Comment: Pard me but would you care to explain what exactly did you have in mind? which party should be considered the successor to the Communist Party of Estonia in your opinion? the facts are straight forward: since the party split there were 2 successors exactly. One Communist Party of Estonia that was a regional unit of CPSU since 1940, so called CPU/CPSU or EKP/NLKP and another part that split away/declared independence from CPSU in 1990 and later called itself and is covered on WP with the Estonian Democratic Labour Party--Termer (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said that Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view as to which party should be considered the successor to the Communist Party of Estonia. I don't know why my personal opinion about it should matter, as I only became aware of this dispute yesterday and read the applicable Wikipedia pages at that time to give advice in this AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90(talk)02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, I simply misunderstood you because in my mind the AfD has nothing to do with neutral point of view regards successors but with factual accuracy: Was the part of the Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU in 1990 a newly fonded party like the article suggests?--Termer (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an extensive discussion on the talk page of the article. I will here try to summarize some key points from that discussion;
The Communist Party of Estonia (CPE, I've used the Estonian abbreviation EKP on the talk page) was founded in 1920. After being merged into CPSU in 1940, CPE retained its organizational identity. Whether that had any political impact can be discussed, but 1920 was still considered as the foundation date of CPE and the numbers of congresses of CPE did not start at 1 after the merge into CPSU. For a list of CPE congresses, see http://www.knowbysight.info/1_ESTON/08241.asp
The 20th congress of CPE decided, by majority decision, to break with CPSU. The CPE was from that point onwards an independent party, later evolving into the Estonian Democratic Labour Party
In response to the decision taken by the 20th CPE congress, a minority left the congress venue, regrouped and formed a new party in Estonia, which was known as CPE (on CPSU platform). Later the name was shortened to CPE(CPSU). In August 1991, the party was banned. Informations on the congresses, plenums, leaderships of this party can be found at http://www.knowbysight.info/1_ESTON/08256.asp
Which indicates the Estonian government considers the CPE-CPSU same as the CPE that merged with the CPSU in 1940.
The CPE that continues to exist til today is the continuation of the CPE(CPSU). It is small, its current 'activity' appears to be limited to signing international declarations and participating in international communist meetings. It was no legal recognition, and is a negible force in Estonian politics today. The notability of the party relates mainly to its role 1990-1991.
There is not any such indication in this passage that so would be the case, but the numbering of congresses (see below) certainly indicates that. But self-perceptions of parties are often deceiving when it comes to counting foundation dates. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Termer has argued repeatedly on the talk page that since CPE(CPSU) continued to function as the CPSU branch in Estonia, there is no need for a separate article on the CPE(CPSU). That argument disregards the fact that the CPSU was a party constisting of (at the time of its dissolution) 15 republic-level parties. The preface of the 1986 CPSU programme (prior to the foundation of the 15th republican CP, the KPRSFSR) states "The CPSU incorporates the Communist Parties of 14 constituent Soviet Republics." Thus if one of the republican CPs would leave the CPSU, and a new republican CP would be formed as the new CPSU regional organisation, then that would be a new party.
Ishiyama writes (Ishiyama, John T. Representational Mechanisms and Ethnopolitics: Evidence from Transitional Democracies in Eastern Europe. Published in East European Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1999); "At the CPE 20th Congress, held immediately following the election on March 25, 1990, First Secretary Vaino Valyas claimed that the election had demonstrated the necessity of immediately transforming the party into an organization independent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in order to survive under the conditions of democratic competition.(n68) Mikk Titma, the Secretary of Ideology and a leader of the Free Estonia Association, then moved for a declaration of independence from the CPSU which occurred on March 26. The delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party" (my emphasis)
There is a world of difference between left the Congress to form their own loyalist party and actually doing it, all this passage means there was an intent to form a new party, nothing more. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample evidence, in this and other sources, that such a formation actually took place. This is bordering historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page, an argument was put that a full split had not taken place in the CPE, that it was just two fractions inside the CPE with intentions to form separate party. In line with that argument a {{synthesis}} tag was placed in the article. However, Ishiyama/Breuning writes rather clearly on page 86; "Immediately following the vote, the CPE split into two -the Indepedent CPE organization and a second CPE constiting of CPSU loyalists. Each organizations elected its own Central Committee and its own leadership." In another text, the article "Estonian Parties and Movements Prior to Independence (1987-91)." by Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera (Journal of Baltic Studies, Dec, 2000) on page 337, there is a table which clearly shows CPE and CPE-CPSU as two separate parties after the 1990 split.
However Ishiyama/Breuning writes on page 87 calls the CPE-CPSU the "loyalist branch of the CPE" that was "willing to reconcile its differences with the pro-independence forces (within the CPE)". The article by Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera has a table on page 332 that lists all 57 political parties that existed between 1987 and 1999, and the CPE-CPSU is not listed, only the CPE. The text on p336 states the table on 337 shows the "formation of popular movements and their splitting into proto-parties". Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera more in detail. The title of the table at p. 337, in which CPE(CPSU) is listed, is 'Estonian Parties and Movements Prior to Independence (1987-91).' There is no mention in the article that CPE(CPSU) would have been a 'proto-party'. As per Ishiyama/Breuning the term 'branch of the CPE' is used on p. 87, but that doesn't remove the fact that the same book in other passages talk of the CPE and CPE(CPSU) as separate parties, note for example the passage above on the choices put to local branches to decide their affiliation. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera presents a founding date of CPE(CPSU) as '3/90-12/90’., 3/90 is the time of the 20th party congress, 12/90 would be the date of the 21th CPE(CPSU) congress. The article also states that CPE(CPSU) 'ends 8/91'. Regarding the end date, this is the date that the party was banned. The authors do seem to take for granted that a party ceases to exist once it loses its legal status.
If the CPE-CPSU did indeed start 3/90, then the congress held on 12/90 would have been the 1st CPe-CPSU congress, not the 21st. The CPE-CPSU was banned on 91 because it was considered the rump of the CPSU affiliated CPE that existed since 1940. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? The CPE(CPSU) considered itself as the legitimate inheritors of the CPE legacy. Thus counting all other 20 congresses as theirs. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outbidding to Radical Nationalists: Minority Policy in Estonia, 1988–1993 by Lee Kendall Metcalf, published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 2 Issue 2, Pages 213 - 234, has the following passage (my emphasis): "However, there was a split in the CPE between those who favoured independence from the CPSU and those who did not, mostly Russian-speakers. At the 20th Party Congress in March 1990, the majority decided to separate from the CPSU after a six-month period of reflection. They concluded that ‘only an independent Communist party of Estonia can efficiently participate in the political life of Estonia, change tactics in a flexible way, form coalitions and compete with other parties and movements’ (FBIS-SOV-9073: 104). Many Russian-speakers, however, were unwilling to cut their ties to Moscow. Therefore, a group decided to establish their own party still loyal to the CPSU. Initially this split was patched over by the creation of a Coalition Central Committee."
Again, there is a world of difference between deciding to establish their own party and actually doing it, clearly if "this split was patched over", then it hadn't become a formal party at that point. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)~[reply]
Well, they did for example hold their own party congress in December 1990. Several sources point to the parallel existence of two separate parties. Also, you might want to look closer and notice the word initially prior to the passage "this split was patched over". Initially denotes something temporary, i.e. that the split was not possible to evade. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is set up by a group of historians, its not a forum or a wiki, it appears to be systematic in its approach but is not clear on the sources used. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Estonian Wikipedia, there is a separation between the main CPE article et: Eestimaa Kommunistlik Partei and the article on the CPE(CPSU), at et:Ööpartei. I suppose ‚Ööpartei’ is a negative name (and should probably be moved to a more appropriate name), but it is seemingly clear that the editors at et.wiki don’t consider CPE(CPSU) as the direct continuation of the CPE legacy.--Soman (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there does not appear to be a serious intention to delete the article, so this is not the place to have this discussion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy - "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Warofdreamstalk03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that its role in the referendum and coup would probably meet clause 3, and it would probably meet clause 2 due to its relationship with the CPE. That wouldn't preclude a merge, but would indicate that if the policy is adopted, deletion on grounds of lack of notability probably wouldn't be appropriate. However, no-one seems to be seriously proposing deleting the article. Warofdreamstalk03:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that my intention to delete the article entry doesn't seem serious to you. Please answer the fundamental question for this AfD, can the part of Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU in 1990 considered as a newly founded party?--Termer (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd answer yes to that question. Metcalf write "establish their own party". www.knowbysight.info starts a new chronology for CPE(CPSU), separate from the CPE founded in 1920. Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera states that CPE(CPSU) was founded in 1990. Miljan talks of two separate Communist Parties coming into existence in March 1990, and that the pro-USSR Communist Party held its separate party congress on March 26. Ishiyama states that "[t]he delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party". Ishiyama/Breuning states that CPE split into two separate parties. As per notability, I think we can establish that the party is mentioned in several academic sources, participated in the 1990 elections with a non-negible vote. --Soman (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Communist Party of Estonia. Sources such as "Historical Dictionary of Estonia" by Toivo MilJan characterise the CPE-CPSU as a faction of the CPE that wanted to remain loyal to the CPSU, Ishiyama characterises it as a branch. The CPE-CPSU was essentially a Rump organization of the CPE as it existed since 1940, not a new party, hence it should be merged with Communist Party of Estonia. Martintg (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Miljan writes at p. 28 "23-25 Mar: XX ECP Congress: the Party splits into an independent Estonian Communist Party and a USSR-affiliated one, largely along language lines.", he further writes that the "USSR-affiliated Communist Party" held a congress on March 26, 1990. Seems your semantics argument on the 'intentions to form a party' falls quite flat. The word 'faction' is used on p. 212, but not in a manner that would denote that the CPE would have remained a united organization. Miljan talks of the independent CPE and the 'Moscow-oriented faction' as two rather separate entities. Moreover, Miljan's terminology is a bit faulty, he says that CPE left USSR, not CPSU. --Soman (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing your sources indicate is that there was a split, they held a few meetings in that regard, but it never went beyond remaining a faction of the CPE, as shown here on Estonia's official political party history site, which shows in bold red print "registreerimata" (unregistered), that this phantom "Ööpartei" was never registered and remains an unregistered proto-party to this day. As Miljan writes in his book, the CPSU faction saw the Estonian leadership of the CPE as traitors and agitated against them, including walking out of the congress and holding their own rival 20th and 21st congresses (indicating they believed themselves to be the true CPE, and no doubt had the SU survived they would have purged these Estonian traitors from the CPE with the support of Moscow, as had happened several times in the past). In fact it was more a gambit by a handful of hardliners to usurp control of the CPE and its resources (which they successfully did in the case of the Latvian Communist Party) rather than create a new party. Martintg (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could the fact that the party was banned have anything to do with it not being registered? Worth to notice is that the institute does have a separate entry for the party. My Estonian language skills are not that great, but doesn't 'lõhenemisel' mean split? The way I read the first sentence is that in 1990 the CPE split into the independent CPE (linked to the entry on EÜVP) and the CPE(CPSU platform). --Soman (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some 37 parties are listed as unregistered, I don't believe they were all banned. The independent faction seemed to have escaped being banned. Should we create 37 new articles for them too? Martintg (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense. Being banned is probably a quite important reason that this particular party wasn't registered, but doesn't state anything about the other parties. Official registrations and wikipedia notability are not the same, there might be other notable parties amongst the unregistered parties for whom articles can be created. But that does not affect the outcome of this particular AfD. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title Communist Party of Estonia (1990) is ambiguous because it can mean both parts of the Communist Party of Estonia that split in 1990: 1. the Communist Party of Estonia that declared independence from CPSU and 2. the Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU. The question is if the title should be deleted or perhaps made into disambiguation page? And certainly, any facts from the current article that are not already listed in the Communist Party of Estonia should be merged into it.--Termer (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better name for the article, then suggest it at the talk page of the article. These namings are never 100% perfect, but the majority Communist Party of Estonia was not formed in 1990, it was formed in 1920 (some sources, like Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera, Miljas portray equidistance between the two CPEs, Metcalf and Ishiyama/Breuning point to that CPE(CPSU) can be considered as the 'splitters'. I personally feel that the majority at the 20th congress would be the continuation of the original CPE; thus who left the congress would be splitters). 1990 is merely the year of separating from CPSU, not the foundation of the party. Moving this article to 'CPE(CPSU)' would be possible, though, but complicated since the bracketted 'CPSU' is no longer in use in the name. --Soman (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Metcalf and Ishiyama/Breuning point to CPE(CPSU) being the 'splitters'. You have it back to front. The splitters were the majority that split with the CPSU, declaring the CPE independent. The CPE-CPSU were the old guard wanting to maintain the status quo that had existed since 1940, opposing the split from the CPSU. The argument that because the CPE-CPSU delegates walk out of the congress 30 seconds after the vote to split with the CPSU, somehow makes them the splitters from the CPE doesn't stand up. This is why this article sought to be merged into Communist_Party_of_Estonia, because the CPE-CPSU were the rump of the CPE that was loyal to the CPSU since 1940 and is really part of the story of the demise of the CPE, while the real splitters, the majority that split from the CPSU, went on to create the Estonian Left Party after various name changes.Martintg (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ishiyama: "The delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party", Metcalf: "Therefore, a group decided to establish their own party still loyal to the CPSU." Stating that the majority of the CPE splitted from itself doesn't make sense, and so far in the discussion there is not a single reference that point to that so would have been the case. The fact that the CPE majority broke away from CPSU does not mean that they broke away from CPE. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename - it should be renamed Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU) as it was known these days. The Estonian equivalent woulkd be Eestimaa Kommunistlik Partei (NLKP). Ööpartei - night party was a nickname that stemmed from the fact that hardline communists initiated the split in late night hours as the CPE was having one of its sessions. CPE (CPSU) was a splinter group of the 'mainstream' CPE, which was pursueing a pro-sovereignity course and developed into a left socialist/reform communist party in the independent Republic of Estonia. These two are separate parties and cannot be covered in one article. --90.190.166.173 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
