, from, say, ethnic Ukrainians. I, for instance, don't know my ethnic nationality, or whatever it's called. Gotta be Ukranian, but, hell knows. As I see it, both articles inconsistently shift between ethnicity, citizenship and language. I'll run through the article and see what we can do here. BanRay 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure there are Ukrainians, Belarusians etc. in Baltic States who do identify themeselves as such and it doesn't seem correct to consider them Russians even if they use Russian language in everyday life. So I would suggest keeping this article about ethnic Russians only (correcting numbers and wording where needed) and make a separate article for other Slavic people in Baltic States (like there is for Estonian Swedes). Alternative is to rename this article to Russian-speaking people in Baltic States and expand to include other peoples. Either way the help from our southern neighbours is probably required. Oth (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you coming from Oth, but I tend to think of "Baltic Russians" as more of a social group, rather than an ethnic one. Sure there might be Slvaic people who identify themselves as Ukrainians or Belarusians, but then you've got ethnic Russians who don't really identify themselves as Russians, so it's kind of a tricky thing either way. Maybe we should just move the whole thing to russian-speaking people and edit it as such. But first I'd like to hear what other people think, since it might be different in Latvia and especially in Lithuania. BanRay 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that "Baltic Russians" along with "History of Russians in the Baltics/Baltic states" is better as a disambiguation page. There are different circumstances in the three Baltic states based on which parts were conquered by whom when, trade routes, etc. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is the possible confusion with Russians living in Kaliningrad Oblast and in the areas of Saint Petersburg. However, the term Baltic Russian is in no way misleading since these communities share a similar history, are facing similar issues and live geographically close. Aaker (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: * Do you mean Kalingrad and Saint Petersburg having similar histories? They would not. Koenigsburg was German before WWII. Nor is the history of Russians in St. Petersburg similar to that in Estonia, nor Kalingrad that in Lithuania. So I'm not quite sure what you mean here? PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say Russians living in Estonia and Latvia have quite similar issues. But Lithuania has different issues, because the number of Russians is much smaller. Peltimikko (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Russian Federation also signed a treaty with Lithuania recognizing acts against Lithuanian sovereignty committed by the Soviet Union, so official Russia can't agitate as much there, while Estonia and Latvia are open game. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can' see how Armenians in Estonia or Armenians in Latvia, etc. would fall under the category "Baltic Russians"? let alone the fact Armenians/Azerbaijanis are not a slavic ethnic group even though many of them may speak Russian as a second language. So do the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, does it make them Baltic Russians? Shortly anything here doesn't make much sense to me.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The term "Baltic Russians"

message: I have removed reference to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention and tried to slightly change the wording in history section as its mentioning is very dubious and misleading in this case. This convention was adopted in 1949, but all three republics had become part of the USSR already in 1940 (by the way, without any state of war between the USSR and these republics) and by the time of adoption of this convention they had already been completely incorporated as constituent republics of the Soviet Union with their own CIVIL (not military!) administrations/governments. This convention cannot be applied retroactively in respect to events of 1940. Relocation of Russians to Baltic states corresponded to legislation of that period as there was a single Soviet State, of which all three republics were part. Their presence was necessary to restore the economy destroyed during the war and was economically motivated. Events of 1944-1945 cannot be called "military occupation" as one cannot "occupy" what is already his own (in this case - until 1918 and again since 1940). The opinion of United States and the Stimson doctrine were just their own subjective opinions, not the supreme truth, which they used for political purposes in their struggle with the USSR. Wikipedia must be neutral and not present the official viewpoints of just certain states (in this case - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) Dilas25 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we suppose that relocations of ethnic Russians and other Russophones to Baltic states after the WW II were TRULY illegal at the time, then we should admit that all three states have the right to sue Russia (as successor of USSR) in international courts and demand financial compensations and repatriation of all Baltic Russians back. For some mysterious reasons, neither of the three republics have ever even tried to do something like that. The only logical reason that could explain this is that the relocation was in fact entirely legal (and the Baltic governments know that!). Losing such case against Russia in international court would effectively undermine all policy of Latvia and Estonia in the area of citizenship since 1991 (incl. the issuse of "non-citizens" and deprivation of voting rights).Dilas25 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference that articulates this viewpoint? I suspect it may be the so called "Russian patriotic-nattionalist" viewpoint as identified by some authors. In any case it is a minority viewpoint and Wikipedia policy dictates that we must give due weight according to the prevalence. --Nug (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, we are having a bilateral conflict of interpretations (Russia vs. Baltic states who were the participants of 1940 events). In this case both points of view must be presented in an equal and balanced way. Your edit clearly changes that balance for the benefit of official dogmas and propaganda of Baltic states (supported by their allies like US for political reasons) since 1991. The official position of Russian Federation (the opposite side of the conflict), see http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/Brp_4.nsf/arh/3575341BD4842979C3256FF8002F095F?OpenDocument is not by any stretch of the imagination a "minority viewpoint". Do you have any authoritative proof that the named Geneva convention had RETROACTIVE and EXTRATERRITORIAL effect on Baltic states except for some subjective opinion of some Jewish "scientist" whose name nobody knows and whose book is not freely accessible in internet? PROVE that the fourth Geneva convention can be applied in respect to events that happened before this convention was even signed and in respect of those states who never ratified it (at least at the time those events happened). I propose to clearly state that the Baltic states consider 1940-1991 period an illegal occupation, but the oppoaite side does not recognize such claims. By the way, none of the three Baltic states has ever officially declared persons who resettled on the territory during Soviet era as "illegal settlers" nor officially demanded their repatriation. In Latvia and Estonia almost all of them received residence permits but were deprived of voting rights. Lithuania chose the most fair way - granted citizenship to ALL permanent residents of the country at time of declaration of their second independence.Dilas25 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove that the Geneva convention does not apply. All governments have opinions and Russian foreign ministry is denying for political reasons. That is why here in Wikipedia scholarly scientific opinion is given more weight. We have the opinion of Dr. Yaël Ronen, Senior Lecturer of public international law at Sha'arei Mishpat College Israel, who states that settlers under illegal regimes have no rights, and there is no question that the incorporation of the Baltic states was illegal, that is an accepted fact. I've recently read that Estonian and Latvia's position is based upon solid legal precedence, France refused to grant German settlers French citizenship after it had recovered Alsace-Lorraine 47 years after Germany annexed it. The only reason Estonia and Latvia granted residency was for humanitarian reasons. --Nug (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Geneva convention of 1949

message: Do you think it is OK to include Tatjana Ždanoka in the list of notable Baltic Russians?
Counterargument - she is technically not an ethnic Russian, but a Russophone Jew.
Pro-argument - she has continously associated herself with Latvian Russians and has been engaged in protection of Russians' citizenship and linguistic rights in Latvia. The term "Russian" in wider sense can be applied to someone who is not necessarily an ethnic Russian, but who nevertheless speaks Russian as a mother toungue and associates himself or herself with the Russian culture.Dilas25 (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tatjana Ždanoka

message: 1) There is no "Baltic Russian" identity. There are Estonian Russians, Russian-speaking Estonians, Russians in Latvia, Russian-speaking Latvians, etc.
2) There is 100x more academic literature on "Russian-speaking people in .... [Estonia;Latvia;Lithuania]", than there is about "Russians in the Baltic states"
3) "Baltic states" is a geopolitical term. It is not a political union.
4) The laws are different on these topics in all three countries.
It makes absolutely no sense to have this unified article for all three countries. There is no "Baltic Russian" identity and there is no common "Baltic states" identity either. These are three separate countries. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree. H2ppyme (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be split up 

message: “Communist party members who had arrived in the area with the initial annexation in 1940 and the puppet regimes established evacuated to other parts of the Soviet Union;” - is this trying to say WERE evacuated? Peter Flass (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  syntax