| Revision as of 18:20, 10 February 2009 editXuz (talk | contribs)724 edits rm project flag, since the article is a redirect now← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:37, 10 February 2009 edit undoXuz (talk | contribs)724 edits self-rv: sorry, didn't read the whole history of last edits | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{oldafdfull|page=ESStonia|date=23 January 2009|result='''no consensus'''}} | |||
| ==Info from source== | |||
| From the Economist article... | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| After a fortnight in which Estonia's enemies made clever use of the cheap jibe that the country is oozing with nostalgia for the Waffen SS by spelling the country's name as eSStonia, the president's surname as IlveSS and the prime minister's as AnSSip, it is encouraging to see a counter-attack. | |||
| </blockquote> --] <sup>]</sup> 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Some more from the Economist article left out for some reason. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another. That flatly contradicts the Kremlin’s revived Stalinist version of history, which puts Soviet wartime heroism and sacrifice at centre-stage, while assiduously obscuring all the historical context. Given how the Soviet Union treated Estonia in 1939-41, it is hardly surprising that those who fought the occupiers when they returned are regarded as heroes. But they were not Nazis, nor are those who admire them now. | |||
| </blockquote>--] (]) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==NPOV dispute== | |||
| Any article on WP can't be just made out of "cheap jibe" like cited above. At minimum the article should also represent alternative perspectives pr ]. Until it tells just about the "cheap jibe" side of the story, the article is sorry to say, nothing more or less than an example of ].--] (]) 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't it? ] is the rebuttal. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excuse me? I have no idea what are you talking about and why do you refer to another article on this talk page. In case you do have ideas how to go about the article you mentioned, please address those ideas at the relevant talk page.--] (]) 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest you look at the AfD for Putinjugend, because apparently it is totally ok to have articles built out of fringe terms which are used only to disparage the subject. eSStonia is widely used in Russia, there is no denying that, and there are reasons behind it, such as at the time of the "desecration" of the Bronze Soldier there were movements in Estonia for the "honouring" of its NAZI past with memorials to the SS. Frankly, I would prefer that no such articles existed on WP, but there is obviously a push by some to use WP to fling as much shit as possible, but so long as there are sources which give eSStonia notability, and Putinjugend demonstrates that, then there is a place for this article. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no interest in ] whatsoever and you referring to this article here on this talk page has absolutely no relevance. Your claim that "eSStonia" is widely used in Russia would need a citation at first. And even if true, such an ethnic slur would be ] in English Misplaced Pages. But in case the article is not going to be deleted, it's going to have a full story once again told. Even though it is spelled out in many articles already, including ], ] etc.--] (]) 06:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Until the alternative viewpoints that have been removed from the article get restored, there is no progress made solving the WP:NPOV issues of this article.--] (]) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Nashists and Nazis and Runet, oh my! == | |||
| My, my, what nice article we have here! Making ] much, ]? | |||
| Anyway, now let's see if we can't get this article into a properly encyclopedic form. Wouldn't want it to be a shining ] of hate porn, wouldn't want that all. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no need to hurry bringing this article up to Misplaced Pages quality standards before the AfD has not been closed. But in case this article is not going to be deleted, I'm looking forward to citing fully the sources provided in the article. For example: see above "what really annoys Kremlin..." Also, since this article is painting a picture of Estonia as a "fascist state", ] is going to be very relevant to this article. --] (]) 17:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, it would all be ]. This is an article on the notable term only. That all belongs in other articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No kidding? Why would be citing all the facts from the Economist article on "eSStonia" be ]?--] (]) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == How do I know this article's purpose is ]RACK? == | |||
| Because of . The primary creator of this article, instead of calmly and scientifically analysing the ''term'' is doing all he can to deflect discussion towards how evil the Estonians are; to elevate the xenophobic rants of the ]s to the limelight and to keep the sources of the term under the veil of darkness. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't believe that Estonians are evil. I've never expressed such an opinion. However, the term does describe the realities of Russian POV of Estonia; 60% regard Estonia as an enemy, etc. And the depiction is exactly how the term is used. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Your''' attempts to depict the ] and its realities as "Estonia's Nazi past" betray your real intentions. In the edit cited above, you're not quoting anybody; you're not citing anybody; you're, in '''your own voice''', telling how it's "about" the "Nazi past". | |||
| :: Despicable, really. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Read the Nashi source. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I agree, this article has turned into a coat rack. ] (]) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Additionally, it has not so much to do with the Nazi past, as it does have everything to do with the Nazi ''present''; parades by Estonian SS members, SS memorials being erected in Estonia, and the desecration of Soviet war memorials. It may not be reality that Estonia is ''eSStonia'', but ''eSStonia'' is a notable manifestation of this belief amongst the Russian public. And it's all sourced, the Nashi source for example. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who told you that "SS memorials being erected in Estonia"? who told you that there are "Estonian SS members" and thay are having parades? The fact that the Symbol of Soviet Occupation in Estonia, the so called Bronze Soldier was relocated, that Russia considers it '''a''' desecration of '''a''' Soviet war memorial is another story, but there is nothing much more to it than those 2 sides of the story.--] (]) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is very easy to answer your questions really. I mean you could even do yourself. (] (]) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| Since when google search has become a reliable source? Please refer to any secondary sources pr ] to back up such claims, or more like opinions that have originated from the Russian state controlled media.--] (]) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I just answered your question, "who told us..." Is that really hard for you to click on any of 26k Google hits and check whether they satisfy WP criteria as secondary source? Does ] satisfy it? Do I really have to do everything for you? (Igny from public terminal) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Purpose of background section? == | |||
| What exactly is the purpose of the ''background'' section in which a link to Freedom House is provided? It has absolutely nothing to do with the term ''eSStonia''? --] <sup>]</sup> 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed this section as it is clearly not relevant to the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == OR and coatrack == | |||
| Martintg, instead of simply whacking tags on the article, please explain what, how, where, etc. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's OR because you are using primary sources and creating your own discussion of the term when a published discussion does not exist, it is a coatrack for the reasons Digwuren stated. ] (]) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The "usage of term" section has also become a vehicle for soapboxing, with the addition of ganin's murder is unsolved, Siryk arrested, etc. ] (]) 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if this is not ] I guess putting together an article like ] would be fine? after all the "term" has returns in google and in google books. Looks like much more notable term than "eSStonia".--] (]) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only primary sources that have been used in this article is the KP article (which is also backed up by an Estonian and Latvian source) and the Nashi article. The rest are not primary sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| So far the article is a coatrack of the Bronze Soldier mess, which is fine by me, if the community wants it so, we can have 10's of articles on the subject. At the same time it remains ] until the "term" is not defined by a ]. As far as I'm concerned, the only source who has looked into it has defined "eSStonia" as a "cheap jibe". I'm open to alternative viewpoints as long as those come from secondary published sources and are ]. For example the statement that ''"eSStonia" is a "pejorative neologism"'' is not acceptable pr ] until such a claim has been backed up by a ].--] (]) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sourcing == | |||
| Let's check out the references! It's fun! | |||
| Since this is the first lesson, we will not pick any cherry-flavoured reference. No! We will take the very first reference, , by Joseph Silver. | |||
| So, let's see what it says about the subject matter? | |||
| Unfortunately, the citation does not include page number, so some searching is needed. But once that is done, it turns out that this source mentions "eSStonia" exactly ... | |||
| ... '''ONCE'''. | |||
| On page 61, there's this paragraph: | |||
| {{cquote|The move resulted in riots in the streets of Tallinn, Russian protests at the | |||
| Estonian Embassy in Moscow, and stirred a bustling media battle over differing | |||
| perspectives on the issue. A simple statue moved some people to a frenzy—not because | |||
| the shaped metal held any particular intrinsic value, but because it was a national symbol. | |||
| Creative as humans are, they use what they have available: next came a sophisticated | |||
| cyberattack. “Estonia’s leading news outlet could not tell the world what was going on in | |||
| its own country…. Web sites around Estonia had resorted to a siege defense by cutting | |||
| off international traffic.”<sup>112</sup> Russian-language chat rooms surged with calls for further | |||
| retribution, “exhorted readers to defend the motherland,” and provided instructions on | |||
| how to launch attacks.<sup>113</sup> In a fitting gesture, posts identified May 9—the Russian | |||
| Victory Day celebrating victory over the Nazis—as D-Day for a large-scale attack. | |||
| “‘You do not agree with the policy of eSStonia???’ demanded a user named Victoris on a | |||
| Russian online forum. ‘You may think you have no influence on the situation??? You | |||
| CAN have it on the Internet!’”<sup>114</sup>}} | |||
| Considering other related comments, it would seem ] saw it fit to cite a FOOTNOTE. Namely, footnote 114, which contains a clarification: | |||
| {{cquote|114. Ibid., 3. 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.}} | |||
| This concludes today's lesson. | |||
| Tomorrow: picking apart reference #2. For homework, please review how to count to one -- both forwards and backwards. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps, for the first lesson, you best check the citation, because a page number was clearly included in the cite. It's from a scholarly article, and it establishes notability even further. People wanted a scholarly source, now they have it. And the article references , which clearly shows that the term is used, although it doesn't explain exactly what eSStonia is. The other sources do though. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ES-ES-tonia == | |||
| No reason to add this spelling in the intro, since it was used in a single newspaper article and only replicated in quotations, and in small numbers, too. - 7-bubёn ] 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Where is Russia? == | |||
| Seeing as people are clearly being disruptive, here is a map for you who don't know {{where}} Russia is....... | |||
| ] | |||
| --] <sup>]</sup> 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| So the whole of Russia rose up spontaneously? Or just where Nashi activists happened to be? ] (]) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In the media, on the internet, and used by notable people. It is enough to say that it "appeared in Russia", is not? And it's not just Nashi activists who have used the term, as is clearly seen in the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| That is the difference ]. There are countries where ''Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer'' applies and then there are countries where views are diversified. Are you suggesting that Russia would fit into the first example and therefore we can just say in the context "Russia in general"? Please do not ignore {{where}} and {{who}} concerns but clearly spell it out 'who exactly says so'?--] (]) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Help for WP:OR and WP:NPOV == | |||
| Since my attempt to address ] and ] issues of this article have all vanished overnight, I'm not going to try to edit the article for now because it could be considered edit warring. Instead I list the problems the article currently has down below, so feel free anybody to address it. | |||
| *The first thing first, since there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the topic that are also spelled out in the sources currently provided for the article. It needs to be spelled out in the lead section according to ]/]: ''The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly''. The ] needs to be ''an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic''. Currently the way the lead section has been spelled out is by itself ] according to the sourced provided, the Economist articles for example. | |||
| *"eSStonia" needs to be defined by ] secondary published sources, currently Wikipdia is a publisher of original thought by defining "eSStonia" as a "pejorative neologism". | |||
| *"''its NAZI past''" that is currently Wiki-linked to ] is a ]. The sources provided in the article, also cited above are very clear about it. Estonia never has had any "Nazi past", and linking a conscription military unit to such a phrase simply is not acceptable. Unless it is clearly spelled out that somebody in Russia thinks and claims that the conscription call during the German Occupation of Estonia gives Estonia it's "Nazi past" that would be fine unlike directly linking the 2 together. For an alternative perspective, please do not hesitate to cite ], a British authority on the SS | |||
| * "''Russia regards as desecration of Soviet-War memorials by the Estonian state''"?? What "desecration of Soviet-War memorials" this phrase is talking about exactly? The phrase is currently wiki-linked to ]. Please clarify how many Soviet-War memorials were desecrated 'according to Russia' during the night?--] (]) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hope that it helps!--] (]) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:37, 10 February 2009
Redirect to: