This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There are a couple of sentences that do not make any sense. I have commented them out so that they do not confuse the reader, and to give other editors an opportunity to re-write them clear up the meaning. As can be seen from my previous edits, I have re-written a lot of the article to clarify the meaning where I have understood it. In these few cases, I do not understand what has been written, so I cannot do the necessary re-writes.
"At the beginning of the war, some volunteer platoons or companies of the White Guards left unexpectedly the front line in order to "change and improve the gears, at home". "
What does "change and improve the gears at home" mean? This is not an English expression.
"After the arrival of the Jäger battalion at White Finland, training of six Jäger regiments, with conscripts, aiming at higher combat quality units for the Whites was issued."
What was issued? the subjkect of the sentence is placed so far from the main verb that I can't tell what the subject is.
What form did this claimed coup take? Did the Red Guards storm the Senate building and imprison the senators? Did they storm other ministries? How about the telegraph offices and railroad lines? Where they followed by masses of people? Shouldn't we have a whole article on this Socialist revolution in Finland (1918)? After all, this illegal rebellion played an important part in the post-war White propaganda. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Red Guards took over the from civilian authorities and started to imprison politicians (Jan 26-27) which caused members of the Senate either to flee to Vaasa by any means possible or to go into hiding. With existing conservative Senate being imprisoned, forced to flee or into hiding Reds replaced it with one of their own - Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic. So I guess it fills the requirement for the coup d'état. However the whole coup and socialist revolution ended up being 'just' contributing factors to the Finnish Civil War. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
To whoever keeps reverting this section: I think it could be a little better; there's quite a few clunky, awkward terms/sentence structures. In any case, glad you agree that the list of "four main parties" should include four (rather than three) bullet points! - Cheers, Tomseattle
On no other wiki page about war, or indeed civil war, have I seen "traumatization" being stated in the "Result" section.
Doesn't it go without saying that a war traumatizes the people subjected to it?
I am of course not implying that the Finns weren't that very traumatized, but I have to question if it was in such an extraordinary way that it needs to be pointed out, when for example the page on the Korean civil war doesn't mention it at all. Olsjoh (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The trauma is probably no worse than in other countries that have experienced a civil war recently. On the other hand, those that are not familiar with such might not understand the extent (I would still avoid the subject with many people, as I know the discussion could easily deteriorate). That said, the place for talking about it is not in the fact box. Removing it was right. --LPfi (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just read this page for the first time, and I'm confused about a couple of headlines - but mostly the "Brothers in Arms" section. What is this meant to refer to? It seems to be more editorial than descriptive (the following subheader, "Soldiers on Rails" is also a bit magazine-style; something like "Impact of Railways" would be far easier to understand). Does anyone have a suggestion as to what this chapter is actually describing? Happeningfish (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Good question. I would guess it doesn't reflect the wiktionary:brothers-in-arms definition, but is a reference to that "brothers of the same nation" started a war. There were some cases, which are well-known, that actual brothers of the same family fought on different sides of the civil war. But such magazine like headlines should probably be avoided. --Pudeo' 00:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like someone (badly) translated the Finnish term "veljessota". A more accurate term would be "war of brothers" or "brothers at war".Viciouspiggy (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Most of the short citation links (e.g. all or most of the of the links to sources by "Manninen") are broken. Click on them to see that they do not work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)