User talk:Jaan

Mina

I see you're providing additional stuff on Mina article. Can I ask you to convert all albums titles in this format (say, in Italics). And single ones in "this format" (say, between "...")... if you've time. Thanks and good work.--Attilios 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased comments?

Hi, my name is Carlo. Thanks for writing.

Well, if the article on Barbra Straisand says that "She is considered one of the most successful female entertainers in modern entertainment history" (without any reference), I can't see why we couldn't write that Mina is "noted for her strong and acclaimed vocal talent". It doesn't seem to me that biased, nor bad. It is definitely true that her voice was (and still is) widely admired.

Either we apply the same rules to every artist (and therefore get rid of all comments without reference) or we have to generally accept them.

Regards, Carlo

Occupation of the Baltic states moved and split

There are now two different articles. Do not blindly revert. All content can be found between Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎

Copy edits

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Avril_Lavigne#Musical_style

Thanks for mentioning this; I moved your suggestion into a discussion of its own. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am agreed. But you must not believe german informations. Their losses were much higher. See Rüdiger Overmans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And dont believe german informations. read this.

By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.

More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.

As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.

Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».

It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».

Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.

And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.

As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.

There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.

First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people

Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people

Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.

Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.

At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).

As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.

This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers

(see talk page of Kursk) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina

Hey there! 150.000 records in her complete career? This doesn't make sense at all! I bet she sold millions in such a long career and with so many albums to her credit. Maybe a mistake?! --LarkCGN (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mogol-Battisti (1969–1973)

Mogol-Battisti's success encouraged Luigi Albertelli to copy Battisti's style in "Fiume azzurro", which earned a place in the Top 100 of annual record sales in Italy. is a wrong statement and it's a personal opinion, above all. It takes a little time to check that the music was composed by Enrico Riccardi, while Luigi Albertelli wrote the lyrics. The fact that the author of the source did find similarities between two styles is a personal opinion and should not simply be put in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina (singer) GA

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Talk:Mina (singer)/GA2.
Message added 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, in addition I have referred this rather cursory review and pass for coimmunity reassessment at WP:Good article reassessment/Mina (singer)/1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield GA Review

Hi Erikupoeg. The GA Review of the Dusty Springfield has started and is on hold to allow improvements to be made. Please go to Talk:Dusty Springfield/GA1 to see fuller comments. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention

- Please refrain from senseless editing.Rubikonchik (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Samantha Jones.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Samantha Jones.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carmen Villani.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carmen Villani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina1972.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mina1972.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina Letter

Heya, sorry about the delay & here is the translation. My friend says it is not perfect as she is out of practice :) but that it's not (from an italian perspective) a complex piece of text so it should make sense. Let me know how it goes! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter

Gentile Staff di minamazzini.com,

Scriviamo a nome di Wikimedia Foundation. Attualmente a Wikimedia mancano delle immagini di Mina le quali possiamo usare nei articoli che le parlano.

È la nostra politica di usare solamente le immagini che sono autorizzate liberamente. Per esempio, le foto che sono libere a tutti da copiare, distribuire e trasmettere.

Il procedimento standard per i proprietari delle foto è di liberare queste foto sotto la 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Potete trovare i dettagli su http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .

Vi chiediamo gentilmente per una donazione con la liberazione delle immagini di Mina sotto la licenza le quali darano il sostegno al commento critico della sua apparenza e della sua immagine nel articolo su Mina di Wikipedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/Mina (singer)).

Il lavoro sarà attribuito nel modo in cui volete come autore (ma non in un modo che suggerisce che fate pubblicità a Wikimedia Foundation.

Per più informazioni vi preghiamo di non esitare di contattarci.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review

You may not be aware of it, but I've started a review of your article at Talk:Tallinn Offensive/GA2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to be able to address the points about completeness I made in the review? If so I'll wait another week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right, I will try to address these within a week. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but if you could add page numbers for cite #7, I'd pass the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield - the cover!

Oh, yes! It is awkward when there are two different covers of an album - one American, and one British. The American readers wish to see the cover they recognise, and the British readers wish to see the cover they recognise. What to do? The general guidance is that where the topic has ties to a particular country, and there are alternative spellings, phrases, grammar, terminology, etc, that the choice should be the usage that is most associated with that country. There is a template that can be placed on the talkpage - {{British English}}. While I don't think there is a specific guideline regarding which album cover version to use, the ethos is that if there are two versions, then use the one most appropriate for the topic. I assumed from your edit summary that your change to the American cover was done thinking that the British cover was actually a later CD resissue. My restoring of the original British cover was done because I thought you had made a mistake, and also because the use of the British cover appears to me to be the most appropriate and falls within Wikipedia ethos, guidelines and consensus. It wasn't done out of malice or anything! I assumed I was simply correcting a small error. I am also aware that Wikipedia:Systemic bias sometimes means that non-American topics can can be dealt with from an American perspective, which erodes national identity, so I am always a little concerned when I see some topics being too Americanised. Just a little though. It's a quiet awareness, not anything I will rampage about!

On the GA front, I am hoping to complete this soon. It has taken much, much longer than I had originally anticipated, and has become something of an albatross around my neck! I am determined, however, to pass the article, and will plough on, checking the statements, and ensuring broad coverage. Regards as always. SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Omakaitse

Hi, per guidelines you shouldn't make manual (copy-paste) moves when moving a page for a new title. I couldn't move it to the other direction by the usual practice before (both versions of a possible title have a page history), I know it is troublesome but so a sysop must be contacted to do the job. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield

I really wanted to take this all the way to GA status, but it is taking too long, and I have to move on now. There are still sourcing issues to be dealt with, and coverage of Springfield's life and career needs more attention. I am still keen to help out and intend to return to the article when I have time so that the article can be listed as a good article sometime in the future (not too far hopefully!). Good luck with the article, and thanks for your patience. SilkTork *^YES! 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the effort. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Front

I changed your last edits to this[1]. By stressing the fact that the Baltic states were annexed illegally, you imply that other territories were annexed legally, which was not always the case. Since the infoboxes are not supposed to discuss such nuances, I suggest to leave this issue beyond the scope of this infobox, because the links to appropriate articles are already there, so the reader will be able to obtain all needed information by himself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I explained, the plain term 'annexation' is incorrect for the Baltic case as it implies a de jure incorporation. I don't have enough knowledge for the Polish and Bessarabian cases. If any of the incorporations was illegal, the infobox should not claim it was simply an annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

De jure non necessarily means "legal". Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR: their status was the same as that of other Soviet territories, Soviet laws acted there without restrictions, Soviet citizenship was granted to the population of newly annexed lands (although, as a rule, against their will). By all possible criteria it was incorporation de jure. However, many foreign states did not recognise this de jure incorporation as legal, and, according to the Malksoo's analysis we can speak about violation of the international laws here. By separating the Baltic case from other Soviet annexations you imply that the latters were made in accordance with international laws, which is not always correct. I suggest you to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

De jure "means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact"". The Baltics became part of the Soviet Union de facto, meaning their legal status was internationally different from other territories of the Soviet Union, the Soviet laws acted there illegally and the population retained the citizenship of their native countries throughout the illegal annexation. According to every international convention, court of human rights and scholar of law, the Baltics were never de jure part of the Soviet Union. That is exactly why the Baltics are separated in the infobox. As I said, I am not familiar with the other cases in the infobox. If you feel the Soviet incorporation of the other listed regions is wrong, feel free to fix them. The Baltic states concerned, the term "illegal annexation" is the correct one, whereas plain "annexation" is false. Please consult Mälksoo's works for the terms. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Paul and "Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR...", no this contention is completely incorrect. For the incorporation to be de jure, it has to be lawful under:

• the country to which sovereignty is being acceded (this would be your point re: USSR)
• the country ceding sovereignty—not the case for any of the Baltic states, all patently illegal acts by puppet governments installed by an occupying power, that includes illegal and not in keeping with the constitutions of those states, e.g., Latvia required a direct plebiscite
• lawful according to all international treaties and accords whether bilateral or multilateral—again, not the case for the Baltic states as the USSR abrogated numerous treaties

So, in the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states, only one out of three conditions (that is, the occupying/annexing power considered the incorporation legal according to its rules) were "satisfied" to consider the incorporations legal. I suggest you read up on your understanding of international law. By no criteria were the incorporations legal under international law. (Indeed, even the pacts of mutual assistance are considered illegal as they were coerced, although "technically" legal, but another topic.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Latvian independence war

Eesti peab olema Lätist "ees" samal põhjusel miks Vene SSR on Läti SSRist ees selles tabelis. Peamine võitlus oli Eesti väed versus Vene/Läti punased ja saksalased. Lätlased muidugi aitasid ka aga olid sekundaared, hea näitena toon Võnnu lahingu.

Oleme ajalooliselt korrektsed ja paneme "Estonia" ette ja "Latvia" teiseks. Sellepärast, et see oli "Läti vabadussõda", ei tähenda, et nemad seal peamist rolli mängisid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A totally incorrect, Estonian POV. The Estonians dominated in the war only from April to July 1919 acting not independently but under the auspices of the Latvian government. In the next thirteen months of warfare from July 1919 to August 1920, the Estonian forces were insignificant, with the Battle of Riga in October as the only battle they participated in, while the Latvian army played the main role instead. A fortiori, the Landeswehr-Estonian war concluded by the battle of Wenden (1919) did not even decide the conflict between the Latvian government and the pro-German forces as the latter remained active until the conclusive battle of Riga and the final battles in November 1919. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree with me, if I say that Latvia would not have gained independence, without Estonian interference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do but Latvian inteference was even more crucial. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Leningrad and Baltics 1941-1944

In this book:

• Glantz, David M. (2002). The Battle for Leningrad 1941–1944. Kansas University Press. ISBN 0-7006-1208-4.

p. 410: The Leningrad, Volkhov and 2nd Baltic Front's Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive was immensely significant. [...] During the course of 45 days.

In Krivosheev's casualties book:

• Krivosheev, Grigoriy. "Россия и СССР в войнах XX века: Потери вооруженных сил: Статистическое исследование" (in Russian). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Google translation

The offensive is also written as lasting until March 1.D2306 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that. What you are missing is that the Kingisepp wing of the offensive was over already by 2 February when the 2nd Shock Army captured the town and established the bridgeheads across the Narva river. Just follow this map. The rest of the offensive continued mainly towards Pskov. The Narva offensive of 15-28 February is not included either in the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your point.D2306 (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best then to combine all the Narva fighting into one link from the Leningrad&Baltic template and create a new Narva campaign template. All I am trying to do is to make the Leningrad campaignbox less clogged-up. D2306 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Problem with File:Livonia in 1534 (Engilsh).PNG

Ingliskeelne kirjeldus lisatud Commonsisse. Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you deserve this ;-)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For you integrity and outstanding neutrality when dealing with very sensitive national POV issues related to the history of the Baltic states. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Где же я вас обыдел? Это известний факт, что бытва за Цесис была самой большой бытвой для Эстонской армии во время её воыни за независомость. Наверника потому и вы так дрожити про эту тему)) Нейтральность это святое дело если вы пишите про историю, так что не нада смотреть на эту тему через прызму эмоций... --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someri

I saw you deleted a section from the text.. Main reference to the naval engagement as actually one being fought between navies. And not of convoy escaping under air attacks through minefield. It is true that Tallinn evacuation (or even Hanko evacuation) was order of magnitude larger than the battle fought at Someri. But those were not really surface naval engagements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There were torpedo boats enaged in 1941, so it is unfair not to call it a naval battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Latvian independence war

I find listing Latvians and Germans as being on the same side highly questionable. May I suggest you list sides according to their aims and loyalities, rather than by who fought with whom? AFAIK the union between Latvian and German forces was forced by international politics and was not in their own best interests - just because they weren't openly fighting each other dosen't mean they were on the same side. Also less openly Germans overthrew Latvian government and according to some speculations shot Kalpaks on purpose. The way you have it Latvian army supported it untill some treaty suddenly made them change their mind. ~~Xil (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1st Independent Latvian Brigade (South Latvian Brigade) commanded by Kalpaks and later Balodis was not just fighting on the same side with the German forces but placed under the direct command of the VI Reserve Corps until 2 July 1919. This means even after the German coup d'état on 16 April, the Latvian brigade's subordination remained the same. It makes it really hard to exclude the Latvian unit that took direct orders from the German headquarters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe infobox should explain general situation, so reader can have information at glance, instead of reading the whole thing. By being overly precise you create wrong impresion, therefore I think it would be way more usefull to use de facto situation, instead of de iure. Even if they were formaly under German command, there was infighting and Balodis never attacked other Latvian forces. Besides Balodis was commander of Latvian army in later stages of war, which previosuly was reflected. ~~Xil (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing overly specific or complicated here. The 1st Latvian Independent Brigade operated de facto as part of the German army group from 6 February to 2 July 1919. The Latvian brigade was instrumental in the capture of Jelgava in the German offensive in 3-13 March 1919, attacking it together with the Iron Brigade and the battle group of Prince Lieven. Regardless of the German coup d'etat on 16 April, the Latvian brigade participated in the German capture of Riga on 22 May. Subsequently the German headquarters ordered the deployment of the brigade to the Liela Jugla River alongside Prince Lieven, with its manoeuvers creating an embarrassing situation for the 3rd Estonian Division and its subject Latvian 2nd Cesis Regiment (as reported by Major General Reek). On 3 June Colonel Zemitans requested colonel Balodis to join the North Latvian Brigade, with no answer. Hence they were not just formally under the German command but participated actively in their operations.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it might be more usefull to find an option to divide infobox in stages, given that way Germans constantly swiched sides ~~Xil (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely false. The German headquarters never switched side nor even policy, they were straightforwardly pro-German, and anti-Soviet and anti-Latvian throughout the war, fighting the Soviets and executing a hostile policy towards the national Provisional Government of Latvia from the very beginning to the end. If ever there was a switch of side then it was the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade which switched from the German side to the North Latvian Brigade's, as first requested by Colonel Zemitans and later sanctioned by the Treaty of Strazdumuiža. As far as the Provisional Government of Ulmanis is concerned, after the coup d'etat, they remained passive, refusing to cooperate with the Estonian Commander in Chief and hoping for an agreement with the German headquarters (as reported by Major General Soots). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my point exactly - why do you want them allied with Latvians when it is clear that this alience was only formal? If Southern forces were uncertain what to do, it dosen`t mean they fought against their own country - such details can be explained in text and if you want it in infobx, you can very well write in there that Latvian forces were split in two parts, instead of moving them to other side ~~Xil (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The alliance was far from being just formal, as the Latvian brigade participated actively in the German operations subordinated to their headquarters, and played an important part in the victory over the Soviets. The alliance had a clear termination when the Latvian brigade was released from the German command and switched over to the Allied side. The infobox is not necessarily claiming Latvia fought against Latvia, just like it is not claiming Poland fought against the German corps, nevertheless it lists Poland and the German forces on separate belligerent sides. The infobox is merely stating the fact that the Latvian army fought on the German side until 2 July. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The box was designed as having three sides - pro-soviet, pro-german and pro(or atleast not anti-)-latvian. Your method is counter-intuitive and I still fail to see its advantages over what we had before. If we would list all sides in accordance with who was under whose command we will end up with many more sides. You say that having units on diffrent sides dosen't mean they fought against each other, so why can't it be that on some occasions different sides fought together? ~~Xil (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is it is false not to list a force that took part in two German offensives, placed under the German command for five months. The 1st Latvian Independent brigade was notable enough to warrant a listing in the infobox and not just an ally of the German side, but furthermore its subject. We could consider what you are proposing ("on some occasions different sides fought together") if the Latvian brigade defected or resisted the German side after the coup d'etat on 16 April. However, this was not the case as they remained under the German command until 2 July hence showing no separate will in their actions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh... Estonians would make perfect spies, you know - it is imposible to get out information needed from you guys :) We can argue endlesly as to why they didn't feel like attacking Germans right away (got some good theories there), but what I've been trying to find out - what is wrong with listing them according to their loyalities in the infobox and explaining that they fought Soviets together in article? The way you have it we could divide it in even more sides (probably British, Poles and what not weren't under command of these sides) or we could merge it in two sides (which would look confusing, but is basicly the same thing - just instead of moving Latvians under Germans, you move Germans over to our side) ~~Xil (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be wrong with excluding the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade from the German allies would be that it would not accord to the fact that the brigade was subordinated to the German side. I don't see what is so complicated about it. Ulmanis kept open two doors: the Allied and the German side, allowing the 1st Independent Latvian Brigade to operate under German command and simultaneously allowing the North Latvian Brigade to be created on the Allied side. Both of the brigades were loyal to the Ulmanis government, just one of them fought as part of the Estonian army and the other one as part of the German force. On 2 July 1919 the South Latvian Brigade crossed over to the Allied side. These are the facts the infobox conveys right now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see - you interpret it as having Estonian side and German side. There is major problem with that - everyone was allied against Soviets, Latvians didn't cross to that side, Germans just chose to ignore allies in favour of their own interests. Estonians merely helped form the northen army and took part in one major battle. This was Latvian war, not Estonian. ~~Xil (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The German army and Estonia were enemies throughout the war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop and think - was Latvian independence war fought by Estonians or by Latvians? I believe your army was there on agreement with our government and pretty much ended to take part after securing their own country in battle of Cēsis. Up to that point Estonians also were forlmaly allied to Germans ~~Xil (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for this outrageous claim? "Formally allied to Germans"? What kind of formal agreement are you talking about? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever read Wikipedia:Edit warring? You just crossed the 3rr line, so this is the last warning before I report you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A highschool history book - "Estonians had allready occupied Cēsis and refused to let their German allies enter". Entente had intended for Germans to stay in Baltics to help locals fight off Soviets - don't they teach you that in Estonia? And also IMO it would make no sense for Germans to have coup d'etat if Latvian army would have been able to fight them - it probably was more sane for them to remain with Germans and fight Soviets at that point. And I reverted you only once due to edit conflict, first time dosen't count as revert within 24 hours as you changed infobox two days ago and the second time I was changing something else and didn't notice you reverted me. At any rate I am still hoping that you will realise that you are wrong on your own and revert yourself ~~Xil (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has drifted far off the topic. If you feel like adding Germany as an ally of the Entente until 5 June 1919 when open warfare broke out against Estonia - go ahead, try how it works out. But that does not change the fact that the Latvian brigade participated in the German campaigns in spring. Please prove the contrary or restore the sourced facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

IMHO this[2] was not cleanup. You replaced "Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)", which was ugly but perfectly sufficient, by a single link to a disambiguation page. There are no links to the city in the lead text after your edits, make such things more carefully next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore the content. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification

I am a bit surprised at your points of view at the Mila Kunis talkpage... I thought everybody in Estonia will do anything to displease the Soviet Union leadership; including it's attempts of Russification... I'm sure you are well aware that if the Kremlin would have treated Ukrainian in the Ukrainian SSR as a language equal (thus as a second language in reality and not only in name) to Russian Mila would be able to speak Ukrainian now... Anyhow are Estonians not that anti-Soviet any more? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to put national feelings aside in Wikipedia. It is not about what would be but what is. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not always that simple... Your reasoning was based on what de-facto was, mine an what was de-jure... (since Ukrainian was an official language in the USSR). But I agree with the principal. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Estonian cyclists

Hi Jaan, do you have a source for the edit[3] at 2011 Estonian cyclists abduction that says Martin Metspalu is a dentist? AFP was saying he's a university lecturer: "One victim was identified by his father as Martin Metspalu, a leading scientist who heads the biotechnology department at the University of Tartu in southeast Estonia."[4] Please add a source for the dentist edit if there's one in English. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you added a source. Great.—Biosketch (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Andres Metspalu leads the Dept. of Biotechnology at the University of Tartu, not his son, who is a dentist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War

Пишу по-русски, так как знаю его много лучше чем английский, и вы говорите, что знаете русский язык. Мне понятна ваша приверженность подачи истории в варианте, как её подавали в СССР, где старались максимально приуменьшить значение Финляндии в войне. Но факты – есть факты. Финляндия перешла границу 1918-1939 годов (даже на Карельском перешейке), оккупировала территории, которые никогда ей не принадлежали (Петрозаводск, Олонец…), вместе с Германией участвовала в блокаде Ленинграда, перерезав множество коммуникаций. Жертвы блокады – результат действий осаждавших, как Германии, так и Финляндии. Это ни хорошо и ни плохо, просто отражение факта, и к национализму не относится.--Germash19 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can read Russian, that is fine, but I can not answer in Russian.

Along the Vyborg-Leningrad railway and highway, Finland stopped exactly at its pre-war border (see File:Continuation-War-defensive-lines.png). In the rest of the Karelian Isthmus, Finland merely stood at the straight line between pre-war border crossings at the Baltic and Ladoga. And how were Petrozavodsk and Olonets strategically important for Leningrad? Germany cut the Volkhov railway, so the Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had not a slightest impact on the siege. If you want facts, then a fact is that Finland had no military goals beyond the Finnish borders and Karelia. You cannot call standing before your border, which was the case in the Vyborg-Leningrad line, active participation in the siege. Otherwise you can include Sweden as an active participant in the siege as well. The only part when Finland actively participated, was during the start of the war, which the Finnish headquarters coordinated with the German command.

You are trying to erase a sourced fact: "A two and a half year standstill followed, during which Finland refused to actively participate in the siege of Leningrad and to cut the Murmansk railway...". In order to do that, bring forward reliable sources that discuss the Finnish participation after the campaign of 1941. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Границу 1918 года Финляндия перешла повсеместно, а могла этого не делать. На Карельском перешейке можно было спрямить линию обороны, не переходя границы. Финское спрямление повторяет линию Карельского укреп. района. Что вы хотели сказать, упоминая границу на Карельском перешейке, что Финляндия не участвовала в блокаде? Я говорил о железных дорогах, не автомобильных (у них была небольшая пропускная способность). По суше Ленинград мог снабжаться по железным дорогам, две из них шли через Петрозаводск: одна севернее Ладожского озера, другая – южнее. Обе оказались перерезаны войсками Финляндии. Были перерезаны White Sea – Baltic Canal и Volga–Baltic Waterway (основной довоенный маршрут доставки грузов водой в Ленинград). Ну и морская блокада города – без неё суда нейтральных стран (например Швеции) в нейтральных водах могли дойти почти до Ленинграда. Блокада вообще не предполагает активных действий, здесь важно сдерживание противника – Финляндия не вела активных действий в блокаду потому, что СССР не вёл активных действий против финнов. То, что Финляндия, возможно, отказывалась от активных действий типа наступления, атаки против СССР ( не Ленинграда) вопрос отдельный. От того как воевала Финляндия – активно или пассивно количество погибших в Ленинграде не уменьшится. В данном виде формулировка не нейтральна, и будет изменена. Повторяю, Финляндия перерезала Кировскую ж. д. (Мурманскую) в 1941 году. В статье достаточно источников, где сказано, что до 1944 года Финляндия не освободила оккупированные территории, и не сняла (со своей стороны) блокаду Ленинграда.--Germash19 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Finland did not cross its pre-war border on neither the Vyborg-Leningrad railway nor the Ladoga coast. Are you seriously saying the capture of the Steklyanny village, which was the only large borough Finland captured beyond the border in the Isthmus, had an strategic impact on Leningrad? Please support your case with reliable sources.

Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had no impact on the railway connections with Leningrad, as Germany cut the railway between Leningrad and Volkhov, in the southern coast of Ladoga. With or without the Finnish army, the German railway blockade was there.

As for the sea blockade, until you provide reliable sources for your case, it is your WP:OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Финляндия – страна-агрессор (как СССР в 1939 году) перешла границы как 1940, так и 1918 годов. Конечно, вы можете считать нормальным, если сейчас Россия завоюет Финляндию или Эстонию, не переходя при этом старых границ Российской империи. Я уважаю вашу позицию, но не стоит её навязывать другим. В осаде стратегическое значение имеет нарушение коммуникаций. Финны прекрасно это делали 3 года. Я говорил о ж. д. именно севернее Ладожского озера, через Suoyarvi на Петрозаводск. Возможно, у вас есть источники подтверждающие, что перерезание Финляндией коммуникаций не повлияло на снабжение Ленинграда? Их следует представить в статье, иначе это ваш WP:OR.--Germash19 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert... See ru::Кировская_железная_дорога.. Сентябрь 1941 г. в эксплуатацию сдан участок Сорокская — Обозерская.. At least ru wiki seems to think the Murmansk railway was redirected/rerouted so that though Finns cut a rail leading to Murmansk they did not cut the Murmansk railway which now run from Murmansk to Sorokka and from there to Obozerskaya where it linked to Arhangelsk rail. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again regarding your recent revert... The result of the war was Finnish capitulation, so how was the army never defeated?. Finland and Soviet union signed a peace treaty after negoatiations - by keeping that in mind it is equally valid to call it a Soviet capitulation as it is to call it a Finnish capitulation - however best would be to call it as it was, a negotiated peace treaty. Finns chose to exit the war since it had became apparent that Germany would fall sooner or later. As it was also apparent that any war which unsupported Finland and Soviet Union would fight would eventually end in Soviet victory Finns chose to exit the war before being defeated especially after the problems of the Spring 1944 negoatiations (ie. time limit for expulsing Germans and cutting the war reparations to half) and Summer 1944 'negotiations' (ie. the one which Finns understood that demand for unconditional surrender) had been rectified. Saying that the Red Army defeated the Finnish Army is factually wrong as the 'defeated' Finnish Army was perfectly capable of repulsing and even driving back Soviet attacks. In fact the Finnish Army had never been stronger than after the Soviet offensive. What is true is that Red Army defeated some units of the Finnish Army, however it failed to defeat the Finnish Army. - 80.220.36.118 (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the result of the war, we have been through this discussion already on the talk page of the article. You are welcome to re-open the discussion on the page, if you have new arguments. Until you do, the result remains a Finnish capitulation, and the Soviet Union got each of their demands as presented in February 1944 (except for the size of the reparations). The latter did not pay huge reparations, did not cede territories nor did she jail her former president for anti-Finnish policies. So don't act stupid. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't after the result of the war, so please do not try derail the discussion. However as you so nicely put either present evidence that the Finnish Army had been defeated or "don't act stupid". You can also try explaining how the defeated army was still capable to stopping Soviet assaults led by Guards units cold or decimating two Soviet divisions in Ilomantsi - would be nice to hear your version of just how the defeated Finnish Army was able to accomplish that... - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive was not a Soviet victory? Then go on and try to change that article, because the infobox says otherwise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Had you read the article you tried to link here you would have noticed that it is no way telling that the Finnish Army would have been defeated. Quite contrary it explicitly states that Finnish army was stronger after the operation than before it. Soviets broke through Finnish forward defence lines but were in turn stopped (and occasionally driven back) by the Finnish Army. So are you perhaps arguing that the defeated Finnish Army defeated the Red Army - as pretty much all the battles after the loss of Vyborg (hence the tactical Soviet victory) ended up as Finnish successes or even outright victories (strategic stalemate part of the result)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The offensive was Soviet tactical victory over the Finnish army. Period. Don't try to add anything to contradict that. And don't confuse defeat with destruction. Pick up a dictionary, if necessary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please describe how the 'defeated' Finnish Army was able to defeat the attacking Red Army? As Tali-Ihantala, Vuosalmi, Ilomantis (amongst others) were clear Soviet defeats (as were all the final battles of the Continuation War). - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I beg you, pick up a dictionary. After a defeat, one is still capable of winning victories in next battles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC

Which in turn - by your definition - means that Finns defeated the Red Army (so how can the defeated - again by your defintion - Red Army win?). Which is utter folly. Just like your claim. What is closer to the truth is that some units of the Finnish Army were defeated. However assigning blanket comment like yours that the Finnish Army would have been defeated is just rubbish. Finnish army was far from being defeated or destroyed by the end of the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Which part of "The Soviet Union won a tactical victory against Finland in the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive" don't you understand? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly well - I also happen to understand how it is limited which is something you fail to grasp at all. You seem to be having odd view that the Finnish Army (ie. the whole of it - as it is understood when using that particular phrasing) would have been defeated in it - which is false. Say for example during the Nazi Germany's attack to France & Benelux and the events that followed in Dunkirk... British armed forces suffered a defeat. British expeditionary force was defeated. However British armed forces (as a whole) were not defeated in it. In exactly similar manner Finnish Army suffered a defeat but they were not defeated (nor destroyed). - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Suffered a defeat but were not defeated as a whole in it? What a mess. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to point out that the Finnish Army had not been defeated nor destroyed. Instead Finnish Army defeated and routed Red Army units in the final battles of the Continuation War (by your logic this would mean that Finnish Army defeated the Red Army - see for example Battle of Ilomantsi). Giving ground or withdrawing is not the same as being defeated mind you. By generalizing the events you are no longer using facts instead you are using presumptions and suppositions (your very own OR). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Words in alphanumeric order......

You're No Fun Anymore...
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ilomantsi

The battle ended with a decisive Finnish victory, as the last major Soviet attack against Finland was stopped here. says the article. I'd gather the victory was decisive in saving Finland from occupation. Pitke (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The source brings no evidence that occupation of Finland was an objective at the time of the battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Result in Battle of Ilomantsi only refers to the result of the BATTLE OF ILOMANTSI (just to make it clear) - not to the result of Soviet 7th Army's offensive, not the result of the Soviet Karelian Front's offensive, not the result of Soviet Strategic Offensive against Finland in 1944, nor the result of the Continuation War.

A decisive battle is one of particular importance; often by bringing hostilities to an end, such as the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Hattin, or as a turning point in the fortunes of the belligerents, such as the Battle of Stalingrad. A decisive battle can have political as well as military impact, changing the balance of power or boundaries between countries. The concept of the decisive battle became popular with the publication in 1851 of Edward Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. British military historians J.F.C. Fuller (The Decisive Battles of the Western World) and B.H. Liddell Hart (Decisive Wars of History), among many others, have written books in the style of Creasy's work. - [[5]]

Battle of Ilomantsi was the 'highpoint' of Soviet offensive so it does represent the turning point (ie. the end) of the Soviet offensive - it was the final notable action of the war which ended in the only Soviet troops reaching the 1940 border been forced to retreat through dense forests abandoning all their equipment. It also represents a turning point since it was the first 'true' (advancing back to the ground 'taken' by Soviets) Finnish victory in the summer of 1944 (other Finnish 'repel victories were only tactical Finnish victories) So it was a battle of particular imporantance - which alone makes it 'eglible' for 'decisive battle' name. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And what are your sources that claim this battle was of decisive importance for the Soviets? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does the battle has to be of decisive importance to the Soviets? Is it not enough for it to be of decisive importance for Finns? Or are we using strictly Soviet POV?

Soviet offensive ended with the battle of Ilomantsi - it stumped out the last Soviet hope for military victory against Finns. Lets start with just google book search Commemorating war: the politics of memory By T. G. Ashplant, Graham Dawson, Michael Roper, page 158. Then lets move to the actual books section. Ilomantsi - lopultakin voitto By Juutilainen, Antti, isbn 951-95218-5-2, for example in chapter 'Voitto', section 'Voiton merkitys suomalaisille' p. 148. describes the huge effect on morale the victory and desctruction of 2 Soviet divisions had. Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin By Moisala, U.E. & Alanen, Pertti, p.128 describes the battle and Soviet desperate attempts to relieve the divisions as well as the final flight of the Soviets from the encirclements. Russian/Soviet side seems to be avoiding discussing that particular battle since it 'only' concerned 2 divisions and it had rather embarrassing result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a Soviet offensive. Hence, the Soviets dictated the course of the campaign. We cannot judge the results of the battles if we do not critically assess the Soviet goals. The sources you have cited make no attempt to do that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that statement makes no sense what so ever. First the page is about the battle of Ilomantsi not about Soviet offensive of 1944 - you seem to be losing the scope of the article in question. Second according to you only the one who's operation it belonged to is allowed to determine how succesful the operation was? Opposing side is not allowed to comment the matter at all? Besides i posted Soviet goals several times in wiki talk pages already - unless you have other sources then please use the ones that have been posted. And Soviets failed to reach them. Also i fail to see what benefit more sources would make. Ilomantsi was the final push of the Soviet offensive of 1944 and it got crushed by Finns and remnants of Soviet divisions were driven back to east through forests and wilderness. All which according to the wiki page makes the battle notable and as it terminated the Soviet offensive it clearly had immediate & obvious military effect so that it can be stated to be a decisive victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are pushing the perspective of the defensive side, which is insufficient and not neutral without the attacking side's intentions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide something that would oppose anything that i have stated - books i used for sources rely both on Finnish and Soviet accounts. Otherwise what you stated is just your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please provide new sources if you want to contradict sourced material. Pitke (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What sourced material? You have not provided the Soviet goals for the battle, only Finnish speculations on them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sokolov, A (1999). Ставка ВГК: 1944 - 1945: Volume 4. Moscow (Russia): Terra. pp. 97, 137. ISBN 5-300-01162-2. How about that? It fits perfectly to the smallest detail with the what Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin By Moisala, U.E. & Alanen, Pertti claims as having been goals for Soviet offensive of 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that tomorrow. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is (used to be) and online source of that - that is there should still be accessible link in one of the related talk pages. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The STAVKA orders contain nothing that implies the battle was a turningpoint in the campaign. They only list the tactical goals. The mainstream scholar view, as represented by Glantz, Erickson, Gebhardt interprets the campaign as a Soviet victory so I am still asking, what did the battle decide? According to the STAVKA order, the Karelian Front went on strictly defensive positions on 10 July. I can quote p. 15 Finland at War 1939-45 by Philip Jowett, Philip S. Jowett, Brent Snodgrass: "July to September: Fighting continues throughout the summer but on a much reduced local scale; local Finnish tactical successes do little to change the overall strategic situation." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not say it would have had. What i stated was it determined the END of the final part of the Soviet offensive against the Finns. However the offensive did not really change anything either. Both before and after the offensive should Soviets have concentrated on Finland any defences Finns could have mustered would have fallen. You are representing the offensive as if it alone had been the whole war - just answer to these. IF (according to your sources) Soviet offensive pushed Finns to negotiating table then WHY did Finns start negotiations full year (fact) before the offensive even started?. IF Soviet offensive was so successful (according to you) then WHY did Soviets make their peace terms more lenient (fact) exactly on the items of the agreements which had been the primary reason for Finns to reject spring 1944 proposal? IF Soviets were in stronger bargaining position after the offensive then WHY did they make the treaty terms more lenient compared to ones they had offered from 'weaker' position?

Whole offensive was just colossal waste of effort from SU as they could have gotten the very same result just via negotiating (and in the end did). - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem! In your given quote, the forces were of the Leningrad Front (on the Karelian Isthmus) and not the Karelian Front (which were on the Ladoga Karelia). So although Leningrad Front was ordered to defensive, Karelian Front continued it's offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In that statement, I cited the direct Stavka order: "ДИРЕКТИВА СТАВКИ ВГК № 220193 КОМАНДУЮЩЕМУ ВОЙСКАМИ КАРЕЛЬСКОГО ФРОНТА НА ПЕРЕХОД АРМИЙ ЛЕВОГО КРЫЛА К ОБОРОНЕ 29 августа 1944 г. 01 ч 50 мин Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования приказывает: 1.Наступательные действия войск 7-й и 32-й армий приостановить и перейти к жесткой обороне на достигнутом рубеже." Sorry, my mistake, the date is 29 August instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer, regarding the battle of Ilomantsi, you are confusing "decisive" with "final". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the peace talks, the earlier negotiations are irrelevant because these were dead and buried already since April 1944. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Soviet peace terms, note that at the start of the campaign, Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty. After the offensive, it was. However, I would be ready to read critical comment on the development of the Soviet draft proposal during the campaign. Dr. Martti Turtola appears to have published a mid-june Soviet draft of unconditional surrender in his "Mannerheim-kirja". I have not been able to verify it but that sounds like an essential document on the real Soviet objectives, which seems to be missing in the American and naturally the Russian official works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Provide sources proving Finns were willing 'to accept any peace treaty'. Last i checked Finns did not accept the terms without negotiations - not even in September 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote: "Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And immediately after that you had written "After the offensive, it was." - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Finland sued for peace eleven days into the offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, exactly same way they had done in spring as well as in June 1944. Your are claiming that in September 1944 Finns would have been ready to accept any peace treaty. What i ask is you to prove it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not written that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then i must have misunderstood. I thought you meant that with "...Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty. After the offensive, it was." - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Juridica article

Jaan,

do you still have access to the Tartu University Library? Would you be able to get your hands on a copy of Herbert Lindmäe paper "The political activities of Professor Jüri Uluots during the German occupation and their implications in the context of constitutional law" published in volume II, 2000, edition of Juridica? Here is a link to the summary [6]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The library is closed for summer. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert on continuation war page

Though i understand the need for the revert i do however need to ask was it really necessary to revert all the changes to the article instead of just the one currently contested section? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The general rule is to revert to the last stable version. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Country and nationality

Hello. You have used the following edit comment at several articles: "The infobox should reflect the birth country, not the occupation regime". Where have you got this idea from? A consented Wikipedia-policy? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth country is birth country. Occupying country cannot be the birth country. Feel free to fill in the blanks with an occupied country of your choice, for instance, people born in Prague 1939-1945 cannot be listed as born in Germany, although the city was factually part of the country during that period. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for selfreverting. Much appreciated. :o) Secondly, when it comes to my question, you have not answered it. I tried to search for an answer, and the closest I came was this discussion dating back more than three years. I can see there is no real consensus, but there seems to be some de facto standard of using town and constituent country as place of birth.

Anyway, I think we have agreed on the two articles in question, and I was not aware of WP:OPENPARA for biographical articles. Thanks for letting me know. I do think though, that you are, generally speaking, being less constructive by deleting informations from articles that should have been saved, but not in the opening paragraph, naturally.

And to answer your post: I do not see it like you do. Wikipedia is about reliable sources and neutral point of view, and I think place of birth in biographical infoboxes should be based on what is written on the persons birth certificate – which is a reliable source and neutral point of view. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked through for the edits in question, if having to do with "where" people were born during what is commonly seen as the occupation of the Baltics, country should probably be something along the lines of "Estonia (under Estonian SSR)" and not USSR; the German occupation did not annex, so there's not the same issue. If it would be helpful, I can look through history and comment specifically. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Pēteris, I think there is a difference between what can be written in the infobox and what can be elaborated within the article itself. The infobox must be precise without explanations. The best thing for the infobox in my opinion would be the factual Estonian SSR, since that is written on the persons birth certificate. No need for USSR, which is implied by using SSR, and we do get the Estonian bit too. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Philaweb, I appreciate the agreements.

Re:being less constructive by deleting informations from articles that should have been saved - I have only tried to delete information where it is repeated somewhere else in the article, as in the infobox or the main body. Where not, please restore it.

Re: place of birth in biographical infoboxes should be based on what is written on the persons birth certificate - just come back with an example of a person of your choice who was born in Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Sudetenland, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Memel Territory, the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, Danzig-West Prussia, Wartheland, or the "General Government" territories. Would you propose to accept the birth certificates issued there in 1939-1944? ('factual' and all?) --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, there is a difference between an infobox and the content of an article. Referring to a birth certificate in the infobox of an article is short and sweet. The details are for the article itself. This is my answer, since I have little time for talk and more for writing articles, which I do on da.wiki. If anyone opens a thread somewhere for consensus-building, I would be more than happy to participate. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Being you both do a good job at focusing on content away from the madding crowd, a mini-consensus would have a good chance of going farther. Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say. It seems to me we have the "administrative" place of birth (no implication for or against legitimacy) versus "current" and that including both, clearly labeled, might be of assistance. "Place of birth", for example, has been used to insist the Estonian defense minister was a Soviet-born Soviet citizen, not born in Estonia. Just thinking out loud. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba that beyond formalism, birth certificates by illegitimate authorities quickly lead to absurdity. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What I really hate about this project are people being political about even the simplest of things. Which is also the reason why I do not contribute much, since most of what I do is at risk of being shot down, not because I am plain wrong, but because someone has a political agenda. I am very sorry, but noone was ever born in "Estonia" from 1945 to 1990, unless of course they popped out of their mothers womb in the lobby of the Estonian mission in Washington DC. That is a fact, rest is politics...

Perhaps the compromise could be, that "infoboxes" are for these kind of facts, and the editorial space within the rest of the articles are for representation of facts based on reliable scholarly sources in all colors and shapes? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there was no sovereign Estonia on the territory of Estonia 1945 to 1990—that sovereignty was vested elsewhere. How to represent that in terms of territorial control? That Estonia is independent again makes it easy to observe "Estonia (current)", but what if Estonia were still under the Estonian SSR? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Recall that independent Estonia was officially "Republic of Estonia" and dependent Estonia was officially "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", then simply "Estonia" would be the logical middle ground. Afterall, since the article History of Estonia treats "Estonia" as a geographical entity, we should use the geographical term for place of birth as well for biographical articles for consistency sake. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact not. Template:infobox person requires a sovereign state, and that is either Estonia or Soviet Union. So no middle ground, just a matter of sovereignity. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not withstanding the fact that the international community never recognised the sovereignty of the USSR over the Baltic states and regarded the SSR as puppet states, internally after the soviet constitutional reforms of 1944 the the USSR became, at least on paper, a voluntary union of fully sovereign socialist republics. In fact Belarus and Ukraine SSRs were granted UN seats. So the template's guidance that birth_place be "Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state." is some what problematical in case of the Baltic states within the USSR. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you have reached the core of the problem - the infobox should reflect the reality, not something only on the paper. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jaan, I've been reviewing a handful of your changes and some do not make sense. For example, Otto Struve, born in Russia, emigrates to the USA, and you delete "American"[7], Regina Spektor, born in Russia, emigrates to America, you delete "Russian"[8]. More examples, Rudolf Nureyev where you change it to "British dancer", then you change it to "Russian dancer" with the edit comment "Sorry, apparently he was a Soviet citizen until 1982"[9]. What was he between 1982 and 1992? Paul Felix Schmidt born in Estonia, moves to America, you call him Estonian[10], Michael Roos, born in Estonia, moves to America, you call him American[11]. Could you explain some of the thinking behind this, I must be missing something here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing WP:OPENPARA. The country of birth should normally not be reflected in the opening. Otto Struve was a subject of Russian Empire when he became a notable astronomer. Regina Spektor was an American citizens when she became notable. A closer check revealed Nureyev was still a Soviet citizen even after escaping the country (people persecuted by a state are tough to list as its national). The opening is not supposed to discuss the changes in the person's nationality, only the nationality when the person became notable. Schmidt represented Estonia as he became a notable chess player. Roos was an American citizen when he became a notable footballer. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but Otto Struve made his first scientific discoveries (thus achieving notability) in the USA. In regard to the Soviet citizenship of Nureyev, wasn't his nationality noted in his Soviet passport? And what about dual-citizens? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality means the state or country, doesn't it (not to be confused with ethnicity)? Dual citizens are still normally more connected to one or another country. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality was identified in terms of territory, not ethnicity. The official category of nationality was intended to give Soviet citizens an identification with units of government below that of the Union itself, being the republics or autonomous districts. So an ethnic Russian who was a citizen of the pre-war independent Estonian state would have had "Estonian" as his nationality in his Soviet passport, while ethnic Estonians imported into Estonia after 1940 by the Soviets would have had some non-Estonian nationality recorded in their passports. This all fits with the constitutionally enshrined notion that the USSR was supposed to be a union of sovereign soviet republics. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if that's correct then feel free to change it to Russian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic Germans

In regard to Jaan's revert[12] to the Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve article, not withstanding the fact he was born in Holstein, I think piping "Russian" to Russian Empire when describing Baltic Germans as "xxxx was a Russian astronomer" is problematical, in that ethnically, culturally and linguistically these people were not "Russian" per se. As an empire expands its realms, people along with own systems of law, education and culture, became subject to imperial rule but they did not lose their identity. Russification came relatively late to many of the outlaying provences, for example the separate Finnish Army was only only abolished in 1901, the Volga Germans lost their exemption to military service in 1876 and Baltic German autonomy in justice and adminstration, as well as the language of education was not changed from German to Russian until 1880 . This paper discusses German identity within Imperial Russia[13], I don't think we should be russifying these people 130 years after Tsarist Russia first unsuccessfully attempted it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that we should be more accurate on the background of individuals when known. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OPENPARA, ethnicity or birth country does not belong to the opening, just the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. There is no such country as 'Baltic German'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA states citizenship mainly applies to modern day cases, which makes sense since in multi-national empires of 100 years ago people were considered "subjects" rather than "citizens". Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve died some 20 years before any attempt to Russify Livonia began, prior to that Baltic Germans strongly identified with their culture and language as the paper I cited shows. Being born in Holstein, what evidence do you have that he "naturalised" (the concept didn't exist in the 1800's ) as a "Russian citizen"? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth, that's called a straw man. The purpose of the opening paragraph is to give relevant geographic context to the topic (person). The man we are discussing became a notable astronomer in Dorpat and spent most of his career as the director of the Pulkovo Observatory. The fact that he was born in Germany is irrelevant for the opening as: 'Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.'

Let us develop a policy similar to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom specifically for the Russian Empire! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At that time Dorpat, with its German language university, was the centre of German culture and scholarship in the Baltics, and enjoyed extensive administrative autonomy before 1880's. Developing a policy similar to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom is a good idea. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The administrative autonomy is of primary relevance here, regarding that probably no-one would contend people who became notable as subjects of the Grand Principality of Finland or Congress Poland called, respectively, Finnish or Polish, regardless of their ethnicity or birth country. Now the trouble is that the Baltic Germans did not have an autonomous state but three provinces. My suggestion is to present people subject to either the autonomous Governorate of Estonia, Governorate of Livonia or Curonia to be presented respectively, as Estonian, Livonian or Curonian. For example, I have talked to the director of the Karl Ernst von Baer House and he says the scientist used to refer to himself as an Estonian (estländisch). However, military and naval officers of Russian Empire and other people who clearly acted as Russian nationals (like Struve) should be an exception to this. The bottom line is, the policy is to open with nothing else but the country or state the person belonged to when she or he became notable. The main body has plenty of room for the birth place, ethnicity, and previous nationalities. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Estonian, Livonian or Curonian are probably the best solution for the period. Note the existence of the Holy Roman empire, we don't call people living within that empire "Holy Romans" --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning here misses an obvious thing: being Baltic German noble was much more important for making a career in the Russian Empire, than being Estonian, Livonian or Curonian by place of birth. Since the place of birth given as adjective might be easily taken for nationality or ethnicity, such edits have also a great misleading potential. GreyHood ^Talk 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Still, the policy is not to detail social position, ethnicity, sexuality other than the state or country in the opening. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Than in the case of Baer it should be Russian Empire only, without any need of further details. Being born in Estonia, rather than in the other Baltic province for example, was not that important career point compared to being Baltic German noble (actually such people were often known as just Germans in Russia). And you seem to misinterpret the policy, by the way: it states that stating an ethnicity is undesirable in case the ethnicity was not particularly important (Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability). Baltic Germans were a very specific group in the Russian Empire, and ethnicity is highly important in this case. It is wrong to eliminate the mentioning of ethnicity totally, and it is even more wrong to present it like if Baer was ethnically Estonian, for example.

My suggestion is to use the phrases "Russian of Baltic German ethnicity" or "Baltic German Russian" piped to the Russian Empire, and give Estonia, Livonia or Curonia as a place of birth in brackets alongside the birth dates, which is a normal practice for well-developed articles with good lead sections. Please avoid your practice of replacing Baltic German with Estonian per WP:OPENPARA, it is pretty much misleading and lacking important bit of information. GreyHood ^Talk 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Von Baer was notable as a polymath scientist. His ethnicity was of background importance. Therefore it should not be emphasized in the lead. The Russian Empire was not a country but encompassed a number of autonomous states, just like most empires. For example, 19th century Indian or Canadian people were not British, just like 19th century Czech or Croatian people were not Austro-Hungarian. The same applies here.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Russian Empire most certainly was a country, and its Baltic governorates were fully integrated parts equal to other governorates, nothing like colonies here. Ethnicity being of secondary importance compared to the scientific achievements is not a good reason to remove the mention of ethnicity completely, to replace it with "Estonian" ethnicity or to claim that particular place of birth was more important than ethnicity. The only suitable solution is to mention all the relevant information (place of birth, ethnicity, and nationality). GreyHood ^Talk 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see you have not heard of the Baltic autonomy. Let me cite the wikiarticle: 'Similarly to guberniyas of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, the Baltic Governorates until the end of 19th century were not a subject to the common civil and administrative laws of the Russian Empire...'. Let me add the Congress Poland here and you should see that your proposal to designate all 19th century Baltic Germans as Russian would logically urge a need to do the same with the Finnish and Polish people from the same era. Was that what you had in mind? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Ethnicity being of secondary importance compared to the scientific achievements is not a good reason to remove the mention of ethnicity completely... - I am just following the guidelines...

Re: to replace it with "Estonian" ethnicity - Estonian is not an ethnicity. Why would you claim anything like that?

Re: to claim that particular place of birth was more important than ethnicity - It's not I, it's the WP:OPENPARA that claims so. I just apply it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for Baer = estländisch, the contemporary German term for Estonian is estnisch, not estländisch (cf эстонский - эстляндский), the latter referring to the area of the guberniya, not ethnicity. Despite the fact that you linked the Guberniya of Est(h)onia, 'Estonian' alone is POVish and cannot stay.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The limited autonomy of the Baltic governorates until mid-19th century and peculiarities in law system (which was a common thing to find in many governorates on the Russian periphery) is a minor point here. The autonomy and specific laws btw. were largely based on the old feudal rights of the Baltic German nobility. Again, this is not the reason to disregard the ethnicity or to misleadingly represent it as "Estonian" ethnicity or nationality instead of Baltic German and Russian.

I'm against stressing Russian nationality for those Poles, Finns, Baltic Germans, Estonians etc. who were little known outside there native lands and were not prominent in the Russian military or science, not studied or taught in the Russian universities, not lived for long in Saint Petersburg or other Russian cities or not traveled widely throughout Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already cited you the exceptions from the guideline. I've already said that the place of birth should be given in the infobox and in the brackets near the dates of life, not as an adjective.

Estonian may be easily (and in fact, most likely) read like ethnicity or nationality if the reader doesn't follow the link. This is kind of obvious.

You apply the policy in the wrong way, disregarding the exeptions and the specifical circumstances of the case. GreyHood ^Talk 14:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic German is ethnicity, not nationality. Stating the ethnicity is straightforwardly against the WP:OPENPARA guidelines. You just need to come up with a state or country here. All I am trying to do is to state Baer's national identity as he himself referred to, which was estländer or estländisch (not estnisch). Again, my goal is not to present it as Estonian. 'If the reader doesn't follow the link', Baltic German 'may be easily' read Baltic German and therefore just as misleading. So that really does not count as an argument. Estonia became a country in 1918. For the previous period, the name in English denotes the province. If Estonian is a bad translation for you, then propose a better one. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The brackets are part of the opening statement and therefore should not contain the birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not mix up to questions: 1) What was von Baer's nationality? 2) Was he notable for his Baltic German ethnicity? Answering these upon the guidelines should bring us closer to the solution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Note the Miacek's comment above and please not ignore obvious things. 1) Baer was a subject of Russian Empire, self-identifying as born in Estland, which doesn't necessarily mean ethnicity or nationality. 2) Baltic German ethnicity was a notable point of his biography and should be mentioned in the article, not removed altogether (as was the result of your edit) and not replaced with an adjective Estonian (which is more likely to be taken by readers as ethnicity or nationality rather than a place of birth).

I could accept not mentioning "Baltic German" in the intro if the ethnicity is prominently featured in the subsequent sections of the article and not misleadingly replaced with "Estonian" in the lead section. GreyHood ^Talk 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last point was fair enough. I'll try to fix that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits do not take into account Miacek's point on "estländisch" vs "estnish" nor the ambiguous nature of the "Estonian" adjective. Also it is not particularly good style to link to the German wiktionary. Sorry, but so far it is not a solution. GreyHood ^Talk 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Both estländisch and estnisch translate as 'Estonian'. The only way to distinguish them is with piped links. And that's exactly what I have done. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only way is to drop the usage of the adjective at all, write Governorate of Estonia in the intro, and move self-identification to the latter part of the biography. Having Estonian as nationality in the infobox might also be problematic. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. German may also mean either the ethnicity or the nationality. That does not mean we need to stop using the word at all. A fortiori, I have added citations from a couple of medical journals which feel perfectly comfortable with using the term 'Estonian Karl Ernst von Baer' even without the courtesy of piped wikilinks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic German means only ethnicity for the lack of Baltic Germany. And there is no reason not to use less ambiguous wording if we can, and please note that there are two users already who find the current wording ambiguous (again, it is kind of obvious ambiguity with such adjectives). Medical journals are not a good source for ethnicity, since they discuss Baers scientific heritage rather than finer points of his biography. GreyHood ^Talk 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No ambiguity with piped links. That's what they are for. Don't underestimate the reader in order to make a point. And don't try to make it look like a special case - it's not. German, American, Russian - all may denote either the ethnicity, origin, or nationality combined with possibly other ethnicity and origin. To an ignorant reader, Baltic German may read just as ambiguous - a German from in the Baltic region, the Baltic States, a Baltic person living in Germany, and many more interpretations. That's where the piped links help. In addition, I dismiss your sorry attempt to undermine the competence of science history researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not many readers actually go via all piped links, especially those that are seemingly known and understandable. And the adjective is more likely to mean ethnicity or nationality in most contexts, while the place of birth is usually given as a proper noun or phrase. Alongside removing actual Baltic German ethnicity this increases the possible misleading effect. Sorry, this is inappropriate. Either we have "Baltic German (Estonian by place of birth) or we have just Governorate of Estonia without pipe. GreyHood ^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out the guidelines are against mentioning ethnicity and birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why mention Estonia at all if the guidelines are against it ;) ? You read them in strange way. Cite the relevant points of guidelines please. The clause of 3rd clause of WP:OPENPARA has enough exceptions applicable in this case, and by the way this guideline actually was written mostly to deal with the ethnicity of children of emigrants to America and unhelpful overstressing the sexuality by some LGBT activists, that is the cases when ethnicity or sexuality are really marginally important. In the case of Baer you misapply the guideline or apply it in too strict way. The strict application could be conditionally tolerated, but not when at the same time you misleadingly present those people as "Estonians", which they were only by place of birth and which should have been stated in less ambiguous way. We must not fail WP:NPOV and must not mislead readers. GreyHood ^Talk 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is to mention the person's nationality. Estonian confuses no more than German for, let's say, an ethnic Swede with a German passport. There is no other certain way to know whether the adjective means ethnicity, origin, or nationality than to follow the piped link. What neutrality issues are you after, goes beyond me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See my point on nationality below - nationality could mean anything, though most likely citizenship. And your insistence on adjective and piped link when we can easily present the facts in less ambiguous, clear and direct way is counterproductive.

You are on WP:3RR with Otto Struve page, so I kindly ask you to self-revert. And unless we find some consensus on changing your highly problematic practice of Baltic German removal alongside with undue Estonisation of Baltic Germans, I'll bring this issue to neutrality noticeboard. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. I agree with your suggestion to change the nationality to Russian and you start to threten me? I have made two reverts back to American. The two latter one just trimmed the American from it (as it is against the guideline to list multiple nationalities). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And I do no 'Estonianise' anyone. All I do is try to replace ethnicity with nationality other than Russian. And I have received no help in it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted the edits of several other editors, fully or partially, over the same issue, which is 3RR. I do not threaten anyone, I'll just uphold guidelines and try either to facilitate the achievement of consensus, or to bring the issue to larger audience so that to find a common solution or mediation. GreyHood ^Talk 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality reads: Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity. So in our case nationality could mean Russian, Baltic German or Estonian, and Estonian claim in fact is rather weak since estlaendish is different from estnish, and self-identification doesn't necessarily mean national identification in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you now saying Baltic German is a nationality after all? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just cited you the definition. GreyHood ^Talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:OPENPARA works with biographies of living people, but with historical (i.e. dead) people it does not work well. This is because the criteria described by WP:OPENPARA is using the modern concept of citizenship which is not applicable to many old European empires. For example Martin Luther was from Electorate of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire, should the lede state he was a "German", a "Saxon" or a "Holy Roman"? If we adopt Greyhood's argument that the Russian Empire was a country then we should call him a "Holy Roman". If we adopt Jaan's argument, then we would call him a "native of Saxony". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem not so much with the Russian Empire, but with a misleading replacement of "Baltic German" with "Estonian". If Jaan would at least use Governorate of Estonia instead of "Estonian", the issue would be mostly solved. Place of birth should not be confused with ethnicity. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines work well with all kinds of people. The point is to keep fans of different social groups (ethnicity, birth country, origin, religion, sexuality, you name it) from polluting the opening statement with trivia. The policy is to assign the country, state, or other form of national group the person belonged to when she or he became notable. Simple. Period.

Re: Greyhood: Estonian claim in fact is rather weak since estlaendish is different from estnish?? Of course it's different, that's the argument. The article will reflect the well-sourced fact that von Baer identified himself as an Estländer rather than Russian or Baltic German. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline talks about the modern cases and helps to deal with the situations when ethnicity is really marginally important. In the case of Baltic Germans, the ethnicity (important or not per se) was certainly more important than being "Estonian" or "Curonian" etc. We should not use guidelines to produce effects contrary to their spirit (removing "unimportant" "trivia" information but replacing it with even less important and as well "trivia" information), and we should not produce misleading wording, which is a separate question to the discussed guideline. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline is to assign a sovereign state, not to conveniently replace it with a social or cultural identity of a random author's choice. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "strict" application of the guideline on Otto Struve, insisting that he was either Russian or American but not both, is counterproductive. Both bits of information are important, and we should not make guidelines a joke by applying them in such manner. GreyHood ^Talk 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My application is not strict. It's just application. If you had serious arguments we could make an exception. So far I just have not countered them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The BLP Barnstar
		Thanks for finding that source for Milla Jovovich's nationality. Quite a few of us spent a lot of time trying to find a source like that and you did it in no time. Great work! SQGibbon (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks at Milla Jovovich

Hey Jaan. I had removed the wikilinks to America as per the manual of style here which states, in part, "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions." "America" seems a clear-cut case of something to not link to. The basic idea of wikilinks is to link to things that people might not be familiar with but it is assumed that anyone reading the English Wikipedia knows what America is. I didn't revert your edit because this type of wikilinking is prevalent throughout Wikipedia even though it contradicts our community agreed upon guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am with the point, but United States are linked there to disamiguate from American. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. However, "America" does not need to be disambiguated like that. Whenever the nationality is listed as "American" it's understood that this means "The United States of America". There is no other nationality that is called "American" and no one is ever listed by continent. I'm curious if there is any kind of community consensus one way or the other on this topic. SQGibbon (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This applies indeed in the infobox (I think I will even fix this), but not in the regular text, where it does not necessarily mean nationality. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mina' real name

Hi Jaan, =Bring it to the talk page first=
Done. Regards --109.208.230.102 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

?

Are you related to Priit P.?--Galassi (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Pärn is a rather common family name in Estonian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. Am a fan.--Galassi (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri/Vyborg

Umh... Regarding your comment in Talk:Continuation War.. "...became part of the Russian RSFSR in 1940, Finnish occupation regarded illegal by Finland herself." Care to provide evidence for either of the claims? First the town was not joined into Russian RSFSR until 1944, in 1940 it was joined into Karelo-Finnish SSR. As for the second one i would like to see evidence of it - please do note that Vyborg is not in East Karelia which was occupied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Georg Hackenschmidt, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Swimming and Catch-as-catch-can (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Era of Stagnation

You're view is not mainstream, the facts you've added are simplistic.

You are both wrong; yes, its true, the economy grew under Brezhnev, but economic growth decreased, and nearly stopped; that's what stagnation means...... And no, the Soviet economy didn't just suddenly stagnate, the Eighth Five-Year Plan ((1968-1971) was the most effective/productive in Soviet history.... The problem with consumer society in the Soviet Union was as follows; the government put much more emphasize on capital goods then consumer goods - while, of course, major problems would still occur. The problem was not management, per see, but wrong policy. For example, chronic shortages were not a common site in Cuba in the 1980s; the reason is simple, the government's policy was more consumer friendly + the country always had consumer goods, the Soviet Union gave them it as part of an economic plan to develop socialism..... The Brezhnev era started with big hopes; but the lack of proper leadership, the establishment of a gerontocracy (which in turn led to political corruption) and the lack of reform led to stagnation. It did not just happen, and under Brezhnev there were still plenty of people who believed in communism (probably the majority of people did)..... "Sharp reduction of growth" is simplistic, and totally biased; its not an analyse, its just an answer by a guy who has probably never had an objective view of the USSR ever. Lost its moral authority???? How in gods name could that be proven??? What is clear from Soviet history is that many people still believed in communism, the majority did when Gorbachev came to power..... "waste", "Incompetent management"???? are you kidding me! Alexei Kosygin has been hailed by several people as a gifted administrator; lack of reform is not the same as mismanagement....

I'll start work on this article soon; if you want to know more about the stagnation, read Leonid Brezhnev and the History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982) article, they are both GAs and objective. --TIAYN (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You do know that the Occupation of the Baltic states only says the Western bloc said it was an occupation. You do know that the Eastern Bloc and other communist allies, or regimes friendly towards the USSR, did see otherwise, right? I mean, I believe it was an occupation, but there does not exist only one view on that subject, even if the Western World tries to portray it that way. Russia still doesn't refer to it as an occuption, China has never referred to it as an occupation.... The Western Bloc is not synonymous with the world, the rise of China has proven that. --TIAYN (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Prague Offensive and Estonian POWs

Please see Talk:Prague Offensive#Estonian POWs -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Julius Kuperjanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Soviet occupations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soviet republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are you sure the Russian Civil War began in 1918 and ended in 1920? B-Machine (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited encyclopedias are absolutely positive about this. The Russian Civil War article in Encyclopaedia Britannica begins with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Volunteer Army's campaign in the Kuban steppes, and the Allied Intervention. The article leaves no question about the end of the war either: "The Red Army eventually battered Wrangel’s forces, whose rearguards held out long enough to ensure the evacuation of 150,000 soldiers and civilians by sea from the Crimea. This ended the Russian Civil War in November 1920." Encyclopedia Americana's 'Civil War' chapter in the 'Russian Revolution and Civil War' essentially states the same, just in less detail.

Now, let's look at the bare facts themselves. The Russian Revolution was not a war itself but a coup, neither was its follow-on Kerensky–Krasnov uprising. The following three months were politically restless, with the Bolsheviks consolidating power in some regions and nationalist states declared in the others. However, the Ice March, the first military campaign in the war, started only three months after the revolution.

Regarding the end date of the war, elements of the Ukrainian and basmachi insurgencies lasted even into World War II. However, the defeat of Wrangel effectevely ended the White campaign, the backbone of the anti-Bolshevik war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. B-Machine (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Hi Jaan, you may be interested in Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. Cheers, Nug (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Where Has Love Gone?

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Talk:Where Has Love Gone?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gentry

Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

You made two reverts to the article Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. With the first revert you should have made a comment in the edit history (and you ought to have started a conversation on the talk page). Before you made you second edit you most certainly should have commented on the talk page as to why you thought that the edit you were reverting was inappropriate. I suggest that you do so now, otherwise if user:Alexander Pastukh makes another similar edit to the page, you will have nothing to show a passing administrator that you have rational reasons for reverting the edits and have tried to reach agreement with user:Alexander Pastukh. In general you should put a meaningful comment on any edit that you make -- commenting on the what is wrong with the content not what is wrong with the behaviour of the other editor -- and if you have to revert more than once you should comment on the talk page why you are making the revert. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield

I have completed my GAR of Dusty Springfield, I have allowed one week for changes to be made to the article to comply with my comments. Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The one week for changes to be made has passed but very little progress on the recommendations of the review have occurred. Unfortunately the article is not yet up to GA. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a reassessment of the decision if you believe there was a mistake.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very much interested in implementing your recommendations. Unfortunately, I am currently extremely busy in real life so I will probably be able to edit it next week. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jaan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Nug (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Maret Ani. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Z10

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)