Talk:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flag of Estonian SSR 

message: 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)
replies: text: "...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)

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

message: Just noticed Russian version is outdated (written from Russian point of view only) and needs complete rewrite. — lim 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nothing -- you should see :ru:История Эстонии. Digwuren 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian version 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Institute of Cybernetics 

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: This editprotected request has been rejected. It's clear that you have a long history with this page. I believe that the listing itself on Wikipedia:Copyright problems will be sufficient. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about POV tag rejection? Isn't it clear, that POV dispute continues here? Cmapm 00:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates to be included

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  My take: There is no such policy. Quite contrary, there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Be_bold that supports putting forth the effort. --Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My take: See above for all reasons Digwurren listed why it cant be.--Alexia Death 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: You know, why I'm object to your version, if not yet, remember our discussion [[See Talk:Estonian_SSR#Biased article rewriting and address my points there. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come [[Estonian SSR]] is so negative? 

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

message: What is the basis of keeping the POV tag on the article? Digwuren 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below (show both the Estonian and the Sovjet view in neutral terms). Otto 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: See Further reading. Colchicum 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the thorough work on adding references. Digwuren 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I still don't accept article's one-sided rewriting by Digwuren and their removal of all references that existed. So, I'm reverting to the state, the article was prior to this - please compare reference variety there and in Digwuren's Ralge Vaamat translation and pushing as a "wikiarticle" feat. See Talk:Estonian_SSR#Biased article rewriting section, for my points, which were not addressed. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Demonstrate that you understand my position.  Until that time, I'm going to ignore your contentless diatribes. Digwuren 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Before things get out of hand with POV-s

message: 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. Pavel Petrov] at Finnish Defence Forces home page documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy  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. Aggression Defined at Time Magazine the Convention for the Definition of Aggression. League of Nations Treaty Series, 1934, No. 3391.
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)
thread_title: Russian Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I quote:
"Demographic changes:
Population of the Estonian SSR grew from 1,054 million in 1940[16] to 1,565,662 million in 1989"
1,565,662 million sounds like a huge number, almost third of the world population back then. Can someone fix this please?
87.109.3.77 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.5 million is third of world population at 1989? I don't think so, you better check your sources. I can confirm the 1.5 though. Suva 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is right. The commas should be replaced with dots.Colchicum 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The typo was actually "1,565,662 million" which should be just "1,565,662". Or "1.566" million. Suva 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: The lead currently says "Estonian SSR... was a short-lived Soviet-backed puppet state". It is referred to as "short-lived" even though it existed for over 50 years. Shall we remove the "short-lived" statement? (I am aware that this is a sensitive topic, so I am not being bold). --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-read the lead, the "puppet" refers to the bogus elections and the regime which took charge and petitioned for membership in the U.S.S.R., the lead talks about the constituent republic following. Short-lived is from the elections to annexation, so correct--it's not referring to the 50 years. —PētersV (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing this out. I clearly misread the sentence. It's probably just me, but ordering different meanings in the order of importance rather than chronology would make the lead clearer. I think when people refer to Estonian SSR they usually mean "a constituent republic of the U.S.S.R. [existed] between 1940-1941 and 1944-1991." --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reworded the intro slightly to try to better distinguish the Soviet state proclaimed after the elections following occupation from the SSR as of annexation. See if that works better for you. —PētersV (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: P.S. It is because of perspectives such as yours (no judgement being made here) that the so-called "nationalists" (used in a derogatory fashion, not saying you did here, though "waffle" is a bit problematic) make sure everything stated has reputable sources behind it. Your fiancee's opinion, unfortunately, does not. —PētersV (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 years -- short-lived? 

message: It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name.  Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.  We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we?  --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

message: I'll add some additional references I've found here:
* Detailed 400 page report "Estonia and Finland - A Retrospective Socioenonomic Comparison" published in 1993 by Finland's Government Institute for Economic Research (report freely downloadable, 30MB in size)
* A journal article titled "A General Method for the Comparison of the Price of Living" published in the "The Review of Economic Studies" in 1937 that compares the similarity of Estonian and Finnish incomes in the 1920's 
--Martintg (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional references on the comparison of the Finnish and Estonian economies

message: Please get rid of them, because in prints as many showed as on screen. It's very annoying. 88.209.227.229 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><div></nowiki> with auto overflow near references and notes 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "TM191940" :
** Justice in The Balticat Time magazine on Monday, Aug. 19, 1940 
** Justice in The Baltic at Time magazine on Monday, Aug. 19, 1940 
DumZiBoT (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

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

message: This is a strange page, because every other Soviet Socialist Republic page ('cept the Latvian SSR) doesn't mention anything like this.
First, it wasn't "backed" by the Soviet Union, it was clearly both de facto and de jure within the Soviet Union as a Soviet Socialist Republic. Secondly, it was not "on" the territory of the Republic of Estonia, for all intents and purposes it succeeded the Republic of Estonia. It's like saying that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a state "on the territory" of the Republic of Vietnam. There was no civil war or massive rebellion that persisted throughout the SSR's existence to such an extent that the SSR can be merely "on the territory" of the Estonian Republic. It was clearly in control of every area it claimed to be in control of for 40+ years. And finally (the most damaging), Etonian men and women from exile did not suddenly enter the Estonian SSR in 1991 and overthrow the government. Instead the Estonian SSR was renamed and declared independent, just like every other SSR and even the Russian SFSR. The way the article makes it sound, Lennart Meri would have been executed as a collaborationist traitor to the Republic along with many others as order is restored by freedom fighters.
So either we revert this page to the same status as the Lithuanian SSR page, or we note that the occupation was seen as illegal according to international law but that the Soviets clearly had de facto control and ownership over the territory. --Mrdie (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Mrdie. The Baltic states were never de jure part of the USSR. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 05:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, besides that Mrdie's suggestion that “we note that the occupation was seen as illegal according to international law” should be mentioned indeed, if it has not been done so far (obviously, that “the Soviets clearly had de facto control and ownership over the territory” is there in the article).Miacek (t) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual sentence in question is cited from a book by David J. Smith, who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He has published extensively in the area of contemporary Baltic history and international relations, with particular reference to issues of nationalism and identity politics, so he is certainly an expert in the field. Martintg (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, this piece of information has already been stated three time in the article text (in what is now "International reaction", "Stalin era", and an entire section dedicated just to that, "Controversies"), four times now, thanks to Digwuren's edits. They should probably be merged. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: P.S. That invasion making good Stalin's threat to attack Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should they not sign the pacts of mutual assistance. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 13:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In case of Finland the demands were more of a territorial nature. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

message: When was it settled? Last I heard (2007) the talks had failed once again. --Illythr (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no more talks.  The border treaty was completed and signed by both sides.  Estonia proceeded to ratify the border treaty, and from Estonian side, it's settled.  Russian Duma did not ratify the treaty, hence, it still has no legal basis for controlling in the Petseri area. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the border lie, according to this treaty? --Illythr (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the draft treaty, the border would lay at the current location of the border. And the reason why the Duma refused to ratify the draft was that the Riigikogu unilaterally changed the preamble of the draft, originally produced by bilateral negotiations between Estonian and Russian delegations. More specifically, the Riigikogu added words declaring Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. Obviously, the Duma saw this as an act of bad faith and couldn't ratify such a document. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is what I've gathered as well. So there is no dispute de facto, but there's one de jure. I'm not entirely sure if this information is relevant in an article about a political entity that existed before the dispute arose, but I'll try to reflect  this in the article in some manner. --Illythr (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial dispute 

message: Mosedschurte, would you at least agree that the Estonian government could not have decided not to resist before receiving the ultimatum? --Illythr (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation. The Baltic governments were not blind to the military movements outside their borders and took steps regarding continuation of sovereign authority prior to the Soviet ultimata which came before the invasions. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Misunderstanding? Did these steps include the decision not to resist and accept whatever Stalin may desire? The decision to yield and accept an ultimatum cannot logically be made before such an ultimatum is issued. Anyhow, what do the sources say? According to this timeline, the chain of events on the 16-17th of June was as follows: 1) 14:00: ultimatum note issued, with the deadline set to 24:00. 2) 23:00: Estonian government accepts the ultimatum. 3) 17th, 01:00: Molotov informs the Estonian representative of the time the additional troops will cross the border - 05:00. 4) 05:00: They do. --Illythr (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out this image from September 1939. Martintg (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much illustrates my point. The timeline problem was fixed anyway. --Illythr (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

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

message: Between July 21 and August 6 it wasn't a constituent republic of the USSR, though it existed. Colchicum (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I'll make that clear shortly. --Illythr (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --Illythr (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Please be careful. I know that unlike many others you are a neutral editor. However, as you may understand, the regular editors on this page are not particularly used to neutral editors. It is easy, but unnecessary to provoke a confrontation here. Colchicum (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my first impression was that "puppet state" was referring to the pre-ESSR period. Hopefully, my last addition clears that up. --Illythr (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A constituent republic? 

message: The template that is in use for this article is not the correct one. The template is for that of a Former Country, not for a Soviet Republic. Despite my efforts, the old template is still in use. This template is not used for any other Soviet Republic, and thus should not be used for this article. 24.235.232.11 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you've also removed a good chunk of text by Termer. I dunno, the SSR template seems kinda weird, with inactive parameters and that weird "Medals=none" thingy... --Illythr (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What I noticed though there was a note in the enlarged infobox: "As of 2009, 2,323 km² of this territory remains within Russian borders and is the focus of a dormant border dispute between the two states" that is completely untrue. There is no border dispute between Estonia and Russia.--Termer (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up. --Illythr (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I just put information from the old template. Use footnotes if necessary. --Pianist 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not get confused with this. ESSR was established in 1940. It had Petseri County as an administrative unit inherited from the Republic of Estonia. The Petsery County of the ESSR was annexed with RSFSR in 1944. After ESSR was disestablished and the Republic of Estonia regained independence  de facto, there were discussions about the return of the Petseri County to Estonia. But such talks were already dropped about in 1995.--Termer (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This note was originally put there to state that Russia still illegally occupies something. Are you absolutely sure you want to remove it? --Illythr (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Template 

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

message: The article lead states that "most countries" yadda yadda yadda. This is a most erroneous statement to make, as it was based mainly upon 1960 data, a year when MOST countries did not yet exist. For example, most of Africa had not been de-colonised by that year, and the statement also fails to recognise that for every western country that didn't recognise, there was an eastern country that did recognise. Such dubious statements have no place in Wikipedia. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact) is irrelevant as Soviet puppet states. Relationships with new countries (e.g., Africa) accorded de jure by implication (not explicitly) if not making an exception. The primary and appropriate focus is on countries which were sovereign prior to WWII and were not Soviet puppet/satellite states subsequent to WWII. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not how WP works. One does not discount the POV of a hundred-odd countries simply because one wants to concentrate on using data from 1960 to back up their opinion on the realities on how they existed for the last 40-50 years. More countries, by way of establishing diplomatic relations with the USSR, recognised that all 15 constituent republics were part of the USSR, than did not. It's like statistics; except here it's "there lies, damn lies, and Wikipedia". Russavia Let's dialogue 00:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: It occurs to me that a single span of years rather implies it was the ESSR, not the Estonian republic, which was occupied by Germany. This is incorrect. The infobox should state "1940–1941, 1944–1991" as the years. There was no ESSR from 1941–1944. To imply that also implies that the ESSR regime was legitimate, was evacuated during the occupation, and legitimately returned. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the infobox to change "Interrupted by" to "Succeeded by" regarding the Nazi occupation. At this time, I don't see any means for inputting multiple date ranges for the "former country" infobox. Separately, it really should use list items, not hyphens, for the various events, separate discussion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years of 

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

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

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose.  While, given enough material, there might be a call for an article such as Estonia under Soviet rule with a historical narrative, these articles in question are about the SSRs as a whole and are organized as articles about the union republics like the other articles in :Category:Republics of the Soviet Union.  —  AjaxSmack  19:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV - "unrecognized" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Diplomatic Recognition.

message: 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)
replies: text: Assuming you're right that Oxford spelling was consistently used in the article (I don't particularly want to plough through it) then MOS:RETAIN would apply and I would have no objection to the Oxford spelling tag being added. Tammbecktalk 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of English tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The -ize ending is vanishingly rare in the UK, to the extent that if the author didn't also add a , 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)
replies: text:  It is more formal than that. The RFC at talk:Ruble#Request for comment concluded that WP:Engvar determines which form should be used, so 74.73.224.126 is correct in first identifying which dialect was first in use. (And while this discussion is still in progress, you should not really have jumped the gun even if the outcome is fairly obvious.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewed discussion regarding variant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress