Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 25 January 2009

ESStonia

ESStonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A nonnotable pejorative pun with the name "Estonia" used by anti-Estonian Russians. There is no analytical articles which discuss this term, only examples of usage. Mukadderat (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a failed attempt to translate into English a Russian pun. Incidentally, the cyrillic alphabet does not have the character "S". ("C" is used as the equivalent of the Latin "S"). -- Blanchardb -- timed 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a failed attempt. It is exactly how it is spelt in Russian. --Russavia 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and merge content into Anti-Estonian sentiment. This is more than a neologism, it is a protologism, and I don't think english Misplaced Pages should be used as a vehicle to promote protologisms or be a venue for disgruntled Users to create WP:POINT articles because an AfD went against them. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet you voted to keep Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. Why's that? --Russavia 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So did a lot of other people. The difference is that there are scholarly papers written on the Putinjugend, it has been subject so study and analysis. Not so with the term eSStonia, this article only describes its usage. Therefore it should be deleted and the content merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no scholarly papers written on Putinjugend. There are scholarly papers written on Pro-Kremlin youth groups, which use the term either in the title or in passing in the paper itself. There's a difference. --Russavia 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article clearly states "The term perceives Estonia as a neo-Nazi state which glorifies its Nazi past whilst it desecrates war memorials dedicated to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War." That is sourced to 3 different sources, and describes the etymology and reasoning behind the term. --Russavia 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is an academic paper on the topic: Nasi - Die Putin-Jugend by Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian culture and society at St. Gallen University. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That paper is on Nashi, but which uses the word Putinjugend as a descriptor for the organisation. No difference here. --Russavia 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand To use some arguments from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc. Well known Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin has used the term to describe Estonia within the context of the controversy, as have other political commentators in Russia. We have articles on Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, Putinism, etc and these are terms which are either fringe terms or are used in a disparaging way. Edward Lucas, who frequently attacks Russia in his articles and books has used both Putinjugend and eSStonia in his articles, and is used as references in both articles (2 separate articles in this instance), and he himself recognises that eSStonia is a widely used term. So keep as per that, and for fighting systematic bias in Russian topics. --Russavia 03:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is there to expand? So in other words what you are saying is that this article eSStonia is just a WP:POINT creation by you because you disagree with the result of various AfDs for the articles Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin and Putinism. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no point to it. It's a widely used term (as acknowledged by Edward Lucas), and it deserves an article. The only WP:POINT, I guess, is the hypocrisy that some will vote to keep or delete based upon their own biases, and not within policy. And as one can see from eSStonia, it is just as well sourced, as Putinjugend. The creation of this article has been done purely because the sources are there which describe what is behind the term, and also usage of the term in contemporary Russia. Nashi, the Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda have used the term. Yabloko have asked regarding the legality of usage of the term (which nothing more is known about). And media outlets such as The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosblat, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda have published information about the usage of the term. It's more than notable. --Russavia 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex below has put it quite succinctly. If our inclusion standards allow Putinjugend, based upon only a few sources using the term in passing, there is no difference for this one, except this one has documentary actual usage of the term in different sectors of Russian society. --Russavia 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - marginally notable neologism. Still the notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources and some real-life newspaper campaign. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend, I guess the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article tells: Along with the term eSStonia, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves was referred to as IlveSS, and Prime Minister of Estonia Andrus Ansip was referred to as AnSSip. But an article that mentioned Putin-Dobby has been deleted, even with references to New York Times and BBC. Any logic? Do we want "Putin-Dobby" back?Biophys (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays let us start raising it. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as neologisms like Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, etc., are allowed in WP. Rationale for keeping is essentially the same. P.S. A note for uninvolved editors: It’s amazing to see how all this circus votes ‘delete’ here, while pushing ‘keep’ in, for instance, and . Beatle Fab Four (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Alex Bakharev. KNewman (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This sad thing does exist and you can not get rid of it by deleting the article. And it is good to know about it anyway.Warrington (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems the main argument for "Keep" here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Putin-Dobby, with 118 news hits, certainly looks more notable than eSStonia with its total of 18 news hits. Martintg (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So, with eSStonia kept, are you going to write Putinland article, for the fun of ethnic wars on wikipedia? Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Beatle Fab Four. ellol (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete we don't need such propaganda rubbish here, as we don't need Putin-Dobby or Putinland, either. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ha-ha. IP from Tallinn. "Provocation" from our Baltic friends? :))))) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Keep" is seen as a "provocation", what next? If you didn't know, 36% of Tallinn residents are ethnic Russian. Martintg (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article has no significant encyclopedic content. It is a nonnotable slur, a deliberate distortion of the name of the country. At best it belongs to wiktionary. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -a politically motivated WP:POVFORK of Estonia and a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The whole story is nothing more or less than a "cheap jibe" according to the source provided by Russavia. Any possible "encyclopedic content" in the article should go either to Anti-Estonian sentiment or Estonia–Russia relations. The bottom line:Misplaced Pages doesn't need another article that deals with the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy--Termer (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How can it be a politically motivated POVFORK of Estonia, but then you state that any content should be moved to other articles? There are at least a half a dozen or so articles where a link to this article could be placed. It is no different to Putinjugend which compares Pro-Kremlin youth groups (note the NPOV title but which is a redlink) to NAZI Germany and in the same breathe also puts Putin down as being a NAZI. Edward Lucas, a prominent anti-Russian journalist, has stated that the term was widely used and even gives etymology behind the term. As people who "voted" to keep Putinjugend noted, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Why should it be any different here? People have taken note of the apparent standards for inclusion into WP thru AfDs such as that are allowed, so there is no reason why this should not. --Russavia 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Putinjugend would be related here. Unless it's about making a WP:Point, like it seems, a little like if "Putinjugend is OK for Misplaced Pages, so should be eSStonia"? and sorry for my lack of "good faith" here, but cherry picking in Misplaced Pages a country of 1 million for a revenge of WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend is kind of pathetic I think. Why don't you guys pick on someone that fits your size if you want to make a point due to Putinjugend?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Termer, with Edward Lucas, he has a reputation amongst many quarters of being a Russophobe, Estophile and Polonophile. Of course he will call it a "cheap jibe", because it is against Estonia. You will also note that in one of the articles he states "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." But one will note that less than a month before that he himself evoked NAZI name-calling with Putinjugend. (That article is used as a source in that article). But whether he regards it as a cheap jibe, or not, he lends notability to the term. Your latest comments seem to be a IDONTLIKEIT-like comment. WP is not censored, and as much as I hate having shit like this on WP, the AfD for Putinjugend showed us the standards for inclusion on WP, and it was on that basis that I have introduced this article, based upon those standards for inclusion. I don't write anything on WP that isn't notable. Also, you will note in the article that I have included the information that the Saint Petersburg branch of Yabloko asked for intervention because it is their belief that it breaches the Russian criminal code, but it appears nothing ever came from it. The reality of the matter is that a large section of Russia does believe that Estonia glorifies its NAZI past, whilst at the same time it desecrates Soviet war memorials, and 60% of Russians regard Estonia as an enemy of their nation...eSStonia is merely a notable manifestation of that belief. You don't like it, others may not like it, I don't like it, but it is a notable term, and it is notable Russian POV...or is that POV not allowed on WP anymore (if at all in the first place)? --Russavia 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So you keep confirming that "eSStonia" is only about a revenge for WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly WP:UNDUE in English Misplaced Pages unlike the term Putinjugend that has 9 returns in google scholar, and 21 @ google books--Termer (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as Evil Empire, Great Satan, Axis of Evil, Old Europe, Hindu Taliban, etc. It is a notable political neologism, not an ethnic slur. --Russavia 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evil Empire was repeatedly used by Ronald Reagan. You might have heard of him. He was an old movie actor come politician somewhere in Northern America. He's generally considered notable.

Great Satan was invented and popularised by Saddam Hussein. You might have heard of him. He was a bearded tyrant and warmonger who lived in Baghdad, and whose poor judgment in choosing friends ultimately became his undoing. He's generally considered notable.

Axis of Evil was invented by Karl Rove and popularised by George W. Bush. You might have heard of them. While neither had beards, both had poor taste in friends, and have been dethroned by their people by now. They're generally considered notable.

Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using eSStonia as a catchphrase? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian-language internet doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable political neologism. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr WP:RS unlike Evil Empire with 13,400 returns in books. And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--Termer (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is relevant: . Biophys (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the relevance is about the Russian Putinjugend painting a picture of Estonia as a Fascist state? In case this is so, the only thing that would be relevant here is the Freedom in the World (report) and Estonia's and Russia's places in it. Where Estonia is listed as one of the Free countries in the world vs. Russia that is categorized as Not Free. Considering such facts the proposed parallelism between 2 articles eSStonia and Putinjugend suggested by Russavia has no basis whatsoever.--Termer (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian-language internet most definitely makes it notable, as it explicitly says that the term is used in Russia. And English-language sources have also commented on it. As to Digwuren's questions, a term does not have to be uttered by a notable person to make it notable, but it has been used by notable entities such as Nashi, Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and its usage has also been mentioned by The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosbalt, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda, plus more. --Russavia 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, Konstantin Zatulin, a member of the State Duma and director of the Institute of CIS Studies has used this term, as per this. --Russavia 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on disruption I do not much care if this article remains or not, I'm here to analyse an obvious breaching of WP:POINT. There are a set of users here who have been violently opposing similar articles about Russia or the Russian government, often because of their own nationalist feelings. I remember how User:Russavia, the creator of this ESStonia article, even argumented that "ESStonia was not acceptable either" as an argument to oppose those articles. Those articles are now cited by them as a reason to keep this article even though they still oppose the cited examples. This article is quite obviously created not to improve the quality of wikipedia, but only for battleground purposes, and thereby widening the gap between the already-disrupted relations between Russian nationalist editors who do everything to protect the post-soviet Russian government, and those writing critically or neutraly about Russian history (including other Russians). WP:POINT clearly states: It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition.. I don't think this is acceptable and it should be remembered. Grey Fox (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Russavia, originally voted delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. The result of this AfD was "No consensus". In his complaint to User:Xasha over the outcome of that Afd, he raises the idea of creating eSStonia in retaliation. Again he mentions the prospect of this creating article during request to the closing admin User:Stifle to reconsider his closure. When Russavia then does follow through and creates the article in his userspace first, admin User:Orangemike expressed the problems of notability, again Russavia cites the Putinjugend article as his justification. After moving the article into mainstace, he further justifies the creation of eSStonia by claiming "Putinjungend is the rebuttal". Martintg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assumption of good faith there Grey-Fox. For the record, on Putinjugend AfD you expressed your opinion of "Putinjugend is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place.". The only place I have even mentioned eSStonia is here; you should remember it, as you all stalked me there, and I raised the question in would people use the same arguments? I went ahead and created the article in userspace (which Martintg tried having speedied by stalking me) and I ensured that it is notable and NPOV before placing into mainspace. It is notable, as there is a source which explains what the term means, and then there are sources which give usage of the term. It's as simple as that. And be careful Grey-Fox when accusing me of such rubbish, because I do recall that you gamed the system in removing information from a peer-reviewed reliable source which described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau. But anyway, this discussion is on this article, and this article alone. Is it a notable term? Yes it is, because it is described by multiple reliable sources. --Russavia 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did vote delete in Putinjugend, Martintg, for it is in my belief not a notable term. But many editors, including most of those who are actually attacking me now here, "voted" keep, even though I demonstrated that it's usage is very low. You even made the utterly ridiculous comment on the article talk page that "Nashi" is the neologism. But due to the outcome of that AfD, it has been determined that it is a notable term, so there is no reason that this is not a notable term also. I don't believe that any of this shit honestly belongs in an encyclopaedia, but going by past AfD's it seems opinion is against me (and others). Don't forget to mention also that you stalked me, and that after Orangemike speedied it, I contacted him and he re-instated it, and you again tried to speedy it, which I reverted, and which you then tried to get arbitration enforcement unsuccessfully on me. --Russavia 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You virtually admitted that you created this article in reponse to Putinjugend. This is classic WP:POINT behaviour, which clearly states: "It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition..". Martintg (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have virtually admitted nothing. I have stated very clearly and I mean what I say and I say what I mean. This is a term which I had heard of in the past, and which I believed was notable, but was unsure if it were notable enough for WP. Given the AfD for Putinjugend, plus other AfDs, it was then my belief that this indeed a notable term for inclusion on WP. Most of the opposes miss the fact that there are sources for this information and are based probably upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete easy decision as this is neither notable nor encyclopedic. Ostap 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - we can and should (and indeed do) mention this in Anti-Estonian sentiment, but to have an article created solely because another article the creator didn't like was kept is silly. We shouldn't have to accommodate WP:POINT violators that way. - Biruitorul 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a retaliation for keeping the article Putinjugend and described by the article creator as in the group of "fringe terms which are used only to disparage the subject." I have to agree with that assessment, the term seems fringe, hence delete. Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• keep and expand. Esstonia is a good sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Google search for "esstonia" gives 408.000 hits (results to assure some corellation between term and meaning in this article). Thus, it is justified as a standalone article. I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasuresXasha (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the name of an ArbCom decision named after me (yay!) I, Digwuren, point out that Xasha's comment here is in violation of a topic ban by AGK. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Note that this comment was made by a user who has left Misplaced Pages, but not before adding his vote here, out of spite, it would seem. Note too the conspiracy the article's creator engaged in with this user before creating it. Should we really keep such tainted material? - Biruitorul 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy? It was an observation of mine made to another editor. Look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinisms (2nd nomination), which looked like this at the time of deletion, in which a slew of editors voted keep based not upon policy, but on their opinions. And often it is done just to oppose the person who is nominating. I can show an example of where an editor who is stalking my edits noticed an image which I nominated for discussion, and he stalked me to the IfD and placed a simple "Keep" vote, and then lied and said it had been discussed before (which it had not).

• Delete. This is wrong Google query above. The term seems to be insufficiently notable. All useful content should be moved to Russian propaganda or "Anti-Estonian sentiment". See also arguments by Marting.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is as notable as Putinjugend or Phone Call to Putin. It has as many valid references as those terms. It isn't just Anti-Estonian sentiment, but it has a place also in Estonia–Russia relations, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, Bronze Night, Aftermath of the Bronze Night, 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian), Monument of Lihula, plus others. The term is clearly notable, as WP shows this time and time and time and time again, and merging it seems, is a matter for editors, not AfD. --Russavia 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"eSStonia" is a term now? Perhaps you simply don't know what a term means? Or else in what kind of subject matter this kind of supposed terminology is used?--Termer (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - a revenge article, should be deleted per WP:POINT alone. Because of the Economist article title it may be mentioned in the article anti-Estonian sentiment, but in a much shorter form. (A sentence about this is sufficient.) Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a tad bit WP:BIAS. Why are Komsomolskaya Pravda, Novaya Gazeta, Kommersant, etc not regarded as reliable sources here to establish notability? It's no different to terms such as Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Freedom fries, Great Satan, Evil Empire, Hindu Taliban, etc. WP is supposed to have a world wide view of realities in that world. Just where is the WP:POINT? I didn't create the article in order to have it listed here, I created the article because past AfDs have noted that notability can be established. I have never expressed a personal opinion that Estonia is a neo-Nazi state, and I have merely stated in the article what the reliable and notable sources say, for this is what we do on WP, is it not? --Russavia 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • As I so patiently explained above, those catchphrases are not notable on their own; they're notable because somebody notable advanced them. Who is that elusive notable person who advanced this one? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - since many similar neologism articles mentioned above were kept, this should consequently be kept as well. Offliner (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Observation: Those that support "Keep" assert that notability is established by the usage of the term within the Russian media and internet. While this may well be true in the case of Russian Misplaced Pages, it is not true in regard to English Misplaced Pages. Within english usage there are only two press articles in regard to the term, both published in the Economist within weeks of each other and most likely written by the same author. There is no other usage elsewhere in the English language media. If the standard of notability of a term (which Wiktionary is more suited) is prevalence in foreign language media and internet, then foreign derogatory terms like "tiblastan" could be considered as notable as "eSStonia". This is nuts. Martintg (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Would not the English language sources (The Economist) give notability to the term for English WP? By the way Tiblastan has not even been mentioned by a reliable English language source. --Russavia 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Added scholarly source which states "Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism." --Russavia 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I hoped something could be salvaged here, but (see the talkpage) I've now come to conclusion that this is a hopeless WP:COATRACK article with no hope of redemption. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates