Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 3 May 2007

Republic of Estonia (1990-1991)

Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is an attempt to legitimise the POV that no continuity exists between the current Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Estonia established in early XX century, and cites no sources. Digwuren 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a POV fork to me. --RaiderAspect 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of what? -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Estonia. The fact that virtually the only page that links to it is the Bronze Soldier of Talinn (a page where many wikipedians appear intent on fighting WWIII) isn't exactly inspiring either. --RaiderAspect 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No such country legally existed during that period. Alexia Death 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Really? Estonian SSR says that the US and the UK "considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal" and "never recognized the existence of the Estonian SSR de jure." So Estonia did legally exist, at least according to the opinion of some. Anyway, I'm still deciding how to vote on this one. But the nominators statement that the article denies continuity between the two republics seems to be false. StAnselm 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian SSR existed, but it was never an independent country. It has its own article. This article contradicts History of Estonia. The country symbols were not used officially until independence was redeclared. There was no country like this during that period as this territory was Estonia SSR. Alexia Death 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I realised only just now what you were trying to say. the first Republic never ceased to exist legally all through the existence of Estonian SSR, but de facto no territory by the name of Republic of Estonia existed during that time. It wasnt a territory but a legal ghost of a country. Alexia Death 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

During the last year of Estonian SSR the NAME of the territory was at one point changed to Republic of Estonia as documented in the history of Estonia but the territory remained part of USSR. What is a new territory in the context of this series? The name? then this should be merged into the Republic of Estonia article following it(makes no sense), if by legal standing then into Estonian SSR(logical choice). Alexia Death 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Delete: I don't know the background to this (my knowledge of Estonian history is more-or-less non-existent) so I can't judge the accuracy of the content, but surely any legitimate content can be merged into the Estonia article. --RFBailey 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you no not know Estonian history, why do you vote? Anyway, if any merging is to be done, this should go to Estonian SSR. -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to merging any sensible content to Estonian SSR as long as another oddity currently under dispute Estonian SSR (independent)‎ gets merged/deleted into the same as well Alexia Death 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think this, like the other Estonian article up for AFD, should be referred to dispute resolution instead, as regardless of the content of this article, Estonia, and every other former Soviet republic, should have some documentation of its history during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Thus the question is not whether to cover it, but how and in what fashion. Once that issue has been discussed, then what to do about this page can hopefully be reached by consensus. Mister.Manticore 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is documented plenty in History of Estonia and the legistration changes belong in Estonian SSR. If a country or territory is considered to be a new one every time a law changes most countries would be reborn quite often.Alexia Death 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing not documenting such history. Indeed, such documentation has already been done to a significant degree, as pointed out by Alexia Death.

However, this article is not about documenting the freedom process of Estonia, but about declaring a fictitious legal entity. This is blatant historical revisionism, already used for WP:POV pushing purposes on other article's discussion pages.

And did I mention the article cites no sources? It is because sources that would support this article as distinct from the real history article do not exist. Delete (after all, I made the formal request for deletion.) Digwuren 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You may have legitimate concerns. You may not. The problem is, the subject of this article is not a problem. If there's things in the article that aren't referenced, reference them. Untrue? Replace them with the truth. However, since this is clearly a content dispute, I don't see AFD as truly resolving the issues here. The processes outlined in WP:DR are likely to be more effective. Mister.Manticore 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you understand why this was marked for AFD. Subject matter of the article never existed. There was no such state. Period. How can you make true statements about something that never existed?Alexia Death

Well, if that's your position, you're certainly welcome to argue it in DR. Mister.Manticore 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see only one way that would allow this subject article to continue existing meaningfully, and it goes like this:

"Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) was a fictional short-lived country that belonged to the Soviet Alliance, which was fictional too. It was a wonderful land, being filled with fictional candy trees, fictional milk rivers and fictional porridge hills, and per executive order of the wise czar Lenin I, all toilets in the country were made of pure fictional gold."

Somehow, I doubt this is what you have in mind. Digwuren 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How to you expect me to prove that a country does not exist if cites on this very page stating that Estonian SSR lasted until 1991 and two countryes cant exist on same territory at the same time are not proof enough? --Alexia Death 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• WTF! - When I first saw this article, and the related Estonian SSR (independent) article, I thought they were Estonian nationalist POV-pushing to delegitimize the Estonian SSR (Exactly the opposite of what the nominator claims.) I first considered suggesting a merge to ESSR, but seeing the high quality of this article I understood its logic. The deletion proposal is an effort to push a Estonian POV in the wake of the Estonian - Russian Bronze Soldier conflict. I vote SPEEDY KEEP as a bad faith proposal.

P.S. - Another indication of the BAD FAITH of this nomination is that the nominator placed it in Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts). -- Petri Krohn 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a legal fact that an independent country of this article never existed in the legal realm. How again exactly is stating a fact POV? Cutting legally one territory into bits serves no purpose other than pushing some other (bizzare) POV. Alexia Death 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 1990 - 1991 was a transition period to restoration of Republic of Estonia in Estonia SSR. There were legally no Republic of Estonia at that time - at August 20, 1991 independence was re-established on the basis of historical continuity of statehood. Citations:
  • The same trend was continued by the new Supreme Council, elected from the general population on 18 March 1990, which declared a period of transition to the restoration of the Republic of Estonia. The Supreme Council elections were won by the Popular Front, whose leader, Edgar Savisaar, became prime minister of the Estonian SSR. - MOFA : Estonia
  • Thus, on August 20,1991, Estonia did not issue a declaration of independence but a decision on the re-establishment of independence on the basis of historical continuity of statehood. - The Restoration of Estonian independence

Myzz 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Or to be more precise - At that time Republic of Estonia was still under occupation (After Hitler's Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Estonia was occupied by German armed forces from 1941 to 1944 when the Soviets again took over. ... The de jure continuity of the Republic of Estonia was recognized by Western powers, who refused to view occupied Estonia as being legally part of the Soviet Union - The Restoration of Estonian independence). -- Myzz 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA - The world factbook states following: ... Estonia attained independence in 1918. Forcibly incorporated into the USSR in 1940 - an action never recognized by the US - it regained its freedom in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. -- Myzz 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• conditional keep provided the author supplies reliable sources for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'mikka 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was an article about a historical period, I would not have marked it for deletion. It is an article claiming to be about "a short-lived country". No such country existed at that time.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as long as supported by the sources. This is a legitimate historical and political issue.Jackfirst 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look above. This is not about a political issue. It sais to be about a country. No such country existed.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The Republic of Estonia that existed starting in 1990 did not end in 1991. Rather, it became internationally recognized as independent in that year. This article and Estonian SSR (independent) seem to be pushing a point of view, except that I can't figure out what that point of view is. --Metropolitan90 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with this view. The majority of Estonians (and the ones proposing deletion) however disagree. They see this as part of the illegal Soviet occupation (and thus "nonexistent") with no continuity with the post 1991 republic. If I was more handy with wiki-family trees I could draw pictures of all the different ways legal continuity between these republics can be seen to flow. When we have multiple interpretations, we should not try to squeeze everything in one POV article (as in Soviet occupation of Romania or Occupation of Baltic states), but instead split the subject into several articles, so that each separately can be covered in a NPOV manner, presenting all possible interpretations. If you start merging this material into something else, you end up supporting one POV. -- Petri Krohn 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating legally nonexistent countries is also pushing a POV. If this was handled as a hitoric period and not a pseudo country Id have no problem with it.--Alexia Death 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination, as explained by Petri Krohn.--Pan Gerwazy 10:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I think that this article might be necessary because "Republic of Estonia" is ambiguous. In 1990-1991, one of the republics the Soviet Union existed under the name "the Republic of Estonia". At the same time, there legally existed the continuity of the Republic of

Estonia (this is the official legal construction recognized by most countries of the world). So we have to distinguish between them some way. The article under this title could serve to this purpose. So the content of the article should be slightly different. Indeed it wasn't a distinct country. Andres 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates